Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999

Vol. 506 No. 2

International Agreements: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement Regulating Technical Assistance between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, which was signed in Cape Town on 26 August 1998, and a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 4 March 1999.
–(Minister of State at the Department of the
Environment and Local Government).

I am delighted to note that there are more Canadian Members of Parliament listening to me on this occasion than Irish Members of Parliament. I join with the Ceann Comhairle in welcoming the delegation. I had the great honour of visiting Ottawa some years ago.

I welcome the agreement which has the support of my party. I also welcome the evolution of democracy in South Africa marked by the election of President Mandela's successor. Given the strength of support for the ruling party in South Africa in the recent elections, I hope any temp tation to replace white supremism with black supremism will not be given in to. The objective of our foreign policy should be to ensure pluralism in South Africa so that a true democracy can evolve. I wish to outline some of Fine Gael's policies on Third World debt and development which relate to some of the issues raised by the Minister of State and into which we put considerable work. Ireland could do much more in this area given our new-found status and wealth.

There are 1,300 million people living in abject poverty at a time of plenty. Having recently commemorated the 150th anniversary of the devastating great Famine, Ireland must ensure that it meets its full international obligations in tackling such abject poverty. We have no right to pressurise other wealthy states to meet their contributions if we are not meeting ours. For this reason alone we must meet the commitment given to the UN so that the 0.7 per cent GNP target will be met at last.

Development policy should be based on values, in this case the values of the Irish people and international values based on principles of justice and equality. It should also take seriously our responsibilities under international law; it should play to national strengths, competencies and historical links to the developing world; it should give priority to the poorest of the poor, to women, children and youth; and it should include a clear rationale for the relative emphasis on different aid priorities, bilateral or multilateral, the countries involved and the reasons.

Development policy should be coherent across Departments if it is to be based on national values. These values should be apparent, not only in Irish aid policy but in the relationship between this policy and other policies which affect the developing world, such as trade, justice, education, agriculture, defence and finance. It should inform our approach to all aspects of EU policy development. There should be critical public ownership of our development policy through awareness and education programmes.

Much progress has been made in the area of development aid. The average life expectancy in the Third World increased by over one third between 1960 and 1999 to 65 years, 85 per cent of that in the industrialised world. Due to the end of the Cold War and the reduction of superpower rivalry in the developing world, an estimated 380,000 refugees were able to return home in 1990 alone. Throughout the developing world adult literacy rates increased from 46 per cent to 60 per cent between 1970 and 1985. However, much remains to be done.

Some 14 million young children and ten million older children and young adults die each year from easily and cheaply preventable diseases. Each day, 34,000 children die from easily preventable malnutrition and disease. War and internal conflicts affect over 60 countries and one in every 115 people on earth is a refugee or migrant, with more than six million refugees in sub-Saharan Africa.

More than one billion adults cannot read or write, a fact which affects many aspects of their daily lives, including their health, wealth and their families' well-being. Numerically the largest number of severely impoverished people live in south Asia which is home to about 30 per cent of the world's population. Africa has about 16 per cent of the world's population and half of all Africans are impoverished. Women suffer disproportionately, representing 70 per cent of all poverty stricken people, followed closely by the elderly.

Although urban poverty continues to grow, the rural poor still represent more than 80 per cent of the world's poor. The extent of poverty varies greatly between regions within countries. Kadar Asmal recently stated that, although progress has been made on basic facilities such as water supply and electricity, much remains to be done in South Africa. As part of the continent of Africa, it is important that Irish technical assistance should be targeted at South Africa.

About 17 million people in developing countries die each year from infectious and parasitic diseases such as malaria, diarrhoea and tuberculosis. More than 90 per cent of the 17 million HIV-infected people live in developing countries. Nearly 800 million people do not get enough food and about 500 million people are chronically malnourished. Maternal mortality in the Third World is 350 per 100,000 live births, about nine times higher than in OECD countries. These people are our neighbours and their needs are our concerns.

Ireland's per capita income is now between 90 per cent and 100 per cent of the EU average and, given the extent of our economic growth, we will exceed that average in a relatively short period of time. No matter how one chooses to view the situation, Ireland has greatly increased its status in the list of wealthy countries. Does the Minister of State agree that we are meeting our full responsibility to our suffering neighbours? I do not believe we are doing so, and all Governments have been guilty of this offence.

The recently announced multi-annual financing of the discretionary elements of the overseas development aid budget is welcome but is wholly inadequate. In years to come the Estimate procedure will continue to go through the annual wrangle with the Department of Finance, and the actual money contributed, as opposed to the percentage of national wealth or GNP, will form part of that argument. Those who benefit from overseas development aid do not elect Members of either House. Therefore, the pressure will always be to allocate scarce funding to domestic projects in response to electoral demands. It is time to take this area of funding outside the annual Estimates procedure and to legislate so as to meet the UN commitment of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 2007. I have put forward specific proposals for greater accountability involving the Committee on For eign Affairs so as not to weaken democratic control of that expenditure process, given that the annual Estimates figure will have been agreed in advance. I will not go into those proposals during this debate but I have clearly set them out in other documents.

Ireland is a shining example of the principle that development aid works. Notwithstanding the millions of people living in abject poverty, more people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. Ireland has solidly contributed to this achievement but much remains to be done. The debt crisis is draining developing countries of desperately needed resources. The cost of servicing debt has reversed human development gains made since the 1950s. The total debt owed to various creditors, such as individual countries, multilateral bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank and commercial banks, has passed $2 trillion, more than treble the level in 1980. Debt repayments in 1996 amounted to $244 billion, over four times the amount of official aid received by developing countries.

We can do something about this. I do not believe that we can forgive all debt in all countries. We must be careful about the people to whom we give money. We should put a line in our Estimates procedure to provide for NGOs and overseas missionaries, who would give a far better response to the funds they are given than some of the tinpot dictators who have ruled countries to which we have given money in the past.

Through the European Union, we could start the procedure. The European Union could set up a debt commission to review and make recommendations about those countries whose debt should be forgiven or mitigated. If we did that on a regional basis, we would force the hand of the international community to take similar steps. We simply cannot expect States to continue to bear the burden of debt we have imposed on them.

Put another way, where would Ireland be today if the £25 billion or so we received in transfers from the European Union since 1973 was in the form of loans rather than grants? We would not be anywhere near the stage we are at now. If we had such a millstone around our necks and had to service such a debt, we would have encountered major problems down the years. Yet we expect people, who do not have anything akin to the market to which we have access in the European Union, to meet debt repayments we have imposed on them, which are many times more than that figure. Those people have very few tools with which to meet those repayments. This is an unacceptable practice and it has reached a level where such a requirement is a human rights violation. We are asking people to repay money to international agencies and banks which should be spent on keeping the children to whom I referred alive.

I will put forward two suggestions on the twinning of central Government and local government, which I made in the policy document I put forward. As an additional contribution to over seas development aid each of the 15 Departments should be asked to identify a separate developing country or region and to specialise in providing advice and or services of assistance to that country or region. For example, the Department of Health and Children could develop a particular relationship with Ethiopia, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs with Uganda and the Department of the Environment and Local Government with Lesotho.

The Minister of State with responsibility for housing is present. This is a golden opportunity for us to give advice, particularly to South Africa. The Minister's Department could probably give expert advice on how many of the environmental, water and housing problems in South Africa could be tackled. Such advice could be targeted at regions in the way I suggested.

The expertise, experience and advice of each Department should be available to each of these states or regions with which that Department is twinned on an organised basis to be set out in a protocol or agreement between both states following consultation with NGOs here. Similarly, each local authority should twin with a region within a developing state with a view to providing expertise in such areas as water quality, sewage treatment, housing, engineering, horticulture, agriculture and environmental protection following consultation with NGOs here.

I welcome this agreement and agreements of this kind. South Africa is fortunate to be developing and evolving as a democracy. It is probably more fortunate than other parts of Africa. The principles I espoused apply to South Africa, other parts of Africa and other regions of the world, particularly Asia. Given the wealth that Ireland has accumulated, it is time we took more seriously our international responsibilities to these people. The promotion of justice will bring with it greater peace and stability and we have a vested interest in ensuring we have a world where that exists.

I welcome the agreement that the Minister of State is promoting. When a proposal was put forward some weeks ago to have it passed through the House it was suggested it would be passed without debate, but I felt it was important that we should have an opportunity to debate this issue and to make some points on it.

Like the Minister of State and the Fine Gael spokesperson, I also welcome the outcome of the general election in South Africa and the smooth transfer of power within the ANC from Mr. Mandela to Mr. Mbeki. South Africa can set a headline for Africa in general in terms of how it does its business and how it can set about developing.

South Africa has enormous resources and it also has some advantages in terms of development. Its education system is evolving and developing. I have great hopes for South Africa. However, a major task faces its Administration, that of water supply, which we tend to take for granted. When the portfolio for water development was announced and given to a man who had spent many years living here, many people to whom I spoke wondered why there was to be a Ministry for water. They could not contemplate what was the problem, given the amount of water that falls on our heads every year. We also have our rivers and lakes and are surrounded by water. Water in areas like Africa and the Middle East can be a matter of great contention and the quality and purity of water can make the difference between life and death and certainly between health and ill health. The issue of water supply in South Africa is an extraordinary heavy task that must be taken on board by the Minister concerned.

Housing is another major issue. The enormous degree of poverty and exclusion that exists in South Africa will require many years of economic development to address. We should try to ensure we can help in so far as we can as a State but more particularly and, perhaps, more powerfully within the European Union in developing the relationship between the European Union and South Africa. That is particularly important in light of the negotiations under way in relation to a new Lomé agreement.

We should carefully consider the demands we make and the resistance we may put up to changes which may impact on us as an economy, bearing in mind the impact our insistence on protecting our own corner, so to speak, may have on people in South Africa and other parts of Africa.

The Common Agricultural Policy has effectively decimated the cattle farmers in South Africa and other parts of Africa. The export of intervention beef, primarily Irish beef in recent years because of the ban on British beef, to South Africa has effectively decimated subsistence farmers who depend on their cattle to survive. That not only has an impact on those farmers but it also has an impact in terms of the drift of people from rural areas to urban areas, which has increased the pressure on cities.

The incapacity of farmers to sell their cattle puts pressure on land and water and this has a vicious circle impact on the lives of people many thousands of miles away. That aspect of the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy is rarely, if ever, addressed by those who argue for minimal changes in that policy when it is being negotiated. It is important when we are clapping ourselves on the back in terms of the aid we give to South Africa and the agreements we make, which are all important but in themselves are almost like giving with one hand and taking with another, that we remember the aid and the support this technical agreement will provide is minuscule compared to the damage being done by the Common Agricultural Policy, of which we are whole-hearted supporters at EU level. That is understandable because of the impact it has on livelihoods in Ireland. However, I urge the Minister to address how we can minimise the impact of the sale of intervention beef on the poor of other parts of the world, particularly Africa.

I also wish to address the question of debt. In a recent report, Trócaire pointed out that Africa spends four times as much money repaying interest on its loans as it does on health care, that for every £1 given in aid by richer countries, poorer countries pay back nearly £4 in debt repayments and that more than 500,000 children die each year because of cutbacks to health services. It also pointed out that Zambia was once the richest country in Africa and now its debt is equivalent to £565 per citizen, more than three times the annual average salary. It would cost creditors £4.5 billion to cancel the unpayable debt, not the total debt, of the 20 most affected countries, which is less than the cost of one stealth bomber.

Given the carnage due to the appalling macho style bombing of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo, the enormous amount of money spent on the war, the cost of reconstruction, which will primarily fall on Europe, and the manner in which decisions were made to carry out that war while at the same time two thirds of the world is starving, it seems that priorities are grossly askew. I urge the Minister to take seriously the debate here some weeks ago on ESAF when a strong case was made for us not joining. All the Opposition parties and some Fianna Fáil backbenchers argued against joining. Now that the Government has decided to proceed with joining ESAF we should insist it is implemented in a way which aids the poor in these countries and which does not make life even harder for them. When deciding on who should be helped pay off their debt we should not only take fiscal and market factors into account but also health services, social services, employment and water supply.

There has been a great deal of debate about overseas development aid. It is a shame that the Government decided to freeze its ODA contribution this year and that aid to the poorest of the world should be effectively reduced at a time when the Irish economy is booming and when for the foreseeable future there will be an Exchequer surplus of in excess of £1,000 million this year. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has given a commitment that there will be increased aid over the next three years up to 2002. However, even if we take that promise into account, it seems obvious that the Government's commitment to increase Irish aid to 0.45 per cent of GNP by 2002 will not be reached. There is no indication of how or when we will reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. The Government should revert to the consensus in this House for the previous six years where it was agreed that no matter what Government was in office we would gradually increase our ODA to 0.7 per cent of GNP.

It could have been argued in the mid-1980s that we did not have the money. However, that cannot be seriously argued now. It is unfortunate the Department of Finance was allowed to get away with the freezing of ODA this year. I do not want to give the impression that ODA, particularly that from Ireland even if we reached 0.7 per cent of GDP, would resolve the problems of hunger, poverty and ill health in the Third World. It is important that we use our influence, through UN and EU organisations, to exert pressure for a more holistic view to be taken of how we assist countries with poverty and debt problems. It is not enough for us to try to force them into the straitjacket of the ever popular neo-liberal economics which may or may not be workable in western developed societies and economies but which certainly do not work and have not worked in the countries where they have been tried and where they have only led to increased misery. It is essential that we emphasise a qualitative approach to helping these countries and that global human development needs infuse the policy process across the board, on agriculture, fisheries, environment, immigration, human rights, education, water quality etc. All these elements are essential.

I wish to deal with aid for countries in other parts of the world and how it is delivered. It is becoming increasingly clear that unless we engage the indigenous population in the use and development of the aid provided, as soon as the worthwhile aid organisations pull out of, or cut back their support for particular areas, the aid given is of no value. People in South Africa, Namibia and elsewhere must be given ownership of what is done in their countries. When the Irish Government or anyone else negotiates with Governments in relation to aid, civil society should also be included. We should take into account the needs on the ground as distinct from the needs any Government might identify for its political agenda.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate which coincides with the historic events in South Africa, which the President and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who would be here otherwise and on whose behalf I am taking this motion, are attending. A number of interesting points were raised. All parties have been in and out of Government and we have all sought to increase overseas development aid. However, none of us could say at any stage we were happy that the level of aid we made available met the level of need in poorer countries. The more our economy develops and improves and the more our wealth increases, the greater is our responsibility and obligation to increase the amount of aid we make available to those less fortunate than ourselves. It has been mentioned that we have been, and still are, in receipt of aid from other countries. We are constantly conscious of this. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has highlighted the Government's commitment in this area.

Deputies Mitchell and De Rossa referred to the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. No Irish Government has yet achieved that level of overseas development aid. As our GNP increases, the amount of money involved increases enormously. Expenditure in 1998 was £140 million, which was 0.3 of GNP, and the allocation for this year is £178 million, which is 0.35 of estimated GNP. That is a fairly significant increase, but we have not yet reached a satisfactory level of ODA contribution. Both Government parties are committed to trying to increase that. There is a commitment, as enunciated by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to increase this in 2000 and 2001. There are no grounds for complacency in this matter but it is important to recognise that some progress is being made.

Deputy Mitchell referred to debt. Ireland has taken many positive initiatives in regard to the debt of developing countries. A special programme, valued at more than £30 million, was put in place last year. Ireland has also been active at the level of international policy making in this area.

Deputy De Rossa referred to the question of beef exports. I offer him my congratulations on his recent election to the European Parliament. It is a magnificent achievement to receive such a high level of support. I wish him well and I am sure he will look after our interests well in that Parliament. The Government is very conscious of the need to ensure that the agricultural and wider economic development of South Africa and the region is not undermined by the export refund scheme for beef, referred to by Deputy De Rossa. EU export refunds per tonne for boneless beef to South Africa have fallen from £1,182 in November 1996 to £239 in November 1998. This is equivalent to 7.7p per lb of carcase weight. According to the Department of Agriculture and Food, this has greatly weakened the competitiveness of Irish and other EU beef in South Africa. EUROSTAT figures suggest the volume of EU beef exports to South Africa has fallen by 14 per cent. However, it is important to keep the situation under review to ensure that the operation of the scheme, even at the current low level, does not distort the local market, as was mentioned by Deputy De Rossa.

This is a very exciting time in South Africa. It is wonderful to see the development that has taken place there. The fact that it has now had its second democratic election is a very significant landmark in South Africa's transformation to a democratic country. The principal cause for satisfaction is that the principles of constitutional government, accountability and civil liberties seem thoroughly embedded in its political culture. There may be shortcomings in the way institutions operate, which is inevitable in any young democracy, but there is no challenge now to their legitimacy.

When the first democratically elected Government took power in South Africa five years ago, it was faced with the inordinate task of addressing the legacy of inequality left after years of dis crimination under the apartheid rule system. With a GNP per capita of US$2,900 and classification as a middle income country, South Africans have, on average, a higher level of income than citizens of neighbouring countries. However, the average figure conceals a highly unequal distribution of that income, resulting in pockets of extreme poverty comparable to many developing countries. Among the many challenges faced by the Government is the need to formulate and implement policies which will allow for more equitable access to goods and services and facilitate a fair distribution of national resources.

The goal of the Irish Aid programme in South Africa is to support this democratic transformation and to assist its people's participation in the process. The specific objective is to support the development and implementation of its Government's policies for equitable access to essential services, to assist the participation of people in the development of South Africa and to support capacity building at all levels. The technical agreement, which today received the House's approval, enshrines these objectives and guarantees the continued efficacy of our aid programme in South Africa. Priorities for Irish Aid in South Africa during 1999 include maintaining existing levels of disbursement, enhancing direct support to Government and appraising and agreeing new projects. Irish Aid will consider a review of its South African programme in the latter part of 1999, which will inform programme strategy and the approach to be taken in the period 2000-04.

We in Ireland share the optimism expressed by the new President of South Africa. We hope, given the challenges he faces, he will be able to successfully lead his country to strengthen its democracy and ensure a more equitable distribution of its wealth. We are proud of trying to help them do that.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share