Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

This is earlier than I expected to speak. I would like to begin where Ms McKenna left off in terms of the question about the multi-annual financial framework and the transactional point that was made. One of the things we are very proud of in Ireland, and it is really important, is the principle of untied aid. We are engaging in this for humanity rather than to further our interests in terms of how we apply these resources. We know that others in the EU may not have that untied aid approach. I ask Ms McKenna to comment on the transactional versus the untied aid point. It is important not just that Ireland maintains its untied approach but also evangelises it a bit in terms of others taking that approach on.

I was very struck by the points made about debt. It strikes me that we cannot treat this as a normal moment. We seem to be in a moment that is intensely dangerous. These are not usual levels of cuts in aid. It is almost a shift in the idea that all humanity must survive and that we should contribute to it and raise it. There seems to be an abandonment there.

In that context, regarding the idea that countries are still paying back these debts, I was very struck by the point made by Ms Balfe that 75% of low and middle income countries are spending more on debt servicing than they are on health. To my mind, that is shocking. I know the point was with regard to the G20 but the debt cancellation position was mentioned - not just debt reservicing or restructuring - and what we should advocate for in that regard.

The other point is about the question of historical, practical and moral debts owed by wealthier countries. We know that has been coming through in terms of loss and damage and some of the discussion about reparations related to slavery and colonialism. Will the witnesses comment on the argument for a very strong push on debt cancellation, looking to those other related debts that sit there?

The conference in Seville was mentioned. What messages should Ireland be bringing to the discussions there and to the G20?

I want to focus on hunger. We are all absolutely horrified by the wilful and intentional starvation that Israel is inflicting on the children of Gaza at the moment. I am conscious that acute malnutrition and famine conditions are present in many other places in the world and they are places where we can get the aid in, effectively. Will the witnesses comment on Sudan, in particular, and Yemen in the context of food insecurity and malnutrition and what can be done?

In terms of choice, I was struck by the figure of there being a $25 billion gap in the context of what the UN was asking for, and it was mentioned this gap may rise to $50 billion. That is very small when compared with the €800 billion the EU is talking about on arms spending. The sum of $25 billion would fill the gap between what is being asked for and what is being given. Is there a point where we need to be looking to the escalation in arms spending? It is being routed not just from social cohesion funding within Europe but it is being rerouted, so that goes back to the multi-annual financial framework. I should probably give the witnesses a chance to answer.