Ms Karen Jorgensen:

I will ask my colleagues to help me with some of the questions. Senator Mullins asked whether our review will consider both long-term development and humanitarian assistance. The answer is very much "Yes". Component No. 7 in our reference guide deals specifically with humanitarian assistance. We have a strong focus in the review of Ireland on how the State responds to fragile and vulnerable situations. That is a major focus for Ireland. It is often the case that a long-term development relationship arises out of what was initially a humanitarian assistance intervention, as was the case in Sierra Leone and Liberia some years ago. In those cases the assistance programme evolved into a reconstruction effort and subsequently a partnership with a longer-term development perspective. Part of our work is to examine how our members deliver their humanitarian assistance. Typically, we look to see whether they are working in a co-ordinated way with, for instance, the United Nations, the Red Cross and other pooled funding arrangements which ensure effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. We also examine whether they are working with local and international NGOs that can be part of the first responders effort. Some 10% of all overseas development aid goes to humanitarian assistance, so it is very much part of our remit.

Regarding public support for aid, I would like to turn that question back on the committee, if I may. The degree of public support for its aid programme is part of our review of Ireland. We have heard that opinion polls show support levels as high as 80%. We have been asking questions throughout the week about what it is that secures such a high level of support even in times of economic difficulties. We have also heard that there is very strong political support for the programme. We would be grateful for members' perspective on why there is such a high level of public buy-in to the ODA programme and why politicians continue to give it such strong support. That would give us an important insight.

Deputy Durkan asked whether we can give an assurance that the moneys received by aid agencies are being well spent. Part of our job is to examine whether the Irish Aid programme is, in our view, being administered well and in compliance with agreed international principles on the most effective way of delivering aid. We look in the field to see how well Ireland is co-operating with other donors, which touches on one of the Deputy's other questions. We are very much concerned with ascertaining whether the member we are reviewing is working in a joined-up way with other donors, participating in collaborative activities and pooled funding, and whether they buy into the recipient Government's programmes, including sector-wide programmes on health or agriculture, which help to ensure the aid is delivered in a co-ordinated way. My colleagues from Portugal might comment on the new focus in the EU on joint programming in certain priority countries. This is another way of ensuring the aid effort is co-ordinated as best it can be.

Therefore, one gets the most from it.

Administrative costs is a tricky issue because we cannot really examine what goes into administrative costs. However, the countries report to the DAC on their administrative costs. It is very difficult to compare one country's administrative costs with another's because they work in different development contexts with different modalities. Some types of aid might be more labour intensive than other types of aid. Some projects that are quite large can, perhaps, be delivered with lower administrative costs than other, smaller projects that are in very difficult situations. However, we look at whether the programme is managed in a tight way, whether it has appropriate structures and whether it is staffed with the right technical expertise to be able to deliver the programme that has been designed.