Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Vol. 195 No. 10

Overseas Development Aid: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann acknowledges and welcomes international endorsement of the Government's overseas aid programme.

Much of the debate on the overseas aid budget is concentrated on the commitment to reach the target of 0.7% of gross national product by 2012. Sweden, when it experienced economic difficulty in 1992 and had to consider restructuring its banking system after its failure, decreased its overseas aid budget to less than what it had aspired to. However, it increased its contribution in subsequent years and it is now regarded as an example to other countries.

Our historic link with overseas aid is related to our experience with famine. One of the most telling comments during the Famine of the 1840s was that of Lord Trevelyan, the Under-Secretary to the Treasury in charge of famine relief. In 1849, after he had closed down the soup kitchens, relief works and all forms of aid to those left destitute by the Famine, he wrote a letter to a colleague stating Ireland should be left to "the operation of natural causes". This was basically a death sentence for the entire Irish population and an admission that those who would live would live and that those who could not survive would be left to their own devices and would perish. They perished in their millions; figures vary depending on which book one reads. Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849, a very authoritative account of the famine published in the 1960s, states that 1 million to 1.5 million people perished and that 1 million to 1.5 million emigrated. It depends on the figures, but when one is talking in millions one does not focus on the personal circumstances of the individuals concerned.

The emigration that followed the Famine continued for generations until a decade or so ago. Ireland is unique in that for every two people born in this country, one has emigrated. Consequently, there is a diaspora of 40 million people of Irish descent in the United States, and there are more in Argentina, New Zealand and Australia.

It is because of the Famine that the Irish, be it through the Government or their own generosity, insist on helping those most in need. This is why we target our aid at our most destitute partner countries. Zambia, which I visited recently, is an example. Some of our learned friends in the Opposition have said we should legislate to ensure the Government will spend 0.7% of gross national product on overseas development aid. I pointed out what Sweden did during its economic crisis. However, I am open to other ideas and if the Opposition would like to propose that a voluntary levy be introduced whose proceeds the Government could put towards the overseas aid budget, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Is Fianna Fáil looking for another levy?

It is Government policy now, is it?

We are taking our cue from Sweden and other countries. While we would demand more for less, we have no doubt that a cut in budget has an effect on other people. We do not want to be the Lord Trevelyans of this time. However, what is more pressing than overseas aid budgets, as our learned friends in the NGOs are aware, is our trade policies with developing countries. These have a more detrimental effect that anything else on their survival and development. The EU's trade agreements with African and Caribbean countries and others in the Third World are preventing their development more than anything else. For every €1 billion we give them we take away €3 billion because of our trade policies. Thus, we are stifling their growth and preventing them from working their way out of poverty.

Recently, there was an interesting presentation to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs about Mozambique, where the production and processing of the coconut crop has a major impact on the surrounding areas. This is how countries get out of poverty. Giving people hand-outs is not good enough. This is also true in terms of employment, as we in this country know. People have to be trained and given skills and then they must work their way out of poverty. It is the only way forward. We must reform our trade arrangements, not only in Ireland but also by using our influence within the EU to persuade it to improve its trade policies. We are imposing detrimental trade policies on these countries, which is hard to believe. We are giving these countries a pittance in overseas aid relative to the amount our trade policies are costing them. This is the area on which we must focus when there is less money available for overseas aid.

I commend the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on their work with our partner countries. We have rightly focused on a small number of countries, unlike countries such as Switzerland which, at one stage, was dealing with 50 different countries, but has since followed the Irish model and narrowed down the number of countries somewhat to 24. The money must be targeted as much as possible on AIDS and education, which is a key factor. In Zambia, which I mention again because I was there, Ireland plays a role, with the Dutch, in developing an educational curriculum. Instead of sending out one teacher we send out somebody to train other teachers, eventually producing 6,000 teachers who will educate the next generation.

There is no silver bullet for solving the problems with overseas aid. It is not a question of demanding more money or fewer cuts, it is about being more intelligent in our approach and using the fact that trade is the means for these countries to lift themselves out of poverty. It is not just a question of giving money but of targeting money and helping with governance. While some would say governments are corrupt in Third World countries or indeed throughout the world, we must help good governments because ultimately somebody must run the departments of education and health. If we do not promote good governance and monitor donations properly to make sure they are not squandered and do not go astray, these countries will be perpetually in need of our assistance and will never be able to run themselves.

I remind Senators that 160 years ago, during the height of the Famine, the British would have said that the Irish could never run their own country as they did not have the education and were not fit to do it. In that case, it took generations. It is a generational problem, but we must take that approach and try to improve education and trade links over time. Education is the key. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be." I refer not just to freedom from foreign occupation but freedom from hunger and want and for people to choose their own future. Education is the key to that, which is why Irish Aid is much involved in education.

The most stifling problem in all of Africa is that of AIDS. With regard to Zambia, one thinks that if we educate people about AIDS it will reduce the prevalence of this disease. However, one must consider the prevalence even within the health system. A total of 38% of doctors and nurses in Zambia are HIV positive through their own behaviour, although they know how it is contracted and spread. They know the consequences because they deal with them every day, yet they engage in risky behaviour and contract the disease. One must wonder how many generations it will take for the tide to turn and people in Africa to take responsibility for their own actions. I have tried to explain to people at home the problem of HIV and AIDS in Zambia with regard to the culture and customs that exist. Changing that culture would be the equivalent of persuading people in Ireland they could no longer go to the pub but must drink at home. I do not think that will ever happen in Ireland, so it will take generations to achieve the equivalent in Zambia. It is a question of teaching people how AIDS is spread and how to prevent it.

The issue of human rights in Gaza was discussed today at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is also connected to our aid budget, and Ireland has taken a lead role in supporting John Ging, a great Irishman who is working with the UN in Gaza and whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. He is the epitome of grace under fire. We saw him on our television screens during the recent invasion of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces. Although the truth is often lost in the midst of war, John Ging is a great example of a man who is able to state his case simply. Ireland's support for the UN in Gaza is important. Europe's preferential trade agreement with the Israelis, of which, as clearly stated under Article 2, respect for human rights is an essential element, is still in place despite the glaring examples of human rights abuses during the recent invasion. This was recently the subject of a resolution of both the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I ask the Minister to take this up in his reply and to consider this issue.

In summary, helping other countries is not all about money, it is about trade as much as anything else. If we are to lift countries in the Third World out of poverty we must be fair with them in terms of trade and help them by targeting our aid towards education. By targeting education we can turn things around so that these countries can help themselves. If we continue to give them money without giving them the means and education to provide for themselves, nothing will have changed in 100 or 200 years' time. I commend the motion to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House once again and second the motion. I acknowledge the international endorsement of the Government's overseas aid programme. I was delighted to attend the launch of the Development Assistance Committee's review of Ireland's overseas aid. The DAC carries out reviews of the programmes every four to five years. It acknowledged Ireland's contribution and that it is increasing its aid to the least developed countries. There are many positives highlighted that show the value of our programmes for families across the globe, especially in the African countries we have partnered. Irish Aid programmes are highly regarded and it is vital we continue to build on them despite our current economic challenges.

Recent reductions in the programme are regrettable. Once the global recovery begins and there is an improvement in Ireland, we should review our commitment as a priority. It was disappointing we had to reduce it this year but our heart is in the right place. The Taoiseach and his predecessor have taken a personal interest in the programme and are determined that Ireland will reach its international commitments at the earliest possible date.

Ireland is a generous donor, ranking sixth out of the 22 DAC members in terms of percentage of gross national income, GNI, and ranked 17th in terms of its volume of overseas development aid. The Government is committed to meeting its target of 0.7% of GNI by 2012. It has adopted a phased approach and plans to meet the interim target of 0.6% in 2010. It is a challenge to reach these targets and to ensure our money is being used in the best possible way.

The concentration of our efforts in the poorest African countries is a strength of the programme. Of our bilateral aid, 80% is targeted to sub-Saharan Africa where communities face some of the most difficult challenges on the planet. The challenge for us now is to ensure our programmes remain effective and have a positive impact.

A number of important measures have been undertaken to ensure we are effective. Last September the Taoiseach and the United Nations Secretary General launched the hunger task force, a world first. It is a blueprint not just for Ireland but for the globe. The establishment of a stability fund for post-crisis situations and the rapid response initiative ensure Ireland is well positioned to respond quickly to disasters as they occur. I welcome the placing of essential supplies in hubs in Italy and Ghana in particular, allowing for rapid distribution.

Ireland's commitment to fair trade has caught the imagination of communities throughout the country that have worked to have themselves declared fair trade villages, towns and cities. While the Irish Aid volunteer centre on O'Connell Street is an invaluable service to those who want to make their own contribution to aid efforts, I encourage teachers to bring their students to the centre to learn more about their programmes. There are also opportunities for work experience programmes.

There is much for us to be proud of in our record in overseas aid but we must remain open to suggestions as to how we can improve our effectiveness. The recent review welcomed our commitment to aid but raised questions about our ability to analyse the results of our efforts and their effectiveness to let us see how we can communicate the most effective programmes to the world. There is a gap at that level which I spotted while visiting Malawi. While our aid has been reduced, it is not about money but about how we implement programmes and how effective they are. There is waste and because we must tighten our belts, we should analyse the impact of the programmes to ensure those who need them will not be deprived.

There must be an interdepartmental approach. There are issues surrounding education, HIV-AIDS, agriculture, trade and the environment. These areas must be looked at and we must have political backing. While Irish Aid has moved to Limerick, there must be no change in policy, with an interdepartmental approach so no Department can say it is not going down that road.

The road to Limerick?

There should be a more coherent approach to the implementation of these programmes. The Minister of State must ensure we do not deprive the most needy. We must call in our partners overseas, such as our embassies, to see where we can cut back without scaling back on the programmes.

The review is excellent. It recognises our work and I look forward to seeing how the programmes work, even with the decrease in funding this year.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—notes that then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, TD at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations committed Ireland to reach the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Product devoted to overseas development aid by 2007, but did not fulfil that promise;

notes that then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, TD again committed Ireland to reach the UN target, this time by 2012, at a UN summit of world leaders in 2005;

notes that the White Paper on Irish Aid, describing the impact of Irish aid, stated that ‘With Ireland's support, Tanzania has made major strides towards universal primary education. Net primary school enrolment rates have increased dramatically from 50% in the late 1990s to around 95% in 2005' and that ‘With Ireland's support, a new welfare system has been put in place in Ethiopia which keeps hunger at bay for six million of the poorest people in that country each year';

notes the fiscal collapse experienced in Ireland in 2008 and 2009 and the resulting cuts in State expenditure imposed in 2008 and 2009;

notes that as Ireland's Overseas Development Aid budget is calculated as a percentage of Gross National Product, its cost to the taxpayer was already reducing substantially as Ireland's GNP reduced during the economic downturn being experienced;

regrets that Ireland's Overseas Development Aid budget was disproportionately targeted for cuts that reduced the incomes of Irish aid agencies by between 20 and25%, far in excess of other aspects of the Irish State expenditure;

expresses alarm that Ireland's biggest development agency, Concern, has had to lay off 19 staff and pull out of three countries, while Goal has had to lay off 9 staff and to pull its team out of the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as reducing by 70% all water and sanitation, health and nutrition programmes in Niger, all due to cuts in Ireland's overseas aid budget;

reminds the Government in the words of then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, TD in the foreword of the White Paper on Irish Aid that ‘Every day Ireland's official aid programme, Irish Aid, saves lives';

reminds the Government that its own White Paper on Irish Aid stated that ‘The level of need in these countries is not comparable to anything in Ireland';

expresses extreme concern that the cuts imposed will cost lives of those reliant on Irish development aid;

urges the Government to re-state its commitment to reach the 0.7% of GNP devoted to overseas development aid by 2012;

endorses the call from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the government ‘refrain from further budgetary action that would undermine this commitment'; and

calls on the Government to begin reversing the cuts in the overseas aid budget in the 2010 budget."

I look at the self-congratulatory Fianna Fáil motion and am reminded that self-praise is no praise, but I suppose Fianna Fáil will take any praise it can get at the moment. The motion acknowledges and welcomes international endorsement of the Government's overseas aid programme. Ireland's overseas aid programme has been praised in the OECD report but, as usual, the Government is being economical with the truth. The aid programme the OECD praised has been savaged by the Government in the past year. The report also calls on the Government not to cut the budget for Irish Aid any further.

Of course the motion does not mention that. We could look in vain through statements issued by the Government on the OECD report to find any mention of that call. It is as if the Government only wants to highlight those sections of the report that praise Irish Aid without mentioning those negative sections that criticise the Government.

I will remind the House what the OECD said about the Government cutbacks to the overseas development aid budget. It urged the Government to refrain from further budgetary action that would undermine its commitment to achieving 0.7% of gross national product, GNP, devoted to Irish development aid by 2012. The OECD is also critical of the decision to move Irish Aid to Limerick, saying that it has resulted in a loss of knowledge and experience as key staff are unable to make the move and have therefore left the section entirely.

It is in many ways the very staff the Government's policies are driving out of Irish Aid, through the decentralisation of Irish Aid's headquarters, who are the unsung heroes of the report, about which we are speaking, but thanks to the Government, Irish Aid is losing them.

Our charities and non-governmental organisations are crucial to the success of Irish Aid. Those charities and NGOs are being devastated by the cuts in the Irish Aid budget which the Government has imposed. That is the reason Fine Gael has introduced a comprehensive amendment to the motion before the House. We acknowledge fully the economic and fiscal crisis facing the country. We in Fine Gael are aware that the decline in our gross national product means that the amount of money going to Irish Aid would automatically reduce as a result.

What concerns us greatly is the scale of the cuts imposed on Irish Aid. They are far more severe than those imposed elsewhere in Government expenditure. Our amendment reveals that Concern has had to lay off 19 staff and pull out of three countries, while GOAL had to lay off nine staff and pull its team out of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as reducing by 70% all water and sanitation health and nutrition programmes in Niger, all due to the cuts in Irish overseas aid. Those Government cuts have made the problems they face much worse than they are. The cuts in Irish Aid are disproportionate and will hit the poorest, the most marginalised and the most in need of help.

We have not seen the end of the cuts. Notwithstanding the appeals of the OECD, I understand from various Irish charities that they are being warned privately to expect a further €100 million in cuts in Irish Aid in the next budget. I will be explicit. These cuts will cost lives. There are people alive today who will be dead by the end of the year directly because of the cuts the Government is imposing on Irish Aid.

Fine Gael believes that in facing up to the economic and fiscal crisis we should have a principle, some words to the effect that cutbacks should not cost lives. That should be our motto. That is the reason we opposed the abandonment of the vaccine for cervical cancer. That is the reason we have taken a stance on other issues and the reason we are critical of the Government's cutbacks on Irish Aid. We believe that the disproportionate cutbacks on Irish Aid will cause deaths that could have been preventable. That is the reason the Fine Gael amendment before the House criticises the disproportionate nature of the cutbacks. That is the reason we endorse the call by the OECD that the Government refrain from further budgetary action that would undermine the commitment to reach the target of 0.7% of GNP by 2012. That is the reason we in our amendment call on the Government to begin reversing the cuts in the overseas aid budget. We are not calling for their full and instant reversal but further steep cuts should not be applied to Irish Aid. Stating that may not win us votes and some may criticise us, but it is a stance based on principles and fundamental beliefs.

When the White Paper on Irish Aid was published, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, said bluntly: "Every day Ireland's official aid programme, Irish Aid, saves lives." We agree with that statement, but unfortunately life or death did not feature on the balance sheet when the Government was planning to slash the Irish Aid budget.

Because we believe the scale of the Irish Aid cutbacks were wrong, that they cost lives and that politics should be based on principles and not just expediency, we are taking a stand with our amendment. The Government's motion is a whitewash, one which simply highlights the positive while hiding the obvious criticisms that should be made.

The House must tell the truth on this issue. Ireland can be proud of its aid programme. It has been targeted for disproportionate cuts. The Government should, as urged by the OECD, stop any further cuts in Irish Aid and should begin the process of reversing the cuts in Irish Aid. I commend the Fine Gael amendment to the House.

I second the amendment. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. To the surprise, perhaps, of Senator Daly, I want to acknowledge the significant investment up to this point by the Government in overseas aid. It is regrettable we have had a reversal of such investment and that overseas aid has become the Cinderella of the Department of Finance and of the Irish finances. Those of us who advocate social justice and the distribution of wealth equitably need to consider the developing world. Whatever model or methodology we want to follow on how better to develop the world, resources are required and support for the people must be given by those of us in the western world who can afford to contribute. Senator Daly can wax lyrical and cite quotations from different people but the reality is that people in the poorest regions of the world will be affected by our decisions. Whatever principles guide us politically, humanitarian and otherwise, we must always do what is best for all people and all citizens of the world. I passionately believe that. We on this side of the House will advocate and support the creation of efficiencies in how we spend our money in the context of getting value for money and how best to maximise the resources we have at our disposal.

I want to give immense praise to the Irish aid agencies, the missionaries and the NGOs who have worked throughout the world helping people in developing countries, many of whom are friends of mine. I regret never doing that work but I hope before my time is finished in this life that I will go out to the missions and do some work because our citizens who have gone abroad to do this work have made a significant contribution. On this day when the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and suffering has been published and other issues will arise regarding the church, it is important that we pay tribute to the many church people who have worked throughout the world as well as the many lay volunteers and the State agencies.

Senator Daly spoke about what Sweden did in this area, but what is his response to the following quotation: "Poverty destroys human potential, increases vulnerability and limits opportunity"? That is a quote from the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen. The direct cut in aid about which we speak will have consequences. We are talking about 70 cent for every €100 spent. Senator Daly is correct. There is no silver bullet.

Allow Senator Buttimer to continue without interruption.

I know the truth hurts.

The Senator is referring to me.

Allow Senator Buttimer to continue without interruption.

I am responding to Senator Daly's contribution. We are having a debate and if the Senator cannot——

Senator Daly should refer to the Member by the term "Senator".

Senator Buttimer mentioned my reference to Sweden but he did not say what I said it did when it cut back on its aid budget in 1992.

I ask Senator Daly to allow Senator Buttimer to continue without interruption.

I realise Senator Daly is embarrassed by his own Government. I appreciate that.

The Senator should stick to the facts.

Senator Daly, please.

The facts are that Sweden cut back——-

The facts are——

I ask Senator Daly to have respect for the Chair. He should address a Member by the term "Senator".

I am not being political in my contribution but the reality is——

May I suggest that the phrase, "Put a cork in it", would be appropriate?

Senator Buttimer, without interruption.

The reality is that as a consequence of what the Government has done, programmes on HIV, famine relief, education and gender equality will be adversely affected.

I agree with Senator Daly that we should create good governance and put in place new practices where people can be empowered and learn, but monitoring programmes and empowerment education require financial resources. We heard reference today to the Famine. There is no comparison. Our people had access to education and we were empowered as a nation. If we have beliefs, these cuts will have an impact, as Senator Cummins rightly said, on irrigation projects, food prices and trade, about which Senator Daly spoke in his contribution. The prevention programmes for a multiplicity of diseases will also have an impact.

I would like to refer to the other part of the Government bicycle, the Green Party. At a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs when the Green Party was in opposition, Deputy Cuffe derided the cuts. What did the Green Party Members say today about the cuts in our overseas aid? What do they say about the U-turn and backtracking on the commitment given by the former Taoiseach and by the Green Party when it entered Government? We made a commitment to provide 0.7% of GNP to overseas aid and it looks like that figure will never be met, which is regrettable. As Senator Cummins said, it will have an impact on the aid agencies. People can legitimately argue that aid agencies have become dependent on Government money. That is a different argument and I accept that we need to have a debate on that. However, the overseas aid budget has been hit four times in four budgets. I met a missionary priest who was home on holidays and he made a very telling comment to me when he said this Government is hitting the vulnerable in Ireland, and the world through its cuts in overseas aid. I would like to hear the Minister's remarks on that.

We are in a time of economic recession and overall budgets must be examined. However, we made a commitment to the United Nations, which we will not fulfil. If one takes the amendment put down by Senators Mullen, Quinn, Norris and Bacik, we must refrain from further budgetary action that will undermine our commitment. If we do not, we are sending the wrong message and imposing cuts that, as Senator Cummins said, will impact on people's lives and the quality of their lives. All of us in this House are open to the developing world and want to produce results that will see Ireland's standing in the world enhanced by our support. This motion is timely regardless of the economic climate because we need a debate on how best we can support our aid programme and how best we can see Ireland and the people of the world benefiting from our financial contributions.

Does the Minister think the move to Limerick is beneficial? He will say it is from a political point of view because it is in his constituency.

Come on, the Minister is losing credibility.

How does the Minister square the comments made——

The OECD did not criticise the decentralisation programme.

I know it did not. I did not say the OECD criticised it, but I ask how the Minister sees the drain on personnel having an impact. The OECD report said we need to be an advocate for trade, agriculture, development, getting private sector initiatives going and gender equality across the world. Senator Daly alluded to this. We will not meet our aid target, however one looks at it. What are we saying about that? The OECD has been critical on aspects of the Government's policy. It queried whether the relocation would lead to a loss of expertise and "institutional memory". That is there in black and white. I look forward to the rest of the debate. In seconding the motion, it is regrettable we have a cut and that aid is becoming the Cinderella of finances. Despite Senator Daly's comments——

Is George Lee against the move to Limerick?

Senator Daly is embarrassed and I do not blame him. If I were in his position I, too, would be embarrassed.

If the Fine Gael candidate is against the move to Limerick we would like to hear about it. As election agent, what is his position on the move to Limerick?

I fully support and second the Fine Gael amendment to the Government motion and I hope the Members of the House will support it.

I am delighted to join the Senators in the House this evening to discuss the motion and I welcome the opportunity to focus on Ireland's aid programme, especially on its international reputation, but most important on its impact on the lives of the poorest people in the world. Although the motion is framed in positive terms it gives rise to the possibility of a wider discussion. I welcome the points the Senators have raised to date and will raise as the debate progresses. It gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the wider and more challenging issues facing us.

Self-praise is no praise, and that is why we welcome praise that comes from impartial international third parties with no vested interests. Notwithstanding the challenges we face, the recently published OECD report makes it clear that Ireland's aid programme is among the best in the world.

It is important, therefore, to have this debate in the context of the highly positive standing which our aid programme currently enjoys and of which every Irish citizen can be justly proud. I returned last night from the six-monthly meeting of the EU Development Council in Brussels, where the main subject of discussion was the effect of the global economic crisis on the countries of the developing world. The debate among Ministers from the 27 member states threw into sharp focus the complex series of challenges and tensions which must be addressed now if we in the developed world are to sustain the momentum in our work for international development.

We are committed, through the millennium development goals, to halving the levels of world poverty and hunger by 2015. Important progress has been made since 2000. However, we face a global economic crisis, which originated in the financial markets of the developed world but which is being experienced with increasing severity across the developing world. The advances achieved in Africa and elsewhere are under threat. At the same time, we have set ourselves ambitious targets — more ambitious than other countries — which are expressed in terms of the proportion of GNP devoted to overseas development assistance. Therefore, overall aid volumes are set to decrease just as they are needed most. Although percentages rise, aid volumes may well drop. This is a paradox which we must confront.

It was clear to me from my discussions over recent days with EU colleagues that aid budgets everywhere are under serious pressure as Governments move to underpin the economies and the public finances on which they are based. We in Ireland are facing these challenges perhaps more openly and more directly than other countries and therefore the debate on the subject has been particularly intense here. I strongly welcome this debate. It is essential that the Irish people and their democratic representatives consider openly and with a sense of realism the vital issues at stake.

In Europe, Africa, the US and across the world governments are addressing urgently and directly the need to make aid more effective to ensure every euro and dollar counted as ODA has the maximum effect in saving lives and creating the conditions for future growth. Ireland has a major role to play in this effort. This was recognised very clearly in the important international report published this month by the development assistance committee of the OECD following its peer review of the Government's aid programme.

Peer reviews conducted by the development assistance committee of the OECD are the most important independent assessment any donor country undergoes. They are the key international benchmark of the quality and effectiveness of the overseas development programmes of member states. The review involves rigorous research and analysis of Irish aid policies and programmes over the past five years and an intensive series of meetings with Government and non-governmental organisations in Ireland, together with a visit to our programme country, Uganda.

In short, and without in any way minimising the scale of the challenges we face at home and abroad, the people can be very proud of the report's enormously positive conclusions. By any measure, the report is a strong vindication of the policies we have pursued, notwithstanding the comments made by Senators Cummins and Buttimer.

It addresses openly the issue of aid targets and calls clearly on the Government to continue to work towards meeting our stated goal of spending 0.7% of GNP in 2012, three years before the overall EU target date. I can confirm to the House that we are continuing to work towards our target even though clearly it will be more difficult to achieve in current circumstances.

The OECD also states that "Irish Aid is a strong, cutting edge development programme", that "Ireland is a champion in making aid more effective" and that "poverty reduction is the overarching goal of Irish Aid and its programme is well concentrated on a limited number of very poor African countries".

It praises Ireland for working in a genuine partnership with the developing countries and it focuses on and calls on us to work with other donors to share the lessons of our successes in making our aid so effective where it counts — among the poorest communities in the poorest countries in Africa.

Naturally, I welcome this strong international endorsement of the approach we have taken in our policies and actions towards the developing world. We welcome the recognition that our development assistance policies are an integral part of our foreign policy and we welcome the advice that we increase our work in communicating development results to the public in order to maintain support for overseas development.

This is crucial. The people have always been generous donors in a private capacity and they have, I believe, strongly supported the huge expansion of the Government's aid programme over the past ten years. A visit to the very successful Africa Day in Limerick last Sunday or in Dublin next Sunday would confirm the enthusiasm and support of thousands of Irish people for the work of development.

However, I accept that we and the NGOs and missionaries with whom we work in partnership need to redouble our efforts, not just to achieve clear results from our funding for aid, but to demonstrate that Irish taxpayers' generosity and money are saving countless lives each year. We want to maximise the contribution people make through their own donations and through their taxes to fighting global poverty and hunger.

The OECD review was finalised just as the Government faced a series of very difficult decisions across all Departments. I repeat to the House that I, like many Senators, very much regret the need to reduce the budget for 2009. However, I emphasise that decision was taken by the Government with the sole intention of stabilising our public finances and establishing a platform from which Ireland can return to economic growth.

We learned the lessons of failing to establish the basis for sustainable growth in the 1980s. We learned what happens when one avoids difficult decisions. I believe firmly that our overseas aid programme cannot grow to the ambitious levels to which we aspire without a strong and vibrant Irish economy.

We owe it to the people and to the people and governments of the developing world to ensure our development assistance programme is sustainable. We practice sustainable development in Africa and we need to do so at home. We need to show it is based on the reality of a sound national economy. It would be in nobody's interests to focus solely on GNP percentage targets if that GNP is in steep decline and we were to face the prospect of borrowing internationally to fund assistance to the poorest countries. That is simply unsustainable. This is a clear, if somewhat uncomfortable, reality to face. Those who sometimes make pejorative commentary must also face that reality and in doing so, they must accept the Government bona fides in this regard.

Despite the difficulties, however, it is right we recognise that with a budget of just under €700 million for this year, Ireland remains the fifth most generous aid donor in the EU and the sixth most generous in the world in per capita terms. I hope people commenting on this area respect that. Even in enormously challenging times that represents a very solid achievement.

As the OECD states, our spending on development remains at historically high levels and is among the most effective in the world. It expanded almost fivefold over the ten years to 2008. We should also note that it grew at a disproportionately faster rate than our national economy. The Government allocated €4 billion in overseas aid over the past six years alone.

Our programme will be reduced this year but we will work with our partners to ensure it is even more effective. I assure Senators that I will lead a relentless focus on efficiency and effectiveness of our programme in all of its formats and delivery mechanisms.

Ireland's official development assistance and the individual contributions of the people are saving lives every day. The Government has given a clear commitment, which I repeat, that we will resume the expansion of the aid programme as soon as economic conditions permit and we have re-established a pattern of sustainable economic growth.

I recognise the strength of the views being expressed in the House on the subject of the aid programme and I accept the passion with which these views are often expressed. We are talking about saving the lives of the poorest and weakest people. This is a subject on which I, too, am passionate but I do not believe it serves the interests of anyone if we fail to recognise the scale of the contribution Ireland continues to make. The scale of the challenge is such that we need to avoid any temptation to indulge in a competitive, negative or acrimonious political debate that can only serve to undermine public opinion at a time when it is needed most.

I welcome views on how we can make our aid more effective in the current climate and actively invite suggestions from Senators. As a contribution to this debate, I would like to highlight in concrete terms how Irish Aid is making a difference in the fight against poverty, as outlined by the OECD. The examples are by no means exhaustive but they serve to illustrate the tangible progress in areas that are critical to the world's poorest and most vulnerable communities. First, Ireland is praised as leading the way in the fight against HIV and AIDS. We have the highest proportionate spend on HIV and AIDS within the European Union. Beyond funding, Ireland is recognised for its innovative partnerships, including with the Clinton Foundation in Mozambique and Lesotho, and for spearheading single national programmes in fighting the epidemic.

Second, Irish Aid is acknowledged for intellectual leadership and achievements in the area of gender equality. Our work in highlighting and seeking to prevent gender-based violence is regularly singled out for mention by our international partners. Third, the OECD emphasises that Irish Aid is notable for its capacity to respond quickly and flexibly to local needs and local priorities in the developing countries with which we work. We could cite many more examples. Our work on hunger in Malawi, on education in Tanzania, to which Senator Daly referred, and on the safety net programme in Ethiopia are all highly regarded internationally.

Fourth, the OECD praises the strategic approach we take to supporting the excellent work of our non-governmental partners. Ireland works more closely in partnership with NGOs than any other OECD member state. We value our partnership with NGOs because it reflects the values of the people and their commitment to making a difference to those less fortunate than ourselves even when we are facing our own economic difficulties and families at home are under pressure.

Our commitment is reflected in our policy dialogue with the NGOs and in our funding. The Government channelled €800 million in development funding through the NGOs over the past five years covering long-term development work and response to emergencies and humanitarian disasters.

I accept the need to reduce our contribution to NGOs by 20% or so will have an effect on their work as will the increased pressure on private funding. However, our funding to the NGO sector will still be higher than for any other member state of the EU or the OECD. It reflects the quality of the work and their ability to work in niche areas. The Government provided about €200 million to aid agencies last year, including very significant funding to Concern, Trócaire and Goal and many others. In 2007, funding for the agencies represented about one quarter of our total development funding, a figure which the OECD describes as "very high". It represents the highest percentage among all OECD member countries. In my discussions with the aid agencies in recent weeks, we agreed on the need to strengthen our partnerships. The funding relationship is crucial and it is inevitably affected by the economic climate, but the challenge now for Government and for non-governmental organisations must be on improving aid effectiveness and ensuring that their approaches remain in line with best international practice. In this regard in my ongoing discussions with other OECD aid donors, we are very cognisant of the need to work more closely together. This will ensure that our combined aid is more effective and gives better value. By working together as countries, we naturally can reduce duplication and plan more effectively. We also reduce the burden on poor countries having to deal separately with so many donors. The result is more lives saved and more effective aid. This important aspect of international aid and development was discussed at our informal session of development Ministers held recently.

There is now an opportunity for our NGO community to look at the possibility of working more closely together, including in joint planning and perhaps joint programming, where they would work in the same country in similar sectors. By pooling funds and their undoubted expertise, it will be possible to do more and be more effective. The possibility of joint appeals could also be explored. This would reduce the cost of necessary fundraising. I know this will represent a challenge to the NGO sector but the opportunity exists to refocus on ensuring that our aid is as effective as we can possibly make it and I look forward to discussing these proposals with the NGO sector over the coming months. I am determined that Irish Aid will lead the way in this respect.

The Government is determined that Ireland will play a strong role in shaping the EU's response and that of the wider international community to the needs of the developing countries as they face the global economic crisis. In Brussels yesterday we discussed how the European Commission can respond more flexibly to the immediate and the long-term effects of the crisis on the most vulnerable countries. We also discussed how the EU and the US can co-operate more effectively and there was strong recognition of the role Ireland is playing in highlighting the need to strengthen the international response to the scandal of global hunger.

In response to the report of the Government's hunger task force, I have made the fight against hunger a cornerstone of the Irish Aid programme. The reality today is that almost 1 billion people are at risk from hunger, one in every seven people on the planet. Their lives are in danger because they do not have enough to eat. We can sometimes lose sight of this critically important fact that it is simply not possible to achieve any of the millennium development goals targets if the people of this world do not have enough food to eat. With the benefit of the hunger task force and with the support we have received throughout the country, from these Houses and from the NGO community, I have been able to raise the hunger issue at the highest level in the international community and to ensure that it receives the priority it deserves at European Union level. I assure Senators that I will continue to do so.

Large sections of the urban poor in developing countries do not have regular access to food and in many cases price reductions in recent months have not reached rural areas. A significant proportion of small-holder farmers, a majority of whom are women, cannot grow enough food to meet their own needs. A key focus of the Irish Aid programme in future will be on support to small-holder and women farmers, the targeting of infant and maternal malnutrition and the improvement of farm productivity and agricultural research. All our programmes delivered through the aid agencies or through the national and bilateral programmes will in future be looked at through the prism of hunger, even the health, education and agricultural and research programmes, to see how they can contribute to the fight against hunger.

It is important that the Irish people know that the Government's aid programme — the people's aid programme — is innovative, accountable and focused on results. The international endorsement from the OECD is welcome. Most important, however, are the recommendations from the OECD on how we can improve our contribution. There can be no question of complacency on our part. I take on board the comments made by Senator Buttimer about the decentralisation to Limerick of Irish Aid. The Senator accepted that the OECD was not critical of the decentralisation process but it observed that it should be monitored to ensure that institutional memory is not lost. The Senator's comments were fair in that respect but not in respect of criticising decentralisation per se, upon which the OECD did not comment. I assure the House and Senator Buttimer that we are putting systems in place, including the recruitment of new development specialists and including collaborating with local educational institutions to ensure that the training and ongoing education of all our staff is at the highest level. This can be discussed at a future time. It is true that Ireland is making a greater contribution per capita than any of the larger EU member states. This fact is sometimes forgotten in this debate, that the Irish Aid contribution is bigger in per capita terms than that of Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, notwithstanding the economic challenges we face. We will now take the recommendations of the OECD peer review, as we did with the last report in 2003, and work to protect and develop the strengths of our programme.

I welcome the strong support across the House for the aid programme. We are managing the programme in difficult times and we are doing so on the basis of our central strategic objective which is to ensure we make decisions which are sustainable for the programme in the long run. Our aid targets are expressed over many long periods of time. They were expressed initially in the year 2000. It is over a period of 12 to 15 years and this sometimes means that we have to make decisions along the course of those long-term targets to ensure that we create the conditions and the platform of concrete rather than sand to ensure that when we reach our aid targets, expressed as a percentage of our gross national product, this will be a real and meaningful contribution in real aid volume terms to those who need it most. To do otherwise would be a real disservice to the people whom we aspire to help. We aim to contribute to the reduction of global poverty and hunger in the poorest countries in the world, with a particular focus on sub-Saharan Africa. It is our firm intention that Irish Aid will continue to develop as a world-class, knowledge-based programme with an unrelenting focus on results, hunger and poverty and on saving and improving the lives and the prospects of the poorest and the most vulnerable people in the world.

I wish to share time with my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn.

The Minister of State is a decent man, as I know only too well, but he has a brass neck to come into the House and deliver that drivel. I am glad to say, however, that he looked miserable doing it and he has every right to be so. He mentioned the question of percentages. It is perfectly obvious that since the matter was expressed as a percentage he did not have to cut anything. It could be left alone and we would give the proportion that we could afford, even if it was the widow's mite. We were given promises after promises. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, boasted about it at the United Nations and surely the Minister of State should be ashamed of that. He was a very enthusiastic member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, and so were some of his colleagues, when looking for a separate budget subhead for overseas aid, looking for it to be institutionalised so that it would be crystallised year after year and we would automatically, without any opportunity to change, reach the target. I listened with horror when he was talking about the need for these changes and our duties to the people and this sort of business and rescuing our economy with these piddling cuts in the global context, at the expense of people who are going to die. I never want to hear belly-aching from the Fianna Fáil side of the House about the Irish Famine because we are doing to them what they did to us all those years ago.

I cannot agree with that.

It is absolutely outrageous. The whole thing is a spin. On "Prime Time" on 5 May, in response to a question from Mr. Justin Kilcullen, the Minister of State said we were protecting short-term emergency humanitarian aid because that was where our focus was. We want to save lives, but we are saving lives with our programme in any event. Yet when the researchers contacted the Minister of State's office they were told that the earmarked funding for rapid onset humanitarian emergency programmes, which is exactly what he was talking about, was reduced by 70% from €20 million to €6 million. The office, on being contacted again, responded that what the Minister of State had intended to say was that the reduced amount, in other words the 30% pittance left, would be delivered. That is sheer nonsense.

Now the Minister of State is saying, "although the motion is framed in positive terms". Of course it is as it says nothing, apart from how wonderful we are, but we are not. I do not believe it is right to take historical credit for a situation that has developed over some years, in the present circumstances when we are cutting deeply into this aid. Again, the Minister of State is taking credit for the generosity of the Irish people. The Government is not the Irish people.

No, I am not. I am complimenting the generosity——

It is on page 4, where he talks about the wonderful generosity of the Irish people. It is not his generosity, I would say. He says he is continuing to work towards the target. He continues to work towards missing it. This is disastrous. He says he accepts that the cuts, which are savage, will have an effect. He does not even have the nerve to acknowledge that it is a negative effect. He talks about going off to huddle with his fellow Ministers in Europe, and we know a number of them are cooking the books, as the Minister of State knows, I am sure, because he is a decent man. They are including things such as debt cancellation as if they were giving money. That is shameful and is something over which I hope the Minister of State, who is a decent man, will raise and rattle their cage in Europe.

The former President, Mary Robinson, an old friend of mine and of many people in this House, said that she is concerned because the cuts are proportionately more severe in this than in any other European country. We are told that 25 jobs in this country will be sacrificed from all the aid agencies. Overseas it will be worse. By the end of this year Concern will have cut 500 jobs overseas and its budget is reduced from €26 million to €20 million. Goal will cut nine jobs from its Irish office and its budget is down 29%. Trócaire says it will be forced out of a programme that supported 143,000 in east Africa, who will starve to death. Then there are the children with HIV, where in clinics they are prevented from getting HIV. There is Oxfam, too, and the cholera prevention programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as Amawele in South Africa. We are always boasting about our connections with South Africa and taking credit for the work of people such as Mr. Niall Mellon, yet there is no funding. A number of those projects will close down.

There have been €195 million in cuts, about the cost of a small motorway. The cuts will progress from 0.58% in 2008 to 0.48%. We are going backwards, despite being promised time and again that this would not happen. We are now unlikely to meet the target. Other European countries are shaming us.

That is not correct. Nobody has gone past us.

It is correct. I will dispute that with the Minister of State and we can bandy figures, but these are the cuts. I said the Minister of State had a brass neck, but I do not believe he wrote that stuff. Neither do I believe that he framed the motion. I believe that if he was left on his own he would fight and I hope the strong words he has heard in the Seanad tonight will give him armaments with which to fight, both within Government and with its partners in the European Union, most of which should be thoroughly ashamed.

I have prepared some figures, but since most of them have been read out already or are about to be, I will take the opportunity to place on record a letter that appears today in The Irish Times, which I am not sure the Minister of State will have seen:

Madam,

The present dispute about whether, because of the economic tsunami, Ireland is justified in cutting overseas aid evokes a historic parallel. This is the controversy in Britain, in early 1946, seven months after the end of the war, over whether food should be sent to aid the starving Germans. This was at a time when the average British consumption was about 2,800 calories a day, the equivalent of about 60 per cent of the present Irish figure.

At the time, George Orwell wrote: "If we raise our own rations, we should be doing so while famine descends on Europe. If we do decide to do this, at least let the issues be plainly discussed and let the photographs of starving children be well publicised in the press, so that the people of this country may realise what they are doing."

Happily, the British made the decision to give up some of their food to the Germans. The Irish should take the equivalent decision now.

Yours, etc.,

Professor David Gwynn Morgan,

Law Department,

University College Cork.

I thought when I read those words how succinct, competent and capable they were. It is a reminder to us, as a country, of what we can do. It is estimated that our overseas aid will slip backwards from an estimated 0.58% to a projected 0.48% this year after the February and April cuts. The World Bank has warned that such recession induced donor fatigue worldwide could result in 90 million more people, mainly in Africa, being forced into poverty. Furthermore, the World Bank reckons that between 200,000 and 400,000 more children will die every year between now and 2015 than would have perished in the absence of a world economic crisis. The Economist summed up the situation when it said, “Progress towards a richer, more equitable world has been set back years.”

I mention that because I am not talking about Ireland alone. While I cannot agree with everything Senator Norris has said, I know that the Minister of State's heart is in the right place. I know he wants to do well, as do the Irish people. I am aware of the straitened economic circumstances, but when we look at the figures and how well off we are compared with those who die, are starving and go to bed hungry every night, we realise that we can afford to do more than we are doing. Senator Norris is quite correct when he talks about the percentages. Of course, we do not feed people with percentages. However, when we have the opportunity to do something, as we do now, I urge the Minister of State to use his influence with the Cabinet to ensure that we set out to achieve what we determinedly wish to do. We were determined to do it in the past so let us ensure we do it in the future.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for his overview of the current Government position on Ireland's overseas development aid policy. I welcome, too, the opportunity to discuss this issue today because the recent cutbacks in the overseas development aid programme have caused significant concern in many quarters.

We are in a period of financial collapse. The Government will have to consider further very serious budgetary cutbacks. I am somewhat impatient when I hear the parties in opposition condemning every single cutback across the board. It does not matter whether it has to do with the medical area, education, third level fees, transport or local authority budgets. No matter what it is, it is resisted and we are told it is scandalous etc.

The Senator cannot say that about the Independents.

I would love to hear where the Opposition believes we will find €16 billion to €20 billion in the coming years. If we do not, we will render ourselves bankrupt and will see the International Monetary Fund making decisions about this country and how it is run. I would prefer that we do it ourselves, which would be much more helpful. That is why the leader of my party suggested the idea of a Government of national unity, because at times such as this when very difficult decisions have to be made, opportunistic opposition by parties of the Opposition is not in any way helpful and does not serve the public interest.

We are discussing Irish overseas aid.

It is important to put that in context. I believe the tone of today's motion is somewhat self-congratulatory. Admittedly, the OECD report vindicates many of the positive aspects about Irish overseas development aid policy to date. That is a good thing but we are in danger of becoming complacent and failing to recognise the serious impact of recent cutbacks on our overseas development aid policy. In 2009, our overseas aid budget will be 0.48% of gross domestic product, GDP, which is a slip from last year when it was 0.58% of GDP. This causes great dismay among those who hoped we would achieve our target of 0.7% by 2012.

The OECD report contains two recommendations which we should take very seriously. The first is that the Government should refrain from further budgetary action to undermine our commitment to reaching our target by 2012. Second, the OECD made a series of recommendations on policy coherence.

Ireland's international reputation is closely bound up with our traditional positions on UN peacekeeping and overseas development aid. Our reputation is well earned. We have done important work. Our development non-governmental organisations and successive Irish Governments are to be highly commended on their contributions. On the back of those activities, we have built an international reputation and have earned international credibility amounting to very important capital. If we undermine this capital it will be our own loss. That reputation and credibility give us an influence internationally and within the European Union. If we were to make further cutbacks what credibility would we have? Could we argue for the retention of current levels of development aid if we are seen to have made cutbacks at the expense of people in the developing world rather than tackling other areas? Cutbacks are necessary but let us make them evenly and across the board.

It is important to look at our vision of Ireland's role within the European Union common foreign and security policy. There are many advantages to being a neutral country with a high international reputation. We want to be seen as champions of development aid and of a more enlightened and progressive policy towards the developing world where we can help to address problems, many of which were created by the developed world in the first place. Overseas aid is partly compensation for past actions. It is also intended to ensure poverty levels in the developing world do not lead to significant problems of migration and even more chronic levels of starvation and death. Climate change is very closely bound up with this issue. To maintain our credibility in this area we must hold the line now and avoid further budgetary cutbacks in this area.

The OECD raised a number of concerns regarding policy coherence. The report acknowledged that Ireland has made progress on policy coherence for development since the last OECD report but a number of concerns were identified. The report said Irish aid lacks the institutional capacity to conduct research and analyse policies for coherence or to trace policy coherence impacts once they have been identified. We must ensure cohesion in the following nexus of policy areas: trade, energy, finance, agriculture, fisheries, security and migration. What we do in one area can undermine another. For example, trading activities can completely undermine our overseas aid and climate change policies.

The report said our political commitment to policy development coherence has not yet translated into an integrated policy framework drawing consensus from the highest levels of Government as well as Parliament. It says there is no system of institutionalised reporting to Parliament on policy coherence development which would facilitate this process and that the relocation of Irish Aid to Limerick poses challenges in maintaining close linkages with other Departments, embassies, NGOs and other organisations based in Dublin. The report also says Ireland could do more in its priority countries, for example, by prioritising aid for trade to complement interventions made through Government and civil society.

I welcome the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, in his presentation. He speaks of greater efficiencies in our development organisations in the coming years. To what extent could institutional structures be put in place to achieve policy coherence as part of that efficiency drive?

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The report to which the motion refers endorses the Government's overseas aid development programme. I recognise that Ireland has increased its overseas aid by 90% since 2003. This has helped establish Ireland as a respected world leader in the field of humanitarian aid, poverty reduction, information and education provision and the alleviation of hunger and disease. The report emphasises the quality and commitment of Irish Aid representatives at home and in our donor countries. These individuals, as well as the many NGOs supported by Irish Aid, have done the State a great service and should be proud of their contribution to helping the world's poor and advancing the development agenda.

The report also issues a number of timely warnings in the context of Ireland's success to date. Specifically, the report states that the Government should reaffirm its commitment, entered into by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to give 0.7% of gross national income to overseas aid and development by 2012. Recent Government cuts have thrown this target into serious doubt. The overseas aid budget was cut by €45 million last July, €15 million last October, €95 million in February of this year and €100 million in April. A total of €250 million has been slashed from the budget in the last ten months, representing more than 20% of the total aid budget when Government coffers are reducing by only 8%. Cuts in the overseas aid budget are disproportionate.

I have received considerable correspondence on the impact of these cuts. They will cause cutbacks in donor programmes throughout the world. Concern announced last week that these cuts would lead to a reduction in the number of jobs and in programmes. Yesterday, in The Irish Times Fintan O’Toole highlighted the impact of some of these cuts. A programme in Afghanistan which provides education to 25,000 women is being drastically cut. It is not long since women in Afghanistan could not access education. This cut will not make things better for them. Members of the House were touched by the poverty depicted in the Oscar winning film, “Slumdog Millionaire”. A nutrition programme for 35,000 children in the slums of Bangladesh will not no go ahead because of cuts. In Haiti, where terror reigned until recently, a programme to educate 6,000 children is being shut down. When our international reputation needs to be improved, these cutbacks do not help.

Given the self-congratulatory motion tabled by Fianna Fáil Senators, I must assume they have some information we do not have. They seem very confident that the aid budget will not be subject to further cuts. We are already 1.2% off the target of 0.6% for next year. Do Fianna Fáil Senators and the Minister of State accept that further cuts to the aid budget would be immoral, unjustified and grossly detrimental to the operational abilities of Irish Aid.

I do not accept the plea bargain often offered that if recipient countries became more efficient and rooted out corruption they would be able to spend more money. I have seen at first hand how some of our programme countries are tackling corruption. It is present but it is being tackled. A case study in Uganda found that the Irish Aid programme there is strongly aligned with that government's own systems and that 97% of expenditure goes through a financial accounting system while the average in other countries is only 60%. Some 88% of our funds go through country procurement systems, which is very positive. I am grateful to the Irish ambassador to Tanzania, Ms Anne Barrington, who kindly forwarded a book entitled, A Parliament With Teeth, For Tanzania, published by the Africa Research Institute. In the book Mr. John Cheyo, chair of the public accounts committee there, writes that if the Government misuses funding given to Tanzania by other countries, Tanzanian MPs should be answerable to MPs in the donor countries for their performance.

Senator Ormonde, from the other side of the House, and I visited Tanzania last year and met Mr. Cheyo and discussed this point. In the book, Dr. Williebrod Slaa, chair of the local authorities accounts committee stated that any good, accountable government should be ready to open its books whenever and wherever it is asked to do so. Nothing should be private between the Government of Tanzania and donors. It is clear that recipient countries such as Uganda and Tanzania understand the need for accountability and transparency and how important it is to the citizens of our country. From the evidence I have seen it appears real efforts are being made to tackle corruption. Our money is not lining the pockets of some dictator, it is making a real difference to the lives of the poor.

I do not agree that our citizens are weary of giving aid. More information should be communicated in terms of the benefits of such aid but so too should the message that this is not costing us very much in real terms. Peter Singer noted in his recently published book, The Life You Can Save, that in a survey carried out in the United States of America, when people were asked how much they thought the American Government was spending on foreign aid, they replied that it was probably 20% of the overall budget. When asked how much they wished to be spent, they stated the ideal amount was approximately 10%. The reality is that a little less than 1% is spent and there is a huge chasm between what many people believe is spent on aid and how much is spent. I suggest a similar study carried out here would probably produce similar results.

I have no confidence whatsoever that the Government will protect the aid budget from further cuts. This lack of confidence stems, in part, from a comparable state of affairs with Ireland's largely defunct equality and rights infrastructure. There have been international and institutional reports on the matter too and Ireland had been regularly singled out on the European and International stage as an example of a society with a vibrant equality and rights landscape. The development of this infrastructure only began in earnest in the 1990s and it took almost 20 years to grow and develop into a truly dynamic series of groups and organisations that promoted diversity, tolerance and social cohesion. However, it took Fianna Fáil, in conjunction with its partner, the Green Party, just two years to destroy this almost entirely. The Government seems to be pursuing a systematic shutdown of independence and critical voices within the State. This is why I have no confidence in the Government's ability to protect the Irish aid budget. Recent years have proven that Fianna Fáil is a fair weather friend, grand for the good times but nowhere to be seen when the going gets tough.

With that in mind I call on the Government Senators to try to prove me wrong. I genuinely hope that I am proved wrong on this issue. I live in hope but I expect the Minister will tell us that nothing is sacred given the global economic downturn and that everything is on the table. I accept the argument that we have come a long way in the past ten years but we have not reached the end of our journey. The improvements of the past decade are proof that we have reached a point in the road where we can walk shoulder high with other nations and do our bit to help others along the way on a journey to a fairer world.

I wish to continue to be able to say to citizens in such countries and Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg and Denmark that we are matching their efforts to promote equality throughout the world. I wish to give example to citizens in such countries as Portugal, Italy and Greece and to encourage them to increase their aid programmes which currently fall well below the average effort.

Jeffrey Sachs, the well respected campaigner for the developing world, predicts that the end of poverty is within sight if the developed world does its share to allow it take place. We are a small country and we can do our share by giving an example to the rest of the world. This recession will be over one day and when it is I wish to be able to say that I did my share and that my country did its share. I call on the Government Members to do their share to ensure the Government does not let us down on this issue.

I wish to share time with Senator Rónán Mullen.

Ireland has a proud record in terms of its overseas development aid. I am also proud of our fine record when it comes to our missionaries, religious orders, nuns and those who have served this country well to deliver services to those less fortunate than ourselves. That must be established here this evening and the message should go out loud and clear.

We are in very difficult times and we are borrowing €20 billion to keep our finances afloat. A percentage of that sum is going overseas, of which I am proud. It is important that we continue to provide aid because the people overseas who depend on our aid deserve our support. It is important that we continue a fair trade situation and Europe could play a greater role in this regard. Our work in the area of fair trade in coffee is an example of how we could make those people more independent. Our approach to farming in the Third World has not been strong enough. We require many more people to go there and show the people living there how to farm effectively and ensure crops grow which are suitable for the environment. This could be easily achieved given the available technology.

We will do our best to achieve the figure of 0.7% of GDP by 2012 and the approach is realistic. As the world economy and our situation improves it will be important to ensure the target is achieved. In the meantime there are certain actions we can take. We must appeal to the professional people in the country who are unemployed at present and who could make a very significant contribution abroad. We must encourage and, if necessary, assist them in whatever way we can whether through voluntary organisations or other means. New thinking is required. If there is a shortfall at one end, the slack should be taken up at the other end. Manpower and woman power is probably a more important contribution than sending money abroad.

The water development schemes and programmes already in place must continue because water is life. If people do not have clean water and a proper infrastructure for the basic necessities, it is impossible for life to continue, as we are all aware.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. While I have great respect for the Minister of State, the wording of the Government motion is of a political language that brings politics into disrepute. I say that because the motion only tells half the truth about the OECD statement. It does not acknowledge that the Government has been urged to refrain from further budgetary action that would undermine the commitment, which seems mean-spirited and does not fully reflect the situation. We cannot get away from the swingeing cuts that have taken place. It is questionable for the Minister of State to suggest that there is something inappropriate about the fact that we might have to borrow to fund our international aid commitments.

What about sustainability?

Does that line not betray that we do not really see international overseas aid as a priority? We do not consider looking after those people in the same way as we look after our own, which is not in the best traditions of Ireland, our missionaries and our NGOs. I am none the wiser either about where the proposed cuts will take place. I read a suggestion from the Minister in The Sunday Business Post that emergency and bilateral government to government aid has been protected because it “produces better results”. Whatever about emergency aid, it is not the case that bilateral aid produces better results compared with funding at grass roots level and the work done by national and international NGOs. I would like to see a full breakdown of what is being cut, whether, for example, funding for the Clinton Foundation has been cut or funding for the various activities of the UNFPA, some of which may clash with our constitutional values, has been cut.

The question must be asked as to what the Irish public supports. There has always been a sense of envy within Department of Foreign Affairs that its programme, the bilateral programme, has not received the same public recognition as the work of Irish NGOs and missionaries, who together receive only a relatively small percentage of ODA funding. It is Ireland's long and proud tradition of missionary and NGO work that has formed the backbone of public support for overseas development aid. It is because most people in Ireland know someone who went overseas with Concern or know a priest who has worked in Kenya for 30 years, building schools, sinking wells etc. that they are prepared to support overseas development aid. The public does not support bilateral aid in the same way because it is nervous about government to government aid. Therefore, in the real sense the bilateral aid programme piggybacks on the NGO and missionary programmes; the former exists because of public recognition and support for the latter.

I am concerned about the prioritisation that will be made in making the cuts. The bilateral aid programme should suffer the same cuts, if not more, than aid to NGOs and missionary programmes. If the NGOs and missionary programmes cannot be protected from cuts, what public support can there be for the aid programme in general?

I would like to refer to the specific commitments made in response to the hunger task force report last year. That report recommended that Irish Aid work "towards an indicative target of 20% of its overseas development aid to actions to alleviate and eradicate hunger". It also stressed that "regardless of the current international economic climate, without both developed and developing countries acting on their commitments, hunger will not be reduced." The report was adopted in full at the time of its launch. I want to know whether this is still a commitment towards which Irish Aid is working. If it is, has hunger alleviation been spared in the current cuts and, if not, why not?

Just as important is the recommendation by the hunger task force report that serious attention should be given to the importance of small-holder agriculture. Not only does small-holder agriculture resonate strongly among our cultural and historical heritage, it provides a creative and effective response to many of the problems faced by the African people. I will finish with some statistics. Some 80% of Africans live rurally. Some 85% of African land has a medium to high potential for increased productivity and some 80% of Africans live on small-holder farms — probably 500 million people when we count family members. When all this is taken into account, it becomes clear why international studies back the hunger task force report's claim that small-holder agriculture holds the key to African development. I urge the Minister to make that the main priority.

I wish to share time with Senator Joe O'Toole.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome this debate. The support of Members for the aid programme has been well articulated, as has their concern about the cutbacks. It is important to put on the record how the crisis is affecting the poorest countries. It is the general view that the cutbacks in which the Government has engaged have been directed at an easy target because there are no votes involved. However, it is clear the people want to see support continue and the Government has their support to continue it.

The aid programme is one of which we should be proud and the work being done was praised in the OECD report. We should consider what the OECD said. It said Ireland was leading the way among EU states in the proportion of overseas aid spent on combating HIV and AIDS, for example. Having carried out an on-the-ground assessment of the Government's work in Uganda, the review team concluded that Ireland was a respected and influential donor with a strong reputation in the field. The report continued in that manner. Therefore, it is important we realise our aid programme is one of which Ireland can be proud.

The danger now is that much of the good work that has been done, the expertise built up and the effectiveness of the programme could be put at risk by the cutbacks. Tom Arnold, the chief executive of Concern, said:

To cut overseas aid on this scale is hugely disproportionate. We realise that the Irish Government finds itself with tough choices to make at home. However, this latest cut means that certain overseas projects — many of which are quite literally a matter of life or death — will be forced to close altogether or scaled down significantly. This will have significant serious humanitarian ramifications in the developing world. This comes at a time when the developed world needs to keep its aid promises to the poorest developing countries.

We know the effect of the financial crisis on people in Ireland. We know there is poverty here and that families are finding it difficult to cope. However, let us put it on the record how the crisis is affecting the poorest countries.

In 2008, the number of people suffering from hunger on a daily basis rose to a staggering 963 million, equivalent to one out of every seven people in the world. According to the World Bank, the combined food and fuel crisis has pushed an additional 130 million to 150 million people below the $1.25 a day poverty line. Thousands more children will die because of the effects of poverty. Therefore, there are serious ramifications to our cutbacks. The range of programmes affected by our cutbacks internationally are huge. They are life and death programmes.

It is right we should acknowledge that the Irish co-operation aid programme has been effective and internationally recognised. However, the Fianna Fáil motion is somewhat bizarre. It calls on us to celebrate this, while at the same time we are cutting back on the overseas programme. Reference was made to international accommodations for Irish overseas aid, but they were paid in advance of the harsh cutbacks. There is no doubt that the cutbacks are harsh and disproportionate. I ask the Minister of State to comment on the disproportionate effect of the cutbacks and the impact they will have. That is the key point.

The Government made a clear commitment to improving maternal health in its 2006 White Paper on Irish Aid. I would like to go into more detail on this if I had the time, because 536,000 women died as a result of complications in pregnancy and childbirth. I urge the Minister of State to maintain the commitment to that issue.

I thank Senator Fitzgerald for sharing her time with me. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, to the House. I will begin by giving my background in this area. Throughout my adult life I have been involved in the development world and related matters. I established and operated a Central American charity at one stage and have led the development of a significant Third World fund in the INTO, to which every primary teacher contributes every month. I am currently a director of a South African fund for developing education in that area.

I have had face-to-face dealings with the Minister of State and have met him in his capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for overseas aid, and I have always found him to be open, accessible, caring and responsible. I recognise the difficulties facing the Government this year and acknowledge that cuts must be made. I can understand the thinking behind an across the board, slam-dunk 20% off everything as the easy way to make the cuts — any of us might do the same if faced with that choice — but I point out that some areas are more dependent on aid than others. I would, therefore, like the Minister of State to acknowledge that the Fine Gael amendment is very fair and even-handed and I will support it tonight rather than the ones from my own bench. It is fair and it was very gracious of Senator Fitzgerald to acknowledge the OECD issue. I do not think we need to have many differences of opinion here tonight. When we are dealing with this issue, we need to look at the impact of our decisions on people in the Third World. Every citizen of every democracy has to share global responsibility for being prepared to give.

I would like to mention a group that has not yet been referred to in this debate. Christian Aid, with which I have dealings now and again, has taken a heavy hit. It is reeling from the cutbacks. Its budget in seven countries is affected at present. I am sure it has been in contact with the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power. Its work in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Afghanistan and Angola has been affected. I was recently involved in the opening of an exhibition, the aim of which was to draw attention to some of the difficulties that have been experienced in Angola in recent times. Christian Aid is doing superb work in Angola. I am not using this debate to raise the profile of this group, although I am keen to acknowledge its efforts. I could say the same about many other organisations. Would it be possible for the Minister of State to introduce some degree of flexibility to this system? If a particular group has a particular difficulty, can it receive specific assistance? I acknowledge the work of Christian Aid once more.

I understand that my time is almost up. Perhaps I have rambled a little. It is important for us to support organisations that work in different parts of the developing world. We all know people who have given their lives to groups that operate in the parts of the Third World, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. I hold them in the highest regard. I was at one stage very involved in Bhutan, which is an example of a forgotten country with many refugees. I would like the House to acknowledge, as the Minister of State has done, the outstanding work such people are undertaking. Perhaps their endeavours are presenting Ireland around the rest of the world in a light it does not deserve. In that context, I ask the Minister of State to recommend to the Government that it should take on board the Fine Gael proposal to start to reverse these cuts. I will conclude on that note. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House I would like a longer debate on this issue in the future, during which perhaps we can focus on the impact this work is having on various parts of the world. I reiterate that I intend to support the Fine Gael amendment.

I often agree with my learned colleague, Senator O'Toole. As he is also from County Kerry, it is often hard to disagree with him. He cannot be accused of rambling, even if he suggested that he rambled a little in his contribution. I agree that there is some merit in elements of the Fine Gael amendment. I remind those who have called for these cuts to be reversed that we are obviously in difficult times. The Swedish model of overseas development is often held up as an exemplar. When the Swedish economy was in trouble in 1992, the Swedish Government had to take a backward step in its overseas development assistance budget, unfortunately, in order to be able to move forward thereafter. Like Senator O'Toole, I acknowledge the work of Christian Aid, Trócaire, Concern and other groups that are doing substantial work not only in our partner countries but also in other countries throughout the world. I have seen the incredible life-saving work they have done in Gaza, for example. The most disturbing element of these cuts is that if we could give more money, more lives could be saved. That is the stark and shocking reality. It is hard to know where to start and end one's efforts.

Senator Mullen made a critical point about agriculture in the context of the work of the Government's hunger task force. He referred to the lack of productivity of soil in many parts of Africa. He suggested that the agricultural methods used by the people of Africa is contributing to the perpetuation of hunger on that Continent. That, in turn, has a detrimental effect on education etc. and thereby keeps the cycle of poverty going. While money, in itself, is a huge help in crises throughout the world, it is not the only solution. It keeps people alive in places like Congo, Gaza, Vietnam, where Ireland is involved, and Central America. We have to be smarter in these economic times, however. While Senator Buttimer can be adversarial at times, he made some great points this evening. Senator Fitzgerald acknowledged that the OECD has highlighted the things we are doing right. She was gracious enough to quote from the OECD report time and again. One cannot say that we are doing everything right, however. No Government and no person has ever done everything 100% right. We are attempting to do that and we have taken huge steps to that end. We are doing much better, proportionately, than we were ten or 15 years ago. The Irish people are demanding that we do better.

Some of my learned colleagues in the Gallery — I am not allowed to refer to them by name — have said that there are no votes to be gained in local, European or general elections from showing an interest in overseas aid. That does not mean that the Government or the Members of the Oireachtas should not pursue a policy of helping those who do not have an effect on our parliamentary system. The right thing to do is to pursue such a policy. Like the Minister of State and everyone else in this Chamber, I regret any backward step that is taken in respect of overseas aid. When the economy turns around, I believe we will take financial steps to help those in the world's poorest economies in the long run. Ten years ago, we would not have imagined that we would be giving so much money to the poorest people in the world. We would not have envisaged that the OECD would be lauding Ireland for the efforts it has taken to date. It is obvious that backward steps have been taken in recent times. I hope that in ten years' time, Ireland will have surpassed the 0.7% goal. It is a target that is ahead of other EU countries. When we have a similar debate ten years from now, I hope we will be proud of our achievements.

Does the Senator reckon that Fianna Fáil will still be in government?

I do not know. I do not have my crystal ball with me tonight.

Will the Senator support the Fine Gael amendment?

Fianna Fáil might be back in government in ten years' time.

Of course there will be elections between now and then. I suppose we will have to go for re-election at some stage. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 25.

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • de Búrca, Déirdre.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Jerry Buttimer and Maurice Cummins; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"condemns the Government for breaking the commitments clearly and repeatedly given to reach the 0.7% target for development aid."

I second the amendment.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 26.

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • de Búrca, Déirdre.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Norris and Joe O’Toole; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

To add after "aid programme":

"—notes that the OECD/DAC also said: ‘the challenge for the Government is to reach these targets despite severe economic downturn and increased budgetary pressure'. That DAC also urged the Government ‘to refrain from further budgetary action that would undermine this commitment';

notes the recent concession by Minister of State for overseas development, Deputy Peter Power, that decentralisation of Irish Aid from Dublin to Limerick had caused a loss of key personnel;

notes that Ireland has slipped back from progress towards its ODA commitments this year as a result of €195 million in combined cuts in February and April;

notes that despite the Government saying it is committed to meeting the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNI by 2012, it will, in fact, slip backwards from 0.58% in 2008 to a projected 0.48% this year after the February and April cuts;

notes that the serious slippage in ODA/GNI performance projected for 2009 has caused Irish development NGOs, as a sector, to suggest that it is now unlikely that Ireland will meet the Government's own interim target of spending 0.6% of GNI on ODA by 2010;

expresses concern that it sends a strange message for the Government to celebrate its ODA achievements while, at the same time, cutting back on programme areas where we have already made an investment;

regrets that Ireland's overseas development aid budget was disproportionately targeted for cuts, reducing the entire aid budget by 22% in the past ten months;

regrets the lack of transparency in the manner in which these cuts have been implemented;

regrets the statement attributed to the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, that he had sought to protect emergency funding and bilateral aid, which ‘produces more results', in this year's budget;

reminds the Government that the work of Irish aid agencies and Irish missionaries are the cornerstone of the Irish public's support of the Irish Aid programme;

reminds the Government that the report of its Hunger Task Force in September 2008 noted that ‘regardless of the current international economic climate, without both developed and developing countries acting on their commitments, hunger will not be reduced';

reminds the Government of the separate target, set out in the recommendations of the Hunger Task Force, of working ‘towards an indicative target of 20% of its ODA to actions to alleviate and eradicate hunger';

urges the Government to publish detailed figures on all disbursements from Irish aid in this fiscal year, and to allow a comparison of these figures with those for the last fiscal year;

urges the Minister to set out how plans to redress the impact of decentralisation of Irish Aid to Limerick;

urges the Government to immediately stop the cuts and build up the programme so that Ireland actually meets its commitments instead of merely talking of them; and

calls on the Government to ensure that the next budget sees us meeting our commitments beyond 2012 and into the future."

I second the amendment.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 25.

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • de Búrca, Déirdre.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Rónán Mullen and Shane Ross; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 17.

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Bradford and Maurice Cummins.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share