Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I welcome this debate. I thank the Green Party for allowing us to have the debate. As the House is aware I have been Minister of State with responsibility for ODA twice in my career, in 1993-1994 and in 2002-2004. I am especially pleased to be here in the company of another former Minister of State with responsibility in this area, Deputy O'Donnell and my colleague, the current Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, as well as Deputies in other parties who have played a major role in this area over many years.

I am proud to have played a role in the transformation of a Government programme which is the visible expression of our national solidarity with the poorest people on earth. Our national ODA programme, Development Cooperation Ireland — the name was chosen when I was Minister responsible — has always had a very high reputation for its quality and effectiveness. Development Cooperation Ireland reflects precisely what we are all about, acting in our role as partners to the countries that we are bilaterally involved with, especially in Africa.

The massive increase in the programme's funding over the years 2000-05 has propelled Ireland into the league of major donors. During my time as the Minister of State responsible, one of my key objectives was to communicate to the public how the Government was transforming the programme, how much money was being spent and what the impact of this money was on our developing country partners. I am convinced that unless we bring the people with us, we will lose the battle. I am also convinced that this debate will help greatly in shaping the Government's policy. I say that in a generous way to our Opposition colleagues. Ideally, it would be great to have an agreement tonight. I do not believe that is possible, but that is why this debate is so important. It is a pity we do not have more debates of this type.

There has been an intense focus on development aid as an abstract statistical concept. We talk in percentages of gross national income, GNI, and statistical targets. I want the debate to focus more on both the volume of aid and innovations in policy. In 2000 when the Government set a timeframe for reaching the UN target our aid volume was €254 million. In 2005, ODA will reach €545 million. ODA has more than doubled in volume over the past five years.

In 2002, the UN and the World Bank called for a doubling of ODA by all donors to meet the millennium development goals. We have doubled aid in five years. No other donor in the OECD area has increased aid volume at such a rate. The Government will continue to give substantial and sustained increases in ODA in the three years 2005-07. Over this period our aid volume will increase by a further €190 million.

The setting of a timeframe to meet the UN target in 2007 has galvanised the system. In effect, the aid budget is now ringfenced and is guaranteed substantial annual increases in volume. I acknowledge the role my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, played in that initiative. That ODA enjoys a protected status in the budget reflects the Government's commitment to meeting the UN target. The Government has indicated it will set a new timeframe for meeting the UN target. This will ensure that aid volume will continue to increase in the coming years in a steady and sustained way until the target is met.

There are unique elements to our national aid programme which underpin its effectiveness. For a start we do not tie aid. Even donors that are often quoted to us as models still tie significant portions of their aid programmes. I have seen that in many countries I have visited, especially in Africa, over the years. Our aid is concentrated in the poorest countries. We have had a disciplined and focused approach to ODA. Our programmes are mostly concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, and in regions of dire humanitarian emergency. We do not have a sprawling and unfocused programme where ODA is spread thinly among many recipients.

Our aid programme is enormously innovative in terms of its policy and its delivery. When I was Minister of State in 2002-04, the OECD conducted a peer review of our programme. The conclusion was that we had one of the most innovative and effective programmes of any donor. The OECD sees us as an international leader in promoting new approaches and in delivering effective aid. As we increase ODA up to the UN target, I want this debate to focus more and more on the content of the programme and on its effectiveness. The massive increase in aid volume allows Ireland to stake out an international leading role in new and exciting areas of development.

I will mention three that I strongly supported as the responsible Minister of State. It is not fully appreciated in this House that Ireland is one of the leading international donors in the area of HIV/AIDS. Our aid programme recognised the potential scale and impact of the AIDS epidemic well before many other donors. Ireland was one of the first donors to have a strong and coherent strategic approach to fighting the disease. In particular, it strongly supported research into an AIDS vaccine, one of the most innovative and exciting scientific research projects in the world today.

We need to bring our national expertise in information and communications technology to bear on our aid programme. The ICT industry has a strong record of developing new approaches to dealing with problems. As our national aid programme expands, I would like to see it develop a strong partnership with the ICT sector.

Ireland's ODA programme is now focusing more and more on the role of trade of the private sector in promoting the economic growth that is essential for long-term development. I established the Private Sector Forum, a vehicle for encouraging dialogue between Development Cooperation Ireland and the Irish private sector. I would like to see Irish expertise in food technology, in pharmaceuticals, in construction and other key areas of the economy brought into a partnership with our aid programme.

Development Cooperation Ireland, in partnership with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has also done a great deal of work in the area of trade and development. As one of the most globalised economies in the world, as an EU member state that strongly supports the CAP, and as a country deeply engaged in fighting poverty in sub Saharan Africa, Ireland is uniquely placed to talk about issues of trade, agriculture and development.

I have been involved in trade and development issues for many years. I participated in the talks at WTO level at Seattle, Doha and Cancun and worked closely with my other ministerial colleagues. The debate about the CAP and Africa has been too simplistic. For a start, all of the countries we work with in Africa are net food importers. Under the EU's Everything But Arms Agreement, they already have guaranteed access, duty and quota free, for their exports to the EU market. The real issue for them is not the CAP. It is how to build up their domestic productive capacity to avail of the new market opportunities on the EU market. So many times I have witnessed this as I have travelled abroad in Africa and other places. In Sierra Leone fishermen who were trying to sell their products abroad, did not have the capacity and could not deal with all the regulations. It is so frustrating to see so many fine agricultural producers, as in Zambia and Malawi, for instance, who did not have the capacity to deal with all the bureaucracy and sell and market their products. There is so much work we can do in those areas and working closely with trade policies at EU level with agricultural Ministers, we can get into those areas in a more profound way. Any rational analysis will show that the total liberalisation of the world agricultural market will not benefit the poor of Africa. It will benefit Brazil, Australia and the US where economies of scale mean that food can be produced at costs far lower than in the EU or Africa.

To listen to some Deputies one would think the Government had sat on its hands for the past five years. I want the figure of €545 million in ODA to be at the forefront of this debate. I want the figure of €1.8 billion in ODA over the next three years to be foremost in the public mind. These are ODA levels that were unimaginable just a few years ago. They are figures of which we should be proud. They have allowed us to create one of the most progressive and dynamic aid programmes in the world.

The real debate we should have is on how to ensure that as the programme increases towards €l billion, we will use it effectively to fight poverty. I am convinced we will make progress on this issue as we approach the millennium summit in the UN in September. This debate needs to look at new ways of delivering aid, new partnerships between the aid programme and dynamic parts of the private sector and new approaches to fighting disease.

See this speech in context