I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Joan Burton, who will discuss Vote 39 dealing with international co-operation.
As I intend to speak on business in the House this morning Deputy Ferris has graciously agreed to take the Chair in my absence.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss Ireland's official development assistance programme. We mentioned this area when we discussed the relevant chapters in the White Paper on both development co-operation and human rights. As I said on that occasion one cannot view development co-operation in isolation from other foreign policy concerns. It is interrelated with other dimensions such as human rights, trade policy and disarmament issues.
The White Paper reiterates our commitment to the Irish bilateral aid programme as a key component of our development co-operation strategy. The cornerstone of our aid policy will continue to be long-term development with the focus on poverty reduction, basic needs and capacity building. We have added a new priority country, Mozambique. At the same time the number of crises emerging requires a new focus in our development policies on improving the response to humanitarian crises. A humanitarian liaison group and a rapid response register will be established to channel, as effectively as possible, the expertise to assist with these humanitarian emergencies.
The allocation for our voluntary contributions to UN development agencies has been increased and will allow us to support efforts to encourage the reform process to make these agencies more responsive to basic needs in the developing countries. As a small country with, in total terms, a small aid programme, our participation in the work of the UN agencies allows us to participate in larger scale programmes than we, as an individual country, could otherwise finance. This is particularly true of our involvement in organisations such as UNICEF which deals with, for example, the immunisation of children on a countrywide basis.
Subheads C to G comprise the bulk of the Government's expenditure on ODA. The total allocation under these subheads is £77.2 million, almost all of which is counted as ODA. Funding from other Departments' Votes and from central funds must be added to the money allocated under these subheads in order to reach the overall spending figure for ODA this year.
The largest items outside this Vote are: contributions to the EU Budget, £15 million; the World Bank Group, £5.4 million; and the World Food Programme, £1 million. The total spending which can be reckoned as ODA will be around £106 million in 1996 representing 0.29 per cent of estimated GNP. The ODA increases are substantial and I expect that the reaction to them will be generally favourable. While it could be said that the increase in ODA this year, like the increase in the last four years, does not amount to the level of increase promised by the Government and reiterated recently in the White Paper, that promise was for annual increases of 0.05 per cent of GNP whereas the actual increases have been smaller.
In 1992, the increase was 0.16 per cent; in 1993, it was 0.2 per cent; in 1994, it was 0.25 per cent; in 1995 it was 0.27 per cent; and this year, 1996, it is 0.29 per cent. This brings us to the highest ever level of ODA. Our GNP has been increasing so rapidly that it has been difficult to maintain the continued expansion in the programme in terms of the percentage figures.
The expenditure on ODA will be the highest ever this year, both in cash terms and as a percentage of GNP, and the White Paper on foreign policy confirms the Government's intention to continue with significant increases in ODA in the years ahead so as to put Ireland's performance on a par with that of our EU partners with the ultimate aim of meeting the UN target of 0.7 per cent.
The bilateral aid programme of £48.2 million is by far the largest figure in the ODA subhead and represents an increase of 23 per cent over the figure for 1995, which was an enormous increase over the previous year's figure. The bilateral aid programme is the principal channel through which long-term assistance to developing countries is disbursed. The bulk of it —£27 million — goes to the existing priority countries, including the two more recent ones, Ethiopia and Uganda. This year, for the first time, a country programme is being set up in Mozambique.
As set out in the White Paper, our programme in Sudan has been held at a certain level because of the human rights record of that country and its failure to address concerns we have raised. We do not foresee any increase there. In fact, the programme in that country may decline even further because of lack of response to the concerns we have expressed.
The White Paper commits Irish aid to address poverty by focusing a bilateral programme on the basic needs of poor people including primary health care, basic education, safe water supply and income generating opportunities. It also places strong emphasis on capacity building to ensure that development activities can be continued and expanded by the relevant communities and authorities in partner countries. The aim of all EU aid programmes is to strike the difficult balance between poverty reduction and basic needs which together with capacity building will allow countries to generate their own qualified manpower and personnel resources to meet their needs now and in the future.
Non-priority countries also register an increase with a large provision for assistance to South Africa, following our commitment to the democratic transformation of that country, Zimbabwe, the Palestinian territories, Cambodia, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Funding for rehabilitation assistance, which is used for reconstruction after major emergencies either natural or man-made continues with an allocation of £3 million for 1996. The recipients will be Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. In keeping with our policy that human rights and good governance are vital for real development we are allocating £1 million for the human rights and democratisation budget.
Co-financing of aid projects with NGOs is also under this subhead. This is the scheme where modest grants are made available to NGOs, such as Concern, Goal, Trócaire and the missionary orders. The increase from £4.3 million to £5.4 million, or 25 per cent, brings this year's allocation into line with the outturn for 1995. As I said last year, this heading is dear to the hearts of many Members because it allows individual Irish missionaries, who are very often in remote and far flung places, to get an endorsement and assistance from the Irish aid programme, whether it is to add a room to a school, build a science laboratory or give equipment to a small rural hospital.
Other areas provided for include; development education with an allocation of £1 million which covers the National Committee for Development Education administrative budget and funding for disbursement of grants; co-financing with multilateral organisations with an allocation of £1.6 million — trust funds at the World Bank Group of organisations simultaneously assist developing countries and provide opportunities for Irish consultants; and fellowships to enable students from the Third World to study in Ireland which has an allocation of £1 million.
The cost of staffing and running the aid programme increases by 16 per cent. At £1.8 million it remains modest in terms of the overall size of the programme. We are very lucky to have departmental and contract staff of the highest calibre working on our various programme both at home and abroad.
APSO continues to increase the number of volunteers placed overseas. Its budget is increased accordingly by 24 per cent to £10.5 million. It placed 1,266 volunteers last year and its target for this year is 1,350. The Government has indicated that APSO should move towards a target of 2,000 placements. Most people would regard this as ambitious and concern has been expressed that the quality of the placements could suffer in the struggle to achieve the numerical target. As mentioned in the White Paper, we are increasingly encouraging local involvement and local capacity building and placement of Irish technical assistance is not intended to block opportunities for locally qualified people, but rather to enhance their capacity. The overall target of 2,000 should be seen in that context.
The allocation for emergency humanitarian assistance is £5.5 million, which is down 3 per cent on the 1995 outturn of £5.65 million. There were exceptional demands for emergency assistance last year in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The emergency fund can be distributed rapidly in response to the sudden onset of emergencies and is generally channelled through Irish NGOs, UN agencies such as UNHCR, the Red Cross and other voluntary agencies. One new proposal outlined in the White Paper is the establishment of a humanitarian liaison group and a rapid response register to channel as effectively as possible the expertise of Irish people to assist in humanitarian emergencies abroad.
Subhead F relates to the international funds for developing countries. These are fixed contributions, for the European development fund it is £6.3 million and for the international fund for agricultural development it is £200,000.
Subhead G relates to voluntary contributions to the UN development agencies. An increase of 18 per cent in this subhead brings the figure for 1996 to £6.5 million, compared with £5.5 million in 1995. The chief beneficiaries of the increase are UNICEF, the UNDP and the UNHCR. These are the three largest agencies of the UN in the field of development. Unease is sometimes expressed by NGOs and others interested in aid at the fact that Ireland is increasing its voluntary contributions to these UN bodies. People are concerned that money is being put into large agencies which do not have adequate levels of accountability.
It should be pointed out that Ireland has always supported the principles and philosophies of the UN. We are committed to making it work again as an effective world body to bring about peace, justice and development. Ireland's contributions to the UN agencies are still small both in cash and GNP terms by comparison with our partners and the total involved is much less than bilateral expenditure under the aid programme.
Subhead H provides £305,000 for the refugee agency, a non-statutory body under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is responsible for the reception and resettlement of programme refugees admitted to Ireland. The substantial increase of 42 per cent in this subhead reflects the increased demands in the context of the refugee intake from Bosnia Herzegovina following the Government decision in August 1995 and includes additional staff for the agency.
The refugee agency will co-operate with the relevant international organisations — the OSCE and the UNHCR — in facilitating Bosnian refugees in Ireland to participate in the forthcoming elections in Bosnia Herzegovina. The process of voter registration is expected to begin in the next couple of weeks.
Subhead I provides £179,000 for assistance to eastern Europe. There is a slight drop in last year's outturn of £180,000. The number of applicants for bilateral funding for eastern Europe has dropped, presumably because consultants are benefiting from the PHARE and TACIS schemes.
Subhead J, Appropriations-in-Aid, relates to the receipts arising from the sale of vehicles, machinery and furniture and from deposit interest received on the bank accounts of our development co-operation offices.
Our normal procedure is to allocate time for opening statements from the Opposition parties. As there is only one of those parties present, we will allocate Fianna Fáil time for an opening statement. If after that there are no representatives of the Progressive Democrats or the Independent Group present, we will deal with questions.
I have not seen any systematic analysis of the reason for the balance, in our case, between the amount of resources we devote to bilateral aid and multilateral aid. It would be useful to have a discussion on that to see if there are principles involved to which we should pay attention.
We are delighted to see the total amount of aid increased, but on the basis of the figures the Minister of State has set out, if we were to achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP, it would require an expenditure of £256 million on the basis of last year's GNP. The Minister of State commented on the difficulties caused by our success in achieving increases in GNP because it pushes up the threshold every year. I am sure she would love to have £256 million available for the aid programme.
The Minister of State will know that we have had discussions with APSO. I was intrigued by the reference to the target of 2,000 placements when she said ". . . the quality of the placements could suffer in the struggle to achieve the numerical target." Leaving aside the Marxist connotations of the language, why is there a struggle? Is there an objective basis for trying to achieve a numerical target apart from the fact that organisations like to increase their presence on the ground as a matter of course?
Under subhead I, the Minister of State pointed out that the number of applicants for bilateral funding for eastern Europe has dropped " . . . presumably because consultants are benefiting from the PHARE and TACIS schemes." Is there an objective reason for maintaining a bilateral programme when the PHARE and TACIS schemes are in operation and leading to useful work?
It is a great achievement to have such an increase in Irish aid to £106 million in 1996. However, many NGOs are concerned that the target growth plan of 0.05 per cent of GNP has not been met. We are victims of our own success given that we have the highest growth rate in the EU. The NGOs would make the point that setting such targets for aid is to accommodate changing national circumstances. They have made the point to me that we should be on a growth plan of 0.05 per cent of GNP.
The NGOs have also raised the question of contributions to the ESAF fund. I understand £0.5 million has been set aside in 1995 and 1996 for that fund. Trócaire and the Debt and Development Coalition have made the point that it should not be allocated to ESAF but to the IDA facility of the World Bank.
In 1995 the Minister for Finance introduced the tax deductibility scheme which is a new source of funds. How much is given to ODA through that scheme? There is a large increase in funding for APSO. It is £10.5 million for 1996. NGOs have expressed concern about the best use of the funding under this programme for APSO. The use of local expertise gives rise to concern. Will the Minister of State give more information on that issue?
The Joint Committee passed a resolution on Nigeria which called on the Government to support steps to be taken by the international community to bring about the replacement of the present military dictatorship in Lagos with a democratically elected Government. Two other Members of the Oireachtas and I were to be part of the delegation organised by Trócaire to visit Nigeria next week. Yesterday we received word that visas are not being granted to us. It would have been useful for us to visit Nigeria on a fact finding mission. We would have been the first representatives from an EU country to have been allowed enter the country. We were told that the ban on political parties was lifted, there was a transition to democratic rule and freedom of expression. However, what we have heard and the fact that we are not allowed go to Nigeria raises serious questions about the regime there. I hope the committee and the Department of Foreign Affairs will support our wish to go there. During our Presidency of the EU, we should raise this issue and make it a priority. I do not wish to burn all bridges and we should continue to work to be allowed visit that country. I am sure this is the wish of Trócaire, which tried to organise the visit next week.
The debt and development coalition has made many proposals concerning the crippling burden of debt on developing countries. It has made the point that this debt undermines all development initiatives. I hope that a conference on Third World debt, as proposed by Deputy Burke in the Dáil, will be held and that it will agree a once-off arrangement which would involve writing off the debts of those countries most seriously affected. Many African and Pacific countries devote more than 50 per cent of their foreign earnings to repaying debts. It is scandalous that development assistance is caught in a vicious circle whereby the Third World is required to pay back more in debt repayments than it receives in aid. The proposal by the debt and development coalition deserves support.
Last week we met the association of fair trade shops in Ireland, which raised the serious question of trade for developing countries. I raised on Question Time the proposals made by the Irish fair trade network concerning a specific allocation for fair trade in bananas. We have been told that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has no difficulty concerning a specific allocation but the problem is that there is no evidence of a substantial market for this product. I know the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other Ministers met last week with the Association of Fair Trade Shops in Ireland. On the question of bananas, it wants a 7 per cent quota allocation.
At meetings of the joint committee we discussed the question of Rwandan refugees. There are a huge number of these refugees in Zaire, Tanzania and Burundi and this is a cause of concern. We have also discussed an independent system of justice in Rwanda. Will the Minister gives us up to date information on this? We would like to see a system of justice established there in which people would have confidence.
I welcome the Estimates and I am glad that the amount of aid we give is to be increased, even if it will not be at the level we would all like. Are we keeping anything in reserve for sudden emergencies? The tornado in Bangladesh caused widespread suffering and I am certain the Government will give a contribution towards this. Do we set aside reserve funds to deal with emergencies which can occur in Honduras one day and somewhere else the next day? We can never predict where an emergency will next arise.
I read an article in The Sunday Timeson the Balkans and the amount of aid contributed by UN bodies which ends up on the black market and is not given to the people who need it. Certain UN troops sell cigarettes, foodstuffs and medicines. I strongly favour giving most of our aid to Irish NGOs and to NGOs from other countries in areas where Irish NGOs do not operate. I am confident that when we give aid to Irish NGOs every penny is accounted for and is well spent.
I welcome the increase in funding for APSO and am glad there is an aspiration to increase the number of volunteers from 1,266 to 2,000 over the next few years because they do wonderful work. People would much prefer money to be given to Irish NGOs. We read in newspapers that money which is given to UN humanitarian agencies is not properly spent. We must be absolutely satisfied that money we give to the UN is accounted for and used to help people in need. I am aware that Irish NGOs cannot operate in the Balkans and we have to give aid to other bodies. A half a loaf is better than no bread and from that point of view there must be a certain resilience.
I intend to adhere to the order of speakers already agreed and will not abuse the position of the Chair.
I welcome the Minister and the presentation of the Estimates. I particularly welcome the increase to £106 million of total overseas development assistance from this country, which represents 0.29 per cent of Ireland's GDP. During the past six years we have doubled our contribution to overseas development assistance in GDP and monetary terms which is quite an achievement. I do not wish to introduce politics to this issue but I believe that the current Government and its predecessor can take much credit for a complete change in our policy on ODA. From 1988 to 1992, there were very positive reductions in overseas development assistance which were not to Ireland's credit. I understand that the country was experiencing financial difficulties but it was stated in the Dáil at that time that those reductions were not appropriate. To use a well worn cliché, they were "the unkindest cuts of all". That is the past, however, and we are very positive at present. I congratulate the Minister because I am aware of the level of his commitment to this area.
I am concerned about the way in which we spend our money. Our contribution to the World Bank during the current year is £5.4 million and we are also giving £1 million to the World Food Programme. I am aware that we are committed to making a contribution to the World Bank but reservations must be expressed about its attitude towards recipient countries, particularly with regard to the problem of debt forgiveness. We must query whether the World Bank spends wisely on our behalf the substantial sum of money we invest? Is that money spent in an appropriate manner? Is the philosophy which often informs the World Bank's attitude toward developments in the poorest countries an appropriate one?
Last October, during a conference in Washington, I spoke to the new director of the World Bank and he confirmed my fears about the way in which that organisation works. Very often it perceives a problem in purely banking terms. It operates in a similar way to my local bank whose primary concern is to attract my custom and see that I pay any interest owed on time and in full. This is the World Bank's attitude to the poorest countries with perhaps with some softening at the edges, and it is not appropriate. Deputy Kitt earlier referred to the need to convene a world conference on debt forgiveness. All we have ever done is discussed the Trinidad terms and the Toronto terms. To my knowledge, the Toronto terms have never been brought into effect. When serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, John Major spoke about the Trinidad terms at a Commonwealth Conference in Trinidad in 1989 or 1990 but we have yet to see them.
I congratulate the Government on increasing its contributions to ODA. The world is undergoing a period of donor fatigue. The United States is reducing considerably its overseas development assistance and is attaching strings to that assistance. Ireland does not attach political strings to its ODA. Our funding is targeted at the poorest of the poor and is designed to meet people's basic needs. Major donors other than the United States of America are also reducing overseas development assistance. The results of such actions are easily seen in Africa where economies continue to contract. Many African economies are not growing and I do not doubt that this is related to the problem of debt. At present, outflows of debt repayment exceed inflows of overseas development assistance in these economies.
Tragedies such as those which occured in Liberia, Rwanda, Algeria and other countries are often related to wretched economic conditions. People in these countries lose faith in the Government and political establishments and the result is mayhem, lawlessness and complete anarchy. Burundi is on the brink of entering a situation similar to that of Liberia, which is the oldest independent country in Africa and was established by liberated slaves who returned from North America in the 19th century. Its name comes from the word "liberation". That country has descended into total anarchy and tens of thousands of people were recently murdered by warring factions. What can the international community do about this? Countries such as Liberia should be placed in an international trust because the UN peacekeeing or peace enforcement forces sent there by Nigeria, Ghana and other countries have failed utterly in their task. Factions now rule the country and the people are suffering as a result.
There are hopeful signs in the Third World as regards greater respect for human rights, better governance, etc. However, there has also been an increase in sectarian politics. India, which does not enter our discussions today, is the world's great secular democracy which brought together a myriad of cultures and religions. I am not an apologist for the Congress Party in India but it brought together Moslems, Hindus, etc. under its umbrella. However, a sectarian Hindu party emerged as the major force during the recent elections in India. This reflects developments elsewhere in the world. I hope that my remarks are not offensive to the staff of the Indian Embassy in this country but that is the reality and it is symptomatic of events in many other countries where breakdowns into sectarian politics occur along tribal, religious and other lines. Much of this is related to economic decline. There are great disparities between the rich and poor in India and people express their dissatisfaction by voting along sectarian lines or by listening to the rhetoric of rabble-rousers. These are worrying features in the developed world. We went to Mozambique as election observers and we were very encouraged by what we saw there. I am delighted we have made that one of our priority countries.
I am also delighted by recent events in Angola, where I went to observe the elections in 1992. The United Nations has brokered another agreement in Angola and the Lusaka accords may be put into effect on the ground in that unfortunate country. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed there since the ceasefire broke down after the general election in September/October 1992. The United Nations mandate lasted from the time of negotiations in Lisbon in 1989 until the general election. It was then left to Angola to put a Government in place. Although the United Nations knew the accords had broken down, it just walked away because its mandate had ended. No decision was made to remain and ensure a Government was put in place. It packed its bags and left. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. What is wrong with the United Nations is it only does half the job. It becomes involved in an area and then pulls out. It is unable to deal with or respond to the awful things which happen. That is part of the reform which the United Nations should undergo. The debate about the reform of the UN began in 1995, its 50th anniversary, but it is still at the talking stage and a great deal of fatigue has already set in.
I know we are nowhere close to the UN aid target and the OECD average is only half of the UN target. However, we are increasing our aid at a time when wealthier countries whose economies are growing are reducing their aid or applying inappropriate conditions to it.
We must complete the Estimate by 12 p.m. and the Minister will require at least ten or 15 minutes in which to reply. I am anxious that Members will have an opportunity to make an opening statement. We will then agree a formula to deal with the various subheads.
The Minister has personal experience of this area and deserves to be congratulated. I am sure the knowledge she gained from her work in Africa has influenced a great deal of the increased development aid in this programme. The increase in our aid commitment —£206 million in total — is a significant amount, no matter how it is calculated, given the size of the Irish State. We must be proud of that. The £48.2 million in bilateral aid, which is an increase of 23 per cent from 1995, is also a significant development on which I congratulate the Minister.
I am delighted Mozambique is included in the priority countries. I note £27 million has been earmarked for priority countries. I have a particular interest in seeing as much as possible of that aid go to Mozambique, not because I am partisan but because of my experiences in Mozambique. How much of that section of the Vote will go to Mozambique? It is reckoned to be the poorest nation in the world and needs to be targeted. Its neighbour is South Africa, which was probably its main problem for most of its independent life because of the destabilising effect of the civil war in South Africa. There is now peace in both countries and increased co-operation between South Africa and Mozambique.
However, as I said yesterday, there is a new type of invasion of Mozambique by people in pinstriped suits whom I do not wish to denigrate but who avail of the opportunities presented by democracy and use the resources which should be used to put the country back on its feet. According to the Minister's statement, our aid is for the basic needs of poor people and for capacity building, which is very important.
I also experienced the dangers of landmines in Mozambique. What is our position on landmines? I saw the horrific problems landmines create in terms of missing limbs and misery. However, the most disgusting part was the landmines with silver tops designed specifically to attract young children. We should do as much as possible to draw attention to the horrendous problems caused by landmines.
I also had the opportunity to visit Tanzania. We in the West tend to assume the aid we give is that which is best suited for the country. In a small village called Kasulu near Lake Tanganyika I saw a beautiful new tractor standing outside a jail. The front and back wheels were in place but the engine was missing. Somebody had decided it would be far more productive to use the tractor engine for a vehicle that would bring goods to the market place, rather than using the tractor to cultivate the land. Thousands of people are willing to cultivate the land with their hands but they have no transport to bring their produce to the markets.
Palestine is not a priority country. The aid we give there should be focused on the young people because the young democracy that is about to grow in Palestine needs to be nurtured by whatever kind of assistance we can provide. Hamas appears to have a great deal of influence in this area.
The non-governmental organisations are doing invaluable work abroad at very little cost. That is recognised in this Vote. We need to express our gratitude for the work these people do. In addition, insufficient credit has been given to APSO for the work it is doing. I am delighted to note the 24 per cent increase of £10.5 million granted by the Minister under this Vote which should encourage the organisation further in its work.
The UN is a huge organisation. It has a great name and is probably one of the most respected organisations in the world. However, it is in need of reform. It may create problems simply by going into certain countries. In addition, withdrawing the UN too quickly from an area causes a vacuum. It becomes an institution in the country in which it operates and many people are dependent on it. Its sudden withdrawal creates an environment which leads to a breakdown in the development structures it has created, often resulting in chaos.
The figure in respect of eastern Europe is small. Has the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development any significant role in helping the eastern bloc countries? The figure allocated by the Department of Finance is far more substantial. Is it being used in co-operation with the finance that is provided under this Vote?
It is unfortunate that Angola is in a chaotic state following the elections. I hope we can do something to encourage a return to the democratic process. Africa is now beginning to turn the corner with most of the countries suffering civil wars emerging towards democratisation which will allow for development to take place. Efforts should be made to encourage this.
I echo Deputy Connor's remarks on the World Bank. The EU budget is £15 million, the world food budget is £1 million while the World Bank contribution is £5.4 million. I am very suspicious of the World Bank. It only operates for its own benefit.
There are some items in this Vote which may not be in the ODA fund and vice versa. At the back of the White Paper there is a useful outline of how official development assistance is calculated. Some items which constitute part of our ODA come under the Votes of other Departments. The system has evolved over a long period of time but could we arrive at a position where what is put before us for consideration is the ODA Estimate? While it is not within the Minister’s powers to rectify matters at this stage, this illustrates the way in which the presentation of public accounts or Estimates can differ from reality. I am grateful that there is a clear outline in the White Paper of what does and does not constitute ODA.
I welcome the continuing increase in the allocation for overseas development assistance made by this and the previous Government. In response to some of the issues raised by Deputy Dukes regarding the criteria used for deciding how much goes to bilateral aid, the type of policy set out in the Irish aid policy document, published in 1993, and the White Paper would at least indicate our priorities. They are well reflected here in the breakdown. Our policy states that one of the main planks of our ODA is the bilateral aid programme. This would be supported by Members of the House and the public.
It is good to see us making voluntary contributions to UN development agencies. Nevertheless, we should not go overboard on this. There are many questions regarding the bureaucracy and efficiency of the UN. However, many of these organisations are the vehicle through which the problems of children and women in the developing world are dealt with. It is in order for us to contribute to as many of them as possible while at the same time ensuring that the bulk of our money goes on the bilateral aid programme, the emergency humanitarian assistance and the NGO co-financing. This is what Members and the public are happy with because they can see a direct relationship between what they contribute and what is delivered on the ground.
Last year I visited Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda and saw what was being done there through the bilateral aid programme. I endorse the approach being taken in those countries. What we are doing is appropriate both in terms of staff and policy. The type of district development programme I saw in Tanzania and Uganda is a model of good community development practice and good partnership with recipient countries. It struck me as a feature of the Irish aid operations in those countries that experts did not come in from outside to tell people what to do; there was co-operation and partnerships with people on the ground delivering basic services in health, education and infrastructure such as water and roads. This is what we and the public want to see. I fully support committing a major amount of our ODA to the bilateral aid programme. We are getting very good results. Having a partnership approach with local people on the ground and building up local skills is what this process should be about.
There is a very good case for Ireland to consider having west Africa as a priority country. We are very much involved in eastern and southern Africa, but not in west Africa. Politically, militarily and economically many of the countries in the region are in a very bad condition. There has been much Irish missionary involvement but it is important to be involved in some country in the region on a priority basis. It would give balance to our programme in Africa and would give us a greater awareness of the needs of that part of the continent.
I am disappointed that the Nigerian Government has not seen fit to allow a deputation from the committee to visit that country. It would have been an opportune time to allow a parliamentary delegation from Ireland to visit Nigeria. The question of sanctions against Nigeria has been raised again. Nothing the Nigerian Government has done internationally or in its approach to international agencies in other countries would indicate that there should not be an oil embargo. It should be put in place.
From the point of view of Ireland playing a key role in EU affairs in the second half of this year, I thought it would have been in the Nigerian Government's interest to at least allow representatives from this committee to visit and look at all sides of the story. For example, we had agreed an invitation to the committee from Shell Nigeria earlier this year to look at its operations, so we were prepared to look at all sides. I am disappointed that the Nigerian Government is not co-operating with the international community or with the efforts to ensure a proper system of democracy and economic regeneration in Nigeria. It is very sad that the wealthiest country in west Africa, or the country that should be the wealthiest in terms of natural resources, is in such a dreadful state at present.
On the other hand, many of the problems in west Africa are as a result of the international arms trade. I compliment the work the Minister has done in this area. Unfortunately, the need to combat the international arms trade is not receiving the type of support it should from many of the major arms exporters. The Minister has tried, on a number of occasions, to initiate actions to control the international arms trade and I hope we will try to convert some of our EU allies on this issue during our Presidency. I know a number of other countries are concerned about this matter and we should use our Presidency to push strongly for a greater degree of awareness, co-operation and action by the arms manufacturers and exporters.
We have allocated major funding for bilateral aid, NGO co-financing and the emergency humanitarian relief scheme, but it is very important that we support efforts to build and sustain democracy in these countries. The idea is that such aid be given for as short a time as possible but this is not feasible unless they have systems of Government and administration capable of sustaining them in the future. The programme is welcome. I have seen examples in some of the African countries where Irish aid has been of assistance and it is money well spent.
I put to the Minister a suggestion which I put to the Tánaiste yesterday which relates to the lessons we learn from exercises such as election observation and assistance. Ireland and the international community have become very much involved in such work in recent years but if the experiences are not recorded and lessons learned, we will end up either repeating mistakes or missing out on valuable experience which could be transferred to other countries. Recently, the Minister and I had the opportunity to discuss with the Swedish Foreign Minister the operation of the international institute for democracy and electoral assistance in Stockholm. The participation of Ireland in that type of institute should be recommended. It has affiliates throughout the world and, being based in a Scandinavian country which has a good record in international development, it is an operation with which we could be associated. The experience which Irish people gain from being election observers could be fed into that institute and we could learn from it. We have much to offer such an institute and much to gain from it. I ask the Minister to consider our participation in that institute.
As regards management and staffing of the Irish aid programme, funding has increased from £40 million in 1992 to £106 million this year and that puts a strain on the capacity of the system. The Department, NGOs, Irish aid staff abroad and organisations like APSO have done a good job coping with such a level of increase. However, the OECD's development assistance committee report on Ireland raised questions about the long-term attitude towards management and staffing of the Irish aid programme, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I do not agree with the suggestion that we should have a separate Irish aid agency outside the Department. The fact that it is in the Department shows that overseas development is very much an integral part of our foreign policy. At the same time, management of a long-term programme has its own requirements, and I would like to know what plans are afoot for that.
At the sub-committee on development co-operation we had a chance to discuss with the Minister the Irish policy on relief of the debt problem in the developing world and, in particular, our contributions to international organisations, such as the World Bank and the IMF. I know the Minister for Finance is responsible for that Vote but, from the point of view of policy, I reiterate the strong views of Members of this committee that debt relief and debt reduction efforts have not worked to date. It is important that Ireland continues to fight at the World Bank and the IMF for a more realistic approach to debt reduction and debt relief, not only straight economic or financial development but also political and administrative development in many of these countries. I reiterate the view expressed by the sub-committee in its consideration of the White Paper that instead of contributing to a structural adjustment fund, such as ESAF, Irish aid money would be much better spent in the International Development Association, for example, or on involvement in small local credit systems open to the poor, women and the disabled in many countries. In Tanzania people with disabilities availed of local credit schemes to get involved in business and provide a living for themselves and their families. We, as Members, and the Irish public would far rather see our money spent in that way than on structural adjustment.
Members have covered a wide range of areas. The UN development agencies have been criticised on the grounds that they are out of touch with what is happening and their administration costs are very high. The Minister stated that people were asking whether we were satisfied with the money we were providing and whether there was adequate accountability. The committee must address these questions. Resources are scarce so we must make sure they go where we intend them to go and are not absorbed by some extraordinary administrative costs, particularly in the UN.
Irish NGOs, with whom we work closely, do tremendous work. They know what is required on the ground and money channelled through them gives the best possible value. At the same time, we must ask questions. What other financial auditing controls are there apart from the Department's internal audit? How can we follow projects and see they are progressing as we intended? For example, the committee was very concerned about reports on APSO's involvement in El Salvador. Deputy Gallagher's committee dealt with that a number of years ago. The matter arose again and it created concerns for the committee which wants to ensure that the status of APSO and its work is not sullied in any way by one-sided views of what is supposed to have happened a number of years ago. Was a Departmental inspection team involved or was it left to APSO to analyse what happened? I ask the Minister to comment on what action we took and if we did not take any, to say why we did not do so. Is there a Departmental policy on inspection of NGOs and co-funded projects apart from the financial audit? On the refugee agency, is the Department satisfied with the co-ordination and liaison between the relevant agencies in that area? Has any progress been made on the issue of traumatised refugees?
I join with Members in praising the Minister and the Department for the way the Estimate was presented. The increases under each subhead are clear. How much does the UN owe us for services provided? We provide a tremendous peacekeeping input. The Minister may not have the figure available but this is a recurring item and the amount keeps changing. It is of concern because we have an obligation to the UN; Deputy Walsh spoke of the need for an urgent review of the UN and that is accepted by everyone. The IPU has tried to work with the UN to make it more user-friendly and less costly.
There is another subhead on which I wish to comment but the Minister may wish to make an overall response first. I will give her ten minutes to reply and we will then deal with the subheads.
I thank Members of the committee for their careful and knowledgeable comments about many facets of the development programme and for the personal commitment so many of them have shown to the subject. When abroad I have been struck by the number of contacts made by Members of this committee.
I will deal with themes which came up in many contributions. On the proportions of bilateral and multilateral aid, until 1993 the bilateral portion was about 50 per cent. I share the position of the strategy document, which favours an increase in the bilateral as opposed to the multilateral programme — an example of the latter is the contribution to UN agencies. Currently the bilateral portion is 60 per cent and the multilateral portion is 34 per cent, so there has been a significant change in favour of the bilateral element, for example, NGO co-financing and emergency rehabilitation and assistance.
It is important that we continue to contribute to UN agencies and to press for their reform. In the White Paper we are committed to seeking to play an active role on the boards of a number of agencies, those to which we give the greatest amounts of money. By international standards, we are doing the direct opposite to many DAC donors — their aid levels are falling and more of their money is going to multilateral agencies whereas our aid levels are rising and we are keeping it in the bilateral and NGO area. Many of our UN contributions are earmarked for programme headings and country areas, for example, health programmes in Zimbabwe. We have developed a programme of taking executive positions on a number of these agencies.
Let me give an example of why it is important to have a voice on multilateral agencies. In the Chinese orphans controversy which erupted earlier this year the Irish aid programme of itself would find it difficult to significantly assist the position of children in Chinese orphanages. However, because of our role in UNICEF I felt free to contact its executive director, Mrs. Bellamy, and ask her to direct UNICEF's huge programme for Chinese children to take a specific stand in this area. UNICEF responded immediately and was grateful for our prompting to make this a priority target. We are optimistic that our intervention will result in improved conditions for children in care in China.
I understand the points made and concerns expressed about UN agencies.
The Irish NGOs work closely with UN multilateral agencies and one reason for continuing to support those agencies is that they in turn offer scope and support to the work of the Irish NGOs. For example, few Irish agencies could have gone into Rwanda on their own. Goal worked closely with UNHCR and made a magnificent contribution, as did Concern, but unless the UN structure was available it would be difficult for smaller agencies from countries like Ireland to go into those areas. The same applies in west Africa at present.
There also were comments on the general political situation, the philosophy of Irish aid, debt and ESAF. On the aid philosophy, we must focus on poverty alleviation, on basic investment in health, education, infrastructure and women, and on capacity building. On the debt and trade question, it is extremely important that a committee such as this should seek to have a coherent view in this difficult debate on how one produces reforms. I am seriously concerned about the future impact of the world trade agreements on sub-Saharan Africa in particular and of the impact of changing trade patterns on the process of democratisation. As I said to the committee previously, it is difficult to envisage an election in which one is entering an open democratic system when at the same time the IMF structural adjustment programmes are enforcing the most rigid cutbacks on economies which are already extremely poor. Reform of Government para-statal structures is badly needed but it should not be at the price of social investment in health and education. I have argued this point with representatives of the World Bank and especially the IMF. Their investments and programmes are needed in those countries but they should not be at the expense of the poor.
I am aware of the strong position this committee has taken on ESAF and I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Finance on a number of occasions. Following its recent meeting the IMF is carrying out a review of the 20 most indebted countries. I believe it would be foolish to make any commitments to ESAF until that review has been carried out because seven of our bilateral countries are included in those 20 and we have ongoing and valuable programmes there. Deputy Gallagher referred to the small scale credit schemes we run in a number of countries. The Minister for Finance is considering the position and we have advised that, until the review is concluded, the enhanced structural adjustment fund commitment should remain under consideration.
We are also reviewing the possibility of extending the number of multilateral countries to include west Africa and we have also received requests in relation to central and south America. At present we are funding west Africa through Irish NGOs, missionaries and small-scale projects. This is especially so in Ghana, a country which is being restored to some extent. Our Ambassador is in Lagos.
On the question of visas for Oireachtas Members for the fact-finding mission to Nigeria, I concur with the views of Deputies Gallagher and Kitt that this visit would have been extremely useful, both on its own terms and because the delegation was coming from the Irish Parliament when we were about to take up the EU Presidency. I regret it has not been possible for the Government of Nigeria to accede to the request of the delegation. I hope it will reconsider the situation. Our ambassador in Nigeria, who has taken part in a number of fact-finding missions to Ogoniland, has made great efforts to facilitate this fact finding mission. In its statement, Shell makes much of its desire to see delegations examining the situation in Ogoniland for themselves. I hope the refusal is temporary rather than permanent and that the difficulties can be sorted out.
In relation to APSO, Deputies Kitt and Dukes mentioned the target of 2,000. This is a general target although it was a specific one in the context of the document on Irish aid strategy. The styles and patterns of aid and the debate about aid is changing all the time. There is great emphasis on recipient countries using their own people as far as possible and that, wherever there are foreign assistance experts, there should be local counterparts working alongside them.
The statement in the White Paper reflects that new thinking. The APSO target of 2,000 should be viewed in that context. For instance, APSO could train local people to take over when Irish aid workers have returned home.
Specific questions were raised about the controversy concerning the El Salvador committee and the article in The Irish Times on Segundo Montes. APSO has constituted a group to examine the history of that series of events which arose in the aftermath of a bloody civil war when there was a great deal of political confusion. Although there have been elections in El Salvador, many groups in Ireland are not necessarily satisfied with the outcome. As regards Irish aid, I take the position that the politics of El Salvador are primarily a matter for the people of that country. While we may all have individual or party views about El Salvador, it is primarily a matter for the local people themselves.
The aid workers in El Salvador were not placed there directly by APSO but through the Catholic Institute for International Relations which is a highly respected international body. The situation was extraordinarily confused. Members of the group examining the history of this affair include the representative of the Irish Missionary Union on the board of APSO, the representative of Comhlamh, the association of returned workers, and a recent appointee to the board of APSO who is from the financial services sector. The group is well composed and balanced. If it is appropriate, I will come back to the committee with the outcome of its examination.
The people who worked for APSO in that country did so in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. When one is in the business of alleviating poverty in a difficult political situation, inevitably the fact that one decides to work with the poor rather than the rich has a political tone. The line must be drawn at having any partisan political involvement and that is what needs to be clarified.
Deputy Briscoe raised questions about Burundi and about keeping moneys in reserve, while other Deputies commented on Rwanda. Burundi continues to give cause for great concern.
I referred to Bangladesh.
I will come back to Bangladesh. We keep money in reserve for humanitarian emergencies. In regard to Burundi, we are making provision for a further release of £100,000 this weekend because of the deteriorating situation there. We are watching developments in Liberia and West Africa generally, as well as the flooding in Bangladesh, to see what we can do to help relieve matters. Bangladesh is not a priority country. Our work and contributions there are made through Irish NGOs. As Deputies know, Bangladesh has suffered extraordinary environmental damage and population pressures.
Deputy Connor spoke about the political situation in India. Democracy is deeply rooted in India, although there are developments in relation to sectarianism and factionalism, some aspects of which are worrying. On the other hand, over the last 20 years in India when programmes were implemented which were deemed to be anti-democratic and highly unpopular — I recall when Mrs. Indira Ghandi's Congress Party was in power — the electorate remedied the situation. I am confident and hopeful that democratisation will continue to be deeply rooted in India.
The committee will probably be aware of an interesting development in Uganda where the electoral system and emerging political systems are providing a new non-party political model, if that is possible. President Museveni was recently re-elected with more than 80 per cent of the vote. Interestingly, Uganda is also beginning to be economically more successful, although much of that has to do with the increase in international coffee prices. Currently, Uganda is flavour of the month with the IMF and the World Bank. It is doing substantially better than it was before. The president has not attempted to create a one party state but a democracy which, while riven by factionalism and party politics, is open and has a free press. I have seen the press in Uganda which is fairly tough, perhaps even tougher than the Irish Independent is on the Labour Party here, and that is tough.
There are models there which we could think about. Deputy Kitt raised the question of tax deductibility but we do not have an outcome yet. It is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. We had an indicative figure originally of up to £2 million but we do not have an outcome as yet and it will probably not be available for some time.
Can the Minister of State respond to the point I made about the institute for democracy and electoral assistance?
It is called IDF.
The Swedish institute?
We will consider it, but in terms of the total volume of our programme, participation in such institutions is often extremely expensive. It would have to be in the context of our priority being to spend money on the bilateral programme and on poor countries. We created the human rights and democratisation heading last year and there is now a fund of £1 million in that. We will certainly be considering that but we have not made any final decision as yet.
I asked the Minister of State about the position on landmines and how much finance is going to Mozambique.
This year we are spending about £1 million in Mozambique. We have appointed a co-ordinator and an assistant co-ordinator to Mozambique where we are in the process of setting up offices. We are also supporting the work of a number of NGOs engaged in mine clearance works in Mozambique. The total budget this year will be just under £1 million. The process of setting up structures in Mozambique is complex and slow. We had hoped to be much further advanced at this stage. We are waiting for the Government there to permit us to operate fully in that country.
Our position on landmines will be contained in an Order, which I hope will be presented to the House by the end of June, to prohibit landmines under the Explosives Act, 1875. As Members may be aware, the Irish Army is undertaking a review of its policy on landmines as a defensive weapon in the context of our security. I hope the outcome of that review will be that the landmine goes the way of other weapons which have outlived their usefulness. Anti-personnel mines in particular are now mainly used on innocent civilians and children in the aftermath of war rather than as serious defence weapons. We will also pledge significant amounts of money to the UN demining programme and continue to take a leading position. At the review conference, we were one of five countries calling for a total ban on landmines. The number of countries now calling for a ban is more than 31, including seven of our EU partners, so within a year the position has changed significantly. Like the campaign against apartheid, this will be won but I hope it will be won in a shorter time.
Yesterday the Tánaiste dealt with subheads A, A1 and B and today we covered subheads C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J. On behalf of the Select Committee I thank everyone involved in the Department, APSO and the NGOs who have made such an enormous contribution to Irish development aid. We are proud of the commitment made to the programme which goes far beyond what would normally be expected. Ireland's contribution to the developing countries goes back a long way and, given the Irish experience, we are always aware of the horrors of famine. In our early years we were dependent on our missionaries to carry the flag, especially in Africa, where they and lay people still work today. This is a message of good news and service for those people. We also applaud the work of the Tánaiste, the Minister of State and their officials in continuing to make this aid a Government priority. This is one foreign affairs issue to which the public immediately and generously responds and with which it can identify.
