David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not need them because I am on my way to another meeting, but I felt it important, as my group's representative on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, to come to the House and say a few words, and I do have some concerns.

First, I welcome the Minister of State. He is a decent, hardworking, intelligent, good-hearted man and a principled politician, and that is exactly what we need in this area.

I received background notes from the office of the Leader of the House, all of which were good and positive, and we take them as read. However, I am concerned that the background note states that the Irish Aid programme is guided by Ireland's international development policy, One World, One Future, which was published in 2013. It identifies three overarching goals of the aid programme: one, reduced hunger and increased resilience; two, sustainable development and inclusive economic growth; and three, better governance, human rights and accountability. It is on the third one that I will concentrate.

There should be clear monitoring - there is some - of the human rights conditions in each of the countries to which we give aid. There also should be monitoring of the levels of corruption. Every country has corruption to one degree or another. Even the Vatican is subject to this vagary of human nature, and this country is not immune from it. However, the distortions caused by corruption - particularly, for example, in the African continent - are quite staggering.

We should look, for example, at the policies on population. This is a matter of great concern to me. The population of the planet has trebled since I was born. That should cause anybody anxiety. I go every year to the release of the United Nations report on population, and it never mentions population. Never once in the years I have been going has it mentioned population. It talks about female genital mutilation, education and civilian casualties in times of war, and I throw myself on the ground, foaming at the mouth and asking, "What about population?". It is one of the most critical areas. Obviously, we cannot intervene. We cannot tell people what to do. There is a process of education on such matters as the accessibility of condoms and birth control. That is one aspect I would ask to be looked at.

The other matter is this. Immediately after I finish speaking here, I am off to a meeting with the Nigerian ambassador, where I will raise questions about the vicious anti-gay laws in Nigeria, the way they are prosecuted and the fact that these people slavishly accept British imperial legislation in the area. They enforce such legislation at the behest of evangelical American churches which are doing immense damage there. Recently, I received reports of the conditions for unfortunate people who are gay and who live in these circumstances. One phrase that stuck out was that living in Nigeria now, since the passage of the anti-gay Bill, is hell on earth by virtue of something over which one has no control. If that was merely a moral or cultural issue, then one could say, "Butt out, Europe and the West. We are not interested in your view. This is our culture," but they are fighting AIDS. They have a tremendous incidence of AIDS. The one way to spread AIDS is to clamp down on homosexual people and homosexual activity. This is guaranteed to lead to a time-bomb situation. The UN, the World Health Organization and various groups have tried to point this out but, for political reasons, President Goodluck Jonathan signed this legislation into being, and it is disastrous.

Why should we spend Irish taxpayers' money on fighting AIDS when the Nigerian Government is doing everything in its power to frustrate these programmes and, coincidently, to increase the incidence of AIDS in these countries?

I would say "Well done" in regard to much of the work. The failure to move towards the development aid target of 0.7% of GDP is dreadful, and I expect that in his heart the Minister of State agrees with me. It was shameful that we withdrew from it, because, being a percentage value, the overall amount shrank as the economy shrank. I know the Minister of State is trying to get back on track, but it was awful that we were derailed and, as a result, passed out by other European countries when we were among the leaders. I really regret this. The fact it was expressed as a percentage took care of the economic circumstances. It meant that as the financial situation here declined we would have contributed proportionately less. We should have been able to do so. We should have been able to stick at 0.7%, because this figure would have reflected the continuing financial situation in the country. Abandoning the target of 0.7% was abandoning a crucial principle.