I move:
That Seanad Éireann deplores the decision of the Government to renege on the solemn commitment given by the Taoiseach in 2000 to increase Ireland's Overseas Development Aid budget to 0.7% of GNP by 2007; and now calls on the Government to make statutory provision for increases in the annual spending on ODA so as to meet the commitment given to the United Nations.
I welcome the opportunity to move this motion on behalf of the Labour Party Senators. The House will recall that, in 2000, the Taoiseach gave a solemn commitment to the United Nations that Ireland's contribution in terms of GNP to overseas development aid would be raised to 0.7% by 2007. He gave that commitment not only on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the Irish people as a whole and it is fair to say that many of us not involved in Government or with the Government parties were happy and proud to support the commitment when made and indeed since. It is all the sadder then that, only five years later, the Taoiseach resiled abysmally from the commitment given so solemnly and proudly by him five years ago.
It is important to recall the context in which that commitment was given by the Taoiseach. It was given against a lamentable background of a continual slide in the overseas development aid commitment of the developed countries in the preceding ten years and in the context of the agreement reached in 2000 on the millennium development goals. Without listing all eight goals, it is perhaps worth mentioning one or two. The goals dealt with issues such as the reduction by half of those living in poverty and hunger by 2015; the provision of a universal primary education; and the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 and at all levels by 2015. There were eight goals in all. Seven of the eight require primary action by developing countries and the eighth requires primary action by the international community, and particularly by developed countries, in the creation of a fair global partnership for development. It is understood that refers to both trade and our commitment for ODA. It was in that context that the Government made the commitment of which we were all very proud.
The impression has been given by Government that in some way the economy grew too quickly, we were too rich, we did not expect this commitment to cost us so much and that it was a terrible surprise to discover a few months ago that we could not afford all the money or spend it properly. Any cursory examination or analysis of the facts will show quickly that this is nonsense. As soon as the commitment was given as 2002, the then chairman of the advisory board of Development Cooperation Ireland, Mr. Des O'Malley, was lamenting the lack of progress made at that point in terms of the commitment that would have been necessary to meet the target in 2007. His successor in that position, Mr. Chris Flood, in the pre-budget submission made in 2003, again lamented that the interim target had not been met and that there was, even at that time, little or no prospect of reaching the Government's commitment by 2007. It is hardly surprising then that the current Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who I welcome to the House, announced a few months ago that there was no prospect the Government would reach its target.
It gives me no pleasure to say so but it is clear from any cursory analysis of the facts that this commitment was never a serious one among those whose commitment was necessary to make it happen. Sadly, this was no more than a political deception. Strangely, the only year in which the required increase was made was 2002, the year of the general election.
We now find ourselves with another commitment which we already know will not be met. The Minister announced a few months ago that instead of reaching a target of 0.7%, we would reach a target of 0.5%. A few days later, if memory serves me correctly, we were given the real numbers in terms of the actual financial commitments that will be made in the next three years which make it clear that there is no prospect of reaching a target of 0.5% in 2007. That is not because economic growth has been higher than anybody expected it to be. The general assumption in 2000, and more or less ever since, was that we would reasonably reach a rate of economic growth of 5%. We always knew the amount of money that would be required. The former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who did a fine job as Minister with responsibility for overseas development aid, chaired a committee within Ireland Aid in 2002. She always worked, as did everybody at that time, on the assumption that we would require an approximate doubling of our aid in monetary terms before 2007 if we were to meet the commitment. We were at €500 million around 2000. Everybody knew we would need to get to €1 billion. We never looked likely to do that, and now we know that we will not.
The argument is also made by Government, and this is even more disingenuous in some ways — it was repeated only last week by the senior Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern — that we cannot use the money effectively or efficiently because the projects are not there. It is essential that we nail this lie here and now. However, as the Minister of State will be aware, it was nailed very effectively at a meeting of the Sub-committee on Development Co-operation before Christmas when representatives of NGOs made it clear that they would be capable of using any finance the Department might be prepared to give them. At the meeting in question, Mr. Éamonn Meehan of Trócaire stated that every year his organisation is forced to turn down very good projects that request development assistance because of insufficient resources. Hans Zomer of Dóchas made it clear that his organisation could deal with a considerable increase in aid and, most important of all, Mr. Ronan Murphy, who is now director general of DCI, indicated that there are quite a few areas where more money could be absorbed not just over the coming years, but almost immediately. Mr. Murphy outlined the fact that Ireland has increased its number of programme countries to include four countries in south-east Asia, namely, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Timor Leste. He also indicated that, as we are all too tragically aware, it is perfectly possible to increase our commitment towards emergency aid with immediate effect.
The comments in question were made in early December and Members are aware of what happened on St. Stephen's Day. The commitment of €10 million since then by the Government is welcome. I am aware of the Minister of State's commitment — perhaps he will repeat it here — that this money will not be diverted from other sources and that it will be additional. Sadly, emergency aid is always required because situations such as that which arose in south-east Asia occur year-on-year. Money can be usefully spent in providing emergency assistance when it is required.
There is also the issue of HIV-AIDS. Anyone familiar with southern Africa will be aware of the devastating effect HIV-AIDS is having on the populations of countries in the area. Literally thousands of people are being infected and dying on a weekly basis in the countries to which I refer. It is frequently the most productive and essential people in society, namely, those of working age, who are infected. There is an ongoing urgent need for assistance to deal with both the effects of HIV-AIDS and the issue of prevention.
There is also a need to invest in the area of sexual and reproductive health. I am a member of the Oireachtas committee chaired by Senator Henry which takes a particular interest in these issues. In that context, I visited Ethiopia last year and it is difficult not to be affected by the obvious need one sees all around one in that country in respect of sexual and reproductive health. We visited Ghandi Hospital, the main maternity hospital in Addis Ababa, where the conditions mothers giving birth are forced to tolerate are quite abysmal. The infant mortality rate in that country is also extraordinarily high. It does not take long to discover why that is the case. Such is the infrastructure and so poor are the roads that if a woman in labour is in an emergency situation, it is frequently not possible to travel the 10 km or 20 km from her home to the nearest clinic where an emergency intervention of the kind we take for granted, such as a caesarean section, could be carried out. Many of these women or their children — sometimes even both — die as a result. I urge the Minister of State to consider increasing the percentage of the aid we provide in respect of sexual and reproductive health.
It is clear that there is plenty of scope for immediate investment in many projects and for the expansion of our overseas development programme. The only serious capacity constraint arises in respect of the staffing of DCI. It has been continually recommended that the staff numbers at DCI should rise in accordance with increases in the financial commitment we make. In that context, when it carried out a review some years ago, the OECD recommended a staff figure of 350 to 380 as appropriate for a country making a commitment of the level being made by Ireland. At present, the number of staff stands at 150 to 160. Sadly, this is only approximately half of what is required.
We increasingly work with people from the individual programme countries, which is right and proper. However, in order to ensure we obtain value for money and that Irish taxpayers' money is being spent on the programmes for which it is intended, it is important that we have the support of the individual aid workers on the ground and those based at headquarters in Dublin. We have not made the commitment necessary in terms of staffing and I urge the Minister of State to reconsider the position.
No one, least of all people in my party, pretends that the issue of aid can be looked at in isolation. There are other matters which are crucially important in terms of the development of the Third World. I refer to trade and, for that matter, fair trade. The developed world transfers many billions of euro to the developing world on an annual basis. However, it also sucks many billions back out by way of debt repayments and by insisting on imposing unfair and unreasonable subsidies on our own produce so as to effectively exclude the primary products that are produced by Third World countries. The latter is an issue not only for the European Union and developing countries but also for Ireland. We impose subsidies on our own produce and we impose tariffs on imports from the Third World which have the effect of negating much of the good work we seek to do by way of overseas development aid.
While we obviously do not accept that the Government should be allowed to resile from the 0.7% commitment in 2007, the proposal put forward by my party is that we should reconsider that commitment and enshrine it in legislation. We must also seek to achieve the broadest level of agreement on the financial commitment we will make and on the timetable for making it. I suggest that this be done in the context of the review of the development goals that will take place next September. It should be possible, in dealing with the NGOs, to reach agreement on attaining the target at the earliest possible date and this commitment should also be enshrined in legislation. It is not an unreasonable requirement. We have, for example, made a statutory commitment to set aside 1% of GNP for pensions in 20 years' time. It is not without precedent, it can be done and it should be enshrined in legislation by way of a commitment from which no Government, least of all the one currently in office, can resile.
