That’s a very good question.
Without the authorization of a minister, I cannot present an amendment as such. However, I could raise the question, and this might help you find a solution.
With regard to what we would like to include in the definition of what in English is called ODA, or Official Development Assistance, what we are going to consider, in terms of figures, is one thing. But the current act says that development assistance must absolutely be linked to the reduction of poverty. To my mind this is different from what we would like to regard as ODA.
Our position is that it is important to allow the government the flexibility to make expenditures in all potential areas of assistance. The method of calculation is one thing, but expenditures must not be prohibited, for example, if they are for improvements in the banking system in the Caribbean. This is an important objective. Can this assistance reduce poverty? Perhaps not, but we’d like to have the option of taking action in this area.
Whether you want to regard assistance as ODA or not is another issue, but what the act says now may prohibit us from providing funds when assistance fits the definition of development but is not aimed at reducing poverty.