Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2007

Vol. 634 No. 1

Other Questions.

Human Rights Issues.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ceist:

85 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he and officials from his Department, will be attending the ministerial level conference being convened by the UNHCR on 17 and 18 April 2007 on the humanitarian situation in Iraq which will seek commitments from governments to address the situation including more international burden sharing to ease the strain on the current refugee hosting states in particular for those groups most at risk, for example Palestinian refugees in Iraq; and if the Government will lead by example and take up the challenge by providing resettlement opportunities prior to the conference. [10450/07]

I am deeply concerned at the continuing deterioration in the humanitarian situation in Iraq and in particular the situation of internally displaced persons, refugees and vulnerable populations. I therefore welcome the decision of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, to hold the international conference in Geneva on 17 April which will address the humanitarian needs of refugees and internally displaced persons inside Iraq and in neighbouring countries. Ireland will be appropriately represented at this important conference.

I was also pleased that a regional conference of Iraq's neighbours, which was held in Baghdad on 10 March, set up a working group to examine the issues relating to Iraqi refugees and displaced persons with the support of the United Nations.

The Government is committed to assisting the vulnerable population in Iraq. In January we made a pledge of €3 million for emergency humanitarian assistance for victims of the conflict. This pledge, which is additional to the €7.9 million already provided by Ireland for humanitarian relief since 2003, is being targeted at agencies working with the growing number of families that have been forced by the violence to flee their homes. In this regard, and in light of the deteriorating situation and the growing number of refugees and internally displaced persons, we made specific support of €500,000 available to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in late 2006 for its Iraq operations. I am confident that Ireland will be in a position to offer further specific financial support at the forthcoming conference in April.

We are particularly concerned at the plight of the Palestinian population in the current crisis. Ireland continues to be a strong supporter of the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. UNRWA is the main provider of basic services, including education, health, relief and social services, to more than 4.3 million registered Palestinian refugees living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. This year the Government increased our support to UNRWA by providing it with €3.8 million, an increase of 25% on 2006. Furthermore, we have made a commitment to maintain this increased level of funding for at least three years. This core funding facilitates UNRWA in responding with flexibility to Palestinian needs in the West Bank, Gaza and also in the region, including the needs of Palestinian refugees arriving into Jordan and Syria from Iraq.

Selection of refugees for resettlement in Ireland under the programme refugee scheme is a matter for my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.

I wish to assure the Deputy that we are determined to do our part to ensure that help is delivered to those most in need in Iraq and neighbouring countries as swiftly as possible.

In his reply the Minister of State has shown an awareness of the fact that there are Palestinian refugees in Iraq who have been forced to flee, particularly to the Iraq-Syria border, because of the activities of Iraqi security forces and militias. These people are stranded at the border — the last estimate gave a figure of 850 Palestinians — because their homes have been raided, their furniture thrown out and some have been targeted and killed. One raid last week saw 51 Palestinians detained. One was killed and 41 succeeded in fleeing to the border region where they are now stranded.

I welcome the Minister of State's comment that Ireland will be appropriately represented at the conference in April but does he not agree that, welcome though it is, more than financial aid is required? In this instance those representing Ireland at the conference should give, in addition to financial aid, an expression of our support by allowing Ireland to take a substantial number of programme refugees. The Minister of State pointed out that the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible in this regard but hopefully he can ask the Minister to ensure that the representative at the conference will pledge to allow a number of programme refugees to come here. We can set the standard for other nations in attendance by reaching out to these stranded people who are being targeted in Iraq.

Regarding the Deputy's view that we should be appropriately and properly represented at these conferences, I am sometimes present at conferences to pledge financial assistance and sometimes not. Sometimes this is merely a matter of tactics as we might be asked informally by other donors, who are trying to raise money at such conferences, to make our pledge in advance, as the French say, pour encourager les autres — to encourage the others to pony up and provide assistance. Our role in these matters can vary depending on the requirement. If there is a perception that a particular fund will be under-subscribed and is not receiving sufficient support, we may pledge in advance because we have a reputation in the area.

We will be appropriately represented at the conference and we are prepared as a country and a Government to respond to any request regarding programme refugees, wherever it comes from. At the moment we accommodate programme status refugees through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as it makes decisions in this matter in conjunction with us. We have a standing commitment that was made in 2005 to take approximately 200 refugees annually when requests are forthcoming.

My Department is responsible for assessing people arriving after the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform decides to respond to a request from the international community. Such requests come from the United Nations and other international organisations. A formal request procedure exists and we have not yet, to my knowledge, been subject to a formal request, diplomatic or otherwise, to increase the level above 200 programme status refugees. As in the past, we are prepared to be generous on this subject and I take on board the Deputy's point that this is not simply a matter of making Irish money available. We are prepared to make moral and other commitments to ensure the conflict in the Middle East is brought to an end. This has been the reputation of Irish foreign policy through the years, notwithstanding changes of Government.

Can I take it from the Minister of State's reply that his representatives will attend the conference having secured an agreement with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to go beyond the level of 200 programme status refugees or will the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform be represented directly as part of the Irish team at the conference?

The Deputy can take it that we have not received any request regarding taking refugees to Ireland under the programme refugee scheme. If we receive such a request we will respond appropriately, however we have not been asked diplomatically or through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am not bluffing; I simply do not know whether the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has received such a request. I imagine it has not as it would have come to our notice had that been the case. To date the Government has not, to my knowledge, received a request in this regard.

Overseas Development Aid.

Dinny McGinley

Ceist:

86 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of five year funding partnerships entered into by Irish Aid with non-government organisations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10419/07]

The Multi-Annual Programme Scheme, MAPS, is an Irish Aid funding scheme which helps the larger Irish non-governmental organisations, NGOs, to strengthen their development programmes and planning through flexible and predictable funding.

The five MAPS partners Concern, Trócaire, GOAL, Christian Aid and Self Help Development International, SHDI, who participated in the first phase of MAPS from 2003 to 2006, were invited to participate in a second five-year MAPS programme to run from 2007 to 2011. Irish Aid has entered into a five-year funding partnership with Concern, Christian Aid and Trócaire under our MAPS programme. Consideration of GOAL's MAPS II proposal is ongoing and a decision will be conveyed to the charity shortly. Due to the recent well publicised difficulties encountered by SHDI in relation to its governance, that organisation has been allocated €3 million for 2007. The position is being kept under review and consideration will be given later this year to a multi-annual allocation for SHDI.

Under the first MAPS scheme, from 2003 to 2005, and including the transitional year of 2006, the five partners received the following funding: Concern, €60.5 million; Trócaire, €49.1 million; GOAL, €44.7 million; Christian Aid, €7 million; and Self Help Development International, €9.9 million. Under the MAPS II scheme, 2007 to 2011, the funding for the partners already agreed will be as follows: Concern, €148 million; Trócaire €116 million; and Christian Aid, €17 million. The Department has replaced the three-year MAPS programme with a five-year programme, a change which accounts for much of the large increases apparent in the figures.

I welcome the Minister's positive initiative to extend the length of the MAPS programme as it allows the organisations in question to engage in longer-term planning and apply funding more effectively. What is the reason for the delay in allocating funding to GOAL? When will negotiations with that organisation be finalised?

In some cases, organisations receive allocations at different times. Some organisations develop their programmes and have discussions with my officials earlier than others. I do not become deeply involved in these matters and officials generally submit proposals to me to be signed off. I signed off on three such proposals but did not sign off on the Self Help Development International allocation. Discussions with GOAL are ongoing.

Given the large sums of money being advanced to non-governmental organisations and for reasons related to how the Department audits and assures itself that funding allocations will be appropriately and properly spent — matters raised by Deputy Allen in an earlier question — the Department does not enter into a pro forma process. Deep discussion takes place and the Department and Irish Aid hire external contractors or consultants to evaluate proposals submitted under multi-annual funding schemes. Considerable negotiation takes place on the proposals. I am confident we will be able to make an announcement regarding GOAL shortly, subject to agreement being reached between the charity, on the one hand, and my officials and the consultants who evaluate the various proposals, on the other.

Three out of five allocations have been made and a fourth is, I hope, imminent. As regards the fifth proposal from Self Help Development International, the Department may examine it towards the end of the year. SHDI is carrying out an intimate internal governance review of its structure and organisation following the row and feuding which took place early in the year. The organisation will probably seek multi-annual funding to complete the MAPS II, which runs from 2007 to 2011, towards the end of the year but will first satisfy itself that its governance structures are in order.

How extensive is the Department's use of consultants to assess projects? Is the Minister of State satisfied that the views of consultants are in line with the philosophy and mission statement of the Department? I witnessed the disastrous effects of one such consultant's report when I visited the University of Bethlehem. The report had recommended a substantial reduction in the level of funding for the college.

It did so on very narrow grounds.

Yes, the grounds related to midwifery courses. Is the Minister of State satisfied the consultants hired by the Department reflect its mission statement when making their reports?

The Department typically spends €50,000 or €60,000 on the consultants and contractors it employs. These are small amounts when compared with domestic spending on consultants, which is frequently much higher. In addition, consultants tend to be employed on a short-term basis for a specific purpose. For instance, they are commissioned to assess and carry out proper due diligence on the MAPS proposals from an independent perspective. If the Department were to perform this function, it could decide to fund an organisation because it loved what it was doing. The commissioning of consultants ensures assessments are carried out properly.

While I do not wish to avoid the Deputy's question regarding the University of Bethlehem, I am not aware of the full details of the case. In my experience in Irish Aid, no other project has been the subject of as much lobbying as the University of Bethlehem, about which I have received numerous representations from members of all parties.

The reason is that a delegation visited the hospital and saw the problems it is experiencing at first hand.

The Department must operate in a nuanced way when assessing projects. If there is strong parliamentary support for a project, I will make no secret of it. If a large number of people are lobbying me about a matter——

I ask the Minister of State to provide an update on the position regarding the University of Bethlehem.

I will have a note issued to the Deputy because I do not have the full details of the case on hand.

Decentralisation Programme.

Fergus O'Dowd

Ceist:

87 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the projected number of experienced development personnel expected to be retained by the Irish Aid office after decentralisation; the cost of replacing these specialists; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10409/07]

Phil Hogan

Ceist:

94 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of development specialists seeking to decentralise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10399/07]

Billy Timmins

Ceist:

167 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of senior development specialists volunteering to decentralise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10415/07]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 87, 94 and 167 together.

Under the Government's decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs will decentralise to Limerick. This is scheduled to take place during the second half of 2007 and will involve the relocation to Limerick of 124 posts. In addition and to help effect the smoothest possible transfer to Limerick, an advance party involving approximately 50 staff is scheduled to decentralise in May. Overall, personnel have either been assigned to or identified for 90 posts, or approximately 73% of the 124 posts scheduled to be decentralised.

As regards development specialists, they perform an important role in the business of Irish Aid. Specialists work alongside diplomatic and general service staff in close contact and co-operation with each business unit within the division. There are a number of issues to be worked out with regard to the specialist posts which are scheduled to move. Discussions are ongoing at a senior level with representatives of the specialists, their union, IMPACT, and the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs to resolve the outstanding issues. Progress has been made and I hope the discussions can be brought to a successful conclusion at an early date. Until these sensitive discussions are concluded, it would be premature to speculate on the number of specialist posts which might be decentralised to Limerick.

In addition to the development specialist posts at headquarters, there are 20 development specialists attached to embassies in our programme countries. Almost all the senior management team for Limerick is in place. In this regard, the director general of Irish Aid will decentralise to Limerick, as will seven counsellors or principal officers who are in place in the directorate. The changeover of the senior management team, as in other grades, has been implemented in a planned and careful way so as to minimise disruption to the business of the directorate.

Most of the organisations to which the Minister of State referred have their headquarters in Dublin and have argued that it would be logical to locate Irish Aid in Dublin. Now that Irish Aid is to be located in Limerick, will financial assistance be made available to organisations such as Dóchas, Concern and Trócaire if they wish to relocate to Limerick to benefit from close proximity to Irish Aid?

It is not the business of Irish Aid to fund the administrative decentralisation of organisations we happen to fund, whether non-governmental organisations or any other type of body. Irish Aid does not enter into this type of assistance and should not engage in such measures as it would amount to paying for administration, rather than providing financial and other assistance to those we seek to help in the developing world. If NGOs wish to remain in a collaborative and co-operative relationship with Irish Aid they can and will do so. I do not envisage the existing good relationship being worsened by the move to Limerick, just as I do not accept that the relationship between the Department of Education and Science and teachers has worsened in the 20 or 30 years since a significant proportion of its operations moved to Athlone. I do not see any issue here. Anybody who has dealt either at a political or official level with the Department of Education and Science in Athlone will say the same. There was no change in the underlying relationship between teachers and departmental staff by dint of the Department being substantially decentralised to Athlone in respect of a major part of its activities.

How many posts in the development and human rights areas does the Minister of State envisage being created in the current year?

We received sanction for 20 additional posts as part of the last Estimates round. In the next fortnight, I will enter into a further Estimate discussion with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. We were grateful that those 20 posts, 16 of which have been filled to date, were allocated specifically for audit, evaluation and monitoring of the programme. Two of those 16 are auditors hired specifically for the audit unit, while the other 14 were assigned various monitoring roles in the expanding aid programme. The reason we have been unable to hire four of the 20 staff sanctioned last year is because of the uncertainty regarding specialists.

In the coming year, the hiring and recruitment process in Irish Aid will not be influenced by a year-to-year approach. We are now, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, in the midst of a major review of the management structure of Irish Aid. We hope this will be concluded by the middle or perhaps the end of this year. This will determine the future staffing, resourcing and management structures required for the programme, whose current budget of €813 million will grow to some €1.5 billion by 2012. The management review will examine not just staffing but all aspects of the programme. The objective is to determine how best to manage a programme of this enormous size.

The staffing requirements for the expanded aid programme will be determined this year. I hope, in 2008, either I or whoever takes my place will be in a position to look at the expanded staff requirement. There is undoubtedly a requirement for additional staff across all areas of Irish Aid's operation. The key issue philosophically is whether those staff should be based in Limerick or Dublin. Irish Aid operates under the Department's remit and the political and human rights divisions are based in Dublin. The issue is whether we increase the staff load in Dublin or Limerick, or, in combination with either or both, assign additional field staff in locations such as Geneva, New York, Brussels or Rome, where the UNFAO is based.

That is the purpose of the management review and we hope it will be concluded by the autumn, if not sooner. It will determine the staff required for the expanded programme.

Nuclear Disarmament.

Ciarán Cuffe

Ceist:

88 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his meeting in February 2007 in Dublin with Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10383/07]

I met Dr. El Baradei on 16 February. Dr. El Baradei, who also met the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government separately on the same day, was in Dublin to receive an honorary patronage of the Trinity College Philosophical Society. In the course of our meeting, I raised a number of issues in Dr. El Baradei's particular area of responsibility, including recent developments in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK, the Iranian nuclear programme, and the United States-India civil nuclear co-operation agreement.

On the DPRK, we both welcomed the agreement addressing its nuclear programme reached earlier that week at the six-party talks in Beijing. This positive development is of particular importance to the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, whose inspectors will now be able to return to North Korea's nuclear facilities after a prolonged absence to carry out their vital monitoring and inspection work. Dr. El Baradei was recently in the DPRK to discuss the practicality of implementing the agreement. He indicated subsequently that the visit had been useful and had opened the way to a normal relationship.

In regard to Iran, Dr. El Baradei's visit was particularly timely as it came one week before the issuing of his report on Iran in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737. During our meeting he shared his perceptions of the main outstanding issues with respect to the Iranian nuclear programme and his sense of how the process was developing and what lay ahead. We agreed on the importance of a negotiated solution to this issue and, in this connection, he referred to his own proposal for a time-out or double suspension as a possible way of enabling the commencement of negotiations with Iran. Dr. El Baradei subsequently issued his report confirming Iran's failure to comply with Resolution 1737, and it is anticipated that the Security Council will adopt a follow-up resolution in the near future.

I shared my concerns about the potential impact of the United States-India civil nuclear co-operation agreement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, and the disarmament and non-proliferation regime it established. Dr. El Baradei gave his perception, which was somewhat more positive, focusing on the developmental and environmental aspects of the deal. These views are in line with his previous public comments on this matter. The negotiation of an Indian safeguards agreement with the IAEA is one of the further steps required before the United States-India deal can be implemented. These negotiations, however, have yet to begin.

In sum, the meeting offered a valuable opportunity for an exchange of views on some of the more significant and topical issues in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Does the Minister agree with the views expressed by Dr. El Baradei? For example, he observed that we spend $100 billion every year on development, less than 10% of the $1.1 trillion spent on weapons. He described this as hypocritical and also said it was hypocritical for the nuclear powers to preach to non-nuclear states. He particularly referred to the United Kingdom spending $200 billion to modernise the Trident submarine. I tend to agree with his views. Does the Minister?

In general, yes. I said at the UN review conference that it is hypocritical of certain countries to demand, from a military point of view, that others should not be allowed to move on nuclear energy, while they themselves are not disarming, which was the other side of the coin in terms of the NPT. Ireland has been to the fore over the years in articulating that and will continue to do so.

Dr. El Baradei's views on Iran and the proposed EU energy deal were surprising, and his perspective on the latter was particularly interesting. The remit of his organisation is to monitor all of this activity, but he seemed more positive than are we in Ireland towards the United States-India deal.

Does the Minister agree there is a misconception in regard to the relationship between the IAEA and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The IAEA is not the secretariat to the NPT. Does the Minister agree it would be valuable to follow the Blix proposal that a secretariat be established to the NPT to advance it?

Dr. El Baradei's view in regard to the non-signatory countries, including Pakistan, India, Israel and possibly Iran, which are effectively adopting a policy of constructive denial, is to construct a set of bilateral treaties. Does the Minister agree it would be impossible to sustain the NPT, press on for universality or achieve a comprehensive ban on testing if there was a conscious alternative of separate bilateral treaties, some of which are negotiated on commercial grounds? The United States-India deal, for instance, is worth $100 billion to the United States nuclear industry. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is reasonable to see Dr. El Baradei's views as not essentially integrated with those who support the NPT?

Yes, I am generally not in favour of bilateral agreements. I support multilateralism and the attempts to ensure all nations disarm, as originally intended under the NPT, while also preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That has been successful, although there are some who say there are difficulties. I agree there are difficulties, but at least Iran remains part of the NPT and has not walked away. Also, the success of the six-party talks has shown the DPRK can be reined in somewhat. This shows that pressure from all nations rather than from one block can ensure nuclear proliferation does not happen. In the 1960s some people would have suggested that by now we would have many more countries with nuclear bombs, but that is not the case. Therefore, the NPT has been successful in this area.

I said, to both Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. El Baradei whom I met separately, that our view is that the multilateral effort of the NPT is the way to go. I had difficulty with the fact that both men had different perspectives and told them that. They acknowledged my difficulty and said they understood a neutral nation like Ireland with a history and good record on articulating a non-nuclear stance would adopt fairly stringent attitudes towards what is going on in a number of instances.

Does the Minister agree that double standards appear to operate in this area? The non-proliferation treaty has been sidelined, effectively, until 2010, at a time when there are major proliferation threats. India has been rewarded by the United States in what was termed a €100 million deal. Is that what the Minister said?

I did not say that.

Deputy Michael Higgins said it and I do not doubt his word. India is a country which has ignored the NPT for almost 40 years. I am not in favour of appeasement, but at the same time, Iran is being threatened in a belligerent manner over its nuclear programme by the very people entering into agreement with India. Does the Minister agree we must have some consistency on the control of nuclear weapons? Does he also agree, in the words of Dr. Hans Blix, that instead of threatening and backing Iran into a corner, there should be realistic discussions with the Iranians and a conciliatory approach made with them to reach some agreement on their nuclear programme. Currently, we have, at best, misguided policies and at worst, total hypocrisy and double standards, depending on which country is developing nuclear weapons. We turn a blind eye towards Israel which recently tacitly acknowledged it has nuclear weapons. At the same time Iran is being backed into a corner giving rise to the danger it may go down the wrong road.

I will not repeat my view on double standards as I am inclined to agree with the sentiments expressed on the other side of the House. On the Iranian situation, the Deputy is correct that the only way to deal with the situation is by negotiation, treating Iran with dignity, but at the same time sending a strong message that the international community, not just America, Europe or Israel, does not wish Iran to possess nuclear weapons, just as it does not wish Israel to possess nuclear weapons.

However, the independent monitoring agency on the Iranian situation has pointed out in reports that what is going on in Iran is definitely in the direction of military nuclear capability rather than the civilian nuclear capability claimed. There is a change ——

Could the Minister do something to reactivate negotiations on the NPT rather than wait until 2010?

Discussions are taking place, but based on the recent report of the IAEA, the UN Security Council will, within the next week, examine what further action should be taken against Iran. We live in an open society where debate takes place. We must be grateful for that and that we do not live in a society dictated from on top. Changes are taking place in Iranian society where groups feel some pressure as a result of sanctions already imposed and those that may be imposed by the international community through the UN. It is hoped that by a ratcheting up of sanctions more pressure will be put on the broad spectrum of civil society in Iran to ensure the government there does not take the route of a military capability.

Will the Minister confirm we have a position on the nuclear suppliers group? Would we use that to ensure a strong position is taken in defence of the non-proliferation treaty by vetoing the bilateral agreements between the US and India, and any other countries that are not signatories to the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty so that we can ensure we build a nuclear weapon-free world? Will this continue to be Ireland's position and will we use every opportunity to ensure the NPT is defended as strongly as possible?

I assure the Deputy that Ireland is to the fore in defending the NPT, particularly in the context of the NSG. On the US-India deal, not all elements are on the table and there is still a long way to go before we reach a stage where we will have to make a determination. There are strong arguments against this deal, but other people, including Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Hans Blix, have a more positive view on this deal. This was part of the reason I met them both when they were here, in order to tease out their perspective as relatively independent people. We will not take a final view on the US-India deal until all the elements are in place and all the requirements are in place to make a decision. We are not at that stage yet.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Barr
Roinn