Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jan 1982

Vol. 332 No. 1

Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries: Motion

I move:

(1) That Dáil Éireann concurs with Seanad Éireann in its Resolution communicated to Dáil Éireann on 9th December, 1981, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee on both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries) be established consisting of 11 members of Dáil Éireann and 7 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) to examine:

such aspects of

(a) Ireland's relations with developing countries in the field of development co-operation, and

(b) the Government's Official Development Assistance programme,

as the Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(2) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings.

(3) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

(4) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(5) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall on adoption by the Joint Committee be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(6) That 5 members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least 1 shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

The motion before the House is the second stage in the procedure to establish a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas on Co-operation with Developing Countries. The first stage was completed last December when a similar motion of expediency was passed by the Seanad. The Committee is to consist of 18 members of the Oireachtas, 11 members of the Dáil and seven members of the Seanad.

This Government have a clear and unequivocal commitment to increasing Ireland's contribution to Developing Countries through Official Development Assistance (ODA). The 1981 ODA allocation represented 0.18 per cent of our GNP. The joint programme agreed between the two parties in the Government includes a specific commitment to increase Ireland's ODA by annual increments of at least 0.05 per cent of GNP so that the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP can be achieved by the end of the decade. Despite the enormous pressure on the public finances which we are experiencing at present, the Government are fulfilling this commitment. The total provision for ODA in 1982 is £26.335 million representing 0.23 per cent of GNP. This figure involves an increase of over 46 per cent over the 1981 allocation and the provision of this sum in 1982 ensures that the Government commitment is met in full. This is a substantial increase in real terms and will result in a significant expansion of our multi-lateral and bilateral assistance to developing countries.

This assistance is given partly because of obligations arising out of our membership of various international organisations but largely because of a conviction that we, who are relatively prosperous, have a moral responsibility to contribute our share to help those who are less well off than ourselves. We do not seek any return from this work for ourselves and yet the term `development co-operation' indicates that it is a two-way process. In return for our assistance to developing countries, we gain the friendship and respect of these peoples, a great deal of new experience and a degree of satisfaction at seeing the skills and expertise, which we have gained in the course of our own development, being used for the benefit of others.

There are, in addition, more tangible benefits in the form of contracts in developing countries financed by multilateral aid organisations and greater trading possibilities with these countries. We do not reject these spin-off benefits although they are certainly not the prime motivation of our development assistance efforts. Neither do we construct our aid programmes simply to attract these benefits. However, we recognise that development co-operation is not a one-way transfer of resources from Ireland to developing countries but a co-operative process in which both sides can benefit. For example, in 1981, semi-State bodies alone earned around £28 million from projects in developing countries which was far in excess of total ODA, both multilateral and bilateral, for that year. I hope that the joint committee will recognise and reaffirm the propriety and the importance of these benefits for this country.

In looking at our ODA the joint committee will no doubt wish to include our participation in the European Community's development assistance programmes. Our contribution to these programmes in now the single largest element of our Official Development Assistance. In 1981, the Community's total aid to developing countries amounted to more than £1 billion of which Ireland's contribution was approximately £6.4 million.

The second largest element in our ODA, and the one that receives perhaps the most attention, is our bilateral aid programme. This was established in 1974, arising out of a recognition by the Government of the moral responsibility I spoke of earlier, that despite the economic and social problems that existed in this country, Ireland was still one of the wealthiest nations in the world and as such had an obligation to make some contribution to those who were immeasurably poorer and less developed than ourselves.

Total expenditure on the Bilateral Aid Programme last year amounted to £5.12 million. A further £1.42 million was allocated to other areas of bilateral assistance including the Agency for Personal Service Overseas and Disaster Relief.

The Bilateral Aid Programme is concentrated on four `priority' countries in Africa—Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and Sudan—which between them receive more than 60 per cent of total expenditure. Concentrating our assistance in this way allows us to obtain the maximum effectiveness from our aid by building up coherent programmes with the full support and participation of the host countries. This policy also enables the public at home to see the results of our efforts and helps to secure the necessary public support and encouragement for the programme.

Since I became Minister of State I have had an opportunity to visit three of the four priority countries, Lesotho, Tanzania and Zambia. My most enduring memory of these visits is of the enormous disparity that exists between the living standards in these countries and in Ireland, despite the very real economic and social problems we have here in this country. It is difficult to describe adequately the terrible extent of poverty, disease and the lack of all sorts of services that we take for granted, such as education, health and social services. An indication of the huge gulf that exists between Ireland and these developing countries may be gained from looking at the figures for GNP per capita published by the World Bank. In 1979, GNP per head in Tanzania was US$260. In Ireland in the same year, the figure was US$4,210 — sixteen times greater.

Most of the projects in our priority countries are technical assistance ones, involving mainly the provision of specialist skills accompanied in some cases by small amounts of capital aid. This sort of assistance is particularly suitable for a small country such as Ireland which can never hope to be a major donor of capital aid. In the course of our own development, however, we have gained important skills and expertise which are directly relevant to developing countries, many of which are facing the sort of problems we faced in this country not so very long ago.

The Bilateral Aid Programme also includes a substantial degree of support for the activities of the voluntary organisations engaged in overseas development. Last year almost £½ million was allocated to the co-financing projects with these organisations and this year the provision will be more than doubled to £1 million. I am very conscious that these organisations are the very bedrock of our development co-operation efforts. Long before our official development assistance was instituted, Irish missionaries and lay volunteers were travelling to developing countries in their thousands. Whether their motives were developmental or pastoral, these people have had an enormous impact on the people they have assisted. They have provided leadership, education, training, support and, above all, motivation. How many villages in Africa, Asia and Latin America learned the rudiments of agriculture, health and education from an Irishman or woman. We owe a great debt of gratitude to these people for the inspiration they have given us and the example they have set us.

I believe very strongly that our official aid programmes must not in any way seek to supplant or replace the efforts of the voluntary organisations but on the contrary should try to complement and reinforce them. In addition to increasing the budget for co-financing projects with the voluntary organisations, I will be looking at other ways in which we can co-operate with them and I would hope that the joint committee would consider this question also.

Development co-operation is not just about programmes but about policies as well: policies that cover a wide range of areas which touch on virtually every aspect of life in this country, including food production, energy, commodities, trade, industrialisation, and finance. The European Community has repeatedly emphasised that co-operation between developed and developing countries and the intensification of international economic relations serve the interests of all countries. In an interdependent world, it is not simply a matter of increasing the flow of aid funds to developing countries; it is much more a question of integrating them as rapidly and as fully as possible into the global economic structure. Many of these issues have far-reaching implications for our own domestic, economic and social policies that must be faced up to. There are no easy solutions and, indeed, in some cases it is not entirely clear what the real problems are. If we have learned anything from the Brandt Report it is that the problems of developing countries are also our problems and if we are to look forward to a world of peace and prosperity for all countries and peoples, solutions to these problems must be found before it is too late.

We have had over seven years of almost continuous dialogue and negotiations between developed and developing countries and the solutions may seem as far away as ever. No one can deny that the results of the so-called North-South Dialogue have been meagre and disappointing for the most part. But this need not inhibit some optimism regarding the future. The search for a new method of approach in the dialogue will hopefully lead to a fresh beginning this year. Many Deputies will know that a proposal to start a round of global negotiations on international economic co-operation within the United Nations system was made two years ago. These would cover all of the major issues in the fields of food, commodities, trade, energy, industrialisation, and financial matters.

Ireland, along with the other members of the European Community, has been very active in the preparations for the global negotiations at the United Nations and we are hopeful that they will get under way this year. In the present world economic situation there can be no alternative to a process of negotiations dealing with the vast range of practical problems facing both developed and developing countries. Neither side can hope to solve these problems on its own; only the joint efforts of both sides can ensure steady progress in all areas covering issues which affect the future of all countries. The Brandt Report, in its endorsement of the proposal of global negotiations last year, noted that the basis for these negotiations was inter-dependence and mutuality of interests. North-South co-operation is not a one-way street. It vitally affects our future too, not perhaps in the same life or death way as for many countries in Asia and Africa, but in a longer-term perspective. That is why the global negotiations we seek must be designed to tackle both immediate problems and long-term structural changes, which can place the global economy on a safer and sounder basis. I do not have the time to look at each of the main areas which will be covered by the global negotiations — obviously trade and energy are of particular interest to us — but I would like to speak briefly of another vitally important area, especially for many developing countries.

Food will, I am sure, be a subject of very pressing interest to the joint committee. The Irish are now in general one of the best fed peoples on earth but it was not always so. Memories of the Great Famine are still very much alive in our folk memory. But even that tragedy, terrible as it was, pales in comparison with the poverty that exists in the developing regions of the world at the present time. It is estimated that 750 million people are living in absolute poverty and a further 420 million people do not have their basic minimum food requirement each day. The generous response of the public to voluntary bodies engaged in development activities is, I suspect, particularly remarkable in the case of those activities which attempt to alleviate hunger and to tackle its underlying causes. Given this feeling of solidarity with hungry peoples, it is entirely appropriate that our bilateral aid programme should give priority to food production projects and that foodrelated measures should account for a hefty share of the multilateral commitments which Ireland has undertaken. The scale and complexity of the problem of world hunger have elicited a whole range of responses and proposed responses. Despite the very different standpoints from which they approach the problem, the participants at the Cancun Summit managed to reach a greater measure of agreement on how to tackle this most critical problem than they did on other matters. It is my earnest hope that the measure of agreement reached at Cancun can be translated into prompt and effective international action against hunger.

The proposed terms of reference of the joint committee are set out in the motion before the House. They provide for consideration by the committee of all aspects of Ireland's relations with developing countries in the field of development co-operation, including the Government's official development assistance programme. I have deliberately made the terms of reference as wide as possible so as not to limit the committee's field of study. I did give consideration to making the terms of reference more specific but I felt that it would be wrong to constrain or delimit the committee's brief in any way. The field is a very broad one with many complex and interlinking elements and I believe it is necessary that the committee should be free to choose the area they wish to consider and the order in which to consider them.

I have also considered the possibility of enabling Members of either House, including Members of the European Parliament who are not also members of the committee, to take part in the proceedings. This point was raised during the debate on the Motion of Expediency in the Seanad. Deputies will be aware that Standing Orders provide for the attendance at meetings of joint committees by any visitor unless they are specifically excluded by the committee. These members would not have the right to vote but could contribute to discussions with the committee's agreement. Consequently, there is no necessity to make specific provision for this in the terms of reference of the committee. Given the pressure of work on Deputies and Senators, the number of members provided for in the terms of reference is, in my view, a realistic estimate of the number of members that will be able to contribute actively and regularly to the committee's work. However, I would hope that as the committee progress, more and more Members from both Houses will take part in its deliberations. If this happens, I will be happy to consider increasing the size of the committee at a later stage.

One of the areas in which I believe the committee will have an important contribution to make is development education. This is an area of great personal interest to me because I am convinced that it is only through increasing the level of awareness in Ireland of developing countries and the problems they face that the necessary support for and commitment to solving these problems will be generated. We must also consider the impact of developing countries' problems on Ireland. Many of these problems — for example, industrial re-structuring — have implications for the developed world which we in Ireland must face up to. We must recognise that in the long term it is as much in our interest to solve these problems as it is in the interest of developing countries. We must also recognise the vast and increasing degree of interdependence that exists between the developed and developing worlds. This need not be a source of fear or suspicion to us but rather a challenge to seek solutions to the problems of developing countries in a way that strengthens and reinforces our own prosperity.

The joint committee will have an important role to play in the development education process by focusing attention on these questions and giving a positive lead to public opinion. I believe that this lead will be followed and that the joint committee will have a positive and beneficial influence on the formation of public attitudes to developing countries. In this way the necessary support for Ireland's contribution to those countries will be increased.

This joint committee is somewhat different to others in that they are not being asked to study a specific area at a specific time. They are asked to study the entire field of Ireland's relations with developing countries in the field of development co-operation on a continuous basis and in this way to contribute to the formulation of Government policies in this area. Ireland already enjoys a high reputation with developing countries and the committee begin their work, therefore, at an auspicious time. It is my hope that the joint committee will help the Government to build on this foundation and, in co-operation with all the organisations in Ireland engaged in development, to fashion an even greater and more durable contribution by Ireland to developing countries for the benefit of all our peoples.

I welcome the setting up of the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries. The development co-operation budget is increasing in size and importance and it is necessary that there should be increased Dáil scrutiny of expenditure which is taking place in countries far removed from us. I believe it is in order for me to congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State for maintaining a substantial increase in the development co-operation budget. His predecessor as Minister, Deputy Lenihan, obtained an increase of 30 per cent and the Minister has now obtained an increase of 37 per cent at a time when inflation is running higher. I would not want the House or the country to be given a misleading impression that the budgetary commitment by Fianna Fáil to development co-operation was any less than this Government's.

Some dispute appears to have arisen as to whether the amount allocated is in line with the .05 per cent increase required to bring our aid, as pledged by the Government, to .7 per cent of GNP by the end of the decade. My preliminary calculations show that the increase in the international co-operation Vote — I appreciate that moneys also appeared under other headings — would provide an increase very much less than the .05 per cent of GNP. Therefore, I warmly welcome the intention of the Minister to give full details to the House of how those figures are calculated. It is important that he should give us not only the total break-down of our aid contribution under all headings but also the figures for GNP in 1981 and 1982 which underlie the Government's claim, bearing in mind that the increase in nominal GNP is likely to be over 20 per cent this year.

I believe it would be a mistake to create a false sense of euphoria or a feeling of virtuousness that would not be based on facts. The bilateral aid budget, in particular, will have to be increased substantially in 1981 and in 1982. The increase this year will be 55 per cent or 29 per cent in real terms against an increase in the 1981 outturn over 1980 of 47 per cent. The budget has thus grown in three years from £3½ million to nearly £8 million for which both Governments can truly share credit. As we are now talking about large sums of money being administered outside public view in distant countries it is very desirable that programmes would be subjected to full Dáil scrutiny. We have to remind ourselves that the purpose of development co-operation is not to salve the conscience of the rich but to assuage the basic needs of the poor. What counts, therefore, more than the absolute size of the money we devote to this purpose is the need to ensure that the money is making a real and worthwhile impact.

A better understanding is needed of the function of development co-operation that accords with our interests as well as our ideas. Bilateral aid makes use of Irish resources, both human and material. Most of the developing world is too poor to pay for our goods. If their standards of living could be raised, thus stimulating demand for manufactured goods, this would increase world trade, which would be of benefit to us as an exporting nation.

Since the Second World War there have been many ambitious development projects that have failed because they were ill-thought out and badly executed. There are others that have served only to enrich small and corrupt élites. These are the dangers which could face us with an expanding aid programme. This committee, which we welcome, will not be able to ignore the wider political aspects and implications of the aid programme although their main focus must be humanitarian. I would not wish to conclude this contribution without repeating a tribute that has been paid to the voluntary agencies many times in this House. I have no doubt that the representatives of these agencies will be of vital assistance to the deliberations of the committee in the months and years to come.

As Deputy Collins has just stated, this side of the House welcomes this motion because it will, I hope, lead to a situation of greater understanding on the part of all Deputies of the needs, requirements and aims of development co-operation. It is important that this particular matter, above all else, should be taken out of the arena of point scoring and that we should look on it as a matter to be approached in a long-term manner, fit in our targets with what has been agreed with regard to the percentage of the GNP within the global negotiations under United Nations auspices and decide, whatever Government are here, that we will try to achieve the targets we commit ourselves to internationally and that we go about it in an informed and responsible way and that Deputies on all sides of the House play their part in that.

It is important to emphasise one point which the Minister of State and Deputy Collins have emphasised, that development co-operation is co-operation between the giver and the recipient in the overall development of the donee country which benefits the donor country and also the world at large. This was the main thrust of the Brandt Report on North-South co-operation. This whole matter is of such great importance that it could not be isolated into simply a matter of one country giving money for aid to another. Unless the countries of the developed world contribute to a substantial extent in the building up of the developing world, the Third World as we call it, then the world as a whole will be faced with serious social economic and financial disturbances on a global basis. It is in the overall strategic interests of the world as a whole, particularly the developed part of the world, to ensure that there is a real transfer of resources to the less well-off countries of the world.

Development co-operation is a very relevant and meaningful phrase in the sense that the co-operation ensures that the development of the whole world is involved here and that giving aid in this manner, by direct grants or loans, multilaterally or bilaterally, has a very real purpose. There is one figure I would like to quote from the Minister's speech which bears out this point, that it is not just a one-way transfer but a two-way transfer of resources. The Minister of State said that in 1981 semi-State bodies alone in the country earned around £28 million from projects in developing countries which was far in excess of total ODA, both multilateral and bilateral, for that year. The actual State companies in material terms, by reason of their activities and initiatives for the benefit of developing countries, as well as bringing benefit to those countries, earned money in the region of £28 million, far in excess of the total ODA budget. I gave that figure to emphasise the point I wanted to make. We are talking here about interest under two headings — usual annual interest and interest in regard to the world at large, ensuring that we do not have the disparities in different parts of the globe which lead to revolutions and other social disorders.

There is general agreement in this House on a question raised recently by the President of the World Bank. It concerns some of the definitions in regard to the North and South of the globe, definitions in the Brandt Report and definitions of what is usually regarded as Third World and non-Third World, which may need to de redefined. The energy situation in recent years tilted the balance of energy power in some of the countries in what used to be regarded as the Third World. They are doing very well because they have the basic energy requirements, particularly oil. Other countries, particularly in the Far East, such as Singapore, have developed a standard of living which is beginning to run ahead of some countries in the developed world. This means there is almost a Fourth World situation. Within the Third World there is a subdivision of countries which are doing exceptionally well because of their expertise or energy resources while other countries, which do not have this expertise or energy resources, are being left further behind.

That is why I am glad to see that Ireland, in a limited way, has concentrated on four African countries — Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and Sudan — which are undoubtedly in this Fourth World category and need to be helped by our technical expertise. Rapidly developing countries in what used to be called the Third World, must play their part particularly in recycling oil revenues towards their less well-off neighbours, as well as asking the developing world to play its part. As I said, in this year — 1982 — there is a need for a redefinition of targets and approaches in this area.

I welcome the setting up of this joint committee to help four African countries — Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and Sudan. It might be said that these countries are lucky because there are projects under way which hopefully will not alone meet their immediate food requirements but will provide the necessary expertise to enable these people to look after themselves in the future.

In various countries numerous people are dying because the developed world has not helped them. It is vital that this joint committee provide a forum for an exchange of ideas to ensure that such areas are not overlooked. As I said, some areas are very lucky because they have been adopted either under a bilateral aid programme or by voluntary organisations and are being helped so that they can take care of themselves in years to come. We must continue to expand our interest in countries which because of their geographical position can suffer from a shortage of basic commodities such as water and which inevitably leads to drought and a great deal of human misery.

It is very hard to justify spending very large sums on nuclear weapons, space shuttles and so on when humans are dying for want of a little help. I know from experience what it is like for volunteers, missionary and lay, who offer their expertise in these developing countries. I lived among them for a couple of years and I cannot pay a sufficiently high tribute to them for the continuity of service they offer. The joint committee will have an opportunity to examine a project which would not be a once-off ad hoc project but which would have continuity and would not alone look after the immediate needs of the people but would also teach them the skills to look after themselves properly.

We must also look at the area of communication. I have seen the culture of a country being altered because a country with a great deal of wealth and expertise came to help them. It is not right that we should interfere with the cultural values of an area. This is a very sensitive subject. It is vital that we help the people so that, as soon as possible, they will be able to look after themselves; but we must leave them with their own sense of values. I know it does not happen intentionally, but it has happened that the culture of a country has been severely interfered with. I have seen projects undertaken in villages where a great deal of machinery was brought in with the resultant noise and clamour. One wonders what benefit this can be to the people concerned.

From discussions I have had with the Minister of State I am aware of his concern for extreme sensitivity in bringing to those people the expertise to enable them to help themselves. One might ask, for instance, whether it would be worthwhile to give a piece of machinery to a man who had as many as eight or nine dependants having regard to the cost of the energy that would be required to operate such machinery.

The establishment of co-operatives in many areas is a very good development. After a thorough investigation plants are established and local materials used, but I do not like the idea of materials or implements of development coming directly from donor countries. Instead every effort should be made to modify materials available locally and to improve skills in order to bring about greater efficiency. It is vital that we have a forum for discussion on various aspects of aid to the Third World. Regardless of what we may be doing in this area there is much more that could be done. The Minister tells us that it will be possible for the joint committee to focus attention on various questions of development aid and to offer a positive lead to public opinion. For many years Irish public opinion has been very much in advance of expenditure voted in this House.

There are many people who have witnessed the situation of peoples in those Third World countries and they would have a great deal of expertise to put before the committee.

I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Lenihan. I recall discussing with him his efforts to establish projects and to make further finance available for the Third World. We have gone some way towards meeting our target in that respect. I take this opportunity also of wishing Deputy Collins, who is our new spokesman in this area, every success in that role. I am confident that his zeal and commitment will make a significant contribution to ensuring the development of co-operation with the countries in question.

I thank Deputies for their support for this motion. Deputy Collins referred to the need for full Oireachtas scrutiny when substantial amounts of money are involved. It may not be highlighted sufficiently in my speech that the sums involved are substantial and in that light I agree that there must be Oireachtas scrutiny as to where the money is going and also in respect of any suggestions put forward as to how best the money should be spent. In this way we will be ensuring that our contribution is as effective as possible.

On the question of the figures, I do not consider it proper to engage in any hassle. One of the reasons for my wishing to see this committee established is my desire for all-party agreement on the need for development and co-operation and the need to expand our programme in line with the UN recommendations so that we may attain that target.

Deputy Collins referred to the increase of £18 million as representing 37 per cent. He is misinformed, because the increase is 46 per cent. However, I shall not blame the Deputy too much for this error because, when one has regard to the various rumours and newspaper reports of recent times, one might be forgiven for such a mistake. The increase is from £18 million to £26.335 million and that represents a 46 per cent increase. In 1980 the amount was £16.2 million or .18 of GNP. In 1981 the amount was £18 million which also was .18 of GNP and the 1982 figure of £26.335 million represents .23 of GNP. However, as Deputy Collins rightly pointed out, we cannot be sure what the GNP will be for 1982 but I can tell him that the figure arrived at is based on the best advice available to the Government.

Deputy Lenihan rightly highlighted the question of interdependence. It is important to stress that what we are giving is not simply a handout. Although the return to this country is not the motivation behind development co-operation there is a spin off from our activities in the development countries. It is proper that the public should be aware of this.

The reference to the President of the World Bank is interesting. This gentleman seems to be taking a different line from that taken by Mr. McNamara. I shall not pass any judgment in that respect now except to say that to some extent I am alarmed by some of the more recent indications emanating from the World Bank. There are countries that have improved considerably, and obviously a case could be made for not treating those countries in the same way as we would treat the least developed countries. But overall the position, particularly among the least-developed countries, has not improved. Indeed, it has deteriorated considerably. Many of them are in a critical situation. One of these is Tanzania, one of the countries I visited immediately after Christmas. I do not see, for example, that a decision to increase the rate of interest to developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, will help them with their foreign exchange problems. Perhaps it is outside the scope of this debate, but we will be watching with interest further developments in that area.

It touches on one of the benefits we will achieve from the establishment of the joint committee. We hope and expect that considerable interest will be taken in the multilateral area. It is very difficult for us, with such a small section of the Department, to keep pace with all the developments in the multilateral area. In view of our growing involvement in development co-operation, as far as possible we should keep an eye on what is happening. We contribute to very many of these international organisations.

As I would expect, Deputy Murphy indicated his deep and sincere commitment. This was to be expected from somebody who "did time" in the Third World. Anyone who has served there, or is aware of the problems of the developing countries, will push the cause of development co-operation in the years ahead. His point about the cultural values of these countries is well taken.

The other major point to which I should refer is his view that Irish public opinion on aid to the developing countries is probably ahead of the views of legislators. I am convinced of this. Many people have relations or friends who served in the Third World either as missionaries or as lay volunteers and therefore they are concerned about development co-operation. This is confirmed by a survey made available to me by the advisory council which indicated that there is an enormous fund of goodwill amongst the Irish people for development co-operation and for increasing the aid we provide through official sources to the developing countries.

In my speech I mentioned persons who could attend at meetings of the joint committee who would not have the right to vote but could contribute to discussions with the agreement of the committee. I understand that, technically speaking, it is not correct to say they can contribute to discussions with the committee's agreement, and that technically the proper way to express it is that they will have a right to be heard with the committee's agreement. For the record I should like to correct that. I thank the House for their support for this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

A message will be sent to the Seanad accordingly.

Top
Share