Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2002

Vol. 5 No. 2

Estimates for Public Services, 2002.

Vote 38 - Foreign Affairs (Revised).

Vote 39 - International Co-operation (Revised).

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will make statements on both Estimates as the Minister of State is still in Monterrey.

I welcome this opportunity to meet the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs again to consider Vote 38. The Estimate in 2002 amounts to €172.707 million, which is an increase of 24.5% on the provision for last year. As in previous years, most of the Estimate is taken up with the administrative budget, which amounts to €141.370 million. This includes additional provisions to commence the development of a new automated passport production facility and new information and communication technologies in my Department, the latter of which will be particularly relevant to our preparations for the next Irish Presidency of the European Union in the first half of 2004.

The Vote covers mandatory contributions to international organisations such as the UN, in particular for UN peacekeeping duties. Also covered are programmes to support Irish citizens abroad and to provide bilateral assistance to EU candidate countries to assist them in their preparation for EU membership. This year's Estimate also includes a provision of €3 million to cover the cost of any future referendum on the Nice treaty.

I propose to commence my review of my Department's activities with some words on the European Union. The European Council had a successful meeting in Barcelona at the weekend. Later this afternoon, the Taoiseach and I will be making detailed statements on its conclusions in the Dáil.

The further enlargement of the European Union has been a political imperative for almost a decade. This year, which marks the crucial end-game phase of negotiations, will see the most difficult and sensitive issues being tackled. In light of the accession of these new member states, the Government decided last July to provide a four-year funding programme to train public servants from the candidate countries on the management of EU-related business, drawing on Irish expertise in the implementation of the EU acquis. The funding available will exceed €1 million annually for each of the four years.

Enlargement represents an opportunity for Ireland. It is squarely in our political and economic interest that neighbouring states join the EU. Trade with the candidate states is developing well and there is also a moral imperative that cannot be ignored. Enlargement to the east represents an opportunity to heal the divisions of the past century, nor can Ireland deny to others the opportunities given to us a generation ago.

The vote against the Nice treaty did not represent a vote against enlargement. The recent report by Senator Hayes, Chairman of the National Forum on Europe, showed that there is a broad consensus across the country in favour of extending the EU. I strongly welcome that consensus, but at the same time, as I have said previously, it is illogical to support the end and yet deny the means by which it is to take place.

Nonetheless, the Government understands the concerns which underlay the "No" vote. It cannot be denied that there is a sense of disconnection between the European Union institutions and EU citizens. The Government is working to address those concerns.

The National Forum on Europe, established by the Government, has been a platform for effective and wide-ranging debate on Europe and Ireland's place in it. The forum has succeeded in its goal of having an inclusive debate and its mini fora held around the country were a particular success in helping to bring the debate on Europe closer to our citizens. I congratulate the chairman, participants and staff of the National Forum on Europe on their continuing efforts.

The Government is also working to ensure that better arrangements for the scrutiny of EU legislation are put in place. I appeared recently before the Joint Committee on European Affairs and outlined the proposed changes, which were warmly received.

The Future of Europe Convention has just started its work in Brussels. The Government will take an active and constructive approach to it. The EU must be brought closer to its citizens and this will be a priority of the Government at the convention. The Union must be more accessible, more comprehensible and more responsive to the concerns of citizens. It cannot continue to function effectively unless its institutions are grounded in the support of the people they serve. At the same time, there is a need to recognise that Ireland has been well served by the existing institutional balances and policy mix and this must reflect our position in the convention.

In reviewing the budget for my Department for the year 2002, it is important to consider the proposed expenditure in the context of the Government's domestic agenda and its foreign policy objectives. Ireland has a small, open economy with a high dependency on foreign trade and inward investment. Advancing Ireland's economic and commercial interests is among my Department's top priorities. In order to improve the Department's capacity to assist in Ireland's economic growth, I set up a new bilateral economic relations division last year. The division has responsibility for co-ordinating co-operation between the Department, its diplomatic missions, other Departments, semi-State agencies and the business community.

The terrible events of 11 September last year were a defining moment, perhaps, in the course of this century. Since that date, the international community has given overriding priority to the campaign against the menace of terrorism. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Ireland, as a member of the Security Council, was prominent in the shaping of the global response. Security Council Resolution 1368 of 12 September reiterated the right to self-defence and called on all member states to work together to bring the perpetrators of the massacre of 11 September to justice. To this end, the more detailed Resolution 1373 of 28 September imposed a specific set of obligations on member states under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These included the ratification of all the UN conventions on terrorism, with particular emphasis on the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which we discussed yesterday.

In the fight against terrorism, a number of points are clear. Long-term security, peace and prosperity can never again be taken for granted. The continuing threat from international terrorism can be met only by concerted international co-operation. Both morally and materially, international terrorism calls for a globalised response. That response must not only tackle the manifestations of terrorist activity, but also deal with the root causes of conflict around the world. Ideological, ethnic or religious fanaticism sometimes requires no motivation beyond itself. The only answer to that kind of terrorism is an adequate security response in the short and medium term, together with the long-term hard labour of attempting to spread the values of tolerance and mutual respect.

The events of 11 September and their aftermath have clearly confirmed that the international community needs to develop an integrated approach to conflict prevention and conflict resolution, making imaginative and systematic use of the full range of instruments at its disposal. These include: a judicious and flexible application of classical diplomacy, together with an enhanced focus on human rights; economic development; institution-building; good government; targeted sanctions; police and judicial co-operation; peace-keeping; and, as a last resort, peace-making. It is this joined-up approach to foreign policy that I have striven to pursue during my tenure as Minister for Foreign Affairs and which has informed our approach to our term on the UN Security Council.

Ireland has now completed over half of its two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have concentrated on making a constructive and positive approach across a range of issues, including those relating to peace support operations in various parts of the world and regional conflicts in key areas such as Afghanistan, the Middle East, East Timor and Angola. The high point of our membership was our presidency of the Security Council in October 2001. Following the events of 11 September, the key priorities for the presidency became the follow-up to SECCO Resolution 1373 on terrorism and the situation in Afghanistan. During our presidency we also had to remain focused on the wider agenda, in particular the Middle East and conflicts in Somalia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. I visited New York twice during the month and chaired sessions of the council as well as meeting the UN Secretary General, key UN officials and other members of the Security Council. This committee made a very useful and constructive visit to New York at that time. I again record my appreciation for the committee's input at that time, which was widely valued and commented on at all levels in the UN, starting with the Secretary General. I am also very grateful for the committee's constructive engagement with me and my Department. For the remainder of our term on the council, we will continue to contribute across the range of issues of concern, particularly in relation to peace support operations and the resolution of regional conflicts.

Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping continues to be an important signal of our commitment to the ideals of the organisation. While our participation in UNIFIL in southern Lebanon ended in 2001, the contribution at the end of last year of more than 200 troops to the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea in December 2001 is indicative of our continuing commitment to UN peacekeeping and in particular of the Government's commitment to conflict prevention and crisis management in Africa.

Our participation on the framing and conduct of EU foreign and security policy gives us a much greater role and opportunity to have our views heard and taken into account than we could ever achieve on our own. The core characteristic of the EU's common foreign and security policy is that it is intergovernmental. Participation in it does not diminish Ireland's commitment to collective security, it enhances it. Conflict prevention is at the core of the Union's approach. It is a key priority for Ireland to maximise the role of conflict prevention at the heart of the EU, as well as to encourage the development of effective partnerships with other international organisations, especially the UN, in working to remove the causes of war and conflict. The recent EU decision to undertake a policing operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in follow on to an existing UN mission, is the first example of the EU putting its operational capability into practice. Following the Barcelona European Council late last week, the Union may also move towards taking responsibility for the current operation in Macedonia for the protection of international monitors.

While the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has claimed more than 200 lives so far this month alone, a rare potential opportunity for real progress now exists. This is due to a combination of factors, among them the renewed US involvement. The return of US special envoy Anthony Zinni and the visit of Vice President Cheney to the region are particularly important in the efforts to achieve a ceasefire and in progressing the proposals contained in the Mitchell report and in the Tenet ceasefire plan. Another important development is the agreement on Security Council Resolution 1397, passed on 12 March, which recognises that the Palestinian state will have to live side by side with Israel. It is significant that this text was introduced by the US and broadly accepted by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Our representatives on the Security Council worked hard to secure the passage of the resolution.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced ideas for an overall solution which have been well received internationally and which will be considered by the Arab League summit in Beirut next week. Both the UN resolution and the Saudi initiative were welcomed by EU Heads of State and Government at Barcelona. We are following closely developments on the ground, at the UN and in the major world capitals. It is vital that the current initiatives lead to real progress. We must also hope that all sides will realise that the policies being pursued by Israel and the activities of Palestinian groups are clearly counterproductive and that the cycle of violence and revenge serves no interest and advances no-one's security or freedom.

Since 1996 Ireland has contributed €30 million to the western Balkans. In order to consolidate our aid efforts in the region, my Department this year inaugurated a specific budget line for aid to eastern Europe. This new, targeted budget will enable us to build on what is already an extensive presence in the region, including members of the defence forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, gardaí in Bosnia and FYROM and other personnel working with the OSCE and UN missions, as well as the election monitors that travel to the Balkans each year. I should also highlight that Ambassador Antóin Mac Unfraidh of the Department of Foreign Affairs leads the EU monitoring mission to the region, which isan integral part of the EU's presence on theground.

Africa remains a very important element of Irish foreign policy, both in the political and development assistance spheres. We have been fortunate to witness and contribute to some genuine progress in conflict areas such as the Horn of Africa, west Africa and the great lakes region. The peace agreement brokered between Ethiopia and Eritrea has so far been very successful and we have played our part in full, with 220 troops serving there with the United Nations peacekeeping force, UNMEE. In Sierra Leone, more than 46,000 ex-combatants have disarmed as against a target figure of 25,000. In Burundi a transitional government has been successfully installed, while recent developments in Angola give some hope for an end to the conflict in that country. Despite these significant achievements, many parts of Africa remain fragile: the humanitarian crisis in Angola and the absence of a central authority in Somalia are issues of grave concern. As regards the DRC, the inter-Congolese dialogue collapsed last week. We strongly urge all parties and particularly the DRC government to reconvene the talks at the earliest opportunity.

We have consistently taken a strong line on the unacceptability of the behaviour of the government of Zimbabwe. The widespread political violence and intimidation which preceded and accompanied the presidential elections, and which was primarily directed at supporters of the opposition candidate, was an affront to democracy. Reports on the conduct of the election leave us in no doubt that the results of the election were fraudulent. We strongly supported the imposition of targeted sanctions by the EU against the Zimbabwean regime. Ireland will continue to take a strong line on Zimbabwe at EU level and will be at the forefront of considerations on further EU action on Zimbabwe.

Mrs. Mary Robinson has stated that she will leave the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights at the end of her current term. Her period with the UN has been marked with distinction as she pursued the promotion and protection of human rights with the utmost vigour. She saw those rights as universal and indivisible and did not flinch from drawing attention to and condemning violations wherever they occurred. Mrs. Robinson's tireless advocacy on human rights has enhanced the prestige of the Office of the High Commissioner and has reflected well on her own country. I place on record today the Government's appreciation of her work.

There have been real and significant developments both nationally and internationally in human rights. Human rights are now firmly established as a cornerstone of Ireland's foreign policy. Ireland, in partnership with other like-minded countries, will continue to deliver a strong and concerned voice on human rights in international fora such as the UN General Assembly, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Council of Europe, OSCE and the UN Security Council.

While acknowledging that 2001 was a challenging year in the disarmament field, with continued US unwillingness to ratify the CTBT and its unilateral derogation of the ABM treaty, Ireland remains committed to reaching early and measurable progress on nuclear disarmament. Ireland will work energetically with our New Agenda coalition partners at the April NPT preparatory commission on pressing the case for the implementation of these commitments. We will continue our efforts in relation to the issue of landmines and will work with others to follow up on the UN programme of action on small arms and light weapons agreed last July. Our approach to the issues involved in disarmament and non-proliferation, taken together with our commitment to development, constitutes a strategic approach to conflict prevention, from addressing the causes of conflict through to responding to conflicts and crises when they arise, as well as contributing to any post-conflict restoration efforts.

Despite the difficulties we have faced, our work in implementing the Good Friday Agreement has advanced considerably. The institutions are working well and a new beginning in policing is under way. Steps have been taken towards the normalisation of the security environment and the IRA has begun a process of putting its weapons beyond use. We have also seen an unprecedented level of all-island and cross-border co-operation, both within and without the institutions created under the Agreement. The practical benefits to be derived from such co-operation are already manifest. However, working together, for shared benefit and common good, is also playing a vitally important role in dismantling the borders and barriers that exist in people's minds and in furthering mutual understanding and reconciliation between the traditions on this island.

We do not yet have a perfect peace. Paramilitaries continue to play a dark and violent role in too many communities on both sides. In the society envisaged in the Agreement, there can be no place for vigilantism, so-called punishment beatings or exiling. Neither can there be space for sectarianism and hatred. Pipe-bomb attacks on the homes of innocent Catholic families and the type of abuse visited on the children of Holy Cross school are simply not acceptable in a civilised world. We all want to reach a situation where all illegal guns have been taken out of the equation. The IRA has begun to put its arms beyond use. It is important that the process continue and it is important that loyalist paramilitaries address the issue also, and that the demilitarisation agenda be advanced.

The new beginning in policing is under way, but it will take time to bring it to fruition. The policing board has made a most encouraging start. It is, however, disappointing that all parts of the community are not yet represented on the board. We have a unique opportunity to radically transform policing in Northern Ireland. We have the right template in the Agreement, Patten and the Weston Park proposals. A decision to come on board involves a certain degree of political risk, as the SDLP knows. It is sometimes more comfortable to criticise from the sidelines than to join the game yourself. However, policing is a vital part of the Agreement. If we are to succeed, it is important that all parts of the community have their voices heard.

In and of itself, the process of transforming the policing service is complex enough. It is made considerably more difficult when there are parties apparently prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to pursue their own interests or agendas. I am referring to the break-in at Castlereagh police complex. We have raised this issue with the British government through the secretariat of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. These discussions will be ongoing as we seek to unravel this perplexing and disturbing event. The policing board has a crucial role to play in this as the body to which the Police Service of Northern Ireland must account for its actions. As its deputy chairman, Denis Bradley, has stated, the break-in goes right to the heart of intelligence and security. There are now two investigations into the affair, which I very much welcome. We cannot pre-judge the outcome of those investigations but I can say with absolute certainty that confidence in the rule of law and in justice requires that we get to the bottom of the break-in. We need to know the truth and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. That is a fundamental requirement.

The agreement protects the best interests of both communities on the basis of equality and parity of esteem now and in the future. Equally, I recognise that there are some, especially in the Unionist and loyalists communities, who do not see it that way and who have yet to be convinced that they are valuable stakeholders in shaping the future not only of Northern Ireland but of this island. Their alienation from the agreement is in part political - in my view based on misunderstanding - and in part the result of social and economic marginalisation. Where we can, and in keeping with the agreement, we must be generous in our willingness to reach out to address their concerns about the future. In doing so we should be clear that although the agreement addresses the constitutional question it is above all a genuine and sincere effort to overcome the legacy of distrust and deep division between the two traditions on this island. It is about reconciliation, peace, equality and building a better future together in partnership.

The principle of consent means there will be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland unless a majority votes to bring it about. Personally, I find the focus on the question of the imminence or otherwise of a united Ireland and on the question of Border polls a distraction from the real task of implementing the Agreement. Commitment to the values and principles of the Agreement is essential if we are to build a mutual future of peace and prosperity, whatever the constitutional position. In this work the Government will continue to receive the full support of all parties represented in the Oireachtas and on the committees on foreign affairs. This is deeply appreciated.

The Select Committee can see from the list of issues I have touched on that it is a major challenge for a small country like ours to contribute meaningfully to alleviating a range of major problems which affect global peace, security and prosperity. We need to be both creative and pragmatic in how we use our limited resources to protect Irish interests and to affect the international context positively. As I have mentioned a number of times, working in partnership with our fellow EU member states and with like-minded countries internationally is essential if we are to make a difference. Equally, we have to ensure we have well-trained people of the highest calibre and that we deploy them wisely. We are particularly conscious of the need to maximise the synergies and value added to the State by joint planning and common action with other Departments and State agencies. I assure the committee that we are working continuously to ensure we deliver to the greatest degree possible on Ireland's foreign policy objectives.

I apologise on behalf of our spokesperson on foreign affairs, Deputy O'Keeffe, who is currently at the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs which unfortunately coincides with this meeting. I have taken up his mantle for a few minutes so I do not have a script as the Minister does. I will make a few points about the Estimate and about the issues covered by the committee. I thank the Minister for his comments welcoming the co-operation and full agreement of all sides of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the area of foreign affairs. It is one of the least contentious Departments and major differences in policy seldom occur. We all work to promote goodwill towards Ireland abroad and wish Ireland to participate as widely and actively as it can in international affairs.

I was glad to hear the Minister reiterate that there does appear from the forum to be a broad consensus in favour of enlargement. The reasons for people voting no and not coming out to vote at all seem to be wide in scope and not to do with enlargement at all. For the sake of our relations with aspiring members it is important to assure them at every opportunity that we are not against their joining the EU. Members of this committee and other committees have done this with visitors from applicant countries.

I am concerned, however, about the possibility, mentioned only in the last week at the Barcelona summit, of a declaration being added to the Nice treaty for Ireland. It appears the Minister has obtained agreement from his partners to allow this. The problem is that with the dissolution of the Dáil in the next few weeks and normal return to parliamentary work in either the last week of September or early in October, along with the need for another referendum in the autumn, there will be very little opportunity for us to deal with any legislation that might be required for such a declaration. Also, the Minister has said all along that the reason for his not doing anything about this issue was the lack of any definitive report from the forum, but despite the fact that there has still been no such report he is going ahead with the request for a declaration. I do not wish to be misunderstood - the declaration is needed. However, I do not know how the Minister proposes to handle some of the other issues that gave rise to people voting "No". I recognise that we cannot cover every single issue but people had many concerns. They were concerned about the implementation of some areas of the social charter and thought that a vote for Europe meant these things would be introduced. I would be interested to know whether any other issues besides those of neutrality and the participation of the Irish army and police forces in peacekeeping or peace-enforcing missions were discussed at the summit.

The Minister said that he was setting aside €3 million for any future referendum and we will need one. How much did the last referendum cost? I had a figure in my head of £3 million. Was it all spent? If it was, the Minister is making a smaller amount available for the next referendum and this raises some questions. How does the Minister see the Referendum Commission handling the issue of another referendum on the Nice treaty, given its new terms of reference? It was complicated enough for them to handle the most recent abortion referendum so I do not know how they will handle stating facts about the treaty without printing out the whole text of the treaty - it is not very user-friendly. Has the Minister given any thought to how the Referendum Commission should go about this? It will need time to prepare for a referendum and this may mean setting it up in August so that it will have two or three months to distil the contents of the treaty so that people will understand what they are voting for and what they are not voting for. What is not included is just as important as what is included.

I commend the Minister on his time in the presidency of the Security Council and the officials of his Department. I hear from various sources that our staff on the Security Council are considered to be top-class and are extremely well-respected. We are halfway through our term now. The Minister has mentioned some issues raised by the Security Council in a general way. Are there any successes the Minister could identify for us, any issues for which he feels his personal intervention or Irish intervention was important? It is important that we leave our mark on the Security Council and given our history and our background we may have a better chance of being confrontational about some world issues than other countries who may have had long-erm relations with the countries involved. Thisapplies particularly to the conflict in the Middle East.

The use of language in the Minister's speech was interesting. He mentioned the "policies" of Israel but the "activities" of the Palestinian groups. Some of the actions of the Israeli government are not policies but dangerous activities. The word "policy" implies that there is something good about what they are doing. I do not condone what some of the Palestinian groups are doing but at times the reaction of the Israeli troops is far in excess of what it should be. Some 200 people have died in the past month alone - approximately six to seven people wiped out per day, the equivalent of the Government's Front Bench.

The troubles in the North were horrific but we did not have a situation where every single day, six to seven people were killed on both sides of the conflict. We must condemn in the most forceful way the activities on both sides of this conflict and ensure we do what we can. Apart from simply participating in the discussion at UN Security Council level, I would like to know if we are putting forward any proposals. I know there is a new man in the region now, Mr. Zinni, but we may be able to play a more positive role there given our background in Northern Ireland.

The events of 11 September caused tremors in all walks of life, economically, socially and politically. Old certainties and old friendships have been fractured and new friendships have to be formed. If there is a silver lining in this tragedy, it is that it has forced the US to be concerned with the kind of foreign policy it exercises, being the supplier of arms and resources to a particular country one week, then bombing that country the next week. There has to be more consideration of the kind of actions it takes. At one stage, it supported groups of which Osama bin Laden was part, yet now the situation has come full circle and it is fighting against him.

Having had a meeting with the American ambassador after 11 September, I got a sense that America was taking these lessons on board, but memories fade very quickly, even with regard to this atrocity. One has to constantly remind the US of the kind of friends it makes and activities in which it participates, on which, a year or two down the road, it will do a U-turn.

The Minister mentioned the bilateral economic division he set up last year. I will not ask him today to go into detail about this work, but has the issue of tourism come under this bilateral economic division, given the rather bleak forecasts and what we suffered last year, despite good figures for one third of the year? We will suffer this year. The Americans are not travelling to Europe, and if there is even a threat of a war in Iraq, they will not travel anywhere at all. Is there liaison between the bilateral economic division and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation to encourage our European partners and others to use Ireland as a holiday destination?

I join the Minister in complimenting former President Mary Robinson. I was disappointed last year when she announced she would not seek another term. I felt that she perhaps, let herself down and us down somewhat in the sense that she had a very good input to make in her role as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I was very glad she took up the request of Kofi Annan to serve another year.

Whether or not Mary Robinson wanted to stay on for another term, it is not good enough that she is not staying on because of US intervention, which is what we are hearing. Perhaps the Minister might share with us any information he has about what actions the Americans took to ensure that Kofi Annan would not be anxious to re-appoint her to another term of office. If this is not the case, then it is important the truth emerges now because this perception that one member can force somebody out of a position is damaging the role of the UN Commissioner and the UN generally.

Previously, there was no recognition in the Department of Foreign Affairs that along with aid and trade in many of the least developed countries, the whole concept of governance is absolutely essential because no matter how much money is poured into these countries, if they do not have a strong system of legal government without corruption, strong local government and a civil service, there will always be leakage of development aid and people will not benefit. We have seen this in many of the African countries. I have been involved in this issue since I came into this House in 1981, when I was chair of the Overseas Development Committee. I have been back to the countries I visited in the early 1980s, and it would make one want to cry to see how little has changed for so many people there. A few good roads and buildings have appeared here and there, but in the rural areas, there is no water, no electricity or other services. Many deficiencies have not been rectified. I am very glad the Minister is taking good governance into account, and I would like some information on how he assesses projects seeking funding for good governance.

The final issue I want to address is that of child soldiers, but I shall return to it as it is probably covered under bilateral aid.

The Minister made a very interesting speech, and I will comment on certain aspects of it, first the Middle East. I have previously expressed my displeasure at the role of the US in the Middle East. The US is far too one-sided in its approach, seemingly supporting the Israelis and virtually condemning the Palestinians, in particular their leader, Mr. Arafat. The US envoy has returned to the Middle East this week, but I am not confident it will make any considerable difference. His previous visit did not.

It is an appalling insult to the Palestinian people and to Arabs in general that the President and the Vice-President of the United States can readily meet the Prime Minister of Israel yet refuse to meet the legitimate leader of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat. It is a terrible reflection upon the US, and I say that as someone who has supported the US on foreign affairs matters more than anybody in the Oireachtas. I have supported the US through thick and thin over the years and will continue to do so as long as it is fair and above board. However, its partiality in the Middle East is open to considerable doubt, at the very least. It is not good enough that it speaks to one side at the highest level but will not speak to the other, bearing in mind that Mr. Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, has got a very shady background in the sphere of human rights.

There are those, many of them in exalted positions, who believe he is guilty of very serious war crimes going back to the early 1980s in Lebanon. That type of partisanship is just not acceptable. There will never be peace in the Middle East and terrorism will always be a problem for the United States while it is so one-sided in its attitude. The Israeli lobby in the United States should not be allowed to dictate the well-being of the free world, as is currently the case; it is jeopardising the stability of the western world. I am not commenting objectively. As members of the European Union, we should be more independent in our expression of that point of view. A collective policy for Israel and the Palestinians is wrong. I have served on the human rights body of the Council of Europe for many years and was leader of the Irish delegation for five years and I saw a strong Israeli lobby there. Governments in the EU have an undue bias towards the Israelis instead of being fair to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. That may seem strong but it is my experience of Europe. Having seen representatives of governments with which we are closely associated acting in a very uneven manner, I am worried. We should be objective and independent in expressing our views and should not allow ourselves to be carried along on a tide which is flowing in one direction. It might be to our shame that we agreed to policies that were not right.

The Northern Ireland experience has surely taught us that might is not right. That lesson stretches back for eight centuries. Thirty years of conflict are just coming to an end, although with the peace process, the situation has improved considerably. We must be independent in our judgment of events in the Middle East. It is vital that the Palestinians not only be allowed to retain to their own specific areas of control, such as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but that they have total autonomy within those areas. They must not be there at the behest of the Israelis and their everyday lives should not be controlled by the Israelis, they must have true freedom and autonomy. There is an horrific situation in the territories that have been invaded recently but even when they were free to an extent, they were not fully autonomous, they were under the control of the Israelis.

The Minister must speak up on behalf of the Palestinians. The United States and the European Union will not do it for domestic reasons. We do not recognise the degree to which domestic politics come into the issue. If the public knew what was going on in Palestinian areas they would be outraged. The Minister has an obligation to see these people get a fair deal.

In recent days some moderate Arab countries and their leaders, such as President Mubarak of Egypt, have said there will never be complete freedom from terrorism while the Palestinian problem is unresolved. That is a fact. Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad will continue to exist, as will Osama bin Laden and such people, as long as the dreadful situation in these territories continues. We must seek an equitable situation.

I was impressed with the Saudi Arabian proposal that it and other moderate Arab countries would recognise Israel if the Israelis gave the Palestinians the sort of autonomy about which I have spoken. The Government should emphasise its support for that idea. It was one of the most positive moves made in the Middle East in many years and would be an ideal solution.

The Minister should not be afraid to face down the warmongers in Israel. They may be in the majority but that does not mean they should be tolerated. There should be no support for Israel as long as the warmongers have the upper hand and the Israeli people are willing to vote for them instead of moderates such as Mr. Perez and the Labour Party. We should not sit on the ditch, we should not support the status quo, we should condemn what is happening.

I condemn the actions of the radical Palestinian organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is terrorism. What the Israelis are doing in return is institutionalised terrorism. They have superior armaments and they kill at will. This is a horrible situation which is not easily solved but the policies being adopted by the United States and countries within the European Union are misguided and will never be successful. There will be no solution while we support the Israeli stance.

A month ago, this committee met the foreign affairs committee from Westminster. Views were exchanged in a frank manner. I do not believe that the problems which occur in and around the Border areas are being tackled with sufficient diligence. Smuggling is a particular problem, as is the conversion of diesel which has become a huge racket. The smuggling of cigarettes, petrol and a variety of other items is widespread. The proceeds of such illegal activity goes towards the financing of paramilitary organisations. These gangs are still calling the tune in Northern Ireland as well as in many of the Border areas. Smuggling and the intimidation which goes with it must be stamped out.

The intimidation which has been rampant in Northern Ireland for the past 30 years is now spreading throughout this island. I see it even in my own constituency which could not be further away from the Border. Sinn Féin has adopted a policy of commemorating people who died in the 1921 War of Independence as if they were the natural successors of those people. They have parades and colour parties where they make outrageous speeches condemning everybody who sits in the Oireachtas, with the exception of their own representative, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. Let us not be complacent or afraid to face up to this type of activity. In my own constituency, I have seen an increase in such activity over the past 18 months. If it is happening in County Waterford, where these people do not have a large support base, then we can be sure it is happening in all parts of the country. In public places, people are afraid to speak ill of the IRA and particularly of Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin seems to have acquired an aura of respectability, but it is not respectable. Its members are still knee-capping and mounting campaigns of intimidation all over Northern Ireland. As recently as last night, there were riots between loyalists and republicans and a policeman was shot. Such things are everyday events in Northern Ireland. We must never become complacent about these issues. Sinn Féin's refusal to participate in the Northern Ireland Police Board is shameful. This unwillingness to participate, coupled with the campaign of intimidation goes against the spirit of the peace process. The guns may have been put away or destroyed, but the spirit of the peace process is not being adhered to. We should bear that in mind.

I condemn the raid on the Castlereagh detention centre. It was obviously an inside-job and the security forces are trying to cover up past activities by destroying files. Tribunals of inquiry are to be established in an effort to investigate such occurrences. The fact of the matter is that this was a deliberate attempt to pervert justice. I would not be surprised if there was a connection between this raid and some high-profile unsolved cases in Northern Ireland. The files were the key to solving these crimes and they have been destroyed. This was a disgraceful episode which I am sure the Minister will discuss with Dr. Reid, the Northern Ireland Secretary. Dr. Reid is an honourable man and I hope that the police will co-operate with him. Even if this crime is solved, it would seem that irreparable damage has been done. Files which could reveal so much about high-profile cases may well have been destroyed. Criminals, murderers and others who have perverted the course of justice may never be brought to trial. It must have been an inside job because the Castlereagh detention centre is impenetrable. I am extremely concerned about the lack of will in the implementation of the peace process. Dirty tricks continue to be played and intimidation is rife.

I want to see some movement from the EU and the USA in terms of securing peace in the Middle East. The Minister must look at this problem in an objective way and not become carried away by the opinions of other politicians, whose aims may not be as honourable his.

I would like to take the opportunity to make some remarks on Vote 38. Uniquely in the history of the Department of Foreign Affairs, there has been an incredible increase since last year - just under 25%. If I was wearing another hat, I would be aggrieved at the size of this increase. It is clearly an increase from a low base and now that Vote 39 is separate, it is quite a small Vote in overall money terms. However, when one looks at Vote 39, one sees that the increase will in fact be 50%.

If you exclude the appropriations-in-aid, it is 55%. By any standards, these are incredible increases, particularly at a time of low inflation. Unfortunately, this country has one of the highest inflation rates in Europe, approximately 4.7%. That is a long way from 25%. There is a grave obligation on the Minister and the Department to deliver value for money. I spent 13 years at the Cabinet table, listening to successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs pleading for small amounts of additional money to open embassies in the most obvious places. I see a list of those we opened last year. Some of them are very small and are mainly being opened because the countries involved are applicant countries. I would have thought the bigger and more important countries are the ones on which we should lay emphasis.

We have only two embassies in South America, very few in Africa and no representation at all in any of the Central Asian republics, even though some of those will be among the most important countries in the world, particularly Kazakstan, where the Americans, British and Russians have huge embassies because of the region's strategic and economic importance. We have no representation in Indonesia, even though it is the sixth largest country in the world and is located in a very sensitive region.

I am glad the fortunes of the Department of Foreign Affairs have changed so radically from what I used to listen to for so long, but it does have an obligation to deliver. Quite a great deal of funding goes into bilateral trade promotion activities and co-ordination of trade and investment, which I welcome, provided it is done in full consultation with the other Departments involved. I mentioned here last year that I had an unusual experience in my early days as Minister for Industry and Commerce of trying to use an embassy at the request of the IDA to promote investment in a large and important country, only to be told I could not host a dinner in the embassy. The ambassador refused it on the grounds that his House was "the house of the President of Ireland", and he would not have it "sullied with trade".

We have moved a long way since then, but there is no harm in reminding ourselves that happened only 25 years ago. That was the attitude taken then. It is now very different, and so much money is made available for these purposes I earnestly hope we get results, and I congratulate the Department on its good fortune.

The Minister has touched on many topics, and we are grateful for that. Given the nature of the Estimate, it is possible for him only to touch upon these various topics, and I or anybody else here can really only focus upon one or two items. In speaking about the aftermath of the events of 11 September, the Minister noted that one of the obligations placed on member states by the UN, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, included the ratification of all the UN conventions on terrorism, with particular emphasis on the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. We referred to this yesterday when discussing a number of conventions we are being asked to ratify, or to recommend to the Dáil to ratify.

I commented on the fact that one of them was a convention of 1907, which hardly seemed to me to be the most pressing matter, and on the fact that while a number of these conventions have been ratified by Ireland recently, we are hugely remiss in our approach to them. I obtained a list of them towards the end of last year from the Minister, and we have ratified about four or five of those since and are in default in about 15 conventions, which relate to terrorism, human rights and related topics. I pointed out yesterday that the most important of them was the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, but unfortunately, this has not been brought forward and will not be brought forward until a new Dáil is in place. The reason for the delay is that ratification requires domestic legislation here, and that process is terribly slow. I go back to a topic I raised yesterday and ask whether we have to have domestic legislation for nearly all these conventions. Could we not adopt them by way of motion, as other countries can do? There are apparently constitutional difficulties.

One of the reason I lay so much emphasis on the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is that given international co-operation it is the most effective way of suppressing terrorism in the long-term. I say that particularly in the context of Iraq. I do not think the Minister mentioned the apparently imminent problem in Iraq, but it could be far more serious than what happened in Afghanistan, and it cannot be removed from the context of events in the Middle East generally. If the US persists in what appears to be its intention to attack Iraq, it may inflame an already very serious situation in the Middle East. I do not detect any support in Europe, outside of Britain, for such a course of action, and I hope the Minister will avail of an opportunity to impress upon the Americans the necessity of trying to deal with a perceived threat from Iraq by means other than a direct attack upon that country, which would be highly dangerous in the present context.

I refer to events in Palestine and Israel at the moment. It is a valid criticism of the UN Security Council as a whole, I am not referring specifically to Ireland's role, that the resolution it passed on the Middle East a few weeks ago, 1397, was the first for a long time. The Minister, in his speech, notes that the text of the resolution was introduced by the United States, and that is our experience generally of the UN Security Council. It is unwilling to take any steps in relation to the Middle East unless the United States is prepared to take the lead.

Deputy Deasy has expressed a point of view on the role of the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian context, and I think many people throughout the world are coming round to that view. This is not anti-American, it merely reflects the facts. This committee has stressed very strongly before, that even if we do not all agree on all aspects of this issue, we are all agreed that Europe does not play a sufficiently prominent role in trying to deal with it. That is disappointing. Europe could make a much bigger contribution than it has done but it has chosen not to because frequently domestic politics in individual countries seem to influence to an untoward degree the foreign policy which should, in all justice, be pursued by certain countries or groups of countries.

The basic injustice in Palestine is so appalling that it is no wonder there is the present level of violence. The justice which has constantly been denied to the Palestinian people and the feeling of despair they must have after so many decades of injustice inevitably leads to violence which, of course, leads to counter-violence and the spiral of violence and counter-violence feeds on itself.

Among my other ailments I suffer from insomnia. One way of dealing with insomnia is to listen to the BBC World Service which one can hear on the long wave at night, provided there is not a test match on. I have gone off test matches, they are very boring.

Would it not make one go to sleep?

To listen to the BBC World Service is much more interesting. Last night, I heard a woman being interviewed who lived in a refugee camp in the northern end of Gaza which is surrounded by Israeli settlements. I know exactly where it is. Two Israelis were shot going into or coming out of one of those settlements about a month ago. The people who live in the camp which has now been surrounded have been subject to a 24 hour a day, seven day a week, curfew ever since. They cannot go in and they cannot come out, except with military permits which are very difficult to obtain. The conditions under which they live, as a punishment for the fact that not they but somebody else shot two Israelis, are absolutely appalling. The view of outsiders who have seen this situation is that it is no wonder young Palestinians resort to violence when they are treated in this way and are seen to have no hope at all in the political sphere. That is the basic injustice.

What is, perhaps, unrealistic about the otherwise commendable effort by the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia with the proposal he put forward recently is that it entails Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 boundaries. If it does that, it would solve the problem as far as the Palestinians are concerned but I do not think there is much prospect of that happening. Given that this happened as long ago as 1967, many people, particularly younger people, assume that that was always the boundary of Israel and do not quite understand the reference to "occupied territories". The reference to "occupied territories" is the reference to the Palestinian territories which have been occupied since 1967 and continue to be occupied by force.

One hesitates to express any criticism at all of Israeli Government policy because one is immediately classified as anti-semitic, but I have to take that risk because I am deeply disturbed at the way the Palestinian people are treated. That injustice is going to continue and will fester even more deeply. As long as it continues and festers, there will be violence because people who were affected by it see no chance for themselves except to resort to violence as they will not get justice any other way. Therefore, what the Minister says is right in terms of countering the effects of terrorism. It is not just the actual terrorism on the ground, the reasons that give rise to it in many cases must be tackled just as much as the actual terrorism, particularly in the Middle East and Kashmir. I have a clear recollection, when we were in New York last October-November, of the Secretary-General saying there were two places - Palestine and Kashmir - about which he was particularly worried and that each of them could give rise to world conflict. I think he is right. The difficulty in Kashmir is that the two state protagonists there are nuclear countries so that if they become engaged in serious conflict, the consequences will be huge and far more serious than any other conflict throughout the world. Of all the problems in the world today, these are potentially the most serious, but they are only two out of dozens. There are numerous conflicts all over Africa——

Hear, hear.

——but the sufferers there tend to be only the local people and there are not strategic interests involved. There is no great pressure, either in the United States or within the capitals of Europe, to take sides in these regional or internal conflicts in Africa. Therefore, they are allowed to go on and nobody is very upset about them but the suffering for those involved is dreadful. Where there are strategic interests and domestic political interests, some people from outside will take an interest. I am not sure in the case of the Middle East that the outside interests are helpful or conducive to the achievement of peace.

The world can change very rapidly. We heard through the 1990s that a new world order had arrived. Five years after the Berlin Wall came down, communism was over. We were told there would be no great conflicts again in our time and there have not been any between the super powers because there is only one left. Suddenly the potential for world conflict has arisen from local, regional wars arising out of local senses of grievance and injustice and, incredibly, considering the way the world was five years ago, we could be faced with an awful situation again and the potential for huge conflagration. That is why the Security Council and the UN's position is very important. I hope that in the remainder of this year Ireland will be able to contribute in a meaningful way to bringing about an amelioration of the situation in the Middle East.

I wish to join with the Minister and others in paying tribute to Mrs. Robinson who is relinquishing her post in September. I regret that she is doing so. She performed her functions very adequately and acquired some major enemies in the world. She fell foul of the United States. She fell foul of Russia because she visited Chechnya. She fell foul of China because she went to Tibet and showed concern for minorities within China. She did that in the performance of her job.

I do not think she was allowed go to Tibet.

She was in conflict with the Chinese Government because of that.

About Tibet, yes.

She was not allowed to go.

Yes, and she left.

It would be better if the international community generally had been able to afford her more support than she got because the danger is that she will be replaced by someone who might be more amenable to the interests of larger countries, which would be a great pity. She showed great independence in her attitude.

I congratulate the Minster and his Department on what has been a number of successful years and wish them well in the future. Whatever else they might be short of, for once they are not short of money.

It is all due to the Minister of State's charm.

And the Minister's charm.

Certainly.

As one who is a strong supporter of Israel, I am satisfied with the even handed and fair stance of the Minister and his officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have no intention of getting into a tirade with anyone on this situation. Like everyone else around this table, I would like to see an end to the violence and terrorist organisations like Hamas. I would also like to see Iran calling off Hizbollah and changing its policy on the annihilation of the state of Israel. The violence did not start under Ariel Sharon; it started under Barak who was offering much that was not acceptable.

I returned today from the United States where I watched many reports on Fox News, which appears to be the new competition to CNN, about those people making statements that the violence on the Palestinian side will continue until there is no longer a state of Israel. No country can lower its guard under those conditions. I am sure everyone here has his or her own perspective on the matter but I am relieved and happy that we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs who has been fair and even handed. At no stage have I felt that he was being swayed by people who have always hated Israel.

I would love to see the establishment of a Palestinian state and I know the Israelis would like that also as long as they can live side by side with each other as good neighbours. Much of the current suffering could be brought to an end if it were not encouraged by crazy clerics like Yassam who tells these people to go out and kill themselves. There was an interview on Fox News with a woman whose son was a suicide bomber. This woman was on video walking with her son, of whom she was very proud, and she said that the only regret she had was that she did not have more sons to commit suicide. These people are inculcated to believe they will go straight to paradise where there will be 72 virgins waiting on them when they arrive. We have read all about that.

I am happy with the role Ireland has played in the Security Council and during its Presidency, we earned the respect of every other member country sitting around the table. I would be happy to see Ireland as a permanent member of the Security Council.

First, I will deal with the technical issues raised in terms of understanding from where the money is coming. I heard what the Chairman said. We had an outturn last year of €62.4 million and the Estimate for this year is €73.14 million so when we talk about percentages, we are coming off a very low base on this Estimate, and 82% of the total figure relates to wages and salaries under subhead A1 of the budget. We have to take into account the PPF, the Buckley pay increases, the new allowance system which I got through this year to deal with many anomalies in the system in that, depending on where one was serving, the cost of living and various genuine expenses were not being uniformly shared properly across the service, in some cases less so than others. All of that was brought up to date and it will be a far more transparent and professional operation in that respect from now on. There is also the cost of new missions in Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Brazil, which is opening this year, of €1.8 million. Those are the reasons for the percentage increase in the first instance.

Second, there is also the question of the need for the Department to build up its information and communications technology strategy, which is already part of a wider Government initiative. Apart from the e-Government initiative, there is a need to greatly improve the co-ordinating ability of the Department not alone in terms of its responsibilities as the Department of Foreign Affairs representing the Government externally but with its own missions and ensuring that diplomatic missions are staffed by people who would be far more au fait and consonant with the modern day realities than the person one would have met, say, 25 years ago. There have been many changes since then and I know the comment was meant to emphasise a point showing the progress that has been made in this whole area but it is a traditional view of the Department which is not typical or consonant with the realities of today and the experience I have had. There is always room for improvement, however, and we should not be complacent but I would make that point generally.

The other major point of reference in terms of the increased expenditure relates to the need to modernise information and communications technology strategy which the Department is in the process of implementing. It is to provide the Department with the necessary infrastructure and services to enable the use of information as a strategic resource in representing Ireland internationally to enable the Department meet its strategic objectives. One area of focus of strategy is to identify those services required to support the Department in planning and delivering the EU Presidency. The plan is expected by mid-2002 and given the tight time frame, the work on the EU Presidency requirements have begun immediately.

Key elements are expected to include devising information and knowledge systems management to enable more effective sharing of information; upgrading and enhancing existing IT and communications infrastructure to deliver improved services; implementing a new human resources management system; and developing a management information framework. That is important and necessary work which has been identified as a priority by the Department management team.

Another reason for what appears to be a very large jump from the traditional outturn we have been able to achieve in the past is the new Passport Office project, which totals €12.972 million. For security and other reasons we need to ensure that we have a totally new Passport Office system.

Can the Minister confirm that it will come to my constituency?

I cannot confirm, deny or speculate about that.

That is a pity because I met some of the people involved when they visited the constituency.

Indicative sites have been looked at, one in the Deputy's constituency and in others.

Tullamore?

Will the Minister tell me why the Department of Foreign Affairs issues passports here? In most countries they are issued by the interior ministry which makes sense from a security point of view.

There is an existing legislative basis for this. It is an expertise we have developed and has been a responsibility which we have handled. I would have to find out the background to why that is the position. The Deputy raised an interesting point.

All citizenship laws go through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Correct.

If there were to be an amendment to our Constitution on citizenship, which is being talked about, it would come through that Department.

I will come back to the committee on this.

In spite of that, the Minister's staff in the passport section deserve congratulations. They have always been first class and have served Members of the House well whenever they needed a passport application processed quickly for a citizen.

The contributions to international organisations are also increasing by €2.5 million this year. This subhead covers contributions for various international organisations, the UN, Council of Europe, OECD, OSCE and WTO. The increased provision for 2002 is required to meet increased mandatory contributions to these bodies, particularly to the UN to help fund its expanded peacekeeping activities.

In 2001, the expenditure exceeded the allocation by $4.99 million due, in the main, to increased mandatory contributions to the UN, as a result of which it was necessary to obtain a Supplementary Estimate of €1.572 million to cover a portion of that increased cost. The balance of the overrun was met from savings under administrative budget subheads. There are some slight reductions in some of the subheads because of changing needs and priorities.

I took it from the Chairman's contribution that by setting up this new bilateral economic relations division I was perhaps suddenly seeking to get into a bit of empire building. This does not involve much increased funds. It is about bringing a focus, on the basis that we are an internationally trading economy, to ensure that our missions and people at home are in a position to assist and add value to the existing work that is being done by State agencies, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the IDA and many others.

There are areas in the world where we have diplomatic missions. We are in a position to help people who work on behalf of State agencies, particularly under the Asia strategy. We intend, possibly on a pilot basis, to choose a country to try to ascertain to what extent we could add value to existing activities, but that would not in any way replace or duplicate the work of the professionals in those areas. We would try to ensure that our people there add value to existing activities, are au fait with the realities and are available to assist in every way possible, ways that perhaps were not available to the Chairman when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce - I would not expect such an incident to occur 25 years on. It certainly would not occur today.

The focus is very much to facilitate and use the diplomatic mission in whatever way would add to and enhance the current position. It is not only about visits from Ministers, but also visits by members of the business community etc., to assist in the normal information sharing that would be helpful to people who are trying to do business in those parts of the world. I saw this in action. The Asia strategy is working. It is not rocket science, but it involves organisation, work and focus. When I went to the reconstruction conference in Afghanistan and visited Beijing, I took the opportunity to bring all the ambassadors from the Asia region to a meeting there where we could discuss exactly what we are doing, how we could do it better and what gaps or further work we could do from headquarters level that would assist our ambassadors and staffs to do their work even better than they have been doing it.

That focus of foreign affairs, being a component in the export drive of a country, is an important one that we take very seriously. It is not meant to duplicate, replicate or differentiate from the work of those who are in the front line. The added value we can bring, by reason of our contract, access to government circles etc., is a practical example of how the Department of Foreign Affairs can assist in the wider national effort. It is integrating itself all the more in recent years in being part of the national effort in all its spheres, not simply and exclusively our diplomatic relations with others. I make that general point because it is an important one.

Those who travel in parliamentary delegations recognise that is the approach the Department has been taking for some time. We are interested in intensifying that approach and making sure that the synergy is evident to everybody in terms of the type of work we are doing with the type of work that other front line ministries are doing in terms of that external trade effort. It is not the sole focus of our activities but it is an important one.

The question of pursuing our economic interests internationally is very much tied up with pursuing our political interests, ensuring there is political stability in parts of the world and ensuring we know what is happening - where the power plays are and how things are developing in political terms - which is also important for our economic efforts. These are complementary skills that are brought to bear for the purposes of ensuring we maximise whatever opportunities we can identify as a country or in terms of the private sector advancing its own economic interests.

The Middle East dominated some of the debate. Deputy Owen raised a point about my reference to the policies of Israel and the activities of Palestinian groups. It is clear to us and it has been our consistent view that there is no exclusively military solution to this problem and that unless parallel political progress is made, it is practically impossible to improve the situation. There is a growing awareness among the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority that that is an indisputable fact. The question at issue relates to creating the political circumstances in which people will move from a position of intellectual acceptance to get into the political position of advancing a process, going somewhere, being able to deal with extremism and trying to recreate some sense of security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Clearly, either side or both sides advancing exclusively on the military or paramilitary front is not bringing security to either side. It is decreasing the level and sense of security people have because of the extremist attacks that are taking place.

On that basis, I would make two other points. First, I do not accept the contention that outside help is not a benign influence. It is critical. This cannot be solved without US support. It cannot be solved without European Union support and whatever role the Russian Federation and the United Nations can play, they must play. It will require all of those what I would regard as forces for good to bring pressure to bear on the main actors. People can have a view on what they see as an interpretation of American interests or how America views this part of the world, which I could debate with members of the committee for much longer than time permits.

The basic problem is that we do not have a sufficient level of trust between the main actors for a peace process to survive. Palestinians and Israelis do not sufficiently trust each other to engage in a political process that might bring peace and stability to the region. Outside help will be an important influence to bear in terms of the success or sustainability of such a process, in the first instance in the absence of sufficient numbers of Israelis and Palestinians coming to a recognition that they have to sit down and solve this problem, not on the basis of a powerful state like Israel - which it is, compared to its neighbours and to Palestine - subjecting Palestinians to continued occupation, or the idea that military force will in some way bring about a more moderate political position on behalf of the Palestinians short of the right to self determination being recognised. That will not happen. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The centre is finding it difficult to hold its place in Palestinian public opinion.

The absence of a political process of any credible proportions or visibility renders the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness to be such that extremists flourish. They flourish on the basis that there is no prospect of the basic rights and dignities of the Palestinian people being respected in the context of a political process. The real problem all the time, and what has emerged from 11 September has to be, that people must recognise that if political solutions are to be in the ascendant and are to be the primary means by which conflict in the world is resolved, we must rehabilitate the concept of compromise. The concept of compromise does not and need not mean, as we found in our peace process, that we subjugate principle or reason or that we undermine our own position but that we find new creative ways of addressing the legitimate rights of both sides, the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and security and the right of the Palestinians to live in a viable and, I hope, democratic state which will have the prospect of meeting the needs of its people.

I have been accused of not speaking out but I have spoken to Shimon Peres on a number of occasions, including on the telephone. When he came to the European Union, I was the only person to conduct a bilateral meeting with him. If we want to make our views known and to wield influence - and there are people who are interested in talking to me, as the Irish Foreign Minister about our experience of a peace process, what its components are and how it might be helpful - one must, while calling a spade a spade, not get into a situation where one is shooting off the prospects of influencing the situation. It does not mean I am in total agreement with the Israeli Government; in fact, it is quite the contrary. Neither am I in agreement that the Palestinian Authority is exercising insufficient influence that would put it in a position to get the Israeli Government to sit down with it and start a peace process again. Tenet and Mitchell provide tough decisions for both sides to deal with the lack of security on both sides and to deal with the situation of being serious about a political process.

The pan-Arabist position is that it wants final status talks, with everything on the table within a particular timeframe. The Peres position is that this is impossible and that there is a need to agree on as much as possible, including the prospect of even recognising the Palestinian state, and leaving open other issues such as Jerusalem and the refugees to further discussion beyond that phase. We do not even have agreement, therefore, on the parameters of how to go about it. That is how difficult the situation is.

However, there are hopeful signs. There is the Zinni visit, the Cheney visit, the fact that the Saudi initiative is on the table and the fact that work is ongoing to get something out of the Arab League summit this weekend which would provide the prospect of recognition for the state of Israel in return for meeting the legitimate and just demands of the Palestinians by all its neighbours. That is a prize worth putting on the table so people can get out of the minutiae of the current crisis and recognise that politically the situation must be moved to a different plane.

In relation to the declaration, it is not true that legislation is necessary in respect of a statutory declaration. The Taoiseach simply brought to the attention of the leaders at Barcelona the progress we have made since May and the changing situation due to the fact that enlargement is likely to include ten members, which removes much of the argument and misinterpretation there was about a protocol in the Treaty of Amsterdam to the effect that five could be let in and another five could be picked another time. The biggest issue in relation to the Nice referendum, as indicated by the information we have from opinion polls and studies carried out by political scientists, is that four out of ten people did not know what we were talking about. That was even more than the number concerned about the neutrality issue.

Will there be legislation?

No, it is not necessary. It is not a prerequisite for the adoption of a declaration that there would be subsequent legislation. We need to obtain from our 14 colleagues confirmation that the Treaty of Nice is about enlargement and has nothing to do with neutrality or our position in the ESDP. Those elements of policy of the European Union were adopted in Maastricht and Amsterdam by an overwhelming majority of the Irish people. That is where the democratic mandate is for it. Misrepresentation of the position regarding neutrality was allowed to enter the discussion even though there are only two references to defence in the entire treaty. One is a defunct reference to the Western European Union which is no longer relevant and the other relates to a political and security committee being established which is subject to the political control of the General Affairs Council. These are the only issues of any military reference.

In fairness, there was a hint that we would require legislation to copperfasten that declaration with regard to our troops if they were being sent abroad.

I am only going by what I read in the newspapers.

An interpretation has been put on the Defence Acts which I have discussed with Deputy Michael D. Higgins and others on a number of occasions. There is no requirement for an amendment to our legislation in relation to the guarantees already available under the Defence Acts, that is, the requirement for a Government decision, Oireachtas approval and UN endorsement of the position.

The select committee has completed its consideration of the 2002 Revised Estimates for Vote 38. In accordance with Standing Order 79B the committee will send a message to this effect to the Clerk of the Dáil. The message will be communicated to the Ceann Comhairle at the first convenient opportunity. I will adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes, after which we will consider Vote 39.

Sitting suspended at 4.27 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.

We will now discuss Vote 39 - International Co-Operation. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I am honoured to present to the committee and to seek its approval of the allocation for the year 2002 for Vote 39, the Vote for International Co-Operation. As the committee knows, the proposed allocation for the Vote this year is €372 million. That represents an increase of 55%, or €133 million, over 2001. That is the single largest increase ever in the State's aid budget. The unprecedented level of growth we are now seeing in official development aid, or ODA, is in fulfilment of the Government's commitment of September 2000 to achieve the UN target of 0.7% of GNP by the end of 2007 and an interim target of 0.45% of GNP by the end of 2002.

The Government has taken a major step forward in terms of the resources provided for development co-operation. While the UN target has been around for a long time and successive Governments have aspired to reaching it, this was the first Government to pledge to do so within a specific timeframe. To date the target has been achieved by only five countries - the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and, most recently, Luxembourg.

This is Ireland's way of demonstrating its solidarity with the poor and dispossessed. We have a long tradition of generosity towards the poorest of the poor which has been influenced by our history of poverty, famine and mass emigration. Thousands of Irish people, both lay and religious, have worked in development. The Irish people have never shirked their responsibility towards people less fortunate than themselves. Rapid economic growth and increased prosperity at home brings with it increased obligations to those who are less well off. With the economic progress we have made as a nation in recent years, the Government is at last able to commit on behalf of the people the resources required to meet the UN target.

There are also sound arguments based on self-interest for supporting less developed nations. A more stable international order based on a fairer distribution of the world's resources has a direct bearing on our political and economic interests, particularly in the aftermath of 11 September. The root causes of terrorism must be tackled and the combating of poverty and injustice, the promotion of democracy and the safeguarding of human rights are all relevant in that regard.

I am proud to be associated with the Government's historic decision to achieve the UN target by 2007. The clear-cut commitment the Government has given places Ireland in the front rank of countries which are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities to lessen the divide between rich and poor on our planet. On current projections, achievement of the UN target will mean an annual budget of almost €1 billion by 2007. We are on track, furthermore, to achieve our interim target of 0.45% by the end of 2002 with the assistance of the substantial increase proposed for Vote 39 this year.

As we move forward with our aid programme, we will strengthen considerably our partnership with Irish NGOs and missionaries. NGOs and missionaries play an invaluable role in the development field, delivering aid to the poor and providing essential assistance in the area of emergency and humanitarian relief. There are many ways in which Ireland Aid already co-operates with non-government organisations and I look forward to closer co-operation in the years ahead.

Last year NGOs, including missionaries, received €33 million directly from Ireland and €7 million via APSO and the NCDE. This meant a total allocation of €40 million. This is an all-time high in terms of the assistance given by Ireland Aid to NGOs and missionaries. I expect this trend will continue and that in the next few years there will be a significant increase in the level of financial support provided for NGOs and missionaries. They are highly valued partners for Ireland Aid in the work done in the developing world and we want to see this partnership deepened in every way possible. It is important that the capacity of NGOs to utilise the funding effectively also increases and we will work with them on this. The activities for which they seek support should also be in line with the overall priorities and criteria set for Ireland Aid.

I wish to say a special word here about the contribution made by Irish missionaries. The Government has a deep appreciation of the role which missionaries have played in developing countries over many decades. They are, in many ways, unsung heroes and heroines, working tirelessly and selflessly with the poorest people of the world to relieve poverty and suffering. As Members know, the President paid a visit to Uganda and Kenya last October which was designed in part to pay a long overdue tribute to Irish missionaries. Ireland Aid has supported the work of the missionaries in various ways, including through the training facilities provided through APSO. I expect we will be increasing this support and helping them further as they face the challenges of transition, handing over gradually to local successors in Africa and elsewhere in the coming years.

Our involvement in developing countries is designed not merely to address essential needs such as primary health care and basic education but also to promote better governance and greater respect for human rights and democracy in these countries. The poor quality of governance in many African countries is itself a development issue. We have to help to improve public administration, reduce corruption levels and strengthen democratic institutions in these countries if a basis is to be laid for lasting economic development. Reforms to curb corruption are, therefore, among the areas we are targeting.

As Members will appreciate, development co-operation of any kind involves risk taking. Sustainable development cannot be achieved other than through co-operation with the Government of the country concerned. Yet many Governments have been linked to corruption and financial mismanagement. The key is to build in a system of rigorous controls which ensure the funding provided by Ireland Aid is used only for the purposes agreed with the recipient Government and that our investment is carefully protected. If we judge, ultimately, that a country has fallen below acceptable standards in terms of governance, respect for human rights and the other criteria which are important to us, we are quite ready to terminate our involvement - Sudan or Zimbabwe being cases in point.

I would like to say something at this stage about the structure of Vote 39 and the allocations of expenditure under it. The structure of Vote 39 is, for the most part, consistent with 2001. Some €254 million is allocated as a grant-in-aid for the bilateral aid programme and this subhead accounts for more than two thirds of the total Vote. The Agency for Personal Services Overseas, or APSO as it is more commonly known, accounts for €18 million, while almost €23 million is set aside for emergency humanitarian relief in respect of natural and man-made disasters worldwide. The multilateral aid element of the programme accounts for a further €52 million, of which €14 million concerns contributions made via the European Union. The larger component of multilateral aid is subhead F which primarily involves contributions to key agencies of the United Nations such as UNICEF, the UNDP, the UNHCR and the World Health Organisation. A small amount, €127,000, is allocated to subhead H in respect of appropriations-in-aid.

There are two changes from 2001 in the structure of Vote 39. First, a new subhead A has been established as an administrative budget. This change enables administrative costs, which in previous years had been included as part of the bilateral grant-in-aid, to be identified separately. The new format, which is consistent with the approach used for Vote 38 and, more generally across Departments, facilitates greater transparency and control.

Some €22.5 million is allocated to this subhead, representing just 6% of total expenditure under the aid programme. Included are certain one-off costs in connection with the relocation of Ireland Aid personnel and the staff of three associated agencies - APSO, the National Committee for Development Education, NCDE, and the Irish Aid Advisory Committee, IAAC - to a single premises at Bishop's Square. There are also some one-off costs relating to the planned expansion in staff numbers in the development co-operation division. The introduction of a separate administrative budget provides important benefits in terms of greater transparency and efficiency in the management of the programme.

The second change concerns the establishment of subhead G for bilateral development co-operation in eastern Europe. At €3.17 million, this provision acknowledges that a very great need lies here on our own continent of Europe. Ireland Aid faces an obligation to start to make a contribution towards assisting these countries, while not diverting the primary focus of the programme away from the most disadvantaged people in the least developed countries of the world. A number of countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union now have needs comparable to those encountered in developing countries. The introduction of a distinct provision for eastern Europe now means a co-ordinated approach can be taken to Ireland's development assistance in the wider eastern Europe region by incorporating in a coherent and programmatic manner all previous bilateral assistance given to eastern Europe under Vote 39, including funding of emergency assistance, rehabilitation, NGOs, micro projects, technical assistance, trust funds, etc.

At €235.8 million, subhead B is the main component of the aid programme. This subhead accounts for 68% of the entire Vote and comprises the bilateral aid programme and other elements of direct assistance.

At the heart of the bilateral programme are the country programmes in Africa. As in previous years, our main focus is on six priority countries Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. The focus in these countries is on poverty reduction and on basic needs such as primary education, basic health care, water and sanitation. The amounts envisaged for these six country programmes this year are as follows: Uganda €34 million; Ethiopia €29 million; Mozambique €26 million; Tanzania €20 million; Zambia €15 million and Lesotho €12 million.

The main focus of our spending in these countries is on area-based programmes and sector wide approaches. We work with particular regions of some countries to provide basic needs, especially where the process of decentralisation to the regions facilitates this. We also provide nationwide assistance in sectors such as health and education, working with the Governments concerned to implement agreed programmes.

Some €50 million will be spent across the entire Ireland Aid programme this year on a range of activities relating to the combating of HIV-AIDS. Particular attention to this area is essential not only because of the appalling human tragedy which it involves but because progress in the fight against HIV-AIDS is vital to underpin progress in all other sectors.

Subhead B also includes a dedicated provision of €21.6 million for NGOs. This represents an increase of almost a third over last year and is in recognition of the vital role which NGOs play in development and of our commitment to continued co-operation with the NGO sector. NGOs also obtain funding under the heading of emergency and humanitarian assistance. As I said earlier, the total provision for NGOs and missionaries now stands at a historic high and further increases may be expected in the coming years.

Under subhead B, €15 million is also set aside for post-emergency rehabilitation assistance, an increase of two thirds over the 2001 figure. Some €11 million is allocated for co-financing with multilateral organisations which act as agents for Ireland Aid in undertaking specific activities.

Some €17.6 million is set aside under subhead C for the activities of APSO. The agency has been in existence since 1974 and has undertaken valuable work in training and the placing of development workers overseas and in supporting NGO personnel programmes. This money is being put to very good use to support the NGOs and missionaries. There were 1,273 assignments in developing countries in 2001 alone. With the number of volunteers for service in developing countries declining and a greater emphasis on the use of local skills in these countries, the role of APSO needs to be looked at and this is one of the issues which the Ireland Aid Review Committee has addressed. We will wish to ensure, however, that training for NGO and missionary personnel continues to be provided and that the considerable achievements of APSO in the past three decades are built on.

A sum of €23 million is provided under subhead D to enable Ireland to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies which arise across the globe. Last year assistance was made available in respect of emergencies worldwide, including major disasters in India, El Salvador and Afghanistan. Last January I announced at a pledging conference in Tokyo that Ireland would contribute €12 million to the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. We also spent a total of some €5 million on humanitarian work in Afghanistan last year and this support will continue this year.

Subhead E concerns obligatory payments due under international treaties. Most of the €14 million is accounted for by payments to the European Development Fund. Multilateral aid, whether channelled through the EDF or the UN agencies, has a very real contribution to make to the alleviation of poverty and suffering. Working in conjunction with international organisations and as part of a collective effort, we can achieve significant progress towards the key international targets for development. In the past Deputies have, with some justification, criticised the EU assistance programmes for their inefficiency. I am pleased, however, to note there has been a significant improvement in EU performance in the past 18 months.

Major management reforms launched by the Commission in May 2000 led to the successful creation of the EuropeAid Co-Operation office at the start of 2001. Although it will take some time for the full benefit of these reforms to become evident, the Commission is pressing ahead with an ambitious programme to devolve management responsibilities to its delegations in the field and it is widely agreed that there already has been a marked improvement in EU performance as regards aid delivery. There has also been significant improvement in reducing the backlog of old and dormant commitments. Another milestone in the reform of the EU's performance was the fist publication last December of the report of funding activities which the development council, with active Irish support, instructed the Commission to provide on an annual basis.

In common with other donor countries, Ireland contributes on a voluntary basis to a number of UN development and relief agencies. The total amount for contributions under subhead F is €38 million, representing an increase of 46% over last year. Funding is directed primarily to a limited number of UN agencies with policies and programmes most in line with our national objective of poverty reduction in the poorest countries and which are committed to UN reform. Accordingly, more than half of the support under subhead F will be allocated to three agencies, the UN development programme, the UNHCR and UNICEF. We have long experience of working with these agencies in the field, Afghanistan merely being the latest example of successful co-operation. Their priorities and approaches are very closely attuned to our own. They have also shown a genuine commitment to reform.

This is a brief summary of the wide-ranging programme of Ireland Aid activities for 2002. The decision to achieve the UN target by 2007 launches a period of exciting opportunity and challenge for Ireland Aid. It also brings significant responsibilities. We must build on the international reputation we have already achieved, keeping Ireland at the cutting edge of international development policy and maximising the effectiveness of our operation on behalf of the Irish people.

The committee is aware that more than a year ago, the Government decided to invite a committee of independent experts to carry out a comprehensive review of the aid programme against the background of increasing resources. Under the chairmanship of the Minister of State the committee has recently completed its work and has presented a report to me which is receiving the Government's consideration. I look forward to the publication of the report in the near future and I am confident the committee's recommendations will be of great assistance in planning the future direction of the Ireland Aid programme and in maximising its effectiveness in terms of policy reduction in the developing world.

We have an aid programme which is of the highest quality and effectiveness and of which we can be proud. I believe the substantial budget the Government has decided to provide for it will help Ireland to play a lead role in the international efforts to combat poverty, injustice and inequality and to make a real difference to the lives of some of the poorest people of the world.

I commend the Minister and the Minister of State, who is abroad on official business, and I thank the Minister for the first statement he made to the committee and this one, which he made on behalf of the Minister of State. I also pay tribute to his officials at home and abroad. As a backbench Deputy I have travelled abroad over the past years. We have hugely committed people working for the name of Ireland and I sometimes think they do not receive sufficient recognition. Presumably that is the nature of the cause and their training.

We should be proud of the fact that we can anticipate that by 2007 we will reach the UN target of overseas aid of 0.7% of GNP. In the meantime, by the end of this year a target of 0.45% of GNP will be reached. That is probably one of the more important achievements of the Department and of the leadership of the Minister and the Minister of State.

The Minister properly paid tribute to our missionaries. Tragically, the young grow old and the vocations are no longer there. The missionaries are coming to the end of their work and there are no replacements. The new missionaries must be seen as the NGOs. These comprise young men and women who, in one way or another, are committed to the brilliant work done by the NGOs. They include organisations such as Trócaire, GOAL, Concern, Christian Aid, UNICEF, Oxfam and, to a lesser extent, the Irish Red Cross. As chairman of the Irish Red Cross I would like to see it become more involved in overseas development assistance and overseas development work, but that is a question for another day. The NGOs have become the new missionaries. The religious missionaries have done superb work over many decades and tributes cannot be sufficient to give them the recognition they deserve. The tragedy is that they are not being replaced.

Any time the President goes abroad in the name of Ireland she gives the country an enormous advantage. Whether she is selling Ireland in an economic context or whether she is abroad in the bilateral aid countries, such as Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia or elsewhere, she has done a magnificent job as President and we should be justly proud of her. The other great feature of her work is that she is a complete democrat, in every sense of the word, both at home and abroad. For that I salute her.

I thank the Department and the Government for allocating €50 million to the AIDS programme in Africa, but I am sorry to have to say it is only a drop in the ocean. I am not sure money will cure the AIDS plague in Africa and elsewhere. Will the Minister outline how the AIDS programme is monitored? How is the money that is sent from this and other countries spent? While €50 million is a lot of money I am not satisfied that money is the answer to the problem. There are other answers and the Minister may have them at his disposal.

I understand that next week the Minister will publish the findings of the comprehensive review of the aid programmes. APSO needs to be reviewed and anything the Minister or the report can do to revive and improve its goals would be helpful. It has done an excellent job over the years but it is time to take a new look at the organisation and its works. I hope this review will tell us whether it should continue in existence as it is, go out of existence or whether another organisation within the Department should replace it. I will not anticipate the report by asking the Minister to answer these questions in advance but I hope it identifies and addresses these matters.

As a strong advocate over many years for Ireland reaching its target of 0.7% of GNP, I congratulate the Minister and particularly the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, on achieving the mark which they set themselves for 2002, which is 0.45%. We look forward to the continuing growth. I assure the Minister that if, as I anticipate, there is a change of Government, this commitment will certainly be pressed very hard by me and others in my party. It is good to see that this is happening.

However, there is only a brief reference to extra money being needed for additional staff. I have concerns about the structures of the staffing in the development aid section of the Department. The Minister may recall that we talked about this last year and he indicated that it was being examined. I do not know whether, like Deputy Andrews, we must wait for the report to come out to know what way the staffing will be restructured.

One area about which I have been concerned for a number of years is that there are not enough promotional prospects within the development aid-Ireland Aid section in the Department. Therefore, as soon as somebody is experienced and is seen to be improving and moving up, he or she is immediately promoted into some other section of the Department. There is a need for continuity of experience and knowledge in the development aid section. If each time somebody becomes more experienced he or she is immediately moved into the counsel section, the visa section or another section, the development aid section loses that experience.

The Minister stated: "There are also some one-off costs relating to the planned expansion in staff numbers." I would have thought if there is an expansion in staff numbers they could not be called "one-off costs" because there would be ongoing salary costs etc. Perhaps the Minister will clarify what that sentence means.

I note that the Minister said that Ireland Aid, APSO, NCDE and the Irish Aid Advisory Committee are all moving into Bishop's Square. I take it the extra €2 million in their budget will purchase that premises or part purchase it - I am sure they probably did not get much for €2 million around the city centre. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the full cost of that move from the Department in Harcourt Street or St. Stephen's Green.

Like Deputy Andrews, I pay tribute to the Irish NGOs. It is not until one meets our NGOs working in the field that one begins to realise how proud of them we should be. We all have known how good they are but one's sense of pride increases when one sees the respect which they are given in the field and the manner in which they take leadership roles in groups of NGOs from Scandinavian and other European countries. One sees this when one finds an Irish person from GOAL, Concern, Trócaire or another of the agencies taking a lead role in the monthly or fortnightly meetings which must be held among NGOs in other countries to make sure that there is no duplication and replication of their work.

The same can be said of the missionaries. In our visit with the development aid sub-committee of this committee to Uganda to see two Irish priests working with the people suffering from AIDS, we met Fr. Tom O'Connor, a priest who is of an age when he should be retired, who goes into the most poverty-stricken areas in Uganda on a daily basis to deal with people living in appalling circumstances. There are of course no medicines available for these people once they have the AIDS virus. To see them brings tears to one's eyes. There is no other way of describing the emotion one feels on seeing the comfort they bring these people and the need for the kind of work they are doing.

While I am talking about the missionaries, I want to raise an issue I raised with the Minister and others. A problem arises as young nuns, priests and brothers reach retirement age. Many of them will have spent 40 or 50 years of their lives in countries in Africa, South America and elsewhere, and uprooting them at retirement age to come back to Ireland, where perhaps there are no family members left, is becoming a problem. Many of these elderly nuns, priests and brothers want to stay in the houses that are available to their fellow sisters, priests and brothers in those countries. The problem is that they are not eligible for a pension, which they would get if they came home.

I would like the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to give some consideration to this matter to see if there is any way in which an Irish person who has given service overseas could be made eligible for a pension to be sent or paid through the bilateral aid programme to ensure that they have a little independence during their retired years. Most of them continue to give back-up support to the active priests and nuns in these countries. This is an issue that has been raised with me by some of the elderly sisters. Sometimes they die very quickly when they come home because their blood has thinned, they have got used to living in hot climates and they find the changes are enormous, whereas they could live the last few years of their lives in comfort with their fellow sisters or priests.

Previously we made sure that volunteers who go out to those countries with NGOs got their social welfare credits if they spent two or three years away from their ordinary work. For a long time such people lost their stamps, but we have sorted that out. They now are entitled to all their social welfare benefits, particularly pensions, even if they have done this great work abroad.

On the amount being given to NGOs this year, the Minister stated: "Last year NGOs, including missionaries, received €33 million directly from Ireland and €7 million via APSO and the NCDE." However, the Minister pointed out that there is quite a drop in the corresponding figure this year. He stated that subhead B "also includes a dedicated provision of €21.6 million" for NGOs. That is €12 million less this year. He further stated that "this represents an increase of almost one third". How could €21.6 million be an increase of one third over €33 million? Perhaps I do not understand it because of the way it is stated, but it seems it is a €12 million drop. It may be that this year a bigger proportion of the €18 million APSO allocation will go to the NGOs.

Last year €7 million of the APSO budget of €30 million went to NGOs and this year the APSO budget has increased to €18 million. I wonder am I reading this incorrectly. I note that there is a €12 million block grant scheme, €2.5 million for local co-financing and €6.3 million for other matters. That relates to the €21.6 million. Am I reading this incorrectly or has there been a drop in the funding for NGOs?

The other issue I wanted to raise was raised by Deputy Andrews. APSO is getting an increase of 26% this year. Therefore, it strikes me that APSO, far from being phased out, of which there was some talk, is being strengthened. The terms of reference of APSO are being widened. Is the APSO budget being increased by 26% in advance of the report coming out?

The Minister referred to good governance, which I raised earlier. He stated: "If we judge, ultimately, that a country has fallen below acceptable standards in terms of governance, respect for human rights and the other criteria . . . we are quite ready to terminate our involvement." He stated that Sudan and Zimbabwe were cases in point. I take it that, as of now, any co-financing Ireland was undertaking in Zimbabwe has been withdrawn or stopped for the time being anyway. Is it possible for the Minister to give the committee some idea of how he would define falling below acceptable standards? In the past few days I am sure other members of the committee also received from Mr. John O'Shea of GOAL some quotes from the local newspapers in Uganda, where Ireland has a very good development programme.

According to these quotes, Uganda is considered to have the most corrupt government. Denmark has begun to withdraw its development aid programme. This worries me because Ireland has excellent personnel on the ground. When we visited the project it was in receipt of good funding from the government. If such comments are made in local newspapers, when does one begin to assess whether acceptable standards of governance, human rights and other criteria are being breached? If we have received the quotes, the Department also has. I am worried that some Scandinavian countries are withdrawing aid.

On the issue of child soldiers, the Minister stated 45,000 soldiers were demobbed in Sierra Leone. It was reported in a recent newspaper article that half of those demobbed had become soldiers when they were aged between ten and 14 years. Throughout Africa hundreds of thousands of soldiers are aged under 14 years, some are as young as nine. Ireland must take a strong hand on this issue at the international fora in which it is involved against countries which conscript young children to fight and carry out awful atrocities, including amputating limbs, killing their parents, friends and neighbours, while also taking drugs and being used as prostitutes by older soldiers. Such inhumanity must stop. Unless strong action is taken, it will not be prevented. Last year the Trócaire campaign on slaves prompted western governments to take action and challenge those governments which operated such regimes. The same must be done in regard to child soldiers.

There is a 55% increase in development aid in the Vote. I am sorry that the Minister of State is not present because she fought a long and difficult battle. I had to encourage her to keep going at times. Such an allocation is a marvellous achievement. It is the one Vote in the 50 or so Votes which comprise the Estimates that I am happy to see significantly increased. It has increased, not just as a percentage of GNP, but also in terms of the amount allocated. Our GNP has grown so rapidly in recent years that the amount allocated had to be increased significantly every year. This year 0.45% of GNP will be allocated for development aid. Ireland is one of the few countries which is increasing such aid. Most are rowing back, including many of our European partners.

Yesterday Kofi Annan wrote an article in The New York Times, which was reprinted in today's International Herald Tribune, in which he lavishly praised the European Union because it has promised to provide 0.29% of GDP for development aid by the end of 2006. In other words, in four years the Union will be well behind Ireland's current position. A number of our European partners are decreasing development aid, not only as a percentage of GNP, but also in terms of the amount allocated. The lowest contributor to overseas development aid among western countries is still the United States which contributes less than 0.1% of GNP, when military aid is excluded. It is a major aid donor if military hardware is included. It is disappointing that its allocation is so low in terms of humanitarian aid.

When a committee delegation attended the United Nations last October it had the opportunity to meet representatives of various humanitarian agencies as well as different political groups and bodies. It was interesting to listen to their comments because many of the groups are very efficient in terms of their operations. Some are less so. There is a need for reform. Perhaps some could be amalgamated because there is such a proliferation of groups. However, some are very efficient. I recall one representative telling us that his group receives the bulk of its aid from Europe. Very few countries outside Europe contribute. The contributions by various countries in the Far East are nominal while wealthy countries in the Gulf and the Middle East do not contribute at all. A large proportion of the aid distributed by UN agencies emanates from Europe.

I asked some representatives the reason they would not move their agencies to Europe rather than maintain an office on the island of Manhattan, one of most expensive pieces of real estate in the world. There was a look of horror on the faces of those concerned. They could not contemplate leaving Manhattan, but it would make more sense if such agencies were located in Europe because the bulk of the money is provided by European countries. Much of the thinking behind development aid also emanates from Europe.

As significant amounts are allocated to development aid, particularly for some recipient countries, the Department must try to ensure procedures are put in place to verify that the money is well spent. This point is trotted out every year, but it is important that this should be done because some European donor countries have been robbed barefaced, so much so that they are withdrawing from development aid programmes. Denmark is withdrawing because it believes it was badly treated and has received bad value out of the programme. Other countries feel the same, but have not yet taken the step to withdraw.

Ireland's six priority countries are still in a sad state. Some are worse off than they were 20 years ago. In most cases the difficulty comes back to the question of good governance. If there is widespread corruption, the population will not benefit. There is anything but good governance in some countries. That is why human rights and political education are a very important part of development aid. They are more likely to last and become permanent. Much aid is impermanent if that does not happen.

Kofi Annan finished the New York Times article by saying:

Aid can be much more effective today than it was 20 years ago if it is focused on building the capacity of recipient countries to run their own economies, not on tying them to the business or geopolitical interests of the donor countries. Aid today must aim at developing human resources so that growth can be sustained. It must be directed not at securing loyalty but at rewarding sound governance that will last.

That sums up the dilemma or task very well. I have not been to Uganda or a lot of these countries but I keep reading about Uganda, particularly the statements of the current President of Uganda about those who comment on him or his country's policies. He sounds a bit like thePresident of Zimbabwe and those who are concerned about Uganda have good grounds for that. On the other hand, I am told by those who have been there that it has made better progress in terms of dealing with AIDS than many of its neighbours but its future is somewhat uncertain, unfortunately. Many of the countries around it are in a dreadful state, particularly Sudan and Somalia.

And the DRC.

Yes. It would be easier to disengage from these kinds of countries but that would not be the right policy. Ireland from the start sought to pick out the poorest of the poor and help them - Ireland has had some success on a local basis and on a personal basis but it has not yet had success on what one would call a national basis in the recipient countries.

Ireland should persist in its policy because not many others will do so. The need is great and the obligation on us to meet that need is correspondingly great. This is one area of Government policy the Government can be very proud of and it has had the genuine support of all sides. I see nobody in the country begrudging the relatively generous assistance Ireland is now in a position to give. As this becomes more important I hope it does not degenerate into a situation of conflict between various interests in what one might call the overseas development industry, which is always a danger. We have seen that happen domestically and I would not like to see it happen with our overseas assistance. Some people talk about assisting the NGOs as if doing so was an end in itself. Any such assistance is done on the basis that it is passed on in its entirety to the deserving people of the recipient country. Why should the donations on a voluntary basis of a huge number of private citizens in Ireland towards NGOs and development aid not count in terms of our reckoning of official assistance? It should.

When I raised this issue before the Minister of State told me it did not come within international calculations. Looking at the very short list of countries which have reached the target, they are all European and have one thing in common, there are virtually no private donations - it is all given by the State. There are substantial private donations from Ireland in terms of money collected on a weekly basis, often inside or outside churches. Ireland has also given a lot in terms of the missionaries referred to today and their successors, APSO people or lay missionaries who might, in an earlier generation, have been ordained missionaries. If we were to quantify their contribution precisely it would be a very major contribution and not one which could be reduced to pounds, shillings and pence. Could there be a better way of accounting for a country's contribution to overseas aid? If so, Ireland would come out even higher than it does.

One consequence of a slowdown in the economy's growth rate over a number of years is that the figures projected up to 2007 will be reduced. That would be a great pity. If that happens, whoever is in Government in 2006-07 should be willing to exceed the 0.7% to maintain the level now proposed at current growth rates.

It is worth noting that this is an extraordinary increase. No committee has ever had to deal with an increase in a Vote of 55%, a Vote that was already significant and twice the Vote for the Department. One aspect confuses me, looking at the figures, as I am not entirely sure what the effect of it is. There was no figure last year for administration under Vote 39 and there is this year. The Minister said that administration came out of the grant-in-aid. Is that what is nowSubhead B? Does the administration figure,which amounts to €22 million, count as part ofODA?

I am glad that is clarified. The way it is set out this year is much better than before because it is easier to follow and is more transparent. I am glad it counts as it is only fair that it should. The other point to bear in mind is that our ODA is not confined to the €371.9 million here. There is also a substantial sum - about €100 million - from other Departments which was not referred to today but which is part of the assistance.

Because of the changing nature of this area and the changing circumstances in which many of the recipient countries find themselves, there is a constant need for keeping all these programmes under review and in particular their administration. That applies to us, the UN and the EU. The EU ran itself into such incredible arrears that it had to take on this task and we heard two Commissioners talk about it - Commissioners Nielson and Patten both spoke to the committee about what they agreed was the scandal of €50 billion lying unspent. On the other hand, in some cases it was justifiable that the money was not spent as, unfortunately, it was going to be used for corrupt or military purposes. Procedures had to be put in place to ensure this would not happen.

Due to its remoteness from its recipients, the UN, which is situated in New York, constantly needs to renew itself in terms of these agencies. I proposed that it might make sense to locate some of them in Africa and suggested Cairo as a location which had a good air service.

I would say that went down well.

That suggestion got 0.0% support. Ireland can be proud of what is happening and this is an occasion for a certain amount of rejoicing.

I thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee for your comments. The Government decided in its programme to achieve this target. This proposal was met with some scepticism, but the Taoiseach made the commitment in his millennium speech to the UN. He is committed to this proposal politically. However, when he visited Lesotho and other parts of Africa he was personally very taken by the abject poverty and, now that we could do so, on the need for us to make a statement which went beyond rhetorical agreement into a more substantive policy decision.

The Minister of State deals with these issues on an ongoing basis. We are all aware of the nature of Estimates campaigns and so on, but from the Government's point of view there has been unity of purpose on this matter and a commitment and a determination to ensure that we reach these targets. Other Departments also supported the decision and agreed on the need to ensure we had an absorption capacity to take these increased and considerable sums of taxpayers' money so they would be used effectively and efficiently.

The committee took its time carrying out the review which has now culminated. It spent a lot of time on the review as it wished to get it right. The committee was correct in its decision to take oral and written submissions and to travel to see what was being done and to satisfy itself that it could come up with recommendations which meet the challenges of this transition to a country which will provide a measure of overseas development assistance which compares with the best in the world. That is a matter in which we can all take pride. Successive Governments have sought in their own way to ensure this issue was never allowed to slip off the agenda. There is cross-party support for the measure regardless of the impact it can have on us domestically on the basis that we need to make a statement on the kinds of values about which we speak in terms of solidarity and seeking justice and fairness for many people who are less fortunate than ourselves and whose dilemma mirrors the unfortunate experience of past generations of our own people in more difficult circumstances.

I join with the committee in congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, for her work in this area. I thank our colleagues in the Oireachtas and in Government circles who have been supportive of making the necessary adjustments to make this policy a reality. As you said, Chairman, in the context of rapid economic growth, the volume increases are very significant. At a time when we are rightly improving our infrastructure, health services and education system and meeting the needs of our own people, we have not compromised on the need to face up to the systematic challenge which this major increase in overseas development aid represents for the Department and the development co-operation division, but also for NGOs and others involved. We must recognise that we need to make this transition effective so the delivery of aid programmes will bring real benefits to real people in difficult parts of the world where there is little sense of hope.

Accountability is an important issue and value for money is ensured in two key ways. First, we have an extensive range of control mechanisms designed to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability in the programmes. We report annually to the Committee of Public Accounts on the most recent appropriation accounts. Our proposed allocation for each year is scrutinised by the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and we report on demand to the sub-committee on development. That is as it should be. Like every other Vote, the Department's Vote is subject to an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In addition to these standard oversight procedures, we have a range of internal controls and mechanisms which include an integrated accounting system which covers the entire programme and which meets OECD reporting requirements. We also have an annual external audit of our six priority country programmes in Africa. We have qualified accounting staff in all of our priority country missions and qualified internal audit staff at headquarters. All budget lines are submitted for advance approval to an interdepartmental committee on which the Department of Finance and other Departments interested in aid are represented. New expenditure proposals are approved in a three stage process with the interdepartmental committee as the final stage.

Ireland Aid has an evaluation and audit unit which carries out an annual series of evaluations of various programmes and projects aimed at maximising effectiveness, sustainability and value for money at home and abroad. A risk management system is also being introduced in Ireland Aid. Our programme is subject to review by the OECD's development assistance committee and we participate in the system of public expenditure reviews, giving a detailed outline of our activities and expenditure in a published annual report. We also give an account of ourselves on an ongoing basis through parliamentary questions, debates and so on.

Some sections of the media portray us as lambs to the slaughter naively handing out money to whoever we meet and have a soft spot for, and suggest that we are being codded. That is a stereotypical and unrepresentative outline of the position. We have professional auditing, monitoring and evaluation domestically, departmentally, interdepartmentally and constitutionally, under the Comptroller and Auditor General and by way of this committee. The same applies externally through the international committee of the OECD. Unfortunately, there are many unjustified suggestions that we are in some sense throwing away taxpayers' money because we are gone soft in the head. Such suggestions are wide of the mark and there is no harm using the opportunity provided by this committee to make that point strongly. That is as it should be, given the significant increases to which the committee referred and which, hopefully, it will approve.

Historically we have had to deal with the matter of additional staff. The ODA budget has increased rapidly in recent years and the staffing level needs to keep pace with those increases. Arising from bilateral contact with the Department of Finance and the normal discussions which take place, we have sanction for the appointment of 30 additional staff this year. The appointment of these staff will go some way towards making up the staffing deficit which was adverted to by the OECD committee when it carried out a peer review of our operations. The committee stated it was a priority that there was sufficient staff available to ensure the monitoring and evaluation about which we are talking was of a standard to get the best value for money for the work we intend doing.

Are all 30 based in Dublin or in some of the recipient countries?

Almost all are based in Dublin. There are specialised accounting staff in all missions. The new specialist staff will strengthen our capacity in a range of technical areas - they are not simply career civil servants. Currently, there is just one specialist covering the areas of HIV-AIDS, education and good governance. There is no specialist working in the area of water and sanitation and just one each covering agriculture and emergency relief revisitation. The additional permanent civil servants will work across a range of areas which will allow us to split some very large blocks of work. For example, the United Nations and the European Union, which will account for €52 million in 2002, will now be dealt with in separate sections.

I take the point in regard to the need for continuity and career paths, which are very much part of the Department. It is important that this should not be seen, however, as a specialist adjunct, but as an integral part of how we pursue foreign policy objectives. While it requires specialist work, the people concerned are very much part of the Department. While we may insist on continuity, I will also insist that the people concerned get the opportunity to broaden their experience. They could contribute thereafter in a higher position in the mission and out in the field possessing all the necessary political and inter-divisional skills.

I will raise the question of retiring missionaries with the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, to see what can be done and whether it is a practical suggestion which should be followed through.

What about the €21 million and the €33 million? Am I confused?

The Deputy is not confused. I have not explained the matter properly. Some €16 million was provided last year in block grants, of which €9 million went towards emergency relief. Some €21 million is being provided this year in block grants to NGOs. In addition, €9 million was provided under the emergency relief programmes which arose last year.

That is where the €33 million arose.

Yes. It would be great if there were not too many emergency relief programmes. The point I am making is that if one looks at the block grant, the core funding, it goes from €16 million to €21 million. This accounts for one third of the €5 million increase.

They can still draw down money if there is an emergency.

Absolutely. It is important to point out that Uganda is one of the few African countries which has a successful AIDS programme and where there is a reduction in the incidence of the disease. Each of the countries concerned has its particular political traditions and robust rhetoric. However, when one considers some of his predecessors, President Museveni has been a good leader. It is important to point out that we work very well with Uganda. We have our own safeguards to ensure the money we provide is used for the purposes for which it is provided.

On the question of budget support and working with other countries to put a block grant in place to help them, perhaps the best way to get the best value for our money is to have in place the necessary accountability mechanisms. On the question of public support, this is in accordance with OECD criteria. While we can do nothing about this privately, it does not take from the substance of what has been said in this regard which is correct. As far as the OECD is concerned, we have reached the figure of 0.4% or 0.5%. We can point to others who are not covered by its criteria but equally of benefit to people in the developing world. Tax deductibility on contributions is taken into account as part of Ireland's contribution under ODA outside of Vote 39. This amounted to approximately €4 million in the year 2000. Private citizens' contributions through NGOs are something to which we can advert. This type of voluntary contribution is not uniformly available in other countries.

On the question of Denmark returning, it is reducing its aid programme everywhere. However, it is very high compared to that of other countries.

On the common position of the European Union, it is improved. Perhaps it would be different if there were 27 rather than 15 member states. The common position was that those which gave more than 0.7% should not criticise those which gave less but were committed to giving more. It was a question of bringing up those which were less compliant with the UN target than was previously the case. That position was advanced. This does not prevent individual countries from going beyond 0.7% if they wish to do so. Obviously, if we contribute up to 2007, we will not stop there. We will review the situation at that stage.

I do not wish to pre-empt the recommendations of the development aid review committee which will be published soon. Many of the issues in regard to APSO and where we now go can be properly addressed in the debate which will follow publication of the report.

When the Taoiseach was in Lesotho he made a commitment about improving the position. Perhaps the Minister will come back to me on that matter.

I will return to that matter in due course.

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting.

Barr
Roinn