Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I was very restrained with the Minister of State. I feel threatened by him and ask the Acting Chairman to please restrain him.

I am fascinated by the Government's decision to measure our generosity against the meanness of the world rather than against the instincts of our people, which we have witnessed. As I said in the House when we were debating the tsunami, for the United States as a country to match the generosity of the Irish people it would have had to pledge some US$5 billion or US$6 billion dollars to the tsunami disaster relief. It is offensive to Irish people to suggest we are doing well because we are doing better than a collection of countries that are characterised by miserable, limited, unimaginative and usually politically charged masquerades for ODA. To suggest that that should be our index is to insult the whole concept of our development programme.

It is worth repeating what Senator Quinn stated. He is not a politically partisan individual. He is a man who takes his own position. He stated that when he heard what we were doing he felt a sense of shame and betrayal. That is what one feels tonight. Dressed up in a long speech is a sense that we have walked away from our commitment. In 2000 the Taoiseach promised we would meet the target by 2007. That was a seven-year target. In early 2005 the best the Minister of State can do is hope we will reach it by 2013, which is another eight years. We have retreated from a position where we were going to do it in seven years to one where we will do it in 15 years. After he said that, he mentioned a moral commitment. It is a peculiar concept of a moral commitment which means that we are not really bound by it, as distinct presumably from some other kind of commitment where we are bound by it. That is what he said. A moral commitment was made in 2000. It was made in the United Nations when the Government wanted the prestige of membership of the Security Council and it promised every developing country that wanted to listen and that might consider voting for us that we would reach the target by 2007. Those of us who had to deal with the Government in the recent general election are aware that this is not an occasional or exceptional position; it is standard practice for the Government. Let us also remember that this commitment was made to the poor of the world in an international forum and we walked away from it.

The Minister of State gave a wonderful quotation just after he commented on Senator Quinn's remarks to the effect that a major threat to the viability of any organisation is rapid, unplanned growth and expansion, about which we all know. However, the Minister of State would have us believe that rapid and unplanned are the same thing. Unplanned growth in the economy or any other sphere is full of risks, but that is not the same as rapid growth.

For five years we have had a commitment to reach a target. There has been plenty of time to plan and organise it. Many NGOs are adamant in their assertion that they can handle that level of aid and there are sufficient target countries with sufficiently developed institutional structures to handle the increased amount. It is gratuitously offensive of the Minister of State to suggest that Senator Quinn's remarks about writing the cheque were not very thoughtful, given his expertise in these areas.

Programmes such as the HIV-AIDS programme have an endless appetite for money and it would be universally used well because of their nature. There are structured and staffed programmes which could expand dramatically if the funding was available, but are constrained by the absence of basic resources. For example, fundamental primary care programmes involving activity like oral re-hydration therapy and the provision of simple, cheap clean water all over the world could be funded now.

Therefore, it is disingenuous and unworthy of the Minister of State to insert arguments like that into what has been up to now a political consensus about ODA. I still do not know when precisely the Government decided it would dump this target. I am beginning to suspect it was the day after the Taoiseach left South Africa and made the commitment the second time. I suspect the Government decided at that stage that it would not do so and left it until after the general election to address. We then had the little hiccup and two arguments. It is a wonderful thing that in 2002 we could not meet the target because we were too poor and in 2004 we could not meet it because we were too rich. One of those arguments is untrue.

The biggest problem about the debate and dealing with the Government and Minister of State is that we cannot deal with the issue because of the tangents on which they are embarking. The NGOs are criticised for their lobbying because without them the Minister of State would not suffer the daily embarrassment he is enduring.