On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. He is joined by Mr. Eoin Ryan and Ms Maria Graham, who are principal officers in the Department, and Mr. Maurice Coughlan, who is a finance officer in the Department. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the 2010 Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - Vote 25. I ask the Minister to make an opening statement, to be followed by the comments and observations of members of the committee.
Vote 25 - Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Supplementary)
I appreciate the opportunity to present and discuss with the select committee the proposed 2010 Supplementary Estimate for my Department's Vote, for which I seek Dáil approval. I thank the committee for agreeing to take the matter at short notice. The purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to allow a contribution of €23 million to be paid by Ireland to assist developing countries in responding to climate change. We are talking about adaptation. The opportunity to make the proposed contribution arises from savings in my Department's Vote, specifically under subhead C1 from which the water services investment programme is funded. It is intended to transfer the funding into subhead D5, which relates to international climate change commitments, and to make the proposed contribution from there. The subhead was used in the recent past to support a previous package, the Bonn Declaration, which assists developing countries in responding to climate change. That was a much smaller package. It was provided over a four-year period and ended in 2008.
I will set out the background to the €23 million contribution proposed. It arose in the context of the EU preparations for the 15th conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which took place in Copenhagen in December 2009. During those preparations, Ireland gave a commitment to make a contribution of up to €100 million to a financial package to be provided by developed countries between 2010 and 2012. The purpose of the proposed package was to assist developing countries in addressing climate change while efforts to agree a new international treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol continued under the framework convention. The EU committed to provide €7.2 billion in what is known as "fast-start finance" over a three year period. The collective commitment of the developed countries was subsequently reflected in the Copenhagen Accord.
Paragraph 8 of the accord states, inter alia:
Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries ... The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012 ...
The EU contribution represents a significant portion of the overall commitment, which reflects EU leadership and determination in progressing the climate agenda internationally.
The term "fast-start finance" arises from the fact that the funding to be provided in the short term, from 2010 to 2012, is only an interim step in the context of the ongoing international negotiations under the UN convention. Significantly greater funding will be required in the medium and longer term. Paragraph 8 of the Copenhagen Accord addresses the post-2012 situation with a commitment "to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries." That longer-term commitment is a matter for another day. For now, the priority is to progress Ireland's commitment to provide immediate financial support and to reassure developing countries, even in the challenging economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, that we recognise their greater plight in trying to deal with climate change and their urgent need for assistance.
It is often stated that climate change is a challenge and, while certainly true, this does not convey the full extent of the potential impact or the urgency of agreeing and giving operational effect to a comprehensive global response. Climate change is a threat to all people of this world and it is not something theoretical or vague that may happen in the future. People in many developing countries across the globe are already living under the threat to which I refer and are experiencing the true extent of the challenge to be faced in their everyday lives.
Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, life on the climate front line is difficult and adaptation to major alterations in the climate system has become a fact of daily life. In countries such as Malawi, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia and Ethiopia, climate impacts, which include drought, increased flooding, storms and heat waves, as well as changes in growing seasons and regions, changes in water quality and quantity and sea-level rise, are increasingly occurring events. The people of the developing world who contributed least to global warming have been the first to suffer its punishing impacts. The merit of their case for support from developed countries speaks for itself.
In a recent lecture at Harvard University, Ms Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, issued a clear reminder of the massive human, economic and environmental costs the world faces as a result of climate change. Referring to the deadly floods in central Europe, the floods and mud slides in Mexico and China, the record-breaking heat wave in Russia and the catastrophic flooding caused in Pakistan which was caused by monsoons, the Commissioner expressed a view, which I share, that these extreme weather events either reflect climate change at work now or are a foretaste of it.
We need only consider the weather we have experienced during the past ten days or so to realise the extent to which unexpected weather events can disrupt our lives, threaten vulnerable citizens and undermine our productivity and viability. In a recently produced video, Mr. Al Gore considers the number of weather-related events and incidents that have occurred in recent years. He indicates that, compared to the previous 75 years, the number of such events which occurred in the past 30 years has quadrupled. It is clear that we can no longer afford to ignore this problem.
According to a recent World Health Organization document "the global warming that has occurred since the 1970s was already causing over 140,000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004". That puts the threat of climate change in clear perspective and underpins the case being made by the European Union for a comprehensive global response, including financial support, for those countries least responsible and least well equipped to respond. That is the background to my determination to honour Ireland's commitment to the fast-start-finance package in the three years 2010 to 2012.
The international climate change process remains far from settled following the outcome of the Copenhagen conference last year. It is far from clear how much progress will have been made when the 16th Conference of the Parties, which is ongoing in Cancún, Mexico, concludes at the end of this week. I remain hopeful that a significant incremental step forward will be taken at Cancún and that this will open up a real prospect of finalising a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol at the 17th conference in Durban in 2011.
At the Copenhagen conference last year, the commitment on the part of developed countries to fast-start and longer-term financial support for developing countries was one of the few positive outcomes. Honouring those commitments is central to rebuilding trust between the parties and refocusing our collective efforts on achieving the ultimate objective of reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a safe level. The international process under the UN convention is the right way forward. I see no realistic alternative and we must, therefore, make every possible effort to underpin it with a powerful global consensus built on partnership and determination. Mutual respect and mutual support are key to that partnership. Our collective future is our collective responsibility.
I wish to deal briefly with the funding relating to water services. As already stated, the €23 million contribution which it is proposed to make in respect of fast-start financing will be made available from savings emerging on the subhead C1 - water services. These savings arise mainly are a result of less funding being required for new commencements than originally anticipated under the water services investment programme element of the subhead. The number of new contracts commencing in 2010 on major schemes will be broadly in line with original estimates. However, many of these contracts - particularly a number of the larger ones - did not commence until later in the year and this gave rise to the savings in question.
I am confident that the contracts included in the programme are well aligned with economic and environmental objectives. The updated programme is also aligned with the first of the river basin management plans, which were completed earlier this year and which set out clear targets for protecting and improving rivers, lakes and ground waters.
The €435 million funding available in 2011 for water services will allow for considerable activity in the sector, in terms of contracts currently under construction and new commencements. New work in 2011 will be targeted on key projects in the programme required to meet the strategic water services needs of gateways and hubs, critical mains rehabilitation, improving drinking water supplies with identified risks and upgrading of waste water infrastructure required as a result of European Court of Justice cases and the measures required under the water framework directive.
I repeat my appreciation to the committee for taking this motion so quickly. I acknowledge that this is a substantial financial contribution at a particularly difficulty time in economic and fiscal terms. However, I cannot overemphasise the responsibility that rests on developed countries to strengthen and progress the international negotiations by honouring the fast-start funding commitment in the Copenhagen Accord.
The proposed contribution represents a significant early instalment on our overall commitment. The contribution under consideration today will be made through the Global Climate Change Alliance established by the European Commission in 2007. The main objectives of the alliance are: to deepen policy dialogue between the EU and developing countries on climate change, particularly in the context of ongoing international negotiations on a post-2012 climate regime; and to step up support to targeted countries in respect of adaptation and mitigation measures and to integrate climate change issues into their development strategies.
The alliance has a very strong development focus and is targeted primarily at least developed countries and small island developing states. It is already active in three of Ireland's priority overseas development assistance countries - Ethiopia, Tanzania and Mozambique - and it is hoped that it will reach out to others in due course. Recognising the danger that climate change will further aggravate global food insecurity, one of the objectives of the alliance is to provide priority funding to the agriculture, water and natural resource management sectors, as well as to disaster risk reduction. On the climate front line, adaptation is not an option and the cost cannot and should not be borne by those least responsible and least able to afford it.
The proposed contribution through the Global Climate Change Alliance is a positive step for Ireland, in helping developing countries deal with climate change and in supporting the ongoing international effort to find agreement on an effective global response. I would greatly welcome the support of the committee for this important Supplementary Estimate.
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive opening statement.
Considering the budget that just has been announced, I am surprised to see the Minister in attendance given that the Estimates for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government clearly indicate savage reductions of an average of 27% in its Vote for 2011. For example, an area such as the subhead relating to the environment has had its funding reduced by 66%. Moreover, this subhead includes the carbon fund, which has been reduced by 87%. The Minister did not pick a great day on which to herald the wisdom of a Supplementary Estimate of €23 million, given his failure to get agreement at the Cabinet table not simply on this issue but on many other issues that presumably are an embarrassment to him after three and a half years in office. It is a great disappointment to read pages E54 and E55 of the 2011 Estimates, which relate to the departmental Estimate for the forthcoming year. Heritage, environment, waste management and housing all face massive reductions. The only Estimate that remains is to pay the wages of staff and to pay pensioners. I do not see evidence of a meaningful role. For example, the National Parks and Wildlife Service faces a massive reduction of 56%, considering our responsibilities to implement the European Union habitats directive.
Moreover, we have not had a carbon budget for a while either.
It will be produced next week.
Will it? There was not one last year.
There was one last year as well.
Members of this committee did not have much to say about it and the Minister should appear before it with a carbon budget. It would be interesting to ascertain what progress is being made in respect of the carbon targets that were set out three years ago. The Minister also might provide members with an update on the status of the climate change Bill and when it will be published.
As for the €23 million being sought, Fine Gael certainly has no difficulty in honouring an international agreement and as a country, we are obliged to so do in line with what was agreed to in Copenhagen. The €23 million requested comprises the first part of its contribution. However, I was surprised to learn the Minister is finding savings under the Water Framework Directive obligations, as many schemes await the go-ahead in every constituency and county. Local authorities would be surprised that the Minister has made savings of the amount he outlined today in respect of the water services programme. I am sure he gets constant demands on a weekly basis from officials of local authorities to start new schemes to prevent the fall-out and fines that would arise were we to not meet our obligations under the European Union Water Framework Directive.
Although the Minister seeks approval for a Supplementary Estimate of €23 million, at the same time his Estimate for 2011 in respect of the carbon fund is falling from €33 million to €4 million. From where will the Minister get the money for 2011 to meet his obligations under this agreement? Will he find more savings under some other heading? With all due respect, I do not know from where the Minister will get such savings, unless he closes down some of the services.
The Deputy's party may be in office.
That is the problem. He will have left us quite a legacy. The new Government will have quite a legacy when it takes up the cudgels. This looks like a three-card trick to me, in that at the end of the year, the Minister is looking for savings made elsewhere to meet an international obligation to which we have signed up. I do not discern where in the Estimates the Minister has planned for a further payment of €20 million or more in 2011.
This is an early instalment of an international agreements being honoured and I do not wish to delay the meeting further, having made these points. I am surprised that the Minister's record of meeting his financial obligations to meet his policy objectives has been so tarnished by the record on view today in respect of the overall Estimates for 2011. I can see no planned further investment for the subhead on which members are being asked to vote today in respect of this Supplementary Estimate. If the State being obliged to find savings to meet its international obligations becomes a regular occurrence over the next two years, that might get over an immediate presentational issue for the Minister for Finance. However, it certainly would not get over the real issue of where the resources are to be found to meet the €100 million commitment for which we have signed up.
I welcome the Minister before the committee this afternoon. As indicated earlier, Ireland has international commitments and must honour them. Consequently, the Labour Party will support this measure this afternoon. However, I refer to what was brought before the House with regard to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is almost as though a scorched earth approach is being taken. Whoever the Minister's successor may be will arrive at an entirely different Department to that at which the Minister arrived three years ago, as its working budget will be reduced significantly.
A number of headings give rise to comment but I wish to focus on two of them. While the social housing provision and support programme has been greatly reduced in 2011, that follows on from a highly significant reduction in 2010. This reflects a policy whereby leasing still appears to be the first option of choice or the most preferred method coming from the Department. This is surprising, given that the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination of this expenditure on foot of my request that his office should consider this matter, reported that there is no net saving on the leasing programme and that it is cost-neutral. Capital acquisition and leasing work out as being the same. If there is no net financial difference between leasing and capital acquisition, one must ask what are the social implications of either approach. The social implications of the former are known. There is no security of tenure, one is more or less subsidising developers for a 20-year period and a reinstatement cost arises when those apartments are returned to them at the end of that period. It is regrettable that despite the examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of this approach, the Department still is pursuing it.
The second point pertains to the Estimates in respect of private housing adaptation grants and other supports. Last year, that figure was more or less maintained from the 2009 provision at the predicted sum. This time last year, I questioned some overhanging funds from the HSE. In March 2008, it was announced that the HSE and the local authority grant would be combined under a single funding stream. Some difficulties arose and its implementation was continually postponed. However, it appears as though the HSE still retained some money under the housing aid for the elderly programme. In the budgets for 2011, has the entire funding for housing adaptation been allocated to the local authorities or will some funding still be operated through the HSE? If it is a case that funding solely rests with the local authorities, it means that the reduction is possibly greater and more significant than the 27% that has been indicated on the balance sheet.
The Minister to respond, especially to the Supplementary Estimate. Members had quite a debate on other issues there.
I wish to revert to a number of issues raised first by Deputy Hogan. I will put this in context by noting this is a pledge given by Ireland. The Copenhagen Accord is not a legally binding document but the view shared by me and members present is that we should honour a pledge given. This is the reason I have appeared before this committee in these very straitened circumstances. It has been pointed out by the Deputies opposite that this budget was very severe. It is not easy to find €6 billion and if they have magic wands, they might give me one. I have had to go through each head and subhead. We have had cuts in education but we managed to stave off some of the major ones such as pupil teacher ratios, which we felt was right in the context of recovery and what is possible and necessary. If we are to have an economic recovery we have to invest in education. We had to prioritise. Deputies will also be aware that there are cuts in social welfare. There are cuts across the board.
Nevertheless, the spending in my Department is still significant. There is huge capital investment in water and housing for regeneration projects. Deputy Hogan referred to the carbon fund. It has been used to purchase carbon credits. We have purchased all we need for 2008-12. I have been before the committee and explained this.
The Minister has not been here for a long time, in spite of our best efforts.
I am quite a regular visitor and I will be here again.
We have not seen the Minister for a long time.
We have bought those credits which accounts for the reduction in the fund because there is no longer a need for it. The overall Estimate for 2011 is still €1.6 billion which is a substantial sum of money, in particular in terms of capital investment.
Deputy Hogan also asked about the sum of €100 million over the coming years. There is no question that the money will be difficult to find but it does not have to be done every single year. We combine with the Department of Foreign Affairs on this issue and we are considering real additionality. We have said it will be 50:50 and we also have, if necessary, approximately €101 million in the environment fund which we can call upon. It is normally ring fenced for certain environmental issues, which is rightly the case, but adaptation in developing countries is a major environment issue. The money will be found.
I believe passionately in climate justice and that those people who are least to blame for climate crisis should be protected. This should be the message coming out, not just from the Government but from Opposition Deputies. It is not an issue of which we should make a political football, rather, it is an issue-----
We are not making a political football out of it. We agree with his Estimate but the Minister is broadening the agenda to have a go at something else. He should stick to the Supplementary Estimates.
If the Deputy wants me to stick to the Supplementary Estimates-----
The substantive issue.
I am more than happy to stick to the substantive issue.
On a point of clarification, on the substantive issue before us the Minister is alleging that we are not in favour of it or is accusing us of creating a political football. That is not the case. That is what he said.
No. I said the Deputy is bringing in matters which are not directly related to this Supplementary Estimate. He was discussing various heads and subheads.
The Minister raised the heading of water in order to get the money.
I raised it because that is the fact. If I had not mentioned it the Deputy would have raised it anyway.
Correct. The Minister is quite right.
I want to address the points raised by Deputy Lynch. If I have interpreted him correctly, he focused on housing. We are still spending a great deal of money on this area, comprising approximately €800 million, in 2011. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General considered these matters in detail in October. It is a fact that leasing gives greater choices but unquestionably it needs to be kept under review. We want to ensure we get the best value for money.
While these issues are important in their own right, they are not directly related to the issue before the committee. I welcome Deputy Lynch's statement that the Labour Party supports keeping to this important pledge. The sum of €100 million, which will no doubt become more and more difficult to raise over the next few years, should be a priority.
This also applies to the ODA. As practising politicians we know that issues such as ODA and climate justice do not arise on the doorsteps. Nobody raises these issues and asks how much we allocate to ODA. The argument is often made that charity begins at home. We know the arguments but in some cases those arguments can be somewhat short-sighted. We need to look at the global picture. We are part of a global community and that is why it is important that we maintain our ODA commitments and stick to the pledges we made as part of the Copenhagen accord.
On the private housing adaptation grant programme, I understood the goal was that all funding for that area was to move to the local authority structure and away from the HSE. Is the Estimate, as laid out, indicating that has happened or is additional funding still going to the HSE for that programme?
I can get the Deputy the exact details of the programme. I know the point he is making. The same applies to homelessness. I have had meetings with the agencies who deal with this and they tell me it is not just happening my Department. We have maintained the budget for homelessness for our Department but agencies argue that funding from the HSE has been cut.
There is a significant difference. There is a multi-agency approach to homelessness. The Department, local authorities and the HSE are involved in it. With regard to the disabled persons grant scheme and the housing aid for the elderly programme, the decision was made that local authorities would deal with them exclusively. This is not the same as the issue of homelessness where a number of agencies are involved. The decision was made that one Department would deal with the fund, namely the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Is the Estimate, as indicated for 2010 inclusive of the total sum of money for that or is funding still being given to the HSE?
I do not have the answer. I will have to get the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, to revert to the Deputy. I do not want to give him the wrong information which could mislead him.
Is the Deputy referring to the 2011 Estimate?
It has a roll-on effect. I will not discuss the 2011 Estimates now.
I will ensure I revert to the Deputy in detail.
When the Minister states that we are committed to making a contribution of up to €100 million does that mean we could make less of a contribution? How is the overall contribution worked out? When are we scheduled to pay the first contribution? Will it be made now or at a later stage? There is reference to a significant early instalment.
It means that we could decide to give nothing if we were so minded.
We are being put between a rock and hard place because we are not getting time to consider the issue. When the global alliance group was set up in 2007 things were very different for Ireland. A commitment was made in December 2009 and the situation at that time was also different to our current situation. Many things have happened since then.
There is an issue about climate change as a concept or campaign which is very politically correct. It is as if one cannot question anything. Much of the debate on this issue happened before European economies began to go into recession. Things are very different now. The Minister will reduce funding for water services by €23 million because he feels not as much new infrastructure needs to be built. Water mains rehabilitation was extremely important and we are having problems with our weather and with flooding. If we are taking money away from the upgrading of water infrastructure and putting it into another area. It is a huge decision. To ask us, just like that, to take this in without proper debate is unreasonable.
I am getting a mixed message.
Things are complicated.
Can I answer?
The Minister says mixed messages but we are allowed to question issues.
Deputy Tuffy did not actually ask a question but I want to respond to the points that she made. Deputy Ciarán Lynch was clear and unequivocal about Labour Party support for this. I now hear from Deputy Tuffy that she is not too keen on this, judging by her reaction.
No, I said that I have doubts about it.
Whatever formula the Deputy wants to use, she is using an argument I just referred to, namely, given the economic downturn, can we afford this? She then questioned the science behind climate change.
No, I certainly did not.
The Deputy is saying it is politically correct and people are not allowed to question it.
That is not science, that is politics.
I keep being interrupted. The problems associated with climate change are more acute now than ever before and are more acutely felt by people in developing countries than ever before. Only recently Mary Robinson spoke passionately about climate justice and the need for developed countries to make their contribution. This €100 million over three years was pledged last year, it is not new on the table. We knew we had to make this commitment. Of course, because of the economic situation, we must do our best to find this money in a way that is sensible. Every single economic decision is now extremely difficult. Deputy Tuffy will find exactly the same. It appears both Fine Gael and the Labour Party will be in government and Deputy Tuffy will discover these decisions are not easy but they are necessary. We should honour these commitments.
It is open to the Deputy to say she does not care about the €100 million and to write it off; she would not lose a single vote for doing it. That is not the point. This must be based on principles and values that we hold dear and that have stood us in good stead over the years, where we say that we believe there should be global justice, particularly climate justice, because this is interrelated. That is what this is about, it is not about being politically correct, it is about recognising the reality of climate change.
There are different ways. If one wants the poor in the developing world to adapt to climate change, the best thing to do is to do something about the fact they are poor. That is a debate that is needed in aid agencies and climate change bodies. This is not straightforward, the most important issue is equality. There are different ways of looking at the issue. The Minister already said we had no obligation to give €100 million. Was there an obligation to give €23 million right now.
A pledge was given. Is the Copenhagen accord legally binding? No, it is not. Do we have a duty and a moral obligation? Certainly we do. We could have taken the unilateral view that we should not be giving €100 million over three years. Would that have been the right thing to do? I do not believe so.
That is Green ideology, it is the Minister's point of view.
I beg the Deputy's pardon, could she please stop that nonsense?
It is.
The Deputy must be in election mode to come out with a cheap phrase like that.
I did not call for an election.
This is about global justice and there are people in the Labour Party who would agree with me. Deputy Tuffy disagrees, that is fine, she can have her point of view but there are others in her party who are slightly more enlightened and who agree with me.
I do not disagree with the need for global justice but there are different ways of looking at it. When this was agreed, things were very different. It is a big thing to take money away when we are losing up to 60% of our water and we are faced with an inability to cope with flooding. This is a major step, that is what I am saying. We should have been given more time to think about this and debate it.
There was plenty of time. We must decide whether we want to do it or not. Deputy Lynch says he wants to do it while Deputy Tuffy is expressing doubts. That is a matter for her.
We do not have much choice because of the length of time we are being given, that is what I am saying.
I cannot dictate to the Labour Party what it wants to do. It can have it both ways if it wants.
Perhaps the Minister can answer my question. Does this measure come under our percentage of ODA?
No. The way we want to do this, which comes back to the question of development aid, addresses the fact that groups such as Oxfam and Concern are anxious to attain additionality, where we do not rebrand our ODA as climate adaptation money for this fast start financing. The agreement, which is a good agreement, is that it is 50:50, with half from ODA and half from additional funding. We do not need to do it year by year but it is over a three year period. How the Government wants to do it is a matter for it, or for the incoming Government.
This happened in Copenhagen last year.
That is correct.
Was this sort of issue debated there?
That is the whole point. It was agreed in Copenhagen last year and it was the Taoiseach who made this commitment on Ireland's behalf that for this three year period, we would make a contribution of €100 million. The 27 individual member states of the European Union and the Union itself made a commitment so it would have been remiss of us, as a country that until recently enjoyed high growth and was contributing to climate change through its own carbon emissions, if we were to say we did not want to be part of this. People would have looked askance at us, and rightly so.
I want the Minister to clarify one or two things. He mentioned the ODA figures. I cannot recall them off the top of my head but there has been a reduction in the ODA budget this year. There is an argument that ODA should be scrapped and that we should move to this approach instead. Is the equivalent reduction in the ODA budget similar to the amount we are discussing now?
No. My recollection is that there was a small reduction of around €35 million.
In the ODA?
Yes, which still puts us on track in terms of 0.52% as we move towards our commitment of 0.7%, if we continue. It all depends on where we are in our growth projections.
There is a €35 million reduction in ODA, and €23 million is being committed through this. That amounts to a net reduction in the money going to overseas aid. I will not get into the complex areas of calculations involving GNP and GDP but in net terms, there has been a reduction in ODA, even if we include this figure.
Of course, that is a fact if we look at it from that point of view. We must recall that because of the lower growth rates in the economy, every year there has been a reduction. Nevertheless, from communications I have had with them, I am aware that the development agencies know the Government is extremely committed to maintaining the level of ODA. They also know that there would have been a temptation for the Government to slash ODA. Members will recall Mr. Colm McCarthy's recommendation in this regard, namely, that, to a large extent, we should just get rid of ODA. That is not the route we have chosen. We have maintained the level of funding and the development agencies are grateful for the Government's commitment to retaining ODA in the extremely difficult circumstances in which we currently find ourselves.
I thank the Minister, his officials and members for attending this meeting at short notice.