The Medical Missionaries of Mary were the first organisation from this country to become involved in safe motherhood. They established splendid hospitals in Africa 50 to 60 years ago, especially in Nigeria, where they showed it was possible to reduce maternal mortality rates if the proper medical systems were in place. Despite the enormous work done by women in developing countries, especially in agriculture, there is little respect for their position or their health. They are very undervalued, although decreasing maternal and infant mortality rates would improve the economy of the countries concerned.

Ireland's maternal mortality rates are among the best in the world, but in developing countries a woman has between a one in ten and a one in 20 chance of dying from a condition associated with pregnancy or childbirth. Between 500,000 and 700,000 women die every year in such circumstances, that is, one every minute approximately. In the course of this debate between 100 and 121 women will die, the vast majority of them in the underdeveloped world. Many will be teenagers or older women who already have large families. With the death of these mothers the likelihood of their children under the age of five years surviving is decimated. That is a great tragedy for the countries concerned.

The decline in maternal mortality in this country did not happen by chance or because of socio-economic improvements. We managed to diminish puerperal sepsis, an infection associated with childbirth, which is still a very serious cause of death in the developing countries. It can be immediately alleviated with an adequate supply of antibiotics. We need to address that area.

Approximately 20% of women die from bleeding. We have been associated with the establishment of safe blood banks and this must continue. It has been very important in the cities in developing countries because the death rates there is half to a third of that in rural areas. We must use our expertise in these areas to show how improvements can be made.

High blood pressure is another major cause of death. Our involvement in the training of traditional birth attendants can greatly help. For example, by giving them a stick they can detect women under five feet and seek to have them referred to the nearest hospital. Women can also be given watches to time the length of labour and seek medical help if it goes beyond eight hours. Obstructed labour is an appalling cause of maternal mortality. There are no women in the House tonight apart from the Clerk Assistant and myself but one can imagine that taking three or four days to die in obstructed labour must be one of the most appalling deaths one could think of. Some 8% of women in the developing world die in obstructed labour.

We should address issues like that with the expertise we have and, particularly in this area, discourage teenage pregnancy because these girls are not mature. The countries involved tried to raise the age of marriage to 18 but there is a tradition of very early marriage. If a girl marries at 12 and tries to deliver her first child at 14, the results are disastrous. Another group who unfortunately run into a great deal of trouble also are those who have very large families. Complications of pregnancy and the older age of these women can cause many problems.

This is an area where we need to support family planning. Many of these women do not have access to family planning clinics and anything we can do through the non-governmental organisations who set them up, and in terms of family planning supplies, will be helpful. Condoms are not very popular in Africa for cultural reasons, but many African women are most enthusiastic about long-term injectable contraceptives, especially in rural areas because they only have to go to a clinic once every three months. I wish they had a better choice of treatment but that appears to be one of the most important to them. It is essential to try to get teenagers to delay their first pregnancy since many of them do not understand, because of the cultural conditions in their country, that the dangers greatly increase at that time.

There is a major problem also with unsafe abortion in these countries and their legislation on abortion varies. What we can do, however, is try to ensure that these women who usually die from exsanguination and infection get blood, if that is what they need, and that there is a supply of antibiotics to treat them. Without antibiotics they will die from these dreadful abortions.

It is important to remember also that those who work with these women have the added risk of dealing with people at least 20% of whom are HIV positive. Today's newspapers highlight the report from UNAIDS which states that currently there are 42 million people in the world infected with HIV. That is a horrific figure.

I have visited clinics in Africa where the workers did not have any rubber gloves, which is not fair. When President Bush took away the $34 million voted by Congress for the UNFPA, I wish he had sent $34 million worth of rubber gloves to Africa because they would have saved many people from putting themselves in danger by working with these infected women and men.

Good work is being done on microbicides, which are very simple compounds, far too simple for the pharmaceutical companies to take them up. Some of them appear to be made from seaweed, which I am sure would have enormously impressed our grandmothers who told us about the value of carrageen moss. This country has put money towards research into microbicides which, if used vaginally, appear to block the transmission of the HIV virus. Another area we need to address is the very high level of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and gonorrhoea.

I commend the Minister of State on what he is trying to do and the great effort he has made in visiting these clinics. I do not need to tell him how good they are; he has seen them for himself. He has also seen that we are socially acceptable in these places because we do not go there to tell these people what to do. We try to be as co-operative as possible. I hope the Minister will do the best he can to ensure that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, reaches into his long pocket and provides as much money as he possibly can to continue this excellent work. I thank Senator Quinn in advance for seconding the motion.

If we were trading fairly we would keep all our aid and the developing world would still be better off. I am not just talking about Ireland but Europe also. I am taking Ireland as an example of one of the proponents because we appear to be afraid even to question the Common Agricultural Policy. That is an amazing way for a country like Ireland to behave when one takes account our values and traditions. As long as we persist in behaving in this way, we cannot hope, as Europeans, to gain the influence that we seek in the rest of the world.

The two great powerhouses of wealth – the United States and Europe – are lined up against the developing world and undermining it by distorting food markets and subsidising farm production. Of the two, however, it is Europe that is by far the worst sinner and it is Europe which deserves the most criticism. It should be up to Ireland to lead the way out of this policy which is economically and morally bankrupt.

No one would ever question the regard we have for farmers, agriculture and our rural way of life. If we were to tell our partners in Europe that we have to find a better way of achieving these objectives, would they not listen? If we were to say it is now time to turn our backs on the 20th century and look for a way forward that is right for the 21st century, would they not listen? The answer is perhaps they would or perhaps they would not. At least if we were saying these things we could be proud of what we are doing. Sadly, we cannot be proud of what we are doing.

It must dilute whatever pride we feel in the hundreds of millions of euro we dispense each year in the form of financial aid to the developing world. There is at least one argument that the financial aid is given so that we can continue to pursue the penal approach in the way we trade. If such an argument were true – and I am not saying it is – we would be even more deserving of shame.

It is good for us to have a debate like this and I am delighted that Senator Henry brought this motion to the House. We should not forget that there are two matters, trade and aid and of those two, trade is by far the most important.

Those of us in the food business are approached with requests to handle fair trade products and many of us are delighted to do so. This is only a sop to the demands and requirements that exist. The fair trade products are of very limited number, are produced under the fair trade arrangements of a guaranteed wage and usually originate in Africa. The products tend to be bananas, tea and coffee and one or two other products. It would be much better not to give aid in the form of money to the people in the developing world. It is far better if we ask them to earn the aid. They could then be proud and so could we.

I know the Minister of State's heart is in the right place and he has experience of visiting and understanding the situation. It will not be easy to do but it will be a victory for our own well-being. We could stand up and say to Europe and to the rest of the world that we are an agricultural country, we value the rural way of life and we should not demean the work of those many millions of people in the developing world who would be so much better off if they could earn their keep rather than just accept our charity.

I have a copy of a letter from the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, written to Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations of the committee of appropriations of the United States Senate. The subject of the letter is the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002. The letter states:

Like every foreign operations appropriations act since 1985, it provides that "none of the funds made available in this Act .may be made available to any organisation or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

The United States had set aside $34 million for this programme but instead decided to give the funds to the USAID's child survival and health programme fund which I am sure is a very good charitable cause.

What I am concerned about is not family planning or the provision of contraceptives or any of these things. I am concerned about forcible abortion or forcible sterilisation. It is a women's rights issue. If what the Secretary of State says is true then it is a serious charge laid at the door of UNFPA. He says that a team led by the former US Ambassador, William A. Brown spent 14 days in China from 13 to 26 May 2002 –

for extensive visits to five of the 32 counties supported by UNFPA. The team's mandate was to present factual findings on UNFPA's association or participation with population-planning activities in China.

They found no evidence that UNFPA was "knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation in the PRC." The team found that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC "retain coercive elements in law and in practice." The team noted a system of extremely high fines and penalties imposed on families that exceed the number of children.

The team's finding that China's population practices retain coercive elements in law and in practice is consistent with other information available to the Department, such as materials and briefings supplied by UNFPA, Chinese law, and the State Department's annual human rights reports. The PRC has a longstanding and draconian program of controlling birth rates.

In Peru there is some evidence to suggest that under President Fujimori's national population programme in which UNFPA participated there were regimes which resulted in members of the indigenous Indian population undergoing systematic and forced sterilisation. These issues arise from time to time; sometimes they are hyped up and sometimes they are not. I would, however, like the Minister to look into them. If these programmes are being supported, maybe we should look at where we use our aid. I do not suggest we withdraw it entirely but maybe place some strictures on it because a lot of good work is done by these organisations. However, when it comes to women's rights and to forced abortion or sterilisation, we must draw the line.

In September 2000, the Government decided Ireland would meet the UN target for ODA expenditure of 0.7% of GNP by end of 2007. This was a firm and unequivocal commitment given by the Taoiseach at the UN millennium summit. To achieve that goal over a fixed time scale, the figure for 2002 should be 0.45%. However, the Government allocation for ODA has fallen to 0.41%, a massive cut of €31 million. Instead of going forward, we are going back. In spite of all the promises, assertions and commitments by the Taoiseach that the 0.7% target would be met, it cannot and will not be met. Once again we have reneged on a firm commitment.

The Estimates for 2003 include a provision of €373 million for international co-operation under Vote 39. This is part of the ODA assistance administered by Ireland Aid. The Estimate is an increase of €33 million over the Ireland Aid figure of €340 million for 2002 but there is no real increase. We are simply replacing the €32 million which was cut from Ireland Aid's budget for 2002 so, in fact, there is no real gain.

Last week we debated the Book of Estimates for 2003 and there were cuts right across the board – in education, health, the national development plan and, of course, overseas development aid. Particularly on the capital side, we testified to the savage cuts which will have a huge impact on the economy. Of all the areas to cut, to cut the figure for ODA is nothing short of immoral. It is a disgrace, inhumane and indefensible. However, we are not alone. At the time of their participation in the UN financing and development conference in April 2000 in Monterey, the wealthiest nations had never given less in aid. Total ODA from the 22 donor countries amounted to $53.7 billion in 2000, down 0.4% in real terms since 1999. In the ten years since 1992, aid has declined in real terms by almost 12%. Only five countries meet the UN target of 0.7% and, sadly, Ireland is not among them.

I share Trocaire's concern that Ireland is supporting the UK-Spanish proposals to link EU development aid and co-operation with recipient countries' performance in enforcing measures around migration. As Trocaire pointed out, this is totally contrary to Ireland Aid's principles of promoting human rights and issuing tied aid. The Government, therefore, needs to restate immediately its commitment to these principles and to the Refugee Convention of 1951. Again I call on the Government to give a clear and unequivocal commitment this evening to a year by year, staged and staggered timetable – a definite time frame within which to achieve the 0.7% by 2007.

At EU level we should strive to ensure the proportion of EU aid spent on the least developed countries reaches a minimum of 0.15% to 0.20% of GNP by the date of the EU-Africa summit in April 2003. As I said, we should not support the withholding or granting of development aid on the basis of developing countries' acceptance of returning asylum seekers or migrants. The Government should work to develop concrete mechanisms at EU level to monitor coherence between development co-operation and other policies. We need to get our policy priorities right. It is too bad that we grant generous tax concessions to the livestock industry while at the same time we cut overseas aid to people who will die as a result.

It is also worth mentioning the plight of AIDS that has hit the modern world. Today 40 million people are infected with HIV, 28 million in Africa. In some countries as many as one in three adults carry the virus. The impact upon future development in the countries concerned will be enormous if we do not tackle the problem. Again, as a country, we have a very good record in being to the forefront of making commitments to research and development and programmes that deal with AIDS-related illness, an area to which this year we have contributed €50 million.

The critical issues and principles that govern the development of a country are what we have to address. We have to ensure our aid is well spent. That is the task that faces the Minister of State. We must ensure we put poverty alleviation first, that we address people's basic needs and that we work in partnership with developing countries. We must work in partnership to educate and train people in how they can sustain themselves. We must target children to ensure the countries concerned are safeguarded in the future.

We must link this issue to human and civil rights. Post the events of 11 September we should bear in mind that terrorism and its causes often stem from countries that lack basic needs and are underdeveloped. As well as dealing directly with terrorism, we must counter the breeding grounds of terrorism. I salute our NGOs and missionaries who have represented this country so well during the years. Before we ever had serious amounts of aid going to them they were championing the cause and the name of this country. They have played a crucial role in providing aid, fostering public awareness about the crises in the countries concerned and ensuring financial support. Were it not for their leadership role we would not be making the contributions we are making today. They were at the forefront.

I wish to refer in particular to the HOPE Foundation, which is run by Edith Wilkins, a long-time friend of mine from our early days in school. Edith is a champion of the cause and this country. She continues to work in Calcutta where she has contracted a serious illness. I am glad the Minister of State's Department has recognised the work she is doing in recent years and hope he will continue to support her.

I wish the Minister of State well with his huge responsibilities. It is not just a national but an international responsibility. Long may the advances we have made over the last couple of years continue to be made under the Government. If Senator Higgins was in the House, I would say to him that, since overseas development aid is linked to our economic growth, it is far likelier to improve under the Government than under any other.

We all know the Minister for Finance does not believe in ODA. We know this because of the heroics the previous Progressive Democrat Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development co-operation had to perform in order to prevent him from savaging that budget. The Progressive Democrats occasionally have a civilising influence on Fianna Fáil. That was one of those occasions when they repelled the natural instincts of the Minister for Finance to cut every budget related to tackling poverty. He did that in regard to social welfare, he will do it now and at every chance he gets. I congratulate the Progressive Democrats on that achievement.

We will not reach the ODA target. The figures should be reiterated. I wish to quote some random figures. The cost of providing basic health care and nutrition for all in the world would be less than Europe and the United States spend on pet food. In 1997, 20% of the world's people in the richest countries had 74 times what was held by the poorest 20%. In 1960, the ratio was 30 to 1. Therefore, inequality has more than doubled. Much as I am inclined to do so, I do not blame the Government for that. I blame the attitude of western society, which essentially has pulled up a drawbridge.

One of the extraordinary hypocrisies of western society is that it preaches globalisation while resisting it at home. We resist free trade in the goods that matter most to the poor of the world. The Common Agricultural Policy is a classic example, but there are many others.

There is a need to address various matters. One of the matters I wish had been addressed is the extraordinary performance of the Leader of this State, the Taoiseach, in South Africa, who, when the Government was cutting overseas development aid, was lecturing the rest of the world about their lack of generosity. Unless the political will changes, the Government is ideologically and politically incapable of taking the decisions that will be necessary to meet the ODA target. It is going through a charade of pretending it will do something, which is manifestly impossible, given its ideology and the figures we have for the end of 2003. It is talking about what it used to do, it is making promises into the future, but the evidence of this year and next year is that it is drifting remorselessly away from the target and quite soon it will, not officially but de facto, abandon it.

It is important to be factual when we discuss this matter. I wish to clarify a point Senator Ryan made about Fianna Fáil having no concerns about this area. The Senator should check the record or talk to some of his colleagues in the Labour Party. If he were to check the facts in relation to discussions that took place prior to the formation of the Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Government at the time Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring led those parties, he would note that historically there was a major emphasis on this area by both parties in those discussions. He would also note that the graph in relation to ODA spending finally took off in the right direction around that time. Senator Mansergh would be able to verify that fact. I was then Minister of State and those are the facts. I want to clear the air on that matter. None of us has a monopoly on concern about this area, but I have been very much encouraged by what I have heard from Senators across party lines. I will deal with some of the issues raised, if I have time later.

Issues have been raised regarding money. Senator Minihan put this in context when he said that account must be taken of the large amount of money involved. The budget for this area is very large. The more growth in the economy, the more money will be available for this area. It is as simple as that. I agree with Senator Minihan's point that if other parties were in Government we would not have the same growth rates.

I am pleased to respond to this motion, which recognises the value of the Ireland Aid programme and calls on the Minister for Finance to maintain our commitment to it. It is appropriate that we should join forces in supporting the motion. The motion allows me to outline the Government's position on the aid programme and to re-affirm our commitment to it.

I am firmly of the view that there is a need to give greater prominence to the scope and quality of our aid programme – as has been referred to by a number of Senators – and to raise awareness of the role which Ireland is playing in seeking to assist the poorest of the poor. That has always been, and will continue to be, our focus. I very much welcome this debate as an important contribution in this regard.

Over the past three decades, successive Governments have built upon the modest foundations laid in 1974 with the establishment of the Ireland Aid programme. From modest origins, the programme has grown substantially over the past three decades with increases in funding recorded in every year since 1992. The pace of growth has accelerated in more recent years. The allocation to Vote 39, the Vote for International Co-operation, administered by my Department, has increased from €51 million in 1992 to €177 million in 1998 and next year will reach €373 million. In 2003 we will spend more than three times as much on overseas aid as we did in 1998 or 13 times what we spent in 1992. The total allocation next year is likely to exceed €450 million when contributions from other Departments towards ODA are factored in.

I support what Senator Minihan said in regard to our high growth rates and the substantial moneys available. The figures speak for themselves. By any yardstick, we have achieved impressive growth, not just in absolute terms, but also as a proportion of GNP. The internationally accepted approach is to express contributions to development assistance as a proportion of GNP. Official figures from the OECD show that for the period 1990-91 Ireland's aid programme stood at just 0.16% of GNP which placed us firmly in the relegation zone of the league table of OECD member states. We were 21st out of 22 countries. However, in line with the increases in funding I have outlined, we progressed to mid-table by 1996 at 0.30%. This year we expect to reach a figure of 0.41%. Although official figures on other countries' contributions will not be available for some time, estimates suggest that we are now ranked sixth among OECD member states and well above the EU average. This is a record of which Ireland can justifiably be proud, all the more so because it has been achieved against a background of stagnant or falling levels of aid in many other donor countries. I agree with those who have been critical of some of the major powers. Aid levels from a number of wealthy member states, including the USA, Canada and Finland, have fallen over the past decade. With a handful of others however, Ireland has made significant progress towards the UN target of 0.7% of GNP.

The allocation for 2003 of €373 million should enable us to maintain the 0.41% commitment. This objective has been achieved in the context of current difficult financial circumstances. There is a temptation, as has happened in other countries, to reduce assistance to external aid when circumstances at home become more difficult. We have all heard the debates about cuts in our school programmes. We can list them in every Department, as they all took major hits. However, we have not made cuts here, rightly so.

The alleviation of poverty is at the heart of the Ireland Aid programme. This is in line with the recommendations of the Ireland Aid review committee, whose report on the future direction of the aid programme was approved by Government last March. This represents the overriding priority of the aid programme. A reduction in poverty requires, first and foremost, a focus on basic needs; basic health care, primary education, basic sanitation and the provision of clean water. These objectives are prominent in our activities in all the programme countries and elsewhere in the aid programme. However, to focus on these key goals alone would not be sufficient to bring about lasting progress and change.

We need to focus at the same time within the bilateral programme on areas such as sustainable development, good governance, public sector reform, capacity building and fostering private enterprise. We must also help partner Governments to tackle the growing crisis in HIV-AIDS. The Ireland Aid programme seeks to address all these key issues. To tackle such a wide range of issues risks spreading resources too thinly and diluting the quality and effectiveness of our aid. Accordingly, Ireland Aid concentrates its efforts on a small number of least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. By narrowing the geographical focus of the programme, we retain the capacity to tackle in a co-ordinated and coherent way the multiple dimensions of poverty and the many obstacles to sustainable development. This multifaceted approach in a limited geographical context enables us to bring about real progress in some of the world's least developed countries and, most importantly, have an impact on the lives of some of the poorest people on earth.

The effectiveness and value for money of assistance channelled through multilateral organisations are also key concerns for Ireland Aid. To this end, we liaise regularly with international organisations to ensure funds are disbursed in an effective and efficient manner. The need for value for money has been rightly identified. Ireland has been to the forefront of member states pressing the European Commission to reform the management and delivery of EU assistance. Significant progress has been made, in terms of structural reform and improvements to the financial management of EU assistance, including a marked improvement in EU performance as regards the speed and efficiency of aid delivery.

In line with the Ireland Aid review, Ireland will increasingly concentrate voluntary contributions on a limited number of UN agencies, rather than being a small contributor to a large number of agencies. Priority will be given to agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF, whose policy objectives relate closely to our own and which are efficient and reform-minded. This will ensure, in particular, a more concentrated focus of Ireland Aid funding on the overriding programme goal to which I referred, the alleviation of poverty.

Through our concentrated focus on both multilateral and bilateral assistance, Ireland Aid has earned an enviable international reputation as a quality aid programme. This quality has been attested to by the OECD's peer review process. The last review, undertaken in 1999, concluded that the focused nature of the programme constitutes one of its major strengths. It found that the programme had a sound policy basis and concluded that Irish Aid, as the programme was then known, was a strong performer in putting a partnership approach into practice, especially in programme countries. The review also made a number of focused recommendations concerning future growth of the programme and how this should he managed. I am satisfied that we have made good progress in these areas and that the next peer review, which will take place in 2003, will again attest to the impact and value of our aid programme.

As I have remarked, a key theme referred to by the OECD was partnership. Partnership is a prerequisite for effective aid and a cornerstone of the Ireland Aid programme. It permeates all aspects of the programme. Ireland Aid engages closely with partner Governments in each of the programme countries. We liaise continuously with multilateral donors. We co-ordinate efforts on the ground with other bilateral donors and, in particular, co-operate closely with Irish NGOs and missionaries. I have instituted regular consultations with Irish NGOs and intend to deepen our partnership with them and missionaries on a policy level and in the field.

As Senators will be aware, this is my second term as Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development and human rights. During the years I have seen at first hand the positive work which is undertaken, both in terms of the long-term development strategies in programme countries and also in relation to more immediate efforts to address emergencies and humanitarian crises worldwide. One of my first actions after taking office was to announce a major programme of humanitarian assistance for southern Africa. I subsequently visited Malawi and Zambia and witnessed at first hand the scale of the food crisis. I will shortly be visiting Ethiopia to examine the worsening situation there. The scale of the challenge in these countries cannot be overstated, nor, I am pleased to say, is it possible to overstate the contribution of Irish NGOs and missionaries on the ground. I have great admiration for their extraordinary commitment and devotion to alleviating the suffering of those less fortunate.

I referred to the need to assist developing countries to tackle HIV-AIDS. More then 40 million people are living with this disease, of whom some 27 million live in sub-Saharan Africa, in the world's poorest countries. HlV-AIDS is now the leading cause of death in the region. In Africa 2.2 million people died of AIDS in 2001. This is equivalent to the number of casualties which would result from the crashing of over 4,500 jumbo jets in one year. What was once considered a health challenge has quickly become a fundamental threat to development. Already HIV-AIDS is reversing a generation of development efforts in sub-Saharan Africa. The most startling evidence of this is the plunge in life expectancy. Largely because of HIV-AIDS, life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa has been reduced by almost one third, from about 63 years to 43 years, reversing gains made over the last century. As the spread of HIV-AIDS continues, the full impact of the disease is becoming clear.

In Zambia, where I spoke to the education Minister when I visited the country, there are now more teachers dying every year from HIV-AIDS than are being trained in teacher training colleges. This has potentially serious long-term implications for the international effort under way to provide universal primary education for all children by 2015. As men and women fall ill, their ability to participate in the labour force is affected, resulting in a decline in agricultural productivity. The huge food crisis in southern Africa to which I have referred and the emerging crisis in Ethiopia have been greatly exacerbated by the high incidence of HIV-AIDS in these countries. While its origins can be attributed to a number of factors, HIV-AIDS is turning cyclical food shortages into full-scale humanitarian disasters.

During my visit to Zambia I witnessed at first hand the appalling consequences which these grim statistics do not fully convey. It is difficult to encapsulate in a few words the scale of the human tragedy which I saw at first hand at an AIDS hospice in northern Zambia. One of the most troubling consequences of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is its impact on children. Between 15% and 35% of babies born to HIV positive mothers will be infected with the disease. Most will die by the age of five. Many others are affected through the loss of one or both parents. There are more than 4 million orphans in the six Ireland Aid programme countries, almost equivalent to the population of Ireland. While in Zambia, I visited an orphanage for children who have lost their parents to the virus. This experience will always remain with me.

There is at the same time some basis for optimism. Over the past 20 years many governments, donor and NGOs have invested in programmes to halt the spread of AIDS. In Uganda, for example, strong political leadership, a recognition of the extent of the problem and the adoption of multi-sectoral response have contributed to decreasing the HIV prevalence rate from approximately 14% in the early 1990s to less than 7% last year. Ireland Aid has worked closely with the government, local communities and NGOs to tackle HIV/AIDS in Uganda. While progress to date has been very encouraging, much remains to be done and we will intensify our support over the next three years, providing more than €7 million until 2005.

I acknowledge the interest of the Taoiseach in this issue. Many Members will be aware he visited Lesotho two years ago, as a result of which our financial contribution in this area was increased significantly.

HIV/AIDS will prove to be the greatest obstacle to reducing poverty and achieving the international development goals. Unless the international community can tackle the crisis quickly and effectively, our efforts to support development in other spheres will be undermined. Accordingly, Ireland Aid will continue to integrate measures to combat HIV/AIDS into all facets of the aid programme. This weekend we will mark World AIDS Day, 1 December, with a number of activities designed to raise awareness of the scale and consequences of the human tragedy caused by HIV/AIDS.

In addition to raising awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on development, we must also seek to raise awareness generally regarding the Ireland Aid programme. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the growth and quality of our programme and I acknowledge the commitment and strong interest of Senators. There is a need, however, to raise awareness among the public about the extent and nature of Ireland Aid's activities. Not only will this help to foster a sense of public ownership, but it will help to ensure a greater level of scrutiny and accountability concerning the effective use of public funds and will ensure continuing focus on the quality of the programme.

In the coming months we will intensify efforts to bring the development work done by Ireland Aid to the attention of the general public. This programme belongs to the people and it is right that they should learn more about the invaluable work being done on their behalf in the developing world.

I refer to the issues raised by Members. Senator Henry referred to maternal and infant mortality. This issue was also raised by Senator Lydon, who had different concerns. There was much comment about the UN population fund and it requires clarification. Ireland has supported the UNFPA since 1993 and it is important to provide the background to the need for our continued support for this organisation.

It is estimated 500,000 women die in the developing world annually due to pregnancy related causes and 350 million women do not have access to any form of contraception. In the Irish aid programme, the area of sexual and reproductive health is integral to the development of a broad based health service, the creation of equal opportunities for women through the education system and the fight against HIV/AIDS. As one of our important development partners, Ireland Aid is supporting the work of UNFPA to extend assistance to developing countries to help them deal with such development challenges as maternal and infant mortality, HIV/AIDS and reproductive health care.

UNFPA extends assistance to developing countries at their request. The fund is committed under its mandate to the principles of voluntarism and all its programmes of assistance throughout the world are based on the principles of freedom of choice and informed consent. UNFPA's programmes also have a major focus on the fight against HIV/AIDS, which is one of the greatest challenges facing developing countries and one of the overarching objectives of Ireland's development assistance.

The fund is supported by many donors through voluntary contributions and Ireland Aid has been making annual voluntary contributions since 1993. This year Ireland has contributed €1.841 million to UNFPA to support its core resources which are focused primarily on the world's poorest countries. The money provided by Ireland Aid helps to save the lives of thousands of women each year and to prevent hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies. This funding allows UNFPA to make an important contribution to the achievement of the UN millennium development goals, including the goal of reducing the maternal mortality rate by 75% by 2015.

The EU is engaged in dialogue with the US regarding its funding withdrawal earlier this year and the background to that decision, to which Senator Lydon referred. A consensus exists among EU member states, reaffirmed recently at Council level, regarding the importance of the role of UNFPA in reaching the millennium development goals in the areas of infant, child and maternal mortality and the EU's firm commitment to continue to support the fund. This fund has a critical role to play in support of the implementation of the key millennium goals through its programme and it should continue to be an important development partner for Ireland Aid.

Senator Quinn referred to the trade and development agenda. I was privileged to represent the previous Government as a trade Minister at WTO level and I pursued a development agenda in trying to improve the developing world's access to world trade. This is an important issue and I am glad Members focused on it. The 48 poorest countries in the world are engaged in less than 0.25% of world trade. We cannot debate this issue without dealing with the question of trade and development. Senator Quinn was correct to raise the issue of CAP reform in this context because there is no doubt that, as a Government, we will have to bring our agricultural and development policies into line.

I am glad this Minister has responsibility for this portfolio. I know him of old and the personal experience of going to these countries and seeing the situation on the ground has obviously left an indelible mark on him, as it did on the former President, Mary Robinson, when she visited parts of Africa, and on the Taoiseach, who was extremely moved by what he saw.

There is no doubt, however, that with the best will in the world, our contribution is reducing at present. One can mask the figures whatever way one wishes and claim that the amount will be increased in the last year or two of the Government's term but that is always dangerous. I understand the critical budgetary situation but this is an area where there should be no cutbacks. We should continue the staged increase so we will reach the target of 0.7% by 2007. It is not just an economic issue; it is a moral argument. The moral dimension, however, also has political spin-offs. Think of the commanding moral political position it would give us among our European and continental allies should we reach the target in 2007.

It is most important that we do everything we can to support this Minister, as we supported his splendid predecessor, Deputy O'Donnell, who was invoked earlier in this debate. She was simply terrific. She put her neck on the block on this issue and more power to her. I have in my hand an invitation I have just received to the Doolin memorial lecture which she will give in the College of Surgeons next Saturday week. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend but the title of the lecture is instructive, given that she is the immediate predecessor of the current Minister. It is: "The fight against diseases of the poor: the moral imperative for development assistance". That puts the issue in perspective.

I am glad the Minister mentioned the group from Galway whose members have been writing to public representatives to say that UNFPA money is being used for abortions. That is absolute rubbish and I am extremely glad the Minister scotched the story. It saves me putting on record the full text of a letter I received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. I wrote to him when I got the letter from Galway, but not in the terms the people in Galway would have appreciated. I sought clarification and I received a clear, forthright and detailed letter from the Minister in which he indicated that he would be making representations to the Americans. They have behaved in a disgraceful manner by cutting funding for UNFPA under the Bush Administration. This is the advice we should be giving to our American friends.

I am aware that the Ireland Aid review committee reported that the programme was well focused and was working efficiently in some of the poorest African countries. It said the sectors on which our aid was focused were well chosen. I am sure that is true up to a point. However, the committee also recommends an increased degree of partnership with NGOs. We should continue to look at that. Some people think Mr. John O'Shea of GOAL is extreme but that is how he has got things done. I am a great admirer of his because he gets directly involved in these situations. He takes the Minister's advice by going to see these countries and deals directly with them. He provided me over recent years with horrifying information about the levels of corruption within many of the administrations to which we send money.

It is unacceptable that Irish taxpayers' money should be filtered off to satisfy the economic requirements of the tinpot dictators and unworthy regimes in these countries. If it is possible to bypass corrupt regimes which indulge in the business of baksheesh and backhanders, we should look at increasing our commitment to NGOs such as Trócaire, Concern, GOAL and others, all of which have done wonderful work. They can give us value for money. I accept there is a political dimension and it might sometimes be essential that we deal with governments but we should monitor these situations as closely as possible.

One of the intractable problems is AIDS. Members of both Houses received briefings on the issue of microbicides in the European Parliament building last Friday. This is an experimental treatment and it is not guaranteed that it could not at some stage have counterproductive effects because one must achieve such a level of containment of the virus that one is not creating a virus that has immunity to other drugs. That is just one warning on the subject of microbicides. However, the treatment does have promise.

The other problem is that they are a vaginal cream and one must take into account the customs and culture of the people. Even if it was 100% effective, who can say that it will be acceptable in the sub-Saharan regions by traditional tribal women? We must use lateral thinking on this issue. We must involve local medical practices as well. The NGOs could have a role in this regard. I had a meeting with a remarkable woman today, Dr. Concepta Merry from St. James's Hospital. The type of lateral thinking she spoke about is simply wonderful, using multinational corporations to deliver AIDS treatment directly into areas which are difficult for other groups to access. That is the type of thinking we need to use.

I wish to discuss the cut in Vote 39 in the Estimates. Here again, there is a danger that we can get involved in a conjurer's illusion. There is an increase of €33 million in the Ireland Aid expenditure, which was €340 million in 2002. However, this merely replaces the €32 million that was cut from the 2002 budget earlier in the year. It is, in fact, a conjuring trick. We have to watch these sharp accountancy practices.

If there is one nip, as opposed to cut, which should be restored, it is the emergency humanitarian aid assistance.

There is a growing awareness in the international community that new approaches to development. co-operation are required. Health, education and access to basic services cannot be seen in isolation but must be part of a development package that recognises the importance of governance. For too long the issue of governance in developing countries was ignored; we simply put in the provision of services, often in a vacuum created by corruption, a lack of respect for human rights and the lack of transparency. The very large increases in our budget for development co-operation in the last decade must be welcomed but we now have the opportunity to step back and look at this.

When Opposition speakers give out about the reduction in aid they should remember it is only a small reduction. We should use this time for reflection on the whole aid area. I also echo Senator Minihan's comments on Senator Higgins's criticism which is politically cheap and unhelpful. The Opposition will be surprised to hear me say I was pleased to see the Minister of Finance last week challenge the public service in this country to examine its effectiveness when he stated clearly that money alone is not the answer. If this is true in any area it must true with development co-operation and other speakers have spelt this out very clearly.

We cannot address health and education in isolation. We must look at the kind of government which is responsible for providing these services. With this in mind I congratulate the Taoiseach for his vision when, for the first time, the Minister of State in the last Government responsible for development co-operation was also given specific responsibility for human rights. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, now has this responsibility which recognises the important linkages between development co-operation and human rights. That is a very important task. We cannot talk about the provision of education and health services in a society where there is no respect for human rights or where Government is not responsible to the needs of the people.

I saw this in Lesotho at first hand when Ireland Aid headed support for the electoral process in that country. After years of instability, elections were held in May this year which resulted in a Government elected by and representative of the people. This will be a slow process and there will be setbacks in countries like Lesotho but we should stick with them and encourage them. Unlike Senator Ryan, I feel we can reach the UN target.

I wish the Minister of State well. I do not doubt he will continue the great work of his predecessor who got plenty of compliments tonight, and rightly so.

On my visit to Malawi in 1993 I saw what some of the groups were attempting to do, and with considerable success. However, the moral of the story is that our efforts and the resources we were pouring into the country were not sufficient. We must redouble our commitment to bring our contribution to development aid up to 0.7% of GNP. The scale of the problem is enormous because almost 80% of the world's population are living in some degree of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage.

I compliment the voluntary groups, NGOs and particularly the religious for the sterling work they are doing. At a time when religious communities are under enormous scrutiny and pressure and clergy bashing has almost become a national sport, we must recognise the enormous good work that has been done internationally by Irish missionaries in bringing help and hope to communities. This should be recognised.

I wish the Minister of State well in his efforts. I know of his commitment to bringing fairness and hope to depressed and disadvantaged communities worldwide. More political will is needed. I hope a message will go out from Seanad Éireann that will nudge the Minister for Finance towards giving the Minister of State's office the sort of money required to continue his good work.

I do not wish to deny credit to Deputies Joan Burton or Liz O'Donnell when they were Ministers of State. Despite her best efforts, Deputy Burton was only able to raise the level of aid from 0.25% to 0.31%. During the last Government, with huge growth rates of up to 10%, it was quite difficult to push the aid level up, but it was raised to 0.41%.

I do not entirely agree with the view of Senator Ryan that there is no real public support for overseas aid. There are many young people and idealistic people of every age to whom this matters deeply. I was always unhappy when, as a party, we did not seem to be doing enough. Everything we do is inadequate in relation to the huge global problems we face.

I helped former Deputy Ray Burke when in Opposition to get an interim target, which we have not yet reached, of 0.45% . I also helped the former Minister of State, Deputy Liz O'Donnell, in her negotiations with the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to try to get a united position. Senator Bradford is absolutely right when he says there are political battles to be fought.

There will always be sceptics around. Part of the value of this debate is to help us overcome that scepticism. It is important that we achieve the objectives we have set ourselves as soon as we can. We are now in the upper tier. Instead of being at the bottom, we are above most of the large countries, many of which have no compunction about cutting their aid budgets.

I have seen the good work done in Lesotho. In 2002 we were the most significant aid contributor to Lesotho, just ahead of China. I do not know if that is still the case. Similarly, we established an aid office in East Timor which, when visited in 2002, was an absolutely beautiful but devastated country. The Taoiseach was deeply impressed by the aid situation there, to which the Minister of State devoted so much of his speech.

I felt Senator Quinn went a little overboard. The Minister of State may not be aware of it, but the Senator crusades against the Common Agricultural Policy at every opportunity. Coming from a farming background, I am entirely in favour of balance between trade and the CAP, but if one scraps the CAP, a lot of disadvantaged people, not just in existing EU countries, but also in the countries about to join, will suffer.

The Ireland Aid review, a very valuable document, the guts of which, I am glad to say, were incorporated into the Fianna Fáil manifesto and An Agreed Programme for Government, refers to an Asian country. I was in Sri Lanka in February this year, mainly because a peace process has been started there. A terrible conflict took place in which 60,000 died. It is an island much the same size as Ireland, but with a much larger population. Partly because of the similarity of the political problem, it would greatly benefit from aid. It is economically wrecked and reasonably self-contained because it is an island. I ask the Minister of State to look very closely at it as a possible candidate to which we could extend our aid programme.

I am pleased Senator Hanafin referred to the Cairo conference, which the Minister of State and I attended. The then Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister of State proposed to the European Union that while abortion could never be considered a family planning method, the dire consequences of unsafe abortion had to be addressed. That is the reason I raised the importance of ensuring adequate supplies of antibiotics. In the course of this debate between 25 and 30 women will have died due to unsafe abortion, which is probably a conservative estimate. We have persevered with this view and are now on the executive of the UNFPA where we have huge moral responsibility. I am sure the Department is weary of replying to all our questions. Deputy Gay Mitchell recently submitted one which, once again, deals with the reaffirmation of the position of the UNFPA.

The position of China is difficult. It is a very big country with a draconian policy in this area. I have spoken to some Chinese people involved in family planning, including the vice-chairman of the standing committee of the National People's Congress of China, the state family planning commissioner and a member of the country's family planning association. In addition to visits by Americans, three Members of Parliament at Westminster have visited, led by Christine McCafferty. They met an Irish nun who had been 40 years in China. She said the UNFPA did nothing but good, sometimes in trying circumstances. The delegation's report will be placed on the Internet at the end of this week. The website address is www.appg/popdevrh.org.uk.

Senator Quinn rightly said trade would be much better than aid. However, it is necessary to consider the level of support for the Common Agricultural Policy and the situation regarding globalisation, which is good abroad but bad at home. These issues will be with us for a long time.

I wish the Minister of State the best of luck. He will make Senators across all parties very angry if he does not succeed in maintaining aid at its current levels. Deputy O'Donnell used to say she had to sit on the aid nest like a hen. I will not try to devise a masculine simile, but I am sure the Minister of State will do his best. I thank Senators for their support.

Question put and agreed to.