Deputy Michael D. Higgins was in possession and there are 11 minutes of his time remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Development Aid: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Gay Mitchell on Tuesday, 11 April 2000:
That Dáil Éireann notes, with great concern that:
–14 million young children and 10 million older children, and young adults, in developing countries die each year from easily and cheaply preventable malnutrition and disease;
–840 million people in developing countries are malnourished;
–women represent 70 per cent of all poverty stricken people, followed closely by the elderly in developing countries;
–approximately 79 per cent of the world's population now live in the Third World;
–more than 90 per cent of the 35 million HIV/AIDS infected people live in developing countries, the number having doubled between the years 1990 and 1997;
–life expectancy in the Third World increased by over one third between the years 1960 and 1990, and the infant mortality rate decreased from 76 to 58 per 1000 live births, proving that development aid does work, even though about 1.5 billion people are not expected to survive to 60 years of age, and 340 million women will die before the age of 40;
–2.6 billion people lack access to basic sanitation; and
noting the pending disaster in the Horn of Africa, where up to 16 million lives are in imminent danger, asks the Government to bring forward immediate legislation to provide for Ireland to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP as a contribution to development aid by 2007, without recourse to the annual Estimates wrangle, thereby ensuring that Ireland maximise its contribution to our famine stricken and poorest neighbours, while equipping ourselves with moral authority in asking other countries to do likewise.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann:
–acknowledges the progress made by successive Governments in increasing the resources for development aid;
–commends the response of the Government to the crisis in Ethiopia and the recent emergency in Mozambique; and
–approves the approach of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in carrying out a review of the aid programme, the outcome of which will include a commitment to reaching the UN target for aid allocations of 0.7 per cent of GNP within a specific time frame while maintaining the aid programme's reputation for quality aid and effective management.
–(Minister for Foreign Affairs)
Last evening I opened my remarks on this motion, which I welcomed, and in favour of the amendment, which I prefer, by saying that globalisation represents a serious new circumstance in which the old considerations of aid, trade and debt must be re-evaluated in terms of poorer countries, particularly those on the continent of Africa. I am concerned that this aspect of globalisation and its impact on debtor countries and those classified as undeveloped is not adequately appreciated.
At a conference organised by Trócaire, which was held in Dublin two years ago, a number of speakers including Peter Sutherland – who represented a certain viewpoint – commented on globalisation while a number of people from Africa commented on what it involved. Last night I stated that there is more communication capacity in Manhattan than there is in sub-Saharan Africa. That illustrates an important point, namely, the suggestion that within a model of globalisation driven by mere liberal market thinking there can be benefits that will lift Africa and its people is erroneous.
If one examines the logic of a situation where societies have become economies which have, in turn, shrunk to become market flows, it is apparent that globalisation is driven to a great degree by suggested possibilities of a communications revolution. The reality is, however, that the communications revolution component of globalisation is designed to massively benefit western society. Evidence is becoming available in relation to economic participation that the fissures which are opening up, even in western countries, between the information rich and the information poor, threaten to divide society even more deeply than the factory system did in the past. That has led many people at international conferences to speak about the need for an ethic that is global to accompany and correct a version of markets that is also global.
This is not just an academic point because on a yearly basis the countries in Africa, some of which are among the poorest nations in the world that are seeking to qualify for debt relief or trying to construct strategies of survival – these cannot, in many cases, be referred to as "development strategies"– are being asked to make adjustments. These adjustments are inappropriate in relation to the structures that would give them security of life, being and development. The evidence is overwhelming of where, in the name of debt management, adjustments were forced on countries which led to health and education budgets being cut. I could provide examples of coun tries where the net debt repayment outflow after adjustment was still greater than what was being spent on health, education and housing.
There is a tendency among the richer members of society to blame undeveloped countries for the position in which they find themselves. Those countries have been left with an immense burden of colonisation which trampled many indigenous forms of civil society in the name of introducing a metropolitan language and a legal system that replaced the native system in Africa. To speak as if they were to blame for their situation is a despicable excuse.
We come back to the fundamental issues. What can be wrung from the World Trade Organisation in terms of real concessions? What can be done about non-tied aid? What can be done about the structuring of debt? There is another aspect to this matter and I am free to point it out in this Parliament. I know of no time since I started in politics nearly 30 years ago when there was a bigger gulf between economics and ethics. I cannot remember a time when there was such little attachment between economics and political economy.
When I learned about the political economy and lectured on it for a number of years the prevailing notion was that the economy was an instrument for the achievement and service of social and political ends upon which people could differ and debate. Now we appear to be in the grip of a disembodied economy that has its own characteristics. It is as if it were a machine, separate from any human reality. Every now and again church leaders will draw attention to our humanity and ask us to consider the number of people who are dying.
There are parts of Africa where one can detect some growth in gross domestic product. However, where these occur they are precariously fragile and the benefits are unevenly distributed. Again one hears the suggestion, which I consider deeply offensive, that if these countries were like ours, things would be much better. However, in the quintiles into which one might divide the populations of the United States, Japan, Ireland and England, the poorest quintile in each country has got poorer and the top fifth has got a greater proportion of the wealth. We are in no position to give anybody lectures about redistribution.
We are, however, in a position to acknowledge that the relationship of the western world with Africa in relation to arms production and arms sales is outrageous. The fact that countries which signed up to international agreements which purported to make claims in the name of humanity would sell armaments, such as Britain, France and the others do, into the continent of Africa at a time of such urgent need is appalling. There is, therefore, a debt owed or a moral deficit on the part of the west in relation to these countries.
It is time parliamentarians woke up and realised that they can do nothing substantial while we reduce society to a version of the economy that is a neo-liberal market driven by telecommunications finance. The international economy could be best described as resembling the time of the establishment of the sugar plantations in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when the magnet of sugar set up a system of economics built on slavery and indentured servants. The same thing happens in relation to the scarce resource that is the telecommunications capacity.
According to the UNDP report to which I referred last night, 33 of the least developed countries are in Africa. Zambia had slipped from 136th place out of 174 to 142nd in 1997 and 146th in 1998. These countries are slipping further each year. The external debt of sub-Saharan Africa in 1998 stood at US$235 billion. More money was going out of Africa than was available to meet any definition of basic needs, including health, education, food, water and sanitation.
In the 30 years since I first stood for election, I have seen the emergence of increased public interest and aid. However, I have also seen a decrease in aid accompanying the new idea of the depeopled economy. The aid that is delivered to countries which need it most has decreased. We should cancel debt and speak of adjustments that meet the needs of people and are indigenously acceptable rather than structural adjustment programmes to suit a neo-liberal market. We should discuss a trade system in which we allow privileged access for countries which produce primary products.
With regard to debt servicing, the view represented by Ireland at international fora should be that no country should have to expend more than a certain proportion of its total GDP on the service of debt to any international institution. Otherwise our response will be too little too late. Above all, we should earmark our response to crisis by stating that any aid voted will be for emergencies and will not be deflected from the structural aid programme on which we have such a good record.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Brendan Smith and Power.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of addressing this important issue. I wish to express my appreciation for the substantial contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to development co-operation and human rights over the years. I also commend the development co-operation division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, ably led by Ms Margaret Hennessy who continues to show excellent leadership in sometimes difficult circumstances.
It is crucial that the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia ceases. The obscene arms industry, so ably described by Deputy Higgins, has much to answer for with regard to that ongoing war. It is unacceptable that because of the war the tragic people of both countries, particularly northern Eritrea, should starve. I strongly support the views outlined in The Irish Times on 6 April by David Beggs, the chief executive of Concern. He pointed out that the Ethiopian Prime Minister made a scathing attack on the international community for its failure to respond to appeals for food aid to stave off famine in his country. Mr. Beggs went on to develop the second point that western Governments have in turn blamed Ethiopia for pursuing a pointless war with its northern neighbour Eritrea at a time when the country is in such dire straits. He pointed out that both arguments are irrelevant when eight million people are starving to death in Ethiopia and that the number at risk can be doubled when six other countries in the Horn of Africa are taken into account.
Mr. Beggs set out a number of urgent actions that should be taken. The international community must immediately provide the one million tonnes of food needed and get it onto the high seas. There must be an immediate armistice to allow humanitarian aid to flow into Ethiopia through the Eritrean ports. If necessary, an airlift should be considered to bridge the gap until food can arrive by sea. Every effort must be made to source food from northern Sudan and those parts of Ethiopia where there may be a surplus. The United Nations agencies and NGOs must be given freedom to operate, albeit in consultation with the Ethiopian Government, and be allowed to take in whatever human and material resources they need. Extensive use should be made of NGO capacity for distribution to guarantee that aid is not diverted for military use.
NGOs must receive the unstinting support of this House. These organisations do immeasurable work in often difficult and dangerous circumstances. The Minister of State has said elsewhere that this area of policy, especially the question of financial provision for official development assistance, should be above partisan politics.
There is a consensus view across the political spectrum that Ireland's development co-operation role should be strengthened. Our debate, and our differences to the extent that they exist, are about means, not ends. What is important is that our principles on the question should be matched by our practice.
Our practice has two aspects: quantity and quality. The quantity of Ireland's development assistance has grown significantly in absolute terms, from £40 million in 1992 to approximately £190 million in the current year. As Minister for Foreign Affairs at that time I had a small input to giving that aspect a kick start. However, when measured as a proportion of GNP we have failed to make progress in recent years. Considering that the ODA-GNP ratio is a conventional way of measuring a country's aid effort and considering especially that this is for the very good reason that it is the best measure of a country's capacity to contribute development aid, there is a need to take definite steps to get us back on to a pattern of growth. What is needed, in effect, are financial allocations large enough to guarantee growth in GNP terms, even in circumstances of a rapidly growing GNP.
The allocations need to be made far enough in advance to allow expenditure plans to be drawn up in a satisfactory way. The mechanisms through which this is achieved are not so important. It is not good enough to rely on the annual Estimates process on the one hand, as this does not provide certainty on the allocations for future years as it runs the risk that in the heat of the fray there would be slippage in the priority accorded to ODA as compared with competing demands. On the other hand, legislation may not be the best way to proceed because it may be too cumbersome and time consuming. It may also not be necessary to achieve the outcome we desire.
From my perspective, a formal Cabinet decision confirming annual substantial increases for, say, a ten year period would be the most practical and effective way to proceed. The increased allocations would have to be seen as part of a comprehensive strategy to strengthen our development co-ordination policy and programme. It would be very important that Members of this House have the opportunity to make an effective contribution to the articulation of that strategy.
So much for the question of aid quantity. The question of aid quality is even more important. I am heartened by the very positive comments made about our programme in last year's OECD peer review. The two questions are linked, as reliable monthly funding is the essential foundation on which a quality programme may be built.
Concerning quality, the key question is to keep a firm hold of the idea that the purpose of aid is to assist developing countries. This may appear to be an obvious point, but we can become so tied up in the provision of assistance that we can lose sight of how things can look from the other side of the aid relationship. A useful discipline in that context is to consider how we in Ireland dealt with the receipt of EU Structural Funding. We should keep a firm hold on the idea that funds received were to promote sustainable development in Ireland. We were clear that external assistance had to be integrated with our own developments and that it was our priorities that mattered in terms of the allocation of resources.
A key principle of our development co-operation policy should be that developing countries have a comparable role in relation to their own development and to aid received from other countries. In that context I would like to hear from the Minister of State in her concluding remarks about how support for capacity building is incorporated in the Ireland Aid programme. If Ireland Aid can bring in the resources required, for example, for an immunisation campaign in the developing countries, that would be a commendable thing to do. It would be even more useful to help build up the capacity of the country concerned to plan, finance and execute immunisation campaigns on a self-reliant basis. The second of these approaches is significantly more difficult than the first. I hope and trust that Ireland Aid adopts the capacity building approach in preference to using aid resources to address merely the symptoms of underdevelopment.
This is my first opportunity to express my praise and appreciation for my successor in office, Deputy Cowen. He made a very important start to his new portfolio and I wish him every success.
It often appears that there are two groups of people on the planet, both going in opposite directions. In the developed world we are moving towards the future at a speed faster than our dreams. The other group, in the Third World, is hurtling into a nightmare of darkness, hunger and disease. In the developed world we have a human imperative to help those in the Third World. We must avoid the well meaning but futile gesture and do things that genuinely help, not things that help us in the developed world feel less bad.
Irish assistance to the Third World has always been of the highest quality. There are students in African universities today who would not be able to read if it had not been for Irish aid. People would be blind but for medical assistance from this country. We must not forget that there are thousands of people who would not be alive today were it not for Irish development aid. These people are living testimonies to the effectiveness of our assistance and its high standards.
Direct aid is only one strand of our response. It goes hand in hand with the work of non-governmental organisations. We have a long and distinguished record going back over 100 years. Many people, both lay and religious, have devoted their lives to helping the Third World. A smaller number have given their lives. Most could have enjoyed a far more comfortable lifestyle if they had not left Ireland. They were our modern missionaries, whether or not their work was involved with religion. What motivated them was not a wish to colonise or enslave but a burning desire to help their fellow human beings, to free them from poverty and hunger and to share knowledge and know-how.
Our systems, both governmental and through NGOs, has been aided by our history. First, we were the last country in western Europe to experience a full blown famine. It is a long way from our current affluence, but it happened only four generations ago. There are commentators and journalists, thankfully not in Ireland, who say that Third World poverty and famine relief is useless and that no matter what the developed world does or how much it spends, famines will still occur. They consider that development aid can not overcome problems built in the Third World societies. Some people said the same thing about Ireland in the 1840s. It did not take us long as a people to demonstrate that once our dignity was given back to us there were no limits to the goals we could achieve.
Second, we were not part of the small club of nations who saw the Third World as a place to fulfil their imperial dreams. Thankfully we had no colonial history or ambitions. Both these historical factors have allowed Irish men and women, whether lay or religious, working for Government aid projects or for NGOs, to have an understanding and sympathy for the people they are trying to help. They have not believed themselves to be inherently better than those in the Third World. Their assistance has always been motivated by a wish to give real, practical help to fellow human beings, assistance which will help people to help themselves. We have not asked for anything in return. This is why the people of the Third World have always seen Ireland as a good friend. We have always been viewed as partners giving a helping hand, not as masters imposing solutions.
We cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We have a duty to ensure that the quality of our assistance is maintained and that the real proof of this quality in the alleviation of poverty and the realisation of a better lifestyle continues. One aspect that no report can ever represent adequately is the scale of commitment of the individuals involved in development aid work. This is one of the factors which has given our assistance such a high reputation. It is a commitment which cannot be valued in purely financial terms.
Assistance takes two forms. On the one hand, there is help within the context of a long-term strategy, whether it is improving access to clean water, preventing soil erosion, improving infrastructure or combating disease. The second type is called for by unprecedented, unforeseen situations, such as famines and natural disasters. There is an overspill between the two areas. While disasters cannot always be foretold with accuracy, their potential impact can be lessened. We have been very successful in putting in place early warning systems. These can only work when disasters can be forecast. Other disasters are caused by factors which strike with much less warning. For example, the floods in Mozambique were caused by a weather phenomenon. Its effects were heightened by difficulties that only long-term planning can alleviate, the type of long-term, painstaking assistance the Irish Government has deliberately targeted at Mozambique. This has been implemented in partnership with the authorities in Mozambique.
Many working in development assistance criticise what they call the "CNN syndrome" towards the Third World. Whenever a disaster occurs, it is flashed across our television screens. After a few weeks, maybe less, the cameras go elsewhere. People think that the removal of the attention of the cameras implies that the initial problem has lessened in some way when it may be as bad as ever. Our development assistance programmes are continuing in Mozambique because we have a long-term commitment to the country and its people.
Most of us remember the scenes of horror that inspired the Live Aid concert in 1985. In those days, the Third World was a Cold War battleground. Governments viewed as friendly to one player were undermined by rebellions sponsored by the other. The ordinary people of Ethiopia and Mozambique were among the victims and losers in this conflict. Vast quantities of armaments and guns were delivered. Land mines were planted which continued to maim and kill long after the wars ended. It is ironic that a few hundred pounds in development aid can give a community clean water, water ponds, dams, seeds, implements for cultivating crops and maybe even a school. In other words, they provide a chance for a better future. A lesser amount can buy a shell that can destroy that village in an instant, turning those who it does not kill or cripple into starving refugees.
Wars and conflict are all too common in the Third World, but they can be avoided. That is why there must always be a political dimension to our development aid strategy. One area where this is already implemented successfully is in support for human rights initiatives and assistance in the establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms.
There is only so much a small country like ours can achieve on its own. We as a country have done a great deal to help the Third World, but we want to do more and we want other countries to pull their weight too. Why is it that there are those, in this country and Europe, who worry about a common European defence policy, yet those same people never see the need for a common European strategy to help Third World poverty? The European Union has been consistently slow in responding to these problems. It should play a much greater role in conflict resolution for it is as a group that the European Union can make its voice heard. Its response is often piecemeal. Some countries, such as France and Portu gal, take an interest in various nations because of colonial ties while ignoring others.
It is my hope that Ireland's development aid programme continues according to its very high standards which value people above everything else.
The motion covers many different problem areas throughout the Third World. While I will not have time to deal with all of them, the request for the Government to bring forward immediate legislation to provide for Ireland to meet the UN target of 0.7% of GNP as a contribution to development aid is one we must support. I know many Members have taken a great interest in the Third World, not just by their words but also by their deeds and actions. It is not long ago that Deputy Owen visited that part of the world and returned to tell us of the problems she witnessed at first hand. Never before have we been in a better position to make this move and never before was that move needed so much. The Minister explained the Government's position but I appeal to him to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.
As we debate the problems in the Horn of Africa, millions of people are hungry. Thousands have already died due to lack of food and these are lives which should never have been lost. Unfortunately, the international community does not place the same price on a life in the Horn of Africa as it does in an oil-producing country or where other valuable resources are located. The international community has failed the people of Ethiopia. The problems faced in that country must be tackled by both short-term and long-term measures. As a country, we have always shown great compassion in dealing with and helping developing countries. Providing health and education is vital if these people are to have any future. Immediate help is now required if we want to save the millions of lives in danger. Food is what they require. It is vital that Ireland provides this aid and it is even more important that Ireland shows leadership to the rest of the world.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs explained during his contribution how he had pressed for early and appropriate action by the EU and he stressed the urgency of an immediate response in bilateral conversations with Commissioner Patten. It appears from media reports that Commissioner Patten is satisfied with the EU response. However, Fr. Jack Finucane, who is in Ethiopia dealing with the problem on a daily basis, does not share the same view. John O'Shea has also said that it is a race against time and that it is imperative the international community and the Ethiopian Government focus all their energies on alleviating the suffering. That is a view all Irish people share. I pay tribute to GOAL and Concern for the wonderful work they have done. It is only when we see the pictures on our tele visions that we realise the tragedies with which these organisations must deal on a daily basis.
If the tragedy being experienced in the Horn of Africa were to be experienced in the USA or Europe, there would be an immediate reaction from the rest of the world. However, just because the countries affected now do not have the same resources or are not in a position to give the payback as other countries have done in the past does not mean they should be ignored. We must put the same value on a life in Africa as in Ireland or any other country. It is on that basis we must plan. I wish both GOAL and Concern every success with their efforts.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this motion. I noticed in the new Irish Examiner a reference to a high-powered delegation, led by the World Food Programme director, Ms Catherine Bertini, which landed at Gode airstrip to assess the crisis. Aid agencies and officials were planning to meet her to brief her on the worsening conditions. The reporter stated: “For countless children practising high-fives in a land laid waste by war and hunger, the effort may come just a little too late.” It is serious if it is the case that rich countries do not have the conscience to act quickly to save lives and that a delegation such as this has arrived in Ethiopia late in the day. In the same newspaper, John O'Shea referred to the fact that sick people are dying on a daily basis in Ethiopia due to the shortage of food and water and that the situation is far worse in towns where no aid is provided. He states:
Even the camels are beginning to die and camels can survive in almost any conditions. The area here is an animal graveyard and unless people act fast, it will become a human graveyard.
Those comments illustrate the seriousness of the situation in Ethiopia. I was pleased to hear the Minister stating that a comprehensive package of initiatives is being put in train to strengthen our development co-operation policy and programme. In the past, there was a feeling that a token contribution to development aid work would be sufficient. In the early 1980s, Ireland's per capita income was closer to that of developing countries than to the average for northern European countries. That is no longer the case. Today, Ireland has one of the fastest growing economies in the western world and our responsibilities have increased in line with this. The allocation for development aid has increased from £40 million in 1992 to an estimated £190 million this year, a substantial increase by any standards. As GNP has increased so rapidly in recent years, the size of the ODA budget has not increased relative to that. This is unfortunate but does not detract from the impressive annual increases which have been made since the Government took office. There would be strong public and cross-party support in this House for measures which would ensure that our ODA allocation would increase not only in financial terms but as a proportion of GNP.
There is a perception among the public that the money has been used to good effect, something to which I can testify. I travelled to Africa on a number of occasions. I recall the then consul general, Mr. Pat Curran, overseeing self-help programmes such as knitting projects and pony trekking in Lesotho. I observed the work carried out by the NGOs in Lesotho and by the area partnership programmes in Tanzania. The development of aid programmes in these countries has been very worthwhile.
The quality of our aid programme was endorsed by last year's peer review which was carried out by the development assistance committee of the OECD. If the programme continues to be effective, the level of public support will remain high. We must also invest in education and health programmes. The Minister acknowledged the progress which has been made to date in terms of increasing the aid allocation, not only in absolute terms but as a proportion of GNP. We should take all necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the programme. The success of our economy as a result of investment in education shows what can be done in this area.
The Minister assured us that a new development co-operation strategy will be unveiled in the near future which will address the quantity and quality of our aid programmes. The new strategy will be awaited with interest as there is a real sense that it is now time to put our development co-operation policy on a solid footing once and for all.
Another great tragedy is currently unfolding in the Horn of Africa. We must do our utmost to help to alleviate the suffering of up to eight million people. A call was made for the cancellation of debt in Mozambique but payment of the debt was merely suspended. That is certainly not an adequate response. While emergency assistance is required, we must also consider the need for long-term sustainable development which will address the eradication of poverty. This is the key to the prevention of further tragedies.
I welcome the provision of funding for priority countries. One third of the budget is going to these countries with some £6 million going to Lesotho, £7.3 million to Mozambique and £16. 3 million to Ethiopia. I urge the Minister and the Cabinet to make a commitment to meet the UN target of 0.7% of GNP by a specific date.
I wish to share time with Deputies Owen, Jim O'Keeffe, Neville, Ulick Burke and O'Caoláin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support the motion tabled by Deputy Gay Mitchell. In moving the motion, Deputy Mitchell is reflecting the concerns felt by Irish people about these terrible tragedies in developing countries, people such as the members of Jubilee 2000 – comprising school children and others who worked overseas in a voluntary capacity – who campaign for debt relief and who protested outside Leinster House yesterday. We should support their campaign.
Legislation must be introduced to ensure we give the appropriate amount of aid to needy countries, particularly in view of our own prosperity. It is extraordinary that the target of 0.7% of GNP was set by the United Nations in 1970 and that it has taken us such a long time to move towards even considering the introduction of legislation in this area. Legislation moves things forward, provides leadership, represents our feelings about particular issues and turns those into realities. I was disappointed to hear the former Minister for Foreign Affairs stating that he felt a Cabinet decision was sufficient. I do not believe it is. We should have legislation setting matters out in black and white. The target proposed in the motion should be agreed on.
It is clear that there is political consensus about the need to move forward on this issue and that, given our current levels of prosperity, we are in a position to make a meaningful contribution to tackling poverty worldwide. If we do not tackle poverty, mass movements of people will create huge instability throughout the world. We should ensure that aid is delivered to people in their home areas, not when they have left them.
The statistics quoted last night are very frightening. Some 14 million young people and 10 million older children and young adults are dying each year in developing countries from preventable malnutrition and disease. There are 840 malnourished people in developing countries. Women represent 70% of all poverty-stricken people, followed closely by the elderly. Evidence is emerging, slowly but surely, that development aid works. Deputy Mitchell referred to that last night. We know aid can work if it is of the proper quality, provided in proper quantities and administered and monitored by the right people who will work with local people. Some of the aid provided in the past did not work and tended to disenfranchise rather than empower people. However, we have learned from our mistakes and now have better information about the type and quality of aid required and the necessity to work with local communities.
This evening, Fr. Jack Finucane stated that we now have a golden opportunity to prevent the occurrence of a major catastrophe. He said that some eight million people are at risk in Ethiopia and that donor countries must act more effectively. It was disappointing to hear Chris Patten defending the EU because it should not be defended. I urge the Government to do whatever it can at European level to press for further and more efficient action from the EU. The statistics in regard to the amount of aid returned to the EU are quite extraordinary. Ireland should lead the fight to find out why this money is not being delivered efficiently and effectively.
The early warning system is clearly working more effectively in Ethiopia now than it did in 1974 and 1984. However, it is clear that the EU's emergency response is not working. A previous Deputy spoke about our focus on the EU rapid reaction force at defence level. We also need rapid responses to humanitarian aid at EU level. The Government should move towards multi-annual funding for development agencies as that would enable them to do their work more effectively. I hope the House will support the motion.
I wish to express my disappointment at the fact that the Government feels it is necessary to divide the House on a motion tabled in all sincerity on behalf of the Fine Gael Party by our spokesperson, Deputy Gay Mitchell. It is pitiable that the Government could not see its way to accepting the motion and felt it was necessary to divide the House on a matter as serious as providing assistance to billions of people throughout the world.
The announcement by the IMF and the World Bank to suspend payment of Mozambique's debt for one year is not a sufficient response to the catastrophe which occurred in that country. Mozambique needs another 15 years to re-establish itself. This debt should be unconditionally waived. I want the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to take a personal, strong stand on this at European Union level and to lead the way in having Mozambique's debt written off completely.
I ask Members to picture every man, woman and child on this island being in need of food aid. That was the equivalent situation in 1999 in Ethiopia. The NGOs and the other agencies were already warning in 1999 that a catastrophe was coming because there was no rain in 1998. Food supplements were being given in Ethiopia in 1999. Why are we finding now in 2000 that double the number of people living on this island are threatened by famine in Ethiopia, plus four or five million in Somalia and northern Kenya? It beggars belief that it is only now that the penny is dropping. A UN country request was made last year for food, and countries gave commitments to send food to Ethiopia which they did not meet.
In 1984 and 1985, post the horrific famine in which 1.2 million people lost their lives, food reserves were set up. The aim was to keep that food reserve at 350,000 metric tonnes of food in store. The world food programme borrowed food from that reserve last year and in previous years, which it has not paid back. Hence, the reserve is down to about 30,000 or 40,000 metric tonnes, which is not enough. That is why we are facing such a catastrophe.
The international community has not lived up to its commitments. Through this debate tonight, we, as country, must live up to our commitments and call on our partners in Europe to take action. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has a seat at that table and she must do that on behalf of this country.
One of the most harrowing experiences of life was going to Ethiopia during the great famine in the mid-1980s. It is equally harrowing to see on television what I saw on the ground at that time developing again. It is even more harrowing to find us in a situation where, while we now have the wealth and resources to make an effective contribution towards preventing that impending catastrophe, we are not doing all we could. The bottom line is that, while this country now has wealth and resources, it is not fulfilling its UN obligations. We can twist this any way we like, but the fact is we committed ourselves to the target of 0.7% of GNP. Why are we not even half way towards reaching that target at the moment?
We receive all the Civil Service answers in ministerial scripts. In the old days the usual formula was "we will achieve the target when resources permit". The new formula is that "we will do it within a specific timeframe". That is just an updating of the escape hatch. Why are we not even half way towards the target?
I have a couple of specific suggestions to make. I was able to achieve something worthwhile as a consequence of my visit to Ethiopia in the mid-1980s. It helped that we had the Presidency of the European Union, which was then the European Community, at the time, which meant I was able to mobilise EU support. It would be worthwhile if the Minister or Minister of State were prepared to go to Addis Ababa to show on the ground our commitment to trying to prevent this gathering catastrophe. I would recommend that very strongly.
This House should have a united voice on our future aid policy. Let us forget these escape hatch clauses of "as resources permit" and "within a specific timeframe". Let us agree on a timeframe, as suggested in the Fine Gael motion. If we are serious, let us agree it and if we are not serious, let us face up to that, say so and tell the country why the Government is not prepared to do what the people want, as they have shown in the past by their generous response to appeals when disasters struck.
There is a danger of a cosy consensus about what a great job we are doing. The aid pro gramme has developed and those involved in it have done a marvellous job. The voluntary organisations, missionaries and NGOs have done a tremendous job on behalf of Ireland. I want a greater proportion of aid to go through the voluntary sector, so that GOAL, Concern and Trócaire will have adequate funding. However, let there be no cosy consensus in this House if we are not prepared to do our bit in terms of the UN target, which we are less than half way towards reaching at the moment. When I left office, we were at 0.26% of GNP and we are not much further now. Let us end this charade and agree to achieve the UN target within the timeframe set out in the Fine Gael motion.
I congratulate Deputy Gay Mitchell on tabling this motion. I have also seen poverty in Africa and other countries, such as India. There is an obligation on each Western state to ensure this is tackled comprehensively. I want to set out some facts regarding the difference between the West and the Third World.
A woman in Ireland has a life expectancy of about 80 years while a woman in Sierra Leone can expect to live to 37 years. Every year 600,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth, most of them in the Third World. A further 20 million women suffer life long injuries or infections each year during childbirth, most of whom, for obvious reasons, are in the Third World. Some 360 million couples want to plan their families but do not have access to contraceptive advice and services, and most of them are in the Third World. Some 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year, most of whom are in the Third World. Nine out of ten people in Africa with HIV do not know they are infected.
Change can take place rapidly. In Thailand so many people availed of family planning following a public education campaign that the country's birth rate was halved in eight years. Every year more than 1.4 million infants are stillborn. A baby born in Malaya or Uganda is likely to live only half as long as one born in Singapore or Sweden, and reaching his or her fifth birthday is far from a certainty. One child in three born in Sierra Leone perishes before that milestone.
There are, worldwide, 130 million children of primary school age, two thirds of whom are girls, who are not in a classroom. In developing countries, every additional year of schooling for girls can be linked to a 5% decline in infant morality. Some 4.4 million adolescent girls seek abortions every year. In Kenya alone, 10,000 girls drop out of school each year as a result. Children born to mothers below 15 years are 1.5 times more likely to die before the age of five than those with mothers aged 20 to 34 years. Two million girls each year are subject to female genital mutilation, most of them in the Third World. Of the 14 million people worldwide who have died from AIDS, more than one quarter have been children. Last year alone, two million men, women and children in Africa died from the disease.
The wealthiest fifth of the world's population consumes more than 66 times the materials and resources of the poorest fifth. Of the $17 billion promised in overseas aid, many wealthy Governments have not produced the cash for use in the Third World. The bank balance is less than half what it should be to assist such aid schemes. UNICEF has calculated that it would cost $2.60 per person world-wide to effectively prevent the overwhelming majority of maternal deaths, half of all infant deaths and the disabilities inflicted on millions of women.
The world's population took thousands of years to reach 2.5 billion by 1950, but since then it has more than doubled to 6 billion. Every second, five people are born while two die, which is a net gain of three people. If women have 2.5 children on average, the world's population may reach 27 billion by 2050. The rising population figure has deep implications for the Third World. The western world has a duty to ensure it assists Third World development in every way possible and for that reason I support the motion.
I compliment Deputy Gay Mitchell in bringing this timely motion before the House. It is difficult to understand the lack of international response to a major ongoing disaster. It is even more difficult to understand why last year an international grouping under the European Commission had to return £2.3 billion in unspent aid to the coffers of the countries it had come from. How can we have confidence in any international commitment to resolve the problems in Africa when that happens? It is only if we compare that inactivity with the effort and endeavours of our own voluntary agencies, the generous response of the Irish people and their impact at ground level, that we can realise the chaos and uncertainty in which people in stricken areas of Africa live.
The Minister will agree that while Government agencies have failed, voluntary groups have been a success story. What is the Government doing to resolve the situation? It should be persuading international agencies and the EU to respond positively and meet their commitments by delivering money and other aid where it is most needed. What will the Minister of State do? I hope to hear her responding positively to that point in her reply to this debate.
It baffles me that in the Government amendment to the motion, the Minister "commends the response of the Government to the crisis in Ethiopia". What action has the Government taken that deserves this commendation? In his opening speech, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said he was delighted that the House was discussing this issue. There is not a topic we should less like to be discussing than the lack of delivery of aid to the people of East Africa, including Ethiopia and Kenya.
Some 8 million people are on the verge of starvation in that region because malnutrition is rampant. Once more, people are on the move from rural to urban areas. That is typical of the demographic shifts that have gone on since 1984, yet there has not been a response from the international community, other than a token one. It was sickening to see the response of the EU Commissioner, Mr. Patten, tonight, when he quibbled over figures with his own aid agency, Oxfam, in Britain as to what they did or did not do. While that side-show continues, the people of Africa will continue to die. Some 15 million in a particular area are facing certain death if people like the Commissioner remain determined to gain political advantage rather than doing their jobs.
I commend voluntary agencies, such as Trócaire, Concern and Oxfam which have done tremendous work. Irish volunteers who have gone abroad to work for these agencies have saved people's lives, but it would be wrong to say that this is something new. We should be grateful to the Irish and international media for having highlighted these issues. RTE can bring vivid, horrific pictures to our screens which shock us all into action once more. It is terrible that we have to rely on the media to goad us into action in response to the horrifying pictures we see on television.
I hope the House will make a positive decision, a gesture that is becoming of the generosity of the people, that by 2007 it will meet the overseas aid target of 0.7% of GDP that has been set. We can afford it now, although there was a time when poor people here needed aid more than those in the developing world. At present, with our low unemployment, we can respond positively to this situation which requires urgent attention.
I endorse the Fine Gael motion and I support the Labour Party amendment. The level of development aid from this State is a disgrace. This island is now among the wealthy nations of the world and part of the largest trading bloc – the European Union. Yet, the generosity of our people is not matched by the level of aid allocated on their behalf by successive Governments. No Government has been in a better position to ensure that the State reaches the UN target.
Speaking from Ethiopia on RTE's Six-One News this evening, Fr. Jack Finucane of Concern said that “we now have a golden opportunity to prevent a major catastrophe from taking place”. Yet, we know that for many thousands and possibly millions, emergency aid will come too late.The obscenity of the casualty figures will be per sonified on our television screens by starving children. How often is this to be repeated before we challenge the system of greed by which this planet is ruled?
While the people of Mozambique were devastated by flooding, their Government was sending $1.4 million per week to its debtors. Where was the rapid reaction force to help those people as they clung for their lives to trees and roof-tops? Where is such a force for Ethiopia? The Irish Government, however, is prepared to be part of an EU military force of 60,000 with massive spending on armaments, as signalled by Javier Solana in Dublin last month. The Government is not in a position to criticise arms spending by Governments in Third World countries when it is preparing to bring us into such an army which will provide a bonanza for the arms industry. Mr. Solana told us that this force will be capable of staying in the field for up to a year. Just imagine what such a number of highly trained and equipped people could do with the same resources spent, not on arming them but on providing the means to work on long-term development and short-term emergency aid in Third World nations. It would be phenomenal.
The debt burden is the first and foremost obstacle to progress and justice in the most impoverished parts of the world. The foreign debts of developing countries are growing at a rate that is simply out of control. Debts have risen for all developing countries, from a total of $610 billion in 1980 to $2.3 trillion in 1997. When the poorest countries are diverting precious resources from areas such as education and health to pay foreign creditors, economic logic as well as moral duty demands the cancellation of their unpayable debts. While the summit of G7 leaders in Cologne in 1999 agreed improvements to the existing framework of debt reduction, it did not go far enough to meet the fundamental objectives of debt cancellation. Equally their proposals on debt relief raised many concerns, including the fear that these countries will have to leap through even higher hoops to qualify for the debt relief on offer. The Cologne initiative will give little to a few countries and nothing, sadly, to many others.
The poorest countries simply cannot meet their debt service obligations. Only half to two thirds of scheduled debt service is actually paid. The rest becomes arrears on the existing debt. The cost of cancelling unpaid debt is affordable and achievable. As a first step towards reducing poverty, injustice and inequality in developing countries, we need the comprehensive cancellation of unpayable debt and an independent and transparent process to ensure that these debts do not build up again. The lending nations, the IMF and the World Bank must write off these debts.
In responding to the debate, I thank all the Deputies who contributed. The quality of the contributions is a measure of the increasing understanding and sincere support in this House across all parties for increasing the ODA budget to reach the UN target. There is also an appreciation of the need to focus not only on quantity, although that is crucial, but also on the quality of our aid programme. As to the fundamental objective of the motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party, that is the need to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP as ODA, I assure the House that is the precise objective of the proposals which will shortly go before Cabinet.
The Taoiseach and I have separately indicated a timeframe similar to that outlined in the Fine Gael motion, but it will be essential to have an interim target as well. These proposals follow a comprehensive review of the aid programme. They will address policy and management issues. In the context of a substantially increased budget, this is crucial if we are to maintain the high quality of aid effectiveness for which we have received international acclaim. Already our ODA has grown fivefold since I992, but that was from a very low base. We are still far short of the UN target, to which we are committed. Nobody is more committed to that than I and the wording of the Government amendment clearly indicates that I am pushing for a specific timeframe by which we will reach the UN target. The real battle, as Deputies will know, will be at Cabinet, and it will be important that I have heard the cross-party support and that of the Opposition parties for this objective of reaching the UN target.
Apart from the fact that development aid is a measure of a commitment to civilised values, as I have said before, and a vindication of the human right to development, development assistance actually works. Although there are still millions living in abject poverty, more human beings have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. The challenges are immense, and the Deputies know them. The burden of indebtedness on the least developed countries is chronic. The pandemic of AIDS has the capacity to reverse much of the development achieved in the past decade. The core value underpinning our programme has been a concentration on assisting the poorest countries and on poverty eradication, with particular emphasis on basic health care and primary education.
Last night the Minister outlined the broad mix of our programme to build up the capacity of developing countries in human and economic facets so they can cope with crises. The current emergency in the Horn of Africa is one such example. We have been monitoring developments in the Horn of Africa for some years. We have been active in long-term development and food security work in Ethiopia since the fam ine of the 1980s. Last year we allocated £800,000 to emergency humanitarian relief in the Horn of Africa. Today I have redirected £1 million from the Ethiopian country programme of £316 million for urgent relief activities. This is a one-off measure to address those most affected and to prevent the present unacceptable situation from developing into a major disaster. In addition, I have approved £500,000 more from the emergency humanitarian budget, which will be channelled through NGOs, including Concern and GOAL, which are active in the region. This will bring our emergency allocation to Ethiopia since December to £859,000.
From the £1 million allocation, £250,000 will be given to the World Food Programme and £150,000 will be given to UNICEF for their immediate response. The remainder will be allocated largely to programme areas in Ethiopia and monitored by our embassy in Addis Ababa. Given the very grave news and reports from the area, the embassy is working closely with local players, NGOs and the Ethiopian authorities to identify additional resources which might be redirected without the present programme suffering in any way. I have taken steps with the Ethiopian authorities to stress the need for them to be flexible regarding visas, the importation of vehicles and emergency assistance, since many NGOs reported experiencing excessive bureaucracy while assisting with the delivery of humanitarian aid. I have also requested that the Ethiopian Government examine all means to increase port access for humanitarian supplies, including through Eritrea, where it has been suggested that a humanitarian corridor will be essential for food delivery to the northern part of the country. There are huge logistical challenges relating to the delivery of assistance quickly to those who most need it.
Serious allegations have been made here and elsewhere that the European Commission has delayed in replenishing food stocks to the central reserve in Ethiopia. Some 30,000 metric tonnes from 1998 and 50,000 tonnes from 1999 have yet to be replenished. It is difficult to ascertain, even after several days, the veracity of these serious allegations against the Commission. The Commission defends itself robustly against the charges, yet the facts speak for themselves. Due to borrowings from the Emergency Food Security Reserve – EFSR – by NGOs and other agencies during 1999, the reserve was depleted and not replenished. These very serious issues must be accounted for by the European Commission and we will be raising them with the Commission.
Last weekend the Taoiseach and I attended the first summit between EU and African Heads of State and Government, which was held in Cairo. The objective was to strengthen the partnership and future strategic relations between the EU and Africa. The discussions focused on a wide range of areas such as debt, conflict resolution, human rights, globalisation and other aspects of a future strategic relationship between the two continents. The African countries stressed debt relief and called for the end to the marginalisation of many African countries from the global economy. Some irritation was expressed by the African community at the EU's perceived obsession with human rights and good governance. This is the beginning of a very serious engagement between the EU which is the biggest donor of humanitarian assistance and development co-operation and it is a very important partnership.
I thank the House and Deputy Mitchell for raising this issue and for supporting the increase of our overseas development assistance to reach the UN target. As I said, nobody is more committed to that than I and nobody has been more critical of the Government's failure to reach that target. I will press at Cabinet with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in the light of our review, to reach that specific target of 0.7% of GNP. There has never been a time that we were more fit, capable and rich enough to do so. I am committed, as the Deputies will know, to reaching and publishing that target, to phased increases over a clearly defined period of time to reach an interim target and also the UN target of 0.7%. I thank Deputy Mitchell. I listened with great attention to all the contributions made by Deputies and I thank them for their support.
Mr. Hayes
I wish to share my time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Hayes
To my shame I am not as knowledgeable about the issue of Third World development and development aid as I should be. As the Ceann Comhairle knows, lack of knowledge on certain topics has never stopped other Deputies from speaking in the House and it will not stop me this evening. I will respond clearly to the Minister's speech because she made a number of comments which must be referred to very quickly. This is fundamentally an issue between charity or right and whether we believe that the UN commitment to which we signed up is a matter of charity or right. If we believe it is a matter of rights, we should prescribe it in law and if we believe it is a matter of charity, we should make some commitment to the future. I congratulate Deputy Mitchell on his work in this area. The net issue of his motion is that if we believe it is right that a minimum of 0.7% of our GNP is to be spent on development aid, then it is logical that that should be prescribed in law. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, described this as cumbersome. What a nonsense. If we believe this issue is important enough for Ireland to take a stand on, then we must prescribe it in law.
The Minister of State said she and the Taoiseach want to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP as overseas development aid and this is the precise objective of the proposals that are shortly to go before Cabinet. Why then are we to divide the House tonight? The Minister of State has accepted the principle of the motion, yet we are to vote on it. That is an act of political hypocrisy. The Minister of State said she would use this as a resigning matter last year, but her bluff was called and she did not resign. The commitments she sought from the Cabinet were not adhered to. The Minister of State also said tonight, in an unscripted comment, that the real battle would be fought at Cabinet. She should tell the people through this House with whom that battle will be fought. Will it be with her senior colleague, Deputy Cowen, or champagne Charlie himself, the Minister for Finance? If we are all in agreement on the target, why are we voting on this matter and why is there such dissent in Government on it? The Minister is using the House, politics and Third World debt relief so that her party can be seen as a cog in the wheel of Government and that is a disgrace. Her response has not been a considered one given the cross-party support for this motion.
Last night I set out my stall at length and it is now a matter of record. We all know the saying, "pride comes before a fall", and one sees the pride in this Government when one reads its amendment to this compassionate and reasoned motion. That pride exists though statistics I quoted last night which show that approximately 350 million women will die before the age of 40. The Government congratulates itself on its approach to Ethiopia and Mozambique. What nonsense. Does the Minister of State think we could possibly vote for that sort of nonsense, having put down a decent motion? I kept away from party politics, but I find this response absolutely unacceptable.
I thank all Deputies for their contributions and I thank Fine Gael for giving its Private Members' time last night and tonight to this motion. It shows that Deputies are not just interested in votes, as this issue will not get votes for anybody, though there is concern in this House about it. We have failed time and again to meet the so-called multi-annual budget and it is because there are not any Deputies from developing countries in the House. When every Department has to fight for its share of the budget, which will happen when times are not as good as they are now, we will still not reach the figure of 0.7%. Last year the Minister of State said we would reach the halfway mark of 0.35%, but we did not. She said that the method of calculating GNP had been changed. The Department of Finance and, I pre sume, other Departments, knew that the method of calculation had been changed, but we were not told and again we failed to meet our targets. If that were not enough, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said last night that one of the objectives which had been set by the UN and which the Government shared was to halve the proportion of the world's people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. That is currently 22%, so we will only have 11% of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day in 2015. That is this Government's development policy, despite its huge annual budget surpluses.
If anyone deserves praise it is the missionaries, the priests and nuns who gave their lives for little or no return and who now find it hard to find places to live when they return. We do not always recognise the good work done by these people, but when one of them errs they are all tarred with the same brush. We should record the decades of work done by them. They have given their lives to the poor. I also congratulate the NGOs. They are not without fault and I mentioned one point as delicately as I could: every time there is a famine or catastrophe Irish Red Cross, GOAL, Trócaire, Concern and others advertise. These organisations also have administrations and we will have to turn our minds gently to these matters. Those organisations are almost 100% funded by the Exchequer, EU contributions or directly by the public. I do not want to be critical of these people – they are doing a very good job – but we must raise this issue in a gentle way.
Last night I referred to £2,340 million in unspent development aid being returned each year to the EU and the Minister did not deny it. Why has the Minister of State not brought that matter to the attention of the House in the past? The European Commissioner responsible for development aid has said that the EU policies toward the wider world are "too numerous, too vague and incoherent", leading to "very real inconsistencies" between them. Why is that being allowed to happen? What is our Minister with responsibility for development aid doing at the Council of Ministers if that is happening? She knows the figures; I gave them last night and they are absolutely appalling. It is unacceptable at a time when we have unprecedented economic growth and a huge budget surplus.
The Taoiseach told the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was being instructed by him to bring in multi-annual budgeting in the overseas development aid area. I was surprised to hear it as that is what the Minister of State told us she was doing last year. I do not know if there is competition or disagreement in the Government parties on this matter, though the Minister of State has hinted at that in her comments on the battle at Cabinet. The Taoiseach made that statement at this year's Ard Fheis. Are we to presume from that, that what the Minister of State said last year is incorrect and that multi-annual budgeting has not been in place? I do not think so. There is something inconsistent here.
It is in place. It is to be built on.
The Minister of State should read the Taoiseach's speech to the Ard Fheis. He did not make that clear.
Trócaire supplied me with "The Progress of Nations", a document which states that nearly four in ten children under five in developing countries are stunted and that their stature is a symbol of their diminished potential. It goes on to state that because their capacity for learning is also reduced, they do less well at school and later in life, their productivity and earnings are generally lower than those of their better nourished peers. Like all malnourished children, they are more susceptible to disease. The document goes on to state that every minute a woman somewhere dies from pregnancy-related causes or in childbirth: almost 600,000 a year. Almost all of these deaths occur in developing countries. All of these deaths are occurring at a time when 14 million young children and 10 million older children and young adults in these countries are dying of easily and cheaply treated disease and malnutrition; 840 million people living in developing countries are malnourished; women represent 70% of all poverty stricken people in these countries, followed closely by the elderly; and approximately 79% of the world's population and more than 90% of the 35 million HIV and AIDS sufferers live in Third World countries. Life expectancy has increased from 76 to 58 years, per thousand live births, which demonstrates that development aid works because these improvements took place between 1960 and 1999. However, despite this, 1.5 billion people are not expected to survive to the age of 60 years. Some 340 million women will die before the age of 40 years and 2,600 million people lack access to basic sanitation. We are expected to congratulate the Government which has not, yet again, even met its half-way target.
I opened this debate with a generous offer. I was generous in my comments and Fine Gael was generous in giving its time to this House, but the generosity ends here. This aid should be legislated for and provided. This placing of style before substance is obscene when these figures continue to prevail, particularly on the continent of Africa.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony. |
Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Ahearn, Theresa.Allen, Bernard.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Sheehan and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.