Overseas Development Aid: Motion February 16th, 2000 Dr. Henry: I move: That Seanad Éireann recommends that the Government increase immediately the financial assistance given to Third World development aid from 0.31% of GNP to the recommended UN level of 0.7%; and calls on the Government to give further support to the efforts of Irish Aid in sub-Saharan Africa.

I welcome the Minister of State. I am delighted he is present to respond to the motion. The involvement of Irish people with medical and educational institutions in developing countries in the Third World has a long and illustrious history. I am delighted that Dr. Oliver Murphy is present in the Visitors Gallery. He has had a long involvement in numerous African countries in this respect and, in common with others in those countries, he is not praised enough. Religious and lay Irish people have made an enormous contribution to improving the lives of those in need in Africa in particular. It was with delight that I read about the report from the Department of Foreign Affairs in which it was announced that the funding of Ireland Aid projects would be increased this year by £1 million. The money will be spent by Ireland Aid on the fight against HIV-AIDS in 2000. The total sum available stands at £2.5 million. The public is incredibly generous in its response to foreign disasters and it is good that the Government realises we expect as good a response from the public purse. The United Nations target of 0.7% of gross national product for development aid has never been achieved by Ireland - the latest figure I have seen is 0.31%. In view of Ireland's increasing prosperity, it is good that an increasing sum is being given. During the debate on last year's Finance Bill, there was some bargaining between the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. I presume the extra £1 million arose from those discussions. I do not have the political power of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, but there is no harm in trying to get some money. My argument is that we should give more money not because we are so rich, but because I have had a first hand opportunity of seeing how well our money is spent. Ireland is giving an increased share of development money to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and this must be the case. If we do not put a large amount of money into the basket from which developing countries can borrow, the Governments there will never be able to set up projects of their own. They must be able to do this if they are ever to achieve proper independence after decades, and sometimes centuries, of colonial rule. The rest of the money is spent by Ireland Aid on what could be called our pet projects, and I praise these projects. It is important to become involved in the programmes in each country, but it is also important to try to keep our projects going for the time being and support them. When the Taoiseach returned from his visit to South Africa and Lesotho last month, he said he would press the European Union to tackle the AIDS crisis in Africa. This is good, but we can do more. Last month, with Mrs. Mary Banotti, MEP, and the Minister of State, Deputy Eoin Ryan, I visited Uganda and Zambia. This study trip was organised by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and I thank them for the opportunity to see first hand the truly dreadful situation there. The Taoiseach said after his trip, "Africa's biggest problem is the AIDS problem, they are crying out for help." There is an excellent report in the Department of Foreign Affairs and all we need to do is implement its recommendations. The people who wrote the report should be praised, but there are also talented people who are well able to implement the recommendations. In Uganda and Zambia I saw Irish projects which are making a practical, tactful input to the serious problems arising from AIDS. Maternity clinics run by local staff are funded by us. With some supervisory input from Ireland Aid employees, women are given good maternity care. HIV and syphilis testing is carried out and treatment given where possible. Research carried out in Kampala in Mugola Hospital has shown that the anti retro-viral drug, Zidovudine, given in tablet form to a woman as she goes into labour and in syrup form to the newborn baby, can cut the transmission rate from mother to baby by 50%. This is a cheap drug and perhaps our maternity clinics could include this treatment in their preventative medical programmes. We could buy huge supplies of the drug and even set up more clinics. With this treatment and the establishment of extra clinics, we could be sure that babies are safely born disease free. Maternal and infant mortality rates in Africa are soaring. It must be soul destroying for those working in these areas to accept that the figures were better 20 years ago than they are now. AIDs is a major component of this huge increase. However, it is not all despair. The Irish Aid clinics in Lusaka have a maternal mortality rate of 331 per 100,000 births whereas the national average for the same year - 1996 - was 649, almost double. Who cannot say that these clinics, which are almost entirely run by local people, are not doing a tremendous job? The loss of a mother to children under five in the developing world is almost fatal. How many children have also been saved? Our maternal mortality rate is in single figures- a rate of five in any one year would be quite dreadful. From that perspective, the work being done in these clinics is incredible. I do not know whether an Irish architect designed them but I have rarely seen such well designed buildings as these purpose-built clinics which are almost indestructible and inexpensive. Many children are left orphaned by AIDs. The programmes run by Ireland Aid were the best I saw for many reasons. For example, the children remain in the community with grandparents or other relatives and do not lose contact with their extended families. This is very important. Building large orphanages in Africa is not the answer. Once children lose contact with their extended families they are in a very isolated position. The children come every day to the centres for high calorific and high protein food prepared by local women and paid for by us. They also receive medical care at the centres. I was very interested to note, though it sounds very esoteric, that the Planned Parenthood of Zambia Association runs a roundworm deworming programme alongside its family planning programme. That is very practical. The children also receive some schooling at the centres. Ireland Aid feeds 11,000 orphans each day in the Copper Belt in Kitwe. Those children were among the best nourished I saw and were, I think, the only ones wearing shoes. Another important point is that these children were dressed like any other child in the area. I was a little depressed when I visited another centre, not run by Ireland Aid, to see children wearing T-shirts proclaiming them "International Orphans". I thought those days had gone. I was glad to see that when children left the Irish feeding centres no one knew where they had been, they were not labelled. Why can we not extend these schemes? Many more children are in need of such care. Young adults are dying, leaving elderly relatives to mind these children. Much of the emphasis on HIV and AIDs in sub-Saharan Africa has been on the provision of drugs which, although very expensive, have managed to make HIV infection into a chronic rather than a fatal condition in the western world. While I fully support the TRIPs Agreement whereby compulsory licences could be given to Third World countries with the capacity to produce essential drugs, it will be a long time before the infrastructure is available to allow such drugs to be used in large parts of the developing world. People on such drugs require careful monitoring. The medical centres which I visited do not even have the capacity to measure electrolyte levels in blood, never mind the more complicated tests which would be needed. We could, however, provide more money for research to develop suitable vaccines. Ultimately we have to recognise that the spread of HIV infection in these countries is mostly by heterosexual activity. While I understand the motivation of those who promote the use of condoms, cultural change can only be brought about by those who live there and who understand their traditional cultural practices. As one tribal elder said, "If traditional cultural practices are dangerous, traditional cultural practices must change". We cannot even stop the cultural practice of smoking in Ireland. All we can do is help these people to identify those practices which are dangerous and hope they will initiate change themselves. For instance, any female genital mutilation or the practice of dry sex which will cause bleeding at intercourse are a terrible cause for the spread of the disease. It was depressing to find that teenage girls were six times as likely as teenage boys to be HIV positive because of older men using them as safe sexual partners. Perhaps we could send out some anthropologists and sociologists to explain the dangers of casual sex. I applaud what the Government has done. I hope we continue to do more in the areas in which we are making an excellent contribution at a practical level. We are helping to deal with serious problems which are destroying the economic and social structure of these countries. Mr. Quinn: I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. It is traditional when one stands up to second a motion to say one is happy to do so. However, I am not happy to second this motion; I am ashamed to do so. I am ashamed of our performance in terms of development aid. I am ashamed that the Government insists on playing Scrooge in the case of the poor countries in the world. Playing that role in the costume of the Celtic tiger is incongruous. At one time we could put on the poor mouth with full justification. We did so when we sought money from Brussels which was of enormous benefit to us and have done so when dealing with the disadvantaged in our own country while promising to do the devil and all when resources permitted. We did the same when it came to supporting development aid, stating we would do what we could when resources permitted. The poor mouth days are, we hope, gone forever but the poor mouth attitude remains. As a result poor mouth behaviour remains with us. We are behaving out of proportion to our means. We are mean when it comes to development aid. There is no excuse for this and that is why I am ashamed. I have a mental picture of one of the mandarins in Merrion Street coming down to breakfast one morning in a very bad state and his wife looks at him and says, "What's wrong, love?" He tells her he had a dreadful nightmare and the wife says, "Tell me about it". He goes on to say it was really bad, thinks for a few minutes and says, "I had this outrageous dream that resources did permit". He could not live with that because he was so used to its being the other way. Is there something at work about which we are not aware? Senator Henry pointed out that as individuals the Irish people are remarkable in their generosity and have been for years. When asked to support a good cause, we do - sometimes quite spectacularly. We do not seem to be deficient on an individual level but something happens when that individual level becomes a national one. For some reason we, as a State, find it impossible to behave with the generosity that characterises our citizens. How can that be? What is the Irish State but the collective will of its people? How can the State be a Scrooge while individual citizens are generous almost to a fault? This has only recently become a conundrum because until recently we were strapped for cash and the resources argument could always be used to fill that gap. We used it. The resources argument is no longer available, the gap is yawning at us, demanding to be explained. Please do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that even today we have money to do everything we want. No matter how large the budget surplus, any Minister for Finance could easily find ways to spend all that money several times over. There is a sense in which we will never have enough money to do everything we want, not immediately at least. What is different now is that for the first time in the history of the State we do have the money to do the important things, perhaps not all the important things but certainly the vast majority of them. That is the revolutionary change that is happening to our finances. The scope of that change is apparently too vast for some people to grasp. We do not have the money for everything but we have it for most of the important things. What happens? We find we are not doing some of the important things, or not doing enough of them. Meanwhile we are throwing money around like snuff at a wake, as they used to say in the country, on imperial follies such as national stadia that I am not sure we want. Everyone seems to be jealous of the other one. In Ireland we are not doing enough about the disadvantaged, although we are pouring money in that direction. It seems a great deal only in terms of what we used to spend, but in relation to the size of the problem and the difficulty in solving it, it is not a lot and, more crucially, it is not enough. Let us not think we have heard the last of disadvantage as a problem. Outside Ireland we are as mean as ever. By juggling the figures we can claim to be doing more. It is interesting to note that the amendment today draws our attention to the fact that we are doing better than in the past. The unforgiving benchmark is the percentage of national wealth we devote to development aid. On that United Nations benchmark we are a nation of rich meanies. I wish to dwell on the irony of this from my particular viewpoint. I have been concerned for some time about the danger of the economy overheating. That is a real danger about which I spoke here earlier today. The EU and the OECD are aware of it but at official level we pretend to think it is not a real issue. One of the budgetary problems is that the State has money coming out its ears. If it simply puts that money back into the national economy it will add to the overheating just like throwing oil on a fire. We should look at productive and deserving ways of spending money in a manner that will not contribute to that future overheating; spending more money on development aid is exactly one of those ways. In addition to the overwhelming moral argument for being more generous, there is also an actual self-interested economic argument for doing so. We have all the reasons in the world to be generous in our development aid yet we persist in being incredibly mean. I suggest incredible is the right word. I find it difficult to believe that as a country Ireland could be so mean when, for the first time in the history of the State, we have the actual means to meet and to surpass the not very demanding EU target set for us. Senator Henry mentioned the target of 0.7% but we are not even half way there. We can reach it and for the first time we are able to do it. I second the motion but almost with a sense of shame because of our failure to achieve what is in our grasp. I hope the Minister will bring us good news. His heart is in the right place and I hope we will learn that we are grasping hold of this and giving ourselves the opportunity to do something about it. An Cathaoirleach: I have been informed that the amendment which has been circulated is not being moved.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy): Today in the Dáil there were eight questions on ODA budget levels. On the Dáil's Order Paper there is a motion on the issue to be debated soon. Here in the Seanad we are addressing the same topic. I warmly welcome this interest in development aid. It is a heartening reflection of the public support for a strong and growing Irish programme. This was attested to recently in a nationwide survey. The political consensus in support of a substantial and effective aid programme, which is implicit in this interest, is important. I echo the point made by the Taoiseach recently that there is no Member of either House who opposes the idea of a strong programme or of growing allocations for it. For my part, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Seanad on this topic on behalf of my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, whose energy and commitment have been the key driving force behind our development co-operation policy in recent years. At the heart of the motion is the issue of budget allocations for the development aid programme. Although the matter has been addressed a number of times in both Houses, I reiterate that the total development aid budget for 1999 is likely to total £178 million and we estimate an outturn of £190 million for the current year. This is the highest level ever attained and is the result of an unprecedented level of growth in recent years. The extent of that growth will be clear if Members recall that in 1992 the total aid provision was a mere £40 million. In the last three years alone, it was increased by £12 million, £15 million and £38 million, respectively. It is important, in commenting on allocations, that these facts are kept in mind. The Government has shown real commitment to substantial increases in our contribution to the developing world and is determined to continue that commitment. There has been lively debate on the issue of our progress to the UN target of 0.7% of GNP. This is desirable and legitimate. The Government and its predecessors have pledged themselves to steady progress to meet that target. That pledge has been honoured as demonstrated by the record of substantial annual increases, at a rate which outpaces that of most member states of the OECD. We have to accept, however, that because of a unique combination of circumstances, it has been difficult to make progress according to the benchmark of growth as a percentage of our gross national product. The first of those circumstances is the unprecedented annual growth in the Irish economy which we have been experiencing in the last five years. We have been criticised as complaining about that level of growth and as using it as an excuse for lack of progress in the aid budget. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government and all our citizens cannot but be delighted at the turnaround in the economy. Its current healthy state - the result of years of wise policies - allows us address a wide range of domestic issues, from infrastructure to hospital queues, which it has not been possible to tackle until now. It permits us to make generous provision for our overseas assistance and to commit ourselves to continue doing so into the future. The second circumstance is that we have introduced a new method of calculating GNP in accordance with EU rules. This has had the effect of depressing the percentage figure for the ODA budget. It should not, however, be allowed to mask the reality which is that our aid budget is one of the fastest growing in the world. Members should not take the view that the Government has abandoned the goal of reaching 0.7% of GNP. On the contrary, at a time when we have joined the ranks of wealthy nations, we are more than ever concerned to ensure that the aid programme should not stall or diminish as a proportion of our national wealth. To address this issue, a fundamental series of reviews has been carried out in the Department of Foreign Affairs. A set of proposals has been prepared for Cabinet consideration. The Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs will be working on these in the coming weeks. They would hope to have decisions shortly. Underpinning these proposals and the thrust of the whole programme is the determination to ensure that the aid budget is used to achieve enduring, sustainable development. That issue of quality aid is vital. Any current or former aid worker will tell you that Africa is pitted with the flaking rust of failed aid projects, the relics of western ideas imposed on developing countries without reference to local consideration or need. The Irish programme is focused on quality. Last year the programme was reviewed by its peer donors in the OECD. That review found that Ireland sets high standards for aid; we have demonstrated that aid can work; we have an undeviating focus on poverty reduction; and we are a strong performer in putting partnerships into practice. This quality aid, which is at the heart of the Irish programme and to which the OECD peer review is a handsome testament, took years of patient work to build. A real working partnership with a developing country begins with building an understanding of its people's reality, with getting beneath the skin of the daily challenges and with, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "shuffling a while in another man's shoes". It is slow, patient work to get beyond the barriers, common in any environment of poverty, of low self-esteem. We must also get beyond the assumption that outside know-how is better and we must reach a common understanding of needs. An authoritative international aid expert, addressing a forum in Dublin a few months ago, summed up his caution regarding quick aid with the tongue-in-cheek quip, "Don't just do something, stand there". Ireland makes no grandiose claims to have cracked the code on quality aid. The peer review was a welcome plaudit for past hard work. However, maintaining that reputation of quality requires more of the same patient, hard work and more of the slow build-up to the common understanding on which the partnership process is built. What is more, we must continue to build up our own management capacities to ensure continuing quality, effectiveness and accountability. What all of this points to, in the context of growing allocations, is that a balance must be struck between the requirements of quality and chasing what is, in reality, a moving target. Quality aid requires planned, prudent growth in aid involvement and management capacity, both among donors and partner governments. These are the important issues which will have lastingly beneficial impact on the lives and livelihoods of poor people in developing countries. We must not allow an exclusive focus on targets to divert our attention from these priorities. That is the thrust of our review and the basis on which we hope to secure agreement on a path to the UN target. A related issue which has been raised recently is that of putting allocations on a statutory footing. There is some merit in this on the face of it, but I would question it. My main question is whether there is a need for it. The purpose of such a move is to increase allocations. However, if they are going to increase, as I hope, in a measured way, that purpose is achieved. Second, if one can conceive of aid being put on such a basis, then why not other deserving causes? Seen thus, putting ODA allocations on a statutory footing is potentially an unnecessary complication. I will take the opportunity of this motion to give a short overview of where the programme is going and its priorities. I will begin with the bilateral programme. The focus of Ireland Aid is on the least developed countries, and that of the bilateral programme is on six such countries in Africa - Lesotho, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Mozambique. All these countries rank low in terms of human development indicators, including the percentage living in absolute poverty, life expectancy, adult literacy, infant mortality, access to safe water, sanitation and health services. In these six priority countries, the thrust of the programme is on basic needs, including rural development, education and health, and on a framework of democracy and good governance. In the health sector, we work with governments and local authorities to provide primary health care. In education, we focus together on primary and informal education, teacher training and adult literacy. In rural development, we fund programmes for food security, rural roads, provision of clean water and sanitation, and micro-credit, especially for women. In all these, we work with our partners to ensure that women's and men's needs are met appropriately and that there is respect for the environment. Most aid in the priority countries is delivered in the form of integrated programmes at regional or local level. These are selected in consultation and partnership with governments in the priority countries. More recently, we have been working with governments and other donor countries on sectoral investment programmes. In these cases, aid is provided in the form of general budgetary support to sectors such as health and education. The aim here is to reduce the burden on under-resourced administrations of dealing with a plethora of donors and to help build the internal capacity of the governments concerned to push forward their own development. The guiding principles that inform the bilateral involvement are summed up as the three Ps - poverty, participation and partnership. The universal strategy is poverty reduction. Participation refers not simply to local involvement but to real ownership by the partner government in accordance with its own national priorities of development programmes. Partnership involves the use of local administrative structures and building wider understanding and enduring trust. There are many challenges in our programmes in Africa. One of the greatest is the HIV/AIDS epidemic. As at least one Member of this House - Senator Henry, whom we have heard speak - can testify from a recent visit, this disease is a major public health problem in all our priority countries. Its spread has huge economic and social effects and has set back development progress in many areas by years. Ireland Aid, together with partner governments and other donors, has been responding to these challenges in the past 15 years. The lessons from this experience have been drawn together in a new strategy which we recently launched. At the same time, the Taoiseach has written to EU Commission President Prodi, stressing the need for the EU and its member states to explore urgently the level of resources devoted to the fight against HIV/AIDS and the need for greater international co-operation. The Taoiseach also called for consideration of how best to procure affordable treatment for AIDS for poor countries and the EU's role in supporting the search for a vaccine. Many of the poorest countries in the world are burdened by levels of external debt which make it almost impossible for them to develop. A situation in which flows of overseas development assistance to a country are exceeded by its debt repayments is clearly not viable. The issue of debt has attracted huge international attention. The Jubilee 2000 campaign, calling for debt cancellation, has received wide support and has been influential in securing major improvements in existing international arrangements for the provision of debt relief. In 1999 we witnessed a new international resolve to ease the heavy burden of debt in many developing countries. The G7 agreed important modifications to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, which were subsequently agreed by the World Bank and the IMF. The enhanced HIPCI should result in broader, deeper and more generous debt relief to the countries most heavily burdened. The qualification criteria have been relaxed and there is now a clear connection established between debt relief and poverty reduction. It is expected that over 20 heavily indebted poor countries will have qualified for debt relief by the end of this year. The enhanced HIPCI will require funding of up to $27 billion to write off debt. There have been considerable difficulties in raising this money. In December the EU agreed a debt relief contribution of e1 billion, with e700 million going to multilateral debt relief. Ireland strongly supported this important EU contribution. Our share of the EU contribution will be over e6 million. It was our deep concern about the effects of debt on developing countries which lay behind the comprehensive and forward-looking debt relief package approved by the Government in September 1998. Although Ireland is not a creditor state, we have allocated over £31 million for debt relief. We have also made tackling the debt issue an integral part of Ireland's overall overseas development co-operation strategy. In addition to providing bilateral debt relief of almost £10 million to two of the priority countries for Irish Aid, Mozambique and Tanzania, £15 million has been committed to the joint World Bank-IMF Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, HIPCI, while £7 million has been allocated to the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, ESAF. Ireland also contributes substantially to the aid programmes of the European Union, which is now the fifth largest donor in the world. If one includes the individual aid programmes of the member states, the EU is, in fact, by far the largest provider of development aid in the world. The programmes of the EU, while global in reach, are concentrated in Africa. In this regard, the long-running series of Lomé agreements, which have governed trade and development relations between the European Union and countries of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific since the 1970s, is an example of what can be achieved. The agreements are regarded as the most ambitious and sophisticated ever negotiated. The current Lomé Convention expires on 29 February 2000. Negotiations on its successor have been successfully concluded. The new convention should be signed in Fiji on 31 May 2000 and will run for 20 years. It is based on a partnership between the EU and the ACP states and is focused on poverty eradication. The new convention brings the relationship between the EU and its 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific partners into the 21st century. It will revolutionise the trading relationship between the EU and its ACP partners by providing for the creation of free trade agreements between the EU and ACP regions. The agreement recognises the importance of globalisation for development and will facilitate the integration of developing countries into the world market. Throughout the negotiations Ireland placed great emphasis on the need to deal with the marginalisation from world trade of the Least Developed Countries. We strongly support the EU's commitment to introduce duty and quota free access to the EU market for essentially all products from LDCs by 2005. This commitment should be taken on by the other major trading powers such as the US and Japan. The new convention will allocate e13.5 billion to the ACP states over the next seven years. Ireland's share of this, which will come from our ODA budget, will be e89 million. The need to integrate developing countries, particularly the least developed, into the global economy is now a key issue of development. While globalisation has brought huge benefits to many countries, including Ireland, others are falling further behind. The total GNP of the Least Developed Countries with their 600 million people is less than the collective assets of the world's three richest people. The income gap between rich and poor countries is widening as the poorest countries are not in a position to meet the challenges of globalisation. The outcome of the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle in December 1999 clearly indicated that development issues are now central to future global trade negotiations. Issues such as implementation, market access and the transparency of the WTO's working methods are high on the agenda of the developing countries. Ireland Aid is placing greater emphasis on the need to assist developing countries to integrate into the global economy. At Seattle, together with several other like-minded donors, we, in co-operation with the Tánaiste's Department, co-founded the Advisory Centre on WTO Law. This is a new independent body, based in Geneva, which will advise and assist developing countries, particularly the least developed, in taking legal cases at the WTO under the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. If the world trade system is to provide benefits for all, it is essential that developing countries be in a position to avail of their rights at the WTO. The new body, to which Ireland will contribute $2.5 million over five years, will play a key role in achieving this. Ireland Aid remains a strong supporter of the UN's role in development. We are also committed to increasing our contributions to the main UN funds and programmes such as the UN Development Programme, the UN Children's Fund and the UN Population Fund. All of these bodies are suffering from sharp falls in donor contributions and are having to cut back programmes in the poorest countries. At the same time they have introduced major management reforms designed to streamline their operations and to maximise their impact. The aid programme includes measures to support democracy and human rights. In each of our priority country programmes, as I mentioned before, there is a strong emphasis on building and reinforcing democratic structures and on good governance. We also actively encourage measures to reinforce democratic reforms through our human rights and democratisation funding programmes in many countries worldwide. For example, in Albania and Macedonia we supported women's participation in democratic processes and in Bosnia Herzegovina we have assisted the establishment of a human rights commission. In China, we funded training of Chinese judges in human rights. We have supported human rights defenders from many different countries and human rights training programmes worldwide. We have been assisting the peace talks in Burundi and supported election monitoring in a number of countries. These are but a few examples of the many diverse projects in this area supported by Ireland Aid. The protection of human rights is the first responsibility of all governments, yet in Europe we have seen some of the worst human rights abuses in the last decade. The former Yugoslavia has seen atrocities and barbaric acts of depravity and cruelty. This is the only area of Europe, since the end of the Second World War, for which it has been necessary to establish a UN tribunal to prosecute and punish those guilty of war crimes. The events in recent years in the former Yugoslavia are a stark reminder that after 50 years of human rights rhetoric there is much unfinished business. Events in Kosovo in 1999, when ethnic Albanians were forced to flee their homes, is a case in point. While neighbouring countries, like Macedonia, responded most generously and gave refuge to hundreds of thousands, they were sorely pressed in trying to cope with the tide of distressed people crossing their borders. Third countries were asked by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to help. Under a humanitarian evacuation programme, co-ordinated by the UNHCR, a total of 1,031 ethnic Albanian refugees were given temporary protection in Ireland. Some 200 have since returned to Kosovo. The generosity of the Irish people, both in their welcome for the refugees and in their response to the Kosovo emergency, was tremendous. During the Kosovo crisis, Irish aid agencies received around £7 million in voluntary contributions. For every pound contributed by the Irish people, the Government matched it three times over in direct assistance to Irish and international aid agencies in the region and in our contribution to the humanitarian evacuation programme of Kosovar refugees to Ireland. Our commitment to the Balkan region also involves helping to rebuild Kosovo through the EU and UN budget programmes for the region. The Refugee Agency, which has responsibility for co-ordinating the reception and resettlement of refugees admitted to Ireland from crisis situations, is funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs. In addition to its ongoing responsibility for the resettlement of Bosnian and Vietnamese refugees and their families in Ireland, the agency played a central role in the co-ordination, reception, accommodation and care of the Kosovar refugees in Ireland. I appreciate also the role played by other Government Departments, health boards and local authorities in the implementation of the Kosovar programme. Ireland Aid continues to respond quickly and as effectively as possible to humanitarian emergencies, whether of sudden onset or protracted. Last year, 1999, was a particularly difficult year, which saw the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, the crisis in the Balkans, the devastating earthquake in Turkey and the terrible events in East Timor. However, we must not forget that there are many other humanitarian crises worldwide which are not on the nightly news, which are "out of sight and out of mind" and which also need a generous response. Many countries in Africa faced severe food shortages last year and are looking at a similar vista this year. Ireland has not forgotten these most vulnerable of people and is responding to appeals for assistance in countries such as Angola, Sudan, Somalia and Burundi. Ireland Aid is committed to implementing the highest standards of humanitarian practice. We are working with the UN agencies and the NGOs, who receive the bulk of funding, to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent efficiently and effectively and, most importantly of all, reaches those most in need. A rehabilitation budget line enables Ireland Aid to assist the most vulnerable people in post-crisis situations to re-establish their lives and livelihoods. In many such situations it is also necessary to help Governments and/or the UN to rebuild institutions and develop human resource capacity with the aim of assisting in the creation of conditions that can lead to peaceful, just, stable and inclusive societies. East Timor and Kosovo are priorities for this type of assistance this year. Other countries which continue to receive rehabilitation support include Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and Honduras. The majority of funding is channelled through Irish and international NGOs and through UN agencies. Ireland Aid continues to build on the strong relationship fostered over the years with Irish NGOs. There is a fruitful funding partnership and work relationship which allows us to draw on their valuable experience for the benefit of developing countries. They in turn receive significant and growing support from Ireland Aid and APSO for their emergency, human rights and development projects in many countries worldwide from Africa to Asia to Central and Southern America. I welcome this opportunity to express admiration for their work, often under difficult and physically hazardous conditions, and a commitment to further strengthening our relations. The Government would like to see a greater public awareness and ownership of Ireland Aid by all Irish citizens, not just the major stakeholders. The elimination of extreme poverty is a responsibility of our common humanity at a time when we are inundated with images of cruelty and mass inhumanity. All sectors have a role to play - business, trade unions, Government, the media, the churches, schools and voluntary organisations. Ireland Aid, through the National Committee for Development Education, provides support for activities, in both the formal and informal sectors, designed to raise awareness of development issues. Ireland Aid itself is also active in promoting awareness of Government action, on behalf of the Irish people, on these issues. We hope in this way that more people will come to have a deeper appreciation, and hence a greater sense of ownership, of the Ireland Aid programme and the part which Ireland is playing in international development efforts. In the 26 years of the life of the Irish programme of development assistance to poorer countries there have been improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality rates in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa. More people have access to clean water and sanitation and more children are going to school. However, these achievements have been slight compared to what could be achieved and what has been achieved in other regions. The gap between rich and poor has widened. Per capita income in some sub-Saharan African countries is lower than it was 20 years ago. We can be proud of what we have achieved so far and glad of the validation of that work received from our donor peers, but there is no gainsaying the scale of the problems in the developing world, the depth of poverty to be reduced and eradicated, the moral obligation we, as a wealthy nation, owe to those whose greatest challenge is survival from day to day. Mrs. Taylor-Quinn: I support the motion and am delighted the Government parties have chosen not to move an amendment but to accept the motion as it stands. The proposal that we increase our overseas development aid funding to the UN recommended rate of 0.7% of GNP is highly commendable. Given our current economic success, it is more than commendable and I hope we will proceed rapidly to achieve that target and to make effective use of our aid budget. Recently I had the privilege of visiting Lesotho and Tanzania, two countries which are given priority for Irish overseas aid. I compliment the Irish communities in Lesotho and Tanzania on the tremendous work they are doing. Any Irish person visiting either country would be proud to be Irish. The staff at the Irish consulate in Lesotho were very familiar with aid programmes in that country, they knew everyone working on the ground extremely well and were in direct consultation with people working on the various projects. It was the level of consultation with those working in the field which impressed me most because while the people were getting support they also had a vital input into decisions regarding what was to be done. Irish officials support and monitor projects very closely, and we cannot commend them highly enough. In Lesotho our consul general, Tom Wright, and his staff were extremely impressive and in Tanzania, our chargé d'affaires , Isolde Moylan-McNally, and her staff were also impressive. In a much larger country they had excellent contact with those involved in projects and there was again a high level of consultation. It was a privilege to go to a Third World country. I do not wonder that we speak of the Third World because, although we live on the same planet, such countries are in a very different world. There is an enormous difference between our consumer society and the totally non-consumer society in Third World countries. One could never give enough assistance to communities in these countries. The benefit from that assistance is extraordinary. In Lesotho the bringing of water schemes to some of the most isolated mountain villages has a positive effect on the health of the community, particularly the children. This was wonderful to see. Support is being given for the building of schools and to assist educational projects in very isolated areas. These areas have one of the harshest climates in the world with extremes of temperature and it is extremely difficult to produce any sort of cash crop. Nevertheless, these hardy people are surviving and Irish Aid is of great assistance in agriculture and education. A footbridge scheme sponsored by the Government in conjunction with the Government of Lesotho is improving accessibility for communities across the valleys, especially in times of flooding. If the Minister will listen for a moment-----

Mr. T. Kitt: I am listening. Mrs. Taylor-Quinn: -----he will hear that when Senator Lanigan, the clerk of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I met the foreign affairs Minister in Lesotho we raised the matter of the murder of Mr. Ken Hickey, the Irish engineer who had responsibility for the construction of the footbridges in that country. The Minister gave us a commitment that everything possible would be done to apprehend the culprit, who is known. He is the son of a senior retired politician in Lesotho who appears to be free to travel between Lesotho and South Africa. There is an onus on us to ensure that this man is apprehended and that justice is seen to be done. This issue is of extreme concern to the Irish community in Lesotho. I hope the Department of Foreign Affairs will pursue this matter with the foreign affairs Minister and see that his commitment is met. He is in a position to apprehend this man and if this does not happen it will be because of lethargy on the part of the Government there. I urge the Department to pursue this matter quickly and vociferously. Tanzania is a much bigger country than Lesotho and is very productive agriculturally. A great amount of development work needs to be done there and much assistance is required. Our chargé d'affaires, Isolde Moylan-McCann, must be highly commended for the manner in which she involves herself in all Irish aid projects. Her level of knowledge, consultation and input is far beyond the normal call of duty. She deserves to be complimented. Despite the advances in eradicating traditional diseases, AIDS has spread in both countries. In some areas one person in three is infected. In one village in the bush in Tanzania which one would not think AIDS could have reached, we were told that one person in three is HIV positive. There is a need for an educational programme among the communities. Senator Henry has spoken of the medical aspect of this problem. In both countries there are traditional male-dominated, patriarchal societies. While this continues, it will be very difficult to overcome this problem. There is a real need for a health education programme for men and women. As we travelled back from one village in the bush I spoke to the chairman of the local council who told me that a high percentage of children in the village die before they are five years old. When I asked him what he was doing to change this he told me that there are ante-natal classes for women. I asked about education for men and he said the women are expected to go home and teach the men. I told him that it is unrealistic, in a patriarchal, male-dominated society, to expect men to listen to what women told them. An education programme is required to bring about cultural change. I commend the Department of Foreign Affairs staff, the NGOs and all the Irish community who worked in a private or an official capacity. We can be proud of them. Mr. Lydon: I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss this important topic. I was pleased to hear the Minister of State's contribution, particularly to learn that a comprehensive package of initiatives is under way with a view to strengthening our development co-operation policy programme. In the past there may have been a feeling that a token contribution for development aid would be enough in Ireland's case. In the early 1980s Ireland's income per head was closer to developing country levels than to the north European average but this is no longer the case. Today, Ireland is one of the fastest growing economies in the western world and its responsibilities have grown commensurably. A number of Members referred to this fact and Senator Quinn said that we must dip a little deeper into our pockets. The allocation for development aid has grown from £40 million in 1992 to £178 million in 1999. By any measure that is a substantial rate of increase. However, we must acknowledge that GNP has grown so rapidly in recent years and our ODA budget relative to GNP has not increased. There will be strong public support, as well as from all parties in this House, for measures to ensure that our official development assistance allocation should increase in financial terms and as a proportion of GNP. That is the sense of the motion. The motion acknowledges the progress made to date in terms of increasing the aid budget and urges further steps to increase the aid allocation, not only in absolute terms but also as a proportion of GNP. It also urges us to take all the necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the programme. The Minister of State assured us that a new development co-operation strategy will be unveiled soon which will address the quantity and quality of our aid programmes. He said a set of proposals are being prepared for Cabinet consideration and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department will be working on them in coming weeks. They hope to have a decision shortly. I am sure they will and I look forward to that. I assure the Minister that the new strategy will be awaited with interest as there is a real sense across the political divide, on the part of all parties and public opinion, that now is the time to put our development co-operation policy on a solid footing once and for all. A strategy should address a number of issues. There must be firm multi-annual commitments of funding. Building on a foundation of predictability of funding an effective approach to programme planning and implementation should flow. In other words, a policy of quantity and quality. Endorsement of the reduction of poverty in poor countries should be the overarching goal of any new strategy. There should be an unambiguous commitment to deploying aid to promote real lasting development in poor countries without there being any question of other objectives that could dilute that aim. There must exist a relationship with partner countries that fully respects their dignity and sovereignty. There must be a determination to achieve the highest standards of efficiency and effectiveness with regard to the programme and its implementation. There must also be an innovative approach to promoting ownership of the programme on the part of the Irish public. As has been said, the public has always responded generously when approached for support for a needy project. If the programme is explained to them they will rise to the occasion again and encourage the Government to give more than it is giving at present. I welcome that the Minister of State's comments are in the same vein as the points I have made. As always, what matters most is if they are followed through. In this regard I commend the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, who, unfortunately, is unwell at the moment and I wish her a speedy recovery. She has always spoken strongly on development aid and she will follow through on it. I am sure the new Minister for Foreign Affairs will do the same. It would be helpful if the House could come back to this question when the Minister's strategy has been completed and made available to the public. Further consideration of the topic would be more than a mere formality because many Members would have much to say when the strategy is available concerning the most effective methods of its implementation. I approve of all but one item in the Minister of State's speech, that is the support for the United Nation's population fund. I do not approve of it because part of its strategy is the promotion of direct abortion. The cause of world poverty is not the amount of people in the world but the inequitable distribution of wealth. The Minister of State said, "The total GNP of the Least Developed Countries with their 600 million people is less than the collective assets of the world's three richest people". That is a terrible position in one sense. It is sad to see rich countries waste so much of their wealth, natural resources, food and production but not help countries that do not have the means to help themselves. We are moving in the right direction. I welcome this motion and I commend Senator Henry for tabling it. We should return to the matter as soon as the strategy referred to by the Minister of State is in place. I commend the motion for the approval of the House. The Government will find that it is pushing an open door if and when it brings forward a strategy to address the key questions of aid quantity and quality. Mr. Norris: I am grateful to Senator Jackman for allowing me to speak because I must chair a meeting elsewhere. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to the House. His presence is appropriate because I know he has strong feelings on this matter and I have worked with him in related areas over many years. It is a pity he is not directly involved in this area of responsibility because he would be very good and he would be in accord with the feelings expressed by Members from all sides. I am grateful to the Government for not tabling an amendment. It would have been a pity to make this a matter of confrontation. I commend Senator Henry for tabling a motion that is direct without being abrasive or antagonistic to the Government so that it could accept the motion. I would like to address the issue of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa which was addressed so eloquently by Senator Henry. It is important that we know what is going on there. Unfortunately, many people in Ireland do not know what is going on there. Paddy O'Gorman, who presents "Queuing for a Living" on RTÉ Radio, wrote an appalling article in which he said that the heterosexual transmission of AIDS was a myth, that it did not exist anywhere. It does. It is the overwhelming mechanism of transmission outside Europe, particularly in Africa and other countries. It is a tragic distortion of reality if we do not accept the fact. Some of the governments in these countries also refuse to acknowledge it. For example, Zimbabwe is ruled by Robert Mugabe, an appalling tyrant who uses his position to oppress his people if they are gay and seek their rights. That is a highly dangerous, even though in Zimbabwe the huge infection rate predominantly from heterosexual relations. The case is similar in India where a tragic situation also exists. I note that one of the Minister's advisers is a distinguished Irishwoman who was the Irish ambassador in India when I attended an IPU conference in Delhi. She invited us for a meal and asked if she could be of any help. I asked her about the current position of organisations working in the area of AIDS. The next morning she gave me a list of about 70 organisations, but only one of them dealt with homosexual men and this method of transmission, which was highly dangerous. When I raised it I discovered that homosexual men and female prostitutes had attempted to attend a conference in the same hotel exactly a year previously and had been expelled by the police. They were not allowed to speak. There is a need for accurate information and it must be produced in such a way that it can educate. I do not mean this in a patronising way but tragically there are men in African countries who believe, because of the cultural context, that they can cure themselves of AIDS by having unprotected sex with virgins. This has the cataclysmic impact of setting up a whole new generation of infection in these unfortunate innocent victims. On the economic situation, the drug companies have found a goldmine in AIDS. There could not be anything better for them, particularly now with the triple drug therapy which has turned a fatal illness into a chronic illness. People will be continuously on their products, which are highly priced. As this is a very weak country, for strength the Government should join other countries against the multinational drug companies to ensure they permit the production of non-proprietary brand products at a cheap level for African countries. What benefit is it to these pharmaceutical combines to deny the products of scientific ingenuity to the most vulnerable of people? There is unfortunately a two-tier system in this as in every other area. There is the patenting of life forms, bio-patenting and the patenting of seeds that belong to indigenous peoples and which are being sold back to them at inflated prices. The Minister of State referred to the question of world debt cancellation. I take a slighty sceptical view of pop stars who become involved in political campaigning but I give every credit to Bob Geldof and Bono, in particular for the very shrewd way in which they appealed in newspaper advertisements to the French people, over the heads of the French Government, to involve themselves in debt cancellation. They have had a very creditable measure of success. On the question of ODA as expressed as a percentage of GNP, we have had this argument time and again since I was elected to the Seanad. It has tended to increase, particularly when expressed arithmetically. Government after Government has used this excuse but it has staggered slightly. It almost reached 0.35% at one stage before falling back again to 0.31%. It is an appropriate and useful target but it must be monitored and expressed as a percentage of GNP. It is not enough to say that it is more apparent than last year, it has to increase in percentage terms. It looks as if it will remain stuck at this level, even though the Government has stated that it will reach its target by 2002. It is very difficult to see how it will achieve this in its two remaining budgets. I honestly do not see how we will reach the target we have set for ourselves of 0.45% by 2002. The Minister of State said: A related issue which has been raised recently is that of putting allocations on a statutory footing. On the face of it there is some merit in this but I would question it. My main question is whether there is a need. That is a fairly weak question to ask. If there really was a problem with it the Minister of State would have asked a more incisive question. Justin Kilcullen of Trocaire said: We will propose that ODA is taken out of the budget entirely and instead is provided for in legislation. This now appears to be the only way by which we can ensure that Ireland's aid budget reaches the Government's own target and ultimately reaches the United Nations' recommendation. For God's sake let us keep monitoring the situation in East Timor. I know the Taoiseach is going out there. I also know that two of our friends from East Timor who were educated for seven years in Ireland and housed by Tom Hyland went back at Christmas. They telephoned in tears to say that they wanted to come home because they could not bear the conditions in East Timor. It has not been solved and we must continue to look at it. They are not getting enough food and they are not getting communications. The situation is a disaster. The position is the same in Tibet. How can we be happy just to educate Chinese? For God's sake what are we going to do? The previous Government was afraid to entertain the Dalai Lama and we have not asked the questions about the Panchen Lama. I commend my colleagues for tabling the motion. I wish we had more time because we could stir up so many issues which need to be stirred up and looked at as uncompromisingly as my two Independent colleagues have done. Ms Keogh: It is important to underline the need to concentrate on this issue from time to time. This House has a very proud record in stressing the need for ODA and keeping its eye on the ball. I congratulate Senator Henry in particular on tabling the motion and I was more than pleased when it was agreed with the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, that no amendment should be tabled. It would not have been appropriate to do so. We should all be on the same side on this issue. The Minister of State underlined the scope of our ODA and the necessity to increase it. This should be welcomed. This is something on which we should all agree and not engage in partisan politics. There is consensus across the political spectrum that development co-operation should be strengthened. That is the purpose of this debate. It will in turn strengthen the hand of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy O'Donnell, who everyone agrees has played a sterling role on this issue. We should support her efforts as much as possible and judging from its generosity to date there is widespread public support. We must ensure the issue is moved along. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, indicated that ODA has grown significantly in absolute terms but when measured as a percentage of GNP - the conventional way of measuring a country's aid effort - we have failed to make progress in recent years. There is a need to ensure a steady pattern of growth. The mechanisms by which this can be done have to be addressed. We used to rely on the annual Estimates process but as that did not provide the certainty required it was agreed - a battle won by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell - that there would be multi-annual budgeting. That is very important. We want to ensure we reach the targets we have set. Although we know the UN target of 0.7% of GNP has only been achieved by a small number of countries, we want to say that our place is with the leaders. We are more and more conscious of the fact that ours is a relatively wealthy country, despite the fact that we are coming from a long way behind. The strength of our economy dictates that we should be generous in this matter and we must not let go of that very important principle. We should be planning for a substantial future period and multi-annual budgeting would deal with the difficulties faced by NGOs in annual budgeting, where there is no certainty about allocations. That is a dreadful situation for any organisation to operate in and I know from many years in voluntary groups that the worst thing of all when receiving a Government contribution, no matter how niggardly, is uncertainty about what is coming. It is impossible to plan on that basis and it is essential to have certainty on budgeting. When we do so it is very important that we, as Senators, have an opportunity to contribute to decisions on strategy. Members referred to the quality of aid and the fact that it is easy to lose sight of partnership in aid. The example given to me is the way Ireland used EU Structural Funds. The emphasis there is that we know what we need and we must get away from the paternalistic approach to overseas aid wherein we make decisions. I do not have the depth of experience of many Members in observing overseas projects, but I have travelled in Africa and I had the honour of monitoring elections in South Africa and Mozambique. The latter was completely and utterly devastated. There was no wildlife left in the country, never mind chickens or pigs. In the middle of nowhere a beautiful road had been built, but the local people did not want or need this road. They were concerned about aid being given to them in this paternalistic way, with outsiders deciding matters, when they only had two stand pipes for fresh water. The majority of people in the town I was in had to travel some distance to the river to get fresh water. It was ludicrous. We must be conscious that the needs of the people, as dictated by the people, must be addressed. I totally support the points made by Senators Henry and Norris on AIDS programmes. The disinformation put out about AIDS is nothing short of criminal and I echo the praise given to Irish support for AIDS programmes in Africa. We should be particularly mindful of the devastation that is wreaking on so much of Africa. We should support efforts to provide necessary medicines and to fund vaccine research. Mrs. Jackman: I am delighted to support Senator Henry's motion and I am glad the Government is not moving its amendment. I start with a quote from The Reality of Aid 2000 by Elin Inge: The fact that more than a billion people are living and dying in poverty is not a tragic twist of fate but a deliberate turning of heads. The goal of absolute poverty elimination remains affordable and within reach. Most Governments have committed themselves to this goal. If it is to become reality there is an urgent need for a concerted and imaginative approach to replacing the old donor-driven model of aid. It is a pity we do not have time to look at different structures, as obviously what is being done is not enough. This book, from the Reality of Aid project, is compulsory reading if we are to make inroads into the problem. The statistics are frightening. More than four million children born this year will die before they turn five. We can gloss over statistics quickly, but that is appalling. Approximately 1.3 billion people live on less than a dollar a day, but that number is likely to have risen to 1.5 billion given that these statistics are from the end of 1999. The question raised by this book is, what are the world's richest countries doing to change this? The answer is that they are not doing what is necessary or possible or what they promised they would do. In that context I am critical of what the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, said. We are talking about £190 million with an overrun for the current year, but it is short of 0.7% of GNP, which is our target. I and Fine Gael support the Labour Party in seeking legislation to have this enacted rather than leave ODA as part of the budget. This was referred to briefly by the Minister of State who questioned the recommendation of putting allocations on a statutory footing, then he dismissed it and moved on to other points. A debate like this would have been an opportunity for us to see if we can move away from the budget and examine using legislation. The NGOs are saying that the Government must stop relying on them to meet its obligations and must restructure development aid under the auspices of a semi-State body. This should have been discussed. They also want VAT on charities repealed, which would free millions of pounds to fund NGOs. Those are specific requests and there may be reasons they cannot be carried out, but I would like them debated. Elin Inge's book looks at where we are in relation to other EU countries and there is a reference to slowness which states: "Aid grows but progress to the 0.7% is slow ... given the growth in the economy and the resultant high rates of growth in Government revenues ...". The point is whether we have the structures in place to deal with funds to overseas aid. We should know the importance of overseas development, as part and parcel of our economic growth stems from receiving development assistance from the EU. If we have been able to do this in such a short time, there is no reason structures should not be put in place for the sub-Saharan countries. The absence of such structures is not an excuse. We should be able to put them in place. We have been working on ODA for the past 30 years and the people would welcome our commitment to put those structures in place. A percentage of our funds goes to the EU, a percentage goes to the UN and a rather small percentage goes to NGOs, which have the support of the people of Ireland. Irish people give generously to collections for Concern, Trócaire or GOAL. Where is our aid spent? I welcome the fact that our aid is targeted at the poorest countries, with more than 80% going to sub-Saharan Africa. Some 20% of our aid is bilateral aid and 15% is multilateral. We do not have tied aid. I spent some time in Africa and two things which really struck me were the lack of materials for school children and the importance of water. Generally speaking, we take water for granted and complain when we are asked to pay for it. Water really is life in a Third World context. We are not doing as well as we should. In 1998, our contribution was the equivalent of 7p in the pound. That is not a huge commitment. Irish aid levels have remained constant in regard to other EU countries but are not moving upwards as quickly as they should. Ireland ranks 19th out of 21 donor countries for its volume of aid. Those statistics may not always give a true picture and I can understand that ranking in so far as Ireland is a small country. We move up the league in terms of generosity, ranking tenth out of the 21 countries. Irish aid is spent on the provision of basic health and education facilities. Education is the key to success in Third World countries. On the issue of how Irish aid is spent, I am aware that the NGOs are monitored but I am concerned about aid which goes through a bureaucratic layer, particularly in countries which have poor human rights records and which are perceived as being corrupt. I would like a future Private Members' debate to focus on the evaluation of the manner in which Irish aid, whether voluntary or State aid, is spent and the quality of its impact. Millions of Third World children will not reach five years of age this year. I have not had an opportunity to address the AIDS programme. I have attended AIDS conferences and we must also address this issue which requires tremendous support from Ireland and other EU countries. Mr. Farrell: I congratulate Senator Henry for tabling this motion. I spent three weeks in Mozambique where I witnessed real poverty at first hand. The conditions in which people live are unbelievable and there are serious health issues which must be addressed. Towards the end of our visit, we were involved in monitoring elections in Mozambique. When we arrived at one centre, we were informed that a lady there was seriously ill and asked if we could offer any assistance. We had a four wheel drive vehicle and I suggested that we bring the woman to the small country hospital 20 miles down the road. I held the woman in my arms in the back of the jeep. She was in agony and I thought she would die before we reached the hospital. When we reached the hospital, we were told to bring the woman down to what we would describe as an out-patient department. It consisted of a little shed which would not house a donkey. Inside the shed was a small stretcher on which there was an old brown mattress with a narrow strip of white sheet across the centre. We left the woman in the care of the doctor and nurse and returned to the election centre. The people working in the booths travelled up to 12 miles to work in the centre and slept in the open at night. We returned to the hospital at 12 o'clock that night with the woman's belongings and were informed that she was ready to go home. Our driver could speak the language and we drove the woman some 20 miles down the road. I had a spare flash lamp which I gave her. I can still see that little beam of light going through the bush as the woman, who had a miscarriage, made her way to her little cabin. That was real poverty. One of the schools we saw did not have a roof as it was blown off in the civil war. Children sat on the floor and the teacher wrote on a black wall with a piece of stone. The children did not even have books. A local chapel was built from bamboo leaves. The poverty I witnessed would draw tears from a stone.

Up to 2,000 people attended the polling booths to vote. Of the hundreds of babies there, I never heard one of them cry. The mothers carried their children in shawls on their backs and when the children whimpered, they just fed them. We could not leave the track because if we had veered off it, we could have been blown up by land mines. When we went astray and had to turn around, we had to comb the ground with a length of bamboo to ascertain the presence of land mines. There was no life to be seen in the fields, only the carcases of cattle blown up by land mines. I never witnessed that kind of poverty anywhere else. When I returned home, Sligo County Council was debating the location of a traveller site. I voted for the proposal immediately and told my colleagues that if they had witnessed the poverty I had in Mozambique, they would not object to travellers having a place to park their caravans and get some water. We stayed in a top hotel in Mozambique in a town as big as Leixlip. When we went upstairs, there were three old beds in the room and a half filled bucket of dirty, brown-coloured water in the corner of the room. Local women had carried that water for up to five miles in containers on their heads. The area in which we stayed was on the border where there was a danger of being caught in the cross-fire between the two opposing parties. We went to a hardware shop in the local town and bought its only tin of paint and its only paintbrush in order that we could mark the bushes and find our way out in the event of trouble. I congratulate the Government on its actions in this area but we must do a great deal more to eradicate poverty. I spoke to a priest in Mozambique who told me that they did not even have coffins in which to bury people. They wrapped them in cowskin and buried them. That is poverty. If we could run excursions to the Third World people would see what poverty is. They would return and thank God they live in a country of plenty. We do not know what poverty is. There are terrible problems with AIDS and HIV in the Third World. I congratulate the Taoiseach on raising this issue with the EU in order to provide services to combat AIDS, the biggest problem in the Third World. We are discussing Third World aid but no one is talking about how we can help Chechnya. Many homes there have been razed to the ground by Russian bombs and corpses are left lying on the street. There would be an epidemic if it were not for the cold weather and the frost and snow. The people there have no roofs over their heads. No one is talking about Chechnya. Why are we doing nothing for them? They have suffered one of the most severe wars of recent times. It is time that we were fair minded. I appeal to someone to see what can be done to assist the people of Chechnya and to perform one of the most important corporal works of mercy - the burying of the dead. We have seen the unburied dead on television. We should help the Chechens and give them food, clothes and shelter. Chechnya has been ravaged by war and is now a Third World country. I appeal for someone to take up the cause of the Chechen people. They are suffering terribly and need assistance. Mozambique was a wealthy country and had fine hotels. A few are left but there is no one in them. Five of us went to a big hotel there and it was an effort to find anyone to serve us. One of us had fish and chips, which was all the food that was left. We bought ten glasses of beer, two bottles of Coca-Cola and the bar was drained. Mr. Ryan: I propose to share my time with Senator Costello. Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Doyle): Is that agreed? Agreed. Mr. Ryan: I wish to clarify that the United Nations' target is 0.7p per pound of our gross national product - that is what 0.7% of 1% is. I wish to put the figures on the record. I am grateful to the Minister because he gave me enough figures to work it out. In 1992, ODA was £40 million. In 2000, it will be, according to the Minister, £190 million. Between 1992 and 1997, when the last Government was in power, ODA increased almost fourfold. It increased from £40 million per year in 1992 to £148 million in 1997, the last year in which the previous Government had budgetary control. In the three years since it has increased by barely one third - at a time when the economy is growing faster than ever. It is a spurious argument to suggest the problem is we are growing too fast. For years we could not fund ODA because we were too poor. Now, without a blush, the Government tells us we cannot fund ODA because we are too rich. The fundamental reason we will not fund ODA is that the worst Minister for Finance in the history of the State will not make the money available. It may be possible to argue about the capacity to immediately handle the huge increases. However, the solution to that is to create a separate fund to spend the money, not to say we will not make it available. We could make it available in the future, directly or indirectly. The real issue is the allocation of that proportion of our national resources. There is only one reason we are not doing that - because we choose not to. Attitudes to affluence and poverty are at issue here. The civilised countries of northern Europe enjoy being affluent but have overcome the idea of looking down their noses at those who are poorer than they and blaming them for their poverty. Unfortunately, the United States, upon whom this Government wishes to model itself, has a different view - that the poor are lazy and it is their own fault. Hence the US reluctance, either in terms of private donations or Government aid, to significantly help world development. We are making a choice in ways we do not even notice - apart from the obvious one regarding money. It is so trite that I will not discuss it. It is almost an insult to one's intelligence to have a Minister of the capability of Deputy Molloy say the reason we cannot increase ODA is we are too rich. We do not want to hear that anymore and it should not be presented to us. There are capacity and many other problems. However, there is a network of Irish volunteers and religious working around the world who have a billion different ideas of what they could do with money. The only reason they cannot spend the money is we will not give it to them. Bigger issues will confront us in the future. I am probably the only person in the country who has reservations about the enormous fishing vessel launched in Norway last week. We are told this will have space for enough fish to feed 14 million people for a day. Where will the fish be caught? Off the starving continent in Africa. They will be taken out of the sea there and brought back to the already affluent Europe. Is there something peculiar in our taking a natural resource, which is the property of the people of Africa, according to international law - because it is only under international agreements that we can do it - and bringing it back to indulge the tastes of the Spanish, French, Irish and British? The issue of trading emission permits to surmount our carbon dioxide problem and the breach of Kyoto limits has also floated to the top of the Government agenda. From whom will we buy those permits? From the poor countries of the world. This means they will be selling us the possibility of affluence in order to live today - so we can continue to indulge ourselves in excess expenditure of energy which we could just as well do without. That is the agenda we are setting ourselves. The symptom of that agenda is the scrounging and miserliness about ODA. The reality is that public policy has set its face against any fundamental restructuring of the world in the direction of justice. Mr. Costello: I compliment the Independent Senators on tabling this motion. They often table motions of merit and this is one. I wish to take up where my colleague, Senator Ryan, finished. Progress was made by previous Governments - including the Labour-Fianna Fáil Government in which the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, was involved in a ministerial capacity - from 1992 to 1997. We have allowed that progress to slip since 1997. It was unbelievable to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, say the Government will try to meet its targets but we have to accept that, because of a unique combination of circumstances, it has been difficult to make progress according to the benchmark of growth as a percentage of our gross national product. He said the first of the circumstances causing difficulty is the unprecedented annual growth in the Irish economy which we have been experiencing for the last five years. We cannot have it every way, difficult when the economy is going badly and virtually impossible when the economy is booming. The three Nordic countries are the only countries in Europe to have reached the benchmark. Given our booming economy, it is high time we sought to rival that progress. The benchmark for us as a civilised society is how to use our new found money. Will we use it in a civilised and suitable manner domestically and will we take our international responsibilities seriously? We are now in a position to progress the percentage increase to the level at which the economy is growing. Why is a specific target not included in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness? Why is there just a bland statement that we will build on the substantial progress of recent years in providing overseas development assistance in future years? Why was there not a specific commitment for a three year period, followed by a specific commitment for another three year period, with a view to reaching a specific target within at least six years? We could then try to progress matters further. There are no such commitments and unless the Government is prepared to change its mind or there is a new Minister for Finance, there will not be the slightest hope of an improvement in relation to overseas development aid. Dr. Henry: I thank the Government for withdrawing the amendment. I phrased the motion carefully because I felt it could be accepted by the Government. As Members will be aware, there is consensus on all sides of the House on this issue. I am pleased the Minister of State is present for the debate because he has been very involved in Third World issues. Like other Members, I wish the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, a speedy return to health. She has shown a great commitment to this issue. Senator Ryan was probably very wise to remind us how our increased affluence has a serious effect on others. The reaction of the general public to issues such as the Finance Bill and the recent partnership debate shows that there is concern for people who are not doing so well. This should be borne in mind and we should not worry about the fact that we have so much money we do not know what to do with it. Many people working in Irish Aid could give pointers on what to do with the money. Senator Jackman mentioned accountability, which is important. I was very impressed by the fact that many people working with aid organisations were trying to ensure that the taxpayers' money was being put to good use. Some of the concluding remarks in the Minister's speech worry me slightly. Senator Norris stressed that we need accurate information. I was horrified that a newspaper article stated that heterosexual activity is not involved in the spread of HIV. How on earth do they think women are becoming infected and dying? They are not all drug addicts in India or Africa. The maternal and infant mortality rate has increased dramatically. The life expectancy in many central African countries has decreased. In countries such as Zambia, Uganda and so on, life expectancy was climbing up well into the late forties. However, the recent figures I received for both men and women indicate that it has decreased to 40 or 41 years, which is dreadful. I was very pleased to hear the OECD report which stated that we did so well in relation to our aid projects. They would have saved themselves a lot of money if they had just sent me out, because I said exactly the same. It was worthwhile pointing out the three Ps - poverty, participation and partnership. However, we need to stress another aspect, that is, politics. Perhaps in our civil rights programmes we should try to do a bit more with the politicians in some of these countries. I must single out Uganda as being much more positive under President Museveni in trying to tackle its problems. I regret to say that some of the politicians in Zambia appeared to think it was a bit of a joke and were not taking seriously enough the fact that we would have a stick approach as well as a carrot in relation to the various aid programmes. The United Nations needs to co-ordinate its efforts because there are problems in some cases with overlapping. I would say to Senator Lydon that I never heard abortion mentioned or promoted by the United Nations population fund. Both countries have different abortion policies. Uganda has a very limited legal abortion policy and Zambia has a broader legal abortion policy. I heard of an appalling level of illegal abortions in both countries and a terribly high death rate, particularly among teenagers. First, we do not wish to see teenagers becoming pregnant and, second, we do not wish them to have abortions. The illegal abortion rate and lack of treatment is quite horrific and is not being addressed at all; they just pretend it is not happening. This problem is not being spoken about and it is a major contributing factor to maternal mortality figures. I was extremely alarmed by this. I must mention many excellent projects such as the hospice movement which is being set up in Uganda and supported by Irish people. We are supporting the education of health care workers, which is very worthwhile because they can then go out into the community after three years and give a great deal of help and advice. I saw buildings being erected at the rate of knots to train laboratory technicians who are in very short supply. Countries such as Chechnya and so on are also desperately in need of aid. I was pleased to learn that we were co-founders of the Advisory Centre on World Trade Organisation Law because information is so important in all these areas. No matter from what side it comes, it is of the greatest value to countries where it is extremely difficult to obtain information. An Cathaoirleach: I wish to point out to the Minister of State that Senator Henry has replied and the debate has concluded. It is not usual procedure to have two ministerial contributions. However, if he wishes to make a brief intervention, I am sure Members of the House will hear him. Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt): I appreciate it is unusual and I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute. I wish to make a few brief comments out of respect for the Seanad and because in a previous Government I was Minister with responsibility for overseas development. I am pleased the Government supports the motion. I listened carefully to the debate and this is why I am anxious to acknowledge the role of many Members of the House in visiting the developing world. I visited this area with many Members present and that personal experience means much to all of us. It has added a huge personal dimension to the debate and I thank Members for this. I could list a number of projects in Zambia and Tanzania such as the pre-natal and post-natal maternity clinic in Lusaka, water projects in northern Zambia, the work with AIDS victims by our missionaries, who are an important element of the Irish diaspora, and the NGOs working in Sudan, Somalia and Rwanda. We all have many personal experiences which add to the strength of Ireland's position in relation to development aid. This is why I am pleased the Government supports the motion and we must press on with progress in this area. Senator Henry mentioned the WTO. I moved from a development to a trade ministry and it is of fundamental importance that we recognise the linkage between global trade policies and development. Everybody agrees our aid projects are well focused and I pay tribute to our staff at home and abroad. I work with dedicated people but the individuals in the Department of Foreign Affairs who work on these projects at home and abroad are hugely committed. However, there is a bigger picture in that global policies on trade must be linked to development. In Seattle, I was proud that the Government agreed to provide US$1 million to the legal advisory service for the Least Developed Countries to help them with the huge and complex problems they encounter in dealing with trade issues. I am also pleased the Government supported the approach of providing duty free access to the European Union and global markets for goods from the developing world. They are important trade issues which will affect the lives of individuals in countries where the people truly are the poorest of the poor. As a Minister of State with responsibility for trade, I am pleased I can pursue these policies. I was glad to go to Seattle, although I heard Senator Ryan complaining that a Minister of State was going. However, he did not understand that development was a major issue in Seattle. I was proud to be able to put the Irish development agenda firmly on the global agenda of the Seattle meeting. There is also a need at global level for co-ordination between the UN, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the ILO. There are tremendous organisations but some of them need to be rationalised and reorganised. As we start a new millennium, there is a need for these organisations to work together. I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to speak. Some of the issues raised, such as Chechnya, could be addressed and perhaps Senators could follow them up with me. I will be glad to answer their queries on behalf of the Government. I thank Senators for their contributions because this area is close to my heart. I am pleased and proud that I was part of a previous Government, as Senator Costello noted, which increased the aid budget. As a member of this Government, I want to work with the Senators to ensure that we continue to make progress. Question put and agreed to. Speech Menu Top