Rónán Mullen (Independent)

The Minister of State made an impressive presentation but I was struck by the fact that we are sixth in the world in terms of per capita donation. We can be proud of this but we can attempt to improve on it. We should aim to be the best in the world in per capita contribution to overseas aid.

Let us cast our minds back to that summer evening in 1985 when Bob Geldof told everyone not to go to the pub, to stay in and to give money because people were dying. It was a passionate plea and represents a memorable quote from a miserable decade. Geldof's efforts at that time on behalf of the world's poor, particularly those in Africa, were a major source of pride for us. So also was the generosity of ordinary people in this country. Per head of population, Ireland was among the best contributors to Live Aid.

It is time, however, to move beyond the touching of our hearts and to contemplate using our heads to tackle global poverty. Helping the needy is part of our heritage and much worthy comment has been made about the great example set by our missionaries abroad and about the many Irish people employed as aid workers who have followed in the footsteps of the former and work alongside them in many instances. Our Irish Aid commitment is truly impressive and reflects our great national tradition.

A number of issues remain to be discussed. I refer, for example, to the question of who gets our money. Much of our money is rightly given to NGOs such as Trócaire, GOAL and Concern. However, there are concerns about the money being given to foreign governments. Corruption is undoubtedly a problem in Africa, where we are focusing our overseas development spend. According to a report in 2002, corruption costs Africa approximately $150 billion annually. To place that in context, the annual budget for one African country, Burundi, is just $300 million. This is a serious problem.

There is a debate with regard to whether, as Senator Norris stated, money should be given to agencies and individuals with proven records in addressing need or whether we should continue to fund governments. Despite the reservations of John O'Shea, who has an excellent track record, and others, the balance of opinion seems to favour the policy of contributing to governments. Even though there are problems with corruption, the governments control the networks through which aid can reach people.

When dealing with corruption, we should perhaps take the example of President Bush who announced in 2004 that he would link American aid to improved governance in the Third World. A total of 41 countries have signed agreements with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, the body administering the programme. Improvements have been made and practical advantages have been experienced by people, including farmers in Madagascar, where poor soil meant that opportunities to earn money were extremely limited. Last year, in partnership with the MCC, an association of 18 villagers began producing from local trees essential oils from that could be used as cosmetics. Within two months their efforts had been successful and one of the villagers managed to save $500. That is the kind of practical benefit that accrues and it shows us that a real issue exists with regard to ensuring good governance.

We must not merely trust the governments receiving funds. I suggest that Irish Aid should set aside part of its budget to create incentives for better governance. There is a need to take more seriously the issue of monitoring how money is spent. In that regard, Irish Aid needs more staff. It is a popular belief that as little as possible should be spent on administration and that the money should be sent directly to where it is needed. That might make sense on an emotional level. However, in order to ensure that the money we provide is spent properly, the staffing complement of Irish Aid must be increased. The OECD's development assistance committee warned that Ireland must increase staff numbers in order to keep pace with the growing budget.