asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of the cutbacks in aid since 1987; and the figures for the size of voluntary contribution through non-governmental organisations in the same period.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Official Development Assistance.
17.
The amounts provided in official development assistance for the years 1987 to date are as follows: 1987, £39.1 million; 1988, £32.8 million; and 1989, £33.7 million. The figure for 1988 is provisional and the 1989 figure is an estimate. The 1988 figure represented a reduction of £6.3 million on the 1987 figure. The 1989 estimate represents an increase of £900,000 on the 1988 figure.
The best estimate for voluntary contributions made through non-governmental organisations in 1987 was £16.25 million. Figures for 1988 and 1989 are not available yet. The Deputy will be aware that Government policy remains one of commitment to the maintenance and expansion of ODA as soon as budgetary circumstances permit.
I should like to thank the Minister for being here to answer this question because very often there is a problem getting information about development aid from a Minister of State who does not have direct Cabinet accountability for decisions. Will the Minister confirm that it is a fundamental plank of the Government's approach that the poor should be protected? With regard to decisions on social welfare, some minimal protection has been afforded to those who are on social welfare and there has been at least a guarantee that increases will remain in line with inflation. In that context, how can the Minister explain the decimation of our aid programme over and above the average level of cutback in any other Government Department in the past two years?
First, I want to point out that while there was a token sum of £1,000 in the Estimates this year and last year for disaster and famine tragedies, in fact £1 million was spent during the past 12 months under that heading out of lottery funds. As long as we can use lottery funds for that purpose I see no reason why we should not do so. Concern and GOAL, the main recipients of Government aid in this respect, have done excellent work in areas struck by disaster and famine. The are willing to take this money from lottery funds; they have no objection to this.
Undoubtedly there was a reduction last year in the Estimate and we have put the process into reverse this year to some extent. In our first budget on coming into office, as part of the general pruning exercise that has successfully taken place, we reduced the amount under the heading referred to by the Deputy.
With regard to the global figures given by the Minister, there has been a very radical cut of £26 million over those two years in the bilateral aid programme, aid directed to the very poorest of the poor. In that context how can the Minister with any credibility assert that his Government have any commitment at all to honouring our UN target? Can he offer any explanation other than, first, a lack of commitment on the part of the Government in general and, second, failure on his own part to put the case adequately? This programme, more than any other, has been cut and would the Minister give an indication of rapid rehabilitation in the coming years?
First, we are due some credit for so pruning the exercise that we did not have any significant reduction in the actual allocation of aid moneys. We had the cut in that budget, as I have said, but it was possible to meet all our commitments up to and including last year out of EC allocations. That was some achievement in view of the cuts made. We found that there was unnecessary expenditure here and there. This year we have an increased amount allocated to nearly £1 million. That is in the Estimate alone, apart from what we might give on an ad hoc basis towards disaster and famine relief. I hope that the improvement in the national economy will justify progressively increasing the allocation under this heading.
Would the Minister not agree that it would be altogether better, in view of the submissions made to his Department, that particularly the bilateral aid programme through the agencies involved and the commitments we have made, be given a planned approach, with a voted amount for Foreign Affairs discussed in the Dáil each year, rather than relying on lottery funds? Would he agree, for example, that our being forced to close our office in the Sudan was a very disappointing result of those cuts?
We have personnel in the Sudan working with non-governmental agencies which we have funded with substantial aid to meet disasters and famine.
But we need a permanent office.
That is where the trouble lies; that is where the wastages took place. To work in greater degree through non-governmental agencies with Irish personnel is better. This has been done very successfully.
It would be a fire brigade action.