Ms Lorna Gold:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I will talk about the post 2015 framework, the negotiations that are currently under way at the UN and Ireland's engagement in that.

Over the past 12 to 18 months, Dóchas and its members have been involved in a number of initiatives to feed into the current negotiations on what will succeed the millennium development goals that were signed in 2000. These goals are due to expire in 2015 and current negotiations at EU and UN levels are on what framework will succeed the millennium development goals. Irish civil society has been one of the leaders in this, in terms of civil society in the north. We have had a leading role in the Beyond 2015 coalition and we have been engaged in many thematic consultations at UN level. We have also been deeply engaged, through the coincidence of Ireland's EU Presidency at this time, with shaping the EU position for the EU summit in September.

In addition, Dóchas has hosted a series of discussions and hearings at Irish level involving local civil society and domestic NGO organisations to address what Ireland's role in building a better world could be in the post-2015 discussions. It is the only place in the world, as far as we are aware, that international NGOs and national based organisations have come together to adopt a joint set of conclusions around what should be in the framework. We have been pleased with the striking similarity of what people here are asking for in the framework and what we are hearing from our various partners in the developing world. I will briefly mention the principles people are seeking.

The first relates to addressing growing inequality within societies and between countries. The second is related to the importance of having government and governing structures that are open to citizens' needs. The third is about balancing social and economic models of development that respect environmental boundaries. The fourth principle is about the universality of a human rights based framework which should underpin all decision making. The final principle is the importance of ensuring that economic activity benefits people and not the economy for itself.

With regard to Ireland in its role as Presidency, we acknowledge that the Government has played a really positive role in this negotiation to date. As Presidency, we put into practice some of the principles around policy coherence which Sorley McCaughey just mentioned. The Presidency has shown that where innovation is needed, even at EU level, policy coherence can be brought forward. It has done this in very practical ways, for example, having joint Conclusions between two sets of European Councils, such as the environment Council and the foreign affairs Council. Rather than negotiating two different agreements around the 2015 framework, it brought the different Council groupings together and produced one set of Conclusions that both Councils then agreed.

Ireland will play a key role in the UN event in September. It will co-host the event with South Africa at the UN. Ireland is in a very important position, even beyond the EU Presidency. The Council conclusions on post-2015 are very strong and one can see the influence that various civil society groups have had on them. Particular strengths of the European conclusions are the human rights based language and approach adopted in them, the strength of the gender equality language and an acknowledgement of the need to move beyond GDP as the sole marker of progress in a new framework and to look at what other indicators of national progress can be used in the framework. There are some weaknesses, including the lack of timeframes and solid commitments on how the EU will show leadership and strong commitment to action before September. Showing leadership and commitment, particularly around financial commitments on development aid, is a key marker in terms of the success of the UN process and how the UN process could go in the September summit.

I have outlined Ireland's role in the EU conclusions. As we draw closer to the September summit, countless reports are coming out and there is the beginning of negotiations between governments on what the negotiated position might resemble in September.

We have some concerns about the direction it is taking. The first is whether the strength of the EU position on human rights will make its way into the negotiated final text. There are moves to water down the language and this applies in particular to the language used with regard to gender equality. The second concern is that while there is rhetorically a commitment to sustainability, looking at what is beyond growth and finding other indicators that can be used, the high-level panel report commissioned by the UN Secretary General fails to address the incoherence between trade, regulation of business and foreign direct investment, especially in respect of environmental sustainability. There is a sense that the approach is a rhetorical acknowledgement of the issues on the one hand but a business as usual approach on the other. One can see this in terms of the language of the report and the moving away from environmental sustainability towards sustainable growth. There is confusion in the language.

The final concern is our view that the agreement must be universal, with differentiated responsibility but equal accountability to the global framework. In the last round of the millennium development goals, one goal applied to northern donor countries, NDG No. 8, and included commitments to trade, aid and debt cancellation. The commitments were never adhered to and the indicators for them were very weak. Now, it is proposed there will be 12 goals, the 12th of which will be the northern commitment to a global enabling environment. These commitments must be strengthened, in particular the commitment to trade regulation, climate change and development finance.

On the topic of what this committee can do with regard to the post-2015 process, the Chairman referred to the EU position on September. Our understanding is that the position has been agreed and signed off and it is now moving into intergovernmental negotiations. This committee could have some joint sittings to cover this and while other relevant committees could scrutinise the EU position and Ireland's position on that. This might not be possible before September but beyond September the negotiation will take place until September 2015. Once it goes into intergovernmental negotiation, there is scope to engage the Government and relevant Departments. If possible, it should be some process that involves more than this committee alone, although that would also be valuable.

The second point concerns Ireland's role in the United Nations Human Rights Council. Our membership of the council could play a key strategic role in strengthening and sustaining the human rights language in the post-2015 framework. It might be possible for the committee to engage with the human rights unit and to encourage it to take up the issue of human rights within the post-2015 framework in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The third point concerns the event in September and the importance of having Oireachtas representation at the summit. We have also spoken to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the question of engaging civil society. It is very important, given that key negotiating positions are being decided at EU level. There is a danger national-level parliaments could be left out of the negotiating process.