I am not seeking to oppose the section but there is one point arising out of the Minister's reply on which I should like clarification. This relates to the question of function as defined by the Minister, and in this case we are talking about the Minister for Finance. In his reply the Minister of State said that questions relating to ODA and so on should be raised appropriately when the Estimate for Foreign Affairs is before the House, but this is part of the problem.
I appreciate that for technical reasons there is finance involved and that, consequently, the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Finance. That Minister has a function in this, but something that was agreed on all sides of the House was the question of the danger of funds being wasted because of bureacracy in these large international organisations. I pointed out that there is a growing need on the part of this country to monitor this problem and to be continually watchful and aware of the dangers involved. But who is to do this?
This brings me to the situation in which the apparent division of function as between the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area will ensure that what is everybody's business is really nobody's business. I believe this to be what is happening in many of the international organisations dealing with Third World problems. With due respect to the Department of Finance, that is not their business. In the Department of Foreign Affairs there is a development co-operation division who are dealing with multilateral agencies. That is their problem and they should be continuing to see what is happening on the international front in regard to international agencies. They should be continually expressing our view regarding cost effectiveness and so on and continually pressing for a solution to the various problems that arise. Unless we make it clear that that is their function, that that is what we expect them to do, it will not be done. If we have two different Departments each having a finger in the pie we can be assured that nothing will be done.
While I am not opposing the section nor am I proposing any amendment to it, I am making a point which must be made. As a member state we are to have a member, one governor on the governing council. Perhaps that will be the only tenuous contact we will have with this body apart from the provision of funds. We should make the most use of that contact and the person appointed—presumably a civil servant or a member of the diplomatic corps — should report regularly to the development co-operation division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Such reports together with reports from other international bodies would help to build up a picture of these multilateral agencies which are designed specifically for the purpose of providing help in one form or another for the developing countries. We must be clear how we are to deal with this matter in the future so that we will have the chance of having a more effective voice in these international fora. If we do not make clear decisions in this regard we will lose the chance of being instrumental in cutting down on the waste and on the bureaucracy and of ensuring that funds are used for the purposes for which they are voted.
