Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their informative presentations. Policy coherence for development was mentioned. It seemed to be a strong thread throughout all of the presentations. The inter-parliamentary committee and the need for it to be transparent were also mentioned. From the delegates' experience of looking at other countries, have they identified, through their analysis, a model of best practice that could be applied in Ireland, which might be of interest to us and which we could promote?

The delegates mentioned transparency, value for money and so on. I am sure it was inherent in what they said, but an important component is ethical values underpinning policy which was not mentioned. That should be a strong component of anything we do. In terms of value for money, do the delegates undertake evaluations of the aid they provide in terms of effectiveness and the value they achieve and make recommendations to improve these in the future?

I picked up a comment on Irish Aid partner countries. I have raised this issue before, but perhaps I was not clear about the answer because I am inclined to raise it again. In the European Union in which many countries play their part and are keen to do so there should be more military type co-ordination of how we do this. I know emergencies occur where it is all hands to the pump to drive things, but in other areas one could target or focus on a geographical area in order that everyone is not focusing on the one area, leaving many others neglected. Specific areas of aid delivery should be looked at. For example, some countries would be in a very good position to provide aid and be particularly expert in the field of education, while another might have expertise in a different area. Important in all of this is confidence. The delegates mentioned the need for the State and the private sector to play their part.

I raised the issue of the situation in Ethiopia where Irish aid had gone towards abortion services. Many taxpayers would not be happy about this and it could affect their propensity to donate funds to organisations.

An issue which came up in the not too distant past with NGOs was the salaries being paid as some appeared excessive. The issue of administrative costs as a proportion of expenditure often comes up. Norms and good standards need to be developed. In Uganda money intended for good causes ended up in areas in which it was never intended to be spent because of corrupt governance systems. Will the delegates comment on this?

I think Ms Gold mentioned language and Deputy Olivia Mitchell endorsed the point I will make about the strength of the European Union around human rights and the language being used. I think Ms Gold mentioned gender equality, while Deputy Olivia Mitchell mentioned maternal health and reproductive rights. It is essential that basic and fundamental human rights are part of the process. However, I have concerns that there is a danger of ideology-driven conditions being included which have nothing to do with benefiting countries but which are all about exporting ideologies, some of them feminist. I am a strong opponent of abortion. In Britain and the United States just under one in four pregnancies is aborted. I am told that in New York one in two pregnancies is aborted. These are not the kinds of thing I would like to see exported as part of our aid package to countries which have better values than we do in these areas. We need to challenge some of the language used. While on the surface it may seem like language that is very soft and tenable in some ways, the intent behind it is far from soft and the interests of the populations and people to whom the aid is being given. That needs to be challenged, but, unfortunately, the United Nations is highly deficient in this area in which it should be strong. If one goes back to the 1948 Convention on Human Rights, how far that organisation has strayed from the interpretation of the vision at the time is very significant.