Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

At a time when there is a lot of criticism of Government policies regarding housing, health and special education, the area of development aid presents a much more positive view of the Government. In the main, the Government has got it right. Our international aid policies and practices have given Ireland a very significant positive reputation. Our success in bilateral aid comes down to a few particular facts. First, our aid is untied and poverty focused. It is targeted at the very poor and it makes a difference. It is a pity that we cannot say the same about other investments that could make a very positive difference.

The figures from 2017 indicate that five EU countries contribute 0.7% of gross national income or more to international aid. We got to 0.59% in 2008 before the proportion went down in the years of the recession. There was maintenance of the programme in spite of the recession and we are now moving upwards. It is great that there is a commitment to reaching 0.71%. That means that 70 cent out of each €100 will go to aid. We know that the Irish public is supportive because poll after poll indicates that about 80% agree with our development aid programme. However, the increase must be planned. We need a roadmap on the best use of that increase. It must continue to be untied and targeted at the poorest recipients and we must ensure that it is transparent and accounted for. It must not be used to ease our consciences because we are not doing enough in other areas.

The annual report from Irish Aid is very good. It gives us the facts and figures of that bilateral aid so we know exactly where it is going. We do get the figures on multilateral aid and I know we have certain obligations regarding multilateral organisations. However, it is more difficult to assess the effect of multilateral aid unless it is in a crisis, when we know exactly where it goes.

I have to ask how much time the Dáil and the Seanad has given to discussing development aid apart from the work of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. In February 2018 our committee produced a review of the Irish Aid programme. It came before the Dáil and the Minister, the committee Chairman and one other Member spoke. There were others who wanted to speak but the time ran out. The topic has not been discussed here since and I do not know if it even got to the Seanad. This is a matter for all of the Dáil. It is not just for the few of us who are interested or who are on Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. It is good that we have an opportunity for a discussion today.

In preparing our review, we met many NGOs and received many submissions. We met ambassadors and academics and we visited Malawi and Mozambique. The report was very clear and focused. The recommendations can be realised if there is a will to do so. This is not just about giving aid. The report also raised questions on the challenges that lie ahead, particularly in light of the contradictions between the work and the policy of Irish Aid and the policy of other Departments. There are also contradictions between Irish Aid and European policy, although the EU is a major contributor to development aid. We very strongly highlighted the need for policy coherence. We called for the Government to develop a cross-government plan of action, as recommended by the OECD and to establish immediately a cross-departmental body to ensure better co-ordination and coherence of development policy right across government and in line with the sustainable development goals, SDGs.

We see the need for it because, otherwise, we would be hypocrites of the highest order. Some of the challenges are greater than others. We know that climate change is a challenge. Conflict leading to displacement and suffering is also a challenge. The mismanagement of migration is a challenge, as are land grabs, exploitation, tax injustice, abuse and the murder of human rights defenders. Ireland's reputation in providing ODA puts us in a unique position to be a driver of tackling these challenges. We must be committed to policy coherence. It is not enough that we give aid with one hand which is relatively easy, while the other is taking it back through lack of action on climate change, tax justice, the exploitation of certain countries and when it comes to human rights violations and growing inequalities. We have glaring practical challenges as a result of that policy incoherence which is evident when we look at corporations and their exploitation of land and resources. As well as exploiting land and resources, they do not even pay tax in the country they are exploiting, tax that could be used to meet the health and educational needs of the people. Instead it goes into the pockets and bank accounts of politicians, the military and the already wealthy classes.

Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence get to meet many human rights defenders who include lawyers, teachers, farmers and trade unionists. They tell us about their families and friends who have been murdered, tortured, are in prison or have simply disappeared and they do not know where they are. In the past week we met delegations of human rights groups from both Colombia and Honduras. At that meeting, as well as other meetings with human rights activists from African countries, Latin American countries and in the recent report from Trócaire, Making a Killing, we were told about the exploitation by transnational corporations of land and natural resources which led to displacement, killings and the abuse of workers, but no one is holding them to account. It is the indigenous poor people, the farmers, who pay with their lives in defending those resources. As they are global resources, in the end we will also pay.

The figures for the land lost to communities are staggering. Access to the judicial system does not mean getting justice. We can be a strong voice in supporting Trócaire's call for a legally binding global treaty governing business and human rights because voluntary guidelines and protocols are not enough. We need mandatory human rights due diligence in order to ensure businesses will respect human rights. They include Irish businesses working in countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Some Irish companies have been contributing to environmental degradation and human rights abuses. We all know about the glaring example of the Cerrejón mine in Colombia, the role of the ESB and the location of the Coal Marketing Company office in Dublin. Ireland finally has a national plan for business and human rights, but only time will tell if it will make a difference. However, policy coherence means that Irish businesses have to take human rights seriously. Otherwise, it would make a mockery of our development assistance. Unless we do so, poverty and inequality will continue.

We know the statistics, that millions are in need of humanitarian assistance, that millions die from preventable and treatable diseases, that millions with disabilities are trying to cope and that millions are displaced through land grabs. We also know about the lack of access to healthcare. Visits to these countries show what the provision of aid, especially bilateral aid, helps to do. Deputy Gino Kenny spoke about his visit to Mozambique. I remember hearing about the cash transfer on our visit to Malawi which was arranged by Ambassador Cunningham. It was a really good example of what could be done. It is like a social welfare payment and there is a mobile bank. What we saw was very poor local people being empowered. They got the money into their hand and used it, especially the women. Once one gives women money, they do far more with it than men.

The facts show that, globally, the losses as a result of corporate tax avoidance and evasion are immense. One estimate is that the losses globally amount to $500 billion annually. The multinationals need to be taxed where their economic activities take place. If that were to happen, there would not be a need for aid. The trade agreements could also do with a dose of policy coherence. I will not go into the issue of neutrality.

A recent report on Africa noted that $30 billion was invested in overseas development assistance, but, on the other hand, $192 billion is moved out through profits made by multinationals, illegal logging, tax evasion, financial flows and debt repayments. A small amount of it represented remittances.

I attended the launch of A Better World and heard the speeches made by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon. They were very strong statements about our values and ambition to make a real difference. One of the points made is that it is not just about money but how the money will be used and the need for solidarity to reach those who are the furthest behind. The priorities on which Ireland will focus include gender equality, reducing the level of humanitarian need, climate action and strengthening governance. I would have liked disability to have been listed as a priority, but I accept that it does feature in the report. I looked at the list of new initiatives, some of which were very impressive. They all say the right thing, but it is the implementation that will tell. Ireland has to be consistent. Our development policy cannot be at odds with our economic, tax, climate change defence policies. It is important that we look at parliaments and capacity building in order that parliamentarians in those other countries will have the capacity to do what we do, that is, hold Ministers and the Government to account.

The last chapter in A Better World is about doing things differently. I will finish with a quotation that I love. It is from Fr. Joseph Wresinski who founded All Together in Dignity – Fourth World movement. His point is poverty is of man's doing and that man can destroy poverty.

See this speech in context