Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Sep 2005

Business of Joint Committee.

Apologies have been received from Deputy Allen who expects another Deputy to represent him, as well as Deputies Michael D. Higgins and Quinn and Senator Norris. The minutes of the meeting of 19 July have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. I gather any matter that might arise is covered in the items we will deal with later.

We discussed the issue of emigrants, particularly missionaries, returning home and their social welfare entitlements. Will a representative from the Department of Social and Family Affairs come before the joint committee to discuss the serious implications in that respect for missionaries and other emigrants returning home?

As the Senator will be aware, we invited representatives of the Department to come here. They will do so in either late October or at the beginning of November. They indicated that they would not be ready to come prior to that time.

Did the Chairman say representatives of the Department of Social and Family Affairs would come here to brief the committee or meet representatives of the individual missionary orders?

No, to meet the committee.

They will come to discuss the prospects for change in that context.

We have invited them and they are coming.

That is a welcome development.

Before commencing the discussion on the millennium development goals, I would first like to deal with the draft report on the committee's visit to Palestine and Israel, copies of which have been circulated. However, before we discuss that report, it is appropriate that we commemorate the memory of Mr. Simon Wiesenthal who died last night in Vienna. He was a great and exceptional person who devoted his long life, after surviving the Nazi death camps, to the task of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice, a task at which he worked for 60 years, often with few resources or little support and sometimes when it appeared the world wanted to forget the Holocaust. He was driven by an urge to obtain justice, not revenge.

Today I am presenting a report on the committee's visit to Israel and Palestine earlier this year. The purpose of the visit was to examine the facts on the ground. The report gives an account of the meetings the delegation — Deputies Allen, Carey, Michael D. Higgins and I — had with both Israelis and Palestinians during our visit to the region. I thank the other members of the delegation for their input and assistance. We were also accompanied by our adviser, Mr. Dermot O'Mahony. I have arranged for the circulation for the information of members of a press release submitted by Deputy Michael D. Higgins following the recent visit of former Ministers of EU member states to Israel and Palestine.

The report is more detailed than a typical report on such a visit. Due to the importance of the subject, I believed it was necessary to include some background material in order that the historical and political background could be understood. The delegation worked hard on the visit and sought the views of the widest possible range of groups. Members have received a copy of the report.

We have not had time to peruse it.

We are seeking the committee's approval to print the report, as we have done with other reports.

Have the members who went on the visit seen the report?

Other members of the committee have not seen it. Are we just being asked to note it?

If anybody has any questions and amendments, they can notify us.

Will we put the report on the agenda for discussion at a future meeting? We should agree to do it now.

We can agree to do that.

It would be meaningless to have a debate on it now when we have not had an opportunity to read it.

Yes, we can put it down for discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that we print it? If there are any amendments, members should submit them.

Is this just a draft report which we can discuss?

There were drafts during the summer. This is the report of the delegation. However, if members believe amendments would be appropriate, they should contact us within the next week.

Obviously, it is not a matter for members who were not on the visit to amend the report. This is the report of the delegation. It is only open to the committee to debate the report, not amend it.

We cannot amend it if we were not there.

It becomes a report of the committee on the visit of the delegation.

Is it being laid before the Oireachtas?

Yes, as was done with previous reports.

I understand members' concerns. Would it create huge problems if printing of the report was deferred for two weeks or until after we have a discussion of it at the next meeting? It was a significant visit.

If members wish to make any suggestions, other than a substantial amendment, they should do so within the next two weeks.

I agree. Is there great urgency?

No. We will have a discussion on the report.

The Chairman suggested the printing of it——

It is more——

Why can that not wait?

It can wait for two weeks. It is management by exception. If one believes there is an exception, one should come back to it, otherwise printing will go ahead in two weeks. Is that agreed?

Will it be formally adopted at the next meeting? Is that the idea?

We can do that if the Deputy wishes.

It must be formally adopted by the committee.

We can formally adopt it now, subject to it being printed in two weeks. If members do not wish to do this, we will not——

It will be subject to any amendments the joint committee may bring forward.

We will allow two weeks for that possibility.

I am against that suggestion. It would be an insult to the committee to adopt the document without reading it.

If we do not work on the basis of management by exception, we will adopt a more laborious, time consuming method, to which I have no objection. It may have the effect in due course of putting people off writing reports because a good deal of work and much thought has gone into putting the report together. We will leave it until the next meeting. If members read it in the meantime, we can pass it then. I want to ensure it is completed and that the matter does not drag on any longer than is necessary.

We will proceed to the next item of business, that is, the discussion of overseas development aid. At its last meeting the committee published a report reviewing its work on the issue which was laid before the Houses and forwarded to the Government. At last week's summit the Taoiseach announced a new timeframe for reaching the target of 0.7% of GDP. The new date is 2012. Arising from this, I have arranged for a brief to be provided for members for this meeting in order that we may consider the new proposal in detail. The brief which has been circulated includes the Taoiseach's statement to the UN General Assembly on 14 September, as well as the press statement issued by the Minister of State's office and a background note on the revised targets and new commitments in support of efforts to combat communicable diseases. It is also proposed to invite the Minister of State to address the committee at its next meeting to brief it on the background to the revised timetable.

It is very good that the committee has an opportunity to welcome the fact that after much protracted advocacy from individuals and NGOs, the Government has finally restated our commitment to reach the UN target by 2012. The Chairman will recall that the committee advocated a timeframe of 2010. As it happens, the Government has decided we will reach the figure of 0.6% by that year.

Some may be disappointed but those who know and understand the complexities of the overseas development aid budgetary process and the difficulties in trying to extract such a commitment from the Department of Finance will appreciate the momentous nature of the decision the Taoiseach announced to the international community at the UN summit. I welcome the fact that where we had uncertainty, following the lapse of the original target date of 2007, we now have clarity and a firm commitment by Ireland to the international community and our partner developing countries in Africa that overseas development aid will be on a firm and secure footing into the future. Its expansion has now been guaranteed. It is a wonderful comment on the values of the Irish people and a testament to our commitment and solidarity with the poorest nations in the world.

I note that in his statement the Taoiseach was anxious to assure those of us monitoring the aid budget carefully that the commitment to reach the interim target of 0.5% in the next two years had been put on the record. I welcome that an extra €100 million has been committed to the fight against HIV-AIDS and other communicable diseases. While that is a matter of budgetary certainty, I am concerned about what will be done between 2007 and 2012 to reach the remainder of the target. In that regard, I believe it is important that this committee should consider how best it can reassure everybody that the political commitment to reach the UN target is delivered upon.

The biggest challenge will be liberating it from the annual Estimates wrangle. The Taoiseach has accepted that whereas he can commit during the next two years to a particular amount to reach the 0.5% target, reaching the ultimate target of 0.7% by 2012 will be dependent upon budgetary constraints and competing budgetary requirements. The joint committee must consider how, as a cross-party committee which supports Ireland reaching its target, it can assist the Government in copperfastening that commitment to ensure there is no slippage beyond the next two years. Having twice fallen short on our commitment to the international community it would be reprehensible if slippage were allowed to occur after 2007.

On how best to assist Government, it has been suggested we might legislate for Ireland reaching the UN target by 2012. However, the Taoiseach has dismissed that suggestion on the basis that it is not how we do business and has stated reaching the target must be contingent on the availability of resources. I would challenge this. While I am not sure if legislation is the way forward, I believe a creative way might be found to ensure the target is reached, while liberating it from the annual Estimates wrangle.

My experience of the aid budget has been that it is the most vulnerable because the global poor do not march on parliaments, they are out of sight and usually out of mind. There are always competing domestic requirements and the Government of the day has to look after our own people. The demands of the health and education sectors, the elderly and the poor are a given, but it is invidious to pit the global poor against competing domestic requirements. We must try to find a way to liberate the ODA fund from the annual Estimates wrangle. For example, a percentage of the budget is set aside each year for the pensions reserve fund, thereby ensuring it does not have to vie or compete with other domestic demands. Addressing this issue through a similar measure would liberate the aid budget. Now that the Government has publicly and privately committed itself to reaching the target, we must consider how best we as an Administration and as a Parliament can ensure there is no slippage in that regard.

This committee has done good work in defending the aid budget and in advocating that the Government reach the target at the earliest point, there having been uncertainty about it. Perhaps we could now put some intellectual investment and co-operation into how we might support this Administration, or a different Administration after the next election, and ensure that Ireland does not allow slippage to occur in our commitment to the poorest countries of the world.

I congratulate this committee and thank it for its support and advocacy. It has always stood firmly behind the original commitment and our work has been persuasive. It is a cross-party committee and has clout because it is the principal committee with oversight of the budget related to overseas development assistance and foreign policy. With the support of the churches, the social partners and others of right mind, we have made a difference and encouraged the Government to take this momentous step for Ireland.

I, too, welcome the renewed commitment of the Government. We can take some credit for helping to advance the debate. There was strong cross-party consensus for the year 2010 as a target. However, it was clear for some time that there would be a compromise. I welcome the target of 2012 and the interim targets.

This committee has a significant role to play. If it did nothing for the next number of years other than watch carefully that we adhere to our commitment, it would not just do some service for the State, but a great service for the world. I hope that, whatever Administration follows in 2007, there will be no slippage. I have mentioned previously that there should be some form of all-party commitment to implement the agreed targets. While I believe the legislative approach may be the best, I understand Deputy O'Donnell's view that there may be other ways of ensuring the commitments are met. This committee could explore how that would be possible. I would welcome hearing the view of the Minister of State when he is available to attend the committee. I welcome yesterday's statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. If there was any doubt about the Government's commitment, it seems to have been removed by what he said.

There are many issues we need to examine and the two sub-committees of this committee are doing this. Much more attention needs to be paid to the issue of food security in order that we are not taken by surprise by the Nigers of this world and whatever might follow. Linked to these issues is the reform of the UN and its agencies. We cannot but express disappointment at the lack of progress with that reform. However, that discussion is for another day.

I welcome the renewed commitment of the Government. It will be an important contribution to the development of the less well-off parts of this world. There is an obligation on this committee to ensure serious monitoring of the expenditure, not just for good fiscal and efficiency reasons, but to ensure our promises are kept to the letter.

I, too, welcome this discussion. The Taoiseach's statement was reassuring and provided a definite target. We had cross-party consensus here for 2010 and had almost the same discussion at our sub-committee. I welcome the fact that we have some certainty and that steps to achieve the target have been outlined up to 2012.

I wish to speak about some issues which were raised on the third page of the briefing document given to the joint committee. We do not have enough information about food security, for example, or the role of the private sector in the democracy fund. We have been told that the details of the democracy fund are being worked out. The document is quite vague on the operation of the private sector within the structure of the fund. The issue of food security was highlighted when we learnt of the problems with the oil for food programme in Iraq.

Perhaps the joint committee could ask the Department of Foreign Affairs for more information on the issues I have raised. We should ask for more clearly defined proposals on what is involved because the document we have been given is not too clear. I would not like to think that the Government is looking for another way of getting the private sector to fund Ireland's overseas development aid commitment. I welcome the Taoiseach's comments, which have clarified the manner in which this country intends to proceed, and the various statements which have been made by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. I look forward to discussing these matters with them at meetings of this committee.

I join my colleagues in welcoming the Taoiseach's announcement, which reflects the views of the people, evidence of which was found in recent media coverage. As I said previously, I am anxious that Ireland's overseas development aid should encourage and facilitate young Irish experts who are willing to go abroad. At the invitation of Senator Kitt, a young man who played for Galway in the recent all-Ireland hurling final, Mr. Alan Kerins, gave the committee an account of the wonderful work he has done overseas. I am not satisfied that enough information is available to such people. I have met a research student from University College Cork who has almost developed a drought-resistant strain of potato. I am aware that the Chairman has worked in that area. It should be possible to use some of the money that has been allocated by the Government to organise a campaign in this regard, involving university students, tradespeople and people who can bring new expertise to the world of medicine and the fight against food scarcity. As I said before, I am not satisfied that the relevant information is broadly available to young Irish people to a sufficient extent. Mr. Kerins is an example of someone who has worked in this area and intends to do so again.

I would like to pick up on the point that was raised by Deputy Dempsey. Members of the committee have often spoken about new initiatives which might be pursued under Ireland's aid programme. The programme should be a dynamic process — it should not stand still. We have received assurances that as the programme's budget expands, a greater focus will be placed on voluntarism to allow the talents of our young people to be invested in overseas development. If more Irish people are involved in framing policy and doing work in the field, where appropriate, there will be a greater level of public ownership and understanding of this country's aid programme. It would be appropriate for the Department to respond occasionally to the suggestions made by members of the joint committee. The committee noted in the report it issued before the summer break that a small percentage of this country's aid budget is dispersed through the missionary orders. Such a level of support is not compatible with the orders' number of personnel in the field and the amount of work done by such people. It is contrary to the original recommendation contained in the review of the programme, which I chaired in 2000.

There needs to be some form of response when the committee makes recommendations. Deputy Dempsey has made the point he made today on previous occasions and I am echoing it publicly again. I hope the officials from the Department are listening to us. I would like them to return to us with their views on our proposals. In particular, I would like the missionary orders to receive more money. There was unanimity among members of the committee that the orders have a huge capacity to spend money resourcefully and in a way which offers great value for money. It has been well proven that the committed individuals who work for them employ sustainable aid methodology. Given the good work they do, I would like the Minister to outline his plans to respond to the committee's recommendation of more resources and support for them.

The response of the Department to the welcome report was that it would not be in a position to give a full response until the Taoiseach had made his announcement. We will now go back to get the full report. We raised the issues with the Department. They have also been noted by Development Co-operation Ireland. We can now follow up on the matter which can be taken on board in our discussions.

There is a great opportunity to increase the availability of voluntary overseas services. The Department sponsors such services, about which it is currently running advertisements. These are all matters we must now discuss as the Department is clear about the direction it will take in the next few years. We are fairly clear about the percentages. Development Co-operation Ireland must gear up on everything about which we talked and be assisted to do so quickly.

The question of missionaries is one which stood out very clearly. We must now examine the various elements in the services to determine what should happen. One way to progress is to obtain all-party agreement on the decision and process up to 2012. It would be better, however, to agree to include the funds in the Estimates rather than carry them forward to the budget to become the subject of a high profile argument on the amount in any particular year. We have seen where some have argued on radio against the 0.7% figure, saying we have so much to address domestically that we should not be doing all of this. One must explain the circumstances to them. The more one can build the commitment into the system to ensure it comes up automatically and not as a separate issue, the better. If it is a separate issue, arguments will take place. While those arguments might happen around the Cabinet table, they will occur all over the place, which will not be positive for our image in a field to which we contribute a great deal and are very deeply involved.

We should look very closely at how best to build this commitment into the system now that the decision has been taken. I can appreciate that it is difficult to put exact figures on it, depending on the level of growth. As we said, the figures the Taoiseach has cited seem to be very close to those of the committee. If one projects the committee's figures for 2010 to 2012, one gets the same figures as we had for 2012. It depends on a very high level of growth. If there is less growth, the amount will be somewhat less. I can appreciate the reasons the Taoiseach cannot indicate a certain amount will be invested in each Estimate. We cannot reach an overall agreement. As a consequence, he has referred to a fixed amount for 2006 and 2007 and merely states the relevant figure in 2010 will be 0.6% of GNP and 0.7% in 2012. The joint committee must devote time to analysing how best to integrate overseas development aid commitments into the system to ensure there is no slippage.

The sum involved is considerable and would approximate to many subheads of a budget in a mainline Department. For this reason, the joint committee will need to take a hands-on approach to scrutinising the efficacy of our development aid budget. If the committee played an integral part in the process, it would reduce the possibility of slippage or the likelihood of a future Administration reneging on the commitments. The Chairman indicated he intends to work out a mechanism for pursuing such a role. We should inform the Minister of State, when he appears before the joint committee, that we intend to shadow the overseas development budget by monitoring how it is planned and spent and the value for money it delivers. It is not as if the sums of money involved are trifling. They are, thankfully, significant and this places an obligation on the joint committee to monitor the budget closely to ensure it is targeted properly. Close oversight will make it difficult for any Government — I hope all will be led by Fianna Fáil — to purloin from it.

The joint committee will have to play such a role. The Minister has been invited to appear before us and we will meet Development Co-operation Ireland. These meetings will allow us to continue our discussions along the lines set out by Senator O'Rourke. The point highlighted in our report was that 99.3% of income from additional growth will still be available for general use. I understand almost 40% of expenditure is allocated to the public service, while the rest is allocated to the private sector. The figures cited by the Taoiseach appear to reflect those outlined in our report. A significant amount of additional money will be available for services. Nevertheless, the joint committee must closely monitor developments and try to secure as much agreement as possible on future steps without getting into public arguments about the issue.

I agree with members that the Taoiseach made a good decision in that the timeframe will give Development Co-operation Ireland and all other relevant parties time to gear up properly. One of the reasons the year 2010 was selected was to ensure we reach the 2012 target.

The report was excellent and had a good effect. It received considerable publicity and I read about it in one of the newspapers

All members of the Government received a copy to inform them of the exact amount of money which would otherwise be available.

With the Minister due to appear before the next meeting of the joint committee, it is important that he address an issue raised on a previous occasion on which we did not receive a satisfactory response, namely, the capacity of the Department of Foreign Affairs or Development Co-operation Ireland to manage a budget of the magnitude envisaged. The overseas development budget is huge and rapidly expanding. It was clear from our review of the programme in 2000, around the time Ireland set the original target, that significant resource issues arose in the Department. Even the most recent review of the Irish aid programme, a study carried out by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD which is complimentary and laudatory in every regard, raised the issue of staffing and noted the need for flexibility in hiring staff, including specialists, medical professionals and others. Some 10% of the overall budget is now expended on the HIV and AIDS response. It is a massive budget and there will be an extra €100 million next year for this particular aspect. That places us at a leadership level in this field in terms of responding to infectious diseases, HIV and the pandemic of AIDS, in Africa in particular.

It is extremely important that we do not expect the existing staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs or Development Co-operation Ireland to take on this responsibility without them having greater flexibility in hiring. A certain number of staff were allowed to be employed on contract by the Department of Finance. There are issues associated with staffing and it is a matter of administration between the Department of Foreign Affairs, Development Co-operation Ireland and the Department of Finance.

Having made this momentous decision, having won the argument and, I am thankful, having put to bed the political argument, it would be folly if we allowed the process to stagnate, slow up or become confused in any way by any reluctance or dragging of feet by the Department of Finance in respect of giving us a properly functioning workforce to administer the budget and ensure it is properly monitored and implemented. When the Minister comes to the meeting, will he report on the staffing issues that have been identified as critical for the monitoring and implementation of the expanded budget?

Deputy Tony Dempsey raised the question of young Irish people going to work in developing countries and the work they are capable of doing. We should not underestimate it.

One of the two most important projects we saw put into practice was the Tigre experiment, whereby the relatively young agricultural people from University College Cork used their expertise to transform the whole valley, in which some 6,000 people live. The other project involved the Réalta Global HIV-AIDS Foundation, established by Ceppi Merry and Mr. Coakley. They came from St. James's Hospital and Trinity College and are now running an advisory service for a number of the applicant countries. The foundation is based in Kampala in Uganda and is running an advisory service for GPs and doctors from a number of African countries on the treatment and management of AIDS. Its work is extraordinary. Deputy Tony Dempsey's point that we should support such organisations is very important.

As I said before, I encountered cases that should be considered. For example, a young Wexford hurler who is a civil engineer asked me to whom he should talk if he wants to go abroad for about two years when his hurling career is over. Past pupils have told me they do not know who to talk to. There needs to be something done in this regard. Alan Kerins, a physiotherapist who was before the sub-committee, is doing tremendous work with prosthetic limbs in Zambia.

As Deputy O'Donnell stated, perhaps this committee should have a greater say in where the money goes and how it is used. True, co-operation is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish but we should consider this.

I am told the website address is www.vso.ie. The body was integrated into the Department but is now separate.

We want to deal with all these issues, including those of governance and corruption. We are involved in addressing them and will continue to do so. It would be wrong to give the impression that they are secondary issues just because there is a decision to be made. They are major issues and we will have to keep them very much in mind. I hope to have something on that fairly soon, if I keep working at it.

The next item for discussion is the work programme. The joint committee has a range of issues to deal with in the next few weeks. Members will be aware that we have appointed a consultant to draft a report on the development programme in Timor Leste. We are due to meet officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 September to progress the report.

Is it related to the one before us?

No, we are now referring to Timor Leste.

We have been asked to meet a delegation of members from the foreign affairs committee of the Parliament of the Faroe Islands. It is proposed to receive the delegation at 3 p.m. on the same day, Tuesday, 27 September. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have also been asked to host delegations from the Pakistan and the Czech Parliaments on 18 and 19 October and the Australian Parliament on 26 October. I will keep members informed of progress on the preparations for these meetings.

Members will be aware that I have been invited, as Chairman of the joint committee, to attend the sixth annual conference of the parliamentary network of the World Bank that will take place in Helsinki from 21 to 23 October. This is an important conference and it is proposed to accept the invitation. Is that agreed?

I received an invitation also. We cannot attend because the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis will be held on the same weekend.

An Independent member representing Ireland.

I replied by e-mail, stating I had party commitments and regretted that I would not be able to attend. If the Chairman does not mind me saying so, I do not think he will be able to attend.

I have a duty as Chairman to represent the committee at that meeting. I am sure Senator O'Rourke will represent me at the Ard-Fheis.

Perhaps the Chairman could pay a flying visit.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.50 p.m. and adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 September 2005.

Barr
Roinn