Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason, in the recent reassessment of national expenditure, that part of the budget assigned to overseas development aid was cut by a higher percentage than those cuts made in other Departments and areas of Government spending; and if he will explain the implications this will have for Ireland's assurance of devoting 0.7% of GNP to ODA by the year 2012 and, in particular, the commitment to assist the poorest of the world. [5344/09]

Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last week the Government took the difficult decision to reduce the total official development assistance, ODA, budget for 2009 from €891 million to €796 million — a saving of €95 million. This was taken in the context of the wider Government decision to reduce current expenditure in 2009. It has only one purpose — the curbing of public expenditure in order to provide the platform needed for the renewal of economic growth.

The size of our aid programme is explicitly linked to GNP growth. Simply increasing the percentage of assistance given in the context of declining GNP would neither be in the interests of the poorest people in the developing world nor to the credibility of Ireland's aid programme. The absolute imperative is to provide for national economic recovery, enabling us to resume expansion of the programme. As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland's ODA has seen dramatic growth in the past decade. Our total ODA contribution has grown from €255 million in 2000 to €899 million in 2008. In the past six years alone, Ireland has provided more than €4 billion in ODA, all of this untied, and the vast bulk going to the world's least developed and poorest countries for the benefit of their citizens.

While the allocation for 2009 has been reduced to €796 million, Ireland's aid programme remains at an historically high level. In fact, we are confident that in 2009 Ireland will continue to be one of the most generous donors on a per capita basis and we would expect to maintain our position of sixth within the OECD donor family. I assure the Deputy that the Government's priority will now be to ensure that the budget provided for the aid programme is implemented effectively and in line with our priorities as outlined in the White Paper in Irish Aid.

I am determined that Ireland's aid programme will continue to focus on assistance to the poorest countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and to place the needs of the most vulnerable people in these countries at the heart of the programme. The reduction of hunger and poverty are at the core of our aid programme. We will continue to invest in basic services, including primary education and health services. In response to the report of the Government's hunger task force, we will continue our leading role in the fight against the scourge of hunger. Last month, I responded to and endorsed the recommendations of the report and stated that the hunger crisis will be a cornerstone of Ireland's development policy.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Sectors such as good governance, HIV and AIDS, gender equality and economic development will also remain important aspects of our aid programme. On current GNP projections for 2009, we estimate that our ODA spending in the coming year will be in the region of 0.54%. While this will represent a decrease on the 2008 outturn, we are determined to continue working towards the 2012 target and are significantly closer to achieving the UN target than most of our EU partners.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the Minister of State's reply and commitment on this matter. Would he not agree that it is distressing for those who work in this area and particularly those who benefited from Ireland's programme that the cuts in overseas development aid were disproportionate? The cut of €95 million is an entirely disproportionate cut compared with cuts in any other Department. It represents approximately 5% of the total cuts.

I am pleased the Minister has announced the continuation of the programme against hunger, but the number of people who are hungry increased dramatically to one person in seven in 2008. Is it not a fact that people saw ODA as a soft target and took twice to three times as much from that subhead as was taken from other subheads in other Departments? Where does the Minister envisage the programme remaining intact both in terms of its dispersed personnel across different projects and such new initiatives as the Minister might have in mind? The cut of €95 million from the budget is the equivalent of removing what would be spent on five programmes in five countries in, for example, Africa.

Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Clearly, those who subscribe to our ambitious targets for overseas development aid would prefer not to make adjustments through cuts and savings across the programme. However, it must be seen in the context of the wider Government decision. We must ensure that the programme is sustainable, that it has a solid foundation and is not built on sand and that when we reach our target of 0.7 %, and our ambition to reach that target remains in place, it is 0.7% of a robust, strong and thriving economy. Our development partners would not be served by granting them 0.7% of an economy in freefall. The Government decision must be seen in that context.

One cannot really compare the ODA budget to other budgets. In response to the use of the term "disproportionate", it should be noted that this budget is expressed as a proportion of GNP, unlike other budgets. There has been some ill-informed comment, although the Deputy has been an exception to that, about the way in which the figure is calculated. In making the adjustments last year the total ODA expenditure in Vote 29 increased from €870 million to €899 million. During that year we paid additional amounts in our contributions to multilateral agencies. That meant the net cut for the year was in fact only €15 million. While some people have characterised this as successive cuts, there was only a minimal cut in real terms and a significant increase in percentage terms last year. That is not to take away from the fact that €95 million is a substantial saving.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister confirm that the cuts will fall more on the multilateral side than on the project side?

Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have not made final decisions on that. Given the complexity of the programme, I intend to adopt a nuanced rather than a pro rata approach across the programme. Certainly, the multilateral agencies will be examined. The increase in aid to multilateral agencies has been disproportionate compared with the other side of the programme.