Mr. Sorley McCaughey:

I will get straight to the issue. The new Government policy on international development, One World. One Future, was launched very recently. It rightly recognises that the actions to promote poverty eradication and sustainable development globally go much further than just overseas development aid. The primary responsibility for delivery of overseas development aid rests within the Irish Aid section of the Department but the policies and priorities of other Departments have a significant impact on development outcomes, which has been clear because of recent examples such as the focus on taxation. Christian Aid has documented many times that developing countries are losing much more to tax evasion, facilitated in part by the abuse of the current international financial regulations, and another example is the poverty impact of bio-fuel policies promoted in part by the department of communications, energy and natural environment within the EU, which is having a detrimental consequence on hunger and food insecurity in countries around the world. The commitment to increasing or growing bio-fuels across the world is resulting in a modern day land-grab, with greater carbon emissions, as traditional growth is being cut down and replaced by bio-fuels that will power vehicles in this part of the world. These are clear examples of an incoherence in policy that is having a detrimental effect on developing countries.

I could not help but notice a reference to our emerging relationship with Burma, with the director general referencing our approach both from an aid and trade perspective. This encapsulates the challenges to be faced by implementing an effective policy coherence strategy and what is driving the priorities behind the relationship with Burma. Will policy coherence for development be prioritised or will it be subservient to a more trade-focused approach. We must be mindful of such issues in a policy coherence context, and there are many other examples of incoherence of which we must be aware.

Policy coherence for development is not a new idea and it is meant to address the way Departments can tend to work in silos and without any great mindfulness of what other Departments are doing. As the 2006 White Paper mentions, it is meant to harness the potential across government for ideas and actions which contribute to sustainable global development and the objectives of Irish Aid. That would be at its best, although we are falling quite far short of that now.

As signatories to the Lisbon treaty, the Government has taken on the responsibility to ensure greater coherence between policies so as to ensure the policies in one area do not undermine development co-operation objectives. The following may be a set principle that should be maintained regardless of where we are economically as a country. Ensuring policy coherence is also a value for money issue and a means by which Irish taxpayers can be confident that aid is being delivered and spent in the most cost-effective way. Our efforts with Irish Aid should not be undermined by the efforts or policies of another Department.

Since 2006, successive Governments have taken up a number of measures to promote greater policy coherence and the interdepartmental committee for development was established in 2007, with approximately 14 meetings since its inception, averaging three a year, although the frequency has diminished recently. The initial intention was for it to meet six times a year, with non-governmental organisations to be briefed following meetings to invite their views and comments. We are falling somewhat short on that as well but there could be new momentum in support of that.

Two of the more interesting developments in support of the policy coherence agenda have been studies commissioned by the Irish Aid advisory board with Trinity College to understand the main areas of policy coherence. Some 91 recommendations were made but it is unclear, as yet, as to what extent they have been absorbed or implemented by the relevant Departments. In 2011 the advisory board again commissioned Trinity College to develop a framework of indicators for monitoring policy coherence for development across eight areas, and that framework needs work and discussion. It is encouraging that in the new policy document there is a reference to the need for indicators to measure the effectiveness of policy coherence for development in future.

The new Irish Aid policy represents a modest improvement on the issue of policy coherence, although there are some concerns. The policy shifts alignment away from PCD towards a whole-of-Government approach. There is only one reference to the legal requirement of PCD and that is in the context of obligations under the EU. Our view is that while this whole-of-Government approach is useful, as it refers to one of the key processes through which policy coherence can be achieved, it needs to be linked very closely to policy coherence. Otherwise it could risk becoming confused or subject to other non-development interests. I refer to the Burma example. Another concern would be that given the increasing language around building synergies with the private sector, there is a greater need for clarity on policy coherence for development as a driver of the whole-of-Government approach.

The new policy also makes provision for the interdepartmental committee to be strengthened. It will become an oversight body for policy coherence, will develop targets and indicators and will identify specific policy areas on which to focus. It will produce biennial reports for the Cabinet and this Oireachtas committee. This is a very positive move in the right direction, but there is a number of additional measures we believe must be addressed as well. It will require sufficient political backing and institutional support. This is not an easy issue, otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. Policy coherence challenges Departments to do things in a way they have not previously done them and it will require the highest level of political commitment if it is going to work. Given that the agenda spreads across a number of Oireachtas committees, greater parliamentary oversight will be absolutely essential.

If the interdepartmental committee in its current guise is to have a greater role, it must become more transparent. The means for engagement in its work must be made clearer. In particular, the choice of policy issues, the indicators adopted and the criteria for resolving policy incoherence must be made clearer. When issues of incoherence are identified, what will be done with them and how will they be addressed?

I will finish with some concrete suggestions for the committee on policy coherence. We propose that the committee take a much more proactive role in the Department and the interdepartmental committee. Can it review the proposed areas for consideration, its implementation plan and the indicators to track performance? Can there be greater engagement from the interdepartmental committee with NGOs? To date, only Dóchas has appeared before the committee, yet policy coherence regularly features in civil society work in areas such as trade, tax and food security. Similarly, engagement with Irish Aid partner countries could also be strengthened. This would constitute a viable means of assessing policy impacts on developing countries. As of yet, the committee has not received formal presentations from partner country representatives and the developing country component has yet to enter into the Irish PCD institutional structure. A question the committee could ask is, on what basis will the interdepartmental committee have oversight of PCD and how will it exercise that oversight role? Again, this refers back to the need for a high level oversight role for this committee.

Finally, given that this committee's remit only extends to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, will the biennial report also be discussed by other committees, jointly by relevant committees or, given the scope of the issues, perhaps by an Oireachtas debate? In this context and given that this is a cross-departmental issue, we are of the view that the Taoiseach has the key role in both providing the leadership and the oversight for this process. I will conclude with that, although there are many other issues to discuss.