2026-02-05

79. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether her Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU presidency, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe, and the impact those cuts are having on communities around the world; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8704/26]

I had not prepared for this as such but I am keen to get the Minister of State's thoughts on it. It is about whether the Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU Presidency. I am sure this is a topic he will happily speak to for two minutes, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe and the impact those cuts are having on communities across the world.

The Deputy and I occasionally disagree. We actually agree more times than we disagree but let us not let the people of Dublin Rathdown know that. I like to think one area we passionately agree on is Ireland's role when it comes to official development assistance and development. I am relishing Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union putting development back at the centre of European discussions. We are faced, quite frankly, with possibly the most destabilising and worrying approach to overseas development assistance since Irish Aid was created in 1974. It is not just the withdrawal of USAID's funding, which is massive, but the commitment by the British Government to withdraw from 0.5% to 0.3% is really destabilising. Last year, Ireland and Spain were the only two EU member states to increase their development budget. Credibly, Denmark maintained theirs and Norway, which is not an EU member state, also increased theirs. However, what I was confronted with at my first development Ministers' Foreign Affairs Council meeting was a real mix. Some member states said that for budgetary reasons, and a focus on defence and pension reform, they were cutting. Others, from a range of member states but traditionally member states who had been strong on this, gleefully relished that they were going to cut their development budgets in some sort of Trumpian act. We have to make sure that all the development Ministers come to Ireland in early October and that we engage with Barry Andrews MEP, who is chair of the development committee in the European Parliament, to make sure, crucially, that the multi-annual financial framework, within its global Europe provision, does not cut development. We can increase spending in other areas. I have no problem with that and we will debate it in another forum but we have to make sure that Ireland is unified. There are voices in this Chamber, who are not here, who will tell us this is a waste of money. I visited eight of the 13 Irish Aid countries in the last year. I will go my ninth and tenth next week, and my eleventh for St. Patrick's Day, to show that we believe in development. It is an investment that works, not just for the people who receive that investment but, crucially, for people here in Ireland.

I agree. It is great to hear that it will be a point of focus for the Minister of State in the second half of this year, when we have the opportunity during the Presidency of the European Union. As he referenced, which I also did in my question, this is obviously within the context of USAID being cut, for example. That is really just storing up problems. It is the definition of storing up problems to cut aid in the way we are seeing this happen across the globe. I question the unconditional aid piece. One of the other issues we are having across Europe is the fact that it is not being given unconditionally. That is problematic. Does the Minister of State see a connection between this drop in aid and the increase in defence spending? There is a connection in potential member states. It is so important we continue to maintain an emphasis on peacekeeping and not shift to peacebuilding and peace enforcement, which is a threat and is linked to development aid. I would love to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on that.

Crucially, every challenge we face in Europe at the moment goes back to global instability. When the pillar of development is removed, the foundation stone of that global stability is removed. You are creating more problems for yourself on direct bilateral relations and allowing more malevolent actors fill the space of more benevolent actors. The Deputy is quite right that certain member states are cutting development aid and saying they need to put it towards security and defence. I do not buy that argument for an instant. If you are serious about security, including energy, food, political and domestic security, and managing migration in supporting those who need to migrate as well as making sure countries can handle and meet the requirements they have, you have to invest in development. It is a complete misnomer and false argument to say we are taking money from development to put into security. By taking money from development, you are forcing yourself to put more money into security. It is why the Government has not only not cut our development budget but is committed to increasing our security budget. The two are absolutely interlinked. You cannot do one by cutting off the other.

On defence without peacebuilding, you can end conflicts and ensure peace and human rights are championed, which builds the off-ramp for war-torn regions. This is concerning for me because earlier this week at the European affairs committee, I pressed Commissioner Serafin on this. It is clear to me that Europe is investing in war and military spending. All of the mechanisms that are available to member states and all the ways we are offering opportunities for development, employment and growth are around the military. There is a conflict there. I appreciate and am heartened by the Minister of State's comments, the connection he made between the two and how he will champion this during the Presidency. I look forward to seeing that work and co-operating with him on it.

Absolutely. As I said, I have no issue with European member states or the Union investing in security and defence. It is sensible, but I do not think you can make the argument that money can be taken from development and not expect to end up spending more on security and defence as a result. The Deputy mentioned early intervention and the source of the conditionality of aid. Something I am concerned about is the notion of tied aid. We do not believe in tied aid. We believe in development being the right thing to do and being an investment. It is an investment in people that will be paid off, not in our terms but perhaps on their terms. That is the empowerment of people, including making sure that women and girls have the same opportunities for human rights, dignity and education that we take for granted, but there is a regression on that. I will make a particular reference to peacebuilding and the work of Irish Aid in Columbia and in the very fragile peace process in Liberia. That was a peace process that started with Irish peacekeepers and is going from strength to strength. The fact that people are willing to remove resources from that is just creating a recipe for potential disaster.