The fact that this is the third extension of the Food Aid Convention in itself underlines the continuing and real need which the population in the starving countries find themselves because these are the peoples at whom the convention is directed.
In the first instance, it is important to stress the depth of the misery in most of the countries in which these programmes operate. In the developed world—and we belong to that category—we cannot always grasp the extent of this misery. About 900 million people in the world at present have an annual income of less than £40. If we take into account the enormity of the problem we can begin to recognise that, apart from the just call they can make on us as fellow citizens of the universe, even if we were only thinking in terms of our own security, we must continue in a more determined way to help solve their problems. As the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, one of these problems relates to immediate relief by way of short-term food aid.
The Parliamentary Secretary will also agree that that is only a small stone laid in the dam against the huge flood. It is not going to stem the flood of world misery and starvation. Therefore, one has to look beyond it, particularly to the obligations on the developed world to help increase food production in these countries by technological expertise. This problem can only be solved by a determined commitment on the part of all developed countries to pool their resources to help these developing countries. In the meantime, millions die from starvation every year. Irrespective of what this programme intends to do, in six months time countless millions will have died from starvation. No Government can be consistent in regard to their obligations at home if they overlook their obligations abroad. Our obligations cannot be limited to what we can see at home. We must be constantly directed towards the obligations we have to these starving people, an obligation which many Irish people have recognised in various personal services. Sometimes it is suggested that we should look after ourselves and that some of the administrations of the Third World countries are not such as to attract merited aid from any source. There may well be malpractices and mal-administration in many of these countries but this cannot excuse our failure to continue to tackle this problem.
I am glad to say that our Association for Personal Services Overseas has been doing a considerable amount of work in setting up proper and fair systems of administration and advising on effective government agencies. For that reason, I welcome the contribution which the Government will be making to the international fund for agricultural development. The extension of these programmes will not keep pace with the crisis. Mr. Robert MacNamara, President of the World Bank, in his annual address to the Board of Governors in September, 1975, made reference to income and investment levels. He estimated income and investment levels up to 1980 between the developed and developing countries. The GNP per capita in the low income countries in 1970 on average was of the order of $105, which is over £50.
The estimated GNP per capita in those countries at the end of this decade, 1980, will be 108 dollars, an increase of 3 dollars in real terms or less than £2 in one decade, in effect an increase of .2 per cent in the growth rate per capita income related to the GNP. By comparison if we look at the position of the OECD countries, in real terms, we find that where the figure GNP per capita in 1970 was 3,100 dollars, by 1980 in real terms it is estimated to be 4,000 dollars, thereby an increase in real terms of 900 dollars, meaning an increase of 2.6 per cent per capita income. That shows how terrible this problem is, that far from decreasing the gap between the comfortable world and the starving world, at present progress rates, the gap is widening to an extent that is intolerable, to an extent that will not be tolerated, by the developing countries themselves even if tolerated by the developed countries. We may have a very short time to wake up to the seriousness and enormity of this problem.
In relation to our position, the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the fact that the United Nations' target set out, for contribution by way of development aid, by 1979 is .7 per cent of GNP. That standard was set out by the United Nations as being necessary to cope with the problem as it is at the moment, to prevent the problem from becoming worse. Very few countries with the notable exception of Sweden, Holland and Denmark are measuring up to that commitment of .7 per cent. We through the Minister, some time ago, committed ourselves to a target of .35 per cent by 1979. We have to recognise in the first instance that that .35 per cent represents half of the recommended UN contribution. Lest it should be thought that this will be a matter of political division between us on either side of the House I am saying that whatever contributions would be made by this Government would have to be honoured and, indeed, extended by the Government that will succeed them. I can say without any doubt that there would be no question of cutting back on the percentage of GNP being applied.
I have invited the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions to propose what one would call a truly bi-partisan approach in this area. There is grave apprehension at the moment, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise, in view of the fact that it is contemplated that instead of actually contributing .35 per cent by the end of 1979 it now seems that our contribution will be curtailed to .25 per cent. I would like to have a firm statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that we will stand by the targets and commitments given by his Minister and by himself. The Minister on 25th October, 1974, when he was addressing a seminar organised by the Commission for Justice and Peace, made it very clear that there would be no question of any reduction, or of backing out of our increase to the rate of .5 per cent per annum to reach our .35 per cent by the end of 1978. In the Official Report on the 10th April, 1975, Volume 279, column 1507 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary was he satisfied that we will achieve the commitment aimed at, namely, .35 per cent of our GNP in three to four years. The Parliamentary Secretary in replying said:
The increase has been slow this year because of the general economic difficulty through which this country and other countries have been passing, but the commitment remains unchanged.
I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to an article arising from statements which he made in the winter edition of One World which is a bulletin on world development and justice, published jointly by Trócaire and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, where various commitments given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs from April, 1974, are quoted, namely, .35 per cent by that year. This was universally taken at the time as meaning that by 1975 we would be giving .35 per cent of our GNP in development assistance. During the 18 months following the target figure was used in various aid projections and was widely quoted on different occasions. It was with some considerable shock that it was learnt that this percentage which is already 50 per cent below the UN target figure was not correct. The wording of the original commitment entails reaching a target of only .25 per cent of GNP by 1979. In other words, 30 per cent less than everyone had assumed.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, to state finally and ultimately what the Government position is and if he does absolutely and unequivocally nail down the commitment to .35 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary will, of course, realise that even then we would be only reaching half of the recommended UN standard. If it were to be curtailed even by .1 per cent, having regard to inflation and the increasing GNP, it is likely that by 1979 the difference between .25 per cent and .35 per cent of our GNP would be about £6 million in 1979 terms. For that reason when we talk in terms of .1 per cent we are talking in terms of a very real contribution. I would be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that there is no such going back on any such commitment given more than once by the Minister both in the House and elsewhere and that we will continue on the target that we have set ourselves in the hope that whoever will be in Government will not just aim at that target by 1979 but will really aim at the UN target which is .7 per cent, which is double what we are at the moment committed to. In the light of the commitments which have been made by the Government we on this side of the House have committed ourselves at least as much to the Fianna Fáil position here.
I asked this question recently. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if we can soon expect a formal, comprehensive policy statement from the Government, if not a White Paper, on the field of development aid? This touches many areas of service to the developing countries, the personnel service, financial contributions, technological development and a wide range of areas. It affects many different organisations in this country, voluntary organisations, State-sponsored organisations, the Government, and so on. They are all operating at the moment, to a certain extent, according to what they see as their own immediate priority. They are doing the best they can, but they are doing it in the absence of an overall development aid policy which should be presented by the Government who, if they are to be consistent in their obligations at home, must also be consistent in their obligations abroad.
I see that as a demand on both sides of the House. I have already stated on more than one occasion that Fianna Fáil policy will and must include—not just at election times but at all times—a concerned and comprehensive policy on development aid. I know discussions have been taking place. I would not cut off meaningful discussions. There is an urgent need to set out the framework of how the Government think these various policies should be pursued by the various organisations concerned. Otherwise, as has happened so often, even the limited contribution we make through voluntary and other organisations will be dissipated because of lack of co-ordination, lack of programming and lack of direction and leadership.
The Association for Personal Services Overseas and the initiative taken in that direction are to be welcomed. They have given very useful assistance and advice. They endeavour to assist people in the ordinary administration of Government. I am not saying—far from it—we are a shining example to any country. It is fair to say that, in the ordinary administration of our public affairs, we have a standard and a level of integrity which derive not just from the character of the Irish people but from a tradition of service and concern. This can be applied to great effect in these countries. The role of the Association for Personal Services Overseas could be extended in many of these countries. I know they have been active. I do not want to name them. They are very welcome. Because of the understanding and courage they have shown, the Irish effort has been welcomed in a way efforts of other countries would not be welcomed. In our assistance there is no implication that we are holier or better than those who are being assisted. There is great scope for developing and extending that contribution which is not, in a sense, as financially demanding as contributions such as the one we are now discussing.
Before this White Paper or policy statement is published I should like to have an opportunity of communicating the views of this side of the House on a comprehensive basis. One or two things occur to me. They are not necessarily original ideas of my own. I have been encouraged by some associations I have had with people working in this area, and with people who have had experience in some of our State-sponsored bodies. First, Ireland is in a peculiarly strong position to be seen to be a centre of international development policy. For many historical reasons which we need not go into, we were never in a position to exploit the resources much less the population of any other country. To the extent that we were not, and others of the European countries were, inevitably we enjoy goodwill, which perhaps we in this generation do not merit, in these developing countries which other western European countries do not.
So much has to be done in this whole area that there is a great possibility of having an international develment aid centre established here. I am not aware of any such centre in any part of the world. If we are to tackle this problem on a comprehensive basis. I cannot imagine a better location for such an international centre—obviously funded by the United Nations and the various international organisations concerned— with all the committed personnel and all the resources, technological and otherwise. The effect it would have on our country and the contribution the Irish people would make to it would be enormous. This would be a side effect but it would be very welcome at this time. The Government might consider this in the course of their consideration of an overall comprehensive programme.
Secondly, in line with that, there could be an international distribution centre here. People in the Shannon Estuary area know quite a lot about problems of development at home and abroad. If we were to see a development of the type being talked about in the Shannon Estuary, this could become the distribution centre for the Third World. We are half way between the American continent and Europe. Ireland could become known as a centre very much identified with the international drive to relieve these appalling problems. This could be done not only to the advantage of Ireland but to the advantage of the whole world because of the historical goodwill we enjoy in those countries.
If one looks at the groupings of the developing countries, either at UNCTAD or through those represented at the Lômé Convention, one sees emerging, as emerged after the last war, a new political strength and determination on the part of these developing countries. After the last war we saw the emergence of many international organisations to ensure a new order of peace and justice, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Community. In a sense they all developed out of tragedy and desolation but not of the magnitude we are talking about in relation to these countries. These organisations have become, so to speak, the directors of world order at the moment.
It is very clear that the Fourth World are becoming aware of their political position, their political strength. They are making it quite clear—the lessons are there to be learned from the UNCTAD Conference in particular—they will not settle for half measures. They will use their political unity—which they had not previously learned to use—to good effect to bring pressure on the developed countries of the world who, for one reason or another, do not seem to respond immediately to the need these developing countries are promoting.
Looking back at the UNCTAD conference in Nairobi, in the first two weeks we were all waiting for something concrete to emerge but the first two weeks were really taken up by the delegations concerned making long statements of principle at plenary session. Perhaps that is inevitable. Perhaps politicians and statesmen have to talk in that fashion but for two weeks, in the face of really critical problems, all we got were formal statements as to the positions taken up by the various delegations so that it seemed to those of us there that there was an impatience, indeed a frustration, if not an antagonism, directed against those who did not seem to be prepared to get down to negotiating on the real issues before conference. It was not until the very last day that agreement was reached and by that time there was a real possibility the conference would break down on the fundamental question of negotiating for the establishment of the common fund.
In this connection I want to refer to our own position. Prior to the conference we did not seem to be by any means clear as to where we stood. I want to quote now a reply given to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12th May last. I asked the Minister:
if the Government will support in full the proposals of the Secretary General of UNCTAD for approval at the conference to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, particularly those proposals relating to trade and development and the establishment of a common fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Minister's reply to me was to the effect that the Government were "not in a position to support in full the far-reaching proposals which have been advanced by the Secretary General of UNCTAD". The most critical point from our point of view was the common fund and that was taken to indicate the Government were not in a position to support the proposals on the common fund suggested by the Secretary General.
I am glad to note that we were one of the 16 countries in group B which belatedly, but effectively, agreed to negotiate on the establishment of this common fund. Had our position before we went to the conference been clearer the evolution might have been very different. I am not saying our position would be all that significant, but it was vitally important that our position before we went to the conference should have been clear so that we would not have had to react to the pressures applied by the developing countries. Having to put the pressure at the last moment is not designed to encourage the goodwill of other countries. We should be in the van of initiatives. I say this not by way of criticism. It is easy to criticise on this side of the House.
I welcome the fact that the Government, even belatedly, were one of those 16 countries who did bring about that last minute agreement by changing their stance. It was late in the day and the outcome could have been very critical if that change had not come about. Some countries, notably the United States, Germany, Britain and, I think, Japan, expressed some qualification about this last minute agreement and I understand the United States Government has called a conference later this month of the major trading nations to discuss the major trading issues arising out of the conference. This seems to be at this remove a rearguard action on the part of the major economic powers—the United States, Britain, Germany and, I suppose, Canada and to a lesser extent Japan.
The intention is to discuss the major trading issues arising out of the UNCTAD Conference from the point of view of their effect on these countries' trading interests. The object apparently is to lessen the effect of the agreement eventually reached at Nairobi. I would be glad if that were not the case, but I am concerned that such a conference should have been promoted. I am concerned as to why only the major economic powers are taking part. Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform us as to what our Government's view is on this? As a member of the EEC are we not going to express a view when some of the other members—Germany, Britain and possibly France—will attend this conference which seems to be for the purpose of limiting the obligations that appeared to have been accepted at the Nairobi conference?
