Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2008

Annual Output Statement 2008.

Apologies were received from Deputy Michael Noonan. I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference with the recording equipment in committee rooms even if on silent mode. I respectfully ask that members comply with this request.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the revised Estimates 2008 for Vote 28 — Department of Foreign Affairs and Vote 29 — International Co-operation, which were referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann. In line with the expanded budgetary process, an output statement has also been provided. Members will be aware that as part of the budgetary process reforms initiated by the Minister for Finance in 2005, the Department publishes annual output statements which are submitted for the consideration of Oireachtas committees. This important initiative is intended to facilitate better parliamentary involvement in the budget and Estimates processes and to provide information thereafter.

A proposed timetable for today's meeting was circulated to members. It allows for opening statements by the Minister, the Minister of State and the Opposition spokespersons followed by an open discussion on the Votes by way of a question and answer session. Our primary business is the consideration of the Estimate, which must be completed by close of business today. If the Minister and members agree, once the Estimates have been considered I would like to set aside some time to discuss the EU Lisbon reform treaty. The Minister will give his views on this in his initial speech and perhaps we can leave discussion and questions on it to the end and get through the Estimates first.

Will we get an opportunity to make points on it, based on the fact that the Minister will have mentioned it?

Yes. Is the Minister agrees to this?

On behalf of the members, I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power, to the meeting. This is Deputy Power's first time to appear before the committee. They are accompanied by their officials who are also welcome. They are Mr. Dermot Gallagher, Secretary General, Mr. Rory Montgomery, political director, Mr. Adrian O'Neill, head of corporate services, Mr. Dan Mulhall, director general EU division, Mr. Ronan Murphy, director general of Irish Aid and Mr. Brendan Rogers, deputy director general of the development co-operation directorate. Briefing material provided by the Department was circulated to members. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, to make an opening statement of approximately ten minutes.

Is pribhléid mhór dom í a bheith i láthair anseo mar Aire agus an seans a bheith agam labhairt leis an gcoiste. I welcome the opportunity to meet the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for the first time. I attended the Joint Committee on European Affairs previously. I look forward to working with the Chairman and members of the committee in the coming months and years in our shared efforts to promote Ireland's values and interests in the world, which is vital work.

We are consolidating a lasting peace and reconciliation on this island. We are contributing, as laid out in the Constitution, to "peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality". The agreement on cluster munitions concluded at Croke Park last month is an important example of what this can mean in concrete terms. In our aid programme it means a tangible contribution felt in the real lives of countless people around the world. We are continuing to work through and within the indispensable framework of the European Union to protect and promote our interests in the world.

Naturally, I want to speak about the outcome of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The Government strongly supported the treaty as an agreement that would allow the European Union to work more effectively in the interests of member states, including Ireland. In this we were joined by a number of political parties and representative groups and were grateful for their support. We are deeply disappointed with the outcome of the referendum. The campaign was hard fought and the people's decision must be accepted and respected. We will need time to analyse the result properly and look for an acceptable way forward. The result creates considerable uncertainty and difficulty. The matter will not be resolved easily and the Government will need time to reflect on the way forward for Ireland and the European Union. There is a need to avoid snap judgments and hasty decisions at what is an important point in the history of Ireland's successful engagement with the Union, which has been a central pillar of our national development since 1973.

I attended yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, at which I briefed my counterparts on the outcome of the referendum. There was, I am pleased to state, an understanding of our position and need to reflect in the light of the result. There was no attempt to isolate us. However, as members of the committee will have learned from media reports, other member states have a desire to see their ratification processes continue. I stressed the need for us to take sufficient time to analyse what had occurred and to consult, both domestically and with our European partners, on finding an agreed way forward. I recalled the European Union's record of success in overcoming past setbacks of this kind and expressed the hope that, working together, we could do so again. The European Council which begins on Thursday provides an early opportunity for the Taoiseach to give his initial assessment of the referendum result and its implications. In increasingly uncertain times we have a global network of missions working constantly to make vital contacts for business, assisting our citizens in distress and promoting an image of Ireland that attracts investment, tourism and goodwill.

In terms of the work to be done today, committee members have received a copy of the Department's annual output statement for 2008. This is a complex document, all the more so because this year it is reporting on progress made under one statement of strategy for the period 2005-07, while simultaneously looking forward and setting goals for the Department under another, for the period 2008-10. Beyond the detail, the output statement aims to align the Department's resources with our strategic goals. We set specific annual targets to be achieved under each goal. Progress on the targets set for 2007 has been satisfactory, while the targets for this year are at once ambitious and achievable. This year we have attempted to make the output statement more accessible and user-friendly. I hope next year we will make further progress in this regard. I would welcome any suggestions members may have in this regard.

The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, will deal in greater detail with Vote 29. However, I would like to make a few general, but important, comments about the Irish Aid programme. We are meeting our commitments. In September 2005 the then Taoiseach pledged that Ireland would reach the UN target of spending 0.7% of our gross national income on official aid by 2012. This pledge was reaffirmed in the 2006 White Paper and we are on our way to achieving the target. This year the total ODA spend by the Department will be €814 million. Coupled with the amounts spent by other Departments, the total Government spend will be of the order of €914 million.

We are stepping up our efforts to increase public awareness and understanding of the aid programme which is paid for by the public and delivered on its behalf. It is essential that we keep it informed of what we are doing and convince it that we are doing it well. A new focus of this outreach is the Irish Aid volunteering and information centre on O'Connell Street, Dublin, but we support information and education efforts on a countrywide basis. I encourage members who have not yet visited the O'Connell Street centre to do so. We would happily make the necessary arrangements. Most importantly, our aid spending is making a real difference, as the Minister of State will make clear.

Consolidating peace on the island and continuing to strengthen relationships between North and South, as well as between communities, remain core objectives of my Department. We have laid the foundations and the time has come to build on them. A key long-term challenge is putting an end to old divisions and promoting tolerance in Northern Ireland. The Government is committed to playing its full part, including through the Department's anti-sectarianism and reconciliation funds. One year on from restoration, the power sharing institutions are operating effectively. I am pleased that the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister, upon their appointments earlier this month, took the opportunity to underline their commitment to working together for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. The Government looks forward to working closely with them in the period ahead.

As members will see in the Estimates, new key elements are the provision of €2 million to begin work on a peace monument in the Border region and an initial contribution of €2 million towards the endowment of the Blair chair of Irish studies at the University of Liverpool. In addition, there is the long-standing highly effective reconciliation fund. Of the €3 million provided under this fund, €1 million is devoted to tackling the problems of anti-sectarianism in line with a commitment made in the programme for Government. This year we will make our first payment to the Ireland Funds which have done outstanding work during the years in raising money abroad for philanthropic projects in Ireland. Provision for this payment had been made in last year's Estimates. However, our subsequent advice was that legislation was required before the contribution could be made. I will be returning to the Houses with draft legislation to give effect to this commitment.

A significant area where we have met the 2008 target is disarmament and non-proliferation, specifically the issue of cluster bombs. Just a few weeks ago in Dublin agreement was reached on the first ever international instrument to ban cluster munitions. This is a landmark achievement and in line with our traditional focus on disarmament. The Croke Park conference was a major diplomatic and organisational challenge and one to which I am proud that the Department rose superbly. Looking to the future and building on the agreement reached at Croke Park, there are three tasks facing us. First, we need to do all that is necessary nationally to allow us to ratify the convention as soon as possible. We are advancing work on the required legislation as a matter of urgency. The second goal must be to ensure the greatest possible number of accessions to the convention. Third, we must all plan to do what is necessary to implement the convention in full, not least in regard to victim assistance and clearance.

The largest area of expenditure under the headline goal of Ireland and the world is our contributions to international organisations and, in particular, UN peacekeeping. The significant increase in spending on peacekeeping in recent years is due to two factors, namely, an increase in Ireland's share of overall costs consequent on our growing prosperity and the significant increase in the number of UN peacekeeping troops on the ground. Our support for these efforts remains steadfast.

As members will be aware, the Government is committed to developing a distinctive Irish role in conflict resolution. This has the potential to grow to be a major feature of our foreign policy. In addition to intensive planning work at home, our first roving ambassador, Ms Nuala O'Loan, has paid an extensive visit to Timor-Leste and will make recommendations for specific action. To be successful in this area, we must draw together expertise and experience from across the Department and beyond. We will draw on our role in Northern Ireland, as well as our experience in the development arena.

Support for Irish citizens abroad remains a key activity for the Department and is one of the most visible elements of its work. This year the passport service has been placed on a firmer footing through the recent enactment of the Passports Bill which provides for stronger protections against fraud. This, combined with the built-in security features in the passport, means that Ireland has one of the most secure and advanced passports in the world.

This year we are maintaining our support for emigrants in need and the organisations and networks which support them, in particular in Britain and the United States. The 2008 Estimates provision of €15.183 million is, once again, the highest ever allocated to these activities. The geographical coverage of the expenditure in recent years has expanded considerably, taking in locations as diverse as Argentina, Zimbabwe and the Netherlands, in addition to the more traditional countries of emigration.

A continuing priority for 2008 is to assist in meeting the plight of the undocumented Irish in the United States. Availing of our diplomatic resources in the United States and working with our friends in Congress, I will do everything possible to achieve some legislative way forward for our citizens who wish to regularise their status.

Many members are familiar with the Department's consular work in assisting individuals and families in need. Earlier this year we published a consular services charter entitled, Slán Abhaile, as a guide for members of the public to the services we can provide. The guide also highlights some of the more common problems and pitfalls which the travelling public might encounter. Ideally, our citizens travelling abroad will not have any cause to contact the local embassy in distress but, if problems do arise, we are always there to help.

The promotion of Ireland abroad, including as a destination for tourism and investment, is a role on which I will lay considerable emphasis as Minister. The key resource available to the Department and the Government is our network of embassies, consulates and people around the world. Through this network of knowledge and expertise, every opportunity is exploited to advance a positive image of a confident, modern Ireland and to convert those opportunities into tangible outcomes that benefit Irish interests. We work closely with other Departments and State agencies to advance the interests of Irish businesses. Networking is at the heart of business. Increasingly, that means global networking. Our missions are an important asset and support for Irish business overseas. We intend to continue to maximise that support. The Estimates before us will make it possible for the Department to continue its work on behalf of the Government and the people.

Before coming to the select committee, I received news that Egypt's efforts to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas had been successful and that an initial ceasefire would come into effect on Thursday next. I am sure members welcome that news. If more details become available, I will inform the select committee.

That is very good news. The committee has spoken with the Egyptian ambassador. We visited close to the area of conflict and had some Kassam rockets fired in our direction, although they were not aimed at us. I hope the truce can mark the beginning of the development of real peace in the region.

The Minister mentioned the wonderful development in Dublin with regard to the use of cluster bombs. I send the congratulations of the committee to the officials involved and Mr. Dáithí Ó Ceallaigh who chaired such a complex and difficult conference and brought about such an excellent result. It is typical of the excellent work the Department has been doing unseen and in the background. The issue is one about which the committee is very concerned.

I also congratulate the officials of the Department on the continuous work done for Irish people, both at home and when they are travelling abroad. I have always found them to be very courteous and helpful.

I welcome the Minister's contribution and look forward to returning to the issue of the Lisbon treaty. It is important that we express our disappointment at the result but acknowledge the fact that the people have said "No" to the treaty.

If the Deputy wishes to raise issues related to the Lisbon treaty, he is welcome to do so now.

Members might like to raise the issue as part of their general contributions.

It is important to acknowledge that the people have said "No" to the Lisbon treaty. Some seem to be saying that as the result is not the one we wanted, we should find a way to circumvent it. The Government has a duty to acknowledge the fact that the amendment was comprehensively defeated. The Minister mentioned that it was still early to reflect on why people had voted against the treaty. I agree with him. Many have spoken about references by "No" campaigners to issues such as conscription, abortion and tax. However, there are underlying issues. In the three previous referendums approximately 500,000 people voted against the amendments. On this occasion, 800,000 did so. We must establish why those 300,000 extra people voted "No". Is there a disconnect between the Irish people and the European Union? If so, what are the reasons for it? Is there a concern about bureaucracy? Have the people said they do not want to go any further?

Whatever the result, the Government must represent the views of the people and protect the interests of the country in the European Union. It is important that other countries acknowledge the result of the vote. The result may not have suited all of them but it is important to remember that the European Union is a group of 27 countries and I would not like to see a two-tier or two-track Union. Without re-emphasising the point, I ask the Minister to respond on the question of why the vote was as it was, even though he considers it too early to analyse the result. How does the Government propose to protect Ireland's interests, given that we may have displeased people elsewhere in Europe? The European Union is a democracy and we have always advocated the importance of recognising the democratic will of the people.

With regard to the Estimates, the Minister mentioned that legislation would be required for the disbursement of the Ireland Funds. Will he elaborate on the matter?

I congratulate the Minister on achieving agreement on the wording of an international instrument to ban cluster munitions. I ask him to accept the Fine Gael Bill on the Order Paper. He may be a little more compassionate and magnanimous than his predecessor.

Coming from the deep south where we have a milder climate.

Does that mean the peace monument will be erected in Cork, not in Dundalk?

No. We have enough monuments in Cork.

I would like to know something of the history of the peace monument. Was it earmarked for a site in Dublin and then relocated to Drogheda or Dundalk?

The Minister has promised legislation on cluster munitions. Will it reflect the international agreement or will it go further and deal with the banning of financial institutions and pension funds which invest in the manufacture of such weapons?

The Minister referred to the increase in peacekeeping operations which impose an additional cost on the Department. When dealing with the solidarity clause in the Lisbon treaty, I was amused by the number who wanted to know if a terrorist attack abroad would place an obligation on Ireland to assist other countries. If we were the subject of a terrorist attack, we would probably not be able to protect ourselves. Would it not be wonderful to be able to seek assistance? It is important to acknowledge that many positive aspects of the treaty were presented negatively during the campaign.

The Minister stated a sum of €15 million had been spent on emigrants abroad, mainly in Britain and the United States of America. How was the money administered? I note that some of it went to Zimbabwe. How many Irish people are living there? What difficulties do they encounter and have we had contact with the Irish ambassador to South Africa in this regard? The ambassador recently visited Zimbabwe to express Irish concern at the way the election campaign was being conducted. It was mentioned that we assist with individuals, families and needs. Do we have any record of the work we do in this area? There was also reference to the undocumented in the United States. My colleague, Deputy Deasy, has done some work in this area. Could the Minister elaborate on whether any progress is being made? To return to the issue of aid, Ireland's contribution is 0.54% of GNP, heading towards 0.7%. Will that target be achieved in the current economic climate? I join the Chairman and the Minister in welcoming the announcement of the ceasefire brokered by Egypt with respect of Israel and Hamas. That is welcome news. It is a silver lining in the grey clouds we have seen over the past few days.

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power. I look forward to co-operating with them and wish them every success.

We will have an opportunity to return to the issue of the Lisbon treaty in more detail later. I would like to raise a few points in the Minister's speech. Before I do, I join with others in saying that the decision taken in the referendum must be respected. It is a decision taken not only under the Irish Constitution but in the context of international law. It is, therefore, a decision with European implications. I agree with those who speak of the merit of a period of reflection. That is important. However, it is necessary to clarify, in the fullness of time, a number of issues that arose in regard to the discourse on the treaty, both in terms of the false fears that were created and a number of statements that simply had no basis in fact. I see the period of reflection and response not as one of merely gathering up every false hare that was raised but rather as one of doing something more substantive that is forward looking. Perhaps the best strategy, in the short and medium term, would be to consider Ireland's role in Europe and Europe's role in the world. There is a fundamental difference between, for example, the European Union's relationship to the global system and the United States post-1989. It is interesting to think historically of the transitions that have taken place even in regard to Europe itself. In the previous century the name of a ministry in the United Kingdom was the Ministry of War.

What is important, and perhaps it was not sufficiently stated in the discussion on the Lisbon treaty, is that the nature of the European Union means that defence is part of foreign policy and that foreign policy is aimed at peace rather than at war. It is a fundamental distinction. There is also a fundamental distinction between Ireland's role in relation to Europe and Europe's relationship to the world that is based on interdependency and aimed at peace. It is such a fundamental distinction between such a view and the view of a so-called "war on terrorism". To my mind "war on terrorism" is a piece of rhetoric that is extremely dangerous in dislodging foreign policy internationally, and it is not very useful either conceptually or practically. The distinct identity of European foreign policy with its core values is something which might serve as a setting for an entirely new approach. Rather than wasting time on the trimmings of distortion, I would have favoured spending much more time on the reconstitution of the vision and the reconnection with the European project. I recall that this was a moment in the Delors Presidency of the Commission which was very valuable. It is the way we should go.

I welcome the announcement regarding the agreement of a ceasefire negotiated by Egypt between Hamas and Israel. We must return to the time in which a fairly unaccountable decision was taken regarding the proscription of Hamas. The majority of the people surveyed in Israel believe such talks should take place, and that they should include Hamas and all of the parties to the Palestinian conflict who seek a resolution. Perhaps the Minister might also like to respond on the statement issued by the foreign ministers and on whether an agreement on future deepened co-operation with Israel will include an enhanced mechanism for accountability in terms of the human rights clauses of the Euro-Med agreement.

In answer to parliamentary questions it was suggested that the European Union has its own mechanisms of monitoring. We need to hear what those mechanisms are and to hear the Minister's view on having a timescale for a review of compliance. That would be in everybody's interests. I note in the tail of the statement from yesterday's meeting a reference to the expansion of illegal settlements. Such references are usually confined to the last or second last paragraph of statements.

I may seem unfashionable in regard to the format of this annual output statement, but I have a preference for a different form of presentation which would be more discursive and policy related. I am sure there is a very good reason for this kind of administrative report with references to goals and performances, goals that are turned into programme targets and so on. I am not an enthusiast in regard to the migration of managerial language.

I want to raise a few points in the minutes that are left to me. First, on target A, perhaps we should hear a little more about where we are in a practical sense with the devolution of police and justice issues in Northern Ireland. In regard to B and the issues raised at the Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva, it might be useful to think about them in terms of the Human Rights Commission's report.

How much time have I, Chairman? You usually assist me in that regard.

The Deputy has approximately three minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. In regard to the ratification of key international instruments, it is time to look at the fundamental doctrine in terms of monism and dualism. We have an enormously long list of instruments that have been signed but not ratified. Some relate to serious matters to which we can return later when we are debating Vote 29. There is an outstanding commitment in both the White Paper and the Government programme to the ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. We have signed but are not near ratifying the international convention on disability rightsin regard to which we made such a strong contribution in the preparatory stage, which I welcomed. I could give other examples.

As I understand it, and I can be corrected, the Department of Foreign Affairs signs on behalf of Ireland and there is a lead Department that looks at compliance in relation to domestic law. In most cases it is the Department of Justice, Equality and law Reform which must have a link as long as all of our arms to legislation. I believe there is no intention to ratify some of the conventions. I have in mind the convention on the rights of migrant workers and some others in regard to which I have more or less had a reply. We can return to the issue of Irish Aid when we are discussing Vote 29.

There is an issue in relation to the African food crisis. The Department of Foreign Affairs participates in an interdepartmental committee that includes issues of trade as well as aid and so forth. There are two clear models of response to the African food crisis which are heading for collision with each other. One is an indigenous approach to food security which comes out of the experience of west Africa where 80% of the increase in food production is coming from smallholders with patches of land. On the other hand there is the imposition of a model from the World Bank which — as it acknowledges since 2007 — has been a failure, that is the idea that one accepts migration into cities as constituting a new market so therefore one should go for food production driven by such a model. These two models are heading for collision and choices have to be made on the fundamental policy in responding to African food security and the food crisis. I urge the Minister to use his influence to deal with this real difficulty. I congratulate the Department of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency, Mr. Daithí Ó Ceallaigh, and everybody else on the achievement of the cluster munitions convention. The sooner ratification happens the better.

We have suspended NGO activity in Zimbabwe since 4 June 2008 and the fact that we have effective exclusion of international election observers is a matter of the greatest concern. We should be innovative in seeing if we can place some of our observers under the aegis of the African Union and try to have some presence to ensure the semblance of accountability in the election.

I think the Bill on international corruption was circulated on 10 June.

With respect, I must clarify the matter. What is circulated is a Bill that complies with the voluntary code of the OECD. It is a mild attempt at securing morality and business ethics, which is no substitute for the moral obligations and practical legal obligations of the UN convention. It is important that we sign the convention because I sit here regularly and listen to people speaking about corruption, which is sometimes described as being endemic in Africa.

It is a convention against corruption

There are two sides to every corrupt relationship.

The convention against corruption was adopted back in 2003.

Yes, the ratification.

Good progress is being made.

That is a matter of opinion.

Domestic legislation and administrative arrangements are key to give effect to any agreement in place. I will elaborate for the benefit of the committee. In consultation with the office of the Attorney General and other Departments, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has examined the convention and has identified the legislation in the criminal law area that is required to give effect to its provisions. The Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act has enacted certain necessary measures. The remaining criminal law elements will be dealt with in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, which was published last week. In addition, some issues relating to conduct and ethics requirements for public and judicial officials, the powers of anti-corruption authorities and asset recovery still require further consideration. While most of these issues are of an administrative nature, they may in some instances require legislation. I am informed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that it intends to commence consultation with the relevant bodies on these matters to determine the appropriate steps required in the light of the convention's provisions.

The journey has begun, measures have been enacted and legislation has been published. The matter is not on the shelf and we will continue to press to ensure it is brought to a conclusion. I will deal with the general points later.

We will now proceed to the general discussion on the revised estimate and output statement by way of a question and answer session.

I wish to comment on the Minister's statement. It was reported in the Sunday newspapers that the Irish peacekeeping troops in Chad returned fire. What is the status of that mission and how is it progressing? Will the Minister give an update on the mission and if possible, will he comment on what happened over the weekend in Chad and how the Irish troops and other UN contingent under General Nash are faring?

Deputy Timmins mentioned that during the Lisbon treaty campaign the issue of militarisation came up quite frequently, but when one looks at our record in peace keeping across the world, there was no question that the Defence Forces needed to have their equipment upgraded. How would our forces have been able to perform on a mission if they had outdated equipment?

I fully respect the views of those who have called for a period of reflection. I was gravely concerned that the Lisbon treaty was not passed but it is important that when we have looked at the issue we set the facts right.

The vast majority are very proud that our troops are on a mission in Chad to protect refugees. We would not have been able to send a contingent if we had not upgraded the equipment during recent years.

I am very pleased to see the strong reference to the issue of the undocumented Irish in the United States. This is a matter of grave concern and a number of committee members travelled to America to discuss the issue. It will be very difficult to do anything before the election in November, but I see it is a priority. The Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, has referred to it on several occasion as a priority that must be dealt with. Is there light at the end of the tunnel in that regard?

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin and I congratulate Deputy Peter Power on his elevation to such an important portfolio as Minister of State with responsibility for development aid. I congratulate the Department on the agreement on the international instrument to ban cluster munitions. I wonder if there are major players who will not sign this convention, in particular the United States and Israel? How can we help to get countries that are major players to sign up to this most important agreement?

I am delighted the Egyptian sponsored peace talks have resulted in a proposal for peace between Israel and Hamas. I wonder whether Iran and Syria are being brought in as underwriters of that peace or guarantors of that peace? Hamas appears to be funded and armed by these countries and unless they are also on board, we still have a long road to go.

In the Constitution we affirm peace and friendly co-operation between nations founded on international justice and morality. This is a very wide brush. In the world today we have African tribal heritage and traditions, there is also religious fundamentalism and how we will understand and respect these traditions and at the same time remain at peace with them. What work is being done in that regard? What percentage of GNP is €914 million? We are striving towards and aspiring to 0.7% of GNP.

I congratulate the Ireland Fund on the great work it has done over the years and on its fabulous fundraising activities that have attracted huge funds. We all receive the booklets showing its marvellous social events, which are totally beyond my social sphere. Philanthropy does work, particularly in the United States, and hopefully it will improve in Ireland. I would like philanthropic contributions to the Ireland Fund to complement Ireland's contribution rather than supplement it.

Deputy O'Brien mentioned the undocumented Irish. In that context, I pass on my best wishes to Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been a huge support to Ireland in the form of the legislative proposals that have been made for the undocumented.

I will deal briefly with the annual output statement, which I have just received so have not had much time to look through. I take it from the Minister that it will be improved over the years but the output targets under the various high level goals are fairly broad. One example is goal A, which sets targets relating to Anglo-Irish matters. The 7th target is the "effective operation of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the British-Irish Council, inter alia, through regular and productive meetings.” As part of the output achieved, it states the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference met on a particular date and that there were 43 British-Irish Council meetings. As regards the three other goals, very broad targets and very specific outputs were achieved. I would like the targets to be more specific to help us to determine whether the outputs were significant.

Does the Deputy wish us to take a more managerial approach than Deputy Higgins might want?

Deputy Higgins and I agree on many things.

If the policy is right, it is easily managed.

I commend the various Irish diplomats around the world whom I have met. They are on a par with if not better than those from any other country. I commend the Minister for focusing on promoting Ireland in the future as a tourism and investment destination. His previous experience means he will put extra effort into doing so and, as a result, I expect the country to prosper.

I congratulate Deputy Martin on his appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Peter Power on his elevation to Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for overseas aid.

I welcome the news from Egypt about the agreement between Hamas and Israel and the outcome of the conference on cluster munitions. I compliment officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs for the work they have done on Northern Ireland, particularly in seeing the Agreement implemented. The funding provided for in this Estimate will make a very valuable contribution to anti-sectarianism and reconciliation.

There are many fine initiatives in the 12 Border counties where the funding has been allocated. There have been some very worthwhile cross-community and cross-Border developments, which make a very good contribution in the Border area. I welcome the new peace programme where funding of €333 million will also be very beneficial. The focus on anti-racism and reconciliation will make a good contribution.

The Minister referred to legislation for an allocation to the Ireland Fund. Can he develop that? When might we expect to see the legislation? It is important to recognise the donor countries of the International Fund for Ireland, in particular the US and Canada, which still subscribe. It is important the fund continues for a while and is not wound up too quickly. The prestige of such major contributors makes a very valuable contribution to continuing the work of reconciliation. I appreciate the work done in the International Fund for Ireland over many years and I would not like it to be wound down too quickly.

There is great interest in the Good Friday Agreement abroad. I know Ms Nuala O'Loan has been to Timor-L'Este but what other opportunities does the Minister see where the Good Friday Agreement might be a blueprint for a solution? We recently visited the Middle East and Bethlehem University, which has very close links with Ireland. People there were interested in the possibility of developing policies for reconciliation, perhaps in conjunction with an Irish university. Is such a thing in the Minister's remit?

The Minister referred to promoting Ireland abroad and I agree with Deputy Ardagh that the commitment and dedication of our officials in political, economic and cultural activity abroad are something about which we can be very proud. For a very small mission, our diplomats punch very much above their weight. The same applies to our peacekeeping forces, of which there are 54 missions abroad on United Nations peacekeeping duties, and we can be very proud of what they do.

I do not want to go into the Lisbon treaty in any great detail but we must respect the decision of the people. However, it is important that we analyse why the people voted "No" and that we find a solution. We have always been good Europeans and have been in the front line of the development of the new Europe since 1973. In addition, the people want to remain at its cutting edge. Whatever those countries which have not yet approved the Lisbon treaty do is a matter for them. When our 26 colleague states have decided, it will be important to sit down and find a solution which respects the concerns of the Irish people but ensures we all move forward together and at the same speed.

I thank the Minister for the work done by his Department in providing briefs for us, both for this committee and our two subcommittees, and for the visits we make which are very helpful and enable us to see different people and different points of view.

I too congratulate Deputy Martin and Deputy Peter Power on their appointment. I have one regret about Deputy Peter Power. As someone who sat with him for approximately six months on the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, I believe he would have been of huge help if he had been appointed Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, though I am sure he is enjoying his present job. He also made a very valuable contribution during the last Dáil, of which I was not a Member, as Chairman of a committee. He has a level of knowledge that should have been retained within that committee but I have no doubt he will do extraordinarily well in his new post and I wish him well.

I wish to touch on a number of issues which I know were mentioned by others but they are important. I refer to the dreadful condition of Zimbabwe and the horrendous attack on human rights taking place in this tragic country. Many of us have looked with horror at the continued deterioration of Zimbabwe, the collapse of its economy, the impoverishment of its people and the obsessive attachment to power of President Mugabe who seems to be prepared to break every ethic and code of human rights and democratic morality known. I have major fears as to where the country is heading. It has been in huge difficultly for a very long time. In theory, a second run-off in the presidential election will take place. There seems to be little chance it will be a truly democratic and free election in which people will be able to cast their vote free of favour. I suspect the result has already been organised in the sense that there are stuffed ballot boxes all over Zimbabwe and that it will be almost irrelevant how people will vote. I fear for the lives of members of the opposition in Zimbabwe. Assassinations have taken place, as have horrendous events such as the one in which the wife and child of one member of the opposition lost their lives.

I do not know what else the European Union can do with regard to Zimbabwe. Will the Minister clarify what initiatives have been taken? I appreciate that as a small country in Europe, we do not have too much influence over Zimbabwe, despite the aid we provide. What initiatives are being taken, not simply with regard to President Mugabe who I do not believe is interested in anything anyone says?

I am particularly disappointed at the failure of other African nations to exercise influence over President Mugabe, in particular the failure of President Mbeki of South Africa. In theory, he has played a role as intermediary but he seems to be sitting back, not only incapable of intervening but also willing to not simply condone but embrace President Mugabe on occasions when he should have been condemned. Some of the violence we have seen in South Africa is a spillover of the disaster befalling Zimbabwe. The number of refugees, not only from Zimbabwe but also from other African countries in the throes of conflict, is creating instability in South Africa. I would have thought in the context of the ethos which the new South Africa tries to project, that President Mbeki would have taken a far more active role and, where appropriate, a more critical role in dealing with President Mugabe and the consequences of what occurred in the first election when not only for days but for a number of weeks the outcome was unknown. The outcome, as announced, must have left a major credibility gap. I fear that in the coming weeks, if not thousands, hundreds of lives will be lost in Zimbabwe. Will the Minister address this matter for us?

I fear that in five or ten years' time we will be looking over our shoulders as regards what is now occurring in Burma and wondering why the international community was impotent in the face of what can best be described — although I presume it is terminologically inaccurate — as genocide perpetrated on the people by the ruling regime. The major catastrophe of natural disaster that befell Burma should have produced an immediate reaction from the regime to assist its country men and women and a welcome of a major input by the international community. What we have seen is international funds, which I understand have been provided, being hijacked by the Burmese regime and handed out to various associates which have carved up Burma as if it were a business project from which they can eke out millions from the international community for their own self-aggrandisement, while the people continue to be not simply impoverished but at risk of death from malnutrition and disease as a consequence of the natural disaster which has befallen the country.

The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, referred to another airlift of goods to Burma from Dublin which took place on Thursday last and the contribution of €1 million. I have questions about this. To date, what have we arranged to have airlifted to Burma? What is the location of what has been airlifted? What agency is administering it? Has it reached any of the people? I am concerned that relief sent from Ireland to Burma may be hijacked by the regime or the Burmese army and never find its way to those in need. In so far as we provide any funding for Burma, what assurances do we have that the money will not be pocketed by a totalitarian dictatorship or relations of those in power for their own benefit?

A couple of weeks ago some optimistic noises were made about the possibility of the Burmese regime co-operating with aid workers on the ground in allowing new workers in. From my understanding of the matter, very little in reality has happened. Will the Minister tell us what we have been doing to date in this regard and also what is happening at European Union level?

Today the Dáil welcomed a delegation from China. China sees Burma as within its sphere of influence. It has been supplying the Burmese regime with the weapons it uses to repress its own population. I suggest to the Minister that matters have reached such a state of catastrophe in Burma that we should call in the Chinese ambassador for a formal discussion on what intervention the Chinese Government is prepared to make with its friends in power in Burma to provide for the relief of the Burmese people.

It is extraordinary that in the midst of this catastrophe we have seen a referendum held in Burma designed to copperfasten perpetually the power of the regime. Aung San Suu Kyi who was elected President of Burma many years ago continues to be incarcerated and in recent weeks has been picked on by the Burmese regime through its state-controlled newspapers to be pilloried in circumstances where the regime is starving its own people. I truly fear we will look back at this moment in history on what is happening in Burma as a catastrophe from which the international community turned away. A great deal more should be done at United Nations level. We should not continue to ignore the extent to which China and the Chinese Government can exercise influence over Burma. The European Union, for economic and other reasons, should not shy away from exerting whatever pressure is necessary on the Chinese Government.

I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on the establishment of a special section within the Department to deal with conflict resolution. Will the Minister inform us what will specifically happen within this unit during the next 12 months? In the documentation we have received we are told about the appointment of a roving ambassador. Has he or she been appointed? If not, when will the appointment be made? How will the roving ambassador and the unit identify the contribution to be made to conflict resolution? We clearly cannot involve ourselves in every conflict around the world but there will be certain conflicts that we may feel we can assist in resolving. Could we know a little bit more about the structure of how this will work? It is a fantastically good idea and is something we should build on to allow us to contribute in the wider world. However, it is something we should do in a coherent and ordered way, with prioritisation. The committee should be given a special briefing by the Department on the working of this unit to get an idea of its priorities and how it will function.

On the issue of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it is fair to say that the United Nations, which covers all countries in the world, has had the unique capacity to ensure that the executive of its human rights bodies is dominated by individuals or countries of a totalitarian nature that do not apply democratic principles to their own population and which appear then to be the world arbiters of human rights. I would like the Minister to clarify the countries that are currently chairing that council and to outline whether he is comfortable with the way in which it works. Does it work better than its predecessor?

Several years ago we had what became known as Durban One, which was supposed to be an international conference examining human rights issues but which turned into an anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic hatefest. Durban Two, as it is euphemistically known, is now apparently on the agenda for consideration. What is being done to ensure that it will truly examine human rights issues globally and is not hijacked by one group with a narrow agenda? I hope that we, as a country, do not find ourselves either directly or indirectly funding a conference that is little more than a political propaganda event.

Like other members, I welcome the announcement of an agreement between Hamas and Israel, sponsored by Egypt. As I understand it — and I have only learned a small amount prior to this meeting — it is an agreement designed to end violence. I hope it works but am not confident it will. Iran has too great an interest in propagating Islamic fundamentalism in that region to allow this to work and to see it as anything other than a temporary, convenient arrangement to facilitate Hamas accumulating more arms. I am not optimistic that the rockets being fired into Israel, that members of this committee almost witnessed when we visited the region, are going to stop. However, I very much hope that I am entirely wrong in these predictions. It is in everyone's interests, particularly the Palestinians and Israelis, that the violence in that part of the world ends and that there is economic development in Gaza. There is also enormous interest in there being a form of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas which allows for discussions in a peace process that can realistically achieve something valuable.

In the context of what we know about the agreement, can the Minister tell us whether there is any indication yet of Hamas accepting the principles that have been set for them with regard to a peace process, namely, the recognition of Israel, the ending of violence and the honouring of agreements previously concluded between the Israelis and Palestinians? Beyond this being a temporary arrangement, is there any indication of broader progress being made? Will the Minister clarify what is happening from an EU perspective in this regard and whether we, as a country, have had any discussions with the Iranians or with the Iranian Ambassador to try to discourage that country from meddling in the region in a manner that is sabotaging the development of conflict resolution and a peace process.

Regarding the undocumented Irish in the United States, as I understand it, the Taoiseach met the Irish lobby for immigration reform upon taking up his post. Since then, very little has occurred. I understand the Lisbon treaty campaign has taken up everyone's time but if the politicians in this Government are to make any attempt to resolve the undocumented Irish issue, they will need to do so quickly. This needs political attention. Congress goes into recess in August but the people displaying urgency regarding the undocumented Irish are the civil servants, not the politicians. That must be addressed quickly. It has been the constant concern and complaint of campaigners in New York and Boston. It is clear that after five weeks, this needs to be revisited by the politicians involved.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, on his promotion and extend an invitation to him to meet the subcommittee. I hope he will be able to do so before the recess. I also met Mr. Brendan Rogers recently to discuss issues related to Irish Aid. I will comment on the total amount of money being spent and the attitude of the public to aid generally. I have a concern in this regard, which I expressed to Mr. Rogers at our meeting. We are spending enormous amounts of money in Irish Aid but a debate has arisen in the past three or four months about funding corrupt regimes. Whether it is true and whether we like it or not, this debate has gained some traction. We must do a better job of selling the good work that Irish Aid is doing through the money it spends in various countries and the impact it has on people's lives. Somebody will pop his or her head up soon and argue that we are spending too much on overseas development aid. That is not an opinion I share but we must do more than just renovate a building at the end of O'Connell Street which schoolchildren visit. We must do a better job on the public relations front when it comes to the Irish Aid budget. We invest more money in Atlantic 21 than we do on overseas aid. Some thought must be put into this, especially by the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power. There is a danger of scaremongering with regard to the Irish Aid budget unless the positive stories are told regarding the effect the money has on people's lives.

Quite a range of issues were raised by members. I thank the Chairman and the Deputies for their compliments to our diplomats and officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs for the exemplary manner in which they implement the policies of the State. Particular congratulations are deserved for the success of the cluster munitions conference. In a climate where very often the public service is criticised, we do not celebrate enough and pay tribute when it is due when we have very good examples of the public service at work. The cluster munitions conference, which took place during my first week in my Ministry, was a tremendous illustration of diplomatic skill at work and of commitment above and beyond the call of duty, in terms of hours that people worked. That the declaration put to 111 countries was, in essence, accepted by acclamation, was the ultimate demonstration of the skilful work behind the presentation. I appreciate the comments of members on all sides regarding that achievement. While I am on the subject, let me inform members that we are working flat out to have the legislation in place prior to ratification. In regard to the issue of divestments from the National Treasury Management Agency, the agency has already agreed to divest. The issue of whether to include that in the legislation is under consideration.

In the context of the legislation itself, I met the Norwegian Minister soon after the announcement. I will travel to meet him again bilaterally. It is our intention to give an active impetus to the implementation of the agreement and to see if we can get early practical wins. Not only have we signed and can get ratification, we can demonstrate the practical impact, particularly in the area of clearance and victim assistance. We will persuade and encourage others to join. Deputy Ardagh referred to some of the big players who have not joined, for example, Israel and the USA. The experience has been that when instruments are signed and ratified the munitions in question are stigmatised, which ultimately leads to reduced use and, whereas countries may not sign or formally ratify instruments, they tend to follow practice. Nonetheless, we will act internationally as persuaders on this.

It should be noted that France and the United Kingdom came on board. That in many ways illustrates the importance of our EU membership which we sometimes take for granted. The networking opportunities it gives us and the personal relationships it facilitates helps us in the context of negotiations such as this by giving access to good and personal engagement with people. The Taoiseach and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown had significant contact on that issue, away from the heat of campaigns and so on. Members touched on the Lisbon treaty referendum. I was taken by Deputy Higgins's contribution. We do not point up sufficiently the significance of these contacts. The earliest observations and analyses filed by the Flash Eurobarometer on the Lisbon treaty — I stress these are preliminary and there will be more comprehensive data which we will share with the committee — indicate that young people voted by a majority of two to one against the Lisbon treaty. That suggests there is a generation that is not excited by the European project. I made this point to my colleagues, many of whom would accept this. Although I was only 13 years of age before EU membership, I am nonetheless of a generation that understands the pre-EU Ireland and the post-EU Ireland. Many of our generation are of the view that this is a "no-brainer". However, there is a sense of disconnection, that people are not connected to or enthused enough about the Union, that there is a distance now and people are taking it for granted.

Deputy Higgins's contribution on the unique identity of EU foreign policy as distinct from that of other regions, for example, the USA, is a well made point. I recall some of the debates in which I was involved. When one looks at the Lisbon treaty in terms of development aid, it is the largest donor in the world

It contributes 48%.

When one looks at its contribution in terms of peace generally, humanitarian interventions, the overarching preamble and so on, it is the first time we are giving a legal basis to that policy. The eradication of poverty is an objective of the treaty. Where is that situated in the context of the assertions that Lisbon was about the militarisation of Europe. I take on board Deputy Higgins's point that this committee could play a very useful role, apart altogether from the issues that surfaced in regard to the referendum. We must deal with those, perhaps in other fora. Perhaps this committee would be anxious to flesh out that point. People talked about enhancing capability as if it were a very sinister and conspiratorial agenda. Deputy O'Brien eloquently made the point that when Irish troops are out in Chad we want them to be well-equipped and to have the capabilities necessary to do their job exceptionally well. We will analyse of the Lisbon treaty referendum result. What emerged from yesterday's meeting was solidarity from our European colleagues. I met all of the Ministers who were there yesterday, quite a number on a bilateral basis, prior to the meeting. I impressed upon them the need for Ireland to have time for reflection to analyse and to assess the situation and to work with the European Union because, as Deputies said, this is a European issue, not just an Irish issue. It, therefore, requires a European solution and an inclusive solution.

I was very heartened by the assertion yesterday by quite a number of countries that they would not countenance a two-speed Europe, that they want inclusivity. We re-iterated the fact. It is interesting that in the Eurobarometer poll 80% of the people polled said they were pro-European Union and that those in the "No" camp said they were pro-European Union. I articulated that it is our view that the Irish people want to stay at the heart of the European Union. The challenge that lies ahead, therefore, and I do not wish to understate that challenge, is for us to try to reconcile the situation in such a way that we stay at the heart, that we are not marginalised or left behind. However, we accept and respect the vote. I look forward to a more considered debate on the Lisbon treaty referendum in the Dáil. It is important also that the Dáil asserts itself, that the Oireachtas asserts itself in terms of the consideration of these issues, engages with civil society and facilitates the taking of views from groups and so on. Ultimately the Oireachtas is the policy setter. That is something we should be cognisant of.

There was a reference to Chad. In the course of yesterday's meeting I met Mr. Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. I want to share with the members his description of the performance of the Irish troops in Chad. He believes their professionalism, their grasp of the situation, the manner in which they discharge their duties impartially and objectively is quite extraordinary. It is something he has not seen before. He was very warm in his tributes to the Irish troops. We are monitoring the situation. The Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, is out there as I speak. The situation has calmed and we will continue to monitor it. It is a very challenging environment for our troops. It is probably the most challenging engagement in which they have been involved.

Deputy Timmins asked me to elaborate on the issue of the Ireland Fund and legislation. Last year we decided to allocate approximately €10 million to the fund to constitute a significant part of that organisation's endowment fund, which it established in 2005. Our allocation will be spread over five years with five annual payments of €2 million and will be matched by funds contributed by the private sector to the said endowment fund. Funding was provided in our budget for 2007 and 2008. However, to date the Government funding has not been released as it is subject to appropriate legislation being passed by the Oireachtas. Work is currently under way on the preparation of that legislation and we are in ongoing contact with the Ireland Fund on that arrangement.

Deputy Timmins also spoke about the peace monument. He suggested there was a history to it, but I am reliably informed that it started and ended up along the Border. Work is progressing on the competition.

Deputy Timmins mentioned the provision of assistance for the Irish abroad. There are approximately 3,000 Irish nationals in Zimbabwe and we provide in the region of €20,000 from the fund for two Irish community organisations to support their running costs and, in particular, to alleviate welfare problems that some of the elderly and sick are experiencing. The British Embassy will help us out in Zimbabwe in providing emergency consular assistance for Irish citizens in the event that it becomes necessary to evacuate EU citizens. An honorary consul for Zimbabwe has been appointed. This will facilitate better access to consular advice and documentation for all Irish citizens residing there.

Deputies Timmins and Deasy raised the issue of the undocumented Irish in America. I thank Deputies Deasy, Cregan and O'Brien for their genuine interest in this problem and their efforts in their recent visit to America. I do not accept the assertion that there is no political engagement. There has been and continues to be significant political engagement on the issue. Two weeks ago I met Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Senators Richard Shelby and Thad Cochran and we discussed opportunities to do so something in the autumn but were mindful of the very tight legislative schedule. With the election, we should not overstate the potential of the autumn schedule. However, if there are opportunities, we are ready, together with our ambassador in the United States, to avail of them.

In the absence of comprehensive legislation dealing with 11 million undocumented people in the United States, we have advocated a bilateral agreement that would put in place reciprocal immigration arrangements which are long overdue. That might create a template to deal with the issue. This was endorsed strongly by the Dáil last November. We are advocating a specific proposal to make several thousand working visas available to Irish citizens each year, as well as to US citizens interested in working in Ireland, similar to the system in operation between the United States and Australia. Ideally, the undocumented would be permitted to apply for E3 visas as they are known. That is one measure I am anxious to develop.

We have working holiday agreements for young people with many countries. As Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it always struck me as odd that we did not have a formal bilateral agreement with the United States, given our historic relationship. I suspect that if we had formal bilateral agreements in place, we may have avoided a recurrent problem in different generations. I have informed the Secretary General and my officials that this is the No. 1 priority that we need to address. It is both difficult and challenging and the political situation in the United States, with the upcoming election, has rendered it somewhat more difficult this year. Politically, it is a difficult issue in the United States. Senators Kennedy and McCain and others of the highest stature came together but the initiative ran into difficulties. However, we are working with our friends and hope to have a meeting with Deputies Deasy, Cregan and O'Brien to see if we can advance the matter.

We have covered the issues relating to the Lisbon treaty, but I would like to return to them.

On the co-operation agreement with Israel and the upgrading of relations, that decision by the European Union was placed firmly in the context of its policy approach to the Middle East peace process. The Irish played a crucial role in ensuring that political linkage. We have been working very hard to ensure there is a strong linkage with the upgrading of relations with Israel under the neighbourhood policy which comes on completion of the first EU-Israel action plan. It also features in the context of human rights compliance. At tomorrow's European Council meeting there will be conclusions relating specifically to this issue.

I take the point about the format of this meeting but others have a different attitude to the template we must use. In other Departments it has been effective. I know the Department of Foreign Affairs is more complex. When I was in Enterprise Ireland, we could count the number of start-up businesses. How does one evaluate work in certain areas that do not lend themselves to numerical evaluation?

There are limitations when one uses a tabular format.

We have to live with it. We have been active in the past month in the evolution of peace and justice in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say the Executive is up and running. The first meeting between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister went very well. It seems there is a strong desire to deal with the outstanding issues arising from the St. Andrews Agreement, in particular policing and justice. We are hopeful of continued progress on these and other issues such as the Irish language Act and parades. We are pleased with the transition from the former First Minister, Mr. Paisley, to the new First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson.

On the ratification of key international instruments, I dealt with the one on corruption. In the context of the disability, the Department for which we have tremendous affection, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, chairs the interdepartmental group on the ratification of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It is preparing new legislation on the legal capacity of the mentally handicapped which will be required before ratification is possible. There is a significant body of legislation in the Department. I am not clear that the Department of Foreign Affairs, or others, could take upon itself the responsibility for legislating to provide for the ratification of such treaties without the line Department giving the matter detailed consideration.

I will not pursue the issue today but it is worth reflecting on the tradition of dualism. I have come to the view that some countries use ratification as an excuse and may never enact domestic legislation, but in countries such as ours it may serve as a headline and a spur to speedier drafting of legislation. It is a matter for discussion in the future.

I have views that could be controversial in the sense that legislation on its own does not guarantee outcomes.

That is one of the great myths.

Exactly. Perhaps the inspirational effect of ratification might be unleashed

Was the Deputy among the many who raised issues relating to Zimbabwe?

I did; I raised the issue of observers.

We have worked through the European Union. I take Deputy Shatter's strong criticism on board. We are all very concerned and condemn what has happened. I have made statements in the Dáil condemning it. The regional players are key to this. Mr. Mugabe does not entertain EU engagement to any great extent, although we would be willing to send in monitors in the morning to assist in the electoral and democratic process.

The African Union seems to have abdicated its responsibility entirely.

The monitors who went into Zimbabwe during the last election had a deterrent impact. With the Taoiseach, I met Mr. Mbeki last January and he gave a very detailed account of the political talks and the talks leading up to the process, which was lengthy. I gained the sense that he placed a lot of store in finding a political solution for the structures and the elections but that has not materialised on the ground, as evidenced by the violence, intimidation and suppression of the opposition, which calls into question the election process and its outcome.

If the African Union had invited European Union observers to be part of its monitoring team, it would have been more difficult for Mr. Mugabe to refuse an African Union presence during the election.

The European Union has been assisting African Union members in handling the situation. I am not sure it is as simple as the Deputy suggests to ensure EU monitors are allowed in via any route. Our ambassador and others in the region are involved but more needs to be done. We are very worried about the situation.

I share Deputy Shatter's view about South Africa's role in this matter.

What about Burma?

I will deal with that issue. There is a lengthy list of questions.

There are time constraints.

I have dealt with all the issues raised by Deputy O'Brien.

Deputy Ardagh asked what €914 million was as a percentage of GNP. It is at least 0.54% but I will come back to that question. I have answered the Deputy's question about the Ireland Fund. However, I take his point and hope there will be a greater philanthropic response in Ireland because of what has happened through the Ireland Fund. Its participants raise the issue with us on an ongoing basis. He also asked about the undocumented and the goals outlined in the annual output statement. We note his congratulation of Irish diplomats.

Deputy O'Hanlon raised the situation in the Middle East. I hope to visit the region in the near future. The European Union is anxious to see a resolution and is worried about the absence of significant progress in the Israel-Fatah dispute. There are a number of complications and we do not have great detail on the events described on the news today. We only heard as we came into the meeting but will hear more later in the day.

The Deputy also raised the Good Friday Agreement and the anti-sectarianism and reconciliation dimensions to it. I passionately believe that, ultimately, the success of the political structures will depend on the degree to which we can build genuine intercommunity relationships on the ground in the North and penetrate sectarianism as an issue. Every political structure is in difficulty at some stage. If there is no groundswell to support political initiatives, they may founder in the course of time. We must always be conscious of this. It is money well spent, as the Deputy said.

The Deputy also raised the issue of conflict resolution. We would be willing to set up a conflict resolution unit at the appropriate time but we have work to do in the Department on how we would structure and develop it. We have awarded some scholarships in conflict resolution through the Irish Research Council. Ms Nuala O'Loan is in Timor-L'Este as a roving ambassador, from where she will report back to us. Work is under way on a conflict resolution centre and there may be a combination of elements to a centre of excellence. We want to create a centre that draws inputs from people with expertise in the area. We should not necessarily opt for a fixed location because we want to draw people who are interested and can contribute from all parts, both from within and outside the country. We have a lot of internal experience, gained from what has transpired in the country. Therefore, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how we can develop and fine-tune policy instruments, whereby Ireland can be of genuine value to the world. I will come back to the committee to make a specific presentation on shaping the unit.

On Burma, we have communicated to the Chinese authorities our view of what should happen but I accept the Deputy's point. First and foremost, we condemn the Burmese authorities, as their behaviour, in terms of the degree to which they have put up barriers to international aid, has been appalling and absolutely unacceptable. The UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, made sterling efforts to achieve a breakthrough and there has been progress, albeit slow, in providing humanitarian assistance in the country. Our immediate priority is to provide emergency humanitarian aid, as opposed to dealing with the political issues involved. Our immediate priority is to concentrate on how emergency relief can be provided. The Burmese authorities are already talking about reconstruction but that is far too early. It is estimated that we have only reached between 1.2 million and 1.3 million people, whereas there could be another 1.5 million who have not been aided. We are doing everything we can to assist. The Minister of State, Deputy Power, will talk about the aid aspect of our efforts. I am satisfied that we have done everything we physically can and have made our views known to other regional authorities on their responsibility to put pressure on the authorities in Burma to cop on and stop blackguarding.

Would the Minister consider formally calling in the Chinese ambassador to discuss the emergency and the fact that there are large numbers who are receiving no aid? The Minister of State, Deputy Power, may reply to the specifics of where the aid we are providing is going and who is administering it. A démarche needs to take place, not just in Ireland but also in other parts of Europe, to cajole the Chinese Government behind the scenes.

We have operated with the European Union and the United Nations in this regard. We want to be effective and have conveyed our views to the Chinese authorities through the ambassador.

What feedback is the Minister getting from the Chinese?

We have made progress and agreement was reached on access. The United Nations and ASEAN have also come to an agreement. One can do the odd gaisce but whether such measures have an impact is a judgment call we have to make.

The problem is the timeframe. As time passes lives will be lost, about which we know nothing now but will at some stage in the future.

I fully understand the Deputy's frustration, which we share.

I appreciate what the Minister can do is limited but this is an issue on which we should be as vociferous as possible. We should use any influence we can to cajole the Chinese Government or ambassador. We could rerun talks at European level or bring the matter back to the United Nations. Despite the best efforts of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, progress has been minimal. We should not exaggerate. He attempted what he could, given his position, but, in reality, there has been very little reception of his efforts and very little change.

I have dealt with most of the issues. Ultimately, the regime there is unacceptable to the rest of the world. We will continue through the EU and UN to keep the pressure on. The scenario there is unacceptable.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister for coming here today and for taking such time to explain and answer the questions. I wish him well in his post as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He obviously brings a wealth of experience to the new ministry and we wish him well.

Sitting suspended at 5.21 p.m. and resumed at 5.23 p.m.

I now call on the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power, to address the select committee on Vote 29 — International Co-operation (Revised).

I am delighted to be in a position to join the select committee today to discuss Vote 29. As this is my first meeting with the committee, I thank everybody for their genuine good wishes which are very much appreciated and reciprocated in the sense that I very much value the wealth of experience around the table here today which has been gained not least through many years of parliamentary, ministerial and other experience and experience gained by the committee through its commitment to foreign travel and gaining experience on the ground. It is a resource which I intend to tap into, use and respect very much. In a rapidly changing global situation, the information this committee and its members have individually and collectively gained through their travels is a resource that should be available to the country and the Government.

In presenting the current work of Irish Aid and our future plans, I will focus on several ongoing threats to the well-being of the world's poorest people, which we should at all times remember are at the heart of the Irish Aid programme. These include natural disasters, the crisis caused by rising food prices, climate change and poor governance in several countries, particularly in Africa. I will also give the committee a sense of our response and how I see future priorities in the area of international development aid and co-operation.

The overriding objective of our programme of overseas development assistance has been and will continue to be the fight against global poverty and exclusion. The combination of factors putting renewed pressure on the world's most vulnerable communities should lead us to redouble our efforts to reach the millennium development goals. The goals represent broad international consensus and progress in reaching them must continue to be central to the fight against global poverty generally and in particular, Ireland's response to this global problem.

Ireland has a long and proud history of responding to the needs of developing countries and I intend to build on the work of my predecessors in providing leadership towards reaching the millennium development goals. This year, Ireland will spend a total of €914 million on overseas aid. By any standards, this is a very significant amount of money. The commitment cements our position as one of the most generous international donors of overseas aid.

The OECD has ranked Ireland as the sixth most generous donor country per capita in the world. This is something of which we as a people should be very proud. We have reached 0.54% of GNP, which means that very significant progress has been made towards our goal of spending 0.7% of GNP on overseas development aid by 2012. It is sometimes forgotten that while €914 million represents 0.54% of our GNP, it represents a significantly higher percentage of our overall budget. At a time when there are constraints on our budget, we should not lose sight of this fact as a country with a relatively small budget in international terms. This level of funding has allowed us to respond in very practical ways to the challenges I mentioned earlier and to make a significant difference to people’s lives in developing countries. I look forward to the collective view of the committee and individual suggestions as to how this may be incorporated into our policy.

Vulnerability has once again been highlighted by the recent humanitarian disasters that have struck the people of Burma and China. In Burma, even now, the full extent of the destruction caused by cyclone Nargis is not clear. However, it is estimated that 2.4 million people were affected by this catastrophe. The initial reaction of the ruling military regime is simply unacceptable. Its early refusal to allow access to both UN and NGO experts caused unnecessary suffering for the people of that unfortunate country. As has been pointed out by Deputy Shatter, what started out as a natural and humanitarian disaster could now very well become a man-made disaster, which is unacceptable.

Following on the intervention of the UN Secretary General and pressure from its neighbours in the ASEAN group, there was some softening in the initial negative attitude of the military regime. However, this appears to have been a mere token gesture at this stage. The position on NGO access is still unsatisfactory, however, with very limited access for those NGOs which had no previous presence in the country. The Minister and I will continue to urge the regime to welcome all international NGOs that have the capability to help affected communities cope with this disaster. In addition to cash contributions totalling €1 million, two airlifts of essential humanitarian supplies from Irish Aid's pre-positioned stocks in Brindisi, Italy, and the Curragh have been carried to Burma. I attended the loading of the most recent airlift in Dublin airport last Thursday. The aid materials provided by that flight will help provide shelter, sanitation and other essential inputs to around 10,000 people affected by cyclone Nargis.

The earthquake which hit Sichuan province in China on 12 May has also had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences. Ireland provided €1 million in relief assistance to affected communities through the International Federation of the Red Cross. Members of the committee will note the difference in the response of the Chinese authorities and those in Burma. To answer a question raised by members, the Chinese community has led by example to its neighbour in how it interacted with the international community in a way which it may not have done 20 or 30 years previously.

I highlighted these two humanitarian disasters to illustrate that Ireland Aid contributes to crises which have received less media coverage but have equally devastating effects on the lives of millions of people throughout the world. Last year, we spent more than €140 million responding to the needs of people in crisis in more than 45 countries. These include Bangladesh, in the wake of hurricane Sidr, and Darfur and Chad, where the humanitarian situation remains desperate. This money was spent with the aim of saving lives, alleviating suffering, maintaining human dignity and rehabilitating affected communities, both during and in the aftermath of crises, be they natural or man-made disasters.

The recent sudden escalation in world food prices is also having a disproportionate impact on the world's poor. In these communities where more than 50% of disposable income is spent on food, the impact of such sudden price increases can quickly tip vulnerable families into abject poverty and starvation. Already this year, we have seen serious rioting in numerous urban centres in the developing world. This is a source of major concern for me.

Irish Aid has supported the work of international agencies such as the World Food Programme, WFP, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Fund for Agricultural Development over many years to raise agricultural productivity and fight famine. We have stepped up this support of late. The Government's total allocation to the WFP so far this year is more than €20 million.

We are also making a strong contribution at policy level. The hunger task force established last year will identify the additional and effective contributions that Ireland can make to international efforts to reduce hunger. The recommendations of the task force, which are expected in the coming weeks, are particularly timely given the food price increases and the pressing search for responses to this challenge.

A related issue is climate-change. Drought has no doubt contributed to rising food prices and falling productivity in some regions. Unfortunately, developing countries which have contributed least to causing climate change are feeling the worst effects of it with an increasing incidence of drought and adverse weather events. These countries also have the weakest capacity to adapt to climate change. Irish Aid is committed to ensuring that developing countries have the capacity to effectively engage with the ongoing international processes that will determine the future global response to climate change.

Poor governance and corruption can ultimately undermine efforts to promote pro-poor growth. As Deputies are aware, governance is one of four key cross-cutting issues for Irish Aid. We are working with our partner countries and with civil society organisations to improve oversight mechanisms and promote and protect human rights and the rule of law to ensure that democratic accountability is promoted.

We are also building the capacity of public institutions active in the fight against corruption and funding improvements to government auditing systems. Without continuous progress in this area the benefits of economic growth and development are unlikely to reach those who need them most.

Irish Aid has robust systems in place to ensure value for money. These include evaluation and audit systems to ensure that our funds are used for their intended purpose and that lessons are learned from previous development interventions. The audit committee, which provides an independent appraisal of our audit and evaluation arrangements, ensures that the highest standards of accountability and transparency are maintained.

The next OECD peer review of Ireland's development co-operation programme will take place in March 2009. This review is of critical importance to the reputation of Irish Aid, both domestically and internationally, since it provides an authoritative assessment of the quality and effectiveness of Ireland's approach to development. Ireland's performance in past reviews has been very good.

We face many challenges in managing a significant expansion of the programme while decentralising much of the Department to Limerick, but significant positive developments have taken place within the organisation and the programme since the last review. Ireland's development co-operation programme is recognised internationally as being of a very high standard and we have a very positive story to tell. We are also working with other donor countries within the OECD to improve the quality and effectiveness of aid efforts in line with the Paris declaration. Irish Aid will participate actively in the high level forum on aid effectiveness in Accra, Ghana, in September.

Partnerships are key to reaching our global development objectives. Irish Aid will continue to build on our strong collaboration with the Irish NGO community and missionary organisations in the coming years. Four leading NGOs, namely, Concern, Goal, Trócaire and Christian Aid, will receive approximately €400 million from Irish Aid between 2007 and 2012. The committee will acknowledge this is a significant amount of money. A total of €20 million will be channelled to the Irish Missionary Resource Service this year.

As I stated at the beginning of this presentation, the key focus of Ireland's development co-operation programme is on fighting poverty and exclusion. For this reason we will continue to concentrate our support on the social sectors including health and education. For example, we allocate more than €100 million a year to tackling HIV and AIDS and other communicable diseases, particularly in the African continent.

As Deputy Deasy correctly pointed out, it is essential that the public is aware of the principles, the objectives and the impact of the Irish Aid programme. Much work has been done in this area recently including the establishment of an Irish Aid volunteering and information centre in Dublin earlier this year, the broadcasting of the final series of the "Far Away Up Close" programme on RTE and the success of the Africa Day celebrations held in Ireland last month. I reiterate the invitation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, for members of the committee, individually or collectively, to visit the centre.

To answer Deputy Deasy's question, we depend enormously on confidence and goodwill in the efficacy and effectiveness of the programme. Without this, we would cease to operate. The moneys we spend are considerable and I take the Deputy's point on this. He is pushing an open door.

I mentioned that I saw off the aid airlift to Burma. To answer Deputy Shatter, this aid airlift will be tracked each individual part of the way, from where it arrives in Bangkok to Rangoon and by our aid agencies on the ground right to the Dedaye township, which has a population of 10,000. It will be tracked all the way and I am confident it will meet the people. Despite having seen off the airlift, for reasons of their own the media did not choose to highlight this real contribution we are making to people on the ground.

I also take Deputy Shatter's point. I have concerns and I initiated a process to identify any system weaknesses that exist and to deal with them as soon as possible.

The Oireachtas has a crucial role in promoting public understanding and in scrutiny of the programme and I am delighted to interact with the community in the weeks and months ahead to ensure it becomes a reality. I look forward to listening to the views of the committee and working with it in the times ahead to provide a comprehensive, accountable and effective way in our fight against global poverty.

I thank the Chairman. I understand the time constraints but I will try to deal with the questions which have already arisen and those which will arise as effectively and efficiently as I can.

I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Power, for his submission and I will be brief. Deputy Deasy previously alluded to the commitment of 0.7% of GNP in the changed economic climate. Is there a view that the aid budget may be cut?

I am involved with an umbrella foundation which works in Nepal which made an application for soft funding. The feedback I have received is that small groups seeking funding from the overseas development aid budget find it extremely difficult to obtain any money. I am also aware of a number of individuals who have demonstrated great commitment such as the young Irish girl who collected money to build a school in India. How do such individuals access funding? They might not necessarily meet all of the criteria laid down by Irish Aid or submit proposals for large, comprehensive programmes but are deserving of support nonetheless. I ask the Minister of State to give us his view on the matter.

I ask the Minister of State to elaborate on the money given to Mr. Michael Semple. I do not know if the Estimates for last year or 2006 made reference to an allocation of money for him. Can Deputy Higgins recall? Is there anything buried in the Estimates on which the Minister of State could elaborate?

The figure for office expenses amounts to €1.6 million. To what exactly does it refer? Does it include office rental as well as office expenses?

I refer to the dramatic increase in food prices worldwide, which has happened for a multiplicity of reasons, one of which is an increase in the growing of bio-fuel crops. Does the Minister of State have a view on whether the issue of giving subsidies to those who grow such crops should be revisited? While it seemed like a wise thing to do in the recent past, it may now be time to reappraise the policy.

Deputies may wish to note that there is a vote in the Dáil. Should we suspend the sitting?

I am entirely in the Chairman's hands. I can proceed, if he wishes. We can pair off, as there are two Government Deputies and two Opposition Deputies present. Would the Chairman prefer to suspend the sitting until the vote has been completed?

We may have to.

We can do that. I have a number of questions to ask and the Minister of State will need time to reply.

We will suspend the sitting until the vote has been completed.

I repeat my good wishes to the Minister of State. I wish him every success in shouldering his responsibilities. I offer him co-operation. Everything I have to say is by way of being positive.

The previous title of this ministry of State was development and human rights. I presume human rights has been re-absorbed by the Minister, Deputy Martin. I mention it not to be controversial but merely because I believe development strategy is at its best when it is human rights driven. For that reason I strongly suggest because we are leaders in terms of aid in so many different ways, that in crafting policy we should look at the Scandinavian model. I have said before now that in terms of White Papers on development aid I have been impressed by the Norwegian paper because it brought the human rights perspective to a point of development that is not clear in other White Papers.

In the brief amount of time I have I want to make as many positive suggestions as I can. I remain a strong supporter of Irish Aid. I am concerned in a way that is entirely different from that implied in some of the contributions frequently made at the committee. Concerns that are not based on fact are damaging to the Irish Aid project. I have said it elsewhere, and I have only a brief amount of time, but I want to say that anyone delivering aid in a continent such as Africa is doing so in a multitude of different circumstances. The circumstances are different physically, environmentally and economically. They are different in terms of governance, culture and heritage. They are different in relation to colonial experience and not just in terms of colonisation by the English, the Belgians or whatever. That means that one cannot demand perfect conditions for the delivery of aid. It is entirely unrealistic to do so. I worry about those, including beneficiaries of Irish Aid, who speak of concerns that are not real.

There is a false division that is entirely unhelpful in terms of aid. That is the suggested distinction between theoretical training and practical experience. Many people, including Members of the Oireachtas, have worked with NGOs for several weeks or months and describe their experience as life changing. We are not required to choose between people who are trained in development or human rights studies or economics and development and those with practical experience. The ideal is to have a combination of both. For that reason I have positively suggested to the Minister's predecessor, and I suggest to the Minister, that we should seriously consider the possibility of Irish Aid funding cadetships or internships across the board in terms of human rights, development and so on to make it possible to have a good combination of theoretical grounding and practical experience. Ideally there should be a third sector between the voluntary and the State sectors. It would be disastrous to imagine that one must choose between these options. One need not. At the moment there are hundreds of fine graduates queuing up to work for nothing with NGOs all over the place. That is a fact. It is a pity to waste this commitment and intelligence.

I must declare my interest. I am an adjunct professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, but I am not speaking for it. I have a connection with the university. I am not happy with the state of education at third level in terms of the absence of theoretical strength. I would like to see it at the level of the Scandinavian model. I will give another example of what I mean. We need to look at what I will call peripheral institutes in terms of third level education. I have in mind the work of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in regard to good governance. I have mentioned before that governance is not about public administration. It is about the study of decisions being taken from the village right up to the state house. There is widespread disquiet all over Africa, Asia and Latin America at the abuse of the concept of good governance by the World Bank. I do not ask people to accept my word on this but to look at the scholarly work being done on the concept by independent institutes such as the one I mentioned.

I draw another distinction between two different concepts which I have mentioned already, the distinction between food shortages that are being met by the disaster relief programme and food security. In the area of food shortages we have an excellent record and it is a great pity that, in terms of the Lisbon treaty discussion, that did not get more attention. There is an interesting distinction between disaster and terrorist attack. In the case of the terrorist attack, it has to have happened before one is required to respond. However, in regard to disaster, we would have a fine tuned mechanism for responding faster. I hope that whatever evolves by way of any future treaty will have that mechanism of being able to respond rapidly.

Regarding the issue food security, it is important to recognise the distinction between the different circumstances in which it arises. West Africa is entirely different to east Africa. Malawi, which the Minister will visit shortly, is totally different from Uganda which has three seasons. Malawi is overcrowded and has a shortage of land and migrants with no place to go, so it is probably one of the most acutely challenged places in Africa. Sometimes, therefore, when people speak about Africa, they are not encountering the diversity which our aid people know very well. What food security means then, in terms of the interdepartmental committee and the trade talks, is allowing countries the capacity to introduce tariffs that will stop the dumping in African countries of such items as rice from the Asian continent and also to use subsidies for the development of secure production on chicken farms and so on. On the trade side there must be flexibility within the regime being imposed to allow the development function to happen to achieve food security. It will differ between west Africa, where 80% of the expansion in relation to food production has taken place often with people working with a hoe and small tools, and other countries where it is more appropriate.

I hope the Minister of State will make more progress in regard to staffing. I believe his section is understaffed. The Department should also examine contradictions between it and other Departments in terms of what it seeks to achieve. There are postgraduate students from undeveloped countries. I am dealing with one at the moment from Sri Lanka. The children of postgraduate students sent here by the World Bank and some of the multinational agencies are refused access to public education. The person gets a scholarship from the World Bank to come and study best practice. If he or she brings a child, that child must be sent to private education, give an assurance in regard to insurance and so on. He or she is not entitled to use the public education system. Even where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has granted residency on a three-year system, the child is not entitled to a third level grant. In practice the fact of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform advising the Department of Education and Science removes from the child the right to third level education. These are contradictions that should be addressed by the interdepartmental committee.

The question of the 2005 United Nations summit statement on human rights protection is for a bigger day. The aid side of it is particularly affected here. If ever I have changed my position very much in respect of definitions of some aspects of international policy, I strongly believe that sovereignty should not be used as a shield to stop human rights protection. If we have learned anything, we should learn that, regardless of whether we are talking about Darfur, Burma or Zimbabwe. The time has come to grasp the nettle in respect of human rights protection. It is completely different from human rights intervention, which has an inglorious record of abuse by colonial powers.

Another matter at which we might look relates to the invitations we get for assistance in governance in Africa. One of the responses by the Olof Palme Institute is for what is called party-based civic education. For example, the Olof Palme Institute is at a distance from the Swedish Social Democratic Party. What many people, for example, the opposition in Uganda, want is to be able to organise parties, not just in respect of participation in politics. It is worth thinking about the experience in respect of some of these countries which have sponsored these institutes.

In respect of climate change, it is worth bearing in mind that the people who suffer most from desertification are often those in the poorest countries who, as the Minister of State correctly said, have not been responsible for it. The Minister of State mentioned this when he spoke about the four factors of natural disasters, rising food prices, climate change and poor governance. In respect of what happened in Chad and central Africa, I wish people would look at pastoral communities who have lost their animals and sell them as the last resort. I have argued for a long time for replacement of stock, which means that they can continue their way of life and start again after the attacks of drought.

I apologise for running on but I make all of these comments by way of being positive and supportive of Irish Aid. We should do this and fine tune everything that Irish Aid does, rather than anything else.

I recognise the work done by Irish Aid, the officials in the Departments, NGOs and the missionaries who have been abroad for a long time. We have been here for three hours, but I have a few questions for the Minister of State. Could he talk about the hunger task force because, obviously, world hunger is a serious problem? What impact is the production of bio-fuels having on the reduction in the availability of food? I know that drought is a major issue. In particular, rice, which is one of the basic foods in the developing world, is almost prohibitive in price. The other question relates to co-ordination with other aid agencies in the recipient country, for example, state agencies in those countries, the UN and other NGOs which are not necessarily Irish ones.

In respect of AIDS, I visited Ghana on one occasion. The state agency there was running an education programme for parents of children with AIDS. UNICEF was one mile up the road but neither knew of the other's existence in Accra. It seemed to me that duplication of that nature is very expensive in the developing world. What is in place to ensure that we are not duplicating anything that other agencies might do?

The Minister of State in his contribution talked about current challenges in managing a significant expansion of the programme while decentralising to Limerick. When a civil servant puts down the words "current challenges", for me it says that it is a complete mess. People in the sub-committee and committee have spoken about the decentralisation of Irish Aid. The way they have described it is that it is more like a decapitation. The decentralisation process in my constituency has been a complete joke.

Not decentralising the Ordnance Survey to my town will not cost any lives. The work will be done as efficiently in the Phoenix Park as it would be in Dungarvan. However, when one is dealing with this kind of budget and significance in respect of people's lives, the Minister of State must explain to me the current challenges. It is his constituency. How is this going? People have appeared before the sub-committee and expressed the view and concerns that this is not going very well. For the organisation as a whole, it has not been very productive.

Another matter I wished to raise was the question of who makes the decision as to where the money goes. The Minister of State indicated that when it comes to the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, he is adding an extra €20 million to his allocation. Who is the person within Irish Aid who makes that decision? What is the process that leads one up to the time when somebody ticks a box behind that €20 million and not the €20 million that was suggested for somewhere else?

It is quite an industry in Ireland these days. Plenty of people will apply for extra money and money for the first time. Can the Minister of State explain who determines the impact? I have his report from April 2008 on impact here. When it comes to impact and the bottom line in respect of the money being granted, what is the process and who are the two or three individuals who, ultimately, make that decision?

Would the Minister of State like to reply by way of answering questions in his closing statement? Deputy Higgins raised a point about smaller projects that occur and having some means of dealing with them. As one regularises, organises and gets everything into certain places, one ends up with nothing in any place. When something occurs, one can use one's ingenuity to find a way some of the time. However, we should not overlook the initiatives of people because one thing we want to encourage is initiative and where it can be provided for.

I have not really worked it out but we should have a comprehensive package for programme development countries so that when Irish Aid goes into one of the selected countries, be it Uganda or Ethiopia, we bring not just the immediate Irish Aid assistance, grants and workers but look at what we can do in total and the cross-cutting effect from the Departments here and bring that to bear on those countries. The kind of thing that comes to mind is that where we have education programmes we should have exchanges and some agreement about education with such a country. The Minister of State may be on his way to developing these agreements. I was involved in developing them with other countries like China and Malaysia and so on. These are the countries we are helping in particular. Having a comprehensive programme worked out that would bring other Departments and their resources into operation would be useful. In that context, Deputy Higgins made a valid point. If people from one of our programme countries come here to study they should not be considered to be outside the system in terms of their children's education. Such people are not going to be here in their millions. They come in relatively small numbers, or we bring them in, and we are prepared to give them the free education that is available in any of the 27 countries within the European Union.

There are schools which have 100 pupils in one classroom before lunch and another 100 in the same classroom after lunch with the same teacher. That is 200 pupils a day. I am aware that teachers from Ireland go to those countries but I suggest that Ireland should bring some of those teachers here for special training at primary, secondary and third level. Ireland operates exchange programmes with other EU countries. It should do something similar in the context of countries that come under Irish Aid's official development co-operation programme. That would include exchanges in terms of business and trade, experts, research and development and advice. I am aware that Cork university was involved in water management projects and so on. That work should be done not just by Irish Aid but by the Government as a whole. That should apply also in the welfare area. Community development projects here were very successful, particularly the projects for women. Irish Aid carries out similar work in some of these countries in individual areas and it is significantly helpful to the people at the very bottom. It obviously applies to public administration. It should also embrace the issues mentioned by Deputy Higgins in terms of people who come here being charged the full economic cost for education. We should help them to get through their courses while they are here.

The committee deeply appreciates the work Irish Aid does and the great strides it makes. We understand the pressure it is under. We also very much appreciate the excellent service and assistance it has given to the committee, for which we extend our thanks. Our work with Irish Aid is particularly helpful and constructive and very valuable. I hope that fact is not lost in the course of the discussion of the Estimate.

I invite the Minister to make his concluding statement.

Thank you, Chairman. I and my officials and everybody in the Department appreciate your kind words. We appreciate the interaction the officials in Irish Aid have with the committee. The information gleaned by the committee in its travels is important because we are dealing with a global and not merely an Irish issue. The committee has a very important role to play.

There are quite a number of questions. There is one with which I would like to deal initially. It has been raised in different ways by members but primarily by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. It relates to the issue of world food prices and, I would go so far as to say, the world food crisis which is ongoing and developing. I want to raise this, and I am not forgetting the other questions, because the crisis which is developing has the capacity, of itself, to undermine the whole global aid effort. I hope I am not overstating it by saying that. However, if we are pumping in billions of euro — the EU contributed €70 billion last year and Ireland contributed almost €1 billion — all that aid could be dissipated if the poorest of the poor, particularly in Africa, but not exclusively in Africa, cannot afford to put food on the table. As members know, up to 50% of the income of the world's poor is usually spent on food. Problems of food shortages and food security — and members understand the distinction — can, therefore, undermine the global aid effort. That is a very real problem with which we must deal. That is why I want to address the issue.

I want to make one point. My concern is in regard to US aid and EU aid. EU aid is 48% of the global contribution.

My concern is that the present crisis will be used for an imposition of genetically modified product in Africa.

The issue of food supply and security is not that narrow. We are dealing with world resources here. We are also having a parallel debate on fuel security. Ten or 20 years ago we did not think we would have a debate about world food security when we talked about food mountains in Europe and other places around the world and dumping on the world markets. Now we have a situation where China and India are moving towards hoarding resources and where people living in the urban areas of the huge cities of the world, not exclusively in Africa but also in South America, are suffering most in terms of food shortages and food security. We have already seen the social effects of that in terms of food rioting. We cannot under estimate the potential that has in terms of world social order. The issues with which we are dealing are very wide. What are the causes of it? Clearly increasing population and decreasing resources around the world is a tension that must be reconciled. That will be an ongoing problem. Natural disasters are contributing to it and that is sparked by climate change and global warming.

Deputy Timmins raised the issue of bio-fuels and the impact they will have. While they have an impact, it is not as significant as some of the other issues. The major issue is the significant increase in the population of the world which continues, and the changing food habits of some of the biggest countries in the world, particularly China and India which are changing the way they eat and retaining and looking for different foodstuffs.

There is a short-term and a long-term issue here. The short-term one, and this is in line with the statement we made at the outset, is to make sure that people do not go hungry in the short term. That means providing food aid. In the longer term, food security, aid issues and trade issues and the connection between them are crucially important. For our part, in so far as we can have an impact on all these issues, I would like to see Irish Aid concentrating more on the agricultural side. We spend 10% of our funding on agricultural issues, which is above the international norm of 4%. I would like to see further concentration on that to ensure that these countries, challenged though they are in terms of their ability to deliver food crops, are allowed to use their potential to the maximum by increasing aid in that area. I am talking about scientific aid, research aid and so on. I take the point that the problem of food shortages and food security is the issue. It highlights that the setting up of the hunger task force was timely and pre-emptive. Perhaps the fact that Ireland has suffered in the past in the same way as some of these countries have suffered and will suffer in the future enabled us to foresee these issues coming down the line. Perhaps our national psyche gives us an insight into these issues. I look forward to the hunger task force coming forward and perhaps, with the agreement of the committee, we could discuss the issue. Food security and supply is the main issue for global aid and development agencies.

Deputy Higgins referred to the human rights aspect of the portfolio. In reply to Deputy Shatter, I do not get to choose its various aspects, nor do I get to choose my portfolio. Sin scéal eile. We must adopt a human rights approach. Unless we accept that the basis of our programme is a right to life, nutrition and shelter, we are going nowhere.

I agree with the Deputy's analysis of the differences of terrain and circumstances. Mozambique has a very different terrain from that in Uganda and Malawi in respect of agriculture, climate and seasons. The issue of governance does not arise in Mozambique where one cannot guarantee anything. In other countries investing in good governance can lead to good outcomes. This addresses the Deputy's questions on diversity in Malawi and Uganda.

No Minister of State in any Department would disagree with the Deputy's points on understaffing and the need for greater staff numbers. My brief experience shows me that what it lacks in numbers, the Department makes up for in the morale and passion the staff bring to the mission. They are second to none and believe they are contributing in a major way. We will seek additional staff. This will be considered in the management review, the report on which will be issued in the next month. It will be made available for discussion.

The Department is due a lot of staff under the previous review.

I have not had an opportunity to examine the previous review but we can undertake a comparative analysis. In terms of the overall budget, the Department deserves a greater number of staff. We need staff for oversight and audit activities. We deserve to know that the vastly increased funds are being delivered effectively and with appropriate oversight. My submission to the management review makes this point forcefully.

I hope I answered Deputy O'Hanlon's question with reference to the hunger task force which is due to report. We look forward to its report in the context of Deputy Higgins's question.

Deputy Deasy made points on Burma during the earlier part of the meeting, or perhaps it was Deputy Shatter. I answered the Deputy's point on the importance of getting the message.

The Minister of State has got the idea and I thank him for his response. Perhaps we obtained an understanding of how dubious and suspect arguments can be spectacularly successful in the past three weeks. As economic conditions worsen, as may be the case in the next few years, one must continually justify to middle Ireland why €1.5 billion is being spent on these programmes. My opinion and that of my party is that we must maintain the funding but that we must do more than the programme presented by Liz O'Donnell and the interpretative centre on O'Connell Street.

All I can say is that I agree with the Deputy and that I have identified the issue involved. I am working on it today to see if we can deal with it. We depend on the goodwill and confidence of the people in respect of the aid effort. We cannot take it for granted.

The Deputy's major question is related to who makes decisions and how they are made. Ultimately, as in every Department, the Minister makes the broad policy choices in conjunction with the overall management committee. This week I signed off on micro-projects to a value of €20,000, while at the same time working on the broad policy objectives of the Department and deciding whether money should go to civil society, agriculture, bilateral aid to programme countries, aid support, education and health or governance programmes. In that respect, governance systems do not build bridges, lay pipelines or feed people but give skills to countries to ensure aid is delivered in a transparent and accountable way. The Minister of State, in conjunction with the Minister, makes broad policy choices.

What is the layer under the Minister of State? Do officials such as Mr. Ronan Murphy of Irish Aid and Mr. Brendan Rogers make recommendations?

The programme countries, Timor L'Este, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique, Tanzania, Lesotho and Malawi, are divided into two groups, with two counsellors or heads of division. They make proposals in respect of individual countries which are fed through senior management and the decision is ultimately taken by me. The civil society section, where we have diverted an increased proportion of resources through NGOs, is headed by a counsellor who reports to senior management and me and a decision is made. There are also internal corporate matters and micro-projects.

Some members referred to the spread of projects and how this could be reconciled with the overall aims of the aid project. I am excited by the micro-projects which can send a fabulous message to young people, to inculcate in them a spirit of voluntarism and philanthropy. We depend on young people who give us their tax euros to fund projects. If these micro-aid projects affect a small proportion of young people and they become big business people and divert a large proportion of wealth to Irish Aid under the American model, this can be important.

The Minister of State has indicated a change in how Irish Aid will spend its money, stating he wants to see more money for agricultural programmes. This is the first I have heard of it from within the organisation. Is this coming from management of Irish Aid or is it the view of the Minister of State?

I would not like to signal that a decision has been made. I have been thinking about the matter in recent weeks. Today I discussed it with senior officials and it is one we should examine as we approach 2009 and decide where our priorities lie. I made the point because of Deputy Higgins's question. Food is becoming the major aid issue globally and diverting resources to agriculture is one way of dealing with it. This problem cannot be solved by any one country. It must be solved in collaboration with the United Nations.

Does the Minister of State accept that the 2007 report of the World Bank acknowledges its neglect of agriculture?

Some 85% of the people in most of the countries in question depend on agriculture.

For this reason we discussed smaller schemes such as water management projects and so on. The Minister of State is saying it is a matter for consideration.

I will add to my question on decentralisation. After Deputy Higgins asked about potential understaffing within the Department, the Minister of State mentioned that he was concerned about staffing levels.

I did not say I had a concern. I stated that, like anyone else in the Department, I would welcome more staff.

That was not my point. When discussing the issue of oversight and the audit section, the Minister of State expressed his concern that there was an insufficient number of staff.

I did not say I had a concern. I referred to our aid programme increasing in line with our commitments. A few years ago the programme cost €200 million. Currently, it costs almost €1 billion and we are still aiming significantly higher.

It needs to be improved.

It stands to reason that the relevant area of the Department needs additional resources. We have asked Farrell Grant Sparks to undertake a management review. I expect it will point out how important it is to underpin the programme's efficacy and maintain public confidence in the system. Given the considerable increases in funding, aid should not be given to a project for which there are improper audit and oversight processes, as it would set a bad example. We must ensure increases in aid are matched by increases in oversight and audit processes. That was my only point. I do not have concerns. The level of auditing is commensurate with the amount of funds allocated. There is a good level of internal auditing and there are professional audits in all of the programme countries. The aid programme is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and an external audit group which is independent of the Department oversees our audit systems. I am satisfied that the systems in place are robust, but they must be continually evaluated because the activities of the Department have been expanding rapidly in recent years.

A certain level of management control and auditing must be reached because, instead of looking for higher levels, a solid level would enable us to do more confidently. The committee has visited projects in Uganda and elsewhere and the Department's personnel on the ground were conducting audits every month. They ensured money went where it was supposed to go and, for example, building took place. Maintaining good control systems in place allows one to do a great deal of the desired development work with satisfaction. The projects we visited were closely followed through, particularly by staff on the ground.

That is my impression. I shall answer the Chairman's question on the need for a comprehensive package. If I am correct in interpreting his comments, he referred to the need for a more holistic departmental approach towards countries.

By all Departments.

Tomorrow I shall chair an interdepartmental committee on the matter to ensure a whole-of-government response. A significant proportion of the overall aid allocation is spent through Departments other than the Department of Foreign Affairs, primarily the Department of Finance via the World Bank. We need a whole-of-government response. This addresses Deputy Higgins's question in that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and, to a certain extent, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which deal with world trade issues must be cognisant of our approach to international development aid. If there is tension between Departments, the matter must be resolved at Government level.

The Minister of State said we should eliminate home-based contradictions such as that between integration policy and third level grants which affects the children of postgraduates who come to Ireland to study in our third level system.

I did not address another of Deputy Higgins's points, but I will finish on this note.

Before the Minister of State moves on from his previous point, is the principle of Deputy Higgins's point that in our agreements with other countries we should make facilities available similar to those we make available in programme countries?

I understand. At a prior meeting Deputy Higgins suggested offering internships. I am pleased to report that this week I signed off on a strategy to address the issue in order that people can be brought in. I am not in a position to give the precise details, but I will send the Deputy a note as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister of State.

Matching academic and practical experience is an excellent idea for which there is scope.

I thank the Minister of State. Still they gazed and still the wonder grew how one new Minister of State could pick up so much in such a short time. We wish him well in his work.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending and being helpful to members in their contributions and questions.

Barr
Roinn