I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the fourth time in the past month when we have had a matter of development co-operation before the House and on each occasion the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is directly responsible for these matters, has not seen fit to grace the House with his presence. Last week when we were dealing with a similar matter we were told the Minister had a commitment elsewhere and no doubt we will be told the same today.
A number of important matters arise from this and I should like to be told something more than that the Minister has a commitment elsewhere, as we were told last week and the week before. I want a commitment or some indication that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be prepared to come before the House to discuss matters on development co-operation. I want a clear indication on that.
Another aspect that arises from the non-appearance of the Minister on matters of this nature is the apparent decision of the Taoiseach not to appoint a Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation. Deputies will recall the Taoiseach's attitude in regard to this question some weeks ago when he suggested that such an appointment would be superfluous and supernumerary. Is it an indication of the lack of consideration given to these matters by the Taoiseach that the Minister responsible in this area, or somebody from the Department of Foreign Affairs, is not here today? We have a development co-operation programme and an official budget, to be raised by ourselves, of £26 million. It seems to be a budget which is nobody's baby because nobody at political or Government level seems to be taking the slightest interest in it. There are substantial funds and major policy decisions to be taken but we have not got the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take the slightest interest in these matters. Indeed, we have had the indication from the Taoiseach that there will not be a Minister of State to deal with this.
This is an indictment of the present Government, this manner in which they are handling development co-operation, and I protest on behalf of my party that this very important area is being handled in this fashion. Having registered that protest, I am glad the Government have decided to continue the decision of the last Government to appoint a Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries. When I decided to establish the committee last year I took the view that it was of primary importance that Members of the House should be fully briefed on these issues, so that they could contribute to policy making in regard to overseas aid. Of course the committee would have another function, that of development education, and that is of great importance because it is clear that many Members of the House have not had an opportunity to be briefed on development aid and therefore do not understand the type of work that is going on and the type of improvements that might be effected in that work. It is my opinion that a joint committee consisting of 18 Members of both Houses will be of considerable benefit from the point of view of disseminating information, and this will be of considerable importance because both Houses will be familiarised with the position.
The committee will be one step along the road towards development co-operation, but we want to ensure that in regard to development co-operation funds there will not be any political argument. I wish to see acceptance of the UN target but, more important, of the means and the timetable in regard to the achievement of that target. In that respect it is clear there is absolute commitment by my party and I know it is fully supported by Labour. From discussions I have had with members of The Workers' Party there is commitment there in regard to the achievement of the UN target and the timetable in that regard.
It will be somewhat of a problem to take development co-operation issues out of politics until we have a similar commitment from the Government. In the past we had a vague commitment which ended up as no commitment at all. At all times there was an assurance that we would fully endorse the UN recommendation of. 7 per cent and aim to reach it. Then the qualifications appeared —"as soon as resources permit" was the favourite and "as soon as possible" was another such vague qualification. What is lacking from the Government benches is a specific commitment such as that which was given and implemented by the last Government, that is, a phased increase year after year so that the UN target can be reached by a specific date. Our commitment was that it would be reached by the end of this decade. The figure at present is abysmally low.
When we came to office last June the figure was approximately .18 per cent. We provided in the Estimates to increase that to .23 per cent, the increase being from £18 million to £26.335 million. We were committed to further increases each year of .05 per cent.
I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs was here to give a similar commitment on behalf of the Government. I have not seen the full statement he made to the advisory council last week but, as I understand it, the text of the statement indicated a vague possibility that there may be increases in the future. We had the same old claptrap which avoided any specific commitment. We want to know from the Government where we stand. Is there a commitment or not? If there is not, why not? We have enough vague obfuscations from Fianna Fáil in this area and from now on we want specific answers to specific questions. I do not expect the Minister who is taking the motion to be in a position to reply to this point. It is not his area, no more than it was the responsibility of the Minister of State who handled the other development co-operation issue which came before the House a few weeks ago.
Speaking on behalf of my party and of all those interested in this issue, the time has come to demand a clear statement from the Government. We will have to have a debate to clear up these issues. As regards the question of money and the UN target and our commitment or lack of commitment to it, there are many other issues and policy matters to be discussed. When I was Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation I decided it was necessary to have a Government White Paper which would outline where we are going and what exactly our policy was in relation to development co-operation. We had a tradition, resulting from the fact that we did not have a bilateral aid programme until the first Coalition Government in the last decade, that any overseas aid went through multilateral agencies. Despite the fact that we started the bilateral aid programme in 1974, up to last year the amount of funds made available to multilateral aid as opposed to bilateral aid was of the order of 70 per cent to multilateral and 30 per cent to bilateral. I feel strongly that we should have more control over the funds being made available and should reverse this figure to some degree at least, if not totally. We made a start in the 1982 Estimates by increasing the amount available for bilateral aid to 37 per cent. I was struck by the figures which were available from Scandinavia and other countries who have a good record in this field. The percentage of funds available for bilateral aid is 70 per cent, almost the reverse of our situation.
That is a question which needs to be discussed and is an area where we need to have a policy. Should we aim to switch our priorities to place greater emphasis on bilateral aid? I do not think this is a political issue but it is important. I feel we should be aiming towards greater emphasis on bilateral aid. The survey carried out by the advisory council indicated that the majority of those who participated felt we should have a greater emphasis on bilateral aid as opposed to multilateral aid. That is significant. I was struck by the cost-effectiveness of the projects carried on by the Department directly in the bilateral aid field and even more so by projects carried on by voluntary agencies, which are known in international terms as NGOs, non-governmental organisations.
Part of our bilateral aid programme was by way of co-financing the operations of the voluntary agencies and, in some cases, of missionaries involved in development activities in overseas countries. There is another policy issue here which must be faced: to what extent can the funds available from official sources be increased to co-finance such work? Naturally the Government would not have any part to play in the funds being raised independently by voluntary bodies, which are quite significant. Last year the figure was £6 million. Co-financing is one of the policy issues which must be discussed. I just mention these points, but there is a multitude of others which need to be discussed.
I asked the advisory council to indicate by way of headings the type of questions we should address ourselves to in the context of drafting a White Paper. The type of questions raised by the advisory council were such as surprised even myself, who thought I was getting to know something about the problems involved in this area. There are literally dozens of questions that must be faced from the point of view of having a clear policy on the part of this Government, indeed on the part of this country, in the area of development co-operation.
That raises the point as to what is happening in regard to the White Paper and on which I want a clear answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The preliminary work on the White Paper had been done. But there remained a lot of further work to be done, including an invitation to different organisations and individuals involved to make submissions on what they felt might be included. As far as I can ascertain the preliminary work done on the White Paper has been brought to a full stop. Does this indicate that the present Government do not intend to carry on this work, that they are going to allow policy issues in the development co-operation area either to drift totally or be decided on an ad hoc basis as they arise? It would be very wrong to allow that happen. It is something that must be prevented at all costs. I would encourage the Government to continue the work on this White Paper because I must emphasise again that the ultimate aim must be not to have this White Paper as a Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour one but rather one representing this country's policy on which, as far as possible, there should be all-party agreement on the manner in which the objectives are to be attained. There should not be political divisions on questions arising within the context of this White Paper. From that point of view I had hoped that the Joint Committee would have been of help in reaching an all-party concensus.
It is proper for me to take this opportunity on behalf of the Opposition to pose the question: why is it that the work on this White Paper appears to have come to a full stop? Is it occasioned by a total lack of interest on the part of the Government or is there some other reason? One way or the other this House is entitled to know if this Government have stubbed the issue, attempted, as it were to throw the White Paper into the waste paper basket. If that is the case then at least let them say so, then we would know where we stood. That is another important aspect requiring the consideration of this House. Again, we are not afforded that opportunity because the Minister responsible is not even present.
I might now strike a more positive note by welcoming the fact that of all the advances made by the previous Government in this field at least this particular baby of mine has been saved and it appears that the Government intend to continue with our proposal to establish a Joint Committee. That Joint Committee can play a major role in shaping our policy in the field of development co-operation. It will be important also that that committee have the backing and support of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or whoever will have responsibility for development co-operation, and that he be available to the committee from time to time to discuss various aspects of policy. It will be important also that this Joint Committee — as I had intended — will have a real function to perform and on which people on the Opposition side of the House can make constructive proposals, not just Fine Gael or Labour proposals but proposals in the interest of the country generally and of having a better overseas aid policy.
There is a further small point I must raise here, something that cannot be repeated too often and from which hopefully, by repetition, we might find some results flowing. I believe that the procedure we have for establishing joint committees is utterly cumbersome. We have before the House today an expediency motion. My understanding is that there will have to be a similar expediency motion before the Seanad, followed by a further substantive motion in this House, followed by yet another in the Seanad. Surely we could devise a better system of quickly and effectively setting up joint committees without going through all this rigmarole. I mention that merely in passing. But, bearing in mind the growing feeling in this House that there should be more committee work, we must devise a better system of getting that work under way. That situation has been highlighted even more by the position with regard to the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EEC which, again because of the cumbersome steps that had to be taken by the last Government, ended up in that committee never having met during their term of office. The delays entailed in that cumbersome procedure meant effectively, in that situation, that so much in the EEC field was allowed go past without receiving any consideration at all. That is something that should be examined by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges with some changes being affected as quickly as possible.
Generally, I welcome the appointment of this Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries. So far it would appear that it is the only thing salvaged in this area from the progress made by the last Government, at least something for which we can be thankful. I believe that this Joint Committee will prove to be an important and effective one. I suggest that the present Government might consider the precedent set in regard to the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EEC by having the chairman of this latest committee appointed from the Opposition side. That is merely a suggestion but it is something that appears to have worked well in regard to the EEC Joint Committee and might be a good headline to set at the initiation of this committee. That our proposal to establish this latest Joint Committee has been salvaged is a step in the right direction. While welcoming that fact I should say it is absolutely imperative that we avail of the opportunity to highlight the fact that this constitutes only one small advance made by the last Government which has been salvaged. That fact highlights all the more the need for the present Government to indicate clearly their policy in the whole area of development co-operation, indicate also their commitment or lack of commitment, and ensure that these issues are discussed in this House.
I conclude with a final plea. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs accepts responsibility for development co-operation we should be given a chance in the House to debate the matter. He should give at least some slight indication of interest in this area if it is to be left with him.