I welcome the members of the advisory board of Irish Aid. They are Mr. Chris Flood, Mr. David Begg, Ms Maura Quinn, Mr. Gerry O'Connor and Ms Mary Sutton. We are discussing the annual report of 2005. I remind members to ensure mobile phones are switched off, as they cause interference with recording equipment in the room.
We are glad to have a former Deputy and Minister of State, Mr. Flood, with us. I ask him to make his presentation, and a question-and-answer session will follow.
On behalf of the advisory board of Irish Aid, I welcome this opportunity to meet the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs' sub-committee on development co-operation. Together with my colleagues on the board, Mr. David Begg, Mr. Gerry O'Connor and Ms Maura Quinn, I look forward to an interesting dialogue and exchange of views with the members of the sub-committee. We are accompanied this morning by our principal development specialist, Ms Mary Sutton.
The last time I addressed this sub-committee as chairman of the advisory board, in November 2004, I set out the background to the establishment of the advisory board, the nature of its mandate and the principal activities undertaken by the board up to that point. The first advisory board reached the end of its term during 2005 and a new board was appointed with effect from 1 November 2005 for a three-year term. I would like to update the sub-committee on the work of the advisory board in 2005 as outlined in the annual report which we have circulated to the members.
As the committee is aware, the advisory board's mission is to oversee the expanding development co-operation programme, provide strategic direction and work closely with Irish Aid to maximise quality, effectiveness and accountability. More specifically, the board has responsibilities in five areas. It is charged with providing general oversight and advice to the Minister and senior management on the strategic direction of the programme, enhancing the independence of the evaluation and audit arrangements, commissioning research of the highest international standards, keeping the overall standards of the programme under review and organising the development forum to take place once or twice a year. That brings together NGOs and missionary organisations with the Minister of State and senior officials for dialogue on strategic issues.
The advisory board has met 23 times to date, with sub-groups on research and strategic planning meeting as required. With regard to general oversight and advice at meetings, the advisory board offers its views to the Minister of State and the director general, with other senior officials of Irish Aid on a range of strategic issues. Principal among those in 2005 were the reframed 0.7% ODA target, decentralisation of Irish Aid and the White Paper on Development Co-operation currently in preparation.
On the overseas development aid target, the advisory board had taken the view that the original target date of 2007 lacked credibility given the outturns in the previous years and that it was in the best interests of the programme to reframe the commitment. The board proposed year-on-year increases equivalent to 0.05% of gross national income such that the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income would be reached in 2010.
The announcement of the new target date of 2012, with an interim target of 0.05% in 2007 and with clear budgetary commitments for 2005 to 2007, inclusive, was welcomed by the board.
The central issues now relate to programme quality. The new target date implies extremely large year-on-year increases, with major implications for programme planning and staffing. Central to the issue of programme quality is the proposed decentralisation of Irish Aid to Limerick.
The advisory board has repeatedly expressed serious concern about the possible negative impact of decentralisation on programme quality on two counts. It undermines a key recommendation of the Irish Aid Review, which favoured a development co-operation division within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the interests of policy coherence. The relocation of Irish Aid may make it a less attractive option for diplomatic staff as well as bringing about the possibility of losing specialist development staff.
The advisory board made a submission on the White Paper in June 2005. It noted very positive features of the Irish programme in that it is given entirely in the form of grants, 100% untied, and focused on the poorest countries, in particular sub-Saharan Africa. It argued that, subject to the resolution of the aid target issue, there was a very strong platform on which to build the "distinctive and world class" programme envisaged in Ireland Aid Review in 2002.
However, with regard to decentralisation, the advisory board reiterated its extreme concern. It noted:
Development Cooperation is part of the core business of the Department of Foreign Affairs, yet it is being physically removed from the remainder of the Department. In a context where the development cooperation agenda is becoming increasingly complex and where the interconnections between the political and development agendas have never been greater, this will render more difficult the close interaction that is essential. The budget of the Division is many times that of the rest of the Department of Foreign Affairs and is due to grow rapidly over the years ahead, necessitating the best planning, staffing and management practice. The decentralisation [...] inevitably reopens the debate about the relative merits of a Division within the Department of Foreign Affairs or an independent agency. The arguments adduced in the Ireland Aid Review and accepted by the Government in 2002 in favour of location within the Department [...] were strong but risk being overtaken by the logic of the physical relocation of Irish Aid.
The advisory board also views the potential loss of specialist development expertise to the programme as a cause of serious concern. The board is very concerned at the shortfall in applications to the central applications facility from specialist development staff and senior diplomatic staff with development co-operation experience.
These concerns have been discussed with the Minister and senior officials on many occasions during 2005. It is the board's view that even at this late stage, the decision to decentralise Irish Aid should be reviewed in light of the manifold risks attendant on it. We argue in our White Paper submission that the advisory board would be remiss in its duty if it did not point out once again its grave fears of regression in programme quality consequent to decentralisation. Apart from the recommendation in regard to decentralisation, the advisory board submission contained a further 20 recommendations related to programme quality. These are set out in the annual report.
On enhancing the independence of the audit and evaluation arrangements, my colleague, Fr. Gerry O'Connor, chairs the departmental audit committee which reports at each meeting of the board on the work of the committee. The board meets biannually with staff of Irish Aid's evaluation and audit unit to consider its work programme and the strategic issues with which it is faced. The advisory board regards the annual report of the audit committee as a critically important contribution to improving processes and procedures in Irish Aid. In particular, it endorses the need for the development of a systematic approach to the implementation of the recommendations of audits and evaluations and shares the concerns expressed by the audit committee in regard to staffing levels and believes that increasing the level of resources devoted to this area is an urgent priority. The risks associated with decentralisation, the loss of expertise in particular, are keenly felt by both structures.
The board and audit committee would like to see Irish Aid pioneering impact measurement ways of auditing and evaluating new aid modalities. At the request of the audit committee, the board is in the process of commissioning research that will examine approaches and best practice in measuring the impact of development assistance. On the board's research mandate generally, to date the board has commissioned seven research projects at a cost of €2.2 million involving approximately 90 researchers from 40 institutions in Ireland, the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia, Malawi and Nicaragua. The research areas include policy coherence, civil society and global health and governance. The policy coherence and civil society studies, coupled with two of the four global health studies, are due to conclude this year. Details in relation to each of the studies are set out in pages 27 to 38 of the annual report.
With respect to its mandate regarding staffing and resources, in 2005 the advisory board commissioned a study entitled Assessment of Current Staffing Levels and Future Requirements at Development Co-operation Ireland Headquarters. This study, which was completed in April 2005, concluded that there are serious threats to the Irish Aid programme arising from a confluence of three factors, staff shortages, the potential negative impact of decentralisation on programme quality and the increase in the size and complexity of the programme. Specifically, the report argues that the staffing available to Irish Aid is inadequate, the size and complexity of the programme has increased considerably and the knowledge and experience of development co-operation vital to the efficient and effective operation of any aid programme could be lost on the current management side of the programme following the transfer of Irish Aid to Limerick unless urgent remedial action is taken.
The advisory board considered the report in detail and offered its views and recommendations thereon to the Minister. It regards as imperative that there be an increase in staffing to meet current needs and that staffing levels be reviewed annually to ascertain the impact of further budget increases. It cautioned either holding back from the increases in overseas development aid or adopting aid modalities specifically for the purpose of circumventing the problems of inadequate human resources and argued that the issue of appropriate institutional structure for Development Co-operation Ireland be revisited in the light of decentralisation.
On its fifth and final area of responsibility, namely, the organisation of the development forum, the advisory board has convened seven sessions to date. The forum brings together non-governmental organisations and missionary organisations with the Minister and senior Irish Aid officials for strategic dialogue. In 2005, the autumn session of the forum was expanded to incorporate a broad-ranging consultation on the White Paper. Participation in the forum exceeded 270 people. The forum was addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and human rights and six eminent speakers from abroad. During the afternoon session, participants were invited to give their input on five themes prominent in the written submissions on the White Paper and in the public sessions held throughout the country. The five themes were: integrated and coherent Government policy for development; engaging the public in development co-operation; governance, poverty, focus and aid effectiveness; conflict; and human security and development.
Following the appointment of the new board in November 2005, a strategic plan was drawn up for 2006 to 2008. In the context of the very rapid and substantial increases already coming on stream it would be judicious to enhance the governance of Irish Aid to ensure a level of oversight and accountability appropriate to an undertaking of its size and importance. Undoubtedly, the oversight role of the Oireachtas will develop to meet the needs of the new context. The role of the board also needs to be developed. In that regard, the board is deliberating on its status, remit and priorities.
The board welcomes the opportunity to meet the sub-committee. During the lifetime of the first advisory board, Ireland's official development assistance programme grew from €420 million in 2002 to €546 million in 2005, an increase of 29% in nominal terms. It is anticipated that during the life of the current board from 2005 to 2008, the level of assistance will increase to €1.066 billion, an increase of 95% in nominal terms. By 2006, when the UN target is achieved, the programme will have grown to €1.6 billion. Irish Aid is moving into a new area and Ireland is moving to the league of mid-size donors. Managing a greatly expanded programme will present major challenges for all associated with Irish Aid. The advisory board, therefore, looks forward to strengthening its relationship with other structures, including the sub-committee, which is charged with responsibility for overseeing this welcome growth in official development assistance.
I thank Mr. Flood for his presentation. Mr. Flood referred many times to decentralisation and to meetings with Ministers. I presume he was referring in that regard to meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are Ministers of State Conor Lenihan and Parlon involved in this area? I am aware of their involvement in implementation of the proposal. Perhaps Mr. Flood would elaborate on the issues surrounding decentralisation.
The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I attended a seminar recently in Cape Town at which one of the issues discussed was that of HIV-AIDS. Perhaps Mr. Flood would comment on the declaration on research which arose from that conference.
I will ask my colleague, Mr. David Begg, to deal with the issue of decentralisation, which has exercised the minds of the board for quite some time.
The Chairman will be aware from his interest in this area, in terms of effectiveness in the work of the Irish Aid programme, that there are two aspects involved, namely, the availability of resources and spending money wisely and effectively. It is something of an inexact science in which experience, knowledge and institutional memory are especially valuable. As pointed out earlier by Mr Flood, resources have improved significantly to the point where, in a few years' time, if commitments are adhered to, we will have a total budget of €1.6 billion, a significant sum which will place us in the top league of donors. It is important we use that money effectively.
I would like to gain an understanding of the committee's view on this issue. The view of the advisory board has nothing to do with the broad issue of decentralisation per se, as it is, generally speaking, a matter for Government. The board’s focus is on its area of advisory responsibility. Mr. Flood stated earlier that five or six years ago, during the major review of Ireland Aid, there was much debate about what the structure of the organisation should be, specifically whether it should remain an integral part of the Department of Foreign Affairs or should be a separate agency similar to the German GTZ organisation. In any event, the decision was in favour of the integrated arrangement, the principal reason being that this would allow for better policy coherence. In other words, the development co-operation division would be locked into the broader thinking of the Department of Foreign Affairs in foreign policy and so on. The arguments at the time in favour of establishing a separate agency related to turnover of staff bearing in mind that staff in the Civil Service often moved on after a number of years from one area of work to another within a Department. Concern was expressed at the time that this was not the best way to retain institutional knowledge. It was believed it would be better to give people a specialist career path within an agency context. However, the decision was taken to retain the board within the remit of the Department.
While the budget is increasing significantly we believe the loss of expertise as a result of the move to Limerick will be potentially debilitating to the programme. I will provide the committee with some statistics in that regard. Some 35 posts in the Irish Aid headquarters are to be filled by officers who have signalled their intention to decentralise to Limerick. Only nine of them are currently serving in the development aid section of the Department. A further 16 people serving elsewhere in the Department, mainly abroad, are considered to have some expertise in this area. This leaves a huge gap of 120 posts to be filled. It means these posts will almost certainly be filled by people with no knowledge of this activity. That is an enormous loss to the programme. Maintaining the quality of the programme in the context of an expanding budget and spending money effectively and ensuring new staff are up to speed will be challenging. We have put this view to the Government through the Minister.
Perhaps one of the delegation will address the issue of HIV-AIDS.
The current international situation regarding HIV-AIDS is a mixed bag of progress on some fronts and none on others. What we see internationally is the availability of considerably more resources than were available ten years ago. We recently marked the 25th anniversary of the discovery of the HIV virus. As members will be aware, the pandemic has increased apace, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is essentially bearing the brunt of this. There has been a huge increase in the rate of infection in eastern European countries. All the organisations involved in dealing with this issue would be overwhelmed if the rate of infection were to increase in countries such as China and India.
On specifics, many pharmaceutical companies worldwide are now providing anti-retrovirals, ARVs. The difficulty, which has been well documented in the media, relates to the cost of ARVs. While Brazil has made particular progress in reducing the cost of ARVs there, the level of access to ARVs in sub-Saharan Africa has not improved. There has been significant progress during the past 12 months in particular in regard to the development of ARVs for children. Prior to this the ARVs available for children in particular were the same as those available to adults. Cutting a tablet in two for a child is not an exact science. The pharmaceutical companies are now engaged in the production of ARVs for children. Again, access is a problem. While these drugs are available in many countries, the infrastructure is not in place to distribute them effectively. Unfortunately, there has not been much progress on the issue of prevention. The news is good in some countries such as Zambia and Uganda, where rates are falling among young women in particular. However, it is a mixed bag in terms of the Continent of Africa. While we welcome the availability of resources worldwide in terms of HIV-AIDS, we have a long way to go in finding a resolution.
Am I correct that the board believes decentralisation will exacerbate the loss of specialist applicants to the CAO?
The problem is that we will have only nine and, possibly, a further 16 people who will have experience in this area when the operation is decentralised to Limerick. I did not mean to give the impression that the office will not be staffed, since it will be, but we will lose much of our expertise. It will take many years for new staff to get up to speed with the aid modalities and so on. This is a complex area in which institutional knowledge is extremely valuable. A major concern among all NGOs is that they will lose the expertise of people with a knowledge of certain countries, aid modalities and so on. It is hard to overstate the challenge this poses.
An area of concern in overseas aid — I am not sure if this falls within the remit of the advisory board — relates to the number of young people wishing to volunteer abroad. I recall when travelling to Lanzarote as manager of the Wexford hurling team speaking to a young man, a trained civil engineer, who told me of his wish to work abroad in Africa for about two years on a voluntary basis. I was also contacted by a past pupil of mine from south-east Wexford seeking information on whom she might contact in that regard. I have raised this issue many times but it has not been discussed today. Perhaps it does not come within the remit of the board. However, I would appreciate the delegation's comments on why information is not readily accessible to those wishing to serve abroad voluntarily.
The former APSO agency was the core unit making connections in Africa and other parts of the world to open up options regarding volunteer placements for Irish citizens. While I agree with the Deputy that there is a great deal of interest in volunteering, there are now fewer placements available than before because many agencies have professionalised themselves to such a degree that they are not interested in volunteers wishing to learn the art of development on the ground. However, some initiatives such as the Volunteer 21 initiative have been set up to examine new volunteering options for this century. A number of groups such as Suas and Serve which receive funding from the Department open up volunteering opportunities for people in their 20s wishing to take up short-term placements with a view to longer-term placements. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, recently announced the establishment of a one-stop shop in Dublin which will gather all volunteering information and make it available at one location. This initiative will be funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs through the Irish Aid budget and will bring together all key actors providing volunteering opportunities and options.
How does one get that message across? A one-stop shop located in Dublin will not be accessible to a person in south County Wexford. We need to advertise the information and to provide it to third level institutions and secondary schools.
Agencies such as Suas and Serve visit third level colleges to discuss such possibilities. They are assisted and supported by the Irish Aid budget. I believe the one-stop shop will be proactive in making available such information. For example, Comhlámh, the returned volunteers' organisation, recently produced a book entitled Working Abroad in Developing Countries which provides information on 200 agencies and is available on the Comhlámh website. The publication was funded and sponsored by Irish Aid.
Like Deputy Tony Dempsey, I too receive inquiries from people interested in volunteerism. There is great enthusiasm for this type of work. I have mixed feelings on the matter, however. There is concern within the sector, be it the Government side or the NGO side, that there is a need for professionals in this area rather than unskilled, well-intentioned persons who may become a liability in the field owing to inexperience and so on. The other side of the argument is that the only way one can obtain experience is by getting involved. A number of organisations have a policy of recruiting interns, namely, persons who have an interest in this area or who may have undertaken the development studies course in Kimmage Manor. My personal view is that there exists within the sector far too much political correctness about all of this. The pendulum has swung too far from that which pertained in the old days when people with no experience volunteered abroad to the point where things have become so professionalised that those who are enthusiastic about this, even if they do not have a master's degree in development studies, cannot obtain a placement. I would like to see a great deal more opportunities for young people who have the enthusiasm for such work. I hope that with the initiatives referred to by my colleague, Mr. O'Connor, there will be a reversal of that type of straitjacket approach. There is huge enthusiasm for this work.
I have the privilege of serving on the new committee established to consider issues such as human capital and volunteering and effective citizenship in Ireland and so on. At one level we are bemoaning that this does not happen on a sufficient scale, while on another we are not providing those who wish to do this with an opportunity to do so. The value in, say, Mary Murphy from Athlone returning home having worked in Africa and others empathising and identifying with her is undervalued. In my view, we need to pull this back from the professionals.
I thank the delegation for attending and for its valuable work. I apologise for having had to leave a couple of times but we are often required to attend other committees or the Dáil.
I have read the chairman's comments from which two issues arise. The gross amount of Irish Aid will increase substantially during the next few years. Even if the percentage remains static, the amount of money involved will increase. If I am correct, the amount of development assistance provided by Ireland will reach €800 million or €900 million in a few years. The public wants to ensure that money is well spent and accepts the board requires an increase in staff to do so. We in the Oireachtas are also aware of the effects of not having enough staff. I would like to hear more about the staffing deficit.
People who do not know how bureaucracy or management structures work might believe there is no point increasing aid merely to employ more staff. There might be a school of thought which would suggest one should give the money to foreign governments or NGOs rather than employ more administrative staff. Have the two sides of the argument been considered? My personal view is that there needs to be a significant increase in staff. However, there are two sides to that debate.
My second concern relates to decentralisation. As a former Lord Mayor of Dublin city, I am a strong proponent of decentralisation. I believe if we do not decentralise, Dublin will become choked and the rest of the country will not be developed equally. The Government has tried to decentralise with maximum efficiency, an issue on which there is ongoing debate. Mr. Flood alluded to problems attracting staff for the office. However, the submission does not outline why decentralisation will not work for the advisory board which deals with processing funds for continents located hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Is it not realistic to assume that such funds could be processed in an office located 50 or 70 miles from Dublin?
I apologise for being late but, as outlined by Deputy Mulcahy, there are a number of conflicting demands on us this morning. I hope the Chairman will excuse my saying this but there is a certain amount of repetition and circularity in the issues being discussed in that a number of the issues I raised on the last occasion have surfaced again today.
I had the opportunity of hearing Mr. David Begg speak about the composition of human resources in terms of internships. I do not hold the same view or believe it is a choice between professionals and non-professionals. I believe there is a total lack of clarity in relation to participation in the aid programme in internships, recruitment into the general process and the expanded ODA budget, which will require many additional people. I have to declare an interest of sorts in so far as members of my family have been involved in postgraduate work in development. This gives me an opportunity of looking at this from the outside. What strikes me, in terms of the development side and the human rights side, is the great difference between the possibility of practical experience as part of a professional formation within the Irish system and other countries involved in overseas work. I am referring in that regard to the Scandinavian countries. We simply do not have the entry points.
On the additional staff required to deliver the increased overseas aid adequately, it is not clear how this recruitment process will take place. The Department of Foreign Affairs has a very antiquated method of recruitment through the local appointments commission. About twice in every generation it holds public meetings, following which it constructs a long list and informs people of their position on it. It then draws from that list until people are almost into mid-life. It offers also through the Commission for Public Service Appointments a discussion with people of how they fared in their tests. Having spent 18 years as a university teacher, I have much experience in this area. It rarely fulfils that undertaking and where it does, it happens perhaps a year afterwards. The discussion more or less takes the form of the inquiry "Are you still alive and would you like to know where you did badly?". Entry to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the aid programme is chaotic and unclear and should be looked at seriously in everyone's interest.
While I am on staffing, Mr. Begg, who is one of the most experienced persons in Europe in this area, will know that it is impossible to have a purely theoretical relationship with development work. It is best to combine practical field work with theory, which is, of course, also important. How many staff are being transferred from other sections in the Department of Foreign Affairs to the development area, and what courses, are they taking? How long are these courses, and what areas do they cover to help manage the transition? The decentralisation exercise has made prominent the question of what happens where much of the intellectual memory at the upper levels of a unit is lost. How can you undertake a fire brigade action to qualify people in the development field? One cannot do it properly and be faithful to the exercise.
My respect for the chairman and the members of the advisory board is immense — I have often said so when referring to its reports and its general work. Why is their advice to the Minister not published, given our aspiration to have a proper dialogue about development? I note the great gaps between areas of practice in the NGO sector. These are the practical work, which is very necessary, on economic and social transition into which research is needed, the concerns that have been articulated by NGOs, the issues which come up at the forum and the advice that has been given to the Minister by the advisory board. I see a poor fit among these elements and worry, having spent a couple of decades tangentially involved in this area as a sociologist and political scientist, about the lack of progress integrating useful theoretical work with practice.
There is a disastrous acceptance internationally of a single paradigm for development models across whole continents, especially Africa. When I became involved in the discussion in the 1970s, debate centred on the adequacy of basic needs models, which were rejected by many of the receiving countries in Africa. We are now at a point where there is less accountability in respect of academic work than there was formerly, while the quality of consultancy work and its ability to relate to serious theoretical work in the development field have deteriorated.
The White Paper referred to in the presentation and the report will appear in September. I went to the public consultation forum at which it was clearly indicated that Ireland would have ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption by the time the White Paper appeared. That has still not happened. I would have liked to have known what the advisory board's advice to the Minister was on that point. Ireland and other member states were embroiled in this debate. I am not suggesting that the board has a particular view, but that there is an unhelpful public view presented on occasion that corruption is endemic in the receiving countries when the countries which have the capacity, intellectual ability and political and administrative means have not ratified the UN convention. I have questioned this failure but heard nothing in response which suggests the convention will be ratified this year or some time soon. If the White Paper appears without ratification of the convention, it will lack credibility.
I have not seen a discussion of appropriate technology and technology transfer for years. Some countries continue to speak about the necessity and capacity for agricultural transition in the context of the debate on the World Trade Organisation and the derogations that might be appropriate for certain vulnerable African and Asian states. That debate took place in the 1970s but it does not take place now. I say these things not to be negative but to point out that criticism is long overdue.
While I congratulate the Government and the associated parties for moving on and meeting the UN target, I cannot say the current structures are adequate. Far more than the promised 20 additional staff members on the development side are needed. Staff levels must be expanded and improved links with the research community established. There is a need to offer a minimal internship programme. Nobody knows how volunteering works and I am tired of hearing about press releases on the subject. People continue to ring up asking to speak to ghosts from the APSO programme who still rattle around the Department and everyone has a story about how good or bad it was.
As Ireland meets its UN obligations, the exercise of changing the name to Irish Aid from Development Co-Operation Ireland is the daftest act I can remember. In the interests of transparency at the sub-committee, which the Chairman has called for, it would be useful to find out who came up with that idea. I have heard that the Minister of State said he discovered on travelling around the country that some people did not understand the meaning of "Development Co-Operation". It is tough luck on those people if they did not. They should have improved their literacy. The idea of changing the name of the programme on such a flimsy basis is laughable.
A great deal has been raised by the members. To assist the committee, I will ask individual members of the delegation to respond on different topics. Mr. Gerry O'Connor will discuss overall staffing and audit and evaluation. Mr. David Begg will address the separate but interrelated issues raised by Deputy Michael D. Higgins and with the issues raised by Deputy Mulcahy.
I ask the witnesses to be brief as a delegation from the Red Cross will also address the committee.
I am chairman of the audit committee of the Department of Foreign Affairs. All members of that committee are external to the Civil Service and we meet every month with key officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Our assessment is that there is not an adequate number of staff to ensure a level of comfort in the audit and evaluation of an already significant budget which it is planned to increase. Staff numbers must be increased in the audit and evaluation section as well as at specialist level across the Department to ensure the budget is properly managed and subject to comprehensive audit and evaluation coverage. There is a need to ensure the recommendations produced on foot of audit and evaluation are implemented.
Decentralisation to Limerick is taking place as the budget increases in an internationally respected programme. The audit committee believes there is a risk associated with decentralisation to Limerick, as key members of the audit and evaluation unit will be lost to the Department at a critical time of expansion in the programme and when the budget is increased. We have identified that in our annual report as an area of risk and concern. The recommendations of the advisory board in regard to increasing staff, contained also in the annual report, are strongly supported by the audit committee.
Some part of the work of the people in Limerick is in processing applications for funds, but there is also a huge amount of very high-grade work, including the theoretical work to which Deputy Michael Higgins referred. Our fear is of losing this institutional knowledge, not just to deal with the existing situation but to move forward in the theoretical field and improve the performance of the Irish Aid programme. We are very worried about the loss of that institutional knowledge and the skills which would form the bedrock of the expanded Ireland Aid programme that the move to Limerick involves.
Obviously it is wholly inconsistent to hold that view and also to believe we can go back to the situation of 25 years ago. Deputy Michael Higgins mistook what I said in relation to volunteering. There is such an interest that it would be nice to be able to take more people in. Many people who became involved subsequently obtained a master's degree and developed a deep knowledge and commitment to the whole area. Deputy Tony Dempsey referred to people being turned down, which is a pity. Perhaps there should be an increase in the number of internships.
: There is no way in at the present time.
: It is very limited.
: Everybody comments on it. As a university teacher, having encouraged people to go into the development field and become qualified, I see that they are being given the back of the hand. That is happening in every institution in this country.
I do not disagree. What I said earlier was wholly in agreement. We need to be more open, to find a way to engage more people.
The board has quite a good programme of research into a number of areas and we hope to build on that research in a way which allows us to be more critical and more effective in the oversight we are supposed to exercise as a board on the work done by the Department. I cannot remember quite where the new title came from but it was not from us.
: I was in Kenya and Gorissa with UNICEF. The money is being well spent. I commend the work of GOAL, Concern and the Sisters of Mercy, who have been in Kenya for 50 years. Money channelled through the Sisters of Mercy or the priests there is well spent and well audited. I urge them to keep up their commitment to Gorissa. Whether the move to Limerick takes place is quite irrelevant. It is a Government decision. I am more concerned about what is happening in Africa.
: I thank Mr. Flood and all his colleagues. I hope we will meet again soon.
