Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion and I compliment the Green Party on tabling it. We live in an age of unprecedented wealth and prosperity and yet inhumane things happen. We are in a position whereby 30,000 children die every day and 800 million go to bed hungry. These statistics are not satisfactory and aid has a critical role to play in achieving goals. However, it is not a magic bullet or a cure-all for all ills. Experience has shown that where aid is deployed efficiently as part of a wider development strategy, it makes a lasting difference in helping people to lift themselves out of poverty.

However, approximately two thirds of the money currently spent on aid could be described as phantom aid in that it is not available for poverty reduction in developing countries. I am concerned about recent examples of this phenomenon. The value of such aid is deflated by excessive administrative costs, extravagant spending on overpriced technical assistance from consultants, double accounting of debt relief and tying aid to trade from donors' own firms. I am concerned about such practices.

How much of Ireland's contribution could be classified as phantom aid which has been devalued by an administrative bureaucracy and other costs, such as monthly salaries of $6,000 and $7,000 and upwards? I have seen situations where administrators on such salaries have operated amidst rank poverty. It is gross and some form of example should be set. The World Health Organisation has people on such salaries in developing countries and it is immoral.

I would like to see developed countries sponsoring, if one can use that term, individual countries. For example, Ireland could be the lead country in Ghana in terms of the aid sent there rather than giving small amounts of aid to every African country in the hope that the problem goes away. If each developed country were to adopt an under-developed country and provide the core people there, one would not have the same cost in administrators in X number of countries throughout Africa. This concept should be tackled and examined — efforts could be made to develop it as the G8 summit meets — because considerable sums of money are eaten up by administrators and it is not sensible to have such duplication of effort. One would be in a better situation to judge whether one was receiving value for money and one could report back on progress to one's own people.

Currently, the main argument is whether we are giving 0.7% of gross national product in aid. I am unsure as to whether it should be the biggest issue. We should consider how the money is spent and if there is a point to what we give. Is it hitting the target and getting results?

See this speech in context