: I should like to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his excellent staff on this very comprehensive Estimate which includes both foreign affairs and international co-operation. The work of this Department involves much continuous and painstaking work of goodwill on behalf of the people of Ireland. Therefore, it requires consummate skill in international diplomacy, in negotiation and communication with many of the 160 countries throughout the world.
The work of this Department has been seen most openly in recent times with the visit to Ireland of the Queen of Denmark. On that occasion we witnessed the quiet and very efficient organisation of the Department, and that was enjoyed very much by the people during the visit.
It is important to bear in mind that there is a great deal of behind the scenes work in a Department like Foreign Affairs. Many meetings must be held and many visitors must be looked after. I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister's gracious wife for her contribution as a hostess for our country. It is most ungracious of us not to recognise the painstaking and detailed work of a hostess on our behalf. This work is being done extremely well for us.
In my contacts with the Department of Foreign Affairs I have always found the staff extremely helpful and internationally very well regarded. I found this particularly in the Department's permanent representation in Brussels. I was privileged to visit Brussels and Luxembourg recently with the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation, when we were given a very detailed breakdown of the current position in the Commission and the work in Brussels by the permanent representation. It is quite clear, from meeting those people, how extremely capable and efficient they are and how deeply involved in their work and committed to it they are.
I intend to comment briefly on a number of areas, which include the North of Ireland, our relations with the EEC, our relations with Third World countries, our relations with other economic groups and international co-operation and development aid with particular reference to the semi-State bodies and their functions in this regard. I welcome the Taoiseach's and the Minister's unequivocal commitment to a peaceful solution to the problems in Northern Ireland and to the positive pursuit, by diplomatic initiatives, of new political structures, which will have wide support among the people of Ireland, north and south.
The Minister has indicated that he will give priority to the development and expansion of economic co-operation between north and south and that this matter is being currently reviewed by the British and Irish Governments. I look forward to the findings of this review body at an early date. The question of United States aid for Northern Ireland raises many hares. I welcome the recent initiatives aimed at channelling those moneys into constructive projects. Well-meaning Irish Americans should be encouraged to invest in north and south projects and social, cultural, recreational and educational exchange and interchange between the north and south of Ireland. Such funds could be used to promote justice, peace, harmony and reconciliation between north and south. I believe it is now timely to establish an Irish-American foundation to develop this programme and administer such funds.
In regard to our relations with the EEC we became full members on 1 January 1978. In the context of the Department of Foreign Affairs it is very important to bear in mind that the transitional period is over and that there should be an obvious and quite appreciable change in our attitudes to the EEC. We should have in all our negotiations and in all our work with the EEC a new sense of confidence and belonging to the EEC and involvement in it. We need a new outgoing and non-apologetic approach at this stage. We are now the EEC and the EEC is us. We are inclined to talk about it as if it was across the water some place when at this stage we are totally involved. The young people will grow up to recognise themselves as being Europeans within the EEC while we still have to make our personal transitional adjustments even though the economic ones are over at this stage.
One of the major events in our relations with the EEC is the European elections which will be held on 7 June next year. These will have their effect on the bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg. Many of those people might like to think that very little will change but I believe that the new representatives, who will be elected by the people on 7 June 1979, will speak with the authority of the people when they go to the European Parliament. I believe they will begin to have, at that stage, an increasing effect on the bureaucracy of the European Community.
There is a great challenge to all of us in the direct elections to convey the real significance of those elections to the electorate. Many people have expressed concern about the likely turnout in such elections. I am reasonably optimistic because the Irish people have taken a very sensible interest in the European Community. We may have to alter the procedures in the Dail to ensure that European parliamentary representatives are heard on a formal basis here. We may need some new structures to make this certain especially because, in due course, it is not intended to operate a dual mandate. At this stage we should give some thought to the changes in our structures which are desirable to meet the requirements of directly elected parliamentarians in Europe.
We should try to be full Europeans in every sense and not reluctant participants, working, as suggested, on cutdown salaries. I do not like to think that the people we send to Europe will be less thought of than the people sent from other countries. The effects of EEC membership are seen in our community here. The main benefits have been in agriculture. The Agricultural Research Institute have shown that farm incomes have doubled between 1970 and 1977. This is based on family income per family worker.
The system of intervention has dramatically changed the marketing of the major agricultural products. We now have fewer fluctuations and greater security for the farmer, which was one of the original objectives. There is hope for enormous increase in output, to which we are working. When we look at the FEOGA grants system we find under the guarantees, which include the intervention system, that we have done particularly well and that the level of grant assistance rose from £37 million in 1973 to £244.6 million in 1977. This was more or less in line with expectations. When we look at the guidance section of FEOGA, which includes the farm structures, we find that the £2.8 million received from the EEC in 1973 has only become £7.5 million in 1977. This indicates that the guidance section has not had a major impact on farm development and the development of farm structures as yet. There is considerable scope for new development here.
In fact a question asked here recently by Deputy Joe Walsh brought forth the data and the figures, and these figures showed that under Directive 159 the Exchequer contributed £24.3 million—that is, under the farm modernisation scheme—and the EEC contributed £2.25 million. That was quite surprising. I suppose in the early stages there was the question of the removal of schemes already in existence here.
When we come to Directive 160 we find that the amount received from EEC funds is only of the order of £11,300 and under Directive 161 the amount is £71,529 in both sectors, sectors which include training and education. We have not to date taken full advantage of the retirement schemes available. Whatever the design of the schemes they are just not working in the way in which it was initially intended they should work. Consequently, we need a greater investment in the form of structural improvements with emphasis on marketing and producer groups and increasing emphasis on training in agriculture. This would be in the interests of both the producer and the consumer.
When we look at the Social Fund, we find it has increased from £4.1 million in 1973 to £19.7 million in 1977. Here there is a very interesting aspect in that AnCO, which deals with industrial training, received in 1976 £6.6 million on current account and £.64 million on capital account giving a total of £7.2 million during 1976. If we contrast that with the £11,300 we find that in the industrial sector the impact of the EEC on us as a whole has been very considerable. There is, of course, very great credit due to AnCO for their work in availing of these funds. I understand some of the other countries in the EEC are quite anxious to see how it is they have done so well. I believe myself it is simply a matter of getting down to the terms of the fund and putting forward proposals which come within those terms. Certainly this is an area which has had a major impact on our whole training programme within the industrial sector. Such an impact has yet to be made in the agricultural sector.
In regard to the Regional Fund, during 1978, 1979 and 1980 a sum of £75 million has been allocated to Ireland as against £35 million in the preceding three years. It is treble the amount. We are at times inclined, I think, to become over-concerned about the moneys allocated on a regional basis and not sufficiently conscious of the moneys which can become available from other funds to people in regional areas. This is something we should keep in mind in future negotiations in order to reap the greatest advantage. This would not apply to AnCO since they have done so well under the Social Fund.
There are new challenges coming in the near future. One is the question of the enlargement of the Community with the entry of Greece first and then later with the entry of Spain and Portugal. This enlargement will call for new adjustments. New concepts will arise from the point of view of the Regional Fund. There will be new levels of intervention for Mediterranean produce. That could have certain advantages for us. The original members had to make adjustments when we entered the community and now we, in our turn, will have to make adjustments.
Unemployment and energy are two other major challenges. Here there are opportunities for joint action. The EEC is introducing recruitment and employment premiums. It is giving funds towards energy research and energy conservation.
Turning now to our relations with Third Countries, I know the Minister has paid particular attention to the Lome Convention and I fully support the statements he made. He pointed out that the Lome Convention has introduced a number of new elements into Community-Third World relations —for example, the financial and technical co-operation, the scheme for the stabilisation of the export earnings of ACP countries and the grant of duty free access to the community for ACP purpose. The Lome Convention has set an example for regional agreements between industrialised and developing countries.
The Minister said that one of the major objectives over the next two years will be the re-negotiation of the Lomé Convention. The present convention is due to expire in March 1980 and negotiations between the Community and the ACP countries in terms of Lome 2 are formally to open on 24 July next. I think this convention has been a very worth-while development and I am glad the Minister gave it so much prominence in his opening speech. I trust the negotiations will be successfully concluded before the present convention expires. It is important that no gap should be allowed to develop between Lomé 1 and Lomé 2.
We have, of course, an obligation to look out for opportunities and to learn whatever lessons we can from other countries, be they Japan, the Arab States or the USA. We have the expertise now to enter these markets and to encourage people from these countries to come here to work and invest their money and we have trained and experienced personnel to go out and avail of the opportunities within these other countries.
In this respect our embassies play and will continue to play a very important part for us especially in States like the Arab States where one's credibility is very much in question, for commercial operators in particular, and where the Department of Foreign Affairs can readily establish the credibility of individuals and make it possible for them to begin working with these countries.
I understand that in some of our embassies we have only one staff member. I am not certain of this. If it is true, we should look at the possibility of providing at least two to enable them to function properly, to go out and visit people elsewhere, and to come back to Ireland at various times. I am sure this is not extensive but I understand it exists in some cases.
Turning now to international co-operation and development aid, in his speech the Minister singled out Ireland's development aid programme as an area of continuing concern in our foreign policy. I note in his Estimate he provided for a 70 per cent increase in the allocation to this area over the amount used in 1977. This country now gets many benefits from trade and economic contacts within the developing countries. It is a very good thing that we have developed such relations with them. Of course it is not acceptable to see potential export and profit returns as the main or sole justification for our involvement in development aid and co-operation.
During the 1950s and the 1960s aid was officially deemed to include private investment. This was unacceptable, and both the OECD and the UN definitions of aid specifically include private investment. With Ireland's influence in this area developing at a rapid pace, it is appropriate to reexamine our overall strategy on co-operation and aid to developing countries. In this connection I welcome the Minister's proposal to establish an advisory council on development co-operation. This is probably the most appropriate time at which to set up an advisory council. While this council on development co-operation will obviously oversee State and State-aided contributions to development aid, they should not ignore the operations of the private investment sectors in the developing world.
In the past, as we know, there was widespread exploitation by other nations of under-developed regions. There was excessive profit taking, with no social contribution to the local community or to local development. To my knowledge we have not been guilty of this as yet, but it is one of the dangers against which we must protect ourselves. We must be very clear on our determination to avoid this happening in our private sector. As a nation we will be held responsible for the overall operations of these companies. Therefore, it is important that we can be assured the standards in these companies are at an acceptable level.
The semi-State bodies are already playing a major part in the Third World. They have witnessed the dramatic and very welcome growth in their involvement in the Third World. In itself, this growth brings with it its own problems. There is now a real danger that the commercial and profit-making objectives of these bodies will be confused with and take precedence over non profit-making aid.
DEVCO, a State agency for development and organisation, was set up in 1975 and includes some 28 bodies and institutes. The intention in establishing DEVCO was to promote and co-ordinate the response by the Irish semi-State sector to the needs of developing countries and to identify and promote projects in those countries. How has it worked to date? The total turnover of the State agencies in DEVCO was £12 million in 1977 in respect of projects in developing countries.
Apparently the ESB accounted for approximately £8 million of this and, according to Press reports, made a profit of over £2 million on their involvement. This indicates a very efficient operation and may be very satisfactory in commercial terms, but it raises the question of the objectives of the involvement of semi-State bodies. In contrast, Guinness operate as a company in Nigeria for development and for profit. Their objectives are clear cut. We have little difficulty in knowing exactly where they will perform and what they are there for. In the case of a company like that, we would expect that their local contribution would also be good and generous. That has been our experience here of that company to my knowledge.
The profit made by the ESB may go to subsidise the Irish consumer. In itself this is a very good thing and increases our overall efficiency. There is nothing wrong with that, but it raises the question of whether the involvement is primarily one of development aid. In this respect there is a need for a rethink. We need to separate and distinguish the development contribution to ensure it is not swamped by commercial objectives. We need guidelines for the participation of State agencies in development aid as distinct from involvement in commercial ventures. I want to be quite clear about this. I see the involvement of State agencies in commercial ventures as very good, very wholesome, and very worth while, and as part of our going out into the world in a confident way. It is important to distinguish the two roles and to be clear that, in effect, we are also making a distinct contribution to development aid.
I suggest we should set up a working party to identify the opportunities for State and semi-State involvement in Third Countries, and particularly the developing countries, on a commercial basis with backing from CTT. They would make profits in the normal way and then we would consider whether a fixed percentage of these profits should go back to DEVCO for use on projects of a nonprofit making nature. This might be something of the order of 15 or 20 per cent.
This may be an appropriate time to determine some formula for a contribution from commercially viable and profitable ventures. It is the intention of the people as a whole, and it was the intention originally of those who became involved, to give help where it is most needed. On the other hand, if we find there are also very profitable ventures, it would be worth-while to plough back some of the profit into these developing countries. Secondly, such a working party might specify clearly the function of the State agencies in non-profit-making development projects. This would involve the worst off countries and the areas of greatest need.
It is of very real and immediate concern that the indiscriminate mixing of commercial and non-commercial projects will harm development co-operation in a way that might be quite difficult to undo by confusing Irish commerce and Irish development co-operation to the point where there seems to be little difference between the two. When this happens our motives for development co-operation will inevitably and rightly be questioned, and doubts may be raised about the validity and integrity of our overall efforts at development co-operation at official and other levels. If the validity and distinctiveness of Irish development co-operation activities are accepted as desirable and as a proper object of national policy— which they are—they must be kept uncompromised and free from unnecessary and damaging pressures and the intrusion of commercial imperatives.
Summarising on this aspect, this requires a clarification of the basis of semi-State involvement in developing countries. That they should be involved for commercial reasons is not questioned. What seems to require clarification and assertion is the principle that precisely because they are semi-State bodies they should contribute appropriately to this country's official development co-operation programme. This would require a Government policy decision that the semi-State sector should contribute to our official national development co-operation efforts. This need not conflict with involvement for commercial reasons in the Third World but should certainly be carefully distinguished from it, being justified as a logical consequence of the overall emphasis on development co-operation as a major aspect of national foreign policy, as the Minister has stated in his Estimate speech.
Secondly, it would require procedures for evaluating present and future semi-State agency projects in developing countries to ensure that, whether financed or not from the Department's bi-lateral aid fund, they are consistent with and contribute to our official development co-operation objectives. Thirdly, by restricting projects carried out under the auspices of DEVCO to ones which comply with agreed development criteria, we could include a clear-cut concessional element in these projects and criteria. This would be in line with the spirit of those who first mooted the concept of the State agencies development body, seeing it as a part of Ireland's overall development co-operation efforts. Such a restriction would still leave the semi-State bodies free to engage in commercial operations and activities in the Third World but not under the auspices of development co-operation in the sense of development aid.
Fourthly, we should look at the possibility of setting aside an agreed percentage of the profits from commercial projects to subsidise non-profit-making development projects in the Third World. The Minister has proposed an advisory council, and the working party on the operation of DEVCO which I have suggested could give the Government clear guidelines and advice in the future of our development aid and co-operation programmes. I welcome the Minister's statement about the setting up of such an advisory council and the fact that he expects to make an announcement about it in the near future.
Finally, I would like to refer to the section dealing with development education, and I congratulate the Minister on introducing an estimate of £30,000 in this area. To my knowledge this is the first time that there is an allocation for development education. This is a very worth-while inclusion in the Estimate. I presume that it will lead to a programme of education which will be devised to involve the voluntary agencies as well, and that will mean a greater spread of factual information and general education about the situation in the Third World, and consequently will make the Irish people more aware of the facts and implications of that situation. This budget is to be spent in Ireland, and I presume that it will include education in social justice and an examination of national and EEC policies in relation to development co-operation and aid.
In conclusion I congratulate the Minister and his Department on a very comprehensive and interesting Estimate speech and I recommend this measure to the House.
