asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is any prospect of an increase in bilateral aid in the current year; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bilateral Aid Programme.
9.
It is not envisaged that there will be any expansion of the bilateral aid programme in the current year. Should this year's allocation of 2.275 million pounds to the bilateral aid fund not be sufficient to meet our commitments in 1980, maintain existing projects and keep personnel in the field I hope, as I told the House on 24 April 1980 and also this morning, to be able to transfer funds from the multilateral allocation to the bilateral aid programme. It is too early to say yet whether or not this will be possible and how much might be available in the current year, but I shall keep the situation under regular review.
Would the Minister not accept that, to some degree, this could be classified as robbing Peter to pay Paul? Would not a more proper approach to the problem be to discharge the commitments already made and increase the level of aid to the figure which it should be, £5 million more than the figure which was estimated?
The effect would be the same. It is merely a financial transaction from one column to another. I am not going to leave any funds under the overall overseas development assistance programme unspent. I shall transfer funds from the multilateral section—where all my information now is that they will not be fully spent—to the bilateral section, thereby ensuring that the works will continue as they are at present.
I come back to Deputy Quinn for a final supplementary. We have had all this already, yesterday and today.
In relation to the Minister's reply, is he saying to the House that today he is not aware that any of the bilateral aid programmes undertaken by this country are in danger of not being completed at the end of the year because of lack of funds? Is the Minister saying that he is happy at the moment that all the bilateral aid programmes currently in hand have adequate funds to get them to the end of this year?
What I am saying is that the existing bilateral programme will not be cancelled either in terms of personnel or expenditure. I am doing that in my own way—a rather ingenious way, if I may say so—by transferring funds from other multilateral areas where they will be underspent or where there will be a shortfall. I am doing something positive and constructive, and have discussed the matters with the agencies concerned who fully approve of what I am doing. They feel that I am doing the very best that can be done in a tight financial situation.
Are they satisfied?
I talked it over with them.
Can we stop here? We spent three or four hours on this matter yesterday and today.
There were no commitments made.
Deputy Quinn, a final supplementary.
I am not going to try to pursue the Minister's own ingenious way. What I am aware of is that his own ingenious way has seen the most savage cut-back to the bilateral aid programme——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
A question, please.
——since it was established. These were cut-backs against the commitments of his former colleague. Can he not now, in fact, state clearly that he will transfer some of the funds?
I have said that today.
The Minister said he may, if it is necessary.
I have said that I will, today.
The Minister said that he may, if it becomes necessary.
We cannot have arguments, please.
I said that I will, in answer to a question here last April and I said it today.
I am asking the question now. The Minister changes his mind from day to day.
Would the Deputy please behave, or he will not get any reply at all.
Is that remark in order, if the Chair managed to hear it?
Question No. 10, please.
Is it because I do not behave myself that I get this type of answer?
(Interruptions.)
Please, would the Minister and the Deputy leave the Chair to try to run Question Time? We have had a four-hour debate on this subject and I move to the next question.
That is what comes of leaving the Minister to run Foreign Affairs.
Could I inquire, through the Chair, on a point of order, if my questions are hurting or if it is just that I am not behaving myself?
The Deputy's questions are so stupid. I said ten times, today and last April, that I propose to transfer these funds from the multilateral section of the ODA centre to the bilateral section and that I can do that because there will be a shortfall in the multilateral aid. That is being done and will be done.
We are £5 million short.
10.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will consider increasing aid to third world countries.
As the Deputy is aware, the overall allocation for official development assistance this year was decided in the context of the Estimates for 1980. Overall ODA in 1980 amounts to £16.22 million and represents an increase of approximately 12 per cent over the amount available in 1979. ODA for 1981 will be decided in the context of next year's estimates and I would hope that it will be possible to further increase our aid to developing countries in line with our ability and our international obligations in that regard.
Would the Minister accept that, in the light of the commitments made by the present administration and by his predecessor, the figure for the current year should be £21 million for overseas development assistance and not £16 million, if those commitments were being discharged?
I was going to do my reasonable best but not to that extent—I am being perfectly straightforward here—not to the extent of £5 million.
Question No. 11.
May I ask ——
Deputies, please. We spent four hours discussing this matter yesterday and this morning. Why Deputy O'Keeffe wants to come back on it now I do not know.
I am afraid the Minister is like mercury—he slips out from under questions.
A final supplementary from Deputy Keating.
Would the Minister be willing to consider increasing the aid referred to at least by the amount of money he has saved by no longer supporting our participants at the Olympic Games which, presumably——
That is a completely separate question.
That is what I would call a very footy question.
It is a very fruity question.
I said footy question.
(Interruptions.)
I expect a reasonable standard from Deputies who ask supplementary questions.
And we expect a reasonable standard from Ministers who——
It is not a genuine supplementary question. The Chair has ruled that the Deputy is not asking a genuine supplementary question. It has no bearing on the question before the House.
May I ask if it is appropriate for the Chair to behave in what I would call an intemporate fashion——
The Deputy——
——perhaps the Chair would bear with me and listen to what I am asking—with regard to allowing these questions on the basis that they had apparently been discussed on a Bill over the last couple of days? We were not all here or involved.
The Chair is not responsible for that.
I was going to ask the Minister if he will honour the world of his colleague, the present Minister for Finance, when he said that, regardless of budgetary considerations, overseas development assistance would not be interfered with?
That was not the supplementary the Deputy asked.
That is what I have said. That is an intelligent question. That is not what the Deputy asked.
I would not consider the Minister the best judge of intelligence. The Minister should not be so condescending. I would not consider him the best judge of intelligence.
And the Minister has welshed on that commitment.
Will the Minister do it or not?
I have called Question No. 11.