Last Tuesday, when he took questions in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I asked the Tánaiste about the Libyan detention centres, forced returns, the Mediterranean and the recent impasse. His response to me was very strong, namely, that migrants stranded in the Mediterranean need a much better co-ordinated and collective response from the EU instead of the ad hoc, case-by-case management seen to date. The Tánaiste was critical of the EU being unable to agree collectively on an approach to migration and rescue. He stated that a new system which will ensure survivors' well-being is being planned and that Ireland will be part of it. That is very positive. Other positive aspects are the OECD Development Assistance Committee, DAC, peer reviews from 2014 and the mid-term review from 2016. I understand that the current review, which will be published next year, will also be positive. The reviews from 2014 and 2017 highlight Ireland's commitment to the least developed countries and the quality of our programmes there, which are focused on poverty and hunger reduction. We have an excellent record in providing untied aid and there is a commitment to move beyond the 0.7% threshold. However, that considerable regard for Ireland is being undermined by aspects of the increasing EU securitisation agenda. The OECD DAC has concerns that overseas development aid can be used for activities that harm human rights.

I wish to raise two issues. First, the European Peace Facility, EPF, which plans to make more efficient the deployment of military missions. The EPF involves a component to train and equip foreign government military actors in fragile states by, among other things, providing weapons. It has a potential budget of $10 billion for the next six years. Compare that with $3.7 billion budget for the preventing conflict instruments of the EU. There are concerns regarding governance and accountability if there is an oversight role for the European Parliament. Where does Ireland stand in this regard, particularly in the context of the positives I have just outlined? I accept that Ireland is trying to reach a coalition with like-minded states but it is obvious that more needs to be done to ensure that there is a publicly accessible list of the eligible equipment for the EPF which would exclude weapons and ammunition, ensure that civilian peace-building alternatives are considered first and to ensure accountability techniques for the potential misuse of military assistance and, of course, the protection of civilians. There must also be transparency, so that there will be a timely disclosure of all EPF documents such as the proposals for action programmes and that they go to national parliaments and foreign affairs committees. How can Ireland be the positive voice on humanitarian and human rights issues while at the same time not be as active on the EPF, which has the potential for over-reliance on force as a means to resolve issues?

I thank the Deputy for asking a progressive series of questions. That does not often happen in this House. Normally, it is a case of criticism and defence when we discuss these issues, if "defence" is the correct word in this context.

The Deputy knows my views on the EU's responsibility for vulnerable migrants in the Mediterranean particularly in camps in Libya from which many are desperately trying to escape and are at the mercy of people traffickers who are brutal in their methods. I am both disappointed and frustrated by the lack of the EU's capacity to respond comprehensively to the humanitarian challenge which we all face. Part of that was driven by an inability to agree disembarkation procedures in terms of locations and so on for various political reasons I do not have time to go into. I hope that we will be able to find a way forward that can allow EU involvement on a humanitarian search and rescue basis. Of course, we must ensure that we are not encouraging people trafficking or creating any type of pull factor while at the same time ensuring that we are not knowingly allowing people to drown. Given the resources that we have the potential to provide to ensure that does not happen. I am proud to say that Ireland has made a very significant contribution in recent years. Irish naval vessels have taken approximately 14,000 people from the waters of the Mediterranean off the coast of Libya. We will continue to work with other EU countries to try to find and agree a more collective approach towards migration and accommodation of migrants and refugees if and when they disembark in the European Union, which is a challenge for Ireland in light of demands on housing, criticisms of direct provision and other challenges. However, it is something we must do. We cannot allow EU Mediterranean countries to carry the entire burden or what will happen - it has already happened in Italy - in the forthcoming general election is that people will respond by putting those who engage in hardline thinking on migration issues into office. We need to work together to ensure that this does not happen and, in that context, we must help Italy with the burden it has shouldered.

I will return to the EPF facility in response to the Deputy's supplementary question in order to give a more comprehensive answer. There is a role for the EPF, for training and supporting countries in parts of the world that have been destabilised or torn apart by conflict to build security capacity. However, Ireland's expertise and role lies in the areas of peacekeeping and the provision of civilian supports in post-conflict situations. Those are the areas in which we have credibility and that is the emphasis in our contribution to most of these EU debates.

I do not think that what the EPF does really squares with the earlier part of the Tánaiste's response. I will introduce another aspect, namely, the EU Trust Fund for Africa. Much concern has been expressed on that, including by the EU Court of Auditors. There is concern that the trust fund is spending EU aid money in ways that contradict development and undermine human rights. Libya is one example. It is money from the trust fund that is keeping detention centres there, in which conditions are appalling, going. In the Sudan, EU funds have been used to train Sudanese border police and support the activities of the rapid support force, which is really the Janjaweed. Ireland was rightly very strong in condemning the killings and rapes in Sudan some months ago but that violence is being carried out by forces whose training was funded by the EU. The trust fund has also been misused in Eritrea and Niger. All that has led to there being more deaths among migrants crossing the Sahara than among those seeking to traverse the Mediterranean. Does Ireland have a legal obligation to contribute to the EU Trust Fund for Africa?

I will come back to the Deputy on the legal obligation. I am not sure of the direct answer to that question and whether that comes out of EU central funds we contribute to or whether it is opt-in funding from a trust fund. I will check that and come back to the Deputy.

The EU needs to spend money in its neighbourhood to support fragile governments. In some cases, it needs to support the training of police officers and military personnel. For example, a number of Irish military personnel have been in Mali on a training mission for a number of years. We are doing that in partnership with the UK and it is the one such peacekeeping operation we are carrying out in partnership with the UK. I was there when I was Minister for Defence. That mission is hugely appreciated and necessary in introducing sophisticated training capacity around demining, civilian protection and so on. To paint EU funding of security training as a bad thing in all circumstances is wrong. While we need transparency in how the money is spent and the results of same, we cannot solely focus on civilian engagement. There also has to be EU support for state actors if they are trying to bring stability to fragile states.