Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1973

Vol. 266 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46: International Co-operation.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £270,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for contributions to the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, Intergovernmental Legal Bodies, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Development Aid (including a Grant-in-Aid) and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe; and for other expenses in connection therewith.

The amount of this Supplementary Estimate added to the original Estimate agreed to by the Dáil on 9th May, 1973, represents a total provision of £796,000 in the Vote for International Co-operation for 1973-74.

The Supplementary Estimate covers two new headings-Development Aid and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which were not included in the ambit of the Vote already adopted. When I introduced the Estimates for my Department and for International Co-operation on the 9th May, 1973, I indicated the place which these new activities would occupy in achieving the basic foreign policy objectives of the Government. The provision for development aid contributes to achieving another basic objective, that of helping the Third World, thereby meeting our obligations and satisfying the desire of Irish people to play a constructive role in this sphere. The Government in providing development aid to the Third World, aims to have a comprehensive and coherent programme which will show balanced growth in its various sectors and be consistent with achieving the greatest benefit for developing countries, particularly in fields where Ireland has a special interest or competence. The establishment of an interim agency to sponsor Irish persons wishing to serve on economic and social development projects in developing countries has been approved by the Government as a first step in the advancement of this new programme. The Minister for Finance, in his budget statement on the 16th May, 1973, informed the Dáil that he was making increased provision for development aid in the current financial year and that some of the increase would go towards the creation of such an agency. The Supplementary Estimate provides £100,000 for this purpose and its adoption by the Dáil at this time will enable the interim agency to be formed and commence operations without further delay.

The interim agency will finance activities in fields which have traditionally been serviced by private voluntary organisations and by private individuals. It will sponsor the sending of Irish personnel to engage on projects required by Third World countries and acceptable to their Governments, whose responsibility for the economic and social development of their countries must at all times be respected. The interim agency will itself decide on the projects it will support and the personnel it will sponsor for them but I would envisage that it will work through multilateral as well as bilateral channels. On the multilateral side I would expect that the interim agency might help in appropriate cases in servicing requests for personnel which my Department might receive from time to time from Governments in developing countries. However, I believe that it will find its most interesting and rewarding work at a non-Governmental level—finding teachers, nurses, local administrators and so on for modest projects in smaller communities—and it is at this level its activities would be in the great tradition of Irish missionaries, lay as well as clerical of many denominations, and would be an appropriate point of departure for the new aid programme.

As far as the form of agency which I propose to establish is concerned, it had been my hope that the private voluntary organisations which have traditionally been engaged in this work in developing countries would undertake to form a central agency themselves with an assurance that Government funds would be available to them to supplement in a substantial way their activities in this particular field. Because of the number of interested organisations it has not yet been possible for them to form an agency of this kind. The Government have, therefore, taken the initiative to establish an interim agency as a State-sponsored body financed by a Grant-in-Aid to undertake activities connected with the sponsorship of temporary service by Irish workers on development projects in the Third World. It is inevitable that a Statesponsored body in this field will operate under tighter Government control than might appear desirable to the voluntary organisations which it hopes to assist. It will, however, actively seek to encourage the voluntary organisations to create a private agency to replace it at the earliest possible date.

I now turn to the second aspect of development aid covered by the Supplementary Estimate, the provision for disaster relief in developing countries. The purpose of making provision under this heading is to have funds at the Government's disposal to give assistance for the relief of distress resulting from man-made or natural disasters in developing countries. It is essential that the Government should be in a position to respond rapidly to requests for assistance to relieve the victims of such disasters. This can best be done by voting funds in advance from which such requests can be met as they arise. The practice hitherto has been that on each occasion on which the Government wished to respond positively to an appeal for assistance, it was necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate. The arrangement proposed should also facilitate the early transfer of funds made available for relief purposes. Senior international officials associated with emergency relief operations have repeatedly drawn attention to the failure of national administrations to follow-up pledges promptly by the transfer of funds into the appropriate account.

During the period 1968 to date Ireland provided a total of £400,000 for victims of distress. These funds were voted by way of Supplementary Estimates. Requests have recently been received for assistance for disaster relief in a number of areas. The Government wishes to be in a position to respond quickly, on the basis of need, to such appeals. Therefore, I propose to make provision for disaster relief in the Vote for my Department on a continuing basis, commencing this year. Funds thus provided would be used for the purpose of making contributions and/or payments to intergovernmental agencies and other bodies and to individual governments for the relief of distress. I propose to provide £100,000 for this purpose during the current financial year. This sum would come out of the £1.5 million for development aid announced by the Minister for Finance in the course of his budget statement.

I now turn to the second heading in the Supplementary Estimate, the provision for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I have already said in this House on the 9th May that the first of the basic objectives of Irish foreign policy is to help maintain world peace and reduce tensions between super-powers, blocs and states. This conference, which is the first of its kind to be held in Europe, will, it is expected, contribute greatly towards this end. Several months of careful work have preceded the conference during which it was sought to establish whether there was the measure of agreement among states to make the holding of a conference feasible and desirable. This work took the form of multilateral preparatory talks held in Helsinki at ambassadorial level. Ireland participated fully in these talks. Their successful conclusion on the 8th June and the recommendations agreed on with regard to the agenda, scope and organisation of the conference give good grounds to believe that the conference will mark a real step forward in reducing tension among the participating states and promoting detente on our continent.

The topics to be dealt with at the conference include questions relating to security in Europe, economic co-operation, co-operation in humanitarian and other related fields, and the possibility of a follow-up to the conference. The subjects to be discussed under the security item of the agenda will include principles guiding relations among states, a proposal for the peaceful settlement of disputes and a limited number of measures designed to reduce tension in the military sphere and directed mainly at the members of the two military alliances. The economic item will include co-operation in the fields of commercial exchanges, industry, science, technology and the environment. The third item of the agenda relates to freer movement of people and ideas in Europe, and increased cultural and educational exchanges. The fourth agenda item allows for the examination of measures to give effect to decisions reached at the conference and to continue its work. Ireland, together with our EEC partners, believes that this agenda provides a sound basis for a conference which achieve the objectives I have already mentioned. Other western states share this viewpoint.

The conference will be held in three stages, the first and last in Helsinki and the second in Geneva. The first and third stages are expected to be quite short, but the second stage will last some months—exactly how long is not known. It is not, therefore, possible to estimate precisely the cost of the conference, although on the basis of available data the approximate projected cost has been estimated at £4,700,000. Ireland's percentage contribution has been assessed at 0.6 per cent which would amount to approximately £30,000. In addition, a further sum, at present estimated at about £40,000, will be required to meet the travel and subsistence expenses of our delegation.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When the Minister introduced his main Estimate some time ago I indicated that under these particular headings he would have the full support of the Opposition. I refer in particular to the programme for development aid and also to the provision for disaster relief. The Minister's decision to establish what he called a State agency will have the full support of this side of the House. Obviously it is a matter a Government must consider.

If I have any slight objection to the Minister's approach it is with regard to his previous speech where there was the implication that this was a matter that touched the conscience of the present Government only, that the previous Government had not given it any consideration or made any plans. For that reason, I should like some details from the Minister regarding the exact composition of the agency. He has told us it will be an interim agency, a semi-State agency. I should like to know what type of personnel will be recruited to advise the agency and what kind of people will be on the board.

I have in mind the fact that the previous Government had continuous discussions with the chairman of SFADCO, a man who has proved in his achievements in that area that he and those associated with him are eminently suitable to activate the best interests of those working with them and also to activate the commitment of the Irish people in this area. I do not know if the Minister has had an opportunity of continuing those discussions. Significantly, the agency he has in mind is a semi-State agency and it appears there would be considerable benefits from consultations with the chairman of SFADCO and those who have been engaged in surveys in this area. I should like to know if the Minister has considered this point. No doubt he is aware that the chairman of SFADCO in recent years undertook a very extensive tour in Africa and the Far East and, having regard to our experience in developing our own resources with limited capital, personnel and know-how, he assessed how we could translate this by way of a semi-State agency to the benefit of the developing countries.

I should like the Minister to be more precise about these points in his reply. There are many State agencies. Much will depend on the direction, the vision and the commitment of the people who will head the agency proposed, otherwise our good intentions will come to nought. Of course, our good intentions must be backed up by actual experience in the field and also by a commitment of the type given by the people I have referred to already. These people showed an interest in translating their experience to the benefit of the developing countries at a time when it was not fashionable to do so.

I understand discussions had taken place between the Minister for Finance and people in the Department on the financial provisions necessary to fund a programme of this kind. I am glad the Minister has been able to translate it into a proposal, although at this stage it is not as precise as we would wish. However, perhaps there are reasons for this. The Minister may be engaged in consultations but I should like some clear indications from him on the matter.

This Supplementary Estimate will have our full support. That support can be confirmed from the attitudes we adopted and the programmes and examinations we undertook in the previous Government. I hope the Minister will not imply that it is only now these matters have emerged and that it is this Government who have developed a belated social conscience.

The Minister has said that the agency will sponsor the sending of Irish personnel to engage in projects required by Third World countries and which are acceptable to their Governments. It is very important that they should be acceptable. From time to time much of the relief given to underdeveloped countries or to disaster areas to a certain extent was given to satisfy the demands the assisting country understood the country in need to have and on occasions there have been clashes between the country in need and the country providing assistance. From the point of view of the psychological reaction of the country being assisted there is a need to have active consultation; otherwise the donor country's ideas of what would suit could offend rather than assist. A small country like Ireland operating through an agency as proposed by the Minister could work fruitfully. It is not merely a question of giving money. The energy that can be activated, the spirit of co-operation and understanding that can be promoted, will be the real proof of what such a programme can achieve.

The Minister has pointed to what has been achieved by our missionaries, lay and clerical, nurses, doctors, teachers and many others. What they have achieved in the countries they have worked in is out of all proportion to the money spent. The sense of pride which they have engendered in the people with whom they worked, the confidence which is so vital to a developing country, and the co-operation any man is entitled to expect from his fellowman, are vital. They will accomplish much more than money that is simply applied in the terms of the "Ugly American" of years ago. For that reason, I welcome the indication of the Minister that this will be done only in full co-operation and consultation with the Governments concerned. It is up to the agency itself to decide on the projects it will support and the personnel it will sponsor but I would sound a warning to the Minister here that in this we may sometimes have to accept the views of the countries we are assisting even against the best judgment of our own advisers and of this Agency as to the priorities which they feel need to be adopted in any particular case.

The Minister also mentioned that there are a number of interested organisations in this area. Here again, it is important that guidelines would be established as soon as possible for this agency. Anybody familiar with community activities at any level in this country at present will see that if there is a constant pattern throughout the country it is the lack of co-ordination between various associations whose aims in many cases are directed to the same ends. Whether one considers youth welfare, care of the aged or care of the handicapped or deprived, you find many different organisations with absolutely boundless energy and commitment working separately towards the same end. This gives rise in many cases, even in small towns, to a dissipation of resources and a lack of co-ordination and clear programming. One cannot always put a clearly defined limit to the energies of human beings in this area but I suggest that now is a time, particularly when this agency is being established, when the need for co-ordination here should be clearly established. Otherwise, we can dissipate financial and personnel resources and co-ordination and discipline, which are so vital to a programme of this type, could be lacking. The overall direction which could come from an agency like this, which I greatly welcome, could also be absent.

What I might call the enthusiastic "do-gooders" must be watched carefully in this connection; otherwise the potential which this agency has may be dissipated through a lack of overall plan and control. The people to whom I referred earlier have every experience —I refer particularly to SFADCO—of forming that type of overall programme and harnessing that type of commitment. They have proved this in many ways through their voluntary activities which they later channelled into full-time professional promotion of everything from banquets to cottage schemes. It is that translation from the voluntary to the professional that one would hope would emerge in an agency of this type.

In that connection I hope the Minister at a fairly early stage can give us a clear indication of the composition of the board of the agency, of who will be represented on it and how it can be hoped that it would effect this overall programming of the various voluntary activities of those concerned in this type of assistance.

I welcome also the second aspect of this Supplementary Estimate, the provision for disaster relief in developing countries, particularly as the Minister has pointed out that disasters have a habit of occurring suddenly and the need arises sometimes before the money can be made available. It is a very practical suggestion that the reserve fund of £1,000 in this instance should be on stand-by in the event of our being able to make, as I take it in this case, a direct financial contribution rather than through the agencies available to us internationally. While generally disasters in our minds have an association with great tragedies happening suddenly you can also have disasters that are constant and chronic and whose presence we can see because they are always with us.

Last week I asked a question of the Minister—unfortunately, I was not here for his reply but I was gratified by his reply to it—in regard to famine conditions brought about by the constant drought in West African countries. That condition has existed there for the past two years but possibly because it has not resulted from a major war such as we had in Bangladesh and Vietnam, it did not arouse the conscience of the world to the same extent. Disasters are nonetheless as critical—and in many ways even more so—when they arise from natural causes which are constant and chronic. One need only think in terms of places like Calcutta and other parts of India and areas like West Africa. I do not think the Minister need, or that he intends to confine his assistance in this area, or regard himself as being confined, to the common connotation of disaster relief even though it may not be the connotation which those engaged in that work put upon it. The Minister should keep constantly in mind, through an agency such as the one he intends to establish, through the association we have with the international agencies, how this country can, where necessary, help by direct financial assistance—which I think would be the least significant part— and personnel assistance in what would otherwise be termed disaster areas.

The final element in this Supplementary Estimate is the conference which has been known as the Helsinki Conference although, as the Minister pointed out, the second and major stage of the conference will take place in Geneva. We are all pleased to see the detente which has been emerging in Europe particularly, especially since Willi Brandt's initiative in the ostpolitik. We all know what divisions can cause in any country and we know, when those divisions extend beyond the confines of the country, the effect they can have on countries associated with the divided country. This in many ways has been at the base of the European problem, the division of Germany, and the fact that the Chancellor has taken the initiative that he has taken which demands, as all such initiatives must, a generosity and a new approach, has certainly created a condition where this conference on security and co-operation in Europe can take place and bring about meaningful results. We are a party to it and we shall obviously be affected by the results of it for good or evil. We all confidently hope that it will be for good because the terms of reference of the conference are framed in that direction.

Our contribution can be made not in the sense of assuming the role of advising the Germans, the French, the Russians, the Rumanians, or the Poles, but in showing that we support any programme which will lessen the tensions between those countries and then lessen the tensions between the major powers. I refer, in particular, to the third item on the agenda which relates to the freer movement of people and ideas in Europe, and increased cultural and educational exchanges. Many of us know that tension and fear derive from ignorance more than anything else. Our own little country has proved this very conclusively over a long period and, unfortunately, in one part is proving it more every day.

The tensions between east and west derive, by and large, from the same source. The self-righteousness of the attitude of one bloc or country in its own area is matched only by the self-righteousness of the other bloc or country in its area. When a division occurs due to a major international upheaval such as the last world war —and that is very much at the base of the problems which this conference will face—obviously there are serious problems of human understanding to be overcome. Those problems are still very active and in many ways are being aggravated in areas where they should not be aggravated.

I cannot help remembering the atmosphere at the Munich Olympics last year when, despite the best wishes of sportsmen, in many ways amongst many of the European countries directly concerned in this area, sport became an agency of what can honestly be described as political domination, or political superiority. That is not the type of communication between people which is intended to be promoted in the third item of this agenda. You must have goodwill. Young people are the ones who communicate and who move around from one country to another most readily, and who can break out of the shell which surrounded us in the past into new attitudes in the future. They will achieve very positively in their own time what these conferences attempt to do.

I have expressed reservations about direct diplomatic representation with some countries, not on the basis of principle, but simply having regard to the realities of the limitation on our resources. I will continue to express those reservations. When any such proposals are before the House I hope the Minister and I can discuss them in a positive and realistic way. I would suggest that student exchange programmes between east and west, between the countries of eastern Europe and western Europe, which are lacking at this time, could do a great deal to lessen tension. Armies, whatever forces they represent, are there simply as a presence to indicate a commitment, as has been proved in this country, and sometimes to guard against an uprising. Armies will not solve these problems. They will be solved by the commitment of the people themselves directly involved. There is great scope—and this country is in a strong position to do something about this—for effecting communication between the students of Europe and the students of the rest of the world.

At this time—and this is one of the sad things—there are two different world youth organisations operating which are not directed at lessening the tension which exists between east and west, or any other part of the globe, but to maintaining them, and to maintaining the supremacy of the groups involved. There are two groups known as CENYC which represents, roughly, the western youth associations and WAY, which stands for the World Assembly of Youth, as far as I know, and represents the east European associations. So far as this conference has talked in terms of increased culture and education exchanges, this is an area to which it could give some serious thought. It is an area with which the Council of Europe have been concerned for a little while, and with our own National Youth Council are greatly concerned.

The Minister's proposals this morning have the full support of the Opposition. I should like the clarification I have asked for in connection with the nature of the board of the agency to which he referred.

Mr. Coogan

I want to commend some aspects of this Supplementary Estimate. On the question of assistance to the Third World, we have all seen the picture on our television screens of the poor old woman going 14 miles for a drop of water. We cannot envisage that because we are surrounded by water. We should not let this occasion pass without paying tribute to those voluntary organisations who have done so much. I should not like Civil Service red tape and green tape to creep in. I agree with the previous speaker that the experience of those who have served in these fields should be utilised.

In regard to the second aspect of development aid covered by the Estimate in connection with disaster relief in developing countries, great work has been done by voluntary organisations. Again, it is only right and proper that we should commend this work and not let this occasion pass without paying tribute to those who have contributed so much. Voluntary effort has done a great deal in this country to achieve our freedom. Now that we have our freedom, are we going to sweep aside this voluntary effort and say : "Let the State take over"? That is where the real disaster will arise. Charity should come from the heart, and we should not leave it to the State which is a heartless piece of machinery. I commend very highly the work involved in this Estimate.

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to thank Deputy O'Kennedy for his support for what we are trying to do here. I know there is no divergence between us on this. He seems to feel that, in pressing ahead in this way, and in some of the things we may have said about pressing ahead in this way, we were suggesting a divergence between us and the previous Government. To some extent this is true. There is not a divergence of approach or attitude but we have, in fact, pushed ahead more rapidly than the tempo of events over the last couple of years in this sphere. I found when I came into office on the question of this interim agency for personal service abroad, that it had been batted backwards and forwards for 18 months at official level without any great sign of Government involvement to break the deadlocks which had grown up. I applied my mind to dealing with it and having a decision taken on it straight away. It is fair to say that we have given a somewhat higher priority to it than the previous Government in that respect.

We have also increased vastly the amount of development aid. Much of this is due to our EEC obligations. Let us be clear about this. We would have had to increase our development aid this year from £750,000 in the previous financial year to £1,250,000 because our EEC obligations required that. The Government could have pursued the policy previously adopted of minimising expenditure. In the previous year it had been cut-back from £850,000 to £750,000. We could have pursued that policy and said that a two-thirds increase imposed by EEC membership is enough, instead of which we went beyond that to double the original sum of £750,000 to £1,500,000, leaving an extra £250,000 over and above the obligations imposed on us by membership to be available to us to make use of in additional forms. One of the forms has been to set up this agency. Another aspect is the question of disaster relief. We have, therefore, shown that we are giving particular priority to it. We cannot reasonably compare the performance of a Government which doubles the expenditure with that of the previous Government which reduced the expenditure by 10 per cent during the previous year. There is not a difference in policy, but there is a difference in priority and emphasis. In fairness, that must be said because I think that political lights should not be hidden under bushels, nor should claims be made which are not correct. I will not go beyond making that minimal statement.

On the question of the agency, my view was that this is an area in which it is best to devolve responsibility as much as possible. At the same time, the Government must have some say in the disposal of public money abroad in circumstances which could give rise to embarrassment. It seemed that the best approach to this was to make some arrangement under which we would provide financial assistance to expand activities of the kind we are talking about here on terms that would ensure that the money would not be spent in a way that could be politically embarrassing, like spending it in a country where there is good reason for not wishing to have political involvement or where, more probably, in that particular country the government there did not want that particular kind of aid. We must avoid embarrassment of that kind.

It seemed to me, contrary to some of the views expressed, that it is best achieved by not having tight Government control in the form of Government appointments or Civil Service representatives on the board, but by giving clear terms of reference to the body to be established saying that the money must be spent in countries which exclude any country which the Government might wish, for some particular reason, to exclude at a particular time, and that the aid must be spent in ways which will be acceptable to the Government concerned. That has been laid down as a condition of the grant-in-aid. It did not seem to me that further Government control was desirable. On the contrary, what I would have liked would have been to provide this money in the form of a grant-in-aid to a voluntary agency established by the voluntary bodies concerned which they themselves would partly finance.

The Government would generously supplement the financial provisions to these agencies. The number of agencies involved is significant. They operate in different ways. Although I made this offer to them, they did not find it possible to establish a voluntary body and to plough part of their funds into such a body so that the Government would be in a position of merely supplementing generously the voluntary contributions. That is a possibility for the future. The reason why this agency is described as an interim agency is that we are asking it as part of its job to abolish itself as soon as possible. If we can persuade the voluntary agencies to operate on a basis of contributing part of their own resources to a fund which we will supplement, the need for a Government agency would disappear and we could simply make a grant-in-aid to a private agency.

It seemed to me, on balance, that we could not justify providing the total finance for an entirely private agency. It is one thing to supplement the resources of such an agency several times over, not even pound for pound, but more than that, but it is not easy to justify providing the total financial support for a private agency where no money is being put in at all. This was one of the problems to be faced. We decided, therefore, that the best thing to do when the private agencies did not feel able to agree on such an arrangement at this stage was to establish an interim agency that would distribute the money until such time as, with their encouragement, the voluntary bodies concerned established a voluntary agency of their own and put enough resources into it to make it viable. We could then plough our money into it and get out of the act. So long as we can lay down the basic conditions which I have mentioned there is no advantage in having the Government involved and there may be possible disadvantages.

This Government believe in the devolution of authority as much as possible to voluntary agencies where they are well-equipped to do a job. In pursuit of that policy I adopted the approach I mentioned in this matter. We are now establishing this agency. I will have to appoint the members of the board. At the moment I am not in a position to name the people, because until the House passes this Estimate it would be inappropriate to invite people to be members of the board. I know whom I intend to invite. The board should be composed of people representing the interested bodies which are currently responsible for sending people abroad and for financing people sent abroad. The board should include representation from the trade unions and public interests generally. There should be representation of people who, although not directly involved in one of these organisations, have, nevertheless. shown themselves really interested in this whole question. They should be given a part. There should be some representation from Northern Ireland from people concerned or engaged there in similar activities. Perhaps we could learn something from them and fruitfully co-operate with them.

Mr. O'Kennedy

In view of the composition of the board, which seems to be pretty embracing as indicated now, is the Minister not a little concerned about the employer organisations and possibly the farm organisations. Such boards have a habit of being balanced. Perhaps this board would be ungainly. Would the Minister not be better advised to confine membership of the board to those directly involved?

Dr. FitzGerald

It need not be ungainly. It should have a trade union representative in view of the trade unions' interests. We have to consider other economic interests. We are not expecting the board to negotiate a wage round. I do not think the board will be ungainly. The number of organisations involved is only six or seven. Representing them does not start with such a large nucleus that you have to have a large board to balance it.

Mr. Haughey

Will Gorta be one of the bodies represented?

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not want to get into the question of the particular bodies. It is, in fact, one of the bodies engaged in this kind of work. I do not want to say more about that at the moment. There must be a balancing between the particular interests and the public interest expressed in a number of different ways. That is what we have in mind at this stage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister has indicated that the difficulty has been to get the agencies involved to operate themselves and he sees this interim agency operating until such time as they can speedily move out. It would seem to be desirable at this stage to get a State body with personnel of the type I mentioned directing the energies of these agencies.

Dr. FitzGerald

This is the next point I was coming to. There is need for co-ordination and overall direction and discipline. I agree about the need for co-ordination. It would be wrong that Government money should be used to assist two different groups to be in conflict with each other in an area in any way. The value of having this agency is that some measure of co-ordination will flow from it. I do not think words like "direction" and "discipline" are appropriate where you are dealing with voluntary agencies which are each imbued with enthusiasm, which gives value to a project and makes it successful.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When I use these words, I speak of direction and discipline in the broadest sense.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept them as defined as being similar to co-ordination. If this agency is deploying Government funds to help the different bodies who are concerned in this kind of work, then obviously, in doing that, it will be in a position to and will naturally wish to ensure a certain co-ordination and an avoidance of overlap. Indeed, there is merit on those grounds alone in having such an agency even if it were not thought to be necessary as a channel for Government funds.

Deputy O'Kennedy has not raised an issue which has been raised by others with me, that is the question whether it is appropriate to put so much emphasis on voluntary service abroad at this time, whether this is the right way to approach development aid. The answer to this is a little complicated. Personal service abroad is a diminishing proportion, perhaps, of total world development aid, and as developing countries do develop they become better able to cope with their own personal requirements, and there is a certain phasing out of the assistance given by people of other countries.

That is a broad and general trend, but this country has such a small development aid programme at the moment and the enlargement of it is such a big job ahead that we cannot really look at it as being a balanced programme in line with the world pattern and one which should in its development immediately follow the world pattern. We have to get our programme to a point where it bears some resemblance to the kind of scale of programme that there ought to be for a country at our stage of development and with our resources. Within the general framework of a broad reduction in the role of the voluntary service in developing countries, there is room, at this stage, for a short-term expansion of its activity in the Irish case which, even when it takes place, will still leave our personal service activity relatively small when compared with other countries. Therefore we are deliberately and consciously, if you like, going against a world trend.

There is also the fact that we have resources of people rather than resources of wealth in Ireland. We have this tradition of service abroad, a great willingness to help in this way. In certain areas we also produce rather more professional talent than we can absorb at home; some of it has to emigrate permanently. For example, we have a surplus of doctors, whereas many developed countries have a desperate shortage of doctors, The particular situation in which we find ourselves, having a relative surplus of trained personnel, in some areas and having a very small development aid programme, justifies, I think, our going against the general trend in establishing this agency to develop our personal service to a level at which it may, in relative terms, become less important in our aid programme in the years that follow. One can visualise a doubling of activity and that then that might, as a share of our total aid programme, tend to diminish as time goes on, although in absolute terms it might increase slowly. I mention that because this is an aspect of the matter which has been drawn to my attention, and I would not want the House to think we are not conscious of the fact that what we arc doing runs to some degree against the world trend.

Deputy Coogan referred to the desirability of avoiding red tape. He said that charity comes from the heart and the State is a heartless institution. He was perhaps a little harsh on the State. The State, after all, consists of people in Government, of people in Parliament and people in the public service, who have hearts that can display themselves through public policy at times. Of course he is right in the sense that the whole system of administration of a State is not designed to cope adequately with the enthusiasm of people in seeking to serve, for example, in developing countries abroad. The less red tape the better, and the less this is a State enterprise the better. As I said already, that is the approach of the Government to it, and it is with some reluctance we have been forced back to establishing temporarily a State enterprise but one which will be certainly free of red tape and which will be, I hope, able to operate speedily and effectively and do the job to be done.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of the Chairman of SFADCO. I know he has been interested in these matters, having had considerable experience there. That is something which I am bearing in mind, but I do not want to go beyond that at present.

I am glad to have the support of the House on the question of disaster relief. It has been a problem previously that we have had to go and get the authority of the House to assist in a disaster which often occurred suddenly; not always—the Deputy is perfectly right in saying that there are some continuing disasters which need assistance, but sometimes the position aggravates very rapidly indeed. This House might be in recess, or even in session, and there might be difficulties in getting down to discuss a matter of this kind. It is right we should have some money set aside which can be deployed immediately without having to come back to this House for detailed support, although the House must approve the total sum and the general principles in distributing it and it must be in a position to debate afterwards the Government administration of the sum of money involved.

The need for this has been highlighted by the present situation in the southern part of the Sahara Desert. It came very much to my attention when at a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC—not this one but the previous one some weeks earlier—a request was put forward by the Commission not merely for money to provide economic relief and to buy the particular form of foodstuffs needed but also for immediate assistance in getting the first cargoes of it out there by air. Six aircraft were needed urgently for that purpose. It did prove possible in that instance to go ahead rapidly with the provision of the aircraft; incidentally one of the six aircraft that flew out there was an Aer Lingus aircraft. However, I can see from the situation that arose that we could be in a position of not being able to act quickly enough in certain circumstances in the provision of money, and it does seem right that we should be more flexible in this matter.

The EEC itself is, in fact, thinking in these terms. At the Council of Ministers meeting last Monday this question came up again in relation to the Sahara problem. There are difficulties about co-ordination. The European Commission sought and secured authority from the Council of Ministers to undertake a co-ordinating role in the area. There has been a lack of co-ordination so far. I did mention at the Council of Ministers' meeting that, at the EEC level also, we should have resources available which could be deployed rapidly without waiting for a Council of Ministers' meeting. Therefore the same principle of rapid action in an emergency is being considered, at our suggestion, at the EEC level as it is being considered here in the House at this moment.

The Helsinki Conference starts on Tuesday next, and that is why I was anxious to get the Supplementary Estimate through the House so that it would be approved before the conference starts. There has been a preparatory period of some months and Ireland has been represented there, not at Ministerial level but at Civil Service level. I must tell the House that the work we have done there has been fruitful. One of the things to which we have contributed particularly is the location of the final stage of the conference. There were doubts as to whether it would go back to Helsinki for the final, formal stage of approval of what has been settled. It was our opinion that, in view of the initiative taken and the work put in by Finland in the matter and the fact that the conference was opening there, it was proper that it should also end there and that the full credit for it should go to the country that mainly sponsored it. I think that our effort had something to do with the fact that the decision was eventually taken that the final stage should be at Helsinki.

We were also actively concerned that the issue of religious freedom should be placed on the agenda. This is something that the Holy See was concerned about. It has, in fact, been placed on the agenda with our support.

The other area to which the Irish delegation has contributed notably in all the preparatory period has been in persuading the conference to move away from the concept of immutability of frontiers, which was being pressed by the Soviet Union, to a concept of inviolability of frontiers. This we regard as important not merely because of our own domestic situation. The frontier between North and South is one which should not be violated by violence—on that, this Government and the Opposition are, of course, united—it does not mean that it should be immutable. The principle of immutability of frontiers takes no account of the fact that times change and people change with them and that frontiers that at a certain moment may seem desirable may by mutual agreement cease to be relevant at a certain point in time. We have pressed strongly for the replacement of the concept of immutability with that of inviolability. We have had the support of other countries in this matter and that has now been accepted by the Soviet Union.

We have not been without influence in the preparatory stages of the conference in a number of ways, although, of course, the main initiative has come from elsewhere and our role must necessarily in this, as in other matters of world politics, be a small one. We hope the conference will be a success. The opening session may now be of shorter duration than was originally envisaged. If this is correct it would suggest a greater degree of consensus about some of the issues than had, perhaps, been anticipated and it may well be that the conference may not run for more than next week or, if it does run into the following week, it may not run very far into it at ministerial level. The issues which then will have been debated and the broad indications of policy which will then have been given will have to be translated into practical terms at the second stage of the conference. We do not know how long that will take but it will probably last into the next year but some time, hopefully in the early part of next year, the conference will be able to reach agreement.

It remains to be seen how much will come from it. Like so many steps in world affairs it is probably a small one but a small one in the right direction. The very fact that it is taking place is an indication of a different disposition between the different blocs. It is almost a symbolic ending of the cold war but that does not resolve many of the issues. Of course, the Helsinki conference is only concerning itself with security up to a certain point. It is not concerned with military matters except to a very limited degree in trying to ensure against misunderstandings and notification of manoeuvres and things of this kind.

The real military issues of a reduction in forces are being discussed and will be further discussed after the Helsinki conference and we hope brought to a useful conclusion, under other auspices than the NBFR talks. Of course, there are also the SALT talks between the Soviet Union and the United States on the question of atomic weapons. The fact that at three different levels these issues of relations between east and west are being pursued constructively is something which we certainly must welcome.

Helsinki is only a small part of this. It is the only part we can participate in because the other discussions are taking place between military blocs. of which we do not form a part. I must say I am glad that it is a forum on which as a non-member of a military bloc we, none the less like other countries, Sweden and Switzerland, can play a part, a part which is unusual in that we are the one member of the EEC which is not a member of any political alliance. We hope to make some small constructive use of that particular position in the interest of world peace. I think these are the main matters which I want to deal with and which are in reply to the various points raised. If there is any point I have overlooked I would be glad to answer any question before the debate concludes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.