Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Does that line not betray that we do not really see international overseas aid as a priority? We do not consider looking after those people in the same way as we look after our own, which is not in the best traditions of Ireland, our missionaries and our NGOs. I am none the wiser either about where the proposed cuts will take place. I read a suggestion from the Minister in The Sunday Business Post that emergency and bilateral government to government aid has been protected because it "produces better results". Whatever about emergency aid, it is not the case that bilateral aid produces better results compared with funding at grass roots level and the work done by national and international NGOs. I would like to see a full breakdown of what is being cut, whether, for example, funding for the Clinton Foundation has been cut or funding for the various activities of the UNFPA, some of which may clash with our constitutional values, has been cut.

The question must be asked as to what the Irish public supports. There has always been a sense of envy within Department of Foreign Affairs that its programme, the bilateral programme, has not received the same public recognition as the work of Irish NGOs and missionaries, who together receive only a relatively small percentage of ODA funding. It is Ireland's long and proud tradition of missionary and NGO work that has formed the backbone of public support for overseas development aid. It is because most people in Ireland know someone who went overseas with Concern or know a priest who has worked in Kenya for 30 years, building schools, sinking wells etc. that they are prepared to support overseas development aid. The public does not support bilateral aid in the same way because it is nervous about government to government aid. Therefore, in the real sense the bilateral aid programme piggybacks on the NGO and missionary programmes; the former exists because of public recognition and support for the latter.

I am concerned about the prioritisation that will be made in making the cuts. The bilateral aid programme should suffer the same cuts, if not more, than aid to NGOs and missionary programmes. If the NGOs and missionary programmes cannot be protected from cuts, what public support can there be for the aid programme in general?

I would like to refer to the specific commitments made in response to the hunger task force report last year. That report recommended that Irish Aid work "towards an indicative target of 20% of its overseas development aid to actions to alleviate and eradicate hunger". It also stressed that "regardless of the current international economic climate, without both developed and developing countries acting on their commitments, hunger will not be reduced." The report was adopted in full at the time of its launch. I want to know whether this is still a commitment towards which Irish Aid is working. If it is, has hunger alleviation been spared in the current cuts and, if not, why not?

Just as important is the recommendation by the hunger task force report that serious attention should be given to the importance of small-holder agriculture. Not only does small-holder agriculture resonate strongly among our cultural and historical heritage, it provides a creative and effective response to many of the problems faced by the African people. I will finish with some statistics. Some 80% of Africans live rurally. Some 85% of African land has a medium to high potential for increased productivity and some 80% of Africans live on small-holder farms - probably 500 million people when we count family members. When all this is taken into account, it becomes clear why international studies back the hunger task force report's claim that small-holder agriculture holds the key to African development. I urge the Minister to make that the main priority.