Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

An interesting transition has taken place in that this committee used to focus on foreign affairs, and almost exclusively on aid, while it now focuses on trade and trade links. We are now speaking increasingly about development aid. I welcome the challenges and new direction, which direction has been taken in conjunction with the African ambassadors, headed by the Kenyan ambassador, who is spokesperson for approximately seven African countries. They argue very strongly that benefits can be gleaned for their countries and ours from an improvement in the areas of trade and development.

Am I correct in my summary of the current thinking of the Irish Government? We praise ourselves a lot, quite rightly, over aid we extend to the poorer regions. Increasingly, I am beginning to come to terms with the fact that our aid, by comparison with that of other countries and regions, is tiny, although that is not to say it is not important. We acknowledge the millennium development goals and we are engaged in the process of determining what happens next. We note the European Union's development contribution and we hear about the role of the United Nations in aid and development. A large number of charities are pumping billions of euro, presumably, into this area.

The Minister of State said we are now engaged with EU joint programming. That sounds very positive because, at the Irish Aid function with Mary Robinson, we met people for the very first time who are campaigning on matters that we did not really address, such as the concerns of pastoralists. The Masai tribespeople are pastoralists and are encountering many problems owing to game reserves and land that has been developed that is not in their ownership. Fishermen around Lake Victoria are facing a diminishing water supply. Major projects must and should be completed that will offer greater returns than those accruing from the investment of small sums of money.

If we are to enter into joint programmes with our EU partners, the totality of the resources thereby made available may allow us to target more important areas than would the small sums of money given to organisations like our missionaries. The latter do good work but their impact is limited in comparison to what could be achieved through major capital infrastructure projects.

In regard to the role of local authorities in development assistance, perhaps it is time to rethink our programmes. Aid is not always about feeding the hungry because often the hungry can be fed more effectively through major capital infrastructure programmes in agriculture, roads, hospitals and education. That may require us to move away from the idea of the black baby box and being good to the Africans by contributing our pennies. Perhaps we should think in a more global manner about how we assist countries in need.

Sierra Leone is mentioned in the report as a key partner country. We visited Sierra Leone in the company of the same sister from County Donegal who the Minister of Statem met when he visited. I understand Sierra Leone's Minister of Education could not spend his budget partly because of the weakness of the country's civil service infrastructure. Is it not better to equip government agencies to spend their budgets effectively? Sierra Leone is a war torn country with a literacy rate of 50%. This impacts on the country's civil service. What has Irish Aid in mind for Sierra Leone? Will we be assisting stand-alone programmes, such as the deaf support provided by the sister from Donegal, or will we be more ambitious in working cohesively with our partners on the big projects?