Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. The issues covered are ones with which we would broadly agree and are very important. In the context of coming up with a successor to the Millennium development goals, it is very important that issues not covered by that process are dealt with, such as climate change, governance, political rights and so forth. There is an opportunity, in the development of new goals and strategies, to ensure that those very important issues are included this time and given the attention they deserve.

Regarding the role of this committee, we would naturally be very supportive of the Government being represented at the most senior level possible at the forthcoming talks. It would also be very advantageous and beneficial if the Government was in the position to give a commitment on the timescale for reaching the 0.7% GNI target. There has been a drop in the percentage of our income spent on overseas development aid in recent years. I do not think there is any question of us not continuing our commitment to untied aid which has been a hallmark of Irish overseas development aid for decades. That is a very important message to send out and we should remain, as a country, fully committed to untied aid.

Regarding the establishment of an intergovernmental tax body, I totally support the views expressed on the need to minimise or eliminate tax avoidance and evasion. At the same time, however, an intergovernmental tax body would not be an easy structure to put in place.

Every sovereign state is naturally protective of its own financial arrangements and fund-raising abilities. If one were to take the European Union alone, taxation remains within the competence of the national governments. If a taxation measure were to be introduced at EU level, it would require unanimity, which means that each country could opt out, thereby ensuring it would not happen at all. I can see that is a very difficult issue, which is not to take away from the point, when we read of multinational corporations and their scandalous evasion of tax, that this irks the public greatly. Such money could be put to good use in many of the countries where they raise serious funds for their companies and earn huge revenues, yet we see the destitution of many of the people in those countries. The difficulty lies in trying to establish the mechanism that will not override the sovereignty of a country and its ability and competence to put in place its own taxation and fund-raising principles, but I do not take away from the general principle.

In the submissions, the point was also made that one of the desired outcomes from the Addis Ababa conference would be an adequately resourced, permanent institution. I would like to tease that matter out further. We have spoken on many occasions at this committee about how dysfunctional the United Nations is in many instances at present. The architecture of the United Nations is totally outdated. As we know, it was established after the Second World War when there was a different geopolitical scene throughout the world. New political powers have emerged. The structure and composition of the Security Council does not reflect the political realities of today and there is a crying need for a restructured United Nations, not just to deal with the very important issues before this committee today, but also with many other issues as well, such as responding to other crises and catastrophes that happen throughout the world.

The public has been very supportive, whether it is its appreciation of the work of different Governments over the decades in building up our overseas development aid or the huge work that is done by many in non-governmental organisations, such as those of the delegates, in promoting, advocating and putting in place services in the most deprived areas. I do not know if the public would welcome another permanent institution. It is one suggestion with which, on first reflection, I would have a serious difficulty. Would there be some unit within the United Nations that could be tasked with dealing with that particular issue rather than creating a new body that will eat up more money and that will probably be dysfunctional as well? That area would need further teasing out. Perhaps I have taken a wrong meaning from what was proposed, but it is an issue that I would like to see addressed further. Again, I emphasise that the United Nations in its present format needs radical restructuring to deal with many crises that are, unfortunately, constantly hitting the globe. I thank the delegates for the presentations. The views outlined are, in general, views that all of us could wholeheartedly support.