I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the 1981 Protocol for the First Extension of The Food Aid Convention, 1980 which has been laid before the Dáil.
Food Aid Convention, 1980: Motion.
The International Wheat Agreement, 1971, has two parts: (i) The Wheat Trade Convention for the regulation of the commercial wheat market; and (ii) The Food Aid Convention for the supply of food aid in the form of cereals to the developing world.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession to the European Community Ireland was obliged to concede to the Food Aid Convention as the original member states and the Community itself were a party to it. We therefore acceded to the Food Aid Convention in June 1973. In 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979 the Government, with the approval of Dáil Éireann, agreed that Ireland should adhere to the extensions of the convention. The Wheat Trade Convention was extended on the same occasions in order to maintain the framework of the International Wheat Agreement.
On a point of order, could we have a copy of the Minister's brief?
We know the Government are not very interested in parliamentary democracy but they should go through the motions at least.
In view of the strong interest of the Leader of the Opposition in the Food Aid Convention I would ask him to hold on until the ushers bring in the copies.
If the Minister would take his hands out of his pockets he might be able to do something about handing them out.
I do not know what the Deputy will expect me to do next.
Certainly we want a copy of the Minister's speech.
I hope it will be read with interest.
I know the Government think this House is only a rubber stamp but they should not be so naked about it.
I understand that the supply of copies was delivered here hours ago.
I suggest that we adjourn for ten minutes to enable the Government to supply us with a copy of this brief.
It is a rather substantial script, four pages.
I suggest we give them a few minutes more. Otherwise we will adjourn for ten minutes.
I know we are turning this House into a bit of a joke but we cannot sit here doing nothing. The honourable thing to do is to adjourn the House for ten or 15 minutes.
I understood that the Opposition were anxious to have as much time for debate as possible. The question of the adjournment of the House may——
It is normal to give a few minutes.
I am making a serious suggestion. This is treating the House with less than dignity. It is much better to adjourn.
Sitting suspended at 7.05 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
As I said earlier, I was not aware that copies of the manuscript were not available. Through some misunderstanding they were brought to the General Office rather than to the usual distribution point here. I assure you, Sir, and the Opposition, that no discourtesy was intended. I had adverted to the background of our involvement in the convention since we joined the EEC.
In view of the deteriorating world food position, a new Food Aid Convention was negotiated in March 1980. The new convention was approved by this House on 24 June 1980 and Ireland duly ratified on 30 June of that year. The convention came into force on 1 July 1980 and was due to expire on 30 June 1981 at the same time as the expiry of the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention, 1971.
The motion before the House seeks approval for the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1980 to 30 June 1983. The Wheat Trade Convention is also being extended to cover the same period. The effect of the two extensions, therefore, will be to extend the life of the International Wheat Agreement pending the possible negotiation of a new agreement. Ireland together with her Community partners signed the protocols extending both conventions on 14 May 1981. Instruments of ratification must be deposited by 31 December 1981.
The Food Aid Convention, 1980, which the protocol under discussion today seeks to extend, binds its adherents to providing total annual contributions of 7.592 million tonnes of cereals for developing countries. The European Community and its member states have undertaken to supply a minimum of 1,650,000 tonnes of cereals in the form of wheat, coarse grains or derivative products suitable for human consumption. This contribution is discharged partly by the Community from its own resources and partly by the member States nationally in accordance with an agreed scale. Ireland's national contribution, which is channelled through the world food programme, is in the region of 4,100 tonnes per annum. The cost of this is borne by the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.
Ireland is pleased to adhere to the extension of the Food Aid Convention, 1980 — a convention, which, as Deputies will recall, increased the minimum annual contribution of aid from 4.226 million tonnes to 7.592 million tonnes. Ireland's national commitment under the 1980 convention represented an increase of approximately 1,000 tonnes per annum over the previous convention. Total accumulated contributions to the Food Aid Convention by Ireland by virtue of our own national commitment between the years 1975 and 1980 amount to more than £3 million. In this year's Vote for Agriculture a further £440,000 has been allocated for the purpose of fulfilling our obligations under the convention.
Deputies will agree that the most immediate problems facing developing countries are hunger and malnutrition. Beginning this year the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations designated 16 October each year as World Food Day in an effort to develop a sense of national and international solidarity in the struggle against these twin evils. I wish to pay tribute to the fine work done by Gorta in organising a one-day seminar to mark World Food Day and to the enterprise it showed by holding an auction on the same occasion to raise money for the food production projects which are Gorta's special concern.
All informed opinion agrees that the primary objective of developing countries which are prone to food deficits and of the developed countries wishing to assist them must be to stimulate native production and so to reduce dependence on commercial imports and on food aid. It is for this reason that Ireland has consistently supported the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, whose objectives are increased food production, reduced rural poverty and improved nutrition in developing countries. For the same reason we have since 1980 contributed 2,350 tonnes of fertiliser to Sudan, Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Lesotho under the FAO's International Fertiliser Supply Scheme. We particularly respect the approach of the World Food Programme which consists of using food supplied by donors as an aid to the economic and social development of countries. Food donations are used, for example, as part of worker's wages, as a way of attracting children to school and improving their health and as an incentive to voluntary participation in Community development.
For all that, it is, however, abundantly clear that in a world where at least 420 million people do not have their minimum food requirement each day, direct food aid actions continue to be essential to save lives. The European Commission has again recognised this stark fact by including in a wide-ranging Plan of Action against Hunger in the World a proposal for a food aid action consisting of 230,000 tonnes of cereals for the neediest countries. I am happy to say that the Development Cooperation Council which I attended in Brussels on 3 November agreed broad guidelines covering all facets of the Plan of Action. As soon as a favourable opinion has been delivered by the European Parliament, the Council regulation giving affect to this £26 million food aid action will be adopted. The Community will thereby have demonstrated that it can on occasion respond swiftly to a political impetus, in this case the impetus provided by the Paris Conference on the least developed countries which laid very particular stress on those countries' food and agricultural problems.
The continued need for the International Community to channel food aid to needy populations is unquestionable. The Food Aid Convention is the preeminent international vehicle for the supply of food aid to developing countries. It is in this spirit that I recommend to the House the Protocol extending the Food Aid Convention, 1980.
The Fianna Fáil Party fully support the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1980 to 30 June 1983. Irish people have in common a very real interest in and concern for the whole of the developing world, often called the Third World, to which over many years we have contributed in terms of manpower when we did not have much to give and now, as a State, what we can give in the way of expertise and some money together with manpower and participation in the various international conventions concerned with food aid.
This convention has been in operation for some time. Since our accession to it in June 1973, on acceding to membership of the Community, we have given our share of the overall quota under this convention relating to food and cereals for human consumption. This is only one aspect of the overall question of aid to the Third World. This is essential not only from the moral and social points of view but also from the point of view of the economic survival of the developed world. This is an important factor which should be emphasised. It is not only a matter of doing the best we can for charitable, moral and social reasons. It is in our own enlightened self-interest to ensure that the Third World survives and improves its standard of living and thereby becomes a greater consumer market in the years ahead for the goods produced in the developed world.
This whole argument was put very well in great detail in the famous Brandt Report, the report of an independent commission on international development. Very distinguished people throughout the world co-operated in its preparation. It was chaired by Willy Brandt. As the House is aware, it is called: "North-South: Programme for Survival". That programme is not just for the survival of the Third World or the southern part of the world and not the northern part. The whole tenor of the argument in this magnificent treatise is that the survival of the whole world is at stake.
The survival of the developed world is at stake if a large percentage of the population in the southern hemisphere generally deteriorates in its purchasing power and its standard of living to the extent that it can buy nothing from the developed world. That would affect the developed world enormously. That essential argument is the whole basis of the Brandt Report. Apart from the moral, social and charitable commitment which we must have to ensure that our fellow human beings do not literally starve, to put it at its lowest, the commitment goes beyond that. There is a very real commitment in our own interests, or should be such a commitment in our own interests. By "our own" I mean the interests of the developed world to ensure that the standard of living in the Third World is raised to the extent that they can participate with us in economic prosperity. Therefore, there are very strong, financial, economic and political arguments, arguments that go along with the whole survival of organised society, strong political arguments, equally strong as the obvious moral, social and charitable arguments.
I would suggest that this book, which is published in popular form — available in the Library — published in paperback form by Pan World Affairs, available at a price of a little over £2, should be an obvious Christmas gift to all young people in the coming year, and that is only a week or ten days away. If ever there was what I would regard as compulsory reading — it is certainly compulsive reading — it is the sort of situation that is set out very well in the brief 300 odd pages of this report. There are there strong arguments enunciated for the sort of aid that is given in a limited way here in the form of the Protocol before the House, in the Food Aid Convention. But, of course, we participate in many other areas, bilaterally and multi-laterally on other aspects. This convention is concerned merely with wheat and cereals which are, of course, important.
A central chapter of the Brandt Report is chapter 5 relating to hunger and food. In that chapter I notice that the figures are even more horrific than those mentioned by the Minister when he said:
... it is, however, abundantly clear that in a world where at least 420,000,000 people do not have their minimum food requirement each day, direct food aid actions continue to be essential to save lives.
I note, and now quote from chapter 5, page 90, of the Brandt Report, under the heading of Hunger and Food, the figure is even more alarming than that given by the Minister:
Eight hundred millions are estimated to be ‘destitute' in the Third World today, as this Report has already noted: most of them by definition cannot afford an adequate diet. In some low-income countries studies have shown as many as 40 per cent of pre-school children exhibiting clinical signs of malnutrition. No one can state the exact numbers in the world who experienced hunger and malnutrition, but all estimates count them in hundreds of millions; millions who will either die from lack of food or have their physical development impaired. It is an intolerable situation. The idea of a community of nations has little meaning if that situation is allowed to continue, if hunger is regarded as a marginal problem which humanity can live with.
I appreciate why the Minister should be conservative in presenting a document of this kind. But I think he would agree with me that it is no harm for it to be said here that this figure of 420 million who do not have their minimum food requirement each day, if anything, is on the conservative side. One has here in the Brandt Report a figure nearly twice that, of 800 million people who are estimated to be destitute in the Third World today.
There is the problem, a growing problem, as the Brandt Report goes on to show, under a heading International Responsibility which talks about the expansion of population in that particular part of the world, that side by side with this problem of 800 million destitute people there is the situation of population explosion. By the year 2000 the estimate is that and I quote again from the Brandt Report:
Only major efforts of investment planning and research can make enough food available for the six billion people the world will probably hold by the year 2000.
That includes the whole world, encompasses the whole globe. We are talking now about six billion people by the year 2000. We are talking about a situation in which the Third World, with its expanding population, can bring the whole of that world, the developed world as well, down to a level well below the sort of level to which we currently feel and have felt entitled in recent years. Therefore the expectations of all people on this globe are linked to the expansion of food production, circulation of food to people who need it and, above all else, the generation and training of the expertise required to work and manage land better. Side by side with this paradox of starvation and malnutrition is the terrible situation of land which is potentially viable, potentially great in the precise Third World areas that has not been developed, has not been given the expertise and management required to develop it to the fullest extent.
In passing I might say there is one aspect here which concerns some experts within the European Economic Community, some people within that Community who would seek to curtail the policies of the common agricultural policy, who would seek to curtail food production, to reduce the amount of money being made available from the European Fund resources to agricultural production and to the common agricultural policy. I want to emphasise here one important point not often mentioned. It is this, the common agricultural policy, within the Community, is not just, and should not be regarded as, a narrow protectionist policy for Community farmers. It is something much greater than that, looked at in the context of the debate we are having here concerned with the Third World. Here is a food production policy that was initiated by the founding fathers of the European Economic Community who, in their very great wisdom to get to the essentials of matters, said that we must, as a priority, have a working food production policy. This has been organised and has been functioning but in recent years has encountered very severe criticism, particularly from Great Britain since her entry into the Community — very misguided, negative and wrong criticism because if the community agricultural policy fails then the only working food production policy organised by a group of nations on this globe fails. What should be done is to intensify and organise the common agricultural policy within the Community to a greater degree. To organise the distribution of surpluses from such a Community is to have a complete and practical policy between the Community through the Lomé Convention — thereby associating the Community in all the ramifications of agricultural policy with these countries. We must ensure the transfer of food to them and help them to improve their own agricultural expertise and technology. There need not be any conflict because the more sophisticated agricultural development becomes the more technological and commercial sectors flourish. Europe has much expertise to export to the Third World, particularly to the countries with whom it is associated through the Lomé Convention.
Far from diminishing it, European statesmen should be looking towards the enhancement of the common agricultural policy to ensure that we have more efficient production. We are all agreed that inefficient production should not be sustained under the CAP. The aim should be more efficient production of food for export at reasonable rates to Third World countries, accompanied by expert assistance in the processing of such foodstuffs. It is entirely negative to think of cutting back on agricultural production in our Community which has a system that works and can produce more, if given the right incentives, for the benefit of Third World countries.
It is very significant that whenever difficulties arose in Poland in recent years Community surpluses were available to sustain that country because of our efficient production and marketing organisation.
People such as our British neighbours and others within the Community who would lightly cast aside the common agricultural policy are embarking on a short-sighted policy because by the end of the century food will be as scarce a resource as oil now is. By the year 2000 there will be six billion people in the world and the main problem will be scarcity of food. Already large segments of the world are afflicted by starvation and malnutrition. In the years to come statesmen and leaders of opinion will be faced with the problems of food production and it is nothing short of lunacy to suggest that the one working system of food production — the common agricultural policy of the EEC — should be diminished. This point of view is shared by enlightened people within the Community with whom I have discussed it. The French Government share the view that we should apply a stimulus to agriculture which will lead to more efficient production. We should think in terms of expanding food exports and sending experts in various sectors of agriculture to ensure that the methods we apply in Europe can be replicated throughout the world. There is no competition involved. There will be so much pressure on food resources in the years ahead that there is no danger whatever to food producing exporters of the EEC.
The major problem facing the world is the necessity to increase food resources 100 times above present levels. That theme runs through the Brandt Report but the gravity of the problem is not appreciated by many people. It is total madness for people within the Community such as our British neighbours to advocate a policy which would in any way restrict food production when the whole propulsion of policy should be towards expansion.
I know that problems arise from time to time in regard to the distribution of surpluses and people refer to mountains of various types of food. That is another problem which should not be beyond the capacity of the developed world to solve, provided the political will exists. The least of the problems is that of distribution and sale of surplus agricultural products, and it is suicide that food production should be curtailed. It is a point of view which defies comprehension.
The Brandt Report states that there must be an end to hunger, that it is an international responsibility and that it can only be done in a comprehensive way. The coming together of the Common Market countries sets a headline in that respect. Parallel with the distribution of cereals from subscribing countries to the developing world, there must be an increase in domestic food production.
I wish to pay tribute to An Foras Talúntais who have done a magnificent job in sending agricultural experts, technicians and research personnel at all levels to a number of African countries. An Foras Talúntais is held in very high esteem in most of the East African countries ranging from Sudan to Tanzania, and I am sure the Minister of State will bear this out. The ESB and Bord na Móna have also worked very well in some of these countries. We are talking here about food production and food aid and in this area the Agricultural Institute have done heroic work. I do not like to refer in this House to individuals but on this occasion I would like to refer to Dr. Tom Walsh, a former director of the Agricultural Institute who did heroic work over the years and I think he is still associated as chairman with some of the development agencies under the control of the Minister.
The Brandt Report says food production must be a worldwide priority and domestic efforts need world support. A number of countries came together and produced the International Wheat Agreement, which is in two parts — the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention, both of which are being discussed here tonight. We acceded to this agreement in June 1973. What is happening about the proposed changes in the International Wheat Agreement? What practical effects will these changes have? I am sure they are no more than organisational changes and that the essential policy thrust will remain the same.
The Brandt Report referred to all forms of aid and expertise which the developed world try to bring to the developing world, that is, how to get this aid to the people who need it. One of the big problems in this area is that of administration and organisation, and this is where expertise can help. It is all very well getting the food to the areas concerned but what is very important is how the matter is dealt with on the ground, and how the aid is distributed. It is also very important that there is a follow-through when the experts leave. There is not much point in experts organising a co-operative or improving agricultural production methods if, when they leave, nobody is left behind to carry on the work. Therefore training personnel to continue with this work is very important.
There is a very challenging part of the Brandt Report under the heading of "Hunger and Food." It says that investment is better than food relief. That idea also runs through the Minister's statement. Because of the enormity of the problem this type of food relief is important in the short and medium term, but investment is even more important. The Brandt Report stresses building up the infrastructure of these countries, their educational and technical training and relating it to working the land rather than investing prestigious industrial undertakings. This is very important.
There are chapters in this report on agrarian reforms and appropriate farming systems. Here too we are talking about how best to organise a situation of that kind; and the co-operative idea would appear to be the right one, although it is often not an easy one to inculcate in parts of the Third World. The report also says that hunger cannot be isolated because there are other problems which affect the economies of these countries, whether it is Lesotho, Tanzania or Sudan. The hunger problem on its own, although it is terrible, must be looked at in conjunction with all other problems and not on the narrow basis of providing of food aid alone.
I would like to quote a few recommendations from page 103 of the Brandt Report:
There must be an end to mass hunger and malnutrition. The capacity of food-importing developing countries, particularly the low income countries, to meet their food requirements should be expanded and their mounting food import bill reduced through their own efforts and through expanded financial flows for agricultural development. Special attention should be given to irrigation, agricultural research, storage and increased use of fertiliser and other inputs, and to fisheries development.
Agrarian reforms are of great importance in many countries both to increase agricultural productivity and to put higher incomes into the hands of the poor.
International food security should be assured through the early establishment of an International Grain Arrangement, larger international emergency reserves, and the establishment of a food financing facility.
Food aid should be increased and linked to employment promotion and agricultural programmes and projects without weakening incentives to food production.
Liberalization of trade in food and other agricultural products within and between North and South would contribute to the stabilization of food supplies.
Support for international agricultural research institutions should be expanded with greater emphasis given to regional co-operation.
These are the basic recommendations in the very simple language of the Brandt Report. If I was to emphasise one point it would be covered in the few lines which say:
Food aid should be increased and linked to employment promotion and agricultural programmes and projects without weakening incentives to food production.
This means we should have a two-tiered type of development. Food aid should not be considered alone; it should be linked to a positive programme encouraging agricultural development in the areas affected. In other words, if a Third World country is given food aid it should not be given as a once off situation; it should be linked with the provision of expertise. These experts should be able to show the inhabitants how to grow food in their areas. They should show them how to organise production and co-operatives, how to prepare the land, have inputs of fertilisers, organise drainage and set up a farming scheme that will enable the people in the area to produce the foodstuff appropriate to their soil and climate.
In that way there is a real and positive investment for the future. We should not have aid delivered for the sake of aid, desirable though that is, and in many cases where there is total hunger and malnutrition there must be aid. Brandt recommends in that regard that the aid should be linked to positive agricultural programmes for the areas in receipt of the aid. That sort of investment input should go side by side with the aid distribution and delivery. That is a very fundamental and sensible way to organise this basic matter which is of concern to the whole world. It is not just of concern to the people of Lesotho, the Caribbean, the Pacific or Bangladesh, important as it is to them as human beings, but it is of concern to us also. If we in the supposedly sophisticated developed world think we can live in isolation while a growing population of destitute people surround us, people who do not have the capacity to buy from us, people who will create political instability by reason of their destitution, then we do not deserve to survive either. We will not survive economically, commercially, or politically in terms of the type of world that will have the population mentioned by Brandt by the year 2000.
I support this measure and Fianna Fáil support any and every measure of this kind, be it national, international, bilateral or multilateral within our resources. While I understand the limitation imposed by our own budgetary position, we should always take a progressive attitude in this respect. I wish well the proposed all-party committee to be set up to deal with this matter. It is an appropriate area for a joint committee. It is so important and fundamental that it should be viewed by us all in a very broad manner. It is difficult to get this message over in the developed world in which there are shortages, people in our country and in this city who are having bad times. It is difficult for the whole of the developed world because in many ways even the more prosperous countries in the developed world have their problems in regard to unemployment. But that should not take from the fact that their problems, however difficult, can be contained to some degree compared to the problems in the developing world. In the developed world if an appeal to idealism does not work then we should appeal to self-interest because there is the self-interest aspect in that we will not survive if billions in the Third World go down in the economic and social sense. That will lead to such a political revolution throughout the world that the developed world will not survive. We should think deeply and clearly about this matter and recognise that we are all very much in one world. There is no question about the interaction and mutual interests of all of us on this globe and no question of any of us isolating ourselves any more. We are one family on the globe and it benefits all of us and behoves all of us to ensure that the family progresses to the best degree of equal prosperity possible.
I should like to support the Minister's statement on this matter. It is important that those who have any influence in our community, especially those with influence with the decision-makers, devote their time and energies to ensure that we do not neglect our brothers and sisters in the Third World. We must be even more conscious than the citizens of other countries about the effects of famine and the disasters it can bring upon people. To a great extent we have given the lead to the rest of the world in looking after people in the Third World. Our wealth is not great and our input in relation to the amount of financial aid we can give is limited, but nevertheless down through the centuries we have shown that we are willing to go to the Third World to try to educate the people there. No matter in what way we couch the atrocities that are committed on our brothers and sisters in the Third World by depriving them of food, we must remember that there is only one cure for their complaint and that is to supply them with food. We can help the Third World in various ways. We can help by exporting food to them or by educating them to be self-sufficient. The latter is a long term prospect that will require a lot of patience and skilled personnel. No matter how daunting the prospect, this is something we must tackle immediately.
As members of the white race we have a lot to answer for because we deprived a lot of those people of their natural wealth. We polluted their environment, we sold their stock and we cut them away from the basic resources on which they depended for living. A famous writer once said that when the white man arrives in any area the continent ages quickly. That writer was correct. While we may claim that our hands are clean in relation to that type of activity, we cannot ignore the plight of our fellow human beings. We hear a lot about wheat, butter and beef mountains and surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of man to bring about a situation whereby that surplus of wealth will be transferred to the Third World without the economies of developing countries being seriously affected.
We read in the newspapers of tens of thousands of tonnes of wheat being burned because of there being a surplus of wheat and because the market would be affected if those surpluses were to be kept in circulation. Can there be any greater crime than the disposal of such a commodity in this way when people in other parts of the world are starving? Surely none of us who has any moral values can condone such action. We may understand it from a capitalist point of view but from a humane point of view there is no justification for it. We must not stand idly by and allow it to happen. We must try to ensure that the wealthier countries devise some kind of system whereby these surpluses can be transferred. As Deputy Lenihan has said, this can be achieved if there is the necessary political will to do so. It is for us to try to ensure that there is such political will.
Unfortunately, however, food that is sent to some of those countries whose people are in need very often falls into the hands of those for whom it was not intended. This results from the type of system that is operated. It is a loose system which is open to all sorts of corruption. There are the corrupt people in the middle raking off what is the right of the ordinary people of the countries concerned. Therefore, not only is it important that we send food to the Third World but it is also important we ensure that there is a proper follow-up to supervise its distribution. There is a great example of this sort of work in our home town of Bandon where private individuals have got together to help the Ugandans. I am reluctant to mention names here but no praise can be great enough so far as the work of Miss Sheila Hayes is concerned in this area. She oversees the whole operation. Not only is there money being sent to Uganda to enable the people to buy food but there are being sent also huge quantities of what is regarded here as surplus medical equipment, equipment which would be thrown away otherwise on the grounds that it is not suitable but which is of much help to the Ugandans. If we could have a similar type of operation in every town and village we could do a great deal to help the peoples of the Third World.
There is the problem, too, of education. We must go further than has been the case up to now. We must send out trained and skilled personnel, especially those trained in the area of agriculture, but with special emphasis on irrigation which seems to be the key to making the peoples of the Third World self sufficient. In order to enable these people to begin to help themselves they need the services of such skilled personnel. This whole problem is enormous and one that we will not solve here this evening, though we can make some little dent in it by our approach. Not nearly enough publicity is given to this matter. Tomorrow morning, for instance, the newspapers will be likely to give a good deal more publicity to a row in the Dáil of a couple of minutes' duration than to the very important issue we are discussing, an issue which is worthy of the support of the people. I hope that in the years to come we will continue to do everything possible to help our brothers and sisters in the Third World. As Deputy Lenihan has mentioned, if we fail in that respect, even for the most selfish of motives, in the words of the Brandt Report we may not be around too long to help even ourselves.
I welcome the opportunity of addressing a few remarks on this motion especially at a time when European leaders are concerned with the future direction of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is appropriate that this Parliament should at this time be approving the 1981 Protocol for the First Extension of the Food Aid Convention, 1980.
We are one of the greatest food-producing countries in the world. Any measure that will enable us to dispose of our surplus food will be of benefit to the Community as a whole. Unfortunately, though, this is not as easy as it may seem. Some people may ask why we do not transport our food surpluses to the Third World. The fact is that the peoples of the Third World are not in a position to buy food. If they were in such a position there would not be the need for the amount of charity that has been extended to them down through the years. The Irish people are among the most charitable in the world when it comes to giving aid to the starving millions of our brothers and sisters in the poorer parts of the world. I am always irritated when some prominent churchman condemns Irish politicians and Irish people generally for their lack of commitment to the Third World. We must remember that ours is a small, underdeveloped country and that its potential in the field of food production has not been reached yet. The time is now opportune for European political leaders to devise ways and means of framing the CAP so that increasing amounts of our surplus food products can be channelled to the peoples of the Third World. It angers me to read reports of how the butter mountain is being disposed of by selling butter to Russia at low prices. That is a most retrograde step because Russia is one world power that loses no opportunity of exploiting the situation among the starving peoples of the Third World. The most recent example is their intrusion into the affairs of Afghanistan. It is extraordinary when we assess the situation to discover that we assisted those people in their acts of aggression by allowing them to buy cheap food. This is an opportune time to devise ways and means of sending surplus food products to the starving millions in the Third World rather than to Russia.
The Common Agricultural Policy is sacred to us because of our capacity to produce food. To those who speak about dismantling it, I say channel your thinking towards relieving the situation in the Third World. We hear daily about butter mountains, beef mountains and milk lakes. We have a vested interest in any new measures that will be taken in the future to ensure our surpluses are channelled to starving people. It has been said that it is not only food they need but expertise and skills. At present we are more concerned with the disposal of surpluses. We have been active in the field of bringing expertise to underdeveloped countries. We also have made a contribution in the technical field.
We are a food producing nation. My constituency has some of the best agricultural land in the country. It is appropriate that I should be concerned that no opportunity of disposing of our agricultural produce and finding new markets is lost. Milk can be converted into powder and this can be flown across the world and disposed of quickly. We made great strides in that area in recent years and should commend all those who have been responsible for securing markets for us. They have done something to relieve the hunger, stress and hardship endured by those in the Third World. While it may appear in the eyes of the big powers that our efforts in the 1981 Protocol are insignificant, they are significant for a small country. We should be proud of the role we have played through the years.
There is nothing more distressing than to be told daily that there must be cutbacks in milk production and, if not, that a levy will be imposed. We are told we must cut back on our beef and butter production. If our markets were properly organised and there was new thinking, there would be no need for cutbacks. We have the ability to produce. We can produce the finest food in the world. We have a climate which, while inclement, enables us to produce quality food in abundance.
I have seen irrigation systems in operation in middle eastern countries. If these are perfected people in these countries will become self-sufficient and we will have problems in regard to the disposal of our surplus food. No impediment should be placed in the path of progress. If we have expertise let us pool it with other countries and ensure that those in great need get the benefit of man's skills. What is needed is to ensure that man has the capacity to exploit his own expertise and skills. We should compliment ourselves on the progress we have made towards relieving the distress, hunger and hardship of those in the Third World.
To dispose of surplus food to Russia is a retrograde step. This has never been touched on by political leaders. Instead of transporting food to Russia we should channel it in the direction of the Third World. I hope the Minister will ensure that every effort will be made to guarantee that our food surplus is channelled in that direction. Charity groups make collections and send money abroad. Instead of that we should send surplus food. In that way we would also be helping our economy. I welcome the opportunity of making those few observations. No words of mine would be adequate fully to do justice to the efforts that have been made by successive Irish Governments and people in ensuring that aid is sent to the Third World.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Protocol for the First Extension of the Food Aid Convention. We are a remarkable nation and have a remarkable capacity to survive. Not much more than 100 years ago we survived a most appalling famine. Having come through the recession of the thirties we emerged as a proud people. We were given courage by our leaders to face the poverty and deprivation of the period. When things were bad our leaders did not demoralise the nation. I regret to say that this is what the Government are now inclined to do. They are inclined to bring about national demoralisation, not recognising our history as a people of great courage who came through periods of famine and hardship. It is not more than 30 years ago when we went through times which were more difficult than those we have at present. Despite what the political leaders say about us the people will not be put down by the prophets of doom and gloom who suggest that our nation will go bankrupt. It is very difficult to bankrupt a nation, but one way it can be done is to talk the people into it. I come back to the motion——
The Chair was about to advise the Deputy that he was straying from the motion.
I was not straying from the motion. In all our years of difficulty and hardship missionaries, teachers and volunteers, at great cost to themselves and to the people, went to Third World countries to assist in any way they could. They continue with such work in Africa, Asia, the Philippines, Latin America and other parts of the developing world. We have not been found wanting in this regard. I am not being critical of the Minister of State but I am critical of an attitude that demoralises our people. I remind the House that the people will not tolerate this.
The Minister is to be congratulated on producing recently a good information film on Lesotho and our activities in that country. I hope he and the officials in his Department will continue with that work. Officials in that Department are among the finest people and I hope they will be allowed to continue producing such films in order to inform our people of what we are doing for the developing world and that despite our difficulties we will provide for people less well off than we are.
In 1979 great promises were made about the aid we would provide over a period of four years to the Third World but recent announcements indicate that the Cabinet have reneged on that promise. I regret very much that that promise is not likely to be met. I am not suggesting for a moment that the nation could afford to provide all the aid within four years. We did not suggest that: the Government made the suggestion and the House should be reminded that they have fallen down on that promise.
Deputy Keegan referred to the mountains of food in the European Communities and the sale of butter to the USSR. We must not forget that whatever difficulties there have been in the West with regard to development aid to the Third World and whatever difficulties may have existed in respect of the Munro Doctrine of the United States in Latin America, Russia is the least generous in its aid to Third World countries when one considers its gross national product. It supports some movements that seek to set up certain régimes and it is prepared to send arms and ammunition to propagate its creed. I agree with Deputy Keegan that we should ask the EEC to review the supply of butter and other commodities to the USSR and see if the mountains of food in European countries could be sent to the Third World where food is so badly needed.
One of the most important factors in the coming 50 years will be population growth and this was referred to by Deputy Lenihan. He had a long and distinguished career in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I have no doubt he will be back there shortly——
He is always welcome to a cup of tea.
He referred to difficulties with regard to population growth and the environment. At a recent meeting in Strasbourg under the auspices of the Council of Europe it was stated that if world population continues to grow at its present rate, by the year 2025 there will be a population of 12,000,000,000 people. If the population increase continues at that rate to 2050 we will not have enough food in the world to feed the population. As Deputy Lenihan mentioned, that will include us. Is Armageddon to come in 2050 or are we to bring about an increased awareness in the developed nations of their obligation to future generations? The present staggering growth in world population will continue for some considerable time and it will be one of the strongest forces shaping the future of our society. In the Brandt Report entitled "North-South: A Programme for Survival" it is indicated that more than 1 million people are added to the world population every five days and in the 1980s and 1990s it will increase to close on 2 billion, which is more than the total number of people in the world during the first decade of this century. That statistic speaks for itself. It shows the seriousness of this subject.
In the most difficult of circumstances the Minister has done a good job in his Department and I will not hesitate in praising the work he has done. He is totally committed to Third World development but he should ensure that his Cabinet colleagues give more support in this area. On page 106 of the Brandt Report there is the following comment:
Many countries have shown both that economic and social development itself helps to limit population growth and that public policies can contribute directly to the decline of birth rates. The countries where birth rates have recently most declined have usually been those which have managed to spread the benefits of development widely.
That extremely important statement should be noted specially by Members of this House, by the Minister and his officials.
Women play a key part in the whole question of conquering hunger. This should be recognised, and they should be helped and rewarded. They feed and care for the children who are the most vulnerable to ill health, a fact which programmes take into account only very little. Also, as stressed earlier, women play a major role as agricultural producers, often working with poor technology for no pay under bad working conditions. One of the most deplorable developments in the Third World is the campaign of the multinationals to send powdered milk and canned baby food to the Third World, to the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and so on, and thus the women in those countries are not encouraged to breast-feed their children. That is a retrograde step and a scandal of which this House and the Minister are aware. A basic principle of the Third World rights is that people should not be imposed upon by the multinationals who are selling by very strong sales methods items of food which are contrary to the traditions and unnecessary to development of the population there.
We have a tradition of service overseas and in the Third World in particular. Organisations like Trócaire and CONGOOD, the umbrella organisation, appear to be under-financed, particularly CONGOOD, in the administration of their offices. That is a pity. The Minister might have a look at that area to see if he can find sufficient funds to assist the people who are at their wits' end trying to bring about greater public awareness. I said earlier that the Minister had presented recently a very good film documentary which will be available on cassette to schools around the country. I hope many of the schools will avail of it, but I hope also that the Minister will not overlook the need of CONGOOD and other agencies who are short of administrative funds to an extent that they are practically barefoot, so to speak.
The gap between the North and South is becoming more and more pronounced. In these recessionary times political pressures are imposed to combat hunger, poverty and poor accommodation in our own country. We have the leadership to do that. Elected representatives and political leaders can provide for our own country by a strong approach to the increased production of food. Deputy Keegan referred to the fact that we have some of the best agricultural land in the world, much of it under-utilised, unfortunately much of it not being used. We have a great opportunity of increasing the production of food. As Deputy Keegan said, it is a shame that the EEC should suggest that we might have to put levies on increased food production. The Minister in his speech said that as soon as a favourable opinion has been delivered by the European Parliament, the Council regulation giving effect to this £26 million food aid action will be adopted. How long must we wait for the European Parliament to decide? This aid is needed urgently. Literally hundreds of people around the developing world are falling dead because this aid is being held up in the European Parliament. These bureaucratic delays should not be allowed.
A most serious aspect in Africa is the continued existence of the colonial, racist power in the state of South Africa and the difficulties in Namibia where the South Africans continue to draw on the wealth of that land——
The Deputy will appreciate that we are getting away from the Food Aid Convention and wheat agreement.
I appreciate that, but I thought that it might give us an opportunity to talk about the needs in other areas, and this is relatively only a small amount of food aid.
The Deputy will appreciate that we do not have the amount of time that we would like to have.
Are we limited in time?
I hope that we will have the motion for the establishment of a joint committee in this House immediately after the recess when we will have a great opportunity to expand in a much broader way than is possible under the Food Aid Convention.
I will be very brief. I will try to conclude. I must admit that I thought I had time——
There is no time limit on the Deputy provided that he confines himself to what is appropriate having regard to the extension of the Food Aid Convention.
I do not have to remind the House, but perhaps it is well that I should mention, that countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Latin-America are in enormous need. We in our way have provided a great deal of support through our missionaries, teachers, agriculturists and others who have gone to these countries. I pay tribute to them and to all the people who have gone on voluntary service overseas, nuns, priests and lay people. They have given us renewed confidence in ourselves. They have shown that, despite the fact that our history has been one of deprivation and relative poverty, we have the ability to overcome our own difficulties and go abroad to serve in the interests of other nations and peoples who are less well off than we are.
We have an extraordinary situation in Kampuchea where a great deal of aid is given. Mr. John O'Shea set up an organisation called GOAL, a remarkable organisation doing a remarkable job in ferrying food to the people of that tortured nation. We have so much to our credit that it is a tragedy that this Government continue to demoralise people by suggesting that we are on the precipice of doom. I do not believe that. Our people are strong enough to overcome any difficulty. Over the years, the Irish have proved their ability, their pride, their strength and courage. The Government side should stop making prognostications about the ultimate demise of our nation. We are not going to collapse. We will continue through the most difficult of difficult recessions. We will also continue to provide the necessary support for the Third World and help people to give that support by their expertise. The Minister must continue to put pressure on his colleagues in Government to provide for an increase, if not the .07 per cent of the gross national product in four years of government, as near as we can to that. That is what one would expect from the Minister.
Deputy Lenihan, when Minister for Foreign Affairs, was very much aware of the difficulties and problems in these areas and took a deep and abiding interest in them. I hope the Minister will be generous enough to acknowledge that when replying to this discussion. Deputy Lenihan rightly mentioned the book North-South: A Programme for Survival, probably one of the most important books ever written on the subject. It is the report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt. This is not a book to be read and absorbed immediately. It contains so much information that I ask the Minister to recommend it to the Department of Education as part of the curriculum in second level schools, for fourth, fifth and sixth year students. It is an extremely compassionate and understanding book. It has been said in this House that each nation depends on the other. We are interdependent on the Third World. Willy Brandt brings this out quite clearly in the book.
I thank the Chair for its patience in bearing with me. I found it very difficult to keep all the time to the subject of the motion and I appreciate very much the latitude given to me. I wish the Minister and his staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs well and assure him that the Fianna Fáil Party and I have an interest in this area. We will give the Government all possible encouragement in their endeavours to bring about an increase in support for Third World development. We have certain obligations to our own national morale and we should not forget our history.
I do not intend to speak at length on this motion. I welcome this, as other speakers have. Let it be noted that when a measure of this sort comes before the Dáil it should not be nodded through. Not very much Dáil time is given to speaking about the Third World, although every Member of this House feels very strongly about what is happening in that area. No matter how much we give, or how much we strain our resources, it can never be enough. It can never come near solving the problems of the hungry and malnutritioned in the Third World. We are all, irrespective of our party affiliations, very proud of the young volunteers who leave Ireland. These are people with proper idealism who give vent to their idealistic feelings in a very practical way by giving service to many of these countries overseas. These volunteers are more appreciated than they may be aware.
We must pay due regard to the report of the Brandt Commission. The conference which took place earlier this year in Mexico was of vital importance. One man whom I heard speak at a conference which I attended on this measure, for whom I learned to have a deep respect because of his tremendous commitment to the measures which are needed to get food to the Third World, is Mr. Edward Health, the British MP, former Prime Minister, who is also a member of a commission. He should be listened to by statesmen from all countries, because he has a lot to say. Many do not realise that our own survival depends on measures such as this.
If the world population grows at its present rate and the rich part of the world does not share with the poor part, people will pour over the borders of their countries seeking food. Famine will force people, as it did the Mongol hordes of old, to reach out and grab what food they can get, wherever they can. It could have a chain reaction, reaching right across Europe. We will not be excluded from such an invasion of people desperately seeking food. There is not enough food in the world to feed its growing population. By the year 2000, it has been clearly stated, that if we have not provided enough food to feed the Third World, a real problem will face the so-called "civilised world," the wealthy part. We must make a real commitment.
I would like to recall very briefly that one of the major rows which the Taoiseach had when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs was with the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Richie Ryan, over the amount of money which he was willing to make available for assistance to the Third World. The Taoiseach had certainly impressed a lot of people that he had a genuine commitment to the Third World. Here is another example of where he will have an opportunity — and many people will be watching him — to put his money where his mouth is and provide resources from the limited resources that are available. There is an urgency that we give to the maximum extent of our capability, and there will be no complaints from this side of the House about moneys allocated to the Third World for the alleviation of hunger and malnutrition wherever it exists.
I am very glad of the welcome that has been given by this House to the motion before us. In many ways I am glad that the discussion strayed far beyond the boundaries of the Food Aid Convention. I agree with the comment made by Deputy Andrews that it is a pity that there is not more of an opportunity to discuss the whole question of development co-operation in this House. I would hope and expect in the years ahead during the term of the present Government that there will be many more such opportunities. I am delighted to see the tone of the reaction of the Deputies and that they wish to discuss these issues on many more occasions.
Deputy Lenihan, as befits somebody who dealt with this area when he was in Foreign Affairs in the last Government, looked at it in a very broad fashion and rightly paid tribute to the work of the Brandt Commission. I will not fall out with him on the figures except to say that when I referred to the figure of 420 million people I referred to it as the figure which is generally thought to be reasonably accurate when one speaks of those people who do not have enough food each day as opposed to the people who are in a slightly broader category and considered to be destitute; it was in that context that the figure of 800 million arose. What is important is that we are talking about human beings, we are talking about hundreds of millions of people. I share the views expressed by Deputy Lenihan as to the duty and obligation on the developed world to try to ensure as best it can that every effort is made to relieve that appalling situation.
There was a fair amount of discussion during the debate about the CAP and the whole question of agricultural production within the Community. Is it not a very odd situation to have over 400 million people hungry in the world and people in Europe talking about the problems of disposing of surpluses? Deputy Keegan mentioned that the suggestion from some of our Community partners was that there be cutbacks in production. Anyone standing back and looking at the situation in human terms must find that type of approach utterly and totally ludicrous.
Deputy Lenihan referred to the wheat agreement. As he knows, the Community contributes from its budget to the operating expenses of the International Wheat Council. We do not make a separate contribution under the Wheat Trade Convention. Since the question was raised, there are negotiations for a new international grain agreement. These have been stalled for some years past. One of the suggestions in the negotiations was that there would be a stockpiling arrangement. However, the new United States administration is not very keen on what is called "the magic of the market place" and is reluctant to interfere in world markets. Unfortunately it does seem as if these discussions may not come to fruition in the near future.
In the course of the debate it was mentioned that investment was better than food relief. If we are talking about the whole question of development, of course I accept that development is essential. But I have to say that food aid is an integral and a central part of the development programme and this was recognised in the Brandt Report, which was accepted by the European Parliament in its comprehensive resolution of October 1980. It was also accepted at the Paris Conference on the least developed countries in September. I believe that for the foreseeable future while there are so many people actually hungry, many of them dying of hunger and malnutrition, food aid has to be an important part of the programme of development co-operation. I am glad of the support for the joint committee, the motion for which I hope to bring before this House very shortly. As Deputies know, it was debated in the other House last week.
Deputy Crowley referred to something that I would like to see highlighted more. That was the reference to joint towns, for example Bandon, where a local group involved themselves in a community effort to help a project in Uganda. He talked of the efforts of the local community. What is important in that context, and perhaps worth mentioning, is that there is a contact at the other end in Kampala, so that there is absolutely no wastage in the effort. Certainly in the context of the suggestion made by my constituency colleague I would very much like to see the community effort of the town of Bandon emulated by many more towns. There are a number of such efforts but we should have that extended throughout the country.
The question of development education arose. I am glad to see the expressions of support for the efforts in that area. I am totally convinced of the need for far more development education so that our people in this country will know the problems of the Third World and will appreciate what is being done, but, more important, will appreciate the need for a greater effort. In no way do I denigrate the work that has been done over the years, particularly the work of the missionaries who were the trailblazers in this area, the work of the voluntary organisations and, indeed, our own efforts which have grown over the past decade. At the same time we have to bear in mind that, despite the difficulties here, we are still the twenty-fourth richest country in the world and from that point of view there is an obligation on us at international level to improve our performance from the point of view of official development assistance.
Deputy Andrews said that this country was in difficulty but that we will survive. I want to absolutely reassure him on that. Under the leadership of the present Government we will certainly lead this country out of its present difficulties. But the real point is that despite the difficulties there has to be a concentration on the needs of the Third World. I would reject any suggestion that the new Government have in any way reneged on their commitment to the Third World. Consideration of the Estimates is nearly completed and I would hope and expect that everyone will shortly be able to appreciate the strength of the commitment of the new Government to the Third World.
We are running a bit late and there are many other matters to which I would like to refer, but, as I mentioned earlier, I hope we will have the opportunity to have a broader debate immediately after the recess on the motion to establish the joint committee.
I thank Members of the House for their contributions. I am glad the House has given the motion unanimous support.
Question put and agreed to.