Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 3

Agricultural Development Fund: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement Establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development adopted in Rome on 13th June, 1976.

In November, 1974, the World Food Conference proposed that an International Fund for Agricultural Development be established to finance agricultural development projects, primarily for food production, in the developing countries and that the Secretary-General of the United Nations be requested to convene urgently a meeting of all interested contributing developed countries, principally the OPEC states, and potential recipient countries in order to establish the fund. This proposal was endorsed by a United Nations General Assembly resolution in December, 1974.

Following a series of preliminary meetings of interested countries, a plenipotentiary conference was convened in June, 1976, for the purpose of getting the fund under way. The conference adopted the text of the agreement establishing the fund but it was not possible at that time to open the fund for signature. This was because a provision of the agreement, which required that the total of contributions pledged to the fund should amount to at least one billion dollars, could not be met at that stage. The Government pledged £500,000 to the fund at the plenipotentiary conference, subject to parliamentary approval, and later increased this amount to £570,000. This additional contribution was made in response to an urgent appeal by the Secretary General of the UN addressed to the Taoiseach—and to the heads of other governments contributing to the fund—that we make an increase in our proposed contribution so that the target of one billion dollars could be reached as soon as possible. As other governments—and particularly our EEC partners—also responded to the Secretary-General's request the target was reached on 20th December, 1976, and the agreement was, accordingly, formally opened for signature on that day. Ireland signed the agreement on 28th April.

The opening clause of the preamble to the agreement establishing the fund states that "the continuing food problem of the world is afflicting a large segment of the people of the developing countries and is jeopardising the most fundamental principles and values associated with the right to life and human dignity". One of the chief objectives of the fund is to promote agricultural development, primarily food production, in developing countries, and thereby gradually to curtail if not, ultimately, obviate the necessity for short-term action such as food aid. The World Food Conference resolution which called for the establishment of the fund referred to the need for "a substantial increase in investment in agriculture for increasing food and agricultural production in developing countries" and went on to say that the "provision of an adequate supply and proper utilisation of food are the common responsibility of all members of the international Community".

The content of that resolution corresponds to Ireland's traditional policy in this field. We have consistently taken the view that food aid is of its nature a temporary measure: the solution to world food problems lies primarily in a rapid increase of food production in developing countries. This is why we believe that the establishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development is the most far-reaching attempt yet undertaken by the international community to come to grips with this problem and we trust that it will be a success.

Membership of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which is open to any member State of the United Nations, is divided into three categories. Category I comprises the developed countries, Category II the OPEC countries, and Category III the non-OPEC developing countries. The provision of a special membership category for OPEC countries is one of the novel aspects of the agreement. It reflects the new importance of these countries in international councils. It reflects also their commitment to international development co-operation, as can be seen by the relatively high share of their GNP which many OPEC countries devote to assisting the poorer developing countries. The total of their pledged contributions to the fund amounts to approximately 435 million dollars, which is only a little less than half the overall pledged figure. The fund will therefore, be an instrument for development created in large measure by the developing countries themselves rather than the traditional type of fund financed solely by the developed countries of which the developing nations were passive beneficiaries.

According to Article 2 of the agreement the "objective of the fund shall be to mobilise additional resources to be made available on concessional terms for agricultural development in developing Member States". Article 7 of the agreement stipulates that the fund "in allocating its resources should be guided by the following priorities: (1) the need to increase food production and to improve the nutritional level of the poorest populations in the poorest food deficit countries; (2) the potential for increasing food production in other developing countries. Likewise, emphasis shall be placed on improving the nutritional level of the poorest populations in these countries and the conditions of their lives".

These objectives and priorities provide the basis on which the fund's lending policies and criteria will be evolved.

As regards the organisation and management of the fund, article 6 of the agreement provides for the setting up of a governing council and an executive board, and for the appointment of a president and such staff as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the fund. Each member state will be represented on the governing council, while the executive board will consist of 18 members elected by the council. These 18 members of the executive board will consist of six members from each of the three categories of countries members of the fund.

Pending the entry into force of the agreement the administrative structure of the fund is being elaborated by a preparatory commission, which was set up last year at the plenipotentiary conference to which I referred at the outset. When the agreement enters into force this preparatory commission will be replaced by the executive board. In the meantime, the composition of the preparatory commission is the same as that prescribed for the executive board, that is, 18 members, six of whom belong to each of the three categories. The Catagory I countries members of the preparatory commission are Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and the USA. Members of the preparatory commission represent "constituencies" in which other countries contributing to the fund participate. Ireland is a member of the Netherlands constituency together with Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

The preparatory commission has met on three occasions; the most recent meeting took place earlier this month in Rome. A large part of the commission's meetings in 1976 was devoted to the question of mobilising the additional funds necessary to enable the fund to attain the one billion dollar figure of pledged contributions required before the agreement could be opened for signature. Since this important condition was met in December last the preparatory commission have been considering such questions as, for example, the draft rules of procedure of the governing council and of the executive board; the draft relationship agreement between the United Nations and fund—since the fund will be a specialised agency of the UN; and the lending policies and criteria of the fund. A large measure of agreement on these questions has now been reached and it is hoped that this work will be completed very shortly so that the commission can hand over their functions to the executive board once the agreement enters into force.

To date the agreement has been signed by 44 countries, who like ourselves, are now taking steps to have it ratified. The agreement will enter into force upon receipt by the Secretary General of the UN of instruments of ratification from at least six states in Category I, six states in Category II and 24 states in Category III provided that the aggregate of initial contributions by donor countries which ratify the agreement amounts to at least $750 million, and provided also that the entry into force takes place within 18 months, of the date on which the agreement was opened for signature, that is, from 20th December, 1976. If the operational figure is not reached within the 18 months stipulated, such states as have deposited ratification instruments may decide by a two-thirds majority of each category to determine a later date and to notify the Secretary General of the UN accordingly. The agreement provides that members' contributions may be made in a single sum or in three equal annual instalments; Ireland will avail of the latter course. The single sum or the first annual instalment shall be due on the 30th day after the agreement enters into force with respect to any particular member; second and third instalments shall be due on the first and on the second anniversary of the date on which the first instalment was due.

As Ireland's participation in the fund will involve a charge on public funds, the approval of the agreement by Dáil Éireann is required before ratification. From the outset Ireland has taken a favourable attitude towards the establishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development and it is the Government's view that we should arrange to ratify it as soon as possible. I therefore recommend the motion to the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

This side of the House welcomes the introduction of this motion and supports it without any reservation. The fact that a number of related motions have been coming before the House in the last few years is some proof of the development of the world conscience in the area of development aid. It is important that whenever the international agencies and organisations come to agreement, as this motion before the House indicates that they have done, we should enthusiastically and as quickly as possible give effect to the terms of that agreement and give it our immediate support.

This agreement we have been asked to ratify this morning is another step in the right direction. It is only a step because, as we have said so often in the House before, for each step forward the community of nations take, unfortunately starvation takes two steps backwards. I should like to highlight some of the commendable aspects of this. Even what we are doing here today, and presumably what has been done in other parliaments throughout the world, is only trying to stem the tide of starvation. We are not really effecting a major breakthrough. Nonetheless it is to be welcomed very enthusiastically.

This motion gives effect, so far as we are concerned, to Recommendation 13 of the World Food Conference which was held in Rome in 1974. What must be commended in this agreement is that, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, it places the emphasis on food production and assistance towards food production and international projects towards maintaining food production in the developing countries or what are otherwise known as the food deficit countries as distinct from food aid programmes. I agree entirely with what the Parliamentary Secretary said in that connection—it is understandable that here we are all of one mind—that our priority must be in the areas that are mentioned here, encouraging food production in those food deficit countries as distinct from relying on food aid from the developed countries of the west and other countries that are in a better position than they are.

Another thing, apart from the desirability of encouraging food production as distinct from food aid, that must commend itself to us is that it concentrates in the agricultural sector on food as distinct from other products such as cotton and tobacco, which are obviously of some significance to many of those developing countries. However, the markets for those products are in the developed world and sometimes the economic benefits they derive from that other type of agricultural production, which is not related to food, is very often limited by the market conditions which the developed world can impose on them.

This major breakthrough, for that second reason, concentrating as it does on food production in the developing countries, is to be welcomed. Thirdly, one of the significant things about it, as in all of those areas, is that it is being established on a voluntary basis. I do not suppose we have yet reached the time when we can impose on the international community an obligation to contribute for two very good reasons. First, each of us sees our obligation rather differently depending on what our own economic and financial conditions may be. Therefore, each nation around the world takes a different view of its obligations, first, to its own people and then very often cannot look at its obligations abroad without saying: "Look at our position at home." Perhaps that is understandable.

We have no international organisation at the moment and we are unlikely to have one except through organisations such as the European Community, through which one can impose obligations. Organisations such as the United Nations can only work on a voluntary basis. They can only achieve what the common will of the members is prepared to allow them to achieve but they cannot impose obligations. It is understandable that in this agreement we are talking about voluntary commitments. Some nations will inevitably contribute, pro rata, more than others and some nations will not contribute at all to the extent that they might. It has advantages and disadvantages and we are limited to that possibility at the moment. So far as it is being done on a voluntary basis there is an obligation on everybody who is contributing to this fund to contribute as much as possible and support the aims of the fund as effectively as possible.

One hopes that as the fund develops and as the agencies and the management structure of the fund are established, it will be possible over the years—this is a long-term aim—to establish what one might call regular, constant and even to some extent obligatory levels of contribution. However, that is in the long term. Very many of the countries have opted into this new commitment. I hope that they will by their example encourage others to involve themselves in this absolutely crucial obligation on the world at large. I will give some examples later of how absolutely crucial it is.

There are one or two matters about this that in its early stages one would like to question. I am not sure if the Parliamentary Secretary has the answers at this point. As a member of this new development programme there are questions we should ask now which will help to establish proper criteria as to its management and as to the disbursement of funds. It is important that the disbursement will generally be through internationally recognised institutions, such as the World Bank and the Regional Development Bank and that when it is permanently established its governing body will be a specialised agency of the UN.

We are told that for a three-year period the total contributions are of the order of one billion dollars. It appears from previous reports and from the recommendations of the Rome Conference that our contribution during that period will be in the region of $1 million or roughly, one-thousandth of the total fund. That is a significant contribution having regard to the extent of the resources of our nation. On the other hand, it indicates the level of the contribution we can make. Each extra contribution we may be able to make towards reducing that fraction to one-seven-hundred-and-fiftieth will make us a more effective and persuasive member of this and other organisations in their attempts to tackle this constant problem.

Mr. Kelly

Our contribution is a little better than the ratio which our population bears to the total population of the globe.

Mr. O'Kennedy

In terms of the extremes of wealth and the extremes of poverty, it represents a fair contribution. I am merely saying that there is room for improvement not only from our point of view but to the extent of alerting others to the fact that there is room for improvement, an improvement which obviously so far as some other countries are concerned would be much more significant than any contributions we could make. Later I shall give some figures to indicate the huge gap that exists between the developed and the development countries.

One very encouraging aspect of this agreement is that the OPEC countries are contributing $435 million.

Mr. Kelly

That is almost half.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is almost half the total fund during a three-year period. It represents a major breakthrough. Those of us in the developed western countries must acknowledge this as a sign of a greater awareness in the OPEC countries of this problem. Some of those countries have not always been recognised as being wealthy. They still have some problems of poverty to tackle but as they have the resources the question is one of government management. However, it can be described as a fantastic achievement for them to have agreed to commit this amount of money. Perhaps the fact that they have been able to commit so much is an indication that they can commit much more. Also, their commitment represents a challenge to the rest of the developed world as to how much they can commit.

There are some worth-while aspects of this agreement but, perhaps, the most encouraging is the fact that we are talking now of a long-term solution in the sense that we are talking in terms of food, of development and of projects in the food deficit countries. It is reassuring to find the international community tackling the problem on this basis. This is a very commendable aspect of what we are doing. However, there are one or two other aspects of the agreement and, particularly, of the negotiations that led up to it, that are not so encouraging. For example, the original hope and intention was that the figure which would be available during the three-year period would be $1.2 billion and not as has transpired, $1 billion. In other words the contributing countries in a period of two years have cut back by one-sixth on their initial contribution. This is not so much a cutback as an indication that it has not been possible to raise funds of the order contemplated originally. But if we can reach the target again of the original contribution we will at least have shown that the original commitments were entered into seriously and that the world community of nations have a very definite obligation and a determination to reach not only the target they have set themselves but to reach even more ambitious and commendable targets in other areas.

A noteworthy aspect, too, is that these contributions are additional to other funds being contributed through other specialised agencies. In other words, we are establishing a new fund additional to any other fund in operation. When he is concluding, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that this is so.

I have no wish to make this debate the subject of any kind of inter-party rivalry but from our own point of view I should like to hear whether the funds now being committed are to be additional to the commitments we have entered into already or will they simply be a part of our existing commitment, with the difference that we are now providing the money through another agency, albeit a better agency. In other words, are we, like the rest of the world community contributing in addition to that to which we have already committed ourselves or are we simply diverting from what we have committed already by way of our global commitments? I do not wish to imply that there is a holier-than-thou attitude on this side of the House but this is a matter on which we should have clarity. As I have said so often, the more we can find it possible to contribute, the better it will be. To this extent we should contribute even to the point where it hurts. I should like to think that we would reach a point where there would be a bipartisan approach so that neither side would claim credit for or take advantage of decisions taken by the government of the day in this regard.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to another aspect on which I should like clarification also. It is something on which I do not expect he can give a precise answer because new funds develop their own criteria in operation. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Article 7 which stipulates that the fund in allocating its resources should be guided by the following priorities, and I quote:

(I) the need to increase food production and to improve the nutritional level of the poorest populations in the poorest food deficit countries;

(II) the potential for increasing food production in other developing countries . . .

What I want to know is—I know I will not get a complete answer and I do not expect one—to what extent the governing body will have regard when these criteria are being applied to the need in the poorest food deficit countries? For example, to what extent have we any indication as to how these criteria will be applied to Bangladesh which will obviously need considerably less by way of projects with a return on investment than one would expect from, say, Kenya?

Mr. Kelly

Does the Deputy mean because of weaker organisation?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Weaker organisation, weaker structure and so on. There will be a tendency naturally to establish some criteria, such as return on investment, but, at the same time, one can expect equally naturally that there will be a lower return on investment in countries with the lowest rate of fertility and with the most serious food deficits. It will be vitally important for the operation of the fund as it develops to establish that stringent criteria will not be applied based on the capacity of the country to show a good return for the loan investment. If that is not the evolution, then the fund will defeat its own purpose.

Article 7 can be interpreted in two ways because it sets out that it will take account of the need to increase food production in the food deficit countries—that is fine—but then it goes on to talk about the potential for increasing food production. That, too, is important but where there is an apparent conflict we will need to know what priority will be applied. At this transitional stage before the actual governing body is established the Government should ask these questions. So far as we are involved these are relevant questions which the governing body will be posing for themselves and we would like to know how these apparent and understandable conflicts will be resolved as the fund is operated.

In so far as it will work through an established international organisation, such as the World Bank, there is likely inevitably to be a tendency to apply established criteria, such as return on investment, by which these international agencies have been guided in their operations in the past and it would be important for these institutions to be a great deal more flexible in their attitudes and in their programmes than they would otherwise be because, if they operate according to established criteria, that may limit the effectiveness of the operation of the fund and it will be important, therefore, for these organisations to qualify and modify their procedures to ensure they are entirely appropriate to the need of this particular fund.

There is another aspect. I do not want to be too critical about this but, unfortunately, starvation can become big business for the multi-nationals. I am not saying they are so ruthless they do not care and will live on other people's famine but the fact is that they are involved in global problems and in global opportunities and to a considerable extent they have been involved in relief agencies and in various assistance programmes to the developing world. I would like to know to what extent will the fund operated here be channelled through co-operative movements in the beneficiary countries and through other, shall we say, agencies of the marketing economy countries, namely, the multi-national corporations. Will there be any guidelines as to how much will be channelled through A or B? I do not expect an answer to that question now but these are questions we should be asking at this particular stage because it is not clear from the agreement before us as to what limit, if any, there will be on the contribution channels we are supporting here. If one talks in terms of return on investment, I am quite sure a considerable amount of money would be channelled through efficient multinational corporations as distinct from native co-ops in these food deficit countries. However, if one talks in terms of encouraging self-sufficiency and a sense of international concern and co-operation, then one would possibly channel the funds through these national co-ops or through national government programmes. It is a question of balance but it is one that needs to be looked at in the earliest stages and throughout the operation of the fund.

Statistics are useful in giving an indication of the problems and of the gap which has been created in the last few years between food deficit countries and the developed world. I have here figures from the United Nations World Health Council for 17th April, 1975. They are very revealing. Taking the base 100, food production in western Europe had increased by 1970 to 110, by 1971 to 114, and by 1974 to 116per capita, a very considerable increase from 1965 to 1974. In North America it had increased by eight points to 108, again a very considerable increase. If we take as a block the Far East, food production per head in the same period, 1965 to 1974, had decreased by two points from 100 to 98. That is some evidence of the gap which is constantly widening between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries.

Mr. Kelly

That is very interesting. I do not make any point about this but the discrepancy would probably represent the discrepancy in birth rates.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Parliamentary Secretary has made a good point and possibly the figures reflect the discrepancy in birth rates.

Mr. O'Kelly

The population in the East is growing by millions, whereas it is static in Western Europe.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I cannot give the precise figures and, perhaps, there was a huge increase in population, but for the last years of that period there are signs that the food deficit is decreasing to some extent simply becauses of early deaths, deaths through lack of nutrition. This may be a neutral factor, but certainly in India and Bangladesh the early death rate and the very high mortality rate is in its own way a reason for the decline in the food deficit in these countries.

I have been talking about the per capita food production, but let us take the total food production of Western Europe for the same period. With base 100 for 1961 to 1965, it increased to 126 from 1965 to 1974. That is a commendable increase of over 25 per cent. Possibly we have played our part in that in the operation of the common agricultural policy. In Latin America the total food production increased simply by 2 per cent from 100 between 1961 and 1965, to 102 from 1965 to 1974. However, in the Far East the total food production in that period decreased by 4 per cent, from 100 to 96. Again, that may be neutralised according to whether we are talking about a greater or lesser population; I am not sure, but if the total population had grown and the total production had diminished by 4 per cent, it indicates the huge discrepancy that has been emerging between the developed and the developing countries. These are figures which are all too precise and horrifying in their implications. As we go down through these figures we recognise that as we have become consistently richer the developing countries have become consistently poorer.

Can we accept that this situation should continue simply because we do not see it every day? The fact that people in Ireland do not see it every day does not make them oblivious of the need to contribute to a solution. That is why I believe that we here in this House are in a particularly strong position in making whatever contribution we can towards easing that horrible burden under which so much of the world is labouring. Organisations such as Trócaire, the Commission for Justice, Peace, and Concern and all the other voluntary organisations in every town and city of the country, deserve the very highest commendation, and they are the proof—if we needed proof, and we do not need it—that the Irish people are deeply concerned and will support us, their political representatives, in anything we can do to increase our contribution but, even more important, anything we can do to make our partners in the European Communities and the other international organisations more determined to solve these problems on a long-term basis.

I have given some examples of what has happened up to 1974, but I want to highlight what we may be facing in future years. Must we say this problem is insurmountable? Do we just throw up our hands and say: it is going to continue, because what I am about to say indicates an even worse position? The FAO have estimated that the cereal deficit in these food deficit countries will have increased from the early '70s, say, between 1974, where I left it, and 1985, from about 16 million tons per annum to 85 million tons per annum. This is an estimate, which was taken prior to the establishment of this fund, but if the cereal deficit in those countries increases to that extent, it is an indication of the appalling rate at which the problem is being aggravated and of what we must face up to in the developed community. Perhaps it will help us to see that, while our problems may be severe by our own standards, they are relatively of very little intensity by comparison with what the rest of the world have to tolerate at the moment.

However, as I say, if there is one sign that the cereal deficit may be somewhat less than the figure estimated, it is simply the recent indication that in Bangladesh and in India particularly, the death rate is so high that there will be fewer mouths to feed than was anticipated. In other words, there will be still more and more every year, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, but the population growth will be less, not through birth control but through the high mortality rate that has been emerging over the last number of years. We do not want to solve the problem as our own famine problem was solved at one stage, if one can call that a solution, by death, desolation and emigration. Emigration as such is not open to these people. Therefore, it would be a sad reflection on the developed world if we were to accept that a high mortality rate in itself was an effective solution. I know we are not that ruthless, but if we find next year that the food deficit is somewhat lower than anticipated we know it is due to the high mortality caused directly by the food scarcity.

I come back to the point I made originally, that what is being done in this resolution is highly commendable, particularly as it is promoting agricultural production and food self-sufficiency. It may not be going very far along the way, but it is going in the right direction. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and that the Government priority, and ours would be, too, to support more and more this type of assistance as distinct from food aid which is in a way a bad second best for practical reasons.

First of all, it has been but too obvious that down the years the political strings attached to food aid to the developing countries have been as much in the interests of the developed countries applying the aid as to development countries receiving it. In America, for example, during the run in for the presidential election, generally food aid was regarded as an instrument of diplomatic and political persuasion from America in the developing world.

I would like to put on record that certainly the present Administration under President Carter have fairly clearly rejected that approach and now recognise that food aid must not be used as an instrument of political influence or pressure from the major developed countries on the undeveloped countries. Competition was being applied to food aid from America and to a very considerable extent still is from the USSR on the developing countries. The tags associated with food aid were of no benefit to us or the developing countries. There was understandable disillusionment in the US when they found that the countries they were assisting most, as they saw it, as often as not would appear to turn first—and this applies particularly to the African States—to the Communist countries in their political associations. If one expects too much by way of political return from food aid programmes, one can be very disillusioned indeed. I am not saying that the aid should be stopped but the disadvantage is there.

Secondly, the political strings within the country being assisted also have obvious disadvantages because many of these countries have not developed democratic structures and have little experience of the democratic process. In the application of food aid many people at senior Government level in many of these countries grew very fat, indeed, on the commissions which they got from the food aid being supplied by the developed countries to the countries in which they were employed in Government. It is tragic but true that while others of their fellows were starving many of them grew very fat through the manner in which they channelled the aid supplied to them from other countries. That is an understandable problem which can be overcome only through education and the development of the democratic process.

In this connection our own semi-State agencies who have been helping so much in some countries in Africa have done a lot to educate these emerging nations into the democratic process and particularly to abolish the inherited trends of corruption—and I use the word "inherited" deliberately because in many cases they were inherited from the colonial powers before them—that operate in Government there. I have heard from some very distinguished people from our own country, whose names I will not mention though the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of them, who have operated in some of the African countries, that the biggest problem they faced initially within the civil service in these countries was corruption. It is encouraging that they have found that the greatest contribution they have made in their work programmes in these countries was the fact that they have been able somehow to reduce this level of corruption by making the people concerned aware of the fact that it was basically wrong. Many of the people had not thought it was. They thought of it as a right of theirs in a certain position to channel off a certain commission for themselves. That is something which applies in food aid by definition and we have to keep tackling that. Our country is doing a good job in that direction and our specialist agencies through the semi-State bodies are making a significant contribution. Food aid will be with us for a very long time and it is important that we recognise that.

Another practical problem of food aid is the physical impossibility of transporting food of that order from one corner of the globe to another. The need of, say, Bangladesh and India is so great that if we were relying simply on food aid programmes in themselves to meet that need we would not have the shipping capacity in the developed world to cope with their problems. Even if we were suddenly to say "We will export more and more" the sheer impossibility of transporting such a huge amount of food by direct food aid transfers makes it obviously important that the other approach we are taking this morning be adopted and promoted as quickly and effectively as possible. One can imagine transporting in terms of, say, 85 million tons. That is an awful lot of cereal. Where is it to come from? Where is it to be stored?

Mr. Kelly

How is the storage going to protect it from vermin?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Exactly. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, in the countries which it will eventually reach how is it to be protected from vermin? There will be disease, housing conditions, over-population and so on. Even if tomorrow we decide that we will contribute so much food from our productivity every year we still could not provide the answer in food aid directly. I agree with the Government and with the Parliamentary Secretary that our priority must be encouragement of food production in the developing countries as distinct from relying on transfer of foods from developed countries to the developing ones.

Another factor worth mentioning— and this is not intended as a criticism of the US—is that President Carter recently reminded the people in the US of the major consequences for all in the western world, particularly in America, of the increase in the consumption of energy. He reminded them, first, of the huge increase in the cost of this and, secondly, he reminded them of the fact that oil was not in inexhaustible supply. When he turned to the cost, he was able to illustrate that this had increased the import bills of the western countries to a huge extent. At the same time, in 1975 the US gained more from higher food prices in the world than they lost from higher oil prices. They gained more from export of food in terms of balance of payments than they had to suffer a loss because of the huge increase in oil prices. We all recognise how much the increased cost of oil has meant to their economy, but we had not thought that the increased price of food exported from these countries more than offset the increasing cost of oil being imported from other countries. I am not saying that a lot of this food was going at market price, but it was going to countries that could least afford it. This is another indicator of this continuing gap.

I am not saying that the US has this as a central element in its policy. I acknowledge that under this administration there are very obvious signs of a very definite commitment from the US to tackle this problem as a leader of the developed world. Even tackling it as they are, and as we are trying to this morning, we still find that the gap between us and them increases all the time, and we find that sometimes we gain more, as America did from higher food prices than she lost in 1975, through the increased cost of oil. As we gain these other countries lose. I mention this as a measure of the problem that we must face. It is true that when one talks in terms of per capita food production in India, for instance, one is dealing with a country that has had a huge increase in birth rate down the years. Although the population in India is increasing by about 14 million per annum, that is less than it otherwise would be because of the high mortality rate. There are 14 million more mouths to be fed per year in India alone. Possibly they will not be fed and the mortality rate will increase. This underlines the fact that the kind of programme we are talking about today must be developed as a matter of great urgency. The food aid programmes that we have been operating have not been effective in narrowing the gap between developed and developing countries. In fact, the gap has not even been maintained. It has widened.

The Parliamentary Secretary might note some questions that I will now ask although I do not expect an immediate answer. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to refer these questions to the governing body of the fund through the constituency in which we will operate. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that this body is now operating through a preparatory commission. I presume that this commission would welcome any queries or suggestions at this stage from members of the fund. Will our contribution be in sterling or dollars? If it is to be in sterling and if the rate of exchange falls, as it has been falling over the past number of years, effectively we will be contributing less at the end of three years than we would otherwise have contributed. The same question applies to the other currencies of the other member states. What will be the unit of contribution which will protect against the fluctuation in international exchange rates? That protection must be central to the successful operation of the fund. I note that the governing body of the fund will represent the recipient countries, the donor developing countries and the donor developed countries. I know that on a preliminary basis we are in a constituency with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland. That is a very enlightened constituency. Very few countries have as good a record as the Netherlands in this direction. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister and I will have an opportunity shortly of attending a seminar organised by the Netherlands government in the Netherlands on reshaping the world order pending the outcome of political developments here and there. However, this constituency seems to be an interim arrangement for us. Our place will almost inevitably be with the other members of the European Community or is it intended that this interim arrangement will be maintained?

Mr. Kelly

I do not know if it will be maintained. I am told that this is still an open question. It looks as if the Community boundaries are not regarded as Switzerland is part of this group.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I believe that each group should have criteria established for themselves. There must be permanent constant commitment within whatever group we will operate so that there will not just be a haphazard and incidental reaction to proposals coming from the governing body. I would like to think that Ireland will play a very positive role in this. I do not know what part we played in the discussions which may have taken place within the European Communities on the establishment of this fund. The European Communities should have had something to say on this as Communities. Each member state probably had something to say as a Member of the United Nations. I do not know whether or not the Community had something to say about this. It is important that, as we are members of the Community, we make our views known through the Community which is the only Community through which we can effect binding obligations on ourselves and on other member states.

We cannot do this through the United Nations or through this fund that we are establishing for obvious reasons. Our views generally and the criteria which I have suggested this morning should be channelled through the Community so that there will be consistency in our programmes. The opportunities Ireland will have to make a personnel contribution to the aims of this programme do not emerge from the agreement we are discussing. I know that the development agency and the State bodies are well geared to do this, that this agreement cannot set out all the guidelines and operations of the fund but, at the same time, it could indicate how we can make a considerable impact. The experience we have been gaining down through the years through our State bodies can be of immense benefit to these developing countries trying to establish appropriate projects within their own states whether or not they adopt exactly the procedures that we have had in our state bodies. These are questions we should pose through our constituency to the governing body of the fund. There is great scope for an effective contribution in that direction. I have already asked the Parliamentary Secretary if our contribution will be additional to or part of the Government's committed contribution.

Mr. Kelly

I understand it is not being taken away from some other project. It was envisaged all along as part of this year's increased allocation.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is in line with the Government's intention to reach the target of .35 per cent of GNP?

Mr. Kelly

The point we are reaching this year, which I think is .14 per cent—and that is an increase on last year and a fairly hefty one—includes this sum.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It was envisaged last year that this would be included. We all need to improve on that. We are behind the figure we hoped to achieve. I do not want to compare one Government's record with that of another, but I hope we will recognise there is great scope for improvement and endeavour together to bridge the gap.

When I was doing some research and trying to get some information from the UN programmes, I was surprised to see that, in the past ten to 15 years, only about 5 per cent of the official development assistance being applied to United Nations programmes was devoted exclusively to agricultural production. That is very low. Taking the average over that period, it has increased considerably. It increased to 10 per cent by 1972 and to 16 per cent by 1975. Presumably this programme will increase it even more. There are many other important areas also such as education and medicine, but it highlights the fact that such a small percentage of our development fund assistance is going to an actual increase in food production.

These things need to be put on the record. I want to quote a few other figures which highlight the need to bridge the gap to which I referred. The increase in the developing countries' food production was lower in the seventies, roughly of the order of 1.7 per cent, than it was in the sixties when it was running in the order of 2.7 per cent. Because of the population increase plus the higher purchasing power of the £, an annual increase of 3.6 per cent is needed to keep up with increasing demand. If that were reached, it would still leave 500 million people undernourished. We are nowhere near reaching it, and that shows the enormity of the problem we have to cope with.

The developing countries generally have to feed approximately 60 million extra mouths each year from diminishing resources. That is equal to the population of West Germany. This shows how the problem is being aggravated. That is excluding China. I do not know whether these figures have been quoted in the House before. Food production per head in the developing countries was down in 1974 as compared with 1961-65, especially in Africa and the Far East, and the Far East in particular contains most of the world's undernourished people. It is almost impossible to think that food production per head decreased to that extent. Unfortunately, the trend in the past 20 years has been towards increasing food deficits as distinct from decreasing food deficits.

All of this highlights the need for the implementation of a fund such as the one we are being asked to adopt this morning. We on this side of the House enthusiastically support the Government's motion. I want to make two final points in relation to the terms of the fund which may have particular application to this country. I suppose it is always to be expected that, when we talk in terms of a new agency under a new organisation, we in Ireland will say one of them should be established here. We said it about the European Community and many other agencies. If there is one organisation more than another which should be established here, it is the organisation we are talking about this morning.

Pending the determination of a permanent seat for the administration of this fund I note that the temporary provisional seat will be in Rome. Shannon is a very good example. This area has built up a whole new attitude towards the contribution which semi-State organisations can make to national economic development. The experience gained in turning a relatively depressed area into a thriving economic area is of considerable benefit. People in that area played a very significant role in development in the sixties and in the seventies. This is vitally important. The direct experience some of the senior personnel in that area have had in the development of projects could be of immense benefit to the developing countries. What they and the other State bodies have done through their personnel contributions has generated goodwill of an order which perhaps we do not realise.

We have come through relatively difficult economic times. I am not talking about the recent past. I am talking about earlier years. It would be marvellous if we could be seen to be the centre of this bridge between the East and the West, and between the North and the South. The commitment required is there and the goodwill is there. In a sense we are half way between the developed and the developing world. We need to encourage our own people to be more and more involved in these types of programmes for our own benefit and for the world's benefit. There may be insurmountable problems but, in Government, we would be exploring the possibilities. I am asking the Government to explore the possibility of having the seat of this fund located permanently in Ireland, perhaps in the Shannon region. The potential development of the estuary is now being talked about. This could be of immense benefit all round and it could activate an awareness of the problem at home and, through us, an awareness within the European Community and America with which we have very close ties.

To the extent that the aim of this motion is to enable us to make an effective contribution towards solving this problem, we support it enthusiastically. The Parliamentary Secretary can be guaranteed that whoever comes back to this House—either from this side of the House or from the other side—looking for further support for the development of programmes under this fund will be given that support.

Mr. Callanan

I will be very brief on this motion. I have never listened to a better speech than the one given by Deputy O'Kennedy.

Mr. Kelly

Hear, hear.

Mr. Callanan

Many of the questions I wanted to ask have been put by him. All of us agree with the fund which it is proposed to set up but I was a little worried that this was not discussed within the EEC group. The general principles of the fund are excellent. It is much better to help people help themselves rather than sending them food over long distances. It also helps the dignity of people in underdeveloped countries if they can produce food for themselves. That is one of the reasons why everyone should support the fund.

From what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it appears this project is just getting off the ground. We should ensure that money is not used for purposes other than those intended. We should make sure that the various agencies proposed to be established will not eat up all the money allocated. I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to answer all our queries now because at the moment we are setting up a provisional committee to administer the fund but I would point out that the greatest difficulty will lie in the way the fund is administered. Many funds have been established throughout the world to help people in underdeveloped areas but by the time the necessary agencies were set up the amount of cash going to those really in need was much smaller than the original allocation.

Consideration will have to be given to conditions obtaining in the various countries that will benefit. We are setting up a fund to increase agricultural production in a country that would otherwise be given food subsidies. If we were to set up a fund in this country and if we gave a certain amount to the poorer parts we could not expect the same return. The people who administer the fund we are discussing now may think that they should administer it where they will get the greatest return and the largest production but we should not allow that to happen.

What sort of soil tests will be carried out in the various countries to see what kind of production is required for the necessities of life? Many people might consider livestock in that category but this may not be possible in some countries because of the type of grassland there. The fund should not be administered on the basis of returns for the money spent. Much depends on the country concerned and the soil. Many people may shelter behind the argument that the country concerned will have a low production and, consequently, that money will be wasted. We must guard against this. There should be experts available who will ensure that it does not happen.

I am completely in agreement with setting up the fund and my only criticism is with regard to the way it may be administered. I realise it will be very difficult because of the differing conditions in the countries we hope to serve. Although it would be far better for the dignity of the recipients of the fund to be given help to produce their own food, I realise that in some cases that may not be possible and it may be necessary to send food to them.

I could never understand why the EEC allows stockpiles of food to accumulate while people are starving. We may not be at the top of the EEC league but we have plenty to eat. I do not understand why there is not some way to send food to those in need instead of letting it rot as has happened. I would urge our representatives in the EEC to make sure that the fund works. Everything will depend on the agency that is set up to administer it.

My reason for speaking in the debate was to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the different rates of return that will be obtained from the various countries. We cannot condemn a country that cannot yield a good return because this will not be their fault. If the proposed agency has a strict set of rules we will fail in what we hope to achieve.

I am 100 per cent behind this project. Today the world is preoccupied with material things and it is gratifying to know that there are people who think about the unfortunates who are dying of starvation. I do not know why the people in the developed countries would not decide that they would not allow people to starve in the midst of plenty. I hope the points I have made will be kept in view. I hope Ireland will play its part in relation to the committee which is being set up to discuss how the fund will be administered. I hope Ireland will see that it is administered fairly and that it does not all go to the agencies and none is left for the people who need it.

Mr. C. Murphy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the formal ratification of the agreement to establish this international fund for agricultural development. This is very close to the hearts of many people. The media in recent years has brought home poverty needs to each and every house in the developed world. I am delighted that this is a fund of at least 1 billion dollars to be spent on development.

The world today is facing an ever-growing crisis, that of starvation, poverty and the lack of job opportunities. We talk of the lack of job opportunities at home but our minds boggle when we look at the figures we have from abroad. In 1974 we find that in South Asia alone around 350,000 people a week were seeking new jobs. Large numbers of people are coming into the urban areas. At least 75,000 people come in from the countryside every day. Those people have to live in slum conditions. Their conditions are so bad in the countryside that they are forced to live in those dreadful conditions in the towns.

This is a development project and we hope that it will enable people to provide for themselves. This will not be very easy because we know it will require a massive change of attitudes and obsolete techniques in the undeveloped world. People who have been reared in a certain tradition do not want to see a change. Those people have managed to get by for generations with hard work and little or no return. They sow with great effort but they only reap a very small return for it. One of the difficulties is to try to break down the attitudes entrenched in people.

I hope that this fund will enable new skills and techniques to be introduced into the third world which will help people to look after themselves. It is at a very preliminary stage but at least it is off the ground and we all wish it well. I, like other speakers, hope that the administrative costs of running this scheme will be kept at a minimum. Could the cost of administration be funded from some other source so that this money can go directly into agricultural development? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will let us know if this has been considered. It would be wonderful if administrative costs could be kept separate from this fund.

A policy of world food aid is vital. We will have to see it increased. There is no way it can be curtailed. We will have to make a two-pronged attack on poverty. I know there are difficulties in any food aid programme but in spite of them we must continue to expand in this field because this is the lifeline for many people. I taught in a third world country and I saw the poverty of the people. I heard of children being born deformed so that they would be better able to beg. This is a shocking situation but there were very few opportunities in that country.

We have all seen what happened to food that was to be used for a certain source. It went to other sources and might have been sold in the local markets. This food was donated in charity but while it did not get to the people in the exact form of a grant in line with what the donors wanted at least it got to them. What would have happened if it did not come to the people at all?

While there are difficulties in relation to food aid, I would like to put on record how food aid through the EEC has built up over the years. Under the 1976 Food Aid Convention the EEC were committed to supply 1,035,000 tons of cereal per annum in food aid. This increased, with the entry of Ireland, Britain and Denmark, to 1,161,000 tons. This commitment, according to the last figure I have, now stands at 1,287,000 tons.

The objectives of the food aid policy are very laudable. They are (1) to aid countries hit by natural disasters, (2) to raise the nutritional level of people in third world countries and (3) to assist economic development in third world countries. Deputy O'Kennedy pointed out how those objectives might be abused because of diplomatic pressures and governmental policies along the way. They are side issues to trying to combat poverty, to feed the needy and to look after those people. It was very necessary for various groups to introduce a title such as the Third World which certainly brought home to people poverty and need. It also tended to create some people apart. I suppose that might not be a bad thing because they are apart in being underprivileged and in need.

The mind boggles when one thinks of the huge number of people involved. People ask how they can help, and, in this respect, perhaps there is a need to define the term "aid to developing countries". Very often this phrase is accepted without any questioning of what it involves. Largely, it is good that this is the situation because it indicates the readiness of people to help those in the developing countries but it would be no harm to know whether what is involved is help by way of loans or grants and, in the case of loans, whether these are repayable during a certain period. Our people have an excellent record in terms of responding to the needs of the Third World. One of the reasons for this may be the knowledge that our people, too, experienced poverty in the famine years but there is also the factor that so many of our missionaries and lay people alike have gone out to minister to people in those deprived areas and who, consequently, have been able to instil into those at home the need for helping those other people.

In his brief the Parliamentary Secretary, having indicated the objectives of the fund, said that these objectives and priorities provide the basis on which the funds lending policies and criteria will be evolved. I trust that in so far as lending policies are concerned, there will be flexibility regarding repayments, Of course, it is necessary that a check be kept to ensure that monies lent are utilised fully and properly but we must have regard to the fact that many countries are beaten in their efforts at self-sufficiency because of the servicing of loans.

Earlier I referred to the question of the percentage of the funds that may be utilised by way of administration costs. One can only hope that this aspect may be financed separately elsewhere.

On the question of our home situation, there is the impression that when many people are out of work there is less money for those in the Third World countries on the basis that we must maintain our own people first. There is nothing wrong with that thinking but it is only right that we have an adequate fiscal policy, one that not only enables us to look after our own people but also to help those other people of whom we are talking. Inflation is one of the great evils of our time and the poor are those affected most by it.

The efforts of the developed countries should be aimed at teaching peoples in the developing areas to cater for their own needs. This path will be long and difficult but a start is being made by way of this international fund. In the meantime, we must continue with the food-aid programmes. The oil crisis put into perspective many aspects of everyday life both for the developing and the developed countries. It showed clearly our dependence on these poorer countries. In 1974, for instance, 47 per cent of imports to the EEC originated in developing countries. In this regard one thinks of the Irish proverb "ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine". That crisis made all countries realise their interdependence.

Climatic conditions play a major role in terms of the development of a country. For instance, there are areas of much water while there are other areas in which water is very scarce. Although there are so many large areas of water in the world, much of it is of little use because of its saline content. Consequently, there is a need for the storing and the transportation of surface water. There are huge problems of this sort that will be with us for a long time yet. This agreement is an important stepping stone and I wish this agricultural development programme every success. I hope that the programme will be implemented fully in the shortest possible time and I hope all the money will be made available for development work and not used to cover secretarial or other expenses.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I would like to thank the House for the way in which this motion has been received and to thank Deputy C. Murphy, who has just spoken, and Deputy Callanan, who preceded him, for their contributions. I would like to thank Deputy O'Kennedy for yet another of his extraordinarily fine contributions on a subject about which I know he feels strongly and genuinely. Several points were raised by these three speakers and I will try to deal with them as precisely as I can. Because of the sequence in which I have been collating their points, I shall be working backwards.

Deputy Murphy mentioned loans and hoped that because developing countries have already a debt burden these loans would be made on the easiest possible terms. I said this morning that the intention is to make the loans on concessional terms. I take that to mean that the interest rates and the intervals for repayment will be as easy as it is possible to make them consistent with development in the countries concerned. Those who administer funds like this are well aware of the problems and they appreciate that there is no point in making the problems worse by adding to a debt burden which it is already a major world problem to reduce.

Both Deputy Murphy and Deputy Callanan were concerned that this money would not be absorbed in administration costs but would find its way quickly in its entirety on to the ground. The intention is that funds will be administered by a secretariat which will be as small as possible. The agencies which will administer indiviual projects are in fact already established, such as the World Bank and the FAO, with its headquarters in Rome, plus the United Nations Development Programme. These are existing institutions and Deputies need not be apprehensive that another enormous bureaucracy will be developed with an acronymic title which will run away with a large proportion of the funds in administration expenses.

Deputy Callanan mentioned the problems of soil character. He comes from a farming constituency. He is an acknowledged expert who frequently contributes here on technical agricultural subjects and I am diffident about discussing this with him, but I am advised the FAO, which has been administering individual projects over the years, has developed a very large body of expertise in all these matters and particularly in the matter of suitability of soil for different projects. Deputy Callanan need not be apprehensive about this fund being used to carry out unsuitable projects, such as growing bananas in Finland, or something of that sort. That simply will not happen. The established agencies are sufficiently expert in these technical matters to avoid wasteful or unproductive projects. What is measured against the importance and the size of the project is a relatively modest sum of money.

Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned the possibility of locating the administration of this fund in Ireland even if it is as slim and as lean as it is. I would be very anxious to see that for all kinds of reasons. I am told the fund already has a temporary headquarters in Rome, which is a natural location because of the existence there of the FAO. I am told also there is some prospect of the ultimate headquarters being sited in Teheran. Off the top of my head I would have thought Teheran a relatively inaccessible place, perhaps less accessible even than Shannon, but the Iranian Government are very heavy contributors, and, perhaps, their claim to have the headquarters in their country would be preferred on that ground. However, the Deputy can be assured we will keep our eye on this question and, if it becomes open, we will be looking for consideration for the reasons the Deputy gave.

As I said, the money will be calculated in sterling and I am not aware of any mechanism except the mechanism of a hand-to-mouth Government allocation by way of Supplementary Estimate, and so forth, to increase the allocation in the event of a significant further devaluation of sterling. As the House knows, sterling has held up reasonably well since its plunge last year, and I do not think there is now any apprehension that this money will be worth appreciably less because of currency fluctuations. If that is the evolution, then we shall have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

The intention is that we will participate actively in consultation inside what we are calling the Netherlands constituency. This consultation will affect and govern the day-to-day operations of the fund and, quite apart from the Netherlands constituency which is not related to the EEC because it includes Switzerland, there will also be continual consultation in the framework of the EEC, in particular in the development council of that body, which will obviously have an effect on the deliberations within the Netherlands constituency and there the Irish role will be just as vocal as we are able to make it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Is it envisaged that this temporary constituency will, in fact, be a permanent constituency to which we will be attached?

Mr. Kelly

I think that is still an open question but, either way, the Deputy can take it that the Irish role in consultation and effort will be an active one.

One thing Deputy O'Kennedy said struck me very forcibly. It is something with which I strongly agree. It is that we might play an active part in this fund. I would like to relate that to a get theory of my own as to the way this country might work in future. I have often advanced the idea that localities here might be progressively encouraged to show a responsibility for their own economic development, and their own employment capacity for the young people they are rearing, and this responsibility would be more or less institutionalised in the same way as small areas have a certain responsibility in regard to certain aspects of local government and quite a number of very significant voluntary organisations— sports organisations, cultural organisations, and so on—are organised on a local basis and could not be effectively organised any other way. I would like to see the institutionalisation of what I describe as a total co-op, a structure inside every community which would be progressively economic in scope and object and would be invited and encouraged by central Government to carry a specific responsibility and to exercise foresight for the finding of jobs for its own young people and for the economic development of the area, rather than expect a larger, more distant authority to carry that burden for them.

I envisaged this sort of structure in an Irish locality as being not one solely restricted to pushing up the crude output of pigs or sheep or cattle or grain, but as having cultural—I do not like using these expressions because they mean different things to different people—perhaps even moral dimensions towards trying to realise the ambitions we have for Ireland but which because of our size, position and other things are unrealisable in terms of military and imperialist expansion or the other criteria by which countries in the past in other parts of the world have been recognised as great or as successful. If we look for other ways of leading our lives we are more likely to be great and successful on different criteria and ones which are more appropriate to us.

To get back from that digression, I would envisage and very strongly support locality structure of that kind which would have a responsibility for the economic development of the land which it could see from its own church steeple and for the economic future of its own sons and daughters. I would like to see each locality, and not just the State, accepting an obligation towards localities in other parts of the world where the people do not know how they are going to feed, clothe and house themselves beyond the day that is passing over them. While it is easy to talk in a general and, I must admit, in an uninstructed way technically about the benefits of twinning or pairing, I think that contacts like those in the old days via the Christian missions with certain parts of Africa and of Asia would make it possible and a familiar idea for Irish districts to take upon themselves a continuing commitment to an identified part, a parish, province or section of population, of the developing world, with the physical characteristics which could be understood in Irish terms.

In order to relate this to what Deputy O'Kennedy was saying I would like to see us forgetting our old prejudices against emigration. Emigration, in any case, is not the kind of final separation from one's family that it was in the days when there were the Queenstown wakes. Modern travel makes it possible to fly back and forth from Nigeria or somewhere like that to Ireland in a matter of half a day. I would like to see Irish communities encouraging their sons and daughters to technical education and, in particular, technical education of a kind which could be exploited by these young people in going out, not necessarily for a year, but perhaps to make their livelihood as a vocation, not in religious terms, although in a way of course they are religious but not in a confessional sense religious, in countries very far away from us, compared with which we are pampered and spoiled by fortune, even though we tend to think of ourselves as poor.

Perhaps what I am saying lacks something in lucidity. It is hard to make this relevant within a limited debate of this kind. However, I do support very strongly the idea of Irish personal, individual man and woman participation in the development of agriculture, of food production and all the things which go with it and will flow from it if it succeeds in the poorer parts of the world. That is something we should think strongly about in our own educational system and in the way we encourage the organisation of our own society to unfold.

As I say I am very strongly behind the idea that Irish communities should seek—I have various ideas how that might be done but this is not the moment to produce them—some way of identifying themselves with some manageable small part of the developing world which they can help to put on its feet and keep on its feet. That is the object of this development programme. It is not a food programme. It is not simply, as Deputies recognise, a matter of sending large quantities of food which will be devoured by tomorrow evening and which will immediately need to be replaced. It is a question of trying to train people into organising themselves and organising the physical resources among which they live in such a way that they will become able to feed themselves for good.

Even people who do not share what is the shining commitment of people like Deputy O'Kennedy to try to do something for the people who are badly off in this world—and that means about two-thirds of the world's population, if not more—even people who are indifferent to it or who feel that natural forces, starvation and disease or war should be allowed to solve these problems, even these people might be compelled by self-interest to help the developing countries. Although the people in these poorer countries are unable to organise themselves in such a way as to raise crops and breed viable herds of animals for food, they are well able to handle rifles and they are well able, as we have seen, to lay on man-sized wars that even the modern sophisticated methods of western powers are not able to keep in check or in control. People that were sunk in unimaginable barbarity and backwardness once upon a time are now the terror of whole continents. It requires only a few plane loads of advisers in bush suits from Cuba, paid for by Russian money, to turn even a recently emerged and barely emerged colonial area into a serious threat which the whole world has to take into account. Therefore, even if compassion or interest in other human beings did not push us in this direction, self-interest at the very least must do so.

I believe we must look forward to the time when the population of Africa and the population of the under-privileged parts of South America—and that means virtually all of South America—and of Asia will be staring us in the eyeball militarily and politically and that the ogres that we have tended to see around us in the western democracies since the second world war, Soviet Russia and so on, will themselves be cowering face to face with these resurgent peoples who will be in no good mood or good temper to be sparing the people who rode high on the hog themselves and let their children starve. I would like us to be an exception from the rule of indifference—if it is fair to say that people are indifferent; perhaps it is not fair to say that—and even if only for the sake of national self-interest, to have friends among those populations and make ourselves sufficiently known among them for good work and for help out of our own limited resources, so that it can be said: "The Irish at least cannot be blamed for this. They did their best to help when nobody was forcing them to do so, when they could quite easily have put the money in their own pockets." I think it would be wise, if not something dictated by charity and ordinary human solidarity, for us to take that line. I thank Deputy O'Kennedy, as I have often done before for his point of view on this matter, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.