Alex White (Labour)

This House has a high level of consensus on this issue. In his speech, the Minister of State stated Ireland has a moral obligation to address these issues and he is correct. However, it goes beyond a moral obligation. This matter has a political dimension which the Minister of State touched on in his speech and we should reflect on it in this discussion.

If we are to rebalance the wealth in the world we must acknowledge that if we make decisions which will affect and improve the lives of the millions of people who require us to change the way things are done, in our part of the world we may experience pain. When political decisions are made, some people gain and others lose. There is no question that in this part of the world we must face up to the fact that we have been slow to accept the developed world must take a degree of pain in rebalancing wealth in our world and time.

We must spend more time on the trade system. Even though we are a small country we need to understand the importance of the international trade system and how often it militates against the interests of developing countries. One hears much talk about the mantra of free trade. I do not state I am against free trade. Trade is vital and the Minister of State said countries should be encouraged as far as possible to trade their way out of poverty, which is a laudable objective.

Many countries we know today as great industrial and economic powers, such as Japan, exercised an extraordinary amount of protection of their emerging industries 100 years ago and during the 20th century. It is amazing how quick we are to turn around to developing countries and state that they must observe this pure form of trade and that they must be prevented at all costs from taking any steps, however modest, to protect emerging industries.

More importantly for this country, inevitably pain must be sustained in the area of subsidy for agriculture in Europe. We cannot walk away from the fact that this system of subsidy, which we have had over many years and generations, is protectionism. I appreciate the system has changed. However, it has not changed quickly enough. Countries such as the United States which lecture every country in the world, including those in the developing world, against protectionism and tariff systems are quick to turn around and take major steps to protect their steel industry.

This is relevant to the issue we are discussing because we need to understand not only our moral obligation to take a stand but also a political obligation. Ireland has a good reputation internationally on many of these issues as other Senators pointed out. I will not repeat the points on the contribution of so many Irish people and Governments of all political hues. We need to be straight. We are discussing involving the electorate more in the question of aid and I welcome the Government's initiative to open up information on what Irish Aid does. We could go a step further and use this opportunity to foster real debate in society on what needs to be done to rebalance wealth in our world.

The question of international migration policy has been raised on many occasions in the House. This is also relevant to aid policy although in the immediate sense it may not appear to be. We must be prepared to encourage and facilitate the hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of people who will inevitably move from one side of the world to the other and follow opportunities to make a living for themselves and their families. We are struggling with this issue with regard to our procedures and whether we should change our laws to facilitate people to travel to Ireland. We forget sometimes that all of these numbers and statistics we discuss are human beings seeking a better life. It cuts across into the debate on aid and the changing world. We need to facilitate people's movement to the richer parts of the world and, it is to be hoped, their return to help rebuild their own countries. Rather than allow migration become a brain drain with adverse consequences for the countries from which people emigrated, we should have flexible international migration policies. An enlightened approach to migration which complements our aid strategies should be considered at EU and international levels. We should also take a more politicised position internationally on fairness in trade.

The Minister of State acknowledged the role of Irish non-governmental organisations and referred to the ability of Irish Aid to carry out its strategies. Of all areas of Government policy, the latter is the least amenable to self-congratulation. I commend the Minister of State on giving a balanced and carefully crafted contribution, although I am not sure whether the same could be said for some of his Seanad colleagues.

Unlike many of the speeches given by other Ministers, the Minister of State's speech was not replete with self-congratulation. However, it failed to refer to the concerns held by many people regarding the staffing of Irish Aid. I am not sure if the decentralisation debate will ever be concluded but how can the relocation of Irish Aid from Dublin, where much of the development knowledge is located, meet the Minister of State's objective of making best use of public service expertise? I do not criticise Limerick in any way when I say that it is time to abandon the notion of moving Irish Aid from the critical mass of expertise on which it relies. As Deputy Burton noted in the Dáil, a fear of ambition is sometimes evident in that regard. We take initiatives such as the O'Connell Street office but staff in Irish Aid should be able to plan their campaigns, retain their expertise and know where they will be in two years' time. I would be very concerned if any policies were adopted to undermine that. I would welcome if the Minister of State could indicate for the House whether the suggestions that a cap was put on Irish Aid recruitment are true.

It would be churlish to suggest that progress has not been made on the Government's commitment to the UN aid target of 0.7% of gross national product. We were all disappointed that the Taoiseach's original promise in that regard was not met but we are progressing towards a 2012 deadline. However, as my party has consistently argued, what is the objection to making a solemn commitment in legislation that the 2012 deadline will be met? I understand Governments do not like to fetter themselves but the Irish people do not want to allow the Government any flexibility on this UN target. The Minister of State should revisit the proposal made by my party and others that the commitment be enshrined in legislation.

Several Scandinavian countries have gone beyond the 0.7% target and some have even gone as far as 1.7%, so the UN commitment should not be considered as a ceiling. It would be unfortunate if it was regarded as anything besides a minimum commitment for the coming years.

The initiative taken by the Minister of State in respect of providing information on Irish Aid's operations is welcome but I hope an opportunity is offered for a wider debate on the guiding principles of our aid programme. I make no apologies for seeking a more politicised debate on our priorities and would support any initiative the Government might take in that regard.