Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Nov 1990

Vol. 402 No. 7

International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. A. Reynolds)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution of £12,740,000 by the Irish Government to the Ninth Replenishment of the Resources of the International Development Association.

The International Development Association, or IDA, an affiliate organisation of the World Bank, came into being in September 1960. Both organisations have a common objective — to support the economic development of the developing countries by lending funds, providing advice and serving as a catalyst to stimulate investment by others. The World Bank raises most of its funds by borrowing on the world's capital markets and onlends these funds at more or less commercial rates to a wide range of developing countries. IDA, on the other hand, is funded by regular replenishments, or grant contributions, from its richer member countries and by repayments of past IDA credits. It can, therefore, provide highly concessionary assistance to the very poorest of the developing countries which cannot afford to borrow from the World Bank. Loans are interest free and are given for periods of 35-40 years, with a grace period of ten years. IDA remain the largest multilateral source of concessional funding to these countries, accounting for about 50 per cent of the total.

IDA lend almost exclusively to the very poorest countries — those with a per capita GNP below $700. It is active in all regions, but especially in sub-Saharan Africa and the low income countries of Asia. It finances projects in many sectors, with agriculture, rural development, transport and telecommunications taking the lion's share of the resources of the last replenishment — IDA 8. While financing specific investment projects has traditionally been and continues to be the mainstay of its operations, IDA, like the World Bank, has in recent years become increasingly concerned with lending in support of policy reform and economic adjustment. In IDA 8, the share of quick-disbursing adjustment lending was around 25 per cent of total IDA lending and it is proposed that this level be maintained during IDA 9.

The negotiations to replenish IDA resources, which are generally held every three years, have become increasingly difficult over the years. Since the amounts involved are large, care must be taken to ensure that contributions, while voluntary, are shared between donors on an equitable basis. Donors also have diverse objectives, which must be reconciled, and the end result must be consistent with the developmental mandate of IDA. The negotiations on the ninth replenishment of IDA, which is the subject of the Bill before the House today, took place in 1989 and were conducted by officials representing each of the donor countries, including Ireland. The discussions started with a review of IDA's programmes and there was broad support for the way IDA's role has evolved in recent years. It was agreed that, in the coming years, IDA should increase its anti-poverty initiatives, strengthen its assistance to countries pursuing economic policy reforms and place more emphasis on critical environmental issues.

Poverty reduction has been central to IDA's mandate and donors have encouraged an even stronger emphasis on poverty reduction in IDA's future programmes. To underline their concern, they urged that, in allocating resources between countries, greater weight be given to the performance of the authorities concerned in alleviating poverty. This is an aspect of the evolution of IDA policy in recent years that Ireland has strongly supported. In seeking to secure long term growth, through adjustment, in the low income countries, we cannot ignore the needs of those suffering in conditions of acute poverty. Many countries have courageously undertaken reform programmes which involve very difficult choices and they need our support to carry them out. The effects on the poor must be given priority attention.

Of great importance, too, is the need to ensure the maximum involvement by governments themselves in the preparation of reform programmes and their unswerving commitment to their implementation. These programmes cannot be imposed on a country by outside agencies if they are to have any hope of success. I welcome, therefore, the increasing stress being placed by IDA on the need for governments to "own" their adjustment programmes. The development of strong working partnerships between governments and voluntary agencies, both domestic and foreign, is also vital. These organisations, with their practical insight into the development process and their close ties with local communties have a very important role to play and I am glad to see that IDA has, in recent years, put considerable effort into strengthening its relationships with the non-governmental organisations.

Environmental degradation wrought by economic progress is now recognised as one of the most serious problems facing mankind. We have finally realised that care for the environment is important, both for its own sake and because it is vital to sustainable economic progress. IDA has made great strides in recent years in building an environmental consciousness into all its activities. New environmental assessment procedures, now in place for IDA projects, ensure a rigorous technical review at an early stage — before decisions are taken on site selection or project design. IDA intends to complete environmental action plans for all its borrowers during the IDA 9 period, giving priority to those countries where major problems have been identified. It is also attempting to promote a constructive dialogue with concerned public groups and has promised to involve them at all stages of the environmental assessment process.

The size of the ninth replenishment was discussed extensively during the negotiations. There was general agreement on the need for a substantial expansion of its resources if IDA was to support accelerated growth and adjustment in its member countries. Consideration had to be given to the possibility of additional demands on IDA by potential new members like Angola, or from the resumption of lending to countries like Afghanistan and Vietnam who have borrowed little or not at all from IDA in recent years. The negotiators were, therefore, faced with the task of reconciling the needs of IDA's borrowers with the budgetary realities of their own Governments. It became clear that, at any realistic replenishment size, important unmet demands would remain. After prolonged discussions, the donors agreed to recommend a replenishment of 11.68 billion SDRs, which would maintain, in real terms, the value of IDA 8.

With the decision on the overall size of the replenishment, the donors set about determining the relative contributions of the different countries. The system of burden sharing eventually agreed took members' percentage share in the eighth replenishment as the starting position and adjusted those shares to take account of inflation and exchange rate changes in member countries in the interim. Because of variations in the inflation and exchange rates of the different countries, this led to significant changes in the relative contributions of some donors vis-à-vis their IDA 8 shares. The shares of Belgium, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the US declined while those of Austria, Finland and Spain increased. Ireland's percentage share went down marginally from 0.11 per cent to 0.10 per cent. However, the sum of these potential contributions did not reach the 11.68 billion SDRs required to maintain the real value of IDA 8. In order to fill the remaining gap a number of countries, including Ireland, pledged supplementary contributions, over and above their agreed share. Switzerland, which was not at the time a member of IDA but has since applied to join, agreed to make available a grant of 184 million SDRs. Repayments of 1.58 billion SDRs due from earlier IDA loans, will futher swell the resources available for commitment by IDA over the three year period covered by IDA 9, bringing the total to 13.26 billion SDRs equivalent to some IR£12 billion.

Ireland has always been a strong supporter of IDA whose concern with the needs of the poorest developing countries closely reflects the priorities of our own IDA programme. We have been regular contributors to the replenishments and participated in two special facilities which were needed to top up IDA's resources in 1984 and 1985. For IDA 8, we provided an extra contribution of IR£260,000 over our basic share of IR£9.4 million. Though small, this voluntary addition was evidence of our firm commitment to IDA, at a time of serious budgetary constraints on the domestic front. This commitment was more forcefully demonstrated when, in the recent efforts to reach a replenishment level of 11.68 billion SDRs for IDA 9, we agreed — subject to legislative approval — to provide a supplementary contribution of 2 million SDRs, on top of our basic share of 12 million SDRs. As a percentage of our basic contribution, this voluntary payment is among the highest of all donors.

The resources pledged for IDA 9 will be available to IDA for commitment during the three-year period of the replenishment. However, disbursement of the cash will take place only as the projects financed by those loans are implemented. Donors, therefore, have the option of initially depositing demand notes with the IDA for the amount of their contributions. Calls on these notes are expected to be phased over a ten-year period beginning in 1991.

Ireland's membership of IDA was authorised by the International Development Association Act, 1960. Our contributions to the various replenishments have each been authorised by amendments to that Act. This Bill amends the International Development Association Act, 1960, by including the payments in respect of the Ninth Replenishment in the schedule of payments which may be made to IDA. When enacted, it will affirm our continued commitment to the objectives of IDA. Ireland's contributions to IDA are part of our official development assistance programme.

The successful conclusion of the IDA 9 negotiations has reaffirmed the strong donor support for IDA and the role it is expected to play in the next three years in providing concessional development financing to the poorest countries. The resources provided in the Ninth Replenishment will enable IDA to continue to be an effective partner in the efforts of its members to reduce poverty and achieve a higher rate of sustainable growth. While we would have supported a somewhat larger replenishment, we are satisfied that the level agreed was the highest on which consensus could be reached given the budgetary constraints being faced by donors. We are particularly pleased to have played a role — through our supplementary contribution — in achieving a figure that will allow for the continuation of the present level of activity.

I, therefore, recommend this Bill for the approval of the House.

Mrs. Owen

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. We will support it. However, the amount is disappointing but not so much from Ireland's point of view. Our commitment has increased from the last replenishment in March 1986 of £9.6 million to £12.74 million. The overall figure of US$11.68 billion is down from the US$12.4 billion replenishment in 1988. This is extremely worrying and it is disastrous at a time when the least developed countries are getting poorer and more countries are joining the ranks of the least developed countries. It probably is a measure of the concern of always attracts so little support with few few people willing or wanting to conpeople willing or wanting to contribute to the debate.

Hospitals' Sweepstakes allocation of money and many Deputies came in to contribute. If I was very cynical I would say it is because their constituents are around the House and are listening to what they have to say. Unfortunately, the people who will or will not gain from what we are doing here today, live many thousands of miles away and certainly do not have the benefit of radio, television and newspapers to know what is being said here or in other countries.

I welcome the fact that IDA are continuing their poverty orientated policy. This became clear in the last replenishment in the IDA Bill before this House in 1987-88. That is to be welcomed. When Ireland became associated with IDA the thrust of development was on big infrastructural projects, such as roads, rails, airports and so on. I welcomed the shift in emphasis towards the more primary type development projects in education, health, agriculture products, village water systems, and so on.

I have had the opportunity to visit a number of African countries and the Philippines and it is very easy to become depressed and pessimistic about the future of some of those countries. Conditions are deteriorating despite pouring millions of dollars, pounds, kroners and other curencies into these countries. The lot of the poorest people seems to be getting worse.

I am disappointed that in his speech the Minister for Finance did not talk about the responsibility of the European Banks and the European Community to look at debt reduction. I realise the Minister did not want to get into a wider area in relation to our commitments to overseas development, but the Government's record in the amount of money that has been axed from our ODA programme is so abysmal that I am not surprised the Minister did not even go as far as his predecessor, ex-Deputy MacSharry, did in the 1988 Bill, in that speech, at least the then Deputy MacSharry made a vague reference to our bilateral aid programme. Even that reference is not in this Minister's speech. I suspect that might be because there is a great deal of embarrassment in the Department at the savage reductions in our ODA progamme.

The introduction of this Bill, although not directly related to our national programme, gives me and other Deputies an opportunity to highlight and to express our shame at what has happened to our ODA programme. Last November when the 1989 Book of Estimates was published, quite a fuss was made that our ODA programme was being increased by £.5 million. I had a series of questions down and each time I was told that despite the financial constraints, there had been an increase, but lo and behold, when the budget was introduced in January £1 million had disappeared. I will remind the House of the cynicism with which that £1 million disappeared, and how it was described to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in reply to a question on 7 February 1990, at column 1039 of the Official Report:

The £1 million not required for the European Development Fund has not been spent by my Department. The allocation for this has been reduced by £1 million which has been taken into account as a reduction in the 1990 budget arithmetic.

The Vote for International Co-operation in the post-budget revised Estimates Volume will show a reduction of £1 million in the relevant subhead and in the Vote as a whole.

The Book of Estimates published in November 1989 showed a will-o'-the-wisp potential increase in our mandatory payment which quickly disappeared. Instead of responsible action being taken by the Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs and the Junior Minister for Overseas Development, what happened? It became part of the budgetary arithmetic. Would the Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs go to one of the Third World countries and talk to one of those children with the swollen bellies, poor clothing, running eyes and no food and tell them they are part of the budgetary arithmetic in Ireland? Can one imagine the shame of saying to a mother nursing a dying child "I am sorry this £1 million we had allocated for ODA, irrespective of whether it was mandatory or bilateral, is needed for something else?" At the time I commented that we had managed to find in our Budget £3 million for horses and dogs, but the Government did not even have the generosity to leave that £1 million which was not needed, as a mandatory payment with our bilateral aid programme. Hence we see savage things happening in our bilateral aid programme.

I hope the Minister, who at this time is putting the finishing touches to the Book of Estimates, will not add to our disgraceful record in relation to overseas development aid. I should remind the House, in the context of this Bill, that our percentage share to the International Development Association has been reduced from 0.11 per cent, the level it was at in 1988, to 0.10 per cent. Furthermore, since 1986 our overseas development aid budget has been reduced from 0.256 per cent of GNP to 0.158 per cent. The figure is often given as 0.16 per cent as it sounds just a little better but whatever way we read the figure there has been a reduction with the result that shame continues to be brought to this country. The Minister for Finance and the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development aid must find it very embarrassing to sit with their European colleagues given that our contribution is the lowest of the OECD countries as a percentage of GNP. I hope the Minister will see to it that the budget is increased this year.

Ministers stand up in this House, or outside when they consider it appropriate, to make major speeches, which will receive plenty of publicity, in which they will talk about the country's improved economic circumstances. I acknowledge that there are some indications that circumstances have improved in some areas of the economy but the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues should put their money where their mouth is. Year after year the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats before they entered Government stated that our contribution should reach 0.7 per cent of GNP, yet we have seen no moves to attain such a target. The Minister now has an opportunity to take some steps to increase the budget. I have been getting hints from non-governmental organisations that they fear this will not happen but I hope their fears are not justified. I wish to take this opportunity to say to the Minister, woe betide the Government if they do not increase their overseas development aid budget.

As I said at the outset, the difficulties facing many developing countries who benefit from the International Development Association fund are increasing. During the summer I received as did, I am sure, many of my colleagues, a letter asking me to sign a petition calling on European banks and governments to take initiatives to reduce the debt burden. According to the World Bank there are 69 countries who find themselves in deep trouble because of the debt burden. It is important to consider what this means. Between 1982 and 1988 the net transfer of resources from debt burdened countries to banks outside those countries totalled US $144 billion. On reading those figures I was reminded of the old song, "There is a hole in the bucket"— as water was being poured in it was pouring out at the other end, so it is with the money being poured in by Ireland, the European Community and all other donor countries, it is pouring out at an even quicker rate at the other side. The effect of this on the countries concerned has to be seen to be believed. It is very easy for a Minister for Finance to sit in a plush office in Brussels or wherever to discuss figures, statistics and percentages but has he ever wondered what these figures and percentages mean for these countries? The other day at a local hotel I watched a video film on Sudan. I saw hungry children with sore infested mouths and eyes, wearing raggy bits of shirts and in shelters which were no better than animal shelters. Indeed most animal houses in this country are of a far higher quality than the ones shown on that video. Each day over 40,000 children die and it was estimated in a United Nations report in 1988 that children are bearing the heaviest burden. It stated that "it can be estimated that 500,000 young children have died in the last 12 months as a result of the slowing down or the reversal of progress in the developing world".

We just cannot talk about figures and statistics, we have to recognise that people are dying. Indeed, since the Minister and I stood up to make our contributions many children have died of hunger because the international world have reneged on their responsibilities to them. Until such time as we increase our budget we cannot hope to sit with dignity at the tables and fora in Europe and the United Nations. It is interesting to note that in September the Taoiseach attended the European Summit on children, signed the Book of Intent and promised that we would ratify the United Nations convention on children. In signing that book even the Taoiseach must have felt great embarrassment given that we had made no allocation to the United Nations world food programme in 1987 or 1988; yet, we saw him being photographed and getting the publicity leaders of countries receive on such occasions. He must have felt his words turn to clay in his mouth.

I ask the Minister to tell us that this Bill has not been forced upon him and that he means what he says, that along with the World Bank and the United Nations we want to see an improvement in the quality of life and the lot of people in the least developed countries. It is not enough to just say this, he has to put his money where his mouth is.

In conclusion I say to the Minister that we have to recognise that the excellent non-governmental organisations in this country, in Europe and throughout the world, cannot solve the problems of under-development in the Third World; only governments and large institutions can tackle the major underlying problem involved. The non-governmental organisations in this country have increasingly found in recent years that they are carrying out projects in Third World countries that the Governments of those countries should be looking after but because too much emphasis is placed on the need to produce cash crops, export crops, to pay back the debts owed to the developed and richer world, they cannot meet the very basic needs of their communities. Therefore these non-governmental organisations have to do work which they hoped they would never have to do. These organisations will never be able to solve the underlying problems of these countries. I ask the Minister for Finance, who has a significant role to play, to try to get that point across at EC level. The non-governmental organisations play a very important role but it is not the top role in these countries.

I welcome the announcement, for which the Minister will take credit perhaps, that, in a haphazard way, we have agreed to give an extra 2 million SDRs on top of our share of 12 million SDRs. I will never look a gift horse in the mouth but it seems from the tone of the Minister's speech that the Part 1 countries were reluctant to tackle the issue of under-development in a proper way, that with great reluctance, then, supposedly maintained the value of IDA 9 at the IDA 8 level. I do not believe that was the case. We should be looking for more than the equivalent value. We should be looking for an increase at a time when more and more people are dying from underdevelopment and starvation. I hope the Minister will see from the debate this morning that he should not allow the Department of Foreign Affairs to continue to look to our own national ODA budget as a piggy-bank for the Department of Foreign Affairs in a general way or for any other Department of State. It should have status and priority in its own right and I hope in a short time to bring proposals to this Chamber that would ensure that no Minister can touch the budget of whatever Government until we have reached the stage of contributing at the rate of 0.7 per cent of GNP.

I hope the Progressive Democrat section of the Government will take more interest in what is happening in the Department of Foreign Affairs and in the development area than their spokesperson took on 3 March 1988 when this Bill was introduced. The then spokesperson, former Deputy McDowell, had three and a half lines to contribute to this debate. I will remind the House of what he said on that occasion and I hope that things have improved in that party since. He said — column 1610 of the Official Report:

The Progressive Democrats support the Bill and I have nothing further, relevant or irrelevant, to add to that.

I am sorry that none of their members is present but I hope they will play a significant role in this area. They issued a document a few weeks ago commiting themselves to an improvement in the ODA budget. I hope that is a real commitment and a little more than the three and a half lines used in the introduction of this Bill in 1988.

Proinsias De Rossa

The first point that needs to be made in relation to Ireland's ODA, apart from the deplorable fact that it has been cut over the past two or three years, is that we are takers and not givers. This country receives far more from Third World countries in payment for services provided, consultancies and so on, than we give by way of official aid.

Ireland trades on its history as a post-colonial country when it addresses the Third World and, in the European Community, Ireland leads the peripheral areas in our insistence on the obligation of the rich to help the poor to help ourselves. In both respects large doses of hypocrisy are evident.

Ireland's history puts us in a better position than almost any other European state to understand the political, social and economic needs of countries which are still dominated by colonial and neo-colonial interests. Ireland benefits more than most EC states from transfers of European Community funds, RDF funds, CAP funds, ESF funds etc, which are provided to reduce the difference between the Community's rich heartlands and the less developed periphery. When it comes to the question of the sincerity of what they say about playing an effective role in dealing with global problems, the leaders of recent Irish Governments have succeeded only in proving that they are indulging in so much guff. Irish Overseas Development Aid has, in the past few years, been sacrificed on the altar of fiscal rectitude.

The United Nations' target for aid from the developed to the underdeveloped or Third World is 0.7 per cent of gross national product. By any standards it is a modest target but no Irish Government has done better than come close to half of that figure. Since 1987 the level of official Government aid to the Third World has fallen year after year. It is now lower in real terms than it has ever been, although the Taoiseach and his Ministers persist in telling the Irish people that the economy is in better shape than it has ever been.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Taoiseach's reply to a question from me on 14 June 1990, as reported at column 2499 of the Official Report, in which he said:

I know the Deputy is aware that Ireland's contribution to the Third World is not confined to our financial contribution under the Overseas Development Aid programme; we make enormous contributions in other ways at a personal level.

In other words, the Government are hiding behind the very real generosity of the ordinary man and woman of this country who refuse to let people die when they are made aware of natural and manmade disasters.

One example makes the point with brutal clarity. While Ireland received an 80 per cent increase in its allocation from the European Community by way of Structural Funds, the Government at the end of the eighties were cutting their bilateral aid to Sudan by exactly the same percentage. The very politicians who had talked about playing an enlightened role in world affairs — particularly in relation to the Third World — cut their miserly assistance to the poorest of the poor by 80 per cent. As Mr. Colm Roddy, the administrator of Campaign-Aid put it recently in The Irish Times of 26 June 1990:

We are seen far and wide to insist on the principle of rich helping the poor where Europe is concerned while jettisoning it in our relations with poorer countries.

Irish Overseas Development Aid has been cut in each year since 1986. We give the equivalent of only 2.5p per person daily in official aid. A recent survey shows that of the 18 wealthiest member states of the OECD, Ireland comes bottom of the league in terms of its contribution to Overseas Development Aid. Ireland gives a lower proportion of ODA than even Mrs. Thatcher's Britain whose philosophy is that each individual is responsible for their own plight and if they were only enterprising enough they would not be hungry or thirsty or dying of disease.

Given our own history, we should understand better than most the appalling impact of famine, yet our Government are turning their back on the hunger and suffering of the Third World. This is not in any way to belittle the efforts of voluntary organisations or the thousands of Irish volunteers — teachers, nurses, doctors, scientists, agricultural instructors, engineers, priests and nuns — who devote their talents and energy to helping the people of the developing world, nor is it in any way to deny the generosity of the Irish people. Very often, it is the poorest among us who respond so generously to appeals on behalf of those who have fallen victim to natural or man-made disasters.

The fact is, however, that the work of the volunteers is belittled and the generosity of the Irish people is done a bitter injustice by a Government who refuses in the meanest and most short-sighted way to back up the work of non-Governmental and voluntary organisations.

The Government now have an opportunity in the Estimates which are due to undo some of the damage that has been done by their mean and niggardly attitude to ODA. A substantial increase is required in ODA. The very minimum that should be done is to restore it to the 1986 level which is being requested by the Campaign-Aid organisation. A timetable should be set to bring it up to the United Nations' figure of 0.7 per cent of GNP which was set in 1970 — 20 years ago. The target should be reached within five years.

I would argue also that the commitment to bringing our ODA up to the UN target should be in some way enshrined in legislation so that Governments can be prevented from back-tracking on it by a simple stroke of the pen behind closed doors. There is also a need to reinstate the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-operation which played an important role in maintaining both the interests of the Oireachtas and the interests of the public in the whole question of the Third World and developing countries. There are wider political and economic questions regarding development and development aid.

The north-south division of the world's wealth, which makes the north, with some exceptions, rich and the south, with some exceptions, poor is not an accident. The world's resources are not all, or even substantially, in the territories of the rich. The raw materials which ensured that the developed countries could and did develop their industries came in great part from countries that remained underdeveloped or undeveloped. This element of colonialism is understood by almost everyone in the two hemispheres, north and south, but it is in the north that most can be done to drive the lesson home.

What might be less clearly understood is that even where there is a reduced degree of dependence on the resources of the Third World — because of technology, for example — the relationship continues through financial and political links, almost always manifest in debt and in the popping up of corrupt local or regional regimes. These corrupt powers frequently borrow not for the benefit of their populations but to suppress them or threaten their equally poor neighbours. If the international banking system occasionally shudder at the thought of unpaid debts which have to be written off the arms industry is usually the ultimate beneficiary and not the subsistence farmers of Africa or South America.

There are several different ways in which aid can be given to the Third World. In the short term, for instance, it can be provided by giving relief in the event of disaster, which is done by this country on a regular basis because of the generosity of the Irish people. However, in the long term the structural changes required can only be achieved by governments in the developed countries deciding as a matter of policy to live up to their obligations, obligations imposed on them not only by the benefits they have enjoyed from the exploitation of the poor but obligations imposed on them because of the need to pre-empt the cataclysm which may well overwhelm them if they do nothing to change their approach.

I want to refer to Lomé IV. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has tabled a motion seeking to ratify Lomé IV. When I asked the Taoiseach on the Order of Business when it was proposed to have a debate on that Convention I was told it would be a matter for the Whips. There are two points which need to be made initially in this regard. First, it would be deplorable if this Convention which has taken a considerable time to emerge was ratified here without a debate. Very serious questions arise in relation to the Convention. I know that there are a vast range of non-governmental organisations both in the developed world, the European Community and the APC countries who are dissatisfied with the direction of Lomé IV and who are conscious that despite three previous agreements, Lomé IV has not, in effect, led to development in the APC countries. They believe that the current agreement, which is due to be ratified, will not lead to development either. Indeed, the remark has been made that the letter is still there but the spirit has gone.

It is important that this House is given an opportunity to discuss specifically what is in that agreement. There is still time to put pressure on European Governments, and indeed the European Community, to make some concessions on the fundamental issues which arise in that agreement. In addition to continuing the focus on agricultural development there is a major need to link this to industrial expansion. This would allow developing countries to move to value-added processing of their raw materials and allow them to break out of the strait-jacket of primary commodity production.

Some of the areas which need to be addressed are agreement on a strategy towards global stimulation of growth and demand, stabilisation of exchange rates, increasing use of non-currency agreements and active encourgagement of the south-south trade, that is, preferential trade between the less developed countries. There is an example of such trade in the preferential trade area operated by a number of countries in Southern and Eastern Asia. The overall objective towards which all inputs should be directed is to facilitate a higher level of self-sufficiency and economic self-determination for less developed countries, which are at present extremely vulnerable to price fluctuations on international commodity and currency markets. These moves should be combinded with an extension of development grants instead of loans. The cancellation, or at least a radical rescheduling, of many or all loans to APC countries is also required. While cash arrangements or transfers in the order of a minimum of $20 billion by the year 2000, as mentioned in recent negotiations, cannot of themselves stimulate the desired development of less developed countries they are, however, an essential component in any overall package.

There is another sacred cow which must be challenged in this whole area of development, development assistance and aid, that is, the insistence by the group of ten industrialised nations that the private sector is the only potential engine for Third World development. They cite the experience of newly industrialised countries such as South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines as examples to be followed by other countries seeking to develop their economies. However, the actual situation in these countries has been characterised by a strong interventionist policy on the part of the State, controls on hard currency and industrial credit, and selective incentives and support funding targeted at the most productive sectors of the economy. In addition, we should not forget that these countries have had draconian forms of government with wealth and power concentrated in an oligarchy while the great majority of the population live under conditions of dire exploitation.

This last point brings me to a necessary emphasis on our overall approach to development — the protection of human, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. Aid projects should be linked to observance by the host country of the United Nations Covenants on these areas. This, in turn, requires a strengthening of the institutions of the United Nations, in particular, those involved with advancing economic, social and cultural rights such as the ILO, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, FAO and the UNDP.

It is important that we bear in mind the points I have made when discussing the question of development aid and the Third World. It is not simply a matter of charity or of being kind to people who are less well off than ourselves. In a very real sense it is a question of survival, the survival of the countries which are already developed, and of applying a sense of humanity to the rest of the world and acknowledging that in many respects our prosperity depends on the development of these countries. Indeed, our current level of prosperity — many would argue about how unequally that prosperity is shared — depends to a very large degree on the fact that the people of the Third World are exploited unmercifully. It is in that light that the Government, and the House, have a responsibility to ensure in the first place that the quantity of aid is at least brought up to the level indicated by the United Nations 20 years ago and that the quality of our aid and of the policies and politics we apply internationally, within the European Community and elsewhere, is taken into account.

Mr. Taylor

I want to make a few brief comments on the Bill and to say that the Labour Party will, of course, support this measure. I should like to be associated with the general comments made by Deputies Owen and De Rossa on the level of contributions both by this country and by other countries which are perhaps much better geared to providing a higher percentage of their GNP than we in Ireland are. We are a small country with our own difficulties. Nonetheless we could do somewhat better in the area of Third World aid. It is a great pity that we do not have a forum in which to discuss these matters on a more regular basis. The opportunity arises for the most part when Bills such as these are brought before the House. One can only hark back to the constant calls by the Labour Party spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, for a Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, calls with which many Deputies agree. These matters could then be examined a more regular basis and new developments or tragedies could be examined without having to wait for Bills to come into the House at intervals of two, three or more years.

During the debate in 1988 my colleague, Deputy Higgins, spoke at some length on the issue of armaments and drew the comparison between the expenditure by the big powers and other countries on armament production and the pathetically small contribution to relieve deaths on a daily basis among children and adults in Third World countries. If anything, the situation has worsened. Armament expenditure increases and escalates across the world in power hungry countries who take the view that a few crumbs from their enormous budgets are adequate to salve their consciences. They do not really care about what is happening in the Third World, about the havoc being caused in those countries and the appalling incidence of death, disease and illness, apart from natural disasters.

One must consider the level of support given to the Third World by those countries which support that concept. I was surprised by a reply given on the last occasion by the then Minister for Finance to the effect that the USSR does not contribute at all to these funds. I do not know whether that position has changed. If not, it is a sad reflection. I am sorry to have to say, as one who is and has been a sympathiser of the position of the USSR, that it is unforgiveable that no contribution should be made. They are having their own economic difficulties, as we all know, but when the question of priorities comes up and the need of one's neighbour is concerned — the people who live in the Third World are our neighbours — I find it unacceptable that the USSR should not make even a token contribution.

I see that the shares of Belgium, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the US have declined since 1988. This should be highlighted. In considering what would be reasonable contributions to the Third World one must look at the relative income and wealth of other countries. The OPEC countries are the wealthiest nations at present, even without the 50 to 70 per cent increase in the price of their oil product. The transfer of wealth to OPEC countries which has taken place in the past decade has been enormous and it affects us in the western world. Have oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia and so on made a commensurate increase in their contributions to alleviating the suffering of those countries which are geographically nearer to them than to us? They have certainly not gone any way towards making a commensurate contribution. Rarely if ever is a word uttered in criticism of the OPEC countries, with the enormous funds coming from their escalating oil revenues. Escalating prices for oil hit Third World countries very hard. The energy produced by that oil is a crucial factor in the tenuous and tentative development steps that have to be taken in Third World countries if they are to have any hope of lifting themselves off the floor. The increase in oil prices draws out further from the Third World countries what little resources they have. Are they making any allowances for that or making any assessment of the needs of those Third World countries or taking into account the effect on them of the vast increase in prices? Europe is better equipped to meet these oil price increases. Oil and energy are esential in the Third World yet there is a transfer of wealth from the Third World to the OPEC countries. Where is that commented on or assessed? The Minister's telling comment is that the shares in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the US have declined over this period. That is a very sad reflection and I wonder if anything can be done about it.

It is sad to think of what is going on in the Third World and what little progress has been made. The contributions made by the west and by the OPEC countries over the years have not helped to any significant extent. The overall position has worsened. Are we content to say we will just carry on in this way and will not get together and decide that all of us should make some more effective contribution? We can afford a bit more than that and a fortiori the US can afford more than they have contributed, the USSR can afford something and the OPEC countries can afford a hell of a lot more than they have been contributing.

Mr. T. Kitt

I welcome the Minister's speech. We are contributing £12,740,000 to the International Development Association. I will deal later with the debate which has taken place on ODA.

First, it has to be said that, as a nation, we have been very vocal within the framework of the International Development Association. Looking at the figures the Minister presented to the House today it is obvious that we are giving more than stronger economies. This financial support goes to the economic development of developing countries, by lending funds, providing advice and stimulating investment. It is obvious that there is a whole world order debate taking place, something about which I have spoken before, referred to as the north/south divide. I contend the more international agencies that become involved in this debate the better within the framework of the IDA, and the more State-binding directives and agreements the better. In saying that, we are all simultaneously closely watching the development of the EC.

I said before, in a debate on the Third World, that the acid test of the success of the Community will be its treatment of the Third World. There is a separate simultaneous debate taking place within Europe on political and economic union, indeed on how the Community will support Eastern Europe as it joins more closely the remainder of Europe. That can be achieved; there is no great problem to be encountered when dealing with our near neighbours. But there is always a problem for strong economies. There is a challenge held out to the EC, looking to the Third World, whether it be the sub-Saharan region or parts of Asia, regions more distant from us. There is also the grave danger that we might leave them to their own devices. One comforting thought is that — by way of modern communication systems, television in particular — the harsh realities of what is taking place throughout the world are brought home to us daily. To that end we must all warmly applaud the media, people who have brought those harsh realities into our homes, people like John Pilger on the work he has done on bringing to us the harsh realities of Cambodia.

It is obvious that the success of the EC in helping the Third World will depend on how the Community, as a body, treats those who are starving and more disadvantaged worldwide. Through the mechanism of the International Development Association the World Bank raises funds, by borrowing moneys from richer member countries, with loans given, interest free, for periods of up to 40 years.

I welcome the fact also that many former world leaders, people like Willy Brandt and others, are closely involved in this debate. People like him have led great nations and have more time now to devote to this issue. It is enormously important that they continue their good work in this area.

I contend that the International Development Association gets to the core of the problem affording low income countries — in particular in the sub-Saharan region of Africa — an opportunity to tackle their problems of agriculture, rural development, transport and other basic services.

Obviously, we have been experiencing serious problems within our economy. In recent years our Government have had to tackle problems in respect of health care, social welfare and so on. In saying that I appreciate that the debate on this Bill takes place within the overall context of our real problems. We have been a strong supporter of the Third World within the IDA system, recognising the sense of urgency required.

I welcome the fact that the International Development Association builds up a strong relationship between strong economy nations. A number of speakers have pointed out that some of these stronger economies should contribute more and there is no doubt about that. The IDA structure ensures the maintenance of the relationship between stronger economies and, indeed, with non-governmental agencies, which is most important.

The Minister referred also to the overall question of our environment worldwide. There is no doubt but that in the past the environment suffered seriously worldwide as a result of prevailing poverty, of large corporate businesses taking advantage of poorer regions. Therefore, it is a welcome observation that they are not merely economic concerns that are being debated here. I notice that every programme being proposed by the new regime will have an environmental perspective, in particular with reference to the damage done already to those poorer regions. I might instance cases of forests having been cleared for economic development purposes with quick profits having been made by outside businesses, people who moved on leaving untold destruction behind them and enormous suffering for local communities. I welcome the fact that an environmental action plan will be built-in for all borrowers during the ninth replenishment period of the International Development Association, with priority being given to countries that have suffered to date. Indeed, many such countries and regions have been irreparably damaged, making it extremely difficult for them to retrieve anything as a consequence.

What we are talking about today is a three-year programme. I am pleased Ireland has given, in effect, 0.12 per cent of GNP if one ties in the voluntary contribution which I understand to have been two million SDRs. It is regrettable that some strong economies, such as the United States, have not seen fit to increase their contribution along the lines desired.

There has been reference to our overseas development aid, our official development assistance contribution. I have spoken about this in the past. I recognise that there have been constraints on us in endeavouring to improve our contribution. There have been many letters to the press about this also, with a public awareness of the need to increase our ODA. I welcome that reasoned debate. The position of the Government has been that they have had to tackle serious financial problems with many bills having to be paid at home. I might refer to just two of those bills. Let me take the example of the period 1986-90 — referred to today — when health expenditure rose by 13.7 per cent and social welfare, by 7.9 per cent, at a time when serious cutbacks were implemented. Our ODA budget has dropped by 15 per cent within that period. That puts the ODA issue into perspective in that while the Government have been endeavouring to get their own house in order the ODA budget has been reduced. Deputy Owen pointed out that our contribution had dropped from 0.25 per cent to 0.16 per cent, from £40.5 million to £34.5 million.

Acknowledging, as we must, that we are very low in the OECD league of aid contributors, taking into account that our economy is beginning to move very steadily, I urge our Government to consider turning the graph upwards with regard to ODA. I appreciate the constraints still obtaining. Speaking to members of the public, particularly young people, about many problems of their own in the health area and others, I have found tremendous support and acceptance of the need to at least turn the graph. It is well known that the United Nations' recommendation on ODA is 0.7 per cent of GDP. The Government have accepted that recommendation and are endeavouring to achieve it. However, we have experienced a number of difficult years. Indeed, we must acknowledge the work undertaken by the Government to correct our economic problems.

While many economic and social challenges will face us in the future I contend the time is ripe to turn the graph upwards as our economic and financial position improves. I say that not merely for moral reasons but for material ones also in that providing aid to the Third World opens up many potential commercial doors.

In 1989 Irish State agencies exported £84 million worth of services to developing countries. A great deal of trade is facilitated by Irish aid, and it obviously makes it easier for Irish semi-State and other companies to break into those overseas markets and build up business in the Third World. It provides contact and good will for our entrepreneurs. Irish staff get training. Therefore there is not just a moral reason to turn the graph; there are also economic reasons. As the economic and financial position, which is a great credit to this Government, improves we should increase our assistance to the development of the Third World. Givers are receivers.

We are into new times. People are beginning to look outwards, and not just in Europe. Young people especially are beginning to look outwards and to see the responsibilities we have outside our shores. I, for one, will be pleased to see even a small improvement in our Overseas Development Aid brought into place as soon as possible. Of course, I will be delighted to see some improvement in the forthcoming budget.

Our record under the umbrella of the International Development Association is one we can be proud of. We have spoken with a very clear voice and, at all levels, have urged those stronger economies to contribute even more to the Third World. To our credit we have ensured that our contribution is even more than it was three years ago — 0.12 per cent of GDP on this occasion. Therefore, we have something to welcome warmly. It is time to look at the ODA and I hope to see some progress on that issue very soon.

Mrs. Owen

And the Deputy will vote against the budget if there is not an increase.

Mr. T. Kitt

I work with my colleagues.

Mr. Browne

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil beagnach £13 mhilliún tugtha ag an Rialtas don IDA agus tá súil agam go ndéan-faidh an t-airgead seo maitheas do na bochtáin ar fud an domhain atá ag fáil bháis de bharr ghanntanas bia nó b'fhéidir galair. Tuigimid go maith go bhfuil na daoine seo ag fáil bháis go dian mar a fheiceann muid go minic ar an teilifís — daoine óga, na páistí go mór-mhór, agus iad chomh lag sin nach féidir leo fiú na cuileoga a dhíbirt óna n-aghaidheanna agus iad ina luí ar an talamh. Bíonn trua ag gach éinne do na créatúir bhochta seo. Thaispeáin muintir na hÉireann a mbá leo trí airgead, agus a lán airgid, a chur ar fáil dóibh nuair a iarradh sin.

In welcoming this Bill, I was quite relieved to see that the IDA are giving these loans interest free for a period of 35-40 years. We can be proud of that. We are not cashing in on the fact that people are poor, they have to get money and we should not make money out of them. At this stage I want to pay tribute to my colleague because I had the privilege of being on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Third World Development which has been left in abeyance since this Government came in. I regret that. Deputy Nora Owen has played a leading role as chair-person on that committee, on which I served for four years, and she did a great deal to highlight the importance of giving aid to Third World countries. I wonder why this Government did not renew that committee because they did a great deal of good work.

I have a few quotations I wish to put on the record. I quote a paragraph from The World Summit for Children a UNICEF contribution, that highlights what this is all about:

A major renewal of effort, by both industrialised and developing countries, to protect the rising generation is therefore necessary not only as a response to one of the greatest humanitarian causes of our times but also as a means of making what is possibly the greatest investment the human race could now make in its future economic prosperity, political stability, and environmental integrity.

Dealing as it does with children, UNICEF knows exactly what is going on, as do Comhlámh, an association of volunteers and workers who have given their time in the Third World to help those who cannot help themselves. They represent some of the finest people this country has produced. I know personally some who went out there, young married and unmarried people, and gave their time working in all kinds of places and in all kinds of poverty. It is a pity that people with such expertise and who know exactly what is happening in the Third World are not brought together as a committee or an advisory group to tell the Minister and the Government the best way to invest our money.

We have quite an amount of money invested in Third World aid. We have the voluntary groups and Government funds but maybe we could get better value for our money if we used these people's expertise. They have been on the frontline. They know the abuse that is going on. The Minister should seriously consider callng in these people, officially or unofficially, and using their knowledge. Over 400 such workers have returned and they know what they are talking about. They have put facts together. It is just as easy for me to read them from this leaflet from Comhlámh as it is to make up my own version. They tell us that 40,000 children die unnecessarily every day from disease and malnutrition. When you read this leaflet you begin to wonder whether they made a mistake. It is shocking that any country that is doing even reasonably well should tolerate this and not do more to prevent it. The Comhlámh leaflet tells us also that people in poor countries pay for cutbacks with their lives.

Ireland's allocation to the world food programme has been cut by 99 per cent. Again I thought this was a mistake. If you cut something by 99 per cent why not cut it 100 per cent? It would be far easier than having somebody keeping statistics for 1 per cent. This statistic does not make me very proud. The answer may be that an extra contribution is given in some other way, but if we are to give a contribution to the world food programme, and we cut our existing contribution by 99 per cent, it is a cause for shame.

The leaflet says that we Irish are top in the league for generosity to the poorest. However, we are at the bottom of the league for what counts internationally. This has been referred to by other speakers.

In fairness, we have to accept that very few countries do as much as we do on a voluntary basis. Whether that should be a reason for the Government not to spend its money is another question. I accept the arguments that there are a lot of demands on us as a Government and people want more, but very few would object to helping those who are starving. All one has to do is look at some of the dreadful pictures one sees on television of children dying with flies crawling all over them, unable even to remove a fly from their faces. It is very sad.

This leaflet says that Ireland is the 23rd richest of 185 countries; we give the equivalent of 2.5p per person daily in official aid and spend 16 times as much on tobacco products. If we give 2.5p per person daily in official aid, I suppose there surely is room for improvement. The Minister heard his colleague, Deputy Tom Kitt, explain how well the economy is doing at the moment, and I am sure that in the budget the Minister will be able to improve on our contribution.

We can all argue about how much should be given, but it is such a serious problem that there is very little excuse for not increasing this aid. To back up what I am saying, Dr. Whitaker, who does not need any introduction from me, said in a news release when Trócaire Development Review, 1990, was being published: "As our own economic financial position improves we should feel in honour bound to contribute steadily more to Third World development and not think only of ourselves". If Dr. Whitaker said that, he was a man who said it on the road to survival, and we cannot improve on it.

It is clear that we are dealing with an important factor life. Any money we can give, if it is well spent, will improve the lot of so many people and will probably save the lives of thousands of people. I want to make one reference to organisations like Gorta that use their money to grow crops. We should help in every way possible to get value for money by seeing that people are trained. Giving money for food is one thing, but sometimes our money is wasted because cow-boys or guerillas confiscate the food.

As far as training is concerned we should do everything possible to help. I would appeal to the Minister to use the vast amount of experience of over 400 people who have served abroad. He should bring them together to advise even on the spending of the money we are giving at the moment so we can feel we are getting value for money. It is an important cause, and tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leis.

Mr. Dennehy

I welcome the fact that we are making this allocation which will be the source of interest free loans. The Irish people, certainly in the recent past, have indicated total support for the general concept of helping Third World countries as much as we possibly can.

It has been pointed out that we have to do it within the financial constraints that are on us at the moment. The simple fact is that we still owe £25.5 million or thereabouts and some of the people who are now saying we should give more were, in 1987, describing our own economy as similar to a Third World economy. That is the background we are working against. I would agree with Deputy Tom Kitt that the improved situation we have seen since 1987 should be reflected in our own contribution, and hopefully we will see a great contribution to the official development assistance. We can put money in under a number of headings and we should do all that we possibly can.

Deputy Kitt raised another important issue that we should not lose sight of, that is, how we can influence European Community thinking on the Third World. Our sphere of influence has to go way beyond the direct financial contribution we can make. The Minister mentioned the important matter of imposing regulations on programmes imposed on Third World countries by outside agencies. We only have to look at our own situation to see how very often restraints or regulations imposed by the European Community have been found to be detrimental to our own situation. We could fall into the trap of imposing our views on many of these countries and we should be careful there. We could, however, greatly influence the European Community. That is one area where I would like to see us pushing, and we have a general consensus of support from the public for taking that approach.

Deputy Brown mentioned Comhlámh and the work they have done. We must separate the voluntary from the professional. When people want to sneer at Governments or Ministers they reflect on the voluntary input compared to Government input and how things are left to the voluntary workers, as though that was a second class area. I do not agree. He simply could not achieve what we are achieving under many headings and much of the work being done in our own country could not be done without voluntary agencies. The same applies in Third World countries.

Comhlámh is a most welcome movement because many of us who would not be familiar with the internal workings of Third World countries can meet people coming back from Third World countries through these organisations. They are in a position to point out the economic benefits of Ireland's participation in and contribution to assisting Third World countries. In 1988 we had about 650 Irish personnel working on projects officially associated with APSO and DFA. The purchase of Irish goods and services associated with those projects in that year was £6.5 million. We have gained to the tune of £25 million in the past few years from EC funded projects; in World Bank projects we have gained another £8 million; we have also gained from United Nations projects and so on down the line. There is a financial return to the country on the employment side as well as on the sales and services side. We should bear this in mind when the budget is being formulated.

There are also indirect benefits. People who went out there as teachers or nurses came back with extraordinary experience. They also helped to establish Ireland's track record and set up contacts in these emerging countries. There is a lot of goodwill for us nationally directly arising from the involvement of these people. Unfortunately at home we tend to sneer at the Irish voluntary workers. We see them on a higher plain, but we should not look at it that way. There is a tremendous return from their involvement.

There are selfish reasons we should help the people of the Third World. The environmental reason has been mentioned by the Minister but there are other reasons. Outside of the humanitarian approach there are practical reasons we should help these people. We have a fair national consensus but we had a little bit of argument earlier about the type of Government, whether socialist or whatever. This is not the arena for this kind of discussion.

We should put our heads together to see what assistance we can give under all headings. The imposition of a particular ideology on these countries is the last thing they need from us. We certainly should not lecture the people involved. By and large they will have to solve their own problems. They are getting direct education from people going out to those countries, from Comhlamh and other organisations but what we have before us today is a practical expression of the assistance that is needed. I take the point that there is a danger, as has happened in the past, of money being squandered. That is something that must be monitored. We should give whatever help we can in that regard also. By and large the provision of interest free loans and direct payment grants is essential and must continue.

I know the Minister is totally receptive to the push that is being made, particularly from Fianna Fáil in this regard. Like Deputy Tom Kitt, I urge that the greatest assistance be given under each of the programmes.

Deputy Browne and I have discussed the national debt on a number of occasions here. I think we have managed to at least put the brakes on that debt and I would like to see that improvement reflected positively in our assistance to the Third World. Many people give out about the black babies' box. In the old days people were probably less knowledgeable about what needed to be done in this area but even then the Irish people contributed to the Third World, and I think they will continue to do so. We should work on that avenue and also use our position within the European Community to ensure that the programmes are right and that the conditions on financing will not be in conflict with local requirements just because some bureaucrat decides that something must be done in a certain way. I welcome any discussion in the House on this issue. Increasingly we are being made aware of what is happening in other countries by direct contact with returning workers and others, and we are heading in the right direction. I welcome the issue before us and give it my full support.

Mr. Rabbitte

I would like to start my brief contribution to this debate by putting on the record the following quotation:

I was hungry

... and you told me to wait.

... and you blamed it on the weather.

... and you said: "So were my ancestors".

... and you circled the moon.

... and you said: "The poor are always with us".

... and you set up a commission.

... and you said: "God helps those ...".

...and you blamed it on my family.

...and you destroyed your surplus food.

...and you squandered your money on weapons.

But, friend, when did you ever go hungry?

That quotation summarises a great deal that has been graphically described by——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could I trouble the Deputy to give the source of his quotation?

Mr. Rabbitte

To be perfectly truthful I do not know where it originally came from but it is reproduced in a magazine called Ireland, Europe and the Third World. It summarises in a graphic way a great deal of the content of the speeches made by a number of people who have contributed to this debate. I welcome the measure before us but it is inadequate. It must be one of the great paradoxes of modern society that despite the massive range of aid programmes from the modern industrialised countries to the developing world, it is the former who continue to expand their economies while the latter continue to sink further into economic crisis. Why should this be, given the highly detailed Lomé Convention, various bilateral aid agreements and other aid packages which have been developed in the period since the last world war? The answer can probably best be found in the phrase that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If we take Ireland, for instance, an examination of the 1987 spending on aid by our Government shows that the allocation for bilateral assistance was just about £14.5 million. Yet in the same year Irish semi-State companies earned consultancy and technical assistance contracts from Third World countries worth a total of £86 million, a tidy profit of about £70 million, and that excludes figures for the private sector.

Have things improved since? Not on your life. By 1989 our aid allocation was slashed to a mere £9 million and the cutbacks were implemented in an arbitrary manner without even the courtesy of informing partner Governments in many cases. I have no doubt that this is mirrored in most, if not all, the EC and developed countries. Given these huge imbalances, it is not surprising that Third World economies are unable to break out of the strait jacket of under development. Indeed, it throws a new perspective on the term "aid". As applied by many Governments it is something closer to a necessary investment which opens the door for trade and other contacts with the recipient countries. Yet there is every indication that people in Ireland and other developed countries recognise the need for greater financial assistance to the Third World. Deputy Browne and others have dealt with the voluntary response on many occasions from the Irish people, the most enduring example probably being Bob Geldof's Live Aid project.

Here in Ireland, for example, following large-scale flooding in Sudan and Bangladesh in 1988 public outcry forced the Government to triple their admittedly small contributions to disaster relief in both countries. There is a continuous high level of support among the public for the work of development agencies such as Trócaire, Concern, GOAL and Oxfam. Similarly the contribution of returned aid workers through Comhlámh, which has already been referred to, illustrates the depth of commitment to genuine aid for the people in developing countries.

In May of this year a very interesting survey of attitudes of Irish people to the Third World was published by the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation. It showed that 89 per cent favour helping Third World countries while the same percentage said they personally had contributed to the Third World in the past two years. More interestingly, perhaps, 91 per cent feel that Ireland has a responsibility to help the poor in Third World countries while only 6 per cent say we have no responsibility whatever. These figures confirm the strong public support for a real increase in our commitment to developing countries, and the Government have a duty to respond.

Speakers from the Government benches, while I do not question the sincerity of the views they have articulated, ought to bear that survey of attitudes of Irish people in mind when seeking to defend the policy of Government in recent years in reducing our contribution to overseas development aid. Notwithstanding all the pressing needs that have been outlined from Government benches, there is still a wish on the part of the Irish people that we make a decent, humane contribution to the Third World. In this respect I would refer to the organisation, Campaign Aid. This is an organisation which have been campaigning for an increase in overseas development assistance. Their stated aim is to have the ODA restored to its 1986 level of 0.25 per cent of GNP for the rest of the decade, 0.25 per cent of GNP in the 1991 Estimates and to have it increased by 0.05 per cent per annum after that for the rest of the decade. This would ensure that Ireland would keep its promise to achieve the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent of GNP which was set in 1970.

Campaign Aid have initiated this year a petition and campaign to achieve that target and now have something like 21,000 signatures for submission to the Taoiseach. The organisation wanted to make a submission directly to the Taoiseach and sought to meet him to consider the implications of the petition in the context of the 1991 Estimates of public spending. They wrote to the Taoiseach on a couple of occasions, most recently I think in September, when they asked, as an organisation, to meet him directly. According to Campaign Aid the Taoiseach replied turning down their request to meet him. I appreciate that the Taoiseach must carry out a great many functions and responsibilities, but there must be some sense of priority and, if he could not meet Campaign Aid, the appropriate Minister should have been delegated to meet them to hear their arguments which mirror the arguments which have been made in the House today and which reflect the views of the Irish people in a survey of attitudes to which I referred earlier.

Some move along those lines by the Government is now vital if we are to make any dent in the appalling poverty and suffering which breaks through on our television screens with every latest emergency or fire brigade measure in the Third World. Perhaps the greatest challenge, as we approach the 21st century, is to devise and campaign for a new international economic order which will conform with the principle of "to each according to his needs and from each according to his means".

The survey to which I referred shows that Irish people see no conflict of interest in principle between the welfare of our own people and those in developing countries. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the unrelenting struggle for social justice in Ireland is identical to that in the world as a whole. Unlike Deputy Dennehy, I do not want to go down the road of querying whether this debate should be about what kind of Government we should seek to foist on these countries, whether we should seek to impose an ideology on them and all the rest. It is not, of course, a matter for us to foist any system of Government on the developing world. However, it is important not to permit the debate to close by accepting the pretence that an ideology has not effectively already been imposed on them because, just as these people suffered from colonialist policies from their imperialist past, the developing countries continue to be victims of an exploitative and international monetary and trade system. Until that basic cause of their exploitation is tackled it is unlikely that they will become self-sufficient which should be our objective at the end of this.

Mr. Martin

Ar dtús, is iontach an rud é go bhfuil seans agam labhairt sa díospóireacht seo agus tagairt a dhéanamh do nithe áirithe a bhaineann leis an cheist ghinearálta maidir le forbairt an Tríú Domhain.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate and to make a number of general comments on the whole area of overseas assistance. A number of fundamental points must be made apart from the mere question of allocating relief in the form of cash, loans or funds. Without doubt, poverty in the Third World is the greatest scandal in the world and it is a severe indictment on the western world in many respects, particularly on the major powers, that the scandal has been allowed to continue. There appears to be a lack of urgency and cohesion between the major powers — especially the wealthy and politically strong powers — to seriously tackle the problems of Third World poverty. The problem can only be tackled by a significant and fundamental change in the world political order because one is led to believe — and inclined to think — that any major development in the developing countries is feared by many of the Super Powers. They seem to be unwilling or reluctant to see the emergence in the Third World of stable developed economies because they might, in the fullness of time, threaten the pre-eminent position of western political democracies.

In the last few years we have witnessed revolutionary and tremendous changes in Eastern Europe, and indeed in South Africa, which we all welcome. There is almost a palpable sense of living in a period where tremendous and fundamental changes have taken place. However, even though the shackles of the repressive and dictatorial states in Eastern Europe imposed a severe burden on the people of these countries, one could argue that the sufferings they endured during their period in relative captivity pales into insignificance compared to the ongoing suffering and poverty which the people of the Third World suffered for many years and — it seems — will continue to suffer for quite a number of decades to come.

The tremendous welcome for the changes in Eastern Europe surely imposes a greater responsibility on the West to move much more urgently to improve the lot of Third World countries. Indeed, as I said, the winds of change have not just been confined to Eastern Europe, apartheid is breaking down in South Africa, something we did not believe could happen so soon is taking place before our eyes. It is a pity that we do not attempt to extend that fundamental change to the Third World. It needs much more than the mere allocation of finance; it also needs a radical altering of the world's political balance.

We should be in the vanguard in assisting Third World countries to develop a political system which can respond to their needs and which will help them to develop. I am not talking about imposing a political ideology or anything like that, I am merely saying that we should, through the United Nations or some other organisation, help to create conditions where democratic political systems are put in place. This would enable them to use the resources allocated to them in a much better way and would also allow them to develop. In many ways, it is dependent on the people themselves to develop self-confidence and to order their own affairs. It is only when we can instil an element of self-confidence and self-belief in the people of the Third World that we will see major developments taking place.

We could play a major part through international relief aid organisations, particularly the UN, to ensure that every possible effort is made to develop democracies in those countries and improve political systems there. There is concern that a lot of aid does not go where it is urgently needed, that it is diverted. That is not an excuse for not sending aid, but there is a general concern that aid is being diverted, basically because of the political set-ups in those countries.

It is important that we play a moral role and contribute as much as we can to overseas development aid. I am concerned with the level of aid we are currently allocating and I urge the Minister, in the context of the 1991 budget, to incrase the level of aid to the Third World, and try to move towards a position where we can fulfil our obligations under the UN. Admittedly, the domestic economic situation in the last few years was in crisis, but we all agree now that we have more room for manoeuvre in the economic sense to address the level of aid Ireland is allocating to Third World countries. Such a policy would meet with general political consensus and an overwhelming consensus among the people as demonstrated by their wonderful contributions to many voluntary relief agencies, to disaster funds, famine relief funds and so on. The Irish people have never been found wanting in that respect. That should meet with a political response and I have no doubt that it will in the years to come.

I endorse the Minister's comment that we must develop a strong working partnership between ourselves and Third World countries. It is very important to have a "hands-on" relationship with the countries concerned. Any grant assistance or loans advanced should be project-led and project-driven. We should have strategic objectives in mind. That is happening in many projects administered by concern and other bodies. Tremendous progress has been made in certain areas with project-led aid although at times the volunteers will say that it is like chipping away at an iceberg. We must have a progressive and strategic approach to this issue.

We should try to maintain the level of co-ordination that exists among voluntary relief agencies. At times people have expressed concern about the multiplicity of organisations. Each agency has its own aims and objectives and one wonders if we would get better value for money with a more concerted and cohesive effort. That is a matter the Government and the relief agencies could discuss and work on.

It is important that semi-State bodies and companies become more actively involved in giving of their expertise to Third World developing countries. In some respects they have done this but it should be done in a more vigorous way. We have a lot to offer as has been demonstrated in the past by companies like the ESB. Bord na Móna, for instance, could be of considerable use as could An Bord Telecom and various State agencies. We were of great use to our neighbours across the water some years ago when they had a major problem related to electricity. Our expertise was at a level to assist them. In time this will rebound to our benefit. It would help to develop relationships. In helping countries to develop we would get a feedback on the use of services and personnel as the countries developed into stronger economies. There would be a self-interest motive involved here as well as an altruistic motive.

In many respects there is cross-party support for the general principles invovled in this debate. We should not become involved in attacking each other for the sake of party political gain. We should endeavour to achieve as much consensus as we can on this issue.

I welcome the Minister's reference to the environment and the impact of economic progress in the Third World on the environment. I am glad the IDA made great strides in building and environmental consciousness into all of their activities and that there are now new environment assessment procedures in place for projects assisted by the IDA. There was a fear that there was a degree of environmental exploitation in the Third World by some multi-nationals who because of difficulties in siting particularly sensitive plants in the west, because of the vigorous controls in existence, tended to move some of their operations to Third World countries. There was a fear that the strictest environmental standards were not applied. It is important to tie in an environmental dimension to any development assistance offered by the governments of the west and ensure that the most rigorous standards are applied.

The problem is more than just the allocation of aid. It is very important that we concentrate on endeavouring to create a climate in which political systems emerge which will chart the development of these countries for the future. That is something to which world powers should give greater attention. The greatest scandal in the world today is highlighted when we consider the tremendous efforts being made in Europe to help and integrate Eastern Europe and the tremendous efforts being made in the Middle East and in South Africa. One must question whether the same level of urgency is being applied to Third World countries. I suggest that it is not. It is up to the major powers in the West to move on that issue. It would represent a glorious end to this century if we could by the end of this decade say that we have made serious and dramatic progress, as dramatic as has been made in Eastern Europe, on the question of Third World aid.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on this important Bill. I am particularly happy that my colleague Deputy Owen is present while I make this contribution because of her long term commitment to mobilising opinion here, and throughout the European Community, in favour of increasing overseas development aid. Fine Gael welcome the Bill in so far as it goes. It is very clear that we as a society have failed dismally to live up to our responsibility to the Third World. It would not be exaggerating to say that, given the trend of the financial allocations for bilateral aid since Fianna Fáil returned to power in 1987, it appears to be the Government's intention to entirely phase out bilateral aid. As the House is aware, this year's provision is £9.5 million while the figure for the last year in which Fine Gael were in office was over £14 million. If we adjust the figures, taking into account inflation we will see the gap is much greater than the £5 million implied by those figures.

During the term of office of the 1982-87 Coalition Government led by Deputy Garret FitzGerald, notwithstanding the horrendous financial and economic difficulties that Government had to wrestle with, overseas development aid was increased. I recall very well Deputy FitzGerald insisting that no matter what else had to be cut, overseas development aid would not be cut. I submit that there is an absolute and urgent duty on us as one of the 25 wealthiest countries in the world to stop the slide in the value of the provision for overseas development aid in the Estimates. Indeed, I would go further and submit that we should set a deadline, even if it is ten or 15 years from now, by which time we will attain the figure of 0.7 per cent of GNP which we are committed to attaining by virtue of our vote at the United Nations.

There are no votes in overseas development aid but this did not stop Deputy Garret FitzGerald from defending it with all the power at his command when he was Taoiseach. The reason overseas development aid has been reduced during the tenure of office of the Government led by Deputy Haughey is because there are no votes in it. I say shame on the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and shame on his Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance. This country more than any other European country has a right to be concerned about the Third World given on the one hand our great missionary tradition and our history of famine on the other. Even though there are no votes in it because no one in this country will benefit from an increase in the provision for overseas development aid, we would receive considerable public support if we committed ourselves to attaining the figure of 0.7 per cent by a given date and made provision for precise increases so that we would get there by the fixed date and would not be diverted because of election pressure to provide some funds for some give-away at home or because of some temporary economic hiccup.

We often hear on television and radio and read in our newspapers that we are a poor country. We are not a poor country. Indeed, we are one of the 25 richest countries in the world and anyone who has had the opportunity to travel outside the continent of Europe and North America will know of the horrendous poverty being experienced in so many parts of the world. Indeed, even within the continent of Europe, especially in the eastern part, very considerable poverty is being experienced. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit Turkey which is a developing country and certainly is an awful lot better off than some of the other countries in the world I have visited. It is only when one visits countries such as Turkey, becomes aware of their per capita income and choice of retail goods and notes the lack of health, welfare and education provisions that one realises just how wealthy we are as a people.

When Minister, I had the opportunity to visit India where I witnessed at first hand in Calcutta the gyrating poverty being experienced where the best of people live in sewer pipes and where the worst off have to fight for a little space on the pavement if there is one. There is no doubt but that anyone who has witnessed that will come back to Europe to insist that not only should their own country meet their obligations in relation to overseas development aid but that the entire European Community should have this as one of its major or top priorities.

We should take the lead within the European Community in this respect given not only the Irish missionary empire which still exists around the world and which has given us a great understanding and great contacts in so many parts of the Third World — regrettably, this is now beginning to vanish because of the lack of vocations — but also that in the last century the people of this island experienced the poverty and hunger which so many people in many parts of the world are experiencing this century. One would have thought during our Presidency of the European Community that one of our top priorities would have been an escalation in the provision for overseas development aid but far from it. The Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, along with Deputies Collins and Reynolds reduced the provision domestically at a time when they should have been pressing the Council and the Commission to attach greater priority and give a greater commitment in the future to increasing overseas development aid.

What puzzles the citizens of the European Community most is that at a time when they hear about milk and wine lakes as well as beef and other food mountains they hear reports on television almost daily about hunger and poverty. I accept that there is no simple answer but I submit this question is not being adequately addressed in any of the Twelve European Community countries or in the EC itself.

We must find a way of diverting our surpluses to alleviate or eliminate hunger wherever it exists. We must find a way to ensure that the developing world is given sufficient resources by the "haves" to enable them develop their economies and their countries, and at least to provide the basic services for their people and their children.

We are not talking about enormous sums of money. The £5 million reduction in the bilateral aid provision, since Fianna Fáil returned to power, is only a drop in the ocean in our annual budget. If we had increased the amount by £5 million in the last three years there would be £10 million more to give this year than we are giving. While £10 million is only two drops in the ocean out of our Estimates it could do an enormous amount in the developed world where many items are much cheaper. It may help to save tens of thousands of lives. What defence have the Government for their miserly attitude to bilateral aid? How can they defend the indefensible? How can they justify reduced expenditure on bilateral aid when we are spending £13 million on improvements in Government buildings which many of us think are unnecessary? Should we not all be thoroughly ashamed?

Mr. Daly

We could let them fall down the same as the Coalition did when they were in office. I am referring to buildings like the National Gallery, the National Museum and so on.

Mrs. Owen

It is a matter of priority.

Mr. Daly

The rain was running down the walls when the Deputy's party were in office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have an opportunity when replying of dealing with any points made by Deputy Mitchell.

Mr. Daly

This nonsense is irresistable. We had a constructive contribution from Deputy Owen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mitchell to continue without interruption.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am very happy to give any Fianna Fáil man enough rope to hang himself because he will unfailingly grab the rope. Is the Minister serious in saying that he would put the improvement of our State buildings before the saving lives in the Third World? Is he serious in saying that the National Gallery was falling down as a justification for reducing overseas development aid by £5 million when it should have been increased by at least that amount?

Mr. Daly

There were hundreds of thousands of pounds given.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The fact is there are no votes in the Third World. That is the shame of Fianna Fáil's record in office. It can be truly said that the record of the Government has been shameful. I mentioned already that notwithstanding the enormous financial and economic difficulties with which the FitzGerald Government had to grapple, the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, insisted that there would be no cuts in bilateral aid. The record speaks for itself. That Government laid the foundations for economic growth by bringing about low inflation and turning an enormous trade deficit into a trade surplus and by turning around all the State companies from loss making to profit making in five years. As a result there has been economic growth. I would be the last to pretend that the Government have had nothing to do with that. They have built on the foundations laid by the FitzGerald Government. Far from the overseas development aid sharing in the economic growth in the last three or four years it has been cut back. Niggardly sums have been provided because there are no votes for Fianna Fáil in Ethiopia, Somalia, Senegal, Lesotho or in Calcutta. If those criteria are applied adequate overseas development aid will never be provided.

I do not mind being very critical of the performance of the Government in this respect. It is no exaggeration to say that they are in the business of phasing out bilateral aid almost completely. That was indicated by the trajectory and trends of the provisions of bilateral aid during the past three years. I will finish my contribution with a strong appeal to the Government to reverse the trend, make up for what they cut back in the last five years and dedicate themselves to growth in the bilateral aid provisions next year and the years ahead. I propose specifically that we set a deadline by which we will reach the 0.7 per cent of GDP provision, to which we committed ourselves many years ago at the United Nations, but which has never been taken seriously by the Government.

The Fine Gael proposals to expand the Presidency suggested that by law overseas development aid should be assigned to a commission of which the President of Ireland would be the chairperson and first commissioner. That would take the issue out of the party political arena. It could only happen if there was prior agreement to an ear-marked sum for overseas development aid because, of course, the President could not be involved in controversy with the Government about the provision of overseas development aid. Controversy would be avoided if the Dáil and Seanad agreed in advance to my proposal to ear-mark a sum which, by say year 15, would reach the 0.7 per cent of GDP recommended by the United Nations. I ask the Government to seriously consider these proposals. If we do not put ourselves into some form of straitjacket in this respect the babies of Calcutta, Lesotho and Somalia will continue to die.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on a very important subject, that of international development or overseas development aid. They are both intrinsically linked because they have similar objectives. It would be a pity if we had to decide that this development association, and its funding, should be categorised as areas of national development or works that need to be done nationally. As Deputy Mitchell said this area is very difficult to compete with when it comes to prioritising Government expenditure. We all feel that this is an issue about which the Government, and previous Governments, would have a consciousness. In other words, we need to be aware of the needs of others who are less well off than ourselves. Occasionally it is perceived that we are not a very wealthy country but in comparable terms Ireland is relatively wealthy for its population, size and economic development. Generally speaking it has always been perceived that Ireland has an awareness and consciousness about the needs of others who are less well off.

Previous Governments have given commitments in this area. Although this Government have reduced our contribution somewhat I believe all of us, whether in Government or in Opposition realise that it is an area we should not neglect. We should continue to analyse the needs of the peoples of the Third World and continue to play the international role we, as a small country, have always played in this area.

Generally speaking, Ireland's contribution to the Third World can be measured in two ways: first, our monetary contribution and, second, our human resource contribution. Our monetary contribution can be measured by the Government's contribution in this Bill to overseas development aid and the contributions by voluntary agencies, for example, Trócaire, which has been spearheaded by Bishop Casey, and GOAL which has been spearheaded by John O'Shea and the Third World Endeavour which was founded by Archbishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Emly. the Third World Endeavour is an unusual link between the existing FÁS schemes run by the Department of Labour and those generous people who give disused equipment to a central location. When this equipment and machinery is repaired it makes a major contribution to the Third World Endeavour. This is an interesting scheme because it has managed to take people off the dole queues and give them work in centres throughout County Tipperary repairing bicycles, washing machines, etc. When this equipment is repaired it is shipped, with no capital expenditure, to Third World countries where it is used by the missionaries and people who care for underprivileged people. This brainchild of Archbishop Clifford recently came to fruition in Rockwell College where media attention was given to the delivery and repair of this equipment.

This is an indication that it is not always necessary to judge how we in Ireland perform vis-á-vis the less well off countries in money terms. Money is important but it is not everything. Any reduction in the contribution made by the Government will have repercussions in the assistance which can be given to Third World countries. This country has made a huge contribution to the Third World in human terms through the work that has been carried out by our missionaries and voluntary workers. The contribution made by these people cannot be valued in money terms. Ireland's record in this area is as good if not better than most countries. The media coverage which has been given to the famine in Ethiopia and other areas and the pictures of starving childrent crying for the want of food has triggered an awarenes in all our minds that these people need assistance from this country and other wealthy nations. Some wealthy nations do not give as much, proportionately, to these countries as we do. I believe the Government welcome the work carried out by charitable organisations who collect money for Third World countries. No Government could fill the void in this area on their own.

We tend to forget those areas which do not receive media coverage. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister — I brought it to the attention of his predecessor and Deputy Peter Barry when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs — the contribution of UNRWA, the United National Relief and Work Agency, which was specifically set up under a UN Charter to assist the Palestinian people. Those of us who have had consultations with UNRWA know that unless there is a considerable increase in the contributions made by governments who have an interest in the rights of the Palestinian people they will be faced with serious difficulties. They need capital to provide health care so that they can cater for those people who have been maimed and injured in serious incidents following Intifada. This has led to widespread demands on existing services which are stretched to the limit.

We cannot stand aside and ignore those people who do not have a homeland and who need the assistance of United Nations organisations such as UNRWA to help them survive. UNRWA also make a major contribution to their educational services and the distribution of food. UNRWA will not be able to survive on the present contributions they receive. An urgent request has been made to all the member states who have addressed this problem, the Council of Ministers and the Commission for extra funds for UNRWA so that they can treat, educate and distribute food to these people. I want to make a special plea to the Government to consider significantly increasing this year's contribution to UNRWA to help them cope with the extreme problems which have arisen in the Palestine occupied territories over the past three to four months. A request for extra funds has been made by the United Nations people who are working on the ground in the most extraordinary circumstances, in deserts and refugee camps where toilet facilities and food are needed. As I have said UNRWA are a recognised United Nations organisation. I hope the Minister will give this matter urgent attention so that we can report back to the people working in these areas. There are many Irish nurses and missionaries working in that part of the world.

I welcome this Bill. I hope the Government understand that there will always be a need for more money in this area. I believe that in future organisations such as GOAL and Trócaire will play their role with the Government in ensuring that Ireland will not be found wanting in our contribution to the Third World.

Mr. Garland

I should like to begin my contribution with a quotation by Gerard Durrell which he made in 1986:

Anyone who is literate and in possession of their right senses knows there is no Third World. There is only one world, and that belongs to all of us, and is the only one we have.

The Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, strive to spread these words of the united world. While we recognise that at present there is a division, that there are third worlds, essentially dependent nations, we are determined to harmonise this inequality.

The Green Party recognise a need for appropriate, ecologically sound, sustainable development. We pursue the development of self-governing, self-reliant and yet interdependent world economies. The humanitarian ideal "give and you shall receive" has seldom been termed unfair or unjust, although it has often been ignored. We challenge that ignorance today.

Debate adjourned.