Vol. 680 No. 4
1 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the areas of the overseas aid budget that will be reduced as a result of the cuts of €255 million in funding announced over the past nine months; the amount of the reduction in each of the affected areas of the budget; when those in the affected areas will be informed of the nature of the reductions in their areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15995/09]
The total official development assistance budget for 2009 will be €696 million. It is anticipated the aid budget will amount to 0.48% of GNP. This will mean that Ireland will most likely remain the sixth largest aid donor in the world as a percentage of GNP. This remains an enormous achievement in the current economic circumstances. The reduction in the aid budget will necessitate modification in planned expenditures across the programme. I want to ensure to the maximum extent possible that projects and programmes which are focused on the most vulnerable and those which are daily saving lives, such as emergency feeding, will be maintained.
In practical terms, the revised aid budget will mean slower disbursement of funding in regard to longer term development programmes. However, this will not affect the final outputs, such as the number of schools built or teachers trained. We are in continuous contact with our partners on all aspects of programming, including budgets. Adjustments amounting to approximately €118 million will need to be made across the bilateral co-operation element of the aid programme. Support to programme countries and civil society will amount to €313 million, which is about €45 million less than anticipated. This will necessitate the lengthening of timeframes for programme completion. In 2009, Irish Aid will provide well over €100 million to NGOs and civil society.
Our programmes of strategic co-operation with key larger UN development agencies will be maintained, but with lengthened timelines and some reductions in 2009 allocations. We also remain ready to assist in sudden natural disasters and emergencies. Funding of €56 million has been set aside for humanitarian activities, which represents an adjustment of €24 million. Our pre-positioned emergency supplies remain in place and will be replenished as necessary.
In respect to the quality of our aid programme, we have just been reviewed by the OECD development assistance committee. I am extremely pleased to note that the report refers to Ireland as a "champion in making aid more effective" and to Irish Aid's "strong cutting edge programme". We can be pleased to hear these views from an independent, objective and critical international aid organisation.
Our aid programme reflects our core values and commitment to supporting the world's poorest. The decisions we are taking in order to adjust the aid programme are framed in the context of this commitment and our determination that, once the Irish economy has returned to a pattern of sustainable growth, we will resume the expansion of our aid programme.
It is somewhat misleading to state that a cut of €255 million in the aid budget over a period of 12 months reflects the core values of this country. It does not in any way reflect our core values. We have a commitment under the millennium development goals, as the Minister is aware, of achieving a 0.7% of GDP target by 2012. Our GDP has fallen by 8% in the past year but our aid budget has been slashed by 20%. There is a disproportionate and swinging affect on our overseas development aid budget in terms of how it is being cut and targeted, and treated as a soft option.
My concern is that overseas development aid may be considered by some in Government as an optional luxury, which it most certainly is not — it is a fundamental core of this country's foreign policy. The Minister appears to be rolling back on this, from what I can understand. A 20% cut is totally disproportionate——
Does the Deputy have a question?
A question is coming. This is a very easy target and one that does not have electoral implications for the Government because it does not directly hit voters. That is an obvious point.
Is there a question?
I want to ask the Minister a specific question. We still do not have clarity and all the aid agencies are completely confused as to how their budgets will be affected and what specific programmes will be affected. They need clarity because they cannot plan. We have a targeted and professional system in how our agencies give assistance through various programmes and they cannot plan or operate on this basis.
The Deputy rightly points out that we have had a significant reduction in GNP in 2008 and 2009. While I do not want to go down that road, we are dealing with a net reduction of €80 million from a very substantial budget if we factor in the 2008 reduction and the expected 8% reduction in GNP in 2009. That is the context. We were aiming for 0.54% in 2009. Owing to the reduction in GNP we actually achieved 0.58% in 2008, which puts us fifth in Europe and sixth per capita across the globe. Even though we are going back to 0.48% for 2009, we will probably still be the sixth largest in 2009.
We do not take any pleasure from this. We did not want to be in this position. Across the board there have been significant cutbacks in all programmes. There has also been a very significant drop in revenues resulting in a very tough series of budgetary decisions which affects everyone in our society and unfortunately has affected the aid programme also.
However, the underlying objective is to create a sustainable pathway for our public finances which ultimately is the best guarantee of being able to achieve our target of 0.7%. That was an Irish target. The EU target was to achieve 0.7% by 2015.
While we can argue over the figures, the reality is that there has been a 20% cut, which does not reflect the drop in GNP. The NGOs, including Trócaire and GOAL are all reeling in confusion. They cannot plan because they do not know which programmes will be cut. If the Minister could clarify that, it would be very beneficial for them.
The NGOs will know very soon and we will be communicating with them directly. I point out that we have one of the best records of any donor countries in assisting NGOs and missionaries in that approximately 20% of our aid programme is delivered via civil society organisations with more than €200 million being provided in 2008. No other donor allocates such a high proportion of its aid programme in that manner through civil society.
2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way the cuts of €100 million on top of the 17% cut previously made will impact on the projects funded by his Department in general and in the bilateral countries in particular. [15994/09]
In my reply to the previous question I set out in some detail the important issues the Government is facing in implementing the adjustments to the aid programme which are now required. As I pointed out, with an overall allocation of €696 million in 2009, Ireland will again be the sixth most generous aid donor internationally in per capita terms. We will deliver on our commitment to resume the expansion of the programme once we have got our economy back into a pattern of sustainable growth. In the past six years alone Ireland has contributed in excess of €4 billion in ODA. By any standard this is a very significant achievement and one of which we should acknowledge and for which we should take some credit.
In reducing the aid budget for this year there will inevitably be an impact on funding across the programme. We are at present identifying the necessary changes, consistent with the central priority of our aid programme, which is the reduction of global poverty and hunger in the poorest countries in the world, especially in Africa.
Ireland provides assistance to more than 90 developing countries and we have a commitment to long-term strategic assistance in nine programme countries. Although funding adjustments will be required and the timeframes for the disbursement of some funding will need to be extended, we will maintain the overall commitments we have entered into with these countries.
As I have mentioned, an important report on Ireland's aid programme will be published shortly by the OECD development assistance committee. It states clearly that the concentration of Ireland's development assistance on a limited number of poor countries is one of its main strengths and that the programme's attention to local priorities is appreciated by developing country partners. It confirms that the proportion of bilateral spending devoted by Ireland to the poorest countries has been both high and remarkably constant over the years, and very significantly higher than the average for all major international aid donors.
This independent, international recognition of Ireland's record is well earned, not just by the official aid programme, but also by the consistent generosity shown over the years by the Irish people. The changes, which we must now make, will be implemented in a manner that sustains the Irish record in the developing world and our commitment to a disproportionate Irish contribution to the fight against global hunger and poverty.
Arising from the Minister's replies to these two priority questions, how does he square what he has said with what the Taoiseach said in response to Pope Benedict's new year message? The Taoiseach said:
I welcome the commitments made in the Declaration that issued at the Doha Conference in December and note that, despite serious economic difficulties, Ireland remains on course to achieve the target of spending 0.7 per cent of GNP on Overseas Development Aid. In this time of global economic crisis, His Holiness' message is a timely reminder of the obligation that we in the developed world have to assist those in greater need.
This is the fourth cut in overseas development aid and three issues arise, which I want to put to the Minister. How can he justify the disproportionate cuts in overseas development aid? If one were to talk about a cut of 8%, which other Departments and sections suffered, €71 million would have been taken out. What was taken out was €195 million.
The second issue relates to the impact. When one considers for example the campaigns against AIDS and the health impact, while the NGOs have received an allocation of 70% of their budget, it is still unclear whether life-threatening programmes will be able to continue. Going back on solemn commitments given several times at the United Nations by previous Taoisigh, most recently by the present Taoiseach, does serious damage to Ireland's reputation. We never fell back and rationalised by comparing ourselves with the poorer performers. We always claimed a lead role and now that would appear to be sacrificed.
I would not accept that we were always claiming a lead role. It was only in the recent past that we have been claiming a leading role.
We had a consensus.
Back in 2000 we contributed approximately €220 million and we have made dramatic progress since then. Of course our GNP grew dramatically over the same period and the linkage of the amount of aid allocated with GNP was a significant factor in that and agreements we made in that regard. Now that the GNP has reduced very significantly, people are very reluctant to factor in that decline in GNP to any reduction in aid at all. They seem to be suggesting that we ignore that aspect of it and just take the totality of the figure without any connection to the reduction in GNP.
So the target is set.
I am simply saying that there clearly is a cut in the aid programme. Some relates to the reduction in GNP and some relates to additional amounts that have been cut.
It is a disproportionate cut.
The key issue for us is to create a sustainable pattern of finances that will ensure continued sustainable allocations for aid into the future. We are borrowing very significant amounts of money this year to support this programme and other programmes across Government expenditure generally. We are very keen to maintain our relationships and fulfil our commitments to the nine programme countries. We have undertaken to spend €100 million a year on HIV-AIDS and other communicable diseases, and we will continue at this level.
The OECD has given a favourable report on the Irish aid programme, which is welcome. However, one would find it strange that the only increase, an increase of 240%, in the allocations in Vote 29 is in value for money and policy reviews. When there is consensus about the value of the programme and when we have had to cut back good elements of it, why embark on value for money studies at this stage? One would have thought the Government would be seeking to sustain the programme in terms of where the impact of cuts might be most negative with regard to life-threatening issues. I welcome the cut of 61% for consultancy services. Following on from Question No. 1, the Minister needs to give an assurance with regard to funding. If the major NGOs have been given an indication they will receive 70% of what they had been receiving, they cannot be left without direction on the remaining 30% across their programmes if they are to plan effectively.
We will get in touch quickly with the NGOs. The 70% was an up-front contribution allocation early on. It was acknowledged that it was important to make such a commitment in advance of the budget. I am surprised at the Deputy's comment on value for money. The programme has grown rapidly in a short space of time and any Government expenditure programme that increases so rapidly requires careful monitoring.
That is not my argument.
We need to be extremely vigilant in terms of value for money audits on all of the programmes. We are vigilant and work with the OECD in that regard.
I think the rush to vigilance is a cover.
No, I would be concerned if we did not do it. I am surprised the Deputy raised the matter because it is a relatively small amount. The Deputy quoted a percentage, but the base is quite small.
I think the programme has been damaged by the unfounded allegations against it.
We have had other examples of Government expenditure where we had to justify the necessity of carrying out some value for money assessments.
3 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he will lodge a claim with the United Nations for an extension in the State’s share of the continental shelf; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15996/09]
Ireland claims continental shelf extending beyond the standard 200 mile entitlement to both the west and south of the country. Under international law these claims must be examined by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. For the purposes of our claims, we have divided the extended shelf into three sectors.
The first sector is to the south west of the country near the Porcupine Abyssal Plain, an area which is approximately half the size of the State's land territory and which was the subject of Ireland's first submission to the Commission. The Commission issued recommendations in 2007. These confirmed Ireland's entitlement in this sector and set out details of where the new outer limit there should be established. The area involved is approximately 39,000 sq km, which is a very satisfactory outcome. The Government made an order under the Continental Shelf Act 1968 on 31 March last which formally establishes the area concerned as Irish continental shelf.
The second claim is in the Celtic Sea, where there are unresolved boundary issues with the UK, France and Spain. The four countries made a joint submission for this 80,000 sq km area in 2006. The Commission last month confirmed this claim and negotiations on its division between the four will begin in due course.
Ireland also claims part of the Hatton-Rockall area of the north-east Atlantic, which extends up to 500 nautical miles from the coast. There is an agreed Ireland-UK boundary here, but it is not accepted by Iceland or the Færoe Islands, which make their own claims. The four have met regularly since 2001 in an effort to resolve the overlapping claims issue, but to date have been unable to reach agreement. In view of the ten year deadline for the making of submissions to the Commission, which for Ireland expires in May, Ireland lodged its own claim for this area last month. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Commission will examine it, but the four countries concerned intend to keep the matter under regular review.
The Rockall dispute in particular is of significant importance for the country because potential lucrative and valuable oil and gas reserves may well be available for exploration in the future. What is being done at Government level to fight for and make the case for Ireland at UN level in this regard? It is reasonably widely accepted that the Irish case is stronger than that of Iceland or Denmark. It is, therefore, essential that we put forward a strong challenge. The talks, which had been ongoing since 2001, have now broken down. This presents an opportunity to have the situation resolved once and for all within the United Nations. Will the Minister inform the House what he and the Government have been doing to ensure we see a successful outcome for Ireland?
I just did that in my reply and outlined the three areas in which the Department has been involved. With regard to the Porcupine Abyssal Plain, we have now achieved a successful outcome as a result of our submission to the Commission. The second claim relates to the Rockall area of the north-east Atlantic. We are not talking about Rockall itself, as the rock is of no relevance to this at all. Our concern is the area around it.
I am aware of that.
We have now made our submission to the Commission on that. There is a timeframe involved. We had been hoping to reach agreement, but that was impossible. The ten year timeframe for making a submission would have been up in May, so we have made our submission now.
The Department got its submission in at the 11th hour.
We endeavoured to get agreement first. We have an agreed Ireland-UK boundary, but the Færoe Islands and Iceland have not accepted that. There have been regular meetings in the intervening period between the four countries to try to resolve the issue, but that has not been possible. It is now a matter for the Commission. We are pursuing the issue and trying to get the correct outcome from Ireland's perspective.
What is the timeframe for that? How long does the Minister anticipate it will take?
The issue is around 25 years, since the time of Charles Haughey.
We cannot give a timeframe with regard to when the Commission will examine the issue. We have a good record with regard to the manner in which we have pursued the issues and the successes we have had over the years.
This is the key issue of the three.
They are all important. All sorts of claims can be made about economic potential, but that all remains to be determined. All of the issues are important. There is a process to be followed and if a mutually satisfactory agreement cannot be reached the best way to pursue the issue is through the UN Commission. That is the route we have taken.
4 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee for a transatlantic political council and joint parliamentary committee to put EU-US relations on an institutional basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16048/09]
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has put forward an interesting set of proposals, which are currently being studied in my Department. Nobody can dispute that the relationship between the European Union and the US is our most important strategic partnership. This remains the case, whatever the personalities or political forces on either side.
As regards the idea of a transatlantic political council, I point out that relations between the EU and the US are already structured through a number of institutional arrangements. The most important of these, in political terms, is the EU-US Summit where the Presidency, European Commission President and High Representative meet the President of the United States. The next summit will take place in June and will pursue some of the issues raised at the informal summit which took place in Prague earlier this month with the participation of all members of the European Council, including the Taoiseach. Given the time and resources devoted to the summits, it is essential that they should be events of substance, leading to significant outcomes for both sides. It is important to bear in mind that any changes in structures would require the assent of the US side. There is no evidence at present that they see a need for additional summit meetings.
The Transatlantic Economic Council, established in 2007, also has an important role to play in strengthening economic and commercial relations between the EU and the US. It can play a particularly useful role in the current international economic climate. I am confident that council has an important role to play in promoting transatlantic economic integration to the benefit of both sides.
As regards a joint parliamentary committee, contacts and institutional arrangements between the European Parliament and the US Congress are a matter for those bodies to agree between themselves. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the important role which inter-parliamentary contacts can have in promoting understanding of international issues and raising awareness among parliamentarians. I appreciate there is scope for development of the transatlantic legislators dialogue and would welcome efforts of parliamentarians on both sides in this direction.
We cannot underestimate the significance of EU-US partnership, which was clearly damaged throughout the course of the most recent US Administration. That eight-year period saw significant difficulties in the traditionally co-operative EU-US approach to many aspects of foreign affairs. Given our opportunity with the new US Administration, it is essential we get that relationship back on track. Economically, the logic in the arguments is self-evident, in that 60% of global GDP is accounted for by the EU and US economies and 14 million people are employed through transatlantic economic activity. Co-operation is important, not just to the EU and the US, but to the rest of the world.
I do not accept it is a matter for the European Parliament and Congress to decide.
Question.
Leadership by the European Council is necessary. Will the Minister comment in this regard? A new institutional framework must be pioneered by the European Council and member states.
My point was that it is a matter for both parliaments. Let us not presume that we, the governments, can dictate to parliaments. Congress is conscious of its role as a Legislature independent of the US Executive. Likewise, the European Parliament has increased its status as a legislature, including its co-decision responsibilities with the Council. There is a need for contacts at that level, which we support. For it to be successful at the parliamentary dialogue level, the initiative and enthusiasm to carry it forward must come from both parliaments.
Regarding the broader issue, the relationship between the US and the EU is strategically important. We are satisfied with the quick, warm relationship developed by the new Administration of President Obama and the EU. An effective informal summit was held in Prague. The G20 process involved significant collaboration with EU Heads of Government and the US Presidency prior to the G20 meeting, which focused on the global financial and banking collapse, how to resurrect the global economy and how to develop a coherent set of policies that would lead to a resumption of growth and employment.
The structures exist, such as the Transatlantic Economic Council, the annual summits and the significant series of bilateral meetings between the US and EU member states. In Ireland's case, that meeting occurs in March every year and presents a considerable opportunity for us to engage in a substantive bilateral contact with the US Administration at the highest level.
I want to allow Deputy Creighton a brief supplementary question.
The key issue is the quality of those engagements and their outcomes. It is not just a matter of quantity and frequency of meetings. It is a matter of the meetings' substance and outputs.
I do not dispute that. Ireland, as one of only two English-speaking EU member states, has an opportunity to be the pioneer. I do not know whether the Minister has considered Fine Gael's 2004 proposal of a transatlantic foundation based in Shannon. There would be an added bonus for Ireland and new economic activity, but it would also strengthen Ireland's role as the United States of America's gateway into Europe. It is a major opportunity, but it does not seem to have been considered by the Minister.
For the information of the House and as the Deputy is probably aware, the Government initiated and concluded a significant report on the strategic relationship between Ireland and the US. The Taoiseach launched it during St. Patrick's week, thereby highlighting the strategic relationship between Ireland and the US while setting it in an EU context.
We have been clear in our strong support for a progressive and warm relationship with the US, not only in terms of economics, but also regarding the Middle East peace process, for example. We welcome the prioritisation of that issue by President Obama and the appointment of Senator George Mitchell and stand ready to provide our support. The strong, strategic partnership between the US and the EU in terms of the suppression of piracy can be effective. The EU-US axis is pivotal to the peaceful resolution of a number of international disputes. There is no disagreement in terms of the importance of the——
We could be more proactive.
We are very proactive.
Not enough.
There has been ongoing and frequent contact between the EU and the US Administration since the election of President Obama, although it has undoubtedly been motivated by the significant global economic meltdown.
5 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the EU’s diplomatic relationship with Israel and Gaza; if plans for an EU-Israel summit will go ahead; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14624/09]
Ireland enjoys good diplomatic relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority through our Embassy in Tel Aviv, representative office in Ramallah and their respective missions in Dublin. The representative office in Ramallah is accredited to the Palestinian Authority, including in respect of Gaza. The EU likewise engages directly with the Government of Israel and with the Palestinian Authority, including on issues relating to Gaza.
It is a matter of regret that the Palestinian Authority is currently unable to exercise control of Gaza. Discussions between the Palestinian factions have been under way since January, brokered by the Egyptian Government, with the aim of ending this division and restoring a united Palestinian Government. I would welcome such a development.
Ireland believes that the EU should be ready to engage with Hamas once previously stated requirements are met and the movement indicates readiness to renounce violence and be part of the search for a solution in the area. There have been some indications that its position may be evolving, but the ball is in Hamas's court.
The idea of an EU-Israel summit meeting was one of the possibilities for deeper political exchanges connected with the idea of an overall enhancement in EU-Israel relations, the so-called upgrade. I have spoken on this topic many times in the House and have made clear our opinion that the decision in principle last year to upgrade should be reconsidered in light of subsequent developments, including both the Gaza conflict and the stance of the new Israeli Government.
The Czech Presidency had indicated that it hoped to be able to hold an EU-Israel summit during its term, but it does not now appear that this will take place. More positively, the Obama Administration continues to be actively engaged in the search for peace, with Senator Mitchell paying his third visit to the region last week while President Obama will meet Prime Minister Netanyahu and Presidents Abbas and Mubarak in the coming weeks. Renewed US engagement and co-operation with the EU in the region is critical, a point I heavily emphasised in my intervention at the recent EU-US summit in Prague.
At a Council meeting in December, it was agreed that bilateral relations with Israel be upgraded. I assume the Government supported this position at the time. Claiming that the proposed EU-Israel summit should not proceed is flawed logic, as we need to engage. Since I do not understand, what is the Minister's logic for refusing to upgrade the bilateral relationship with Israel? There would be a carrot effect in terms of incentivising better co-operation with the EU and the US.
And an international tribunal on war crimes.
There would be a better opportunity to get the region's peace process on track. What is the Minister's logic?
The Czech Presidency's intended summit is not likely to go ahead. Our position at the December Council meeting was clear. We wrote to the Presidency and stated that were there to be any upgrade or any summit with Israel, there would need to be a summit with the Palestinian Authority. The Presidency was going down another route.
Ireland's position has always been consistent in that we have linked progress on the Middle East peace process with any upgrade in relationships. The Israeli Government has not been happy with our position, but that strong linkage between upgrading relationships with any player in the region and sensible progress and commitment to key principles is important.
While a good relationship already exists between Israel and the EU, upgrading it further, in the absence of any commitment from the new Prime Minister of Israel to——
To a Palestinian state.
——the two-state solution, would be a significant carrot that rewarded such a stance. I also refer to the Israeli Foreign Minister's recent comments that Israel no longer is bound to the Annapolis process. The Government does not wish to be awkward in this regard and wishes to creates space to allow momentum develop for peace because it believes the ultimate solution is a two-state solution in which both states live in harmony and peace with each other. I am not encouraged by recent events, such as the failure to open crossings to facilitate the access of humanitarian aid for reconstruction. The news the Department receives from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, is continually and frustratingly depressing. It pertains to how people are being left in situations of dire need and want, particularly in respect of supplies for primary education and so on.
We are in a very difficult environment in the wake of the Gaza conflict. It should be remembered that a horrific conflict took place in Gaza that also has coloured the minds and has changed views within Europe and across the European Union on this issue. Clearly, it has created a scenario in which it is neither optimal nor the right time to consider the upgrading of relationships. That said, the prioritisation that President Obama courageously has accorded this issue is important and we stand willing to help and assist in any way possible all the players in the region towards a lasting and sustained settlement.
We will have a brief supplementary question from Deputy Creighton.
Everyone in this House is committed to the two-state solution and that is Fine Gael's position. As for the appointment of Senator Mitchell, from the Minister's remarks it strikes me there has been no progress and the Minister is not optimistic, notwithstanding the renewed impetus from the United States. Is that the case?
I draw genuine hope and solace from President Obama's decision to give priority to this issue and from his appointment of a man of George Mitchell's calibre to engage in the region.
Hear, hear. He will do better than Tony Blair.
Members also should recall that in the past, Mr. Netanyahu has proved capable of reaching pragmatic agreements. On the face of it, given all the rhetoric and articulation of ideas, one does not draw hope from some of the rhetoric that has been articulated. However, we have been through this in Ireland in respect of our peace process and behind that, perhaps movement can take place.
In the Government's view, it is of strategic importance to Israel that there would be a resolution of this issue, as obviously it is to the Palestinians. Moreover, the Arab states have played a highly constructive role in this regard through the Arab peace initiative and it is important not to allow that to wither.
