On behalf of the select committee I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, and her officials. The select committee is considering Vote 39 - International Co-operation, which it is worth noting is much larger than the Vote for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I call on the Minister of State to make an opening statement which can be followed, if members wish, by ten minute statements by the main Opposition spokesmen after which other members may contribute and ask questions.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 39 - International Co-operation.
I am honoured to present to the committee and seek its approval for the allocation for 2001 for Vote 39 - International Co-operation. I welcome the fact that the Chairman has provided for a separate session for the examination of the Vote. As members are aware, it has previously been examined with the main Vote for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Vote 38. However, its growth in recent years and planned growth in coming years will make it a major part of Government expenditure. I appreciate the additional scope the Chairman has provided to allow me to brief the committee on its elements.
The allocation for the Vote this year is £188.552 million, of which the greater part, £136 million, is provided as a grant-in-aid for the development assistance programme. The provision for the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, APSO, is £11 million while £13 million has been set aside for emergency relief arising from natural and man-made disasters. Our funding to the European Union is £9 million while there is a provision of £19.502 million for UN development agencies.
There are two changes from last year. First, the services and activities of the Refugee Agency have been consolidated within the new Reception and Integration Agency, which comes under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The original intention was that the integration process would be completed in 2000 and that there would be no provision for the Refugee Agency in 2001. However, a short delay in the process warranted that a residual amount of £150,000 be provided to cover expenses this year. Second, the provision for assistance for eastern Europe, which is not aid related, has been moved from Vote 39 to Vote 38, the main Department of Foreign Affairs Vote.
The most significant policy shift in the area of this Vote since I last presented the aid allocation for the committee's approval is the welcome decision by the Government last September to move to the United Nations aid target of 0.7% of gross national product and to reach it by 2007. This decision has broad political and social partnership support, which the Government appreciates. As Members are aware, this UN target was set over three decades ago and only four donor countries, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have reached it. It is expected that Luxembourg will join that group next year. Ireland will move to the UN benchmark in measured strides. The aim this year, which in every year is dependent on the accuracy of the official prediction of GNP, is to reach 0.35% of GNP. The expected level in 2002 is 0.45% of GNP, the interim target set for 1997, the year we took office. In 2003, the target is 0.48% of GNP and so on in increments to reach 0.7% in 2007.
To underpin the momentum established by the Government decision, the allocations for Vote 39 for 2001, 2002 and 2003 have already been agreed between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance. The amounts are £188.552 million in 2001, £293 million in 2002 and £347 million in 2003. When it agreed the progression to the UN target, the Government instructed that a review of the whole programme be carried out so as to reinvigorate the policy and administrative base for the expanded programme. The members of the review group were appointed, each in a personal capacity, and it began its work last February by engaging the public, NGOs and other stakeholders. For the record, the members of the committee are: myself, as chair; Mr. Ciaran Hurley; Dr. Tony Fahey; Ms Mairead Foley; Professor John Jackson; Mr. Frank McCabe; Mr. John O'Brien; Ambassador Anne Anderson; Mr. Fintan Drury; Ms Barbara Jones; Mr. Martin Greene; Mr. Philip Furlong; Mr. Tom Arnold; and Mr. Michael Laird.
I am glad to report that significant progress has been made in the review and anticipate that a report will emerge before the end of the summer. The aim is to put in place an imaginative plan for the expanded programme, commensurate with the scale of the public investment envisaged.
I will now deal briefly with the elements of the programme, all of which are guided by the core principle of poverty reduction in developing countries. As members can see from the Book of Estimates, the largest component of the Vote is subhead A, the grant-in-aid which provides for the bilateral programme as well as other elements of direct assistance. The core part of that provision funds the country programmes which are a priority for us in Africa. Those six country programmes, together with small programmes in South Africa and Zimbabwe, amount to £89 million. The focus of these country programmes is on basic needs, including primary education, basic health care, water and sanitation, access roads and good governance. Other components in the subhead include a provision of £12.5 million for NGOs.
I should also mention that they benefit from subhead C, the £13 million provision for emergencies, as well as from the provision in subhead A of £10 million for post-emergency rehabilitation assistance. Thus, £12.5 million is a dedicated NGO amount and there is a further amount of £23 million to cover emergencies and post-emergency work for which NGOs can apply. Still under subhead A, £1 million is provided for East Timor and £1.2 million for programmes in Palestine. Almost £4.7 million is provided for what is called multi-bilateral assistance, where multilateral aid agencies act as our agent in carrying out specific tasks.
The provision for APSO of £11 million will go to fund 1,200 assignments in 2001. The agency is undergoing a fundamental review of its mandate which will feed into the programme review.
Our provision to assist with emergencies, subhead C, has been increased by more than 40% this year. Assistance was provided in 2000 in El Salvador, Angola, Burundi, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Gujarat, Afghanistan and Sudan, and the enhanced provision will enable us to do much more to help victims cope with natural and man-made disasters.
The largest payment under subhead D is the mandatory payment to the European Development Fund. The amount set aside for this purpose at the time the Estimates were negotiated was £6.9 million. Indications are that the actual drawdown may be somewhat less, closer to £6 million. The balance is made up of a series of payments to international development funds covering biodiversity, the environment, world trade issues, agriculture and human rights.
The provision for subhead E, under which voluntary payments are made to UN development agencies, is, at £19.5 million, 55% greater than in 2000. In line with the recommendations of the OECD in its review of Ireland Aid, a streamlining process is under way to sharpen the focus of multilateral assistance and increase Irish influence. The number of agencies assisted has been reduced this year from 35 to 20.
That is an overview of our allocations for 2001. My officials and I will be glad in our exchanges to answer any queries committee members may have on them.
Before I finish I want to refer to a serious issue, namely, the negative comments about the excellent Ireland Aid programme made by John O'Shea of GOAL. I am aware that many committee members are in receipt of representations from this source.
Mr. O'Shea and GOAL, alone of the Irish non-governmental organisations, have been universally critical of the Irish programme, Ireland Aid. This takes three forms: criticism of the country programmes in Africa as allegedly funding corrupt regimes, criticism of the levels of accountability we demand of those receiving assistance, and related criticism of the Irish Government officials who administer the funding. Mr. O'Shea's objective appears to be to diminish in reputation and in allocation the official programme and, in so doing, maximise GOAL's take from the aid provision.
Most recently GOAL has focused on weak governance in the six countries in Africa which are a priority for the Irish programme. Given that poverty and weak governance in developing countries go hand in hand, they are a soft target where issues can be found to present as alleged evidence that the Irish programme is supporting corrupt administrations and leaders.
Mr. O'Shea's current theme is the report of the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, which he has cited as a pretext for the complete suspension of the Ireland Aid programme in Uganda. This view has been propounded on radio and television and in a letter writing campaign to Members of the Oireachtas.
The UN report, which was highly critical of the two states which most openly co-operated with its investigation, Rwanda and Uganda, while making fewer comments on the DRC, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola, has not been accepted by the UN Security Council which has demanded further investigation. It has been viewed with some criticism by donors operating in Uganda who see its findings as unbalanced and heavily reliant on hearsay evidence.
However, I fully acknowledge that there is a core governance issue arising from foreign involvement in the DRC and the real and legitimately raised concerns of countries providing assistance for Uganda, like Ireland, have been brought to the attention of the Ugandan authorities. Most recently, in our case——
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State, but there is a division in the House. This will be ongoing throughout the evening because the House is dealing with Report Stage. It is appalling that we are so far away now.
Could I finish the paragraph?
As the division was called four minutes ago, the Minister of State would not want to go on much further.
Most recently in Ireland's case, the issues of concerns about governance and the report were pursued at a meeting I had with the Ugandan Prime Minister last month and at a follow-up meeting between President Museveni and our UN ambassador, David Cooney, who visited the region with a UN Security Council delegation.
I will have to suspend the meeting at this point. We cannot pair sufficiently.
I will have to leave soon.
I will call the Deputy as soon as the Minister of State finishes.
Do we intend to resume?
It messes up everyone when we cannot begin our meeting at the appointed time. I regret to have to say again that whoever allocates these rooms does not make a good job of it, and I would like that noted. There are three rooms exactly the same as this one on this level which are empty and unused at present. I inspected all of them.
Will we resume?
We will, but it will be in about 15 to 20 minutes' time, I am afraid.
Sitting suspended at 4.25 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.
Arising from this pressure, Uganda has agreed to set up a judicial tribunal, headed by a respected British born jurist, to investigvate the report's findings. That tribunal will question all relevant witnesses, including President Museveni himself. Additionally, Uganda has gone further than any other party towards fulfilling its commitments under the Lusaka Agreement on the DRC by beginning a process of withdrawing its forces from all parts of the Congo with the exception of areas close to the Ugandan border. In this context, in programme terms the Irish approach on the governance issue is to develop, in partnership with each Government we work with, a three year strategy which, like the EU's approach on structural funding in Ireland, ties local funding to Irish aid allocations. Thus it can be said that the Irish programme's funding builds schools, trains teachers, builds health centres, builds labour based dirt roads, installs water and sanitation systems and that its funds are matched by agreed government funds. It follows that Irish funds are neither capable of diversion nor do they allow tied partner funds to be diverted to nefarious purposes.
Taken together, these measures in Uganda and, in our case, viewed against the background of our own oversight and accountability systems, have assuaged much of the unease of donors. Donors, on balance, are in fact continuing their support for the Ugandan Government but this is something which is constantly under review and Development Ministers in the EU regularly consider these issues. We discussed this at the last EU meeting of Development Ministers.
The most direct evidence of this restored donor confidence in Uganda is the decision two weeks ago by the World Bank, which has widespread donor support, to provide a credit of $300 million as direct assistance to Uganda. The support is geared at accelerating the process of poverty reduction on which Uganda has an exemplary record. Uganda, almost uniquely in the developing world, has focused on the reduction of the poverty of its people. This national effort, supported by donors, has reduced core poverty from 55% to 35% in under ten years, a remarkable achievement by any standards.
I do not dismiss out of hand concerns about governance in developing countries. Development is a complex and fallible endeavour. Governance is itself a development issue and in the past, when political and diplomatic judgments so recommended, we discontinued long-term development work with governments, for example, in Sudan. In relation to deepening our co-operation with Uganda, for example by way of direct budget support, we are anxious always to develop with other donors a risk assessment capability to ensure funds are spent appropriately.
Returning to the Goal argument, the overall premise it puts forward is that aid should go in large measure to NGOs and Irish missionaries. However, the policy approach which Ireland Aid has developed over many years of experience in the developing world is that all channels of disbursement should be utilised, including NGOs and missionaries, our partner governments in Africa and the development arms of the UN and EU. This mix of activities is widely regarded as best development practice.
For the record, in 2000 approximately £29 million from official Government sources was channelled through NGOs and Irish missionaries. Our best estimate at the moment of the allocation in 2001 is that it will increase to £35 million. The vital focus of aid must be on the twin targets of poverty reduction and human and economic development. This translates into giving poor people the means to tackle systematically the underlying causes of their own poverty. The Goal approach, by its own admission, is predominantly a welfare one focused on the symptoms, not the causes, of poverty. This calls to mind the time worn development adage: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, you feed him for life". Clichéd though it may sound, this enabling approach is at the centre of the Ireland Aid philosophy and has to be at the centre of any programme which subscribes to be a genuine and sustainable development one.
Notwithstanding ongoing criticism, I do say sincerely that we wish to work with Goal in developing the broad based consensus approach we have with all our other partners, including the main Irish NGOs, which incidentally do not share Goal's views in this regard. It is clear that Goal's current approach cannot be considered as an alternative to the Irish Government's official programme of aid. Sustained attacks on an outstanding Irish aid programme undermine confidence not only in the programme itself, not only in the development work of NGOs and missionaries, but also in the very cause of aid from Ireland to poorer countries. It would be a terrible pity if public support for Ireland's programme of solidarity with the global poor was to be undermined just at the historic time of long awaited and hard won growth in the budget. I welcome lively democratic debate on aid on these issues; this is as it should be. I regret having to engage in a public disagreement with Goal on policy. Both Mr. O'Shea and Goal do some excellent work in the field which the public and Government fully support. However, if Goal's thesis was taken to its logical conclusion, donor countries like Ireland would be writing off Africa and its fledgling and fallible democracies as incapable of self-government and only deserving of a post-colonial welfare model of aid which is deeply patronising and ultimately unsustainable.
I hope Members will accept that, from the moment I took up the brief of development assistance, I have been determined to build a programme reflective of our status as a newly wealthy nation with civilised moral values. Because Ireland was so recently poor and underdeveloped, we know that development approaches based on respect and partnership do work. We welcome the building of a real strategic partnership, beyond funding, with NGOs, one where they are free to challenge us on the critical issues while working with us hand in hand in development and in emergency responses. Our review is actively working up this concept. However, in this forum of public accountability I have an obligation as Minister to defend an effective and expanding programme run by good people and doing good for the poor on behalf of the Irish people. I am delighted to answer any questions which the committee may have.
I discussed the situation with Deputy Higgins and his need is greater than mine. I am prepared to yield.
I thank Members for understanding my situation. I disagree with the Minister of State's reference to Ireland as a newly wealthy nation with civilised moral values. It is inclusive to say "moral values" and "civilised" itself is contentious in the literature regarding the West's view of Africa. Regarding the Minister of State's report of the Government's commitment to increasing overseas development aid and aid in multilateral and bilateral contexts is to be welcomed. My party is committed to achieving the target in this regard in a shorter period of time.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State took this issue on and spoke about it at this committee. It is important that public support for Ireland's programme, in all its aspects, be maintained. I have often thought about this and I am very sympathetic to the frustrations of those who see an urgent need in front of them while seeing resources deflected in a way they should not. They express their outrage and that is understandable but one must ask what would be achieved by negative conditionalities. Is it not a better alternative to restructure the programme and offer the mechanisms for establishing a civil society that is strong and accountable? That is probably the better road and the one I would favour given the need to involve societies in a process of transition. The other issues the Minister of State raised are very appropriate for consideration by the group serving on the aid review group. I know it is likely that that group will deal with other issues, such as the principles of this Irish programme and those guiding the Bretton Woods institutions, let us say, particularly the EU programme. It is important that the review group looks at the assumptions of all these programmes and the possibilities of having an integrated, effective approach, particularly in relation to being able to deal with the structural basis of poverty. The Minister of State stressed this; it is in the structure that the changes will come.
We have discussed the continuing dissatisfaction with that part of our allocation administered through the EU and no doubt we will return to it. The case for reform has been made and it is unacceptable that such large resources would not actually be disbursed to and used by countries which so desperately need them. The emphasis on human and economic development is important but there is also a strong case to be made for increasing assistance to the NGOs.
I am concerned about the reform aspect of the EU's disbursement programme and its relationship to NGOs. There is some evidence that the NGOs' relationship with the structure of the European Commission is probably at its lowest ebb for some time and that an initiative is needed to restore a better model of partnership.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, regarding the Estimate for ODA. I do so as someone who spent about five years in Iveagh House where I had responsibility for overseas development. From that point of view I am delighted that, apart from having the opportunity to look at the figures for the current year, I can record my satisfaction that, at long lost, there is all-party agreement that we should achieve the UN target. I have pressed this issue since becoming a Member of the Dáil over 20 years ago, but I am not claiming that this is the reason it has now been achieved. However, for those of us interested in overseas aid and development co-operation, it is welcome news that we have an all-party approach to this issue, that Ireland will be the fourth, fifth or sixth country to achieve the UN target, and that we have a specified timescale. This is a major achievement and I compliment all involved in securing this Government decision.
As a result of this decision, we will be dealing with much larger sums of money in coming years. In five years time the figure will be in the order of £800 million. It is important, therefore, that we ensure the extra moneys are used to best effect. For that reason I am glad that the review is under way, that there are people on the review body who will give the benefit of their experience and expertise and that the review will confront the issues which need to be confronted in such a large expansion of the aid programme.
The Minister of State referred to two areas of controversy in her statement. It is important that we examine these issues and try to identify the best means of dealing with them. We must not avoid these issues. To a degree these areas of controversy are interconnected and could be reduced to two headings: first, the extent to which NGOs and missionaries should be involved in the effort and, second, how best to avoid any siphoning of our aid funds through corrupt practices in many countries, including Ireland. These two issues are interconnected. John O'Shea has put forward the view that if increased funding is allocated to NGOs and missionaries, one avoids the problems associated with corruption in African and other countries. We must address these issues because it is important to ensure the continuation of public support for our official and voluntary aid programmes.
I have always held the view that we should avail of the services of NGOs to the greatest extent possible. I have also held the view that this should apply not just to NGOs, but also to the many missionary bodies scattered all over the world and that, as far as possible, we should use these tried and trusted resources to try to reach the poorest of the poor. On the other hand, I accept that there is a limit to the extent to which aid can be absorbed or properly spent in that way. It would be unacceptable to suggest that one could allocate all the increases, which total £800 million, to be spent in this way.
The Minister of State made the point that many NGOs deal with the symptoms of the problem as opposed to the causes. From my experience, I am aware that many NGOs and missionaries also try to tackle the causes of problems, even if one is talking about developing village wells, local schools and such like. I ask the Minister of State to address the rate of increase being made available. I am not suggesting that the entire increase should go to NGOs. However, is there a case for a higher rate of increase in the moneys disbursed through voluntary agencies and missionaries? I would like to see this resource used to maximum effect while, at the same time, accepting that there is an absorption limit to what can be beneficially disbursed in that way.
The second controversial issue referred to by the Minister of State must also be confronted. I do not see myself as a mouthpiece for John O'Shea, but he has raised a number of issues which we need to debate reasonably, particularly his focus on the fact that there is corruption in a number of countries in which we have aid programmes. What is news about that? There is evidence of corruption in Ireland. However, it is important that, as far as possible, we ensure there is no siphoning of Irish aid to corrupt local officials, Ministers or other in these countries. We must also ensure as far as possible the strong public support for our aid programmes is not affected. We continue to merit that public and civic support for the aid programmes provided we confront the realities, but without underestimating or overestimating their effects.
There has been evidence of embezzlement by officials in Tanzania and the public is entitled to know the facts. I do not know the full facts but gather there is some evidence in this regard. The Minister of State touched on the problem in Uganda and the suggestion that the President's brother has been heavily involved in illegal activities. The public and I are not so much concerned by the fact that there is some evidence of wrongdoing or corruption in Uganda. However, we need assurances that, as far as possible, we are ensuring none of our money is going into the wrong pockets. We must satisfy the desire of the Irish people to ensure the money is spent on relieving poverty and proper development co-operation projects, and that we are not affected by the corruption. The same issues arise regarding evidence of corruption in Ethiopia in which we also have a programme. These are the kind of assurances the Minister, who is the person currently charged with this responsibility, needs to give to the general public. We should not avoid these issues. We should properly explain them and give the guarantees and assurances the public will need. It is better to confront these controversial issues than avoid them.
The people I have met throughout the world who have been working on the AIDS programme, on an official or voluntary basis, are the best ambassadors this country has had. Obviously there is the odd-bod but in the main these people are motivated by the highest ideals and there are young people who are absolutely idealistic in their approach. Not so young people have given years of marvellous service to the countries they serve. These people are great ambassadors for Ireland in the farthest parts of the world. It is wonderful to see this and I want to ensure that record of service continues in the future. Given the extra funding now available, we can develop that service and have more and more people prepared to give that service with the maximum public support.
I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. Her commitment, and that of the Government, is very evident from the figures given in her statement when one considers that the allocation of funding proposed for 2003 will almost double the funding available this year. That is a very marked and welcome improvement in the allocation for these worthy projects throughout the world.
I concur with Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks in regard to the great work carried out by NGOs, including lay and religious missionaries. These people who work in the most difficult areas in the poorest regions continue to be very good ambassadors for this country.
On the £9 million allocation to the European Union, I recall Commissioner Nielson addressing a sub-committee of this committee some time ago. Concern was expressed at that time about the inefficiencies at EU level in regard to the disbursement of funds and the delay in getting assistance to the areas of greatest need. Another criticism that comes to mind is that the EU is seen to be too preoccupied with eastern Europe and the Middle East. I recognise these regions deserve support but that support should not be at the cost of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Is the Minister of State in a position to comment on the efficiency of the development aid programmes carried out by the European Union, whether there have been improvements in this regard, what monitoring is available to individual Governments to determine how fast aid is getting to the areas of greatest need and whether EU funding is being disbursed? It is horrendous to think that available funding might not be used to assist these people.
On the funds allocated to the European Union, according to a television programme I saw not so long ago, sometimes when these funds are being disbursed people in certain member states are appointed to oversee the disbursement. Concern was expressed that some people who have been appointed without any experience might be getting a nice little favour or something of that nature. The country which was being queried was Spain in relation to Colombia. Money was allocated to people for disbursement for certain projects which it appeared were not completed. There were unfinished projects where the pipes were laid and nothing else was done and they were jumping from one project to another. Is there a body which can oversee this work? Our concerns seem to centre on African countries where a certain amount of corruption has been endemic for many years but it is not impossible for corruption to take place in European countries.
Before asking the Minister of State to reply, I would like to make a few observations. I listened to her speech carefully and it is significant that exactly 50% of it is devoted to rebutting the views of one organisation. I would not be too concerned about the views of one organisation, even though there may be some validity in some of what was said. The approach on a broad scale towards development aid is the correct one. Obviously, no one should put all their eggs in one basket, or even most of their eggs in one basket.
There is clearly a difficulty in trying to deal with governments that are less than ideal. However, this difficulty is a fact of life, it is widespread and there is nothing one can do about it except in some of the more obvious cases. Uganda concerns people because of what that country is doing. They have invaded part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and are removing large quantities of valuable minerals for their own benefit, particularly diamonds. Perhaps the question should be asked of Uganda, is any credit given for what it has taken from the Congo? This is something one cannot ignore. However, one cannot refuse to help Uganda. It is in Uganda's favour that no country in Africa has made better progress in controlling the AIDS epidemic, which is a remarkable achievement for that country.
It is a good thing that this aspect, which we should not lose sight of, is debated because the donee countries should be constantly reminded of it. There is a difference between individual corruption within a system and the activities of a qua Government rather than a group of individuals where the actions of the Government disqualify it for aid. The Government I have in mind is that of Zimbabwe where it is very difficult for the people involved. It is not one of our priority countries. There is no bilateral aid of any significance going to that country. The way in which Zimbabwe is being run in recent years is disgraceful by any standards. The expropriation of land and property without any compensation is destroying the economy and the country. I would like to think the West, in the broadest sense of that word, would exert pressure, short of armed intervention, to try to stop what is happening in Zimbabwe. What is taking place is appallingly unfair to the unfortunate people who live there and it has destroyed what could be one of the finest countries on the African continent.
Another country where the need for aid is perhaps greater than any other is Afghanistan but, based on the criteria laid out by the Minister of State in her speech, how can one give aid to Afghanistan? The country has a government which can only be described as completely lunatic. It does not even purport to follow civilised moral values, to use the phrase to which Deputy Higgins objected. Afghanistan has no values whatever. It is a most extraordinary place and 20% of the population is now outside its borders and in grave danger. The Minister of State says it is not the function of Ireland Aid to provide welfare. However, it must be its function sometimes. In Afghanistan, for example, it is its function to keep those unfortunate people alive until they can return to their country when some semblance of order and normality and something much less than democracy, perhaps vague civilisation, apply. It is difficult to write off 25 million people in Afghanistan just because they are controlled by a lunatic regime.
In terms of development aid, our concentration has been very much on Africa. I can understand why that was so in the past. Africa is the poorest continent, had the least opportunity in the 20th century to develop itself and continues to suffer from many drawbacks which other continents do not have. However, now that we are talking about a Vote of more than £800 million in 2007 it is time to look further afield, particularly to Asia and Central America. I have mentioned a number of Asian countries to the Minister of State. If it were possible to ensure that aid was used as it was intended, North Korea would be an obvious country for assistance at present. Countries such a Laos and Cambodia are also worthy of consideration and Burma will be, if and when it reverts to some kind of non-military regime, which we hope it might. It is a country the assisting of which from outside is rendered virtually impossible by the nature of the regime that is there.
The Vote for this year is £188.6 million. In one of the briefing notes I see that when overseas development assistance is fully calculated in the present year and the elements of it which are not in this Vote but which come from other Departments, for example, are added, there will be in excess of £260 million this year. Assuming the same kind of proportions are maintained up to and including 2007, we will then be talking of a figure in excess of £1 billion, without calculating inflation, being dispersed by Ireland in overseas development assistance. This is very creditable. This does not include what is raised directly from the public in Ireland by NGOs and charitable and missionary organisations and spent abroad.
Because of the fact that this Vote is now very big relative to previous years, is far bigger than the Vote for the Department itself and will increase to nearly £1 billion quite soon, it is entirely appropriate that the Minister of State should have started the review which is going on at present. The task which faces the review committee is a very serious one because the decisions which are made will be very important. If the review is implemented properly it will have a profound effect on how we conduct our affairs in terms of overseas development aid. Because the money is becoming large and meaningful it is essential that this be done. I do not envy the people on that committee. It will be a difficult job to come up with the best solution.
There may have to be dramatic changes from the way things are done at present. The present structure was set up when the amount of money involved was very small, almost derisory, compared to what it is now. Fundamental changes may have to be made and very quickly. I hope that can be done.
The reporting date for the review has already been put back. When the Minister of State was last here we were to get the report in May. We are now told "end of summer". The Irish summer being a variable feast, it is difficult to see when the end of it will be. The report may come at the end of an Indian summer. I hope we see it soon. It should be studied by members of this committee and of the House, and by anyone else who is interested as soon as it becomes available. It will form a very important part of Irish foreign relations and our relations with a major part of the world, which is the Third World. For a great many human beings it is far more significant than the political and diplomatic activities which we associate with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of State touched only very briefly on the question of refugees from Third World or less developed countries coming here. While I do not do a big constituency practice nowadays, I do not think there is a single item about which Deputies receive more correspondence than the dissatisfaction felt throughout the country with the way refugees are handled and the difficulties they have. I know this is primarily a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the proposal for a refugee agency in the Estimate is being transferred to the Vote for that Department. That is a pity. The difficulties people have of waiting two and three years for their applications to be decided on, their inability to work while they are waiting and the fact that some are being deported to countries which are not terribly concerned about individual human rights, must be a cause of concern.
It is inevitably my view that how we handle these people is part of our foreign relations policy. It is only in recent years that we have had any sizeable influx of people from abroad, in particular from Africa and more distant parts of the world. It is a pity that we have not been able to adjust our practices over the past four or five years on how we receive these people. In spite of all that was said here, the number of refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants coming to Ireland is still very small by comparison with most other countries. As a country which sent its own people around the world for a couple of centuries we have not distinguished ourselves in the way in which we have met our obligations over the past five years.
I would like to see a much greater input by the Department of Foreign Affairs in dealing with this situation. The Government should approach this issue on a much broader basis than leaving all the crucial decisions on it to be made by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I know other Departments are involved in various other aspects but the final decisions are made in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I congratulate the Minister of State whose contribution in this area over the past four years has been quite exceptional. Ireland would not be one of the few countries in the world to meet its international obligations in this regard if it were not for the Minister of State's drive and ambition to reach the 0.7% target. I do not think anybody would have the gall to reduce us below the programme now being set out. The Minister of State is to be thanked for that. There is no question of anybody here being dissatisfied with the Estimate. It is one we would all like to see increased. This is, perhaps, the most important of all Estimates.
Do you wish to formally put the Estimate?
We cannot do that; the Minister of State has to reply to the debate.
Sitting suspended at 5.24 p.m. and resumed at 5.34 p.m.
I welcome Mr. Arias Ali, governor of Inhambane province, Mozambique, Mr. Bilene, director of agriculture, and Mr. Chissano, director of public works, Inhambane. They are visiting Ireland and are observing today's proceedings.
Several Deputies raised the matter of European development funding to which we contribute annually. We have concerns, along with EU colleagues, about weaknesses in the EU assistance programme. Independent evaluation of it raised issues which were discussed by the Commission and in EU fora where we pressed for urgent reform. We were critical of the bureaucratic delays in delivering. I raised this with Commissioner Nielson who, as a former development minister, is aware that member states need to be confident that funds, dispersed on behalf of EU citizens, are used effectively. Significant progress was achieved in reforming the management of external aid and its internal structures. Europe Aid was established on 1 January 2001 with overall responsibility for EU aid. This office will reduce inconsistency and overlap in the programming and delivery of aid. The Commission also devolved responsibility from Brussels to the field offices; in other words, to have an operational base for the development funds. The procedure of member states' management committees in Brussels was streamlined. Overall there is a general welcome reform of the EU programme. The reform will be monitored and further reform called for.
Deputy O'Malley referred to Afghanistan, a very serious emergency. It was given priority as a forgotten emergency by Ireland Aid last year when £440,000 was provided. This year so far £953,000 was provided by the Government and, by the summer, more than £1.6 million will have been given. Further support may be forthcoming. This is not money to the Afghan Government but emergency humanitarian assistance through the Red Cross, NGOs and UN agencies. We cannot deal with the Taliban and so we work with the international community to alleviate this terrible situation.
Deputies raised the issue of governance and how our Government should address that. I outlined our position. We recognise that there are governance issues in many development countries and in those where we work in partnership. Many of them are emerging democracies. Where there is poverty, there is weak government. We work with the governments to strengthen their capacity, develop a civil society, comply with human rights obligations and strengthen democracy. We also have rigorous financial accountability, auditing and evaluation mechanisms in the Department of Foreign Affairs at embassy level. Embassy staff and officials monitor in detail the funds which we give to partner governments. Governance is a development issue and we help our partner governments overcome it.
Deputy O'Malley mentioned that the Refugee Agency is merged with the new Reception and Integration Agency. The Department of Foreign Affairs never had responsibility for refugees per se, that is those who make their own way here to apply for asylum. It is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Since 1991, under the Refugee Agency, we had responsibility for processing and managing programme refugees, those here by Government decision on foot of an emergency in their homeland, for example, from Kosovo, Bosnia and Vietnam. We managed those programmes and helped those refugees to settle here as long as they needed to stay. Many of the Kosovar refugees returned and some stayed here. My Department has a representative on the board of the Reception and Integration Agency and departmental officials develop integration policies for the refugee community. I agree with the Deputy that there should be a concerted effort to establish comprehensive integration services for refugees here. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law is responsible for processing the claims but other Departments, such as the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science, participate. My Department’s human rights based approach informs these services.
The Government agrees that NGOs work is an important part of the Ireland Aid effort and we act in partnership with them. The money channelled through them steadily increases ahead of the pace of the overall programme. In 1999, they received £24.6 million from official sources. Last year it was £29 million and this year it will be approximately £35 million. The proportion of the aid budget going through NGOs is increasing. They received 14% of overseas development aid, which is equivalent to 20% of the expenditure funds under the control of Ireland Aid. We factor in incremental increases for NGOs according to their capacity. We must be careful. There were independent evaluations of their capacity to absorb large amounts of money, of which they are mindful. We work closely with the major NGOs, building up their capacity and working in strategic partnership. We want involvement with them beyond funding, in other words, in helping us to evaluate programmes and devise policy. This is being considered in the programme review. We have meetings with the NGOs and liaise with them.
In Colosa, Tanzania, Ireland Aid funds were misused. It was discovered by Ireland Aid's own accounting and auditing mechanisms. The head of mission in the embassy in Dar-Es-Salaam was advised that our own system indicated that money in Colosa was not properly accounted for. He ordered an independent investigation which verified insufficient accounting for some procurements and tenders, totalling £50,000 out of a total programme of £16 million. The amount was relatively small, but we take such things seriously as they may indicate a wider malaise in the system. We went public on the finding of misappropriation of funds. The Tanzanian authorities were happy that we raised it, arising from which officials have been disciplined. The best we can do is to have as tight a mechanism for public accountability as possible agreed with our partners in developing countries and insist that action is taken if any misappropriation is certified.
I thank committee members for their overall support of the programme. It is a very challenging time. The Chairman indicated that it is a major opportunity and challenge for the members of the review group and the officials who administer the Ireland Aid programme to put in place an imaginative game plan which will bring about an effective programme commensurate with the amount of taxpayer's money invested in the programme in coming years. Because it is such a challenge the timetable for the report issuing from the review has been delayed somewhat. We have come to see that, in order to do justice to the large amount of money, we will have to put in place significant administrative changes to ensure accountability.
We must also put in place a broad strategy and policy base to absorb large amounts of taxpayer's money in developing countries. This may involve movement to another region, a matter which we are discussing. It may be that we will decide to stay in Africa and deepen our engagement in sub-Saharan Africa, or we may select one more priority country in Africa and adopt a regional focus to maximise our effectiveness in the area. The reason for this is that HIV and AIDS have become an unfortunate and detrimental factor in the overall development of the region. Some 80% of deaths from AIDS have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, the focus of our programme. We see at first hand the devastating impact of HIV and AIDS on communities where we work and are trying to put in place mechanisms to build up the health infrastructure of the countries concerned in order that they can respond to the impact and demand for services arising from the AIDS pandemic.
I would be happy to return to the committee at any time. If any other matters were raised in the course of questions, my officials will get back to the Deputies concerned.
Are human rights included in this or the other Vote?
No, we have a programme of human rights and democratisation related to development assistance. There is, therefore, an element of human rights covered in my budget. We have a specific budget line for such projects in developing countries and NGOs apply for the grants in question. We also have a whole programme on and a budget line for human rights and good governance. Increasingly, human rights become central to development policy because we realise that the issue of governance and building local capacity to protect human rights goes hand in hand with development.
We heard some months ago from one of the Commissioners that there was a sum in excess of €2 billion voted during the years by the European Union which had not been expended and which, all going well, would take six or seven years to expend. The system in the European Union is different from ours. The money is not lost or does not have to revert to the Exchequer. It remains available once Voted, even if it is not expended. Is there any danger of that happening or has it happened in relation to Irish funds? Looking at the Vote the Minister of State can say "No" because her Department has paid out the funds. That does not mean, however, that they have been expended. They are paid into funds such as a grant-in-aid fund. The Accounting Officer can certify that he paid them into the fund but that does not mean that they were expended on the ground. Similarly, where payments are made to agencies like APSO and to the United Nations or the European Union, the Department can certify that it has paid the money but that does not mean that it has been spent. Can the Minister of State enlighten us on the matter?
As far as I am aware, the system in place for our priority countries is similar to that for EU Structural Funds. Three year programmes are drawn up with the agreement of the recipient Government and we work through the budgets in question. There are matching funds from the partner Government. We have clearly agreed sectoral approaches in order that in the health sector X amount will be used. The same applies to the education sector, etc. At local and internal Department of Foreign Affairs level there is a system of evaluation of impact. I would be quite confident in saying that funds are always drawn down because we have agreed a three year programme in advance.
The European experience has been commented on negatively by the international community. However, there has been progress in improving the financial management of EU assistance. The Commission has proposed reforms of the financial regulation and the use of more flexible methods of allocating budgets to ensure funds are spent as quickly as possible. Work has begun on clearing the backlog of old commitments. According to the Commission, as of December 2000 the amount relating to commitments unspent five years after allocation had been reduced by 30%. The reform procedure has succeeded in clearing the backlog of moneys not drawn down by developing countries, even though allocated by member states. While much has been achieved, we will continue to press the Commission concerning flexibility and an overbureaucratic approach to funds. There has been no accumulation of funds in any of the grant-in-aid accounts, for example APSO.
Did the Chairman ask me another question?
I asked about human rights. Would the Department consider building a stronger human rights section? It is no coincidence that some of the countries suffering the greatest deprivation are those suffering the greatest abuse or absence of human rights. Some of the countries mentioned such as Afghanistan, Burma and Zimbabwe would be included.
I agree. Human rights is increasingly part and parcel of the development challenge in many of the countries in question. As an administrative function, the human rights unit is placed outside the development co-operation division. It is part of the political section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and heavily drawn upon by us in dealing with human rights matters. It needs to be enhanced in terms of resources. The review committee is considering all these issues as well as the human resources demands and requirements to meet the expanding aid budget. I take on board the fact that there will need to be a greater concentration on human rights.
On the budgetary issues raised, I am informed that there are full divisionwide budget meetings every month to monitor spending and adjust disbursements as circumstances warrant. Those are the internal mechanisms in place in the Department to ensure there is a drawdown of funds and that they are monitored and evaluated.
That concludes our consideration of Vote 39 - International Co-operation.