SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jun 2003

Vol. 1 No. 3

Estimates for Public Services, 2003.

Vote 38 - Foreign Affairs.

Vote 39 - International Co-operation.

Chairman

We will consider the revised Estimates for 2003 in respect of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Vote 38 - Foreign Affairs and Vote 39 - International Co-operation. On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Cowen, the Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Dermot Gallagher, the Assistant SecretaryGeneral, Ms Marie Cross, and probably themost important man here today, Mr. LiamMacGabhann, who is involved with the Department's finances. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has also returned following our previous session.

We have scheduled the meeting to last until approximately 6 p.m. That amount of time may not be necessary but a table had to be laid out for it. The Minister will initially deal with Vote 38 and the Minister of State with Vote 39. Is that agreed? Agreed. A proposed timetable has been circulated for the meeting. It will allow for opening statements by the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons, followed by an open discussion on the individual subheads by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We do not have to stick to the timetable but it provides for the maximum times that can be devoted to each section. Members have been circulated with useful briefing material on the revised Estimates which has been supplied by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It provides details on the individual subheads for ease of reference and I ask members to address the individual items as they arise. I call the Minister to make his opening statement.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I welcome this opportunity to meet the select committee to consider Vote 38. Before I proceed, I wish to make a few brief comments in relation to Vote 39, which the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, will be dealing with in more detail following the discussion on Vote 38.

Overseas development aid is an integral part of our foreign policy and represents one of the Government's priorities. We have a proud record in the field of development co-operation and down through the years thousands of Irish missionaries and lay people have served overseas in a voluntary capacity and have made an immeasurable contribution to the well-being of the poorest of the poor in some of the world's most disadvantaged countries. Our own history of colonisation, famine and emigration has enabled us to identify with the plight of those most in need. The generosity of the Irish people in contributing to NGOs and to international relief efforts is renowned the world over.

Against that backdrop, it is appropriate that we should have an advanced and distinctive programme of assistance for developing countries. Our aid programme is now in place for nearly three decades. From modest origins it has grown substantially in recent years and we expect that total overseas development aid will exceed €450 million this year. This constitutes 0.41% of our GNP and, as such, makes Ireland the seventh largest contributor in the world.

The Estimate in 2003 for Vote 38 amounts to €178.825 million, an increase of just under 4% on the provision for last year. As in previous years, most of the Estimate is taken up with the administrative budget, which amounts to €146.7 million. This includes additional provisions to cover agreed pay increases as well to progress the development of a new automated passport production system. The Estimate also includes a provision to cover my Department's preparations for the next Irish Presidency of the European Union in the first half of 2004.

On the programme budget side, Vote 38 covers mandatory contributions to international organisations such as the UN, in particular for UN peacekeeping duties. Also covered are programmes to support Irish citizens abroad, to fund cross-Border peace and reconciliation projects and to provide bilateral assistance for EU candidate countries to assist them in their preparation for EU membership.

I propose to commence my review of my Department's activities with some words on the European Union. Ireland will host the Presidency of the Union in the first half of next year. It is a Presidency that will present significant challenges and we will have the great privilege of presiding, on 1 May 2004, over the formal accession of ten new members. While preparing to welcome them and do everything possible to smooth their paths as new members of the Union, it will also be important for us to ensure that the Union's institutions and structures continue to function as effectively with 25 as with 15 members and that the Union's day to day business runs smoothly. The challenge which this will present should not be underestimated. Other important events which will influence our Presidency include the end of term of the European Parliament with elections scheduled for June 2004. The Commission will also end its term of office in November of next year.

Enlargement of the European Union has been a political imperative for almost a decade. In Copenhagen in 2002 we saw the successful conclusion of accession negotiations with ten countries. The Taoiseach and I signed the Treaty of Accession in Athens on 16 April 2003. Ratification by the member states and the acceding countries is proceeding. All the acceding countries, apart from Cyprus, are holding referenda on the question of accession. To date, referenda have been held and passed in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and, most recently, Poland. A referendum will be held in the Czech Republic on 13-14 June, in Estonia on 14 September and in Latvia on 20 September. The Government intends that Ireland will ratify the treaties later this year.

Against this challenging background, our preparations for the Presidency are proceeding well. We will be focusing in the coming months on the development of a programme and the very complex calendar of meetings which Ireland will chair during the Presidency. This involves enhanced ministerial and interdepartmental co-ordination, contacts with previous and future Presidencies and more intense exchanges at all levels with the EU institutions and with current and new member states. We are also co-ordinating the logistical aspects of the Presidency, such as the arrangements for meetings in Ireland and liaising with other Departments and relevant authorities such as the Office of Public Works and the Garda. My Department is also engaged in the design of a special website for the Presidency.

As the committee is aware, the European Convention is close to concluding its work. A great deal of positive work has been done. The Government has engaged actively and energetically throughout the process and put forward many constructive ideas and suggestions that have been taken up in the current draft. The new constitutional treaty will be a much clearer and more comprehensible one than the existing treaties. It will set out what the European Union is and what it does. It will simplify decision-making and make it clear where responsibility lies. It will enhance the role of national parliaments and strengthen the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. While any treaty will need a certain level of complexity to ensure its legal standing, much has been done to ensure that the work of the Union is more comprehensible and legible and that the new treaty will go a long way towards meeting the goal of bringing the Union closer to its citizens. Before completion, however, much work remains to be done. The Convention will meet again this week to try to conclude its final report. This will be presented to the European Council in Thessaloníki next week.

I hope the Convention will succeed in reaching a broad consensus to include sensitive institutional issues on which Ireland is prepared to be flexible as long as the key principles of equality and balance are respected. It will then be necessary to fully and carefully consider the outcome of the Convention in the Intergovernmental Conference. For example, in part III of the treaty dealing with the policies of the Union, there are areas that the Convention has not been able to look at in sufficient detail that will need to be considered carefully. The European Council will discuss the final report and will take the decision to convene an intergovernmental conference at Thessaloníki. The Intergovernmental Conference is likely to begin its work in the autumn. The length of time it will need to complete its work is not yet clear and obviously will be determined in large part by the level of agreement reached at the Convention and the outstanding issues that need to be dealt with by the Intergovernmental Conference. It cannot be ruled out that the natural pace of the Intergovernmental Conference will take it into Ireland's EU Presidency and if that is the case we will be honoured to take the work forward and, if necessary, conclude it.

In the past year, enhanced arrangements for the review of draft legislative proposals emanating from the European Commission were introduced and placed on a statutory footing in the European Union (Scrutiny) Act in October 2002. Over the past 11 months Ministers have submitted explanatory information notes on over 220 legislative proposals for review by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas European scrutiny sub-committee has in turn referred over 60 of these proposals to other committees for more detailed review. As part of the enhanced scrutiny arrangements, Ministers also brief committees in advance of Council meetings. The new scrutiny arrangements provide members of the Oireachtas with an opportunity to express their views to the Government on EU legislation as negotiations on these proposals proceed in Brussels, increasing the transparency and accountability of the EU legislative process for the Oireachtas and the wider public.

In reviewing the budget for my Department for the year 2003, it is important to consider the proposed expenditure in the context of the Government's economic agenda. We have an open economy with a high dependency on foreign trade and inward investment. As advancing Ireland's economic and commercial interests is among our top priorities, I set up a new bilateral economic relations division in my Department in late 200I. Its aim is to improve the contribution which the Department and its missions overseas make to our economic growth. The division is responsible for co-ordinating co-operation between the Department, its diplomatic missions and other Departments, semi-State agencies and the business community.

Ireland now has 66 missions, most of which are bilateral. This network is more extensive than the network of overseas offices of either Enterprise Ireland or the IDA and we have to use it to the full. In addition to their normal diplomatic and consular responsibilities, our missions are measured on the contribution they make to advancing Ireland's economic and commercial interests. This is particularly true of missions in countries where the semi-State agencies are not represented. The business community appreciates the assistance our missions provide as they are well placed to make contacts and open doors for them and identify new business opportunities.

With regard to Iraq and a number of policy issues, the Government welcomes the adoption of the new Security Council resolution on the issues which need to be addressed in post-war Iraq. The achievement of consensus in the Security Council goes a long way to restoring its unity. We also welcome the clearer mandate given to the Secretary General's special representative. The effective implementation of this mandate will be important in winning international acceptance of the legitimacy of Iraq's future political structures. We also welcome the fact that the resolution emphasises the processes required to bring representative government to Iraq as quickly as possible.

Our membership of the UN has always been a defining element of our foreign policy. This has been evident in our continuous participation since 1958 in UN peacekeeping operations and our high profile in disarmament, development and human rights issues. Recently our role at the UN has been enhanced by our term on the Security Council, which concluded at the end of last year. As a member of the Council, we worked hard to achieve practical outcomes on the wide range of issues on its agenda. The framework for our contribution was our abiding belief in the primary role of the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. We asserted this belief throughout our term and put it into practical effect. Across the range of issues, we gave primacy to addressing humanitarian concerns, such as mitigating the adverse effects of sanctions regimes on civilian populations. We also stressed the need to respect human rights and frequently and publicly asserted that they must not be undermined or diminished in the global struggle against terrorism.

Our experience of service on the Security Council has been of great value in preparing for our conduct of the EU Presidency next year. The Union, with the acceding and associated states, now forms a large and cohesive bloc in the UN General Assembly and its positions influence many more member states. During our Presidency we will act as the focal point of this bloc. Ireland will also be the voice of the Union on issues of international peace and security discussed in the open sessions of the Council.

Ireland has always been active in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction. I therefore welcomed the initiative of the Swedish Foreign Minister in March to raise the profile of the issue in the EU context and I participated in the discussion on the matter at the April Council. The conclusions of that meeting instructed the high representative to continue work on this issue, with a view to making concrete proposals for submission to the European Council in June. Ireland continues to be engaged in the elaboration of such proposals.

The transatlantic relationship is of fundamental mutual importance to the EU and the US, both economically and politically. Recent events, in particular the Iraq crisis, have revealed deep fault lines in the transatlantic relationship and within the EU itself on how the relationship should be developed in the future. It is important that we begin to repair the current divisions as it is clear that a strong EU-US partnership is an important element in bringing about solutions to many of the challenges facing the international community today. The success in bringing peace and stability to the Balkans is a clear example of the benefits of this partnership and it must be maintained and strengthened if we are to deal effectively with the threat of international terrorism as well as help to bring peace to the Middle East through the quartet road map. For these reasons, EU-US relations will be a high priority during our EU Presidency in the first half of 2004 when there is likely to be an EU-US summit, possibly in Ireland.

Ireland continues to play a positive and constructive role in the evolution of European security and defence policy and we have worked to highlight the primary role of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of peace and security. We have sought a balanced development between the military and non-military aspects of crisis management. This will also be the case as the Union enters a more operational phase, taking on responsibility for crisis management operations.

Progress is also being made in the European Union's civilian crisis management capabilities which are being developed across the four priority areas addressed at the 2000 Feira European Council meeting - policing, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. In the policing area, a number of gardaí drawn from the pool of personnel available for international police missions abroad are currently serving with the EU police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Conflict prevention is also at the core of the European Union's approach. Ireland has worked to ensure that this centrally important dimension to European security and defence policy is given prominence. Overall, Ireland and our EU partners must address the challenge of ensuring that the Union makes an effective contribution to a stable Europe and a more secure and just world. I look forward to seeing further progress being made during Ireland's Presidency of the EU in the first six months of next year.

In the area of human rights, Ireland is firmly committed to the principles of the UN charter. Human rights concerns play a central role in our foreign policy and are recognised as such in the programme for Government. In this context, we attach considerable importance to the Commission on Human Rights, the primary forum within the United Nations for the discussion of human rights matters. Ireland became a member of the Commission for a three year period beginning on 1 January last. Ireland will play an active and constructive role in the Commission, with the aim of ensuring that human rights are effectively promoted and protected at international level.

I know the committee continues to take a keen interest in developments relating to Northern Ireland and, I am sure, will share my frustration at the events of recent months and my assessment that, nonetheless, the past year has seen a good deal of progress on a number of important fronts. Until the suspension of the institutions last October, the Executive and its Ministers were working actively and making a positive difference to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. Their contributions were also valued in developing the all-island dimension of the Good Friday Agreement.

The underlying aim of all the work undertaken by the two Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland since October has been to address the need for a complete commitment on all sides to the full and inclusive operation of all aspects of the Agreement, including an end to paramilitarism. After much detailed work, an audit of the areas where the full implementation of the Agreement had not yet been achieved was published last month as was the joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments. The Joint Declaration requires a renewed and clear commitment to a definitive end to all paramilitary activity. It also requires an unequivocal commitment to the full and inclusive operation of all the institutions of the Agreement.

I do not intend to repeat the reasons that the agreement which we sought was not reached. Suffice it to say that, as was made clear in the recent Dáil debate on Northern Ireland issues, there is a broad degree of consensus that the end to paramilitarism must be clear, as must the commitment from unionism to the full operation of the institutions. It was in this context that the decision was taken by the British Government not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Assembly elections which had been scheduled for 29 May. As was made clear both in public and in private at the time, the Government disagreed with the British Government on the postponement of these elections.

However, in moving the process forward at this point, we are in full agreement with the British Government that those aspects of the Joint Declaration which are not contingent on acts of completion by others will now be taken forward. The majority of these relate to the basic building blocks of a just society - criminal justice, equality and human rights - and should be implemented forthwith.

In the medium term, all the parties and the Governments should work together to create a credible context in which the elections will proceed in the autumn. Elections cannot be a shifting scenario contingent on the achievement of some subjective condition. The Government believes elections should take place no later than the autumn, regardless of any other considerations.

While the North-South Ministerial Council cannot meet during suspension, the important work of the North-South bodies continues. Interim arrangements have been put in place to ensure that British and Irish Ministers are able to take the required decisions to ensure that these bodies are able to discharge their important public functions.

In parallel to the ongoing political process, work is continuing in communities and organisations on both sides of the Border to further reconciliation between the two traditions on the island. The Department assists and advances this work by administering the operation of the Government's reconciliation fund. The Department is also continuing to support the important work done by the International Fund for Ireland in addressing social and economic disadvantage in Northern Ireland and the Border counties in the South.

At the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last month, I restated the Irish Government's concern in regard to ongoing issues of collusion both in relation to matters arising from the Steven's report and on the recent "Stakeknife" affair. On the latter, we are concerned about the substance, context and timing of these recent unauthorised reports. On the six cases of public concern identified at Weston Park, Judge Peter Cory is continuing his work and the Governments are committed to implementing his recommendations, including any recommendations for public inquiries.

The Good Friday Agreement is based on a vision of what society in Northern Ireland can be, based on the principles of partnership and equality. The vision of the Agreement can only be achieved with the constant and ongoing dedication of all sides to its principles and values. In its work the Government has been supported by all parties represented in the Oireachtas. This is deeply appreciated.

Alongside the many policy challenges facing my Department, we are continuing to improve the services we provide directly to the public through issuing passports and providing consular services to Irish citizens and through issuing visas to non-nationals coming to Ireland. I highlight, in particular, a major project that is under way to modernise the entire passport issuing system. This project will enable us to provide a more efficient and reliable service to the public and to improve the security of the Irish passport. It will also lead in time to the availability of some passport services across the Internet as part of the e-government programme. The new Irish passport will be introduced next year.

We are also taking steps to improve the visa service we provide for non-nationals, in close co-operation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I take this opportunity to thank the Members of both Houses who have expressed their appreciation to me for the consular assistance provided by officers of my Department at home and abroad. My Department will continue to do everything in its power to help Irish citizens abroad who require special assistance.

Mr. Noonan

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials to the select committee and thank the Minister for a full expedition of Irish foreign affairs policy. It was necessarily brief, yet he touched on all the salient points. I also acknowledge the great contribution civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the wider diplomatic staff have made to Ireland over the years. They are acknowledged internationally as a fine foreign service and very often in a small country such as this, the opportunity is not taken to compliment those who are doing a good job.

In this committee we often get bogged down in the details of activity rather than giving due weight to actual foreign affairs policy. It is a truism that foreign policy is driven by national interest. In this committee or in the House, there is not a clear view what are Irish national interests. The Minister has set out the ground fully and it comes down to the three key areas - our relationships with Europe, with Britain and how it impacts on Northern Ireland and with the US.

It is time again for in-depth analysis of all these as they are changing rapidly. In terms of Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement is in trouble. It will be difficult to put it together after the autumn elections. It will be one of the factors that will need ongoing attention especially when we thought after the referenda, both North and South, that national consensus had been reached. It is of paramount importance that both sovereign Governments work together and that the relationship between ourselves and Great Britain is not put at risk in any way as the parties continue to contend in Northern Ireland.

We have a great opportunity with the EU Presidency to give, in our way, a European lead. However, again, the European agenda is changing. There is not the same empathy, sympathy or set relationships between this country and the countries from eastern Europe soon to join the Union. In terms of electoral politics and the issues on the ground, the Irish electorate, happy to be closely aligned with France, Germany, Portugal or Italy, is indifferent to many of the eastern European countries. The driving force of European Union membership for Ireland in the early days was the recognition that the CAP was essential to the prosperity of Ireland, not just in the narrow sense of the farming community. As changes are taking place in the CAP, the support from the farming and the wider community dependent on agriculture is in decline. We will be capably led by the Minister during the Irish Presidency when it coincides with the fruition of the debate at the Convention and a new treaty. We should not take anything for granted about the attitude of the electorate to European issues. We are at a threshold of where certain matters will have to redefined.

I am concerned about the transatlantic relationship. No matter how it is brushed over, no matter how we try to square the circle, there are serious contentions between major European countries and the US. We have tried to have a foot in both camps, but as time goes by, we will find that position difficult. We have heard much debate about new foreign policy and the United States and the influence of the neo-conservatives. It is true to a certain extent in that US foreign policy has changed dramatically. There has not been such a change since the early days of the 20th century. Anybody who is familiar with the debate knows there has been a dramatic change. Many talk about the writings of the conservative planning groups in the US, but one document not referred to is the national security strategy of the US.

Since the late 1980s, the American President is legally obliged each year to file on Capitol Hill a statement on the security of the United States of America. Anyone who read the statement filed in September 2002 would have known that the war in Iraq was inevitable, and that no matter what the inspectorate led by Hans Blix did in Iraq and irrespective of what diplomatic moves were made, the US was going to war.

All US foreign policy is currently seen through the prism of 9-11. Anyone who wants a succinct description of where the US stands in terms of foreign policy can read the national security strategy of the United States of America, available on the Internet. Each section is introduced by a quotation from the US President's speeches at West Point, Washington Cathedral, Berlin or wherever, and these quotations are taken as themes for the policy. What comes across is clear - that terrorism, and the fight against it, is the prism through which everything is now seen. The national security strategy contains a definition of rogue states, and any state which qualifies as such, under even one heading, may be subject to attack by the USA. The legal basis of everything included there is quite tenuous.

For obvious reasons, which have been outlined on innumerable occasions, it is in our national interest to have the closest possible relationship with the United States of America, but difficulties are arising and will continue to do so. There is no internationally agreed legal definition of terrorism, yet the fight against terrorism is one of the mainsprings of US policy. How does one distinguish, for example, between terrorism and wars of national liberation? There is no legal definition of a rogue state, yet the national security strategy of the United States of America defines a rogue state and uses that definition as a spring of military, security and foreign policy. It is quite clear from the document that while the US is happy to intervene to combat terrorism or take a pre-emptive strike, as it is put, against a rogue state, the preference is to proceed with coalitions of the willing in different regions. It is quite clear that given a choice between acting under UN mandate or proceeding with what the US calls a coalition of the willing, the Americans will, in certain circumstances, choose to proceed with the latter.

When faced with the policy outlined by the US, there will continue to be direct conflict between the position taken by some of the larger European countries and the position taken by Ireland, no matter how we fudge it. Let us take, for example, the theory of the pre-emptive strike. The United States claims that one can make a pre-emptive strike to combat terrorism or to attack a rogue state. If one has any fears that a rogue state may be developing weapons of mass destruction, biological or nuclear, the US claims that one has a legal mandate to act against it. In fact, there is no legal basis to so proceed. When one looks at the nature of the world we live in now, at least 30 nations have the capacity to develop biological weapons of mass destruction and at least 12 nations either have nuclear weapons or the capacity to develop them. The issue of the pre-emptive strike has been well rehearsed in debates up to now, but the legal basis of such a strike has not been well rehearsed. I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs who insisted through thick and thin that intervention should take place only with a UN mandate, but that is not how it is seen in Washington. Washington is again prepared to intervene without a UN mandate. A close reading of the document suggests that Washington would actually prefer to go with a coalition of the willing. A curious phrase is used - "The coalition should not define the cause. The cause should define the coalition". That is the key to moving with a collection of allies for a particular set of policy reasons, and not moving under the international organisation, the United Nations.

When one looks at the legal basis for action, the US President, in particular, and his advisers talk about a war against evil. The curious thing is that this is not just rhetoric, or simply goodies fighting baddies. The phrase is used in a quasi-legal context. It is rather like challenging someone in debate in this country - although I have not heard this done recently, it was common in the past - to state what law a particular course of action would break, to which the reply was "the natural law". There is a well-defined concept of natural law in Catholicism, and there is now almost an equivalence of that in US thinking, where to fight evil is seen as a sufficient legal justification to intervene in a sovereign state for a particular set of purposes.

It will not be possible to continue, in the best interests of Ireland, trying to bridge the divide. There will be an opportunity when Ireland holds the Presidency of the EU. We must get international action back under control of the United Nations even though it is quite clear that the United Nations as a body has been substantially weakened by what has happened over the past six months in particular, and indeed over the past 12 months, and that American policy is set to go forward.

There are great dangers. Countries will move in different directions under the theory of the pre-emptive strike. We already have examples of this. Committee members might have noticed that shortly before the conflict in Iraq, Libya went into a sort of public relations hyperactivity, talking about its Government compensating the US families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. They were moving in this direction because they were listed third or fourth on the league table of rogue states. North Korea took a directly opposite view, reckoning that its only means of self-defence lay in developing weapons of mass destruction, which would give it some level of negotiating leverage. That is what North Korea has done, making that part of the world a distinctly more dangerous place.

The speech delivered today by the Minister is very like those delivered by Ministers for Foreign Affairs for quite some time past. I am not criticising it for that as it is a fair statement of the present position. Across key areas of national interest, however, whether it be the relationship with Great Britain, our new relationship with a new Europe or our relationship with the United States, the ground is moving very rapidly under our feet. The Minister and his advisers will have to move too. I know there is a consciousness of that. The response to date has been to try to avoid the hard questions and to fudge the difficulties that are emerging. Matters are now progressing so fast with the totally new American foreign policy that the luxury of fudge cannot continue. In particular, it cannot continue when this country takes on the onerous role of the EU Presidency in the first half of next year.

I thank the Chairman for indulging me. There are themes to which I hope to return, not today but in the future.

Chairman

The Deputy will have another opportunity when we are going through the Estimates. I thank him for his contribution.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words. I will perhaps appreciate even more the opportunity to return to some of the points in detail. In the ten minutes allowed to me, I would like to cover some of the issues on which the Minister touched. Before I do so, I join Deputy Noonan in paying tribute to the staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs. For a very long time now, on every occasion that I see the Estimates, I see encouragement for additional work at departmental level. People who represent economic or commercial interests are continually seeking ever more assistance, but the staff complement more or less remains the same. It is an understaffed and underfunded Department. We can return to that point. This is an under-financed committee.

The Minister makes a few initial points which are very interesting. Regarding aid, trade and debt, one of the opening topics, he suggested the global situation has deteriorated on all three, and that this is now happening more rapidly than previously. Let me take one tiny example on trade from the middle of that argument. As we prepare for the negotiations in Cancún, we cannot possibly repeat the net losses to continents such as Africa that took place in the last round of trade negotiations. The current crisis in coffee production, influenced by several factors, including the arrival of a new producer in the shape of Vietnam, is affecting many countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia and Uganda. I could think of many more. As a shorthand account I can say that certain of the countries that achieved some debt relief in 1997 through re-negotiation have had a greater sum wiped out by the deterioration in primary commodity prices. The trade situation is a great deal worse.

Another useful indicator would be to take the combined education and health expenditure of countries in Africa and the debt sum that arises out of that addition, comparing it with the current debt requirement. Here one gets horrific figures. If, for example, some of the countries could spend 1% more on their combined health and education budgets, it would lead to the survival of up to 11,000 children a day. If that had happened at the end of the 1990s, it would have meant that 21 million people would be alive on the continent of Africa who are not alive today. The issues of aid, trade and debt therefore hang very closely together.

I am willing to be corrected, as I do not have the figures before me, but it is my impression that aid has been declining fairly consistently, particularly for Africa, for almost ten years now. I believe that its share of foreign direct investment is approximately 0.4%. Its share of world trade has not only been static for some time but has fallen. I therefore take people who use such phrases as "saving Africa" with a pinch of salt. I can only touch on those topics at this stage. However, I agree that we are now in a worse situation regarding aid, trade and debt.

The Minister and I travelled with a colleague to the World Parliamentary Forum for the World Bank in Greece not so long ago, where we heard an inspirational speech from Mr. Wolfensohn of the World Bank that we could have predicted, having heard the bones of it before. Equally, we heard a totally defensive and aggressive speech from the deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund. The aggression regarding the problems I have pointed out was deeply dispiriting and disappointing. It was the majority view among those present that we would be much better off as parliamentarians supporting the millennium development goals rather than being consulted by the World Bank. No one wanted to have anything to do with the IMF and the terms Dr. Krueger was suggesting - making ourselves available to lobby and support a new instrument that would not have any impact on the communities in which we are interested. There is a strong case for our relating to the millennium development goals. I have sought, through parliamentary questions, information on what progress is being made. I am thinking in terms of the commitments made in Monterrey and Johannesburg. There are three components to the answer - the indications given at the conferences themselves; the committed funds; and, the funds that have been delivered which are appalling.

I wish to move from that set of preliminary remarks by saying that according to my rough calculations, based on the NGOs with which I deal, the cost of providing safe, clean water for everyone on the planet is about $28 billion. The cost of providing basic necessities, including universal primary education, is about $25 billion. It is extraordinary how people can say that we must tell ourselves that we are making progress because good intentions continue. We are losing the battle against world poverty and the battle to redress the ratio of expenditure on military pursuits versus tasks of human concern such as the provision of clean water, education and so forth. While some of the base figures on absolute poverty have changed, declining in some countries, the number of people dependent on $1 or $2 a day can be seen in United Nations development programme reports.

I turn to a second fundamental issue, mentioned by Deputy Noonan, namely that Irish foreign policy is governed by interests. I accept that I am in a minority when I say that Irish foreign policy should be governed by norms as well. I have had this debate for 25 years. There are those who should, if they are intelligent, be able to see that one can include normative aspirations within the concept of interests, if they are widely defined.

That enables me to make some general remarks under some specific topics covered by the Minister. The problem of the recovery of the United Nations, for example, is not the recovery of consensus. Our diplomats work very hard and have a well-earned reputation regarding not only the substance but the nuance of drafts. There is a reference in the Minister's speech to the improved position of United Nations representatives, for example, the Secretary General, in Iraq. I presume that it has been improved from the first draft, which of course I have not seen. I am sure that progress was made between the initial aggressive draft and the later one and that this constitutes an achievement. I am sure the Chairman will deal with this at a future meeting.

The Minister discussed UN Resolution 1441 of November in the Dáil. It was also discussed in the House of Commons and the US Senate. Those discussions were on the basis that there would be a role for the inspectors in identifying what had been the substance of many previous resolutions on Iraq over a 12 year period, namely, the existence and necessary destruction of weapons of mass destruction. We cannot move on and imagine that that was not the case.

In fairness to the Minister, he never told the House that the purpose of our facilitating the Americans by allowing them to use Shannon was regime change. He spoke of the importance of international law and the role of the UN itself. I see in the latest resolution a list of questions which I would like to put to the Minister. If this committee wished to return to Iraq, as it should, to examine the humanitarian situation, how would one get there and to whom would one apply? Would one apply to the authority? One can deal with the logistics of applying through our representatives at the United Nations, and I am sure that they would apply to someone too. However, speaking here at this committee, I wish to be in a position to justify what I say too. I said the World Health Organisation was quoted by UNICEF as suggesting that, if the war was fought door to door in Baghdad, there could be 100,000 casualties and 400,000 people could be affected secondarily through contaminated water and so on. Some 2.5 million people left Baghdad. The Republican Guard did not use the population as human shields. I welcome the fact that a siege did not take place. We cannot find out from anybody the full extent of the civilian casualties, the extent of the availability of electricity or who is replacing the work of the World Food Programme in central and southern Iraq - I have an idea about what is happening regarding governance in the Kurdish area. I told this committee on various occasions that some 42,000 people were working distributing food, but who will replace them? If one takes it that the Ba'ath Party has been disqualified, who is left to distribute the food? The world media has walked away.

With regard to Iraq, the issue for the United Nations or the European Union has not been the loss of consensus but the undermining of international law on the basis of threatened military superiority. That is what has happened. What can we as a foreign affairs committee joining other foreign affairs committees say about the removal of people to Guantanamo Bay or those from the Afghanistan conflict who are held in a black hole outside of national or international law? The Minister was thorough in answering questions put by me on this area previously, although we differed on the response he gave on the principle of pre-emption. His suggestion was that the jury is out on that. I said I know of no international lawyer who has justified the use of the principle of pre-emption in the way the United States does. I am free to say that and I intend to say it as often as is necessary.

Regarding a United Nations agenda, I suggest that on UN reform, it is useful for a country like Ireland to take up suggestions made by people like Dr. Sahnoun and others that we should consider humanitarian protection, that is, where people invite representatives into a country to protect human rights to avoid situations of genocide such as those that have occurred previously. This is crucially different from intervention on humanitarian grounds. Intervention and humanitarian intervention have been abused since Hitler's time for different reasons. The difference between the two is that in one case, one is justifying one's actions and, in the other, one is being invited to protect something. I am interested in that kind of debate as it is more important than achieving a consensus with those who are opposed to us.

I am sure the Minister has the wholehearted support of the committee for driving on the human rights section of his Department, the officials of which have the respect of many different countries for their work on establishing a new convention on the rights of the disabled. This convention, which will join the three others in respect of children, racism and gender, will be warmly welcomed. Many of us are highly embarrassed at the undermining of the original position of the Department of Foreign Affairs by what is reported to be the attitude of the Minister with responsibility for equality and law reform. A strong European position that accommodates or achieves a consensus could be as much a loss as it is a gain. In my view, it would be a loss. We took the high ground and we cannot be seen to lose it. As we speak here, I understand the Mexican ambassador is speaking on this initiative in UCD.

On the notion of security, I am sure the Minister of State would agree that there is a great need - I hope it will be one of the initiatives taken by the Irish Presidency of the European Union - to begin a proper consideration of Islam and of the Islamic world and to debate the difference between the peaceful tenets of that religion and the abuses thereof which represent a threat everywhere. We should bear in mind that there are 80,000 people of Arabic and Islamic background under consideration in the United States as "out of status" people. We used to use that phrase "out of status" as opposed to the term "illegal immigrant" at one time. Of those 80,000, some 13,000 face deportation. On terrorism, eliminating the seed-beds of terrorism through being willing to shift the balance from military expenditure to the vital areas of aid and trade and assisting poorer countries is probably the best possible way to proceed.

I am intrigued by the phrase that it is great to achieve a consensus, which I have heard used often in answers to questions I have put. I suppose people down the country would say that it is better for people to be talking to each other than to be beating each other up, but it is hard to envisage a real gain at its heart if international law loses out, if the Rome court loses and if conditionalities are imposed on a whole series of levels of co-operation. This is possibly a time for taking risks, all of which should be taken on the normative side. The great advantage of normative foreign policy is that it enhances all one's interests in the long-term and those who have immense interests at the cost of a normative foreign policy will be forever adapting themselves. I am not speaking about the Minister but Ministers I knew who pursued line of interests only. It is a net loss game.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and the spokespersons for their contributions, which will be followed by a question and answer session on Vote 38. I will open with a reference to Vote 38, subhead A.6 on office premises and expenses. I very much welcome what the Minister has said about the establishment of the new bilateral economic relations division at the beginning of last year or the end of the previous year. I would like the Minister of State to indicate how it is operating. It is particularly important because we were anxious to set up an Ireland House in New York for a number of years. The various agencies involved considered the matter but nothing happened until we suggested that the Department of Foreign Affairs act as a co-ordinator. That was an important example. We are slow to set up Ireland Houses in other countries. We have a great opportunity to do so, especially with all the applicant countries to the European Union, the new developments taking place worldwide and the improvement in our trade relations. Is the Minister of State aware of the number of Ireland Houses that are in place? There must be scope for considerable development in that area. I presume that the bilateral economic relations division is examining this question. I would strongly support a leading role being played by the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area and look forward to its playing a major role in this regard.

With all the problems in Iraq, to which the two spokespersons referred, and the recent developments, there is a tendency on a worldwide basis to somewhat neglect the great catastrophes and crises in Africa generally. The committee is anxious to maintain a balance in this regard and to highlight the problems in Africa and other countries. We have had good discussions with the Minister of State who has been doing great work in this area to which we need to devote a great deal more of our attention. He has made Ethiopia one of the priority areas for the Department and is concentrating on it in a major way. Partly related to that, we are undertaking a study project and report on Ethiopia in which we want to examine further ways forward. We wish to highlight just what is happening there. Many people have made presentations to the committee about what their organisations are doing and we want to keep the focus on that work generally, as well as focusing particularly on Ethiopia.

Other Deputies may wish to ask some questions. I know that some dismay was expressed at the inclusion of the sale of the embassy in Lagos in the appropriations-in-aid. The Embassy will now be located in Abuja instead of Lagos.

Mr. Noonan

It is trading up.

Mr. Cowen

I thank Deputies for their thoughtful contributions on some of the policy issues which, projecting forward, we could discuss here or elsewhere in more detail. As regards the issue of bilateral economic relations, I was asked how many Ireland Houses we have. In 1987, the Government decided that, where feasible, Embassies and semi-State offices should be brought together in a single location. In 1994, Ireland House was opened in New York, which houses the Irish Consulate General and six Irish semi-State agencies based in New York. Those are: Enterprise Ireland, Aer Lingus, IDA, Tourism Ireland, Shannon Development and CIE Tours.

In February 1995, the official opening took place of Ireland House in Tokyo. The Embassy there accommodates three Irish semi-State agencies: Enterprise Ireland, IDA and Tourism Ireland. In October 1997, the official opening took place of Ireland House in Madrid, which houses the Embassy and four semi-State agencies: Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia, Tourism Ireland and BIM, together with a drugs liaison officer of the Garda Síochána.

In Seoul, the Embassy, IDA and Enterprise Ireland share offices with the Department of Foreign Affairs and there are also Enterprise Ireland representatives in the Embassies in Beijing, Budapest, Kuala Lumpur, Moscow, Prague, Riga and Warsaw. A Tourism Ireland representative is also based in Helsinki.

The whole idea of the Ireland House concept is that where there is a critical mass of agencies, as is obviously the case in New York, Japan and Spain, these should be brought together. We also have the same concept, although not quite as grandiose as the Ireland House idea, in other locations. In such locations there may be one or two agencies which would not justify the purchase of a new building in a prestige location. The idea decided upon by the Government in 1987 has meant that there is a sharing of facilities and resources between agencies and Embassies where this is appropriate, practical, means something and adds value. As members can see, there have been some developments in that regard.

The idea of the bilateral economic relations division itself is a reflection of the fact that the traditional reach of our economy has gone beyond Britain, Europe and the United States. There is a need for us to recognise that in many ways, while it was heralded before, the Irish economy has become global. The idea of an Asia strategy was drafted and it has been quite successful in terms of co-ordinating the efforts of Embassies throughout Asia.

It is important to point out that this is not an attempt by the Department of Foreign Affairs to duplicate the work of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or promotional agencies. It is simply making sure that the available resources are fully used in locations where, for quite proper reasons, Enterprise Ireland and other semi-State bodies do not have a physical presence on the ground or where our penetration of markets would not yet justify it. It is a question of making Embassies available for such resources. Their job is not simply about political reporting. From reading articles on the Internet or in The Economist or Newsweek, we can gain a fair idea of what is going on in any part of the world. While, obviously, we receive excellent reporting of political developments from the diplomatic world, this is not exclusively the Embassies' job. Such reporting was, traditionally, a function of embassies, particularly for small countries that did not have economic interests beyond their normal geographical reach. That has changed now, however, because the nature of the Irish economy has changed. With exports currently worth €80 billion, compared to €5 billion when we joined the European Union, this gives an indication of how important is a physical presence in foreign markets. It is important for us to bring together a political, diplomatic and economic role through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Staff from other Departments come on secondment from time to time from the Department of Agriculture and Food or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and their activities, quite apart from those of State agencies, must be co-ordinated. It is a question of making sure that businesses which do not have an interface with Irish agencies abroad in certain locations are aware that this resource is available through our Embassy network. Where there is a joint presence, we need to ensure there is real co-ordination between Embassies and Enterprise Ireland representatives and others in order that people are not carrying on as if they do not know what the others are doing. That is important from the point of view of synergy and coherence, as well as being of practical help to business people who may have an interest in trying to penetrate certain markets. They must get the necessary open-door access that is helpful in many countries where the commercial culture may be somewhat different from our own. That, basically, is the thinking behind the concept which is working quite well, although there is a lot more we can and must do. It is accepted by the Department that the policy of Government in using our diplomatic networks as well as our existing agency networks as a means of promoting trade interests is not only a legitimate but necessary reality that needs to be reflected in the work they do, given the opportunities that we must continue to seek out to maintain prosperity at home.

We can discuss the bulk of Deputy Higgins's points concerning development issues under Vote 39 on which the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has more day-to-day expertise.

Much of what Deputy Noonan had to say about projecting policy forward was correct. Perhaps I can reply to it together with what Deputy Higgins had to say about where we stand on the policy side, philosophically speaking in terms of whether such policy is interest-based or norm-based. I believe that both are legitimate bases and are reflected in our policy. If we did not have a normative element to our foreign policy, then we would not have a situation where the substantial development aid we provide remains untied. If we were simply pursuing interests exclusively, we would have tied aid in respect of our overseas development programme. Peer reviews have been carried out, including the OECD reports that externally reviewed our overseas development aid, even during the time when we were exponentially increasing it to the point at which we are now, quite proudly, the sixth or seventh biggest contributor per capita in the world. They reflected the fact that we have a very strong normative element to our policy. We have seen a quadrupling in the volume of overseas development aid contributions over a seven or eight year period. We are a much more prosperous country enjoying considerable and unthought of prosperity and have, rightly, quadrupled our financial contribution over that decade. That is a statement of values and it is normative. It gives practical effect to the values we espouse and claim are important.

I strongly believe we have a normative basis to our foreign policy but we must also have a realistic view of our interests which are legitimate. As Deputy Noonan said, it is about pursuing interests. When one speaks about and emphasises the pursuance of interests, it is not on the basis that one does not have a philosophical basis for pursuing them or that one is prepared to pursue one's interests unethically or inappropriately or that we do not have a normative or philosophical basis for what we are doing - the contrary is the case. They are not mutually exclusive. To highlight one at the expense of the other, as far as Ireland's experience under successive Governments is concerned, is to exaggerate the point. One can pick instances where perhaps one aspect of policy dominated another but if one looks at the matter in its generality, overseas development aid being a very illustrative example, there is no question but that there is both a normative and an interest based aspect to our policy.

For example, the same applies in relation to Iraq. In terms of Resolution 1441 it was not clear as to whether a second resolution was required legally because there was not agreement on it. The United States, Britain and others said there was a legal basis for action under previous resolutions. Many others said that a second resolution was required legally. Our point was that regardless of the legal point of view on that question and in terms of the solidarity of the international community being maintained and the legitimacy of the action being more widely accepted, a second resolution was required politically - apart from the academic legal debate one could have as to whether a legal basis existed. In our explanation of both we said that on that basis and regardless of the disagreement between both sides on the issue, that is, the failure to agree a paragraph requiring the US and Britain to come back to seek a second resolution, we would insist on participation and support would be predicated on a second resolution and not on the basis of us taking a particular view on the legality of the question. In terms of political acceptability and legitimacy of action subsequently taken, it was a necessary means by which international solidarity could best be maintained, that is, by a second resolution. When it was introduced, our position remained consistent. That was an example of a normative value system informing our foreign policy.

Despite perhaps some members of the public here and elsewhere having a colloquial interpretation of what participation in a war might mean, we made it clear that in defending our interests, which we cogently argued based on precedent, maintaining overflight and landing facilities was consistent with the policy which had been pursued by successive Governments for the previous 40 years. We maintained that policy and did not depart from it. That line of argumentation did not meet with unanimity in the House or outside it, but we have a very strong basis for putting that point of view. Again, that was a confluence of interests and norms in terms of what our position was, our participation in legal terms and the duty of any Government to maintain our interests and not end up taking a position which would seem to be hostile against those who are, as has been said, very important partners in terms of our economic and political interests.

Those two examples, one perhaps meeting with more unanimity than the other in terms of their acceptability as examples, confirm that the characterisation of Irish foreign policy at present, or in the past, as being exclusively normative or exclusively interest driven is not a fair assessment of the situation. That point can be made regardless of the political compilation of any Government. A consistent broad philosophical position has been taken by successive Governments. Because of that consistency of approach, the credibility of Governments' foreign policy is of a high standing internationally.

As regards the transatlantic relationship, in economic terms there is a parity - there is, as it were, a confirmation that conflict or confrontation brings mutually assured damage to both sides. It is in the political and security areas that the parity does not exist. That brings us back to our need, as members of the European Union, to make sure we have a greater level of influence on the security side, which does not mean projecting hard power positions, as is the case of the United States, for example.

Consistent with the principles of the treaties, how can we increase our influence without Europe becoming a version of America? In the EU, members remain individual nation states. It is not a federal superstate like the United States and it will not become one. As was said by Deputy Noonan, the fact that the enlargement process is under way and is to be completed within the next year changes and should encourage debate on where we see our security interests in the future but not on the basis that we will depart from policy positions with which we have been very comfortable in the past and which reflect a strong tradition here through our commitment to multilateralism, particularly UN peacekeeping. In the aftermath of the Cold War and the Berlin Wall coming down, the terminology we use must reflect the modern realities in which we are engaged.

The new treaty will continue to refer to the primacy of the United Nations, and I take the point regarding people's interpretation of the national security strategy of the United States. That challenges us not to countervail against or counterpoise that. We need to promote effective multilateralism because it has failed. It should have worked and we continue to promote its benefits. The challenge put down by the UN Secretary General at the General Assembly last September in regard to Iraq, the Middle East and the war on terror was for us to show that in terms of multilateralism we could come up with effective responsible responses to all the questions. The Security Council failed us which is a more accurate way of putting it rather than the idea that multilateralism failed. It is true some members of the Security Council did not look sufficiently beyond their own national interests in coming forward with a common position despite it being, in international law, the forum through which we should have reached a solution, which would have had a rules based outcome even if it meant military action at some stage, as provided for under the charter in certain circumstances, based on agreement which was not forthcoming.

I do not accept we are engaged in fudge, although it is a complex situation. There are no facile answers. We are committed to more effective multilateralsim and to trying to restore the United Nations to the centre of matters. As a consequence of what happened in Iraq, unfortunately, it is not at the centre, and we need to work at that. We can curse the darkness or we can think.

In relation to the international legal basis for the new threats - the asymmetric threats which are not within sovereign states and where international relations cannot be based on the 17th century Treaty of Wesphalia on the sovereignty of states - we now have sources of power which are not legitimate within states, which cross boundaries of states and which are terroristic and use violence as a method. What international legal instruments have we devised to meet these new realities and phenomena? We have much thinking to do on devising a sufficient international league of instruments to meet these new realities and phenomena as we have not yet developed a proper legal basis for response. It should not take the form of arbitrary decisions or doctrines of pre-emption by any individual state, no matter how powerful, but should be on the basis of collective understanding and agreement. For example, what are the obligations on the international community if, within the boundaries of a sovereign state, a duly elected Government becomes corrupted and imposes genocide on its own people? Are people to tell me that the sovereignty of states shall remain supreme in those circumstances? These questions will have to be answered by the international community.

Profound questions have been raised. I hope we are all trying to develop our thinking in this area, but the principles which inform our policy remain a commitment to multilateralism, a recognition that the European Union is the place where our political destiny rests, a commitment to enlargement of the Union and the need to consider our security policy for the future in the context of these developments. We must also recognise that the Cold War is over and there are no longer two major blocs in the world competing ideologically and using poorer and more unstable parts of the world as proxies for their wars which would invoke Armageddon and lead to a nuclear conflict of world proportions. These, and the failure of colonisation and decolonisation are corollaries of what has been raised in this very good debate. I will leave the trade debt and development issues to the Minister of State under Vote 39.

Mr. Noonan

I thank the Minister for a good impromptu reply to an impromptu set of questions. It is clear he has given some thought to the issues I raised. However, there is little recognition of that in the wider public debate or those organs of the media which would regard themselves as contributors to this kind of debate. I encourage the Minister to further refine his thoughts and put the kind of policy positions he is outlining on the record at every available opportunity.

Ireland can play a significant role. The Department, the diplomatic service and, in general terms, the foreign affairs position of the country are respected internationally. We should not be shy in advocating our positions.

The crunch issue concerns the response of states and the international community to situations of threat while maintaining an alignment with an agreed concept of international law. Large military forces are not needed to advance a conceptual policy framework. In view of this, I encourage the Minister to speak in scripted terms along the lines he has advanced at every available forum.

Will the Minister indicate how he considers the situation in Northern Ireland will proceed during the summer? Does he consider the security risks are as threatening as many on the security side believe? Does he believe elections will be held in the autumn and is it the policy of the Government to support the holding of elections then? Is the arrangement irretrievably broken down or does he envisage a strategy for the re-establishment of a power-sharing Executive with an appropriate Assembly supporting it?

Mr. M. Higgins

We always have limited time to debate foreign affairs issues. On the last occasion Question Time was devoted to foreign affairs it was truncated for reasons beyond our control. The Minister and I will have to agree to differ on a number of fundamental points he made. I believe United Nations Resolution 1441 of last November, which was succeeded by a number of public statements in the House of Commons and the United States, including in the Senate, was predicated on a false basis, which cannot be ignored. It is not accidental that the public regards statements made in those places, which informed our position indirectly, as lacking in credibility.

There are illustrations regarding the accession countries. For example, Slovenia originally asked to sign the famous letter sent to President Bush which the countries of the new Europe were asked to sign, but following public pressure it refused overflight facilities. Why did it take that course of action? That is a matter that needs to be addressed.

The war provoked a distance between peoples and their governments. Post-1989 we encourage governments to strengthen democracy. However, in the case of the Gulf War, in one country after another governments were forced to take up positions and in the process distance themselves from their people. This was most dramatic in the case of the new Turkish Government, where public disapproval for its activities in the war never fell below 80%. A similar situation prevailed in Spain. This is a factor to be taken into account.

I addressed the sovereignty issue in my distinction between humanitarian intervention and the protection of human rights. I suggested that I would be willing to give way on the question of sovereignty if a group invited persons to intervene to protect their rights. However, that is hugely different from the position taken by a party which intervenes in the name of protecting humanitarian intervention. We can debate this on another occasion, but I suggest that humanitarian intervention is a discredited concept in international theory, whereas a theory regarding the protection of human rights has yet to be tested. My problem is that a coalition of the willing can be put together to implement the discredited concept while a reformed United Nations is required to implement the other.

United Nations Resolution 1454 urges compliance with the Geneva Convention - I am sure there is an improvement in the second as opposed to the first draft. It urges the occupying powers to respect the terms of the Convention. It correctly speaks of bringing those involved in the previous regime to trial for crimes against humanity. What about the crimes in the other direction? There is an unrecognised court, while this committee has no idea of how many civilians have been killed, or the state of the infrastructure, such as electricity. The Red Cross is unable to provide these figures. We also do not know the number of secondary casualties, for example, in terms of those affected by contaminated water and so on. These issues remain. We cannot simply switch on in times of war and then walk away. A similar situation applies in the case of Africa, where a sustained set of facts on famine stares us in the face.

With regard to the general profile, the cultural relations committee is not included in the Estimate. To what area has it been transferred? As a former Minister for Arts and Culture, I had aspirations to have it included in my Department. It is a comment on some of my successors that nobody knows what has happened to such organisations. I am sure it is good that there are cultural relations with other countries and note expenditure in this area is to increase by 4%.

There is an interesting aspect of pre-accession assistance for EU candidate countries on which I want the Minister to reflect, that is, the position of Poland. A I understand it, Poland, an enthusiastic member of the coalition, is being given administrative responsibility for part of Iraq. Poland, I understand, is being rewarded by the occupying forces. This is interesting. We reflected earlier on the transatlantic relationships and the relationship between the European Union and the United States. There are some who would suggest that the United States has embedded itself in the new Europe in some respects, but we can discuss this another day.

I want to make a couple of further points on the Estimates. On the contributions to bodies in Ireland for the furtherance of international relations, Deputy Noonan makes a valid point about the debate we need to have. We need not agree, but we should debate these issues and the new threatening international environment which faces us. Every year I raise the issue of expenditure on the European movement Ireland, the funding for which is €127,000 in the 2003 Estimate. Listed in the subhead underneath that figure is the figure for the Irish United Nations Association, which limps along with €20,000. There is a need for expansion in this area, particularly through the schools system. I raise this every year, for example, in the context of all those education programmes such as transition year. I am aware of the background to this issue, it was revived more than once. Money could be spent in that area. Otherwise how can we talk about issues such as Iraq and Africa?

The other, slightly more controversial, issue I want to raise is the big dollop of funding going to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. While that organisation vacuums figures and facts through interviews in the various member countries, the quality of its work is most questionable. On a straight comparison with the work of the OECD, the quality of the economic and social work done in applicant countries, in Russia in transition and in other areas by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is not mentioned here but the contribution to which we will probably come to in another way, is thorough and multi-paradigmatic. It does not assume a single model of economics. The people doing it are better qualified and they are not rigidly from the one stable of the new liberal model. If you take the documents on similar topics, they do not begin to compare with each other. Much of the time the OECD is a kind of tarted-up economic journalism.

The same may be said of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America as of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. I am not just saying this out of some kind of academic elitism. I am simply saying that any student I ever taught would take the documents, side by side, and say that in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ones, their assumptions are stated and do not peddle an ideological message. Sometimes one would get better analysis in Newsweek than in some of the OECD stuff. The OECD stuff is dated, old, staid, ideologically laden, limited and unimpressive. I strongly urge the Minister to consider where such money is being allocated. If I was spending €20,000 on explaining the United Nations to the people of Ireland, given spending of €1.38 million to listen to the OECD with two year old reports, I would not find it difficult to make a choice.

Chairman

As Deputy Higgins may recall, the 1966 development in education here was based on an OECD report.

Mr. M. Higgins

It has not proven its methodology in 30 years.

Chairman

Ireland currently holds the chair of the education committee there. I call on the Minister to make his concluding remarks.

Mr. Cowen

It is important that I say a few words about Northern Ireland first. It is important to point out that last week the Dáil in Private Members' time adopted, by 124 votes to ten, a Government motion which was broadly reflective of amendments by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Rightly, they adopted the motion for the purpose of sending the broad political message - there were no real differences of substance. The adopted motion puts our position - the Parliament's position is very much in line with that of the Government - that we need to have elections, regardless of any other considerations, by the autumn.

I visited Northern Ireland and was in touch with people from the time of the acts of completion process, which did not work totally successfully, although there were welcome advances on positions outlined. These advances in the position, if not sufficient to restore political partnership in all its institutional arrangements, were certainly welcome. The Joint Declaration is a document of substance which charts in detail the remaining aspects of the Agreement that need to be fully implemented, but we should not underestimate the sense across the community, not only but particularly in the Nationalist community, of dismay or disappointment - one does not want to use too strong a word - about the deferral of the elections and how much that has fed a negative dynamic, how much it really ignites for people old stereotypes regarding the denial of rights, regarding elections being an optional extra dependent upon whether one can forecast the outcome.

As we all know, that is not a sensible way to put the roots of democracy down in a permanent way. None of us ever fought elections when we thought it was the optimum time - if we all had our way, we would perhaps get in here once and not have another election again. However, the democratic life of a society can only be enhanced and strengthened if we have elections when they are due, and in this case the tenure of the Assembly had expired and there was a need for elections because there needs to be, inculcated into the political culture of Northern Ireland, the idea that you make choices and there are consequences. If we have elections in the autumn and if the institutions are not restored, if we cannot successfully come to agreement on the trust and confidence issues for an end to paramilitarism and for the institutions, we will not have devolved administration in the North because the only model that is available is the one that is in the Good Friday Agreement. If there is a need for that, perhaps the lesson has to be learnt. Obviously we would seek to put forward an enabling context before any such election which would encourage everyone to recognise that this model for governance is the one that has provided the best prospects of sustainable peace and prosperity for the whole island and for everyone within Northern Ireland, but the idea that by voting a certain way one cannot only veto constitutional developments but also political progress itself is not within the remit of anyone in the community, Unionist or Nationalist, and that is the lesson that has to be learned.

As I stated in my Dáil speech last week on that motion, which reflects accurately and candidly my position, the realities which have to be confronted are twofold. The deficit of confidence is a two-way street. The end of paramilitarism, as per paragraph 13, has to be effected. By the same token Unionists should not participate in partnership arrangements on the basis of what defines their area of comfort as we proceed. It is a question of the full implementation of the Agreement, not about those aspects of it with which some can live and some cannot.

It is the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement that is in question because its vision is about a just society without victims. There have been too many victims in both communities. The best guarantee of its working would be a devolved administration, an active executive, an Assembly that works as envisaged, cross-Border arrangements being enthusiastically, properly and appropriately exercised in a way that brings mutual benefit to all, and through the British-Irish Council in so far as it provides another forum. We already have an effective forum in the European Union which confirms the maturation of relationships between both countries on the basis of a partnership process and not a neo-colonial relationship. That is the best way in which this Agreement will work.

If there are some aspects of the institutional framework that cannot be brought forward at present, we will move into an intergovernmental phase as is the default mechanism in the Agreement. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference proceeds with the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is not a preference we desire but it is the one provided for. An international agreement provides for that default mechanism and it will be implemented until such time as we can find sufficient partners to proceed with the devolved elements of the Agreement as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement.

We have made constitutional changes on the basis of those institutional arrangements working to the full. We cannot tolerate a situation where, in the event of some institutional arrangements not being proceeded with, we are left with a status quo ante situation, having made the irreversible constitutional arrangements we have made. That is not provided for in the Agreement and we would expect and have no reason but to believe that the British Government will ensure that the collective political will of both Governments will be demonstrably visible in the context of a post-election scenario. This might unfortunately mean that devolved government would still not be available despite our best efforts.

The lesson to be learned from this process is that there is, despite the ups and downs and disappointments, a real will on everyone's part to make this work, a recognition that we cannot and should not go back, and a responsibility on everyone not to allow a political vacuum to be created, certainly not one that would allow dissidents or those on all sides who are trying to smash this Agreement to successfully obtain a platform to do so. The idea of the acts of completion was to move from incremental management that would sustain the process until issues were dealt with in their own time.

We have now learnt that this process can only work on the basis of the remaining difficult but important issues being comprehensively dealt with in a way that feeds mutual confidence to both sides, that we are into a new phase and that the transformative nature of the Agreement can become a reality on the basis of full, effective and enthusiastic partnership by all concerned. We live in hope that it can happen.

I am determined to do all I can in the meantime to find positive momentum in the process, one of which would be a calm summer. Work is ongoing and discussions are taking place between the parties and groups in the interface areas to try to maintain calm. A specific and definitive date for an election would bring positive momentum to the process. Developments are taking place in unionism which we observe and the outcome of which we must await. It is important that the centre of gravity of unionism is established. I hope that those who have taken risks will be rewarded. No one in Irish nationalism would partner unionism on the basis that we would go back to some plan B or a reversal to past models. I have made that very clear.

We have a dispensation and we should make the Agreement work. Any aspects of it upon which people wish to improve can be provided for in the paragraph 8 review. The workings of the Agreement, the need for more collegiality in the Executive and the half in, half out approach of the DUP to the executive must be dealt with. A number of issues can be examined. The workings of the Agreement can be examined but its basic principles and values are not up for renegotiation. That is the position of both Governments.

Both Governments emerged from Farmleigh in the aftermath of a serious disagreement on the deferral of elections and spoke of the implementation of the Agreement being the template for future activity. I am working on the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on that basis. A three and a half hour meeting was held across the broad range of issues, socio-economic and political. That will continue until such time, and the day cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned, as a devolved partnership and administration can resume its responsibilities so that we can proceed with the full implementation of the Agreement. I hope those few words clarify matters in case there was any doubt about where we stand.

Regarding the other issues raised, I hear what the Deputy says regarding the OECD. Clearly its book list is not on the top of his pile on the desk at home. We will look at the issue he raised. We have an ambassador working to the OECD. Clearly some costs derive from that, no matter how frugal an individual we can identify within the Department. The ability to spend money is one that cannot escape any of us. They are legitimate costs.

Regarding UN association, that simply reflects the level of activity in this regard. It is a voluntary organisation and if we want to beef it up and provide a greater amount of money, I have no objection in principle in a future Estimate to providing it and would be glad to do so. I will undertake a review of some of the regional UN documents to see whether we should be more supportive of those and to have a debate on the same wavelength with the Deputy the next time.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for the time he has given and his replies. I also thank him, the Minister of State and their officials for attending. I note that David Cooney, the political director, joined us at an early stage. I join those who said we have received great support from the staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We welcome this.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I am pleased to be here with the Minister to seek approval for Vote 39 - International Co-operation. The proposed allocation is €374 million, an increase of 9.3% or €32 million over the outturn for 2002 and the highest ever in the history of the programme. When contributions from other Departments to ODA are taken into account, the ODA allocation for 2003 should exceed €450 million. The latest GNI figures from the Department of Finance suggest that our total ODA in 2002, €422 million, is 0.40% of GNI, in comparison with €320 million or 0.33% of GNI in 2001. This represents significant progress towards the UN target of 0.7%. The increased allocation for Vote 39 in 2003 should, based on the latest forecast for GNI, enable us to improve slightly on our performance to 0.41% of GNI.

The proposed increase in the Vote for 2003 is made in difficult economic circumstances. Improving on our 2002 figure is a measure of the Government's commitment to meeting the UN figure of 0.7% of GNI by 2007. Over the past decade we have made steady progress towards the UN target, moving steadily up the league table of donors. The OECD shows that in 1990-91 Ireland's aid programme was 0.16% of GNP, which made us 21st of 22 OECD states. Our programme has grown in size every year since and in line with that growth we were at mid-table with 0.30% by 1996. Preliminary figures released by the OECD in April show that in 2002 in percentage terms Ireland was the seventh largest donor after Belgium with 0.42% and that our performance was well above the EU average. A further increased allocation in 2003 will consolidate our reputation as one of the top donors internationally. We can be justifiably proud of our progress in this regard towards the UN target, particularly as it can be viewed against a backdrop of stagnant or falling aid from other countries.

The value of Ireland's aid should be viewed not just in monetary terms. It is not enough for us to point to substantial increases in resources in a given period, we must be sure our aid makes a real difference to those most in need, the poorest of the poor in developing countries.

Alleviating poverty is at the heart of the programme. Reduction in poverty requires first a focus on basic needs such as basic health care, primary education, basic sanitation and clean water. These objectives are prominent in our activities in all the programme countries and elsewhere in the aid programme. To focus on these key goals alone would not be sufficient to bring about lasting progress and change. We need to focus also within the bilateral programme on areas such as good governance, public sector performance, capacity building and fostering private enterprise. We must also help partner Governments to tackle the growing crisis of HIV-AIDS. The Ireland Aid programme seeks to address all these key issues.

The effectiveness and value for money of assistance channelled through multilateral organisations is a matter of concern. Ireland has been to the forefront of member states pressing the European Commission to reform the management and delivery of EU assistance. We have played an important advocacy role in encouraging EU partners to increase their support for developing countries. We decide our funding for EU agencies and other international organisations on the basis of careful assessment of where we are likely to achieve optimal impact and maximum value for money.

The Government's aid programme has acquired an enviable international reputation. Its quality has been attested to by the OECD peer review process. The last review, in 1999, found the programme had a sound policy basis and concluded that it was a strong performer in putting a partnership approach into practice, particularly in programme countries. The review also made some focused recommendations concerning the future growth of the programme and how this should be managed. I am satisfied we have made good progress in these areas and that the peer review in 2003, which is currently in progress, will again attest to the impact and value of the programme.

We must always seek to raise awareness generally of the programme, to communicate the scale of the problems facing developing countries and to convey that we are playing our part in helping them to deal with those issues. Not only will this foster a greater sense of public ownership, it will ensure a greater level of scrutiny and accountability regarding the use of public funds and will ensure a continuing focus on the quality of the programme.

In the coming months we will intensify efforts to bring the development work carried out by the Government to the attention of the public. We in Ireland have a long tradition of solidarity with the poor and dispossessed, a tradition influenced by our history of poverty, famine and mass emigration. Many Irish people, lay and religious, have worked in development and we have never shirked our responsibility towards those less fortunate than ourselves. This programme belongs to the people and it is right that they should learn more about the invaluable work being done on their behalf.

I now turn to the main elements of the programme, dealing with each in subhead order. Structural Vote 39 is consistent with 2002. Administrative costs for subhead A at less than €23 million account for 6% of total expenditure under the programme, a slight reduction on 2002. Salaries and allowances of staff in Dublin and in the field account for almost €10 million of this amount and other administrative costs, such as travel, telecommunications, premises and consultancies, amount to €12.8 million, a reduction of €0.5 million on 2002. The balance of €351 million is spread across six programme subheads.

Subhead B is the bilateral grant-in-aid. A sum of €254 million is allocated as grant-in-aid for the bilateral aid programme. This subhead accounts for more than two thirds of the total Vote.

At the heart of the bilateral programme are the country programmes in Africa. As in previous years, our main focus is the programme countries, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. The focus in these countries is on poverty reduction and on basic needs such as primary education, basic health care, water and sanitation. Over the past year, I witnessed at first hand the scale of the challenges which our programme countries face. Next week I will travel to Uganda and Tanzania to inspect our programmes. I will also hold discussions with senior Government representatives in Uganda.

In March last, I announced that East Timor would be designated as our seventh programme country and the first outside Africa. We have had an involvement in the country for a number of years and the upgrading of its status to programme country is recognition of the tremendous progress made to date in a young and vibrant democracy born in tough circumstances. It also symbolises our commitment to assisting the new Government to reduce poverty, build capacity and promote good governance and human rights in the early years.

On HIV-AIDS, €30 million is set aside under a dedicated budget line in subhead B to combat HIV-AIDS. In addition, spending in other areas across the programme on the HIV-AIDS should bring the total allocated to more than €50 million in 2003. There is a compelling case for making HIV-AIDS a key focus of our development programme. While more than 40 million people are living with HIV-AIDS worldwide, more than two thirds of these live in sub-Saharan Africa in the world's poorest countries. With HIV-AIDS now constituting the leading cause of death in the region, what was once considered a health challenge is now a fundamental threat to development. Already it is reversing a generation of development efforts across sub-Saharan Africa. The most startling evidence of this is the plunge in life expectancy. HIV-AIDS life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa has been reduced by almost one third, from approximately 63 years to 43 years, reversing gains made over the last century. Many babies born to HIV positive mothers are infected with the disease and most of these will die by the age of five years. Millions of children are affected through the loss of one or both parents.

There are severe repercussions across all sectors of the economy. In Zambia, for instance, the number of teachers dying from HIV-AIDS exceeds the numbers in training. Declining participation in the labour force is resulting in a fall in agricultural productivity, further aggravating food security problems in Southern Africa and Ethiopia. HIV-AIDS represents the biggest single obstacle to reducing poverty and achieving international development goals. Unless the international community can tackle the crisis effectively, our efforts to support development in other spheres will be undermined. Accordingly, we will continue to integrate measures to combat HIV-AIDS into all facets of our programme.

Subhead B includes a dedicated provision of €37.4 million, or 10% of the entire Vote, for NGOs. The principal component within this figure relates to the new multi-annual programme scheme or MAPS. The aim of the MAPS is to place our engagement with key NGOs on a more strategic level. Providing funding on a multi-annual basis should facilitate better planning of development activities and should result in more effective aid delivery. In developing partnership with NGOs over the years, we have recognised that NGOs have strengths which can contribute to our overall strategies, particularly their ability to work directly with the poor. In addition, they can often support projects at local level which it is more difficult for official aid to do.

NGOs, including missionaries, qualify for significant funding from other areas of the programme, including emergency humanitarian assistance under subhead D, rehabilitation assistance, HIV-AIDS funding and human rights activities. It is not possible to predict exactly how much will be allocated throughout the course of 2003 to NGOs from each of these subheads. As a guide, last year NGOs received €55.4 million directly from Ireland Aid, while a further €9.2 million was allocated through APSO and the NCDE, bringing the total allocation to NGOs from Vote 39 in 2002 to €64.6 million. This would equate to 17% of the Vote. Other sizeable programmes covered under subhead B include provision of €17.5 million for non-programme countries, principally South Africa; €12 million for post-emergency rehabilitation assistance and €10 million for co-financing with multilateral organisations.

Under subhead C, the Agency for Personal Services Overseas, or APSO as it is more commonly known, accounts for €21.7 million. The proposed increase of €4 million, 23%, in the APSO allocation relates to a new missionary development fund. The fund, which is being administered by APSO, is designed to assist missionaries in their development work with local communities and to develop their own capacity. Pursuant to a recommendation in the Ireland Aid review, a process of integrating APSO into Ireland Aid is under way.

A sum of €23 million is provided under subhead D for emergency humanitarian assistance. The purpose of our humanitarian programme is to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies which arise across the globe. Particular attention is given to water and sanitation, health and nutrition, emergency feeding, shelter and emergency supplies and refugee protection. The humanitarian programme is complemented by the €12 million rehabilitation programme under subhead B, which focuses on post-emergency recovery cases.

Subheads E and F provide for payments to international agencies. The €12 million under subhead E concerns obligatory payments due under international treaties. Most of this relates to payments to the European Development Fund. A further €38 million is set aside under subhead F for voluntary contributions to UN and other international organisations. As in previous years, the main recipients will be the UNDP, UNICEF and the UNHCR.

A sum of €3 million is provided under subhead G for bilateral development co-operation in eastern Europe. The subhead, established for the first time last year, accounts for less than 1% of total expenditure under the Vote. Our assistance under this heading is complemented by the provision of a further €2.5 million under subhead B for the stability pact for south-eastern Europe.

This is a brief summary of the wide-ranging activities to be undertaken under the Government's development co-operation programme during 2003. We are delivering an aid programme of the highest quality and effectiveness on behalf of the people which is making a real difference to the lives of the poorest people in the world.

The Chairman, Deputy Higgins and others made some comments earlier in discussion with the Minister. We welcome the committee's study in Ethiopia, one of our programme countries. I visited the country and the committee's work complements our emphasis on trying to assist the desperate situation there. During my visit earlier this year we learned that there were up to 14 million people in a pre-famine situation. We would like to see the focus maintained in that country and appreciate the committee's support.

I agree with the points made by Deputy Higgins on trade, development and aid. Both this and the previous Government have had a strong focus on this area. I represented Ireland at the WTO talks in Seattle which were disastrous. However, they were more successful in Doha. During that period the then Department of Trade worked closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs in promoting a strong trade and development agenda. We were instrumental in putting together the "everything but arms" initiative which assisted, in particular, the 48 least developed countries to gain access to markets in the European Union. We have also been strongly supportive of the legal advice centre in Geneva which will help countries which have little capacity to deal with the intricacies of the complex, multilateral legal system.

We are also a founder member of the AITIC, Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation, a decision recently ratified by the Dáil. This is an independent organisation which offers services in trade capacity building to developing countries. Not only are we an advocate of this area but we are putting a lot of money and resources into helping these countries. The Department believes we must do more than just provide development aid and must help countries to trade out of poverty. This is something we will continue to pursue. We also support the committee's comments on the millennium development goals.

On the issue of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, reference was made to the fact that I will chair a meeting tonight in the O'Reilly Hall in UCD which will be addressed by Luis Alfonso De Alba, the deputy permanent representative of Mexico to the UN. He will come to an important meeting organised by the centre for disability studies in UCD and the disability law and policy research unit in NUIG. Professor Gerard Quinn will also be present. I know a sub-committee of this committee has been dealing with this issue and many of the Deputies here have been active in that discussion.

The United Nations has been considering the question of a new instrument aimed at the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities. The first meeting of the UN ad hoc committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral international convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities was held in New York from 29 July to 9 August 2002. The next meeting of the committee will be held from 16 to 27 June, next week, in New York. We believe that the guiding principles of the ad hoc committee and any new legally binding instrument in relation to the human rights of persons with disabilities that might emerge from it should be to ensure that persons with disabilities can better enjoy their human rights. Ireland, with its EU partners, will aim to ensure that the processes and outcomes of the committee meet this principle and, in advance of the next meeting, will work to reach a common position in regard to the committee's work.

There has been much debate about this issue. As somebody who has been involved in a previous capacity as Minister of State for development, I believe it is vital that the Government continues to support at international level the rights of people with disabilities. Two thirds of those with disabilities live in the developing world. I have seen the horrific effects of land mines on men, women and children in places such as Cambodia. Children who had lost limbs were trying to live their lives to the full in those circumstances. I have been involved in an initiative in collaboration with the ILO to help disabled women entrepreneurs in Ethiopia. I worked with the ILO when I was Minister of State with responsibility for labour. We are active at international level in putting resources into the area of disability and helping people who have been victims of land mines. It is important that we also pursue a strong position in ensuring the highest standards with regard to the human rights of those with disabilities.

Tonight's meeting is very important. The bottom line is that we will contribute actively and constructively in the work of this ad hoc committee. There has been an internal Government debate because there are two Departments involved - the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is understandable that there are differences of emphasis and nuances because of the domestic situation. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for domestic law. I am pleased that a public debate is being held tonight. It is important to involve the public in this debate. I am satisfied that the Government is progressing in the right direction. This process will take approximately three or four years. The position of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of my party has been to support the human rights of people with disabilities. Deputy Higgins may remember that it was his party and mine which initiated this process when we were in government together from 1994 to 1997. Good work has been done in the past on this issue and it must be continued. This is the year when the Special Olympics are being held in Ireland and it is important to show solidarity with those whose rights deserve to be protected.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dermot Gallagher, Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Donoghue, Director of Ireland Aid, Mr. John McCullagh and Mr. Tony Taaffe.

Mr. Noonan

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. I compliment the policymakers and the staff of the Department both at home and overseas; the volunteer workers, in particular those in APSO, and the NGOs and members of the NGO organisations active in the field. Our record is good and continues to be good, and I hope progress can be maintained. Significant progress has been made towards the commitment of 0.7% of GNP to be expended on overseas development aid. This gives rise to my first question to the Minister of State. Has there been a change in the basis of the calculation? While the Minister of State's speech refers to percentages of GNP, for example, it was just 0.16% of GNP in 1991 and then it went to the middle ground position of 0.30.% and then just behind that of Belgium at 0.42%, all seeming to be percentages of GNP.

As the Minister of State carries his commitment forward and mentions the current year, he has changed the base and talks about GNI, gross national income, a different base for calculation. It is a fairly recent concept. We are familiar with GNP and GDP, but it seems that if the Minister of State is not including transfers from multinational companies in the GNI figure, he will come up with a higher percentage when GNI is used instead of GNP. Are we importing some fiction from the Department of Finance that shows we are maintaining position when our percentage is actually not as good as it looks or is it the case that we are not familiar with the new——

Mr. T. Kitt

I will come back to the Deputy.

Mr. Noonan

Is a new concept being introduced? The Minister of State made strong commitments on the cancellation of debt in Third World countries as a matter of Government policy. He has been silent in recent months on the commitment and he has been particularly silent at this committee. I appreciate that it is not directly to do with the Estimates, but I thought the Minister of State would have taken the opportunity to refer to it. Will he restate the position and say what active steps is he taking, rather than statements of principle, to achieve this end? To what extent has the Minister of State brought his colleagues in the Department of Finance into line with his policy position as those officials attend meetings of the World Bank or the IMF?

The HIV-AIDS situation in sub-Saharan Africa is devastating and some succinct comments in the Minister of State's speech emphasise this position. What focused assistance is Ireland giving to combat HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa? What practical elements of policy are being implemented to alleviate the problem?

Will the Minister of State expand on his statement on subhead C, the new status of APSO which is being integrated into Ireland Aid, and the additional moneys in the subhead being dedicated to aiding missionaries in development activity in various countries? APSO has made a strong contribution over the years. It has provided an outlet for many volunteer workers who wished to work in underdeveloped countries. Many of these volunteers in a previous generation might have become priests or nuns. They still have the same vocational commitment, but would rather spend a three year or five year period than dedicate their lives to the work. I question the wisdom of the policy of integration and ask the Minister of State to justify it with a more expanded reference to the report to which he has referred.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will begin with the issue of disability because the Minister of State mentioned it and he is chairing the meeting this evening. I am interested in the Government's position on pursuing a thematic convention or treaty. The dispute and the exchange of letters sometimes suggest that there is a conflict between the implementation of the standard rules or the six main instruments, where rights are referred to which might be invoked or drawn on people with disability, and a thematic treaty. The recommendations of the document on human rights and disability by Gerard Quinn and Theresa Geoghegan concluded that the existence of a thematic treaty, rather than eroding any commitment to those procedures which existed previously, would serve as a powerful framework for advancing their use. It is not a choice of one or the other. The suggestion that what we all want is what will be better for people with disability is to fudge the issue. The Minister of State correctly identified the source of this suggestion in the human rights initiative in the White Paper on foreign policy, which is to the credit of the human rights section. Ireland became a leader in the European debate on this matter. To suggest that we would fall back on some inventory of procedures available to people with disability would represent an international defeat for us. I fully support the Minister of State in holding the ground he has taken.

I refer to another aspect, expressing it in plainer language. The coming into existence of such a treaty or convention would serve as a template. It is not correct to say the existence of this template would, in some way, place an intolerable burden and that there would be competing demands from different categories of those with disability or need. The only net effect is that it would reinforce existing usage of such protections as already exist in international law and, more importantly, it is the State which would have to give its reasons for non-compliance rather than those in need. The State would have a perfectly justifiable case in saying it could not make provision, but the net point is that the treaty would be in place and, as has been pointed out in an international study, would be of benefit to hundreds of millions of people in the developing world. That is the reason it is relevant in this context - they are the people with the least protection provision or guarantee.

My next point is a simple one. The Minister of State referred to "indicators moving with great facility from GNI to GNP" - Deputy Noonan also referred to this. I suggest it is somewhat unfair on the part of the Minister of State to quote "OECD figures showing that, for the period 1991, Ireland's aid programme stood at just 0.16% of GNP." This is being used comparatively to the preceding paragraph, in which GNI is used. Let me put my question plainly. My understanding is that the Government's commitment is not to 0.7% of GNI. Will the Minister of State clarify this? If GNI is being substituted for something else, we should be informed accordingly. The situation in relation to GNI, GDP and GNP is simple enough. On the basis that the transition from GNP to GDP is already understood, we should be informed as to how the transition from GDP to GNI is being made. It is as simple as that. When comparisons are being made, I suggest that it would be more helpful to use the same indicator throughout all paragraphs of the Minister of State's statement.

The position in relation to APSO is somewhat extraordinary. I have asked about this previously and perhaps there is a very good explanation. What is the position with regard to the category of people who volunteered prior to restructuring? Where do such people go now? A considerable time has elapsed. I understand that a committee under the chairmanship of former Deputy Desmond O'Malley, our Chairman's illustrious predecessor, is monitoring progress towards implementation of the aid review, refurbishment or whatever. I know many who volunteered through APSO in the past. What is the current procedure for people who wish to volunteer for such service? I am unsure of the recruitment possibilities to Ireland Aid, with its expanded budget. One of the disturbing features in foreign affairs generally - I am glad the Minister is present at this stage - is that the proportion of non-permanent people appears to be growing. Even in the Department of Foreign Affairs itself, there is a component of people on very short-term and insecure contracts. In general, the Department of Foreign Affairs could be expanded.

I refer to some small housekeeping points in relation to the Estimate - I am sure the Minister of State will understand my concern. How can one possibly say one has been participating in the forefront, with member states and the European Commission, to reform the management and delivery of EU assistance? Is there not €20 billion unspent? That is acting as a powerful disincentive for those willing to give more. In relation to the reference to UNDP, UNICEF and other agencies, I cannot speak highly enough of UNICEF's activity, particularly its sustained efforts in humanitarian relief during the war in Iraq, including the daily supply of two million litres of water and the provision of education aid to children whose schooling has been interrupted.

I suggest the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to bring the document on debt cancellation with him to meetings of international institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and so on. I would strongly support such an initiative. However, my information is that not only does the Minister for Finance disapprove of my proposals in relation to the Tobin tax, but he also manages to forget the proposals of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Chairman

There is a vote in the Dáil shortly. Does the Minister of State wish to reply briefly before we suspend?

Mr. T. Kitt

Yes. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Noonan on GNP and GNI, according to the Department of Finance, there is no difference in the use of the terms. Personally, I am more comfortable with GNP, but I am informed the OECD is now using GNI. I accept the Deputy's right to question me on this.

Chairman

Will the Minister of State provide an explanatory note on the matter for the committee?

Mr. T. Kitt

Certainly. On debt relief, as Deputy Higgins has acknowledged, we have a very strong policy. The fact that I did not dwell on it in my introductory statement does not indicate that I am ignoring it. It has been discussed fully at previous meetings of this committee. I announced the initiative in consultation with the Department of Finance, with which we have worked closely on this matter since July 2002. As well as supporting the HIPIC initiative at every level, I have raised this issue in the context of my various overseas visits, including my consultation with President Meles of Ethiopia. I regard it as a very important initiative and will continue to support it. We have also supported Debt Relief International, for which we have provided funding in relation to the HIPIC initiative.

Deputy Noonan and others referred to HIV-AIDS. The Government's commitment has been clearly indicated by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and me. We are allocating €50 million per year towards the effort to deal with the current pandemic, not only on prevention and care but also on the treatment side, which has rightly been identified as an important element. This is also linked to our work at WTO level on the TRIPPS Agreement with regard to access to medicines. Deputies will be aware of the problems in that regard with some of the major pharmaceutical companies, to which we hope to reach some conclusion at the WTO meeting in Cancún.

With regard to Ireland's international aid contribution, it has been generally acknowledged, including Bono's comments yesterday, that we have contributed strongly to the global fund. We have not just pledged money, we have delivered it. The figure mentioned by Bono yesterday did not represent the full amount we have contributed. We are also authorising a further contribution to that fund, bringing it to a total of €20 million over two years. That is a considerable investment. The Taoiseach and I launched the Irish initiative in relation to the Horn of Africa at the sustainable development conference in Johannesburg.

On APSO, there is a great deal of work in progress behind the scenes in my Department. The people concerned will be integrated into Ireland Aid. It is important that we do not send a signal to the public at large that we are in any way disconnecting the public from this tremendous role which has been played by volunteers over many years. I referred earlier to the work of the missionary movement. There are discussions in progress at official level with the Department of Finance on staffing issues. The APSO staff will be integrated into Ireland Aid. In relation to the volunteer aspect, I will make an announcement as soon as possible, following a review which I have asked my Department officials to undertake, on a whole new approach to voluntary service. There is an untapped resource among the public, not just young people but also retired persons who would like to participate and become involved in regard to the developing world.

Chairman

I hope the Minister will consider social welfare payments, pensions and such matters. I brought forward a measure in that regard at one stage. We should consider what needs to be done.

Mr. T. Kitt

I agree.

Chairman

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's meeting.