Liz O'Donnell (Dublin South, Progressive Democrats)

I wish the Minister of State well in his responsibilities at a time of great challenge and change in Ireland's overseas development programme.

For too long the debate on Ireland's aid programme was dominated by a row about when we would reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP, which the international community set over 30 years ago. Only a handful of developed nations, however, have actually achieved or exceeded that target. Thankfully that debate in Ireland is over and this Government has committed Ireland to reach the elusive target by 2012. That political commitment was not achieved easily but the decision had the benefit of cross-party support and that of the social partners, which was important.

When I was Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, I advocated that Ireland would reach the target and said that it was a test of our commitment as a nation to civilised values, and that remains the case. Perhaps because I and others here were so vociferous in advocating this we have a particular responsibility to ensure that the programme is properly managed and is as effective as possible. There has never been a more important time for Ireland, when it is experiencing unprecedented prosperity, to hold solidarity with the poorest communities in the world. Our race memory of famine and our history of colonisation, mass migration and chronic poverty predisposes us to this solidarity.

Our aid programme is a tangible expression of the humanity of the Irish people. Thousands of Irish people, lay and religious, have worked in development for decades and hopefully will continue to make that humanitarian contribution. Our economic success now provides the opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of the global poor, to allow them take control of their own destinies and improve their lives.

This support is not motivated by a humanitarian imperative alone. A more stable international order has a great bearing on our political and economic interests in the rich world. Apart from being unconscionable, a human set-aside of millions of impoverished people is a fertile breeding ground for terrorism, illegal migration and political unrest in the developing world. We ignore the unmet needs of the global poor at our own peril. A security approach to the problems of fundamentalist terrorism is only one way to deal with these problems. Developed countries must continue to increase overseas aid flows in order to create a more just and fair world order.

Our development policy is central to Ireland's overall foreign policy. In effect, it is now our principal foreign affair, as demonstrated by Vote 39. Our aid policies give substance and legitimacy to other aspects of our foreign policy. A country cannot persuasively urge a moral and humanitarian imperative on others unless its own policies enshrine such values. Ireland can be a more credible actor at the United Nations and another international fora when its statements of concern are backed, as they are, by meaningful action on the ground by way of a world class aid programme.

Now that the argument has been won on the level of Ireland's contribution to global human development it is vital that the focus of this House and of those of us interested in the progression and expansion of the programme moves to the management of that programme and how to ensure best value, best practice, and best quality outcomes in delivering aid. The White Paper sets out, quite properly, to evaluate and show the Irish people how and where their money will be spent.

The overall aid programme has grown rapidly from £40 million in 1992 to a staggering €700 million this year and will rise to €1.5 billion per annum when we reach the UN target in 2012. At that stage the aid budget will probably exceed the combined total of the current marine and defence budgets. With such a level of taxpayers' money at stake there is an absolute imperative to get the management, audit, accountability and effectiveness of the programme right. We should plan for the best rather than simply drift into a massively expanded budget wearing the same clothes as before.

I welcome the addition of Malawi and Sierra Leone as areas of concentration for the programme. This struggling country, Malawi, has been hitting the headlines for the most shallow reasons lately. Malawi will be Ireland's ninth programme country. It is one of the poorest countries with over 65% of the population living below the poverty line and is ranked 165th on the UN human development index. It has enormous needs, with 90% of the population engaged in subsistence farming, and suffers persistent food shortages. A total of 700,000 of its 1 million orphans have lost their parents through AIDS.

In Malawi, life expectancy at birth is 39.7 years, while in Ireland it is 77.7 years. These statistics put into proper context the hype and begrudgery about the adoption of one child by Madonna. I am glad that Ireland is engaging more deeply in Malawi where it has been providing humanitarian assistance since 2002.

I also welcome the development of the rapid response initiative to provide a roster of highly skilled individuals for deployment at short notice to emergency situations. I particularly welcome the establishment of a governance unit to give oversight on this area of the programme. One of the most frequent criticisms made of the overall aid endeavour, in this House and elsewhere, is that in emerging democracies weak and un-evolved governance leaves aid open to corruption. That is no reason to discontinue assistance to a country. Weak governance in emerging democracies and developing countries is part and parcel of the aid challenge. It is the role and responsibility of the donor country to build in robust audit mechanisms and oversight to ensure money is not siphoned off for nefarious purposes or purposes not related to assisting the poor.

I do not, however, buy into the theory that the poorest people should be punished for the inadequacies of their governments. Corruption is not confined to the Third World. As we know from our own tribunals corruption is very much alive and well in the First World. I also welcome the initiative on volunteering to assist and facilitate those of our citizens who wish to work in the developing world. That will go some way to strengthening the people's sense of ownership of their aid programme.

As a former Minister of State with some experience of the programme, its weaknesses and its strengths in the context of the expanding budget, I wish to make one criticism of it. When I was Minister of State I chaired a review of the aid programme related to the Cabinet decision to reach the UN target. We sat for a year and consulted widely with key development actors and stakeholders in a way similar to a White Paper process with the benefit of many submissions. We surveyed the landscape of the programme and its geographical focus and produced a comprehensive policy and institutional framework to guide Ireland Aid through a period of rapid expansion. I see many of the key recommendations in that review replicated in the White Paper but I am disappointed in one aspect of this programme.

My comments are intended to help the Minister of State. There seems to have been little attention paid to the key operational issues relating to staff allocation and staff shortages identified in that review. The OECD and an analysis of management carried out by independent Consultants in 1999, the Cassidy report, attested well to the capacity deficit in Ireland Aid. The OECD noted then that the "development co-operation division has had to improvise and patch together temporary ways of reinforcing staff capacities in HQ and in the field within complex government staffing regulations". It went on to conclude that the management system was "fragile and vulnerable".

Both reports found staff numbers to be widely seen as "inadequate" and recommended their early reinforcement. Both studies were carried out prior to the Government decision to reach the UN target in 2007. The review committee in 2002 noted that a "substantial increase" in staffing numbers was required if there was to be an efficient and accountable management of the current programme, let alone a greatly expanded programme. A comparative analysis of the staffing levels in donor countries which had already reached the UN target indicated that with the managerial burden of 0.7% budget, current staff levels would have to be increased by between 300 and 350 between home and abroad over the period from 2002 to when the target was reached. We said at the time it was of the utmost importance that staff numbers in Ireland Aid keep pace with the expanding budget and that by the time the 0.7% target was achieved the full complement required to administer a programme of this size should be in place.

We recommended this matter be kept under permanent review by the new advisory board for Ireland Aid. We examined the management models appropriate for an aid programme and the strengths and weaknesses of various organisational models. The committee opted for a development co-operation directorate or division in the Department of Foreign Affairs as the most suitable model as opposed to an independent agency. However, we were conscious of the shortcomings of the chosen model, in particular the serious understaffing caused by Department of Finance rules and lack of managerial flexibility. We were also conscious of the need to provide for auditing and involvement of stakeholder interests in the strategic direction of the programme. While plumping for the current model, efficient response and accountable management would not be achieved unless there was an increase in human resources coupled with action to enhance managerial continuity.

I am alarmed at the White Paper's section on management. It is thin gruel and simply a proposal for a review of management. This is a matter of concern. Such management changes simply cannot be postponed, given the scale of public funds involved. The document is discreet and short in detail, but what plans are in place to manage this large budget? The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs should now intervene on the issue and assist the Minister of State if difficulties have arisen with the Department of Finance. It is reckless for the programme to be expanded to the extent that it is planned without these inadequacies being addressed. Organisations, such as Concern, manage much smaller budgets with more staff involved.

See this speech in context