Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 6

Private Business. - ACP-EEC Convention: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the second ACP-EEC Convention, signed on 31st October, 1979, together with the related internal agreement on the measures and procedures for implementation of the Convention and the internal agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid, signed on 20th November, 1979, copies of which have been laid before the Dáil.

Before proceeding to outline some of the outstanding features of the new convention, first, I should like briefly to take the opportunity to place it in its overall political and Community context.

Unique scope and impetus attach to the Community's policy of special relationships with developing countries. Following on the two Yaounde Conventions which were in effect before enlargement, the ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé was signed in 1975. This was a very major step forward in Community development co-operation policy in all respects and established a new phase in relations between developed and developing countries. It was hailed at the time as a model for such relations.

The first Lomé Convention between the Community and 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific States, granted free, non-reciprocal access to Community markets in respect of virtually all ACP products, made available very considerable financial and technical assistance, embodied a scheme for stabilising ACP countries' export earnings from a range of important basic products and contained many other provisions covering all aspects of Community-ACP relations.

The first Lomé convention that was signed took effect in a spirit of euphoria. However, over the past four-and-a-half years of its operation the steadily deteriorating international economic climate has badly dented our confidence and buoyancy. The Lomé Convention has not proved to be a panacean remedy for all development problems being experienced by all ACP States. When we began last year to negotiate the second convention, the Community's approach was to a great extent determined by the fact that the economic foundations of the industrialised world had shifted, resulting in a greatly narrowed margin for manoeuvre in all countries' economic policies and programmes.

The Community's development co-operation policies as a whole which we are trying with great care to build up and expand so that they can be of meaningful assistance to developing countries in their efforts towards growth and well-being can be frustrated—and could even be swept aside—by the international recession whose breath we feel about us. Therefore, in this climate we began with the ACP states last year to evaluate the model experiment that had been the first Lomé Convention to see what should succeed it. Our joint examination was conducted in a hard-headed, pragmatic way in the knowledge that whatever resources could be committed to the new convention should be put to the best possible use to the maximum benefit of the ACP countries.

We were agreed that the Lomé framework should be at least the basis of the new convention and we negotiated it in the light of our experience, our overall aspirations and within the limitations imposed by the overall restraints I mentioned earlier. The negotiations were protracted and difficult. Whereas the Community's overall objective was to consolidate the provisions of the existing convention and, where possible and in the light of experience, to adjust and extend them, in many areas ACP expectations far exceeded our ability to respond or greatly differed from what we considered to be wise or practicable. These gaps in approach and perspective proved in many cases to be very difficult to bridge. However, the vigorous and often heated exchanges by their nature and because of the very frank and open atmosphere that guaranteed that no new idea went untested, ensured that consolidations and new elements we have agreed on reflect the best solutions that both sides could agree on.

The Community and the ACP states as partners assessed the prevailing international factors, and those within the Community and ACP states, and taking them into account we built the new convention. With regard to its substance, Deputies have been provided with a detailed summary of its contents. I would like to express the trust the Community has in it, and our desire that it be implemented in a dynamic manner, for the greatest benefit of all those who are party to it.

In the trade sector, we invite the full exploitation by the ACP states of the Community's markets which are virtually open on a non-reciprocal basis. The trade promotion provisions are there to be used fully so that access to the world's greatest market-place can benefit the ACP states' balances of trade and payments, their employment situation and, ultimately, their overall well-being.

STABEX was an interesting experiment, and one which in its operation proved most valuable and durable. The Lomé I provisions have been added to and improved. In addition, the new systems for mineral products, which represents one of the major innovations of Lomé II, could certainly afford considerable benefits to ACP states which as yet have not benefited from the STABEX system.

Industrial co-operation under Lomé I could have yielded greater results. However, I have confidence that modernisation of the instruments of co-operation, together with our common desire to succeed, will result in major advances in this sector under Lomé II.

It was, I believe, a judicious decision on the part of the ACP states to use 40 per cent of the Fourth European Development Fund to improve agricultural structures. The Community is particularly pleased with the new chapter on agricultural co-operation. We hope that the joint ACP-EEC sub-Committee on Agricultural Co-operation will prove to be the focal point of agricultural development and will constitute a powerful instrument of progress in this sector.

With regard to the volume of aid, we have sought to maintain in real terms and even improve the value of the convention, despite the difficulty we had in doing so. Also, the modernisation of the financial instrument, which ensures that there is an ever-increasing ACP involvement in the management of those resources, is a welcome and significant step. It is the community's hope that the new ACP-EEC Committee on Financial Co-operation, provided for in Article 108, will be set up as quickly as possible and that it will successfully fulfil its purpose.

The details of Community financial assistance to the ACP states under the new Convention are as follows. The overall amount available to the ACP countries will be 5,227 million European Units of Account—approximately IR£3,504 million. This amount will come from 4,542m EUA for a new European Development Fund (EDF) to be set up under the new convention and 685 mEUA to be loaned by the European Investment Bank (EIB) from its own resources. Outside the convention provision is also being made within the new EDF, as in the present fund, for financial assistance to the overseas countries and territories in the sum of 109 mEUA—IR£73 million—94 mEUA from the new fund and 15 mEUA in loans from the EIB.

It is provided that member states should stand surety for loans granted by the EIB. This surety is restricted to 75 per cent of the total amount of the credit lines opened by the bank through loan contracts and will be the subject of contracts between each member state and the bank. Repayments to be made by the ACP states and the OCTs in respect of special loans and risk capital transactions will in principle be made to the member states. The Council will, however, be able to decide unanimously to place such sums in reserve or to allocate them to other operations.

Ireland's contribution to the new European Development Fund will be 27,816 mEUA. This is equivalent to IR£18.6 million or approximately 0.6 per cent of the total. It is expected that the EDF will be disbursed over a period of about eight years. Ireland's contribution to the Community Budget in respect of expenses of Commission Delegates in the ACP states will be IR£1 million spread over five years.

In the new convention we also have joint bodies on institutional matters in order to ensure that the provisions of the convention are satisfactorily implemented. The ACP-EEC Council of Ministers is a permanent meeting place for the representatives of all the Governments concerned. The Consultative Assembly and Joint Committee provide invaluable contributions to the Council's work.

Looked at from the national point of view, participation in the Community-ACP relationship represents a very great broadening of our relations with developing countries. Ireland has recent experience of the problems—and potential—of developing countries and we like to think that our national contribution has some particular importance in deepening our mutual understanding. The ACP states perceive Ireland within the Community group in a special way and it is a symbol of considerable significance that both conventions were signed under the Irish Presidency.

Through the Convention nearly 60 ACP states have come to learn a great deal about Ireland and our present and potential role in international relations in the field of development co-operation. Similarly Ireland has through the convention the means of becoming much more familiar with all the ACP states and with their development problems as a whole and individually. The new familiarity has material significance also in that it is a positive contribution towards much greater direct Irish participation in the actual work of the new convention. Our own development process has resulted in a considerable national resource in expertise over the whole spectrum of national development.

In many areas this expertise is directly applicable to the development problems of developing countries although, of course, the precise nature of those problems may in many cases be different. This resource, together with the goodwill prevailing in the developing countries toward Ireland, can be utilised on a wide scale in a framework such as the ACP-EEC relationship to the mutual benefit of both Ireland and the ACP countries concerned.

Ireland's contribution to the Lomé Convention should not, therefore, be seen as confined to our involvement in its negotiation, important as that was, or to our financial contribution to its implementation. The convention is a vital living arrangement designed to consolidate and develop a unique relationship between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States. It is a major opportunity for Ireland, as a member state of the community, to involve itself actively in the practical implementation of the convention.

Perhaps the most obvious way in which Ireland can make a positive contribution to the success of the new convention is through full participation in the development projects funded by the 5th European Development Fund (EDF), established as part of the convention. Under the 4th EDF, which is the first in which they have been eligible to participate, Irish firms and organisations, both in the private and public sector, have made, and are continuing to make, valuable contributions to the convention's technical assistance programme in areas such as the training, management, architectural and engineering consultancy areas. Their involvement, which has been in a previously rather unfamiliar and often quite difficult and highly competitive working environment, is highly commendable.

They have, I think, found their experience generally a rewarding one, both from the work satisfaction and, let it be said also, from the financial point of view. Furthermore, through their participation they have created a favourable impression of Irish capability among those concerned which should be conducive to greater involvement on the part of Irish concerns in the future. Certainly, the experience gained under Lomé I means that we are now better placed to participate in this aspect of the new convention then we were at the equivalent stage of the previous one.

Under the current fund, Irish firms and organisations had, up to the end of June last, won contracts under its technical assistance programme to the value of 2.566 million units of account, or approximately £1.72 million. This was the equivalent of some 2.2 per cent of all such contracts awarded to Community firms, at a time when 70 per cent of that element of the fund had been committed. I would expect that, by the time the total allocation has been made, business of the order of 3.25 million units of account or £2.18 million will have been obtained by Irish concerns.

In addition, therefore, to the developmental aspects of the fund, it must also be acknowledged that it represents a not inconsiderable potential source of foreign earnings to the economy. I am particularly conscious of this fact and my Department have been assisting and promoting Irish participation in EDF projects in liaison with the appropriate semi-State and representative bodies as well as directly with interested Irish concerns.

The new fund, which in total will be worth 5.607 million units of account—£3.756 million approximately—an increase of 62 per cent over its predecessor, is a potential source of further business for Irish firms and organisations. I would urge that those in a position to do so give serious consideration to seeking to participate in projects under the fund, not only in the technical assistance area, where nationally we are best placed to make a contribution, but also in the more difficult works and supply end, where Irish firms have not as yet made any impact. My Department are both ready and keen to assist those firms and organisations interested in any way appropriate.

I have indicated in the course of my remarks that the final negotiations were protracted and difficult. On behalf of the Presidency, I should like to pay special tribute to my co-President on the ACP side, Deputy Prime Minister St. John from Barbados with whom I was in very regular contact over the past weeks and months leading to the final negotiations. As I said, the Irish involvement is a matter of considerable significance. It opens up new avenues with our partners on the ACP side.

The House may be aware that two days ago I announced the names of the newly constituted Development Advisory Council within whose terms of reference this will also be a very important development. We are at a very significant stage of this continuing development in our development policies. The fact that we are one of the first countries to bring this before our Parliament for ratification will be evidence that we have fulfilled our responsibilities to the best of our ability.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Let me initially acknowledge the part played by our Minister for Foreign Affairs in the completion of the Lomé II negotiations. I should like to put on the record of the House a tribute to him and his staff for the work done in completing the very difficult and protracted negotiations. He came in at a late stage and grasped the problems very quickly and succeeded in achieving a compromise at a stage when it seemed that was not possible.

In 1975 Lomé I was signed. It was a remarkable coincidence that the first convention was signed during the first Irish Presidency. Lomé I was a milestone in that it was a major step on the road towards achieving a real consensus between the developing and the developed countries. It established a new relationship. In the years to come it will be regarded as a major breakthrough. Having said that, it is quite clear that the convention did not achieve all that the ACP countries hoped to achieve. The limitations showed up as the years went on. There was a considerable degree of dissatisfaction on the part of the ACP countries as the convention ran out.

It is clear that the first convention did not contribute as much as it was expected to contribute from the point of view of providing security for the developing countries and from the point of view of enabling them to develop their economies. We must accept that the second convention is a further milestone but we have to look at it in the overall context of the obligations of the richer nations of the world to the poorer nations of the world.

It is relevant to look at the concept of development aid in the context of a world which spends $400 billion a year on arms, a world that has 36 million men under arms, a further 25 million men in reserve forces and a further 30 million people in military-related occupations. Each year there is an expenditure of $30 billion on arms and military research, a figure that is greater that the entire amount spent in research on health, food, education and energy. We have to look at this backlog when we consider the amount of money being put into aid by the developed world. Then we have to look at the contrast in the poorer parts of the world where there are one billion people living in utterly inhuman and degrading conditions. In the year 1979 alone, 50 million people will die from starvation. Associated with the starvation and death there are the problems of malnutrition, infant mortality, illiteracy and all the ills that human flesh is heir to.

It is against that backdrop that we have to consider our efforts in regard to development aid. If we are not convinced by those figures that there should be development aid, we should consider others reasons for it. First, the Christian concept "Love thy neighbour", will provide a sufficient basis for many as to why there should be development aid. There has been an acceptance of the tradition that rich and powerful nations should help the poor and weak ones in the same way that rich and powerful people should help the poor and weak. There is no doubt that that concept has not been put into practice. I believe there is a moral obligation on the rich and powerful to help the poor and the weak. If that does not sufficiently satisfy people, we have to look for other reasons.

The second reason is that it is in the self-interest of the wealthier nations to help the weaker nations. If the imbalance continues, the stability and peace of the world will be threatened. What is somewhat alarming is that in many areas the gap has widened. There is a vested interest on the part of everybody in the richer nations to ensure that there is peace and stability in the world.

The third reason—and this is brought forceably to mind by the recent developments in regard to oil—the poorer weaker nations do have substantial reserves of raw materials. We can see what has happened in recent years when a particular commodity has been in short supply. We have seen the power which can be exercised by what were previously very weak nations when such a basic commodity became scarce.

There is no reason why it might not occur in regard to other basic raw materials. The ACP countries have considerable reserves and deposits of tin, rubber, manganese, cobalt and so on. Any one of these materials could ultimately provide them with a major economic weapon. If the case is being argued from the point of view of self-interest, surely the richer nations should be establishing better relationships with the weaker nations and should be helping them in their time of difficulty.

Fourthly, there is the fact that all nations rely to a large extent on exports from the point of view of their balance of payments. The development of the economies of the poorer nations would open up possibilities for exports from the richer nations.

From all points of view it is clear that, apart from the moral obligation on the richer countries, it is evident that it is in their own interests to assist in the development of the weaker nations. The question then arises whether enough has been done. If one looks at the situation between the EEC countries and the ACP countries, even for 1978, the figures indicate that trade between the two blocs came to approximately $15 billion each way. If one excludes oil from ACP exports we find there was a considerable imbalance. Oil accounted for approximately a quarter of the exports from those countries. That figure proves the point of the self-interest as far as the EEC is concerned and also proves the point—in this regard I believe I am pushing an open door so far as the Minister is concerned—that we are not doing enough in this area.

We have to look at the world situation and our own. Looking at the world situation, we know of the UN Resolution of 1970, which suggested a figure of .7 per cent of GNP as being the target which each country should aim for. I do not intend introducing any politics into this business, but it is clear that prior to 1970 there was not any great concentration from the country on development aid and establishing contacts in the Third World. Since 1970 there has been some improvement from our point of view, but we must examine our conscience and ask ourselves if that improvement has been sufficient. If one looks at the world situation the figures do not seem to have improved. In the United States in the late forties and early fifties—largely as a result of the Marshall Aid Plan—aid constituted about 2½ per cent of GNP, but that figure has now fallen to about one-tenth of that 2½ per cent. Some of the other wealthy nations, the Germans and Japanese, are similarly behind in making any progress towards reaching the UN target. The situation here is that this year our figure should be around .2 per cent. I hope the Minister will announce a target for the next three years and gradually increase that percentage.

A suggestion has been made that the increase should be a minimum of .05 per cent per annum. That would seem to be attainable as far as we are concerned despite the economic difficulties in the country. It is a target increase which we are capable of achieving and to which we should commit ourselves. A further aspect about the Lomé Convention which the Minister should deal with concerns the question of whether the EEC will be able to pay for a lot of the extra money agreed on the basis of its budgetary situation unless radical measures are taken in the near future. I understand that no provision has been made for the additional moneys payable under Lomé II. That is a side issue.

The document produced in connection with this matter is a complex one and I do not propose to go into it in detail, but it is clear from reading that that it amounts to an improvement on Lomé 1. It has remedied some of the problems that arose in regard to that. The real point I wish to make is that I believe we are not doing enough in this area. The criticisms of the ACP countries are, to a large extent, justified. There was very ready agreement on the part of the EEC to demands which cost us virtually nothing, but in areas of difficulty there was considerable resistance. The future outlook of the EEC can be affected by a fairly strong approach from us. We are only contributing .6 per cent and yet, as one of the Nine, we can present a strong voice in this area. We should do so. We are in an exceptional situation. Despite the fact that our percentage contribution to Lomé is small, we have some special relationships with many of the developing countries and are in a virtually unique situation in relation to other EEC countries in that we do not have a past that involves to any extent colonial exploitation. On the contrary, as a country we were exploited. We have suffered the experiences in the past that are now being suffered by many of the ACP countries. From that point of view we have a strong moral voice.

While I welcome the improvement in Lomé and wish it every success, I urge the Minister to continue his efforts to loosen the purse strings of the EEC and to be more generous in the future. We should be aiming to meet the legitimate demands and criticisms of the ACP countries in a more generous manner. Apart from our contribution to Lomé we should be setting a lead in the matter of development aid. If we do that we can make a significant contribution towards peace and stability in the world and towards giving leadership to the world in this vital area.

Mr. Quinn

I should like to join with Deputy O'Keeffe in recognising and paying tribute to the constructive role the Minister played in concluding the negotiations at the start of his Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The tribute should be generous and unqualified, and from me it is. The record shows that the Presidency started with such a contribution. The Minister dwelt on the significant symbolism of the fact that Lomé I and Lomé II were signed by Irish Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the conclusion of Lomé II. In proposing to agree to the ratification of the Agreement in the full recognition that it has fallen short of the terms of Lomé II, that it has fallen short of the hopes and aspirations of both sides of the House, we recognise nevertheless that it is an important step along the difficult road towards bringing about the new international economic order which was called for in the United Nations by the late President Boumedienne.

Deputy O'Keeffe said that, from the point of view of the self interest of the wealthy nations, such a new international economic order should be brought about. That is so; but self interest has also a moral dimension, to which he referred. It is proper that such a new order should be brought about, and this convention is an instrumental step—in fact, the only international agreement of its kind. It is a difficult process for some of the member states of the EEC effectively to "decolonise" their mentalities with regard to their former colonies. Lomé II is a step along the road to ridding from the minds of the English and the French especially the colonial attitude which permeated Yaounde I and to a lesser extent Yaounde II.

The Minister in his speech recognised that the signing of Lomé II was significant for us because of our special position when he said:

The ACP states perceive Ireland within the Community group in a special way and it is a symbol of considerable significance that both conventions were signed under the Irish Presidency. Through the convention nearly 60 ACP states have come to learn a great deal about Ireland and our present and potential role in international relations in the field of development co-operation.

I heartily agree with that sentence. In pursuit of development in relation to how our role might grow in the future, I would suggest that one way in which we could consolidate that position is to give a new dimension to our neutral position in international relations. Our position with regard to ACP countries is enhanced by the fact that we have no colonial past and that we are also politically neutral in terms of any power blocs. Many of the countries with whom we would have direct relations within the ACP group, and particularly those with whom we have very close bilateral relations—Tanzania for instance—are members of the non-aligned group. There is undoubted benefit to be had for us in consolidating the political side of our relationships with this group of countries—as a group as distinct from the positive bilateral relations that we have with some of them—by looking again at the whole question of our involvement with a non-aligned group. I will not repeat the points that I made on this during Question Time recently.

The necessity to bring about the new international economic order is not something of vague relevance to this country and its impact will not be difficult to measure. For example, the Minister could find that article 48, which covers the Sugar Agreement and the proposals from Commissioner Gundelach in relation to the whole question of sugar in the Community, could directly affect many of the people in Thurles. Similarly, many of the tannery workers in Gorey were equally affected. Many workers were made redundant because of the decision by the Mauritanian Republic to increase the price of phosphates, thus putting out of operation the Goulding fertiliser factory in Dublin. These incidents demonstrate the point that, as long as the world market continues to be unregulated, we will have this kind of casualty.

The major contribution that Lomé I made was the introduction of STABEX. There are a lot of qualifications about its effectiveness and the business brief in The Economist of 27 October lists them. Notwithstanding those qualifications STABEX is an attempt to take the laws of the jungle out of the international market system and replace them with some degree of stability. A welcome addition to Lomé II is MINEX, which is a similar market mechanism adjuster for primary minerals.

These are positive things and we should welcome them. In recognising them we should recognise that, as history advances, it is the unregulated market that is being progressively dismantled, controlled and disciplined to an extent that we are moving quickly at a time when the unplanned open market for labour and materials will be replaced by a planned economy. Lomé II attempts to give some hope of this type of economy, where people will be able to match their needs with the resources, when we will not have the ridiculous and scandalous situation that Deputy O'Keeffe referred to in relation to armaments spending.

The Minister will recall that on a number of occasions I raised the question of the interaction of human rights with the Lomé Agreement and the Minister raised the difficult question of interference in the sovereignty of member states. I recognise that there is not a simple solution to this, but nevertheless we have a role to play. From my reading of the agreement I gather that there is no explicit statement, but would I be right in assuming, under article 119 which deals with the review process for the Council of Ministers, with specific regard to the fifth EDF, that the whole question of human rights, if it arises, can be reviewed under that heading? If the ACP countries argue for the replacement of the law of the jungle in relation to the commodity market, then there is a corresponding demand to have the law of the market changed in relation to human rights, the rights of workers, the conditions of workers and the right of trade unions to form in some of the least developed countries.

I do not know what mechanism the Council envisages, but we could find ourselves in the situation that in a year or two years' time the Minister or his predecessor might be answering questions in this House in relation to an Irish contribution to the EDF going to a recipient country where there was some flagrant breach of human rights. For example, if the Philippines were part of the ACP countries—indeed if it were not for its connection with the United States it might well be—genuine questions could be raised about such a matter.

The Minister might be able to indicate what he envisages would be the manoeuvrability of an Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs in that context. I qualify that by recognising that this is a complex area. The ACP countries, like Barbados, have been insistent about their capacity to manage their own houses and, with a certain degree of accuracy, pointed to the situation in Europe and have been able to comment on our own history.

I want to refer now to the direct contributions through EDF itself, which is administered by the Community, and the possibility of participating in projects and contracts as the Minister outlined. The Minister's role in this area has been very positive. His Department have played a constructive role in opening up for a section of the Irish business community a new market which is an extremely difficult one to enter. So far as it is possible for the Department and related semi-State agencies to help, that help has been forthcoming and the people who attempted to participate in the complex system of tendering for controls and projects recognise this. It is only right that the House should know the assessment of the people working professionally in the field. While there is no criticism of the help provided by the Department, anyone who studied the details of the Fourth European Development Fund will recognise that it is unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic. To the extent that Lomé II hopes to speed up under article 108 the administration of the EDF, it is an improvement.

I note with regret that four years into the first Lomé Convention we have still only managed to spend two-thirds of the aid allocated. The Minister might tell us how he sees the new administration of the Fifth EDF being brought about. The Labour Party recognise that the enlargement of the ACP countries from what was previously France's African colonies to a much more complex and varied set of countries created many difficulties in trying to get programmes put together; and the sheer physical task of missions going to 50-odd countries made it a difficult task. Nevertheless, this raised in many minds the legitimate objection that much of the finance given for aid appears to have been swallowed up, delayed or held back for administrative purposes.

One of the appeals put forward by the Irish Aid Agency, Goal, is the fact that they do not spend any money on administration. This is an attraction because whatever they are given goes directly to the people who need it and X-percentage will not be put aside for overheads. The same cannot readily be said about the development fund because it is not aid in the sense of a hand-out. It is development and co-operation in a real sense. Therefore, there must be an evaluation of projects and a process whereby money is handed over, research is carried out and so on. All this takes time, but the time could be speeded up.

I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance that the delays which happened in the past will not occur again. He might also put on the record as a precedence, because there is a degree of tripartite co-operation here in relation to developing aid, the practice established in relation to the shortfall and the take-up of money from the EEC being transferred to our bilateral aid programme. I welcomed that positive step. It should be seen as a precedent to which all sides of the House will agree. It secures this Minister and future Ministers from a back-door raid by somebody in Finance coming up to Christmas taking up funds.

On development co-operation, I noticed, from reading the convention, that in areas, such as the restructuring of rural agriculture and research and development, there is a great deal of provision for studies, for research institutes, central industrial developments and so on. I hope the Minister, through the Council for Development Co-operation and through membership of that council, will make sure there will be a very vigorous campaign of advertisements and information so that people with the willingness, the research and intellectual capacity will get directly involved in this research work.

The common experience of the people trying to operate the Fourth EDF was the total lack of knowledge of Ireland. DEVCO, the semi-State bodies and the private consultancy firms have rolled back that frontier considerably, but there is still a lot of work to be done, and there will be for many years, because of our non-imperialist past. For that reason there should be a recognition of the need for an allocation of the overall development co-operation budget to be made for development co-operation and education in Ireland on general and specific levels. Since the Minister referred to the appointment of the various personnel to this council, he might tell us how he sees that being taken up.

While welcoming the fact that we have been able to participate in a market that now produces something in the region of £2 to £2½ million sterling in foreign earnings, the Minister will agree that the contracting side of that market has not yet been adequately tapped. While the semi-State sector and some private consultancy firms have been successful in getting consultancy work, contracting firms in construction and supply of materials do not appear to have been so successful. There are a number of problems in this area—insurance for bonds, insurance generally, exchange control risks and so on.

The CII are not as happy as they would like about having enough competence generated by Irish manufacturers, contractors and suppliers of materials to enter into what is a complex process of tendering. Having got more than our percentage share of what we would otherwise have been entitled to on the consultancy side, I hope the Fifth EDF would be seen by the Department and the Minister as one in which we would aim at trying to get more of the contracting side of that business. This is a complex area. It may mean the semi-State sector taking the initiative and inviting a number of private firms to come together and make a joint application for tenders.

The Labour Party welcome the signing of this agreement, recognise the personal and constructive role played by the Minister on behalf of this country and suggest that the question of our formal status as a neutral nation in the international community should be looked at in a new light because of the relevance of our relationships with other countries. The Labour Party are in favour of this country joining the non-aligned group. It could be said that we will be in very varied company.

The correct policy that the Minister has pursued in developing our relations with Africa has a positive and major role to play. Perhaps we can look at that again in the context of its potential contribution to our development co-operation programme generally. We also recognise that difficulties will arise from this for certain sectors of industry. There is a necessity to have a proper programme at home educating us to the inter-dependency north and south of the international community on the development of such agreements like Lomé which is to all our benefit in the final analysis.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I thank the Deputies for the generous tributes they paid to me in connection with the negotiation of the second Lomé convention. I also thank them for the tribute they paid to my staff and I would like to be associated with those tributes. There is an old saying that there is no memory of pain. As it happens the staff who are present here this morning were also involved with me through many late nights not of carousing but of negotiating, reassuring and so on right through the last night and morning in Lomé. I am sure they felt the same towards me as I felt towards them—that they did not want to see me again because it would recall this painful, but finally satisfying experience. This is the first time I have been involved with them since the conclusion of the negotiations. I thank Deputies for their tributes to them. It meant major commitments on their part and, as in public life and the administration of this and I am sure other Departments, considerable interference in their normal domestic arrangements. I am sure they appreciate the tributes paid to them in bringing about the conclusion of this negotiation.

The two Deputies took a very broad tolerant approach towards our involvement and were understandably critical on the broad question. They spoke of the difficulties and general dissatisfaction. I would not be the one to cloak over the reality that I referred to in my opening speech that Lomé I did not achieve what we expected it to do. Lomé II was conducted in a hard-headed, pragmatic and realistic manner. To give a clear illustration of how that arises it must, in the first instance, be agreed between nine member states of the EEC and between 58 in this instance, as distinct from 46 originally, of the ACP. I know how difficult it was to get agreement among the nine on a whole range of issues. I have great appreciation for those who managed to get agreement among the 58. I would like to think I was able to help to reassure them in reaching that agreement towards the end. It was difficult, particularly on matters relating to the size of the fund where there must be an agreed key contribution.

Where one has to have an EEC key in relation to the European Development Fund one cannot do that on the basis that one country can give a lot and another country give a little. It has to be done through Community established procedures. In view of the economic conditions that we were conscious of in various member states and the attitudes of one or two member states—I will not name them as we all have our problems—and their determination that they could not budge beyond this point because of disciplines in their monetary policies, we had a difficult time in getting the fund to the figure it is at. Allowing for inflation and so on it is a real increase on the original Lomé. That points out one of the limitations we have. Where some countries say their national programmes will not allow them to contribute more than £x we are constrained.

Difficulties on the ACP side would be more considerable. The gap is widening as we say in the EEC ourselves and this is as far as you can achieve for us. That said we reached the conclusion which I touched on and which both Deputies have recognised: a continuing and practical commitment in a proper spirit of understanding between the EEC countries and the ACP countries.

In relation to the armaments question as far as the EEC are concerned, our approach has been to recognise our obligations in co-operation in development. There are some other large blocks—I have mentioned this more than once here—who concentrate not on development co-operation in Africa, the Caribbean or the Pacific but on providing the armaments about which Deputy O'Keeffe was concerned.

It is a scandal. There is wasteful expenditure on armaments being provided to different elements in developing countries as they come to the painful experience of their own independence, by comparison with the manner in which it could be done and as is being done through an instrument of this nature. To that extent the Community are giving very good example to other blocks.

With regard to the EDF which Deputy Quinn dealt with, we all acknowledge that that was one of the problems of the last convention. For that reason, as I said in my opening speech, we have provided special funds for the secretariat of ACP countries. There are new elements in the convention to ensure that the preparation of the projects will be expedited in view of the obviously unsatisfactory experiences of the last convention where moneys were not taken up because the projects could not be prepared, and to ensure that they will be effectively implemented. That was one of the elements I became aware of in the course of my visits to Africa. It is one that we dealt with in the course of our negotiations. The framework is there and the funds are there. One can never say that there will not be problems. The matter which Deputy Quinn referred to is one which, from the experience we have had and the provisions we made, we will be able to deal with more effectively.

Deputy Quinn also spoke about the question of the shortfall on our votes and the precedent that has been established. I would like to think that what I have got the agreement of the Government to do over the last two years would be a precedent. If it is done once perhaps it is initiative but if it is done twice it could be regarded as a precedent. As far as I am concerned, with whatever influence I may have, I will try to maintain it that way. I would be glad if members of the other parties take that view. This year it is very much an academic problem because we have now moved to a new stage. For the first time there will be no shortfall anywhere. We have exhausted the lot which, in a sense, is to be welcomed. On the other hand it means that the needs are great. We have exhausted every single element in our vote.

As regards research and information I shall send Deputies Quinn and O'Keeffe a copy of the statement I made recently in relation to the announcement of the development and advisory council which, because of the activity of recent days, does not figure largely in newspapers. I agree with what Deputy Quinn said. I cannot give the precise figure but we are in the hundreds of thousands of pounds figure in terms of provision for education and research through the non-governmental organisations in the first instance. As regards the development advisory council, they will have their own independent secretariat, their own business to conduct, their researches through the various bodies that are engaged in such work. Research and information will be a major element in all of this. I think the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace and Trócaire set a headline for all of us some years ago when from their annual collection they allocated about 25 per cent towards education. We followed that—we were not the pioneers—and we have made very considerable allocations now which I believe will have a major impact.

That reminds me of one of the areas on which Deputy Quinn touched, the impact of the sugar agreement and many other elements within our own country. We cannot ignore certain realities; we cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. For that reason in the new development advisory council for the first time, it is not just those who are concerned with the development areas that are involved; the trade unions, the farmers' organisations, the confederation of industries and other are represented, all in the one council where they themselves can see that there must come from this a broad recognition of what our overall policy should be and attempts made to prompt and urge the appropriate Minister and the Government to take the necessary steps, because it does involve, as can be seen from the programmes of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, through the IDA, industrial restructuring in the new era.

There are things we can do that they cannot do in the development countries. We must get into those areas; otherwise we shall not be able to compete with them in areas where they can produce at lower cost than we can. I do not think we could contemplate preventing them from developing their natural, climatic and soil advantages just because it would pose problems for us. This is the argument that Deputy Quinn rightly touched on in regard to the whole question of the more balanced and secure new economic world order. Where we are capable of adjusting and introducing new technological developments in our industrial programme, that is what we must do. It is not just coincidence that that has been a major feature of the Government's industrial promotional activity in recent times. We do recognise these realities and at the same time we want to ensure our own people's employment and development while not cutting across opportunities for others in what might be called traditional areas.

As regards our own commitment in development co-operation funds, Deputies will be aware—this is in reply to Deputy O'Keeffe; my last point was obviously meant to refer to this question of the balance of trade both ways; this is how I think one has to approach the 15 billion dollars—that in our own Vote this year we reached a figure of .2 per cent. It is now at about £14.5 million. It has doubled in two years. It is evident that the target that Deputy O'Keeffe referred to is not just a target now but will be a continuing target; it is an achievement, a standard, I hope that what we have actually achieved will continue to be the foundation for what we will do.

Appropriately, Deputy O'Keeffe asked if the budget problems in the Community at present will have any impact on this matter—that is how I understood his question. Fortunately, whatever happens about the budget in the Community it will not. Strangely, there were many who wanted to have budgetisation of the EDF for possibly good reasons. However, we do not have it but what we have is this key that I have referred to and for that reason the fund is financed by contributions from member states of the Community. The new convention will not actually come into operation until ratified by each member state which is why it was very important to get the negotiations on it under way so that we could start this process as we are doing here. The convention must be ratified in each of the Nine, or Ten as I suppose it will be, and the 58. We could probably look for a commencement of the operation of the fund in late 1980. For our own contribution, the appropriate provision will be of the order of about £900,000 in that year. While perhaps there are good arguments that the EDF should be budgetised as a permanent instrument, fortunately at this stage whatever problems we have with the European Parliament or otherwise will not affect it.

Deputy Quinn touched on the human rights matter. He is quite right when he refers to the possibilities for review but we must proceed here very carefully. It is not a contractual condition of the convention because in the final analysis we all take the view—though some of my partners originally did not—that it is a political decision and even if you had a contractual stipulation, you would still have to take a political decision as to whether you would implement it. It is really a political decision. In the second case, as we have already done in the last convention, we in fact held up and suspended aid to Uganda. We took a political decision to do so and aid was suspended during the activities of Amin. That is a position that will remain. Equally, the House will understand that the relevant countries are understandably sensitive about the notion that we, the developed countries with our pure consciences and so on, can set down guidelines for them in this area. I appreciate their sensitivity, so what we did instead is that in my speech at Lomé—a recorded statement on behalf of the Community—I deliberately referred to the principles of the United Nations Charter in which we are both partners and the Monrovia declaration of the Organisation of African Unity and the Lusaka declaration of the Commonwealth. These are the declarations, if you like, from that side which I adopted as being declarations to which we would subscribe as the very foundation of this convention and thus there is no implication that we are the people with the high standards imposing them on others. I can assure Deputy Quinn that while it is not something one shouts about in advance, we have the right and responsibility in line with an internal Community decision we have taken since, to act, where necessary, appropriately where we see grave abuses beyond the limit of tolerance.

Deputy Quinn is right—there has been an improvement regarding contracts and consultancy. We have been involved in consultancy up to now and the next move is contracts and contractual involvement. I touched on that in my opening speech but I want to tell the House that the evidence so far is very encouraging that Irish firms are becoming more and more involved both in consultancy, which is the first step towards contractual involvement.

Indications are that in the course of this new Lomé Convention there will be a significant increase. I have these indications from member states of ACP because they make the final decisions. From the Commission and from the renewed interest in our own private sector we will see a considerable increase in the level of contractual activity undertaken by Irish firms in these countries to our mutual advantage. Perhaps that is the most appropriate note for me to conclude on. I thank the House for the welcome expeditious and positive approach to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.