Committee on Foreign Affairs - White Paper on Irish Aid - 10th October 2006

Committee on Foreign Affairs - White Paper on Irish Aid - 10th October 2006
Senator Norris: I welcome the Minister of State’s very clear and cogent contribution. How firm is the Government’s commitment to 0.7% of GDP for overseas development aid? I welcome very much Deputy Michael D. Higgins’s analysis, which indicates Ireland’s contribution is real, and the public should be made aware of this point. It is something of which we can be proud.
The Minister of State made a number of positive comments. However, I would like to know how firm the Government’s commitment is for a number of reasons. Some years ago in the Seanad, the then Leader, who is not connected to the Minister of State, gave a commitment, which was not lived up to and, under questioning from Senator O’Toole, the Leader stated it was not an absolute commitment. How absolute is the Government’s commitment, given that there will be a general election and it is by no means certain that this Administration will survive or that the current Minister will be in the position in 12 months? I recall the former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O’Donnell, making an impassioned speech to the committee suggesting that the commitment should be built in on a statutory basis. I forget the precise mechanism by which this was to be done but it has not been done and, therefore, we need to know how firm this commitment is.
The Minister of State said that although substantial sums are being made available and we have a healthy economy, which is small on the world scale, in gross terms our contribution is not as large as those of larger economies. However, he indicated that because of the wiseness and judicious nature of our choices and the way in which our investment is monitored, other states have tended to follow us. I do not expect him to have this information at his fingertips but he might make it available. It would be useful for the purposes of debate in the Houses if examples could be cited where aid was pioneered in an area by Ireland and subsequently, Denmark, Sweden or another state followed. Such examples would be useful and it would strengthen our argument if we had them.
I very much like and welcome the idea of conflict resolution and analysis. Even humble specimens such as myself are often asked whether any lessons can be drawn from the Irish experience in Africa and elsewhere and it would be useful, in light of our experience, if perhaps we could contribute to bringing more harmony to the planet.
I refer to the hunger task force and the situation in Darfur. I have received a number of communications in this regard and, before the Minister of State arrived, I asked the Chairman if the committee could examine this matter. The issue will be examined at the next meeting. Darfur seriously needs examining and I wonder what contribution Ireland has made. I was absolutely horrified and I cry “shame” on those countries that gave monetary commitments to Darfur but have not lived up to them. That is utterly shameful. My colleague, Senator Leyden, uses the wonderful phrase, “name and shame”, in the Seanad sometimes. These countries should be named and shamed. It is absolutely disgraceful that people go out in public and say they are going to be generous and do not live up to that. How dare they? We need to know who they are.
Underlying many of these problems is the question of population control. The rate of increase in population levels on the planet is appalling and terrifying. This is the key problem that underlies conflict. One has only to consider Dr. Skinner’s experiment with rats to understand the kind of behaviour the human species is exhibiting, which is not unrelated to his experiments. Deputy Higgins referred to water resources which are also a contributory factor, as are conflict, pollution and the destruction of the environment. What else can be expected when the population has doubled in the last 40 years? To use a buzzword, it is not sustainable.
I am sorry that I mistakenly called Deputy Michael D. Higgins a Senator because certain columnists have invented a new animal called Senator Michael D. Norris. I am extremely flattered to be genetically joined with the Deputy who referred to the idea of a separate Ministry which would be worth considering. I was surprised that there seemed to be a certain tictac between the Minister of State and the Chairman, given that this idea was contained in both the Minister of State’s speech and the Chairman’s remarks. I had not heard of this proposal and do not believe any other committee member has heard of it either; therefore, to a certain extent, it has been bounced onto us but that may be no harm as it should be discussed.
Deputy Mulcahy is correct in the sense that if the committee takes on or pretends to take on very large operations, it may distort our other work. If we intend to do this, we need to write it clearly into the terms of reference because it should not just be a cosmetic exercise.
Deputy Allen referred to decentralisation to Limerick. Coincidentally, I heard people comment on this issue on the wireless yesterday. Radio journalists seem apprehensive with regard to the ease with which one can get interviews. For example, people visiting the Department in Limerick - it is as easy to stop off at Shannon Airport as Dublin Airport - may miss out on media exposure when coming to Ireland to discuss matters with it. As this point appears to be causing great hilarity to the Minister of State, I may well have shown my naivete again.
Deputy C. Lenihan: The Senator should not fear for the media.
Senator Norris: That does not bother me in the slightest. Whether the Minister of State has a good or even crushing answer, I will be happy to listen to it.
Chairman: Given the Senator’s forensic analysis, I will clarify the position. I confess there was a connection between the Minister of State and me in the sense that we had both read the report.
Senator Norris: How unusual. I commend the Chairman.