Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 6

Supplementary Estimates, 1981. - Vote 48: Foreign Affairs.

Cavan-Monaghan): I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,300,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and for certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Professor Dooge)

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take the Supplementary Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together.

The Supplementary Estimate for Foreign Affairs is required mainly because of deliberate under-estimation when the Estimate for the Vote was being prepared by the previous Government. Altogether, over £1.1 million was deducted, apparently arbitrarily, at a time when it was clear that ongoing commitments could not be met from the amount of money proposed. Excesses appear on five subheads of the Vote — salaries, travel and communications, office machinery, post office services and repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens abroad. The total of the additional sums required is £1,700,000 but this is partly offset by savings elsewhere in the Vote amounting to £100,000 and by an additional anticipated increase of £300,000 in appropriations-in-aid. The net additional sum required is therefore £1,300,000.

The anticipated increase of £800,000 arises on the salaries subhead mainly because of a deduction of £477,000 at Estimates time. It was clear at the outset that the original provision would not be sufficient, and the inevitable shortfall was further compounded by the fact that serious fluctuations in some currencies, notably the US dollar and the British £, occurred during the year.

Similarly, an unrealistic deduction of £588,000 was made in the travel subhead. Currency devaluations also affected expenditure on this subhead. Despite the strictest economy in the use of the services that this subhead provides for, there are unavoidable commitments which have to be met. The additional sum of £555,000 now sought is the minimum required to enable these commitments to be adequately catered for in the current year.

Subhead B.2, which provides for office machinery and related supplies, is yet another example of deliberate under-provision. My Department have paid £40,000 for computer soft-ware which will be utilised by the civil service as a whole. When this is taken into account, ongoing departmental expenditure is actually less in this subhead than it was last year. Nevertheless, I am obliged to seek approval for an additional sum of £121,000 by way of Supplementary Estimate.

The additional £180,000 required for post office services is due to increasing charges which have to be met if essential services are to be maintained.

The provision for repatriation and maintenance of distressed Irish citizens abroad was also unrealistically curtailed. In 1980, a sum of £79,000 was paid out by way of repatriation and other advances. For this year also it was clear that demands were running at a level of about £70,000 and yet only £26,000 was provided by the previous Government. Most of the moneys advanced from this subhead are recovered in any event and this is reflected in increased receipts in appropriations-in-aid.

The total of the sums required for the five subheads will, as I have said, be offset to some extent by savings on other subheads. These savings have been achieved mainly by curtailment or deferral of activities. The anticipated increase in appropriations-in-aid of £300,000 arises because of the increase in consular fees as part of the July budget.

With regard to the vote for international co-operation the additional sum required is £60,000. Increased provisions are necessary for two of the subheads to enable us to pay mandatory contributions to international organisations and to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. In addition, because of a saving in the current year in our contributions to the European Development Funds established under the Lomé Conventions, it is proposed to redistribute this saving among other elements of Official Development Assistance in the Vote.

With regard to Subhead A of the Vote, an additional sum of £48,000 is required to enable us to pay our contributions for membership of the international organisations of which we are a member. The original provision was not sufficient to meet these obligations, and currency fluctuations also contributed to the increase.

Deputies will be aware that Subhead G of the Vote concerns payments for the benefit of developing countries arising from our membership of the European Economic Community. In the original Estimate, £4.017 million was provided under this heading for the purpose of meeting Ireland's contribution to the Fourth and Fifth European Development Funds established under the Lomé Conventions, and to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), in addition to providing for any contingencies in the matter of exchange rate fluctuations which might arise in the course of the year.

In the event, the Council of the European Communities decided not to call up member states' contributions to the Fifth European Development Fund. The callup from Ireland under the Fourth EDF amounted to £2,299,500. Negotiations on the replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development have suffered setbacks because of, among other things, the failure to agree on the relative contributions of OECD countries as compared with OPEC countries. While the remaining problems regarding the replenishment may yet be settled before the end of the year, payments to IFAD will not now become due before 1982. These developments mean that we have some £1,717,500 available under Subhead G for re-allocation to other areas of aid expenditure.

I propose, therefore, to transfer an amount of £692,500 to Subhead B — contributions to UN voluntary agencies. This will bring the total figure under this subhead to £1,486,500 as compared with the original allocation of £794,000. Thus the reduction suffered by agencies such as UNICEF and the UNDP in the initial allocation for 1981 will be offset.

In the case of the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, I propose to allocate an additional £150,000 to enable the agency to eliminate once and for all its accrued deficit and, in addition, to finance some further assignments overseas before the end of this year.

The disaster relief subhead received only a token sum of £50,000 in the original budget. This does not reflect the importance of this mechanism of distributing aid at the critical time of the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Accordingly, I propose to allocate an additional £300,000 to this heading. Of this £100,000 will be allocated to the relief of distress in EI Salvador; £50,000 will be channelled through Trocaire; and a further £50,000 through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

I also propose to allocate an additional sum of £7,500 to the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation to meet the cost of increases in the council's administrative expenses.

The balance of £567,500 will go to the Bilateral Aid Fund. Of this, £100,000 will be allocated to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. A grant of £100,000 was made to this group in 1980 but it was not maintained in the initial allocation in 1981. However, the present re-allocation will restore our contribution to its 1980 level. A further £250,000 will be reserved for co-financing projects with non-governmental organisations and the balance will be allocated to other areas of the Bilateral Aid Programme.

With regard to Subhead I, the contribution towards the expenses of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, it was not possible to forecast accurately the likely duration of the Conference in 1981 nor our estimated contribution thereto. We are obliged to pay our share of the expenses of the conference, and the additional sum of £12,000 now sought will enable us to pay the contributions so far levied.

I am grateful to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his comprehensive resumé of the reasons the additional sum of £1,300,000 should now be sought. This time last year I had to introduce a Supplementary Estimate also involving readjustments. The basic point involved here is that we have £1,717,000 available for readjustment within the aid programme area. Because of the fact that the European Economic Community is rather tardy in actually allocating funds for which we budget at the start of our budgetary year a reallocation took place under this heading last year on my initiative and is now being taken today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I want to take up one point with the Minister on this aspect, that is that last year I took the view that a greater proportion of that re-allocation should go to the bilateral aid programme than is envisaged in what the Minister is now doing. Of the £1,700,000 odd £567,000, or £500,000 only is being allocated to the bilateral aid programme. Therefore in round figures, of the £1,500,000 being taken from the contribution to the Community Aid Programme — by reason of the Community not taking up these moneys — £500,000 only goes to the bilateral aid programme. One million pounds have been distributed through various international agencies and so on. Last year I took the view that this money should almost entirely go to the bilateral aid programme. In my view it is the bilateral aid programme, as administered by Ireland in various countries, plus the APSO programme — and I am glad to note that APSO are also getting an increase, even if not a very substantial one, of £150,000 only — it is in these areas where Irish people are involved, where Ireland is directly involved, that the greatest practical gain in the real meaning of that work is obtained. Too often what tends to happen is that in regard to the money contributed by way of international aid through international agencies — while we must preserve minimum obligations we do not get sufficient credit as a country from them — there is not sufficient involvement by Irish personnel. I feel very strongly that it is through agencies such as the bilateral aid programme, the various voluntary agencies participating in overseas help and through the APSO personal service aspect — which again is an Irish contribution — the greatest positive contribution can be made, not just gain in the narrow sense of the word but in the broader sense, in that Irish people are involved; again, in appreciation of the needs of overseas areas and which generates greater public awareness and consciousness here at home of the need to be involved in such programmes. Generally, in so far as one can weight — and here I want to balance it against the necessity of maintaining minimum obligations to international agencies — what we can do within our limited resources. I would suggest to the Minister — and I am sure he would agree with this sentiment — we should concentrate on those areas where Irish personnel are involved, where the Irish interest involved is identified and where there is therefore the greatest benefit accruing both to the recipient areas and the donor country involved. This applies particularly in African countries with which we are associated in this capacity. I am thinking of countries like Tanzania, Zambia, Lesotho, the Sudan and so on — just to mention a few — generally very strong in that area of east Africa where we are involved personally through such agencies, particularly where we can give the expertise as well as the money, where there is a link between expertise and money. I am thinking here of An Foras Talúntais in agricultural expertise, of Aer Lingus who have made a contribution there — although strictly outside the scope of this Estimate — in regard to training personnel for airways; I am thinking of Bord na Móna who are making a positive contribution in Ruanda and Burundi, two countries with peat resources rather on a parallel with ours. Therefore, the combination of our expertise, plus finance, plus the high regard in which we are held in these countries, by reason of historical factors, adds up to a situation in which our international aid of this kind, within our limited budget, should be concentrated in areas in which Irish inputs can gain to the maximum extent out of the moneys being given and where Irish expertise can be involved. There is, of course, in the long run a very definite gain to Ireland as a whole in building up the economies of these countries and establishing a goodwill that will bear fruit not next year or the following year but many years to come. Of course, that is a follow-on to the sort of build-up done by Irish missionaries, Irish teachers, Irish professional people, Irish business people in many parts of Africa over so many years.

That is why I should like an explanation as to why a greater percentage of the savings I have mentioned in regard to the European Community contribution did not go in the direction of bilateral aid and in the direction of APSO. In that area we could have utilised the moneys to a greater extent rather than merely fulfilling contribution obligations to various United Nations agencies that, frankly, have been disappointing in regard to the benefit accruing to Irish personnel and to Ireland in regard to their expenditure. I say that advisedly because it is important that we maintain our obligation in regard to contributions to the various United Nations agencies. During my period as Minister for Foreign Affairs frankly I was disappointed at the lack of response or involvement as far as Irish personnel and Irish interest were concerned in the various areas to which the United Nations contributed.

Having said that I should like to go on to the broader aspect of the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs as a whole and to make the point that there is one aspect I feel is not sufficiently mentioned as far as public awareness is concerned, that is the practical contribution made by the Department, through its embassies, towards the generation of investment interest in Ireland via the Industrial Development Authority and the generation of exports as far as Ireland is concerned via Córas Tráchtála Teo. The Department maintain an excellent system of liaison and co-operation with these State bodies directly involved in investment in Ireland and in the generation of exports. I saw a recent newspaper report — I would hope there is little truth in it — that is, that consideration was being given to a closure of embassies. I should like to hear the Minister on that question. In my view what we need in this context are more, not less, embassies in strategic areas. Essentially foreign policy should follow along a path of enlightened self-interest. For a small exporting and trading country that means having embassies in strategic places where our immediate interests are involved.

I am very glad my decision to establish diplomatic relations with Venezuela has gone ahead because I regard the North. South and Central American areas as very important. Our enlightened policy on the Middle East has borne fruit by way of excellent trading and investment relations and in the supply of essential oil resources. If our foreign policy was not in tune with our industrial, economic and export industries in the Middle East we would not succeed. With the development of very substantial oil resources in the Americas it behoves us to increase our diplomatic representation there.

The African continent is developing and a large consumer market is opening up. In the more developed countries like Japan and China, our embassy representation has to be more sophisticated, bearing in mind investment and trade opportunities in Ireland, and there must be emphasis on investment and trade.

The interests of a small trading country like Ireland are linked with an efficient foreign service that works with the trade and economic agencies of the State, and ensures that, in key strategic areas, there are an increased number of embassies. Our foreign policy structure must be geared to the economic requirements of a country that is generating exports. In an otherwise bleak economic scene, the only area in which there has been positive progress is in exports. Two out of three people now employed in manufacturing industry depend on exports for their jobs. This year's export target was £4,800 million and we appear to be on target; last year we were on target with a figure of £4,150 million. Ten years ago we had an export market of £400 million. This year our target of £4,800 million is 12 times the figure of ten years ago.

This brings the Department of Foreign Affairs into perspective and our foreign policy must be seen in this context. When we take an independent and realistically neutral stance in world affairs, whether it be in the EEC or the United Nations, that is appreciated and understood by the countries with whom we trade and countries from whom we seek investment. When Minister for Foreign Affairs I never found any difficulty in establishing Ireland's position as a country with a positive contribution to make, a country which was not attached to any movement within the various blocs, eastern, western or non-aligned. We were always neutral — there are few other countries who managed to maintain their neutrality — and that suits the role of a small country. As Minister for Foreign Affairs I was never pressured to get involved in any defence commitment within or outside the Community. Far from it. As a small country our role enabled us to act as an honest broker.

Last autumn the Madrid conference on co-operation and security did not appear to be getting off the ground. The then German Foreign Minister came to me and said Ireland, with Austria and Sweden, could play a real role in negotiations with eastern European countries to get the conference off the ground. Because the conference dealt with detente, Germany, as a member of NATO, could not get involved directly in such negotiations. That is the sort of honest, straightforward role we can play, which is respected by the various blocs and does not involve us in any military or security entanglements.

Deputy Markey has two minutes.

I want to address myself to three points. It does not do a government any good to underestimate in two important fields — foreign affairs and international co-operation. We do not only little justice to ourselves but we do not do justice to the many voluntary organisations which have done tremendous work over the years. We do little justice to the public who contribute about £6 million a year by way of voluntary contributions and donations to voluntary organisations for co-operation abroad. This raises the hoary chestnut of our involvement in international co-operation and our bilateral aid programme which should be taken out of the political arena altogether.

It is no wonder the voluntary organisations continue to raise this question when we see foreign affairs and international co-operation underestimated as they have been in recent years. That question would not arise if the Government made up their minds to adhere to the United Nations target. The sooner this is done the quicker the voluntary organisations will have little criticism to level at us. That target is low enough and we should try to reach it as soon as possible.

I would like to pay a tribute to the personnel of all the voluntary organisations who have continued the work done by missionaries and others down the years. In the coming year this insulting situation should not arise—we are providing only a token sum of £50,000 for the emergency disaster relief fund when we all know such a small sum is a disgrace.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share