asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have, as a percentage of GNP, a target figure for overseas development aid for 1979; and, if so, the target.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Overseas Development Aid.
1.
The Government have not yet considered the Estimates of Public Expenditure for 1979 and therefore it is not possible to say at this stage what percentage of GNP will be allocated for official development assistance.
As the Deputy may be aware the current year's allocation of £9.638 million amounts to .15 per cent of estimated GNP but, taking into account certain unexpended commitments of £925,000 carried over from 1977, actual expenditure on official development assistance in the current year could approach a level of .17 per cent of GNP.
Could I ask the Minister whether the commitment he gave prior to the election, that at least .35 per cent of GNP would be devoted to overseas development aid in 1979, still holds? Does the Minister recollect having stated after the election that he hoped we would be spending not £9 but £12 million on overseas development aid in the current year?
I recognise that to reach targets stated by the UN is a very desirable aim and an aim we intend to implement. The Deputy will appreciate that our capacity to reach these targets depends on how far we have gone along the road at any time. This year the allocation is the biggest single increase ever. What will actually be spent is almost £4½ million more than was spent last year which was a little over £6 million. This year it is well over £10 million. Despite some public comments, it is the biggest single increase ever. Our capacity to reach targets will obviously be influenced by the fact that we were very much behind the target aimed at in any year. Subject to that, I can assure the Deputy the increase in spending this year of the order of 70 per cent over last year will continue at least at that rate.
Would the Minister accept that we are not comparing year with year? We are comparing actual performance with what appeared to be a commitment? Does he recollect this commitment was made specifically irrespective of our budgetary or balance of payments problems?
I agree. When I made the commitment I said it should be a matter of bipartisanship in the House. I adhere to that. The previous Government fell so far behind in that bipartisan stance that it makes my task almost impossible. The figures speak for themselves. Deputy Kelly was very close to them. The amount available this year will be over £4 million over and above what was made available last year. That makes it very difficult for us to get back on target.
Has the Minister abandoned the target he stated explicitly he would try to reach as recently as 1975?
I have not, and that is why I said to the Deputy it makes it very difficult for us to get back on target.
I assume the Minister would agree there never was a bilateral aid programme of any kind until the National Coalition Government introduced one. Would he not also admit that, if one theme was associated with him personally during his years in Opposition, it was the theme that the reaching of the UN target for development aid ought never be conditional on domestic budgetary considerations?
I agree that our European membership—and this was said this morning by myself and Deputy Ryan—involved new obligations and new opportunities particularly in association with the developing countries. I agree that, as a consequence of that, our level of aid took off. That said, let me also say the figures speak for themselves. In 1975 the amount spent was £3.007 million; in 1976 £4.63 million; in 1977, £6.273 million; and in 1978, £10.564 million. That is a fair measure of commitment and it comes badly from anybody on the other side of the House to imply otherwise.
Everybody on this side of the House is glad of the increase.
Do the Minister's figures go back to 1972, 1971 or 1970?
I accept that before we joined the European Community, before these targets were there, before there were opportunities to engage in the multi-lateral programme which Deputy Kelly is aware of, and which Deputy Quinn should be aware of also, the opportunity to have an overall effective aid programme was not there to the extent it is now.
Is the Minister telling the House that the bilateral aid programme is dependent on EEC membership? What about the Swedes. Are they in the EEC? The EEC has nothing to do with it. The Minister is confusing the issue.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat? Deputy Quinn.
Is it normal parliamentary practice to quote history on the basis of such extraordinary selectivity as we have just heard? If the Minister seriously wants a bipartisan approach to development aid, does he think he can get it if he quotes figures in the way he has just done? There was no aid figure for 1972 and he quoted figures for 1973, 1974 and 1975.
The Deputy will appreciate that if it is suggested to me that a development programme and policy started with the National Coalition Government I am entitled reasonably and validly to compare the figures from the beginning of that suggested policy with what actually operates now.
Would the Minister explain to the House what the connection is between the introduction of an Irish national bilateral aid programme and EEC membership? Would the Minister explain what connection there is between these two things before the country runs away under the impression that there is a necessary connection between them?
There is a connection.
There is no connection.
I am calling the next Question.
The Deputy must not have attended the Development Council of the European Community or he would recognise the connection.
Is it the Minister's view that the amount of money now available is inadequate?
It is not nearly as much as I would wish it to be.
That is a different song from the one the Minister sang a year ago.
As the figures show, it is a considerable increase on anything ever achieved here.
It is another broken promise.
The Minister should put that to music.
I have called Question No. 2.
Because of the broken promises of my predecessors, even with that increase we are behind the target.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I want to remind Deputies that the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs is before the House and they can debate these matters on that Estimate.
We have not forgotten that.