Billy Timmins
Ceist:6 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when EU accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria will be signed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13484/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraEU Treaties.
Ceisteanna (6)
Freagraí ó Béal (8 píosaí cainte)
Signature of the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union took place in the margins of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 25 April in Luxembourg. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I signed the treaty on behalf of Ireland. Ireland warmly welcomes the prospective accession of our two new partners. We will open embassies in both countries later this year.
The treaty now falls to be ratified by Ireland and by all the other signatories before the planned accession date of 1 January 2007. For previous accessions, ratification has involved a motion in the Oireachtas and an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. Ratification can be expected on this occasion to follow a similar procedure. Bulgaria and Romania are entitled, since signature of the treaty on 25 April, to take their seats as active observers at nearly all EU meetings and did so at the meeting of European affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Tuesday, 26 April 2005.
Have discussions taken place with the Bulgarian authorities in regard to suggested moneylaundering by Bulgarian financial institutions which are often linked to the Government there? Since the Irish Government said it was exploring and following up the question ofmoneylaundering in Bulgaria, what discussions have taken place with the Bulgarian authorities? The accession of Bulgaria is linked to the elimination of corruption and the proper accountability of its financial institutions.
It is a pity Deputy Ó Snodaigh has left. He could have enlightened us.
As I said, these countries only the signed the Treaty of Accession at 6 p.m. last Monday and they attended their first meeting of European affairs ministers last Tuesday. No opportunity has presented itself to have any bilateral discussions with Bulgaria on this situation. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in the House in the past week that this investigation is ongoing and will continue until further information becomes available.
Does the Minister of State agree all these discussions and clarifications should have taken place before Bulgaria signed the treaty and not afterwards?
Bulgaria and Romania have come through 35 chapters of European Union accreditation. That is very important. This situation only arose at Christmas. Based on that, it would be very unfair of Ireland to place an obstruction in the way of sovereign countries which want to join the European Union and which have met the necessary requirements and signed up to them. On that basis and given the work we are doing, this matter can be handled by Ireland through its agencies and in consultation with the Bulgarians on a bilateral basis rather than at European level.
On the accession treaty with Romania, will the Minister of State and the Government raise the disgraceful treatment of the gypsy population in Romania? It has suffered blatant discrimination and human rights abuses over the past 20 to 30 years. Even in this country, the Romanian population seems to be targeted by sections of society. Will the Minister of State raise these concerns at EU level and ensure ethnic minorities and human rights in EU countries are respected?
Is the Minister of State aware that not so long ago with the rise of Nazism and during the Second World War, thousands of people with disabilities and gypsies were exterminated in addition to the Jews? We must be ever vigilant and on our guard. Will the Minister of State raise these issues when dealing with these types of treaties?
I very much concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Finian McGrath. Thankfully, Europe has come a long way since the events and atrocities to which he referred. These issues were raised with the Romanians during negotiations at EU level. I presume they will continue to be highlighted in the period before Romania becomes a full member of the EU. I assure the Deputy I will pursue this matter at every opportunity through the Department and bilaterally.
Human Rights Issues.
Ceisteanna (7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Kathleen Lynch
Ceist:7 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the European Union should be present at Asia Regional Forum and ASEAN post-ministerial meetings if Burma chairs ASEAN in 2006 and an unaccountable Government is at that time in place in Burma. [13554/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:24 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the detention of a person (details supplied) in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13505/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraKathleen Lynch
Ceist:29 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s and the European Union’s position on the military junta in place in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13553/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
John Deasy
Ceist:67 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the European Union will explicitly state that it will not accept the outcome of the current national convention convened by the ruling State Peace and Development Council in Burma unless it meets minimum democratic standards and that it will not attend the Asia Regional Forum and ASEAN post-ministerial meetings if Burma chairs those meetings in 2006 unless an accountable Government is in place. [13470/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:74 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meeting with the Director of the European Office for the Development of Democracy in Burma, Harn Yawnghwe. [13565/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (10 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 24, 29, 67 and 74 together.
The Government has consistently condemned the lack of progress towards democracy in Burma and the continuing abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country. Together with our EU partners, we remain gravely concerned about the continuing house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, other opposition activists and a number of MPs elected in 1990.
On 2 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a statement condemning the decision of the Burmese Government to extend the detention under house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi for another year. The Minister also called on the Burmese authorities to allow the special envoy of the Secretary General, Razali Ismail, to travel to Burma at the earliest opportunity, including for the purpose of visiting Aung San Suu Kyi. The EU Presidency issued a similar statement on 10 December 2004.
On 2 March 2005, the Minister for Foreign Affairs met Harn Yawnghwe, Director of the European Office for the Development of Democracy in Burma, which is a joint project of the European Commission and the Olaf Palme International Centre of Sweden. Mr. Yawnghwe was accompanied by members of Burma Action Ireland. The meeting provided a useful opportunity to reiterate the Government's position in support of democracy, human rights and national reconciliation in Burma and also to detail Ireland's response to the impact in that country of the recent tsunami. The discussions also looked forward to the EU-ASEAN foreign ministers meeting scheduled for later that month.
I represented Ireland at this meeting which was held in Jakarta from 10 to 11 March 2005. The meeting included a frank exchange of views on the situation in Burma. Together with my EU colleagues, I was the first speaker to call for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the re-opening of all National League for Democracy offices and the full involvement of all opposition parties and ethnic groups in the work of the National Convention which had resumed deliberations on 17 February 2005 but without participation by the opposition. Ireland and our EU partners again urged Burma to allow full access to the special representative of the UN Secretary General who last visited that country in March 2004.
Unfortunately, the National Convention, in the absence of the main opposition, lacked credibility and it was adjourned on 31 March 2005 by the Burmese authorities to an unspecified date in the autumn. On 14 April 2005, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed without a vote a resolution introduced by the EU and co-sponsored by Ireland criticising systematic violation of human rights in Burma, calling for the restoration of democracy and freedom for all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. When the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, met the Burmese Prime Minister, Than Shwe, during the Asia-Africa summit in Jakarta on 23 April 2005, he repeated the concern of the international community about the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and the need for democratic reform.
In response to the lack of progress in Burma, on 25 April 2005, the General Affairs and External Relations Council agreed to extend the EU Common Position on Burma for a further 12 months. The Common Position includes a visa ban on named senior members of the Burmese regime and members of their families aged over 18 years as well as a freeze on all their financial assets in the European Union. It also prohibits EU-registered companies from financing loans to named Burmese state-owned enterprises. The forthcoming ASEM, Asia-Europe foreign ministers' meeting, which is scheduled for 6 to 7 May 2005 in Kyoto, will provide an early opportunity to reiterate EU concerns about the situation in Burma to the Burmese authorities and their Asian neighbours.
While the members of ASEAN generally defend the principle of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, concern that the rotating chairmanship of the organisation is due to be held by Burma in 2006 has been growing among a number of its members. The ASEAN foreign ministers held an informal meeting in the Philippines on 11 and 12 April and agreed to defer a decision on this issue until their formal ministerial meeting in Laos in July. On 20 April 2005, the Philippines Senate unanimously approved a resolution that Burma should not assume the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006 unless there had been an improvement in the human rights situation, including the freeing of Aung San Suu Kyi. Ireland and our EU partners, however, wish to see Burma's neighbours pressing much more strongly for progress towards democracy in that country.
The EU will now await the outcome of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Laos in July before taking a decision on the question of the Union's presence or otherwise at the Asia Regional Forum and ASEAN post-ministerial meetings during 2006. We are aware that the United States indicated last year that it would not attend ASEAN-related meetings with Burma in the chair. However, it is appropriate in the context of EU-ASEAN relations to allow for further discussion of this issue in ASEAN before coming to a decision on the EU's position. Regarding the outcome of the National Convention, now standing adjourned once more, it is clear that an eventual outcome falling short of minimum democratic standards would not be acceptable to Ireland or the EU.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. As he attended the meeting in Jakarta, can he indicate the response of the Burmese delegation to the intervention he made?
The response was robust, defensive, protectionist and to the effect that it did not like interference by another state in its internal affairs. However, we were strong. I have a personal interest in this issue. I was pleased to be there. As one of the earlier speakers, on behalf of Ireland, I made a strong case for our demands. I was pleased there was a strong and solid cohesive response from my fellow colleagues in the European Union supporting our stance.
In view of the fact that ASEAN will be virtually chaired by a military junta, does the Minister of State consider that the EU action will be compromised by the fact that France is threatening to veto any proposal to boycott the meetings under the chairmanship of Burma? Total, a French oil company, has massive investment in Burma and France wants to protect that investment. Will the Minister of State assure the House that policy towards Burma will not be dictated by French self-interest?
There are many countries across the world that have commercial interests in countries in different parts of the world, particularly in areas where there is terrorism, discrimination and a lack of basic human rights. However, I am optimistic in this regard as a result of the decision taken by at least one country to call on Burma not to chair the summit later this year. We did not expect that. There was a united effort from all the adjoining countries to Burma to protect the rights of the Burmese nation from interference by outside interests or countries. As a result of the change that has taken place since the meeting I attended in Jakarta, I am reasonably optimistic there will be considerable pressure on Burma in this respect and that it might have to review its position vis-a-vis its chairmanship of the summit.
The European Union and Ireland, will be guided by our commitment to human rights and democracy. I am confident that a collective decision will be a positive one towards which we can work. Irrespective of the position any member state of the Union takes, a majority view will always guide what is best in the common good of the global world.
Why did the European Union and Ireland allow Burma to join ASEAN last year, despite the fact that it had not made progress on democracy, human rights and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi? Why did the Government permit that to happen? Is it not the case that the Government was sending a signal that we were really going by the Chinese agenda of not including human rights as an issue?
Ireland and the European Union will be guided by the principle of inclusion and dialogue and exerting pressure internally rather than external communication that would not have a major impact. On that basis, it was considered it would be preferable to try to bring these people to the table, get them to see their ways and get them to accept the consensus and the demand not only from Ireland and the European Union but from the greater global world that they change and adhere to total democratic means. That is what guided the approach of Ireland and the European Union at that time.
There were no commercial reasons behind it?
Certainly not from an Irish point of view.
However, there was from a French point of view.
EU Constitution.
Ceisteanna (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Michael Noonan
Ceist:8 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has held discussions with his counterparts in other countries in which referenda on the EU constitution will take place regarding their approach to informing the public on the content of the document; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13514/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Olwyn Enright
Ceist:17 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps being taken to enhance public knowledge of the new EU constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13513/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraJohn Gormley
Ceist:55 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the proposed amendments to Article 29o of the Constitution to allow the State to ratify the EU constitution will be published; if there will be any provision in the amendment for Ireland to join closer defence co-operation in the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13675/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Ciarán Cuffe
Ceist:76 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the White Paper on the new EU constitution will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13680/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraBernard Allen
Ceist:86 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the date of the referendum on the EU constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13503/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Gerard Murphy
Ceist:89 Mr. G. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when his Department will publish the necessary legislation to enable the referendum on the EU constitution to take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13504/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (12 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 17, 55, 76, 86 and 89 together.
As the House will be aware, the target date for the entry into force of the European constitution, following ratification by all 25 member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, is 1 November 2006.
Ratification by Ireland will require a referendum to amend the Irish Constitution. The Government has not yet taken a decision on the timing of the referendum. However, preparatory work on the wording of the necessary amendment is well advanced, including on the question of whether it would include any decision on whether Ireland would participate in permanent structured co-operation in the security and defence area in the list of matters that would require prior approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is the Government's intention to publish the Bill to amend the Constitution shortly. As the Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have consistently said, we want the fullest possible debate on the European constitution throughout the country.
Publication of the Referendum Bill will allow for establishment of the Referendum Commission. The Government is committed to giving the commission the time and the resources it needs to perform its dual functions of informing the public and encouraging voter turn-out. In addition, the Government intends in June to publish a White Paper on the European constitution, and at a later date will circulate a short information guide to all households. These publications will supplement the explanatory guide issued last October.
However, as we all know, active debate, involving not only politicians but other public figures and interest groups, is the most important means of stimulating public interest and awareness. I welcome the contribution being made by all those participating in the National Forum on Europe and elsewhere, and I encourage all politicians at every level of representation to get involved in the debate now. I also encourage and appeal to the media to accelerate reporting on the EU constitution and to debate on it at every level.
In relation to contact with partners, the Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs and I regularly discuss the ratification process and public information efforts with our colleagues from other member states, and our embassies also report regularly to us. However, there is no formal co-ordination arrangement. It is for each member state to decide individually, according to its constitutional requirements and political conditions, how best to proceed to ratify the European constitution.
I welcome the Minister of State's information that the legislation will be published shortly. I urge that all Stages of this legislation would pass through this House before the summer recess. I urge also that the referendum be held as early as possible in the autumn in late October or November before the influence of members of the British media when they turn their attention to a referendum post the general election.
How will the Government's plans be influenced by the outcome of the referendum in France? If the outcome is as the polls suggest, will the Government proceed with a referendum in the autumn?
I made it clear at the end of my reply that it is a matter for each member state to take into account its legal and constitutional position and make it own decision. That is what Ireland will do. There are still four weeks remaining before the referendum will be held in France. I am optimistic about the outcome of the referendum, given the central role France has played in the European Union since the days of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community. It gave Ireland and others an opportunity to join the Community at an early stage in the development of the Union. The leadership it has given has been central, and it has been a key pillar in the success of the Union over the years. When the French people take into account their history and contribution and the fact that there is a strong bond across the Europe that is critically important for the future of the Union to be effective, efficient and to be managed in a professional way, they may give a resounding result in favour of the constitution. We are optimistic about that. There is still more than a month remaining before the referendum will be held.
How much will the Minister of State bet on that?
Like a Cork person, I do not have such resources.
The Minister of State has addressed my question in other fora, including at the European Affairs committee. On the question of circulating a copy of the constitution to every household, the current intention appears to be to make the documentation available and if anyone asks for a copy of it, I presume it will be sent to them free of charge. I am aware that the logistics of the document in terms of physical delivery are somewhat intimidatory. I have seen a French copy which is in the form of a magazine. It is similar to a thick version of The Economist magazine, which is much lighter and easier.
Given that many people will attempt to scare the Irish electorate into saying that in protocol X or protocol Y there is this or that reference, and because the document is an integrated holistic one, unlike the Nice treaty which was impenetrable to read because it crisscrossed references to other treaties and one would need the other four treaties to comprehend it, will the Minister of State consider the circulation of a copy of the constitution in a lighter format? For example, if someone says that Irish divorce law could be altered or changed as a result of harmonisation, being able to access the treaty in one's home to have reassurance in these areas where national competences are supreme has a great deal of merit. Whereas my view previously was similar to that of the Minister of State, I am beginning to change my view on the matter.
Irrespective of what happens in any other country, this country should commit itself to the ratification process. To suggest that we would stop our ratification process because of any country, big or small, not ratifying would be to imply that they effectively had a veto over the process. This would be contrary to the spirit of the European project.
I am mindful of what Deputy Quinn has said. While other colleagues spoke about circulating copies of the constitution to households throughout the country, it is a document of 500 pages. We have given much thought to this. We have published some documentation on the website and we will publish more. There is a lo-call facility for the public who can request to have the constitution posted to them. We are considering past referenda where documentation was available and where the requirement from the public was very scant in their desire to procure that documentation. Last Friday evening, at the National Forum on Europe meeting, Proinsias de Rossa MEP presented me with a copy of the French magazine about the constitution, for which I was grateful. I have asked the officials in my Department to consider the feasibility of how we could amend our constitution so that it will be similar to that which was published in France. I await the response on this. We will do our utmost to get the information out to the maximum number of people.
I want to confirm what Deputy Quinn said in regard to divorce laws and so on. The European constitution has no relevance or role in this area; it is a matter for Ireland and our own laws. The only power the European Union has is the power we give it as a sovereign State by way of referendum. These are contained de facto within the constitution.
Given that the Minister of State welcomes discussion and debate on the European constitution, why have the proposed amendments to Article 29 of the Irish Constitution been circulated to the Labour and Fine Gael parties but not to other parties in this House?
We are very anxious to be involved with all the parties in these discussions. During all referenda, we have had discussions with both the Fine Gael and Labour parties as pro-European parties to decide the best consensual way to proceed. It would be an invasion of Government into the Deputy's party's affairs in view of the debate he publicly announced is going on within his party. When he has reached a conclusion, we will have no difficulty holding bilateral meetings with him.
With respect, it would add to our discussion and debate if the Minister of State gave us the document. We have it in our possession but it does not help matters nor inspire confidence when we find that parties are talking to each other but not necessarily to other parties. If the Minister of State wants openness, debate, transparency and so on, will he ensure that any relevant documentation is properly circulated in the future?
I hope the Minister of State is in favour of political inclusion rather than political exclusion. Does he share my concerns that there is currently a lack of interest and understanding among many citizens in regard to the proposed EU constitution? I would like a "Yes" or "No" answer to my next question because I am hearing different messages from different quarters. Will the EU constitution create a federal state? What will happen if the referendum falls in France? Does the Minister of State share the view expressed by the EU Convention President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, when he presented the final draft of the EU constitution on 30 June 2003? He said that we have sown a seed. Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with legal entity, a single currency, common justice and a Europe which is about to have its own defence. Does the Minister of State share these views?
The categoric answer to the Deputy's question on whether the EU constitution will create a federal state is "Absolutely no".
On Deputy Gormley's point, I am amazed that he has documentation such as this so easily available. I thought it was a private document. I am pleased there is collaboration and communication across the membership of the House to ensure there is inclusivity.
In reply to Deputy McGrath, I am committed to inclusivity. As a party and as a Government, we have a personal, political and legal duty to respect the right of every person who is elected at whatever level. Once they get a mandate from the people, they have a right to be consulted and listened to. We felt it would be unfair to invade the privacy of Deputy Gormley's party in the debate it was having. We admire the debate which is taking place in his party.
I pay tribute to Deputy Gormley, Deputy Carey, Proinsias de Rossa, MEP, his excellency, Ambassador Bruton, and all those who represented Ireland at Convention level. They did an outstanding job for this country. Never before in the history of Europe did a small country like Ireland get such an opportunity to fashion the future constitutional requirements of the people of Europe. We held the Presidency of Europe, in which the Taoiseach led the conclusions to that debate professionally, politically and well. It was a great Irish team with outstanding diplomats working hard on a constant collaborative basis to get the best consensus for the future of Europe. Ireland played a major role and it behoves us all to ensure that we convey that message and the facts within the constitution to the people so that a small country which has played such a key role in Europe over the years and has gained so much from it can continue to fashion and lead Europe in the future. We have many friends of like mind in other member states, some of whom joined recently and many of whom have been there from the beginning.
Overseas Development Aid.
Ceisteanna (18)
John Gormley
Ceist:9 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the analysis contained in the World Bank and IMF report on the millennium development goals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13676/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (42 píosaí cainte)
I assume the Deputy is referring to the global monitoring report, which is subtitled From Consensus to Momentum, prepared by the staff of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Ireland attaches the greatest importance to the achievement of the eight millennium development goals, MDGs. I welcome the analysis in the global monitoring report as a valuable contribution to the preparations for the UN high level meeting next September which will review progress towards these goals.
The report's emphasis on putting country-owned and country-led poverty reduction strategies at the centre of all efforts to achieve the MDGs is very much in line with our approach to development co-operation. Every country is responsible for its development and the welfare and well-being of its citizens. I share the concern expressed in the report about the prospects for achieving the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa and agree that more will have to be done by developing and developed countries to achieve them.
Ireland's development co-operation programme has its chief focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Some 85% of our bilateral programme country assistance is spent in the least developed countries of sub-Saharan Africa. It is our intention to maintain this focus and expand our assistance to the region as the aid programme grows in the years ahead. I agree with the analysis of the report that macro-economic stability remains critical, as does the need to strengthen public sector financial management and to promote good governance and the rule of law to create an enabling environment for investment. The report also stresses the need to scale up education, health and basic infrastructure services, such as water and sanitation facilities, a process which has to be integrated into country-led national programmes and systems.
I welcome the balanced approach in the report, which sets out the responsibilities of donor nations to fulfil their commitment to the 0.7% UN target for ODA, together with the responsibilities of partner governments and organisations to utilise additional resources to the best advantage. Efforts to increase levels of ODA allocated to developing countries must be firmly linked with efforts to improve its quality.
The Government remains strongly committed to achieving the UN target for expenditure on ODA. The issue of how best to meet the target, and in what timeframe, is still under consideration. I have launched a consultative process that will lead to a White Paper on development co-operation and I look forward to receiving views from interested groups and members of the public on this and other issues.
The global monitoring report should be read in conjunction with the UN millennium project report, prepared under the direction of Professor Jeffrey Sachs and, in particular, with Secretary General Kofi Annan's own report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights for All. In his report, the UN Secretary General has put forward a carefully crafted package of policy commitments and institutional reforms that the world's leaders could adopt in September. These proposals deal with issues of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, genocide and civil war, as well as extreme poverty, endemic disease and climate change.
It is important in the lead-up to September that work on all of these reports progresses in a coherent way and that member states adopt a coherent approach to the issues at the various international fora at which their representatives will meet.
The Minister of State spoke about the consultative process that will result in a White Paper. In this regard, how does he react to the statement by his parliamentary colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, that she disagrees fundamentally with his approach? Is the Government divided on this issue?
What is the Minister of State's response to the call by the World Bank and IMF for a sharp increase in aid and debt relief? Will he confirm that 35 Irish aid and development agencies have written to the Taoiseach calling for a major increase in aid and for the Government to announce a multi-annual plan setting out how the UN target of 0.7% of GNP will be reached? Will he confirm that the umbrella group for these agencies, Dóchas, has said that, based on the existing spending plan, the Government will not achieve this target until 2028? This will be 13 years after the date set for reaching the millennium goals and 21 years after the date on which the Taoiseach promised the UN that Ireland would meet the targets.
I understand the Minister of State is saying we will reach the targets by 2012. How can he reconcile all the estimates? It is clear from the experts that he does not have a hope in hell of reaching the targets.
I obviously disagree with the Deputy's last statement. However, in deference to the fact that he will not have much time to respond to my comments, I will answer his questions seriatim and in a rather quick-fire manner.
I clearly do not agree with Deputy O'Donnell because I started the White Paper process. We have had two meetings already, one in Limerick and the other in Waterford. It is a very healthy process. Unlike Deputy O'Donnell, I believe in consulting the public on what is a major area of Government policy, namely, overseas development aid. Ireland is now one of the top ten per capita contributors of overseas development aid in the world and it behoves us to consult the people rather than being so arrogant as to believe the people do not count and should not be involved in a consultative process. DeputyGormley probably agrees with me rather than Deputy O’Donnell on this matter.
The Minister of State should not assume anything.
There is nothing wrong with consulting the public on an issue as important as that of overseas development aid.
I support the aid agencies.
I agree with Deputy Gormley on aid and debt relief. We need to be more involved and I hope that in the next few weeks we will be signalling our financial support for a UK-led initiative in that regard. Thus, indebted countries can be given greater financial assistance to lower their debts and allow them to make economic progress.
I agree totally with the request by the 35 NGOs for a multi-annual plan. I am working on this at present with the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance. I suppose I will ultimately have to put the matter to the Cabinet in terms of devising a realistic and achievable timeframe within which we can achieve the target of 0.7% of GNP. "Realistic and achievable" is the key phrase I have always used regarding this subject. Now that we have missed the 2007 deadline, and clearly admitted this, we should set a timeframe that is realistic and achievable. This will comprise our work over the coming months. I certainly hope we will complete this work before July, after which we can travel safely and securely to the UN event in New York, clear in our view that we will achieve the target within an established timeframe.
I do not wish to comment on Dóchas's view that we will not meet the target until 2028. It is clear that its dates and timeframes are at variance with mine. We have made an absolute commitment to achieving these goals by 2015 in line with Kofi Annan's demand——
Is it not 2012?
——that all developed western countries do so. I am not of the same view as Dóchas on this matter. I want to achieve the target before 2015 and not by 2028.
Does the Minister of State agree that anybody with a little intelligence will realise the White Paper is only a fig leaf to disguise the betrayal on the part of the Government regarding the promises the Taoiseach made at the UN summit? Does he agree that the commitment to establishing a target date by July is only a way of shielding the Taoiseach against the anger he will encounter when he returns to the scene of the crime at the summit in New York in September? Does he agree that it is an insult to the NGOs to suggest, as he did on numerous occasions, that even if the Government had attained its target of 0.7%——
That is simply incorrect. I never stated that. You have alleged that at the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Will you please let me finish?
At that committee I stated it was not the case. I do not know why the Deputy is persisting with this line of questioning.
I have listened to you waffling all day and heard you waffling yesterday. You cannot decide that it was a betrayal——
The Minister of State and Deputy Allen should speak through the Chair. Otherwise, I will move on to the next question.
All I am saying is that the White Paper is just a fig leaf. The suggestion that the timeframe will be announced by July is only a way of safeguarding the Taoiseach when he returns to New York.
Before I was interrupted, I was asking whether the Minister of State will concede that his assertion that the NGOs could not spend in acapable way——
I never made such an assertion.
He did, in this House. He stated they could not spend the money if they were granted it. This was an insult to the organisations and the volunteers working with them.
I will be very brief. The answer is "No" to all five questions asked by Deputy Allen. There is no point adding anything further. The answer is "No" to the question on the fig leaf, "No" to the question on shielding the Taoiseach, "No" to the question on the issue he raised at the Committee on Foreign Affairs and "No" to the question on the NGOs and capacity.
The Government and the Fianna Fáil Party in particular owe the nation an apology over the way in which they used our name to promise the target would be met in order to win a seat at the Security Council. The Government can make whatever promises it likes under the banner of Fianna Fáil, but not in our name. This is why there is so much anger.
Rather than producing a White Paper, which is a bit of a fig leaf operation——
Deputy Quinn does not believe in consulting the people either. He should not be included in Sandymount.
No. I will tell the Deputy what I believe and what I suggest he should do. The credibility of his exercise would be enhanced immeasurably if, as with our commitment to the National Pensions Reserve Fund, he committed, by way of legislation, to reaching the goal by a particular time. In this way, he and his successors would no longer be subject to the vagaries of the Department of Finance. This House and the Minister for Finance have no discretion regarding the requirement to put 1% of GDP per annum into the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Such a legislative provision is required to restore credibility regarding overseas development aid. The Minister of State can nominate any year he likes, as close to 2007 as possible, but a legislative commitment would make it realistic. I welcome the consultation exercise with the electorate but it should focus on how best to spend the money, not on the amount.
I agree with the Deputy and that is the purpose of the White Paper. I take his comment as a backhanded compliment to me. Our overseas aid volumes have trebled since 1997 and are about to treble again if we achieve the 0.7% and that is why we must consult the public. The UK and the Nordic countries, some of which are the best donors of aid, produce White Papers on seven to ten year cycles.
The task force report was commissioned only two years ago.
My motivation for the paper in the first place is that Deputy Quinn's predecessor set a fine example by publishing the first ever White Paper on foreign policy. In admiration of that I decided to publish a White Paper on this issue. I do not believe it is necessary to legislate yet.
I would prefer to achieve the 0.7% target and lock it in then if necessary. There is a risk to legislating for this figure because if one does so one cannot increase it. I would like Ireland to be in a position to go beyond 0.7% and copy our friends in Scandinavia who give 1% and are increasing that figure.
Let us get to 0.7% first.
We would be happy with 0.7%.
I agree with the Minister of State's point on the importance of consultation. He said he hoped to reach 0.7% by 2015. We read in the media recently that the target was 2012. Which is it? Does the Minister of State accept that he has a direct responsibility to listen to the voices of the aid agencies?
Yes.
We have an international obligation to listen to them.
The problem is that the Minister of State constantly moves the development aid goalposts. That undermines his case.
He must be a footballer.
There is nothing to suggest that Dóchas has got its calculations wrong and that we will not reach the 0.7% until 2028 under current spending plans. Will the Minister of State tell us how he can do it otherwise? All that Dóchas and the aid agencies have said is true.
I agree with Deputy Finian McGrath that we must listen to the NGOs. They are our partners. Development Corporation Ireland provides significant funding to them. I listen to their voices almost every day, either on the telephone or in face to face meetings.
Does the Minister of State do anything else?
They are being attended to very well.
Are they heard?
Deputy Quinn's point is timely. Perhaps the Dóchas figures are correct on its own projections but my officials and I are engaged in putting down, with the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance, a step-by-step time frame within which we can achieve the figures. This I presume is what Deputy Gormley and the NGOs want.
If we are to achieve the figure sooner than the Dóchas date, 2028 and the UN date, 2015, we must provide more money or increase volumes of overseas aid assistance. That is the cornerstone of my point.
We should aim for 2012. To paraphrase our friend, Bono, we are leaders not laggards.
The Minister of State should not tempt fate.
We should not be laggards by waiting to achieve this by 2015, the deadline set down by the United Nations and the European Union in its latest proposal.
Is Bono a friend of the Minister of State?
We should try to move ahead of the pack and keep our status as a country that is ahead of the rest in terms of overseas development aid. We should not only maintain our position as the 9th largest per capita contributor in the world but improve on that position.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.