Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I have a couple of questions. First, I echo Deputy Lahart's point that from the European Union member states' perspective. If they face existential crisis on the eastern side, and a reduction in NATO and US support, they are going to make that changeover. It should not necessarily have anything to do with overseas development aid as part of the overall budget. Historically, Ireland has tried to reach the 0.7% target, except in recessionary periods.

I have specific questions on targeting what may be more limited in the future. Up to 2034, I would argue, although the witnesses may not say this publicly, the sector is trying to make sure we do not reduce it any more rather than anything else. It is diminished since 2024, for example.

Is there a way of being more specifically targeted? For example, the proportion varies - and the witnesses may educate me on this - but between 12% and 15% of overall development aid is humanitarian assistance. Is it the case when dealing with crises such as what is happening with the genocide in Gaza, for example, that a higher proportion of aid is put into countries like Jordan, for example, to assist with the humanitarian crisis? If that were to settle down - for want of a better term - would the organisations be able to focus more on the strategic stuff? Do the witnesses have examples of where the long-term strategic stuff has worked in any country deemed stable?

I take the witnesses' point entirely with regard to the climate crisis and migration but also instability in war-torn countries and economic migrants or general instability. If the witnesses were given a very limited amount of money, where do they think it should be targeted and in what types of countries?