Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Dec 1977

Vol. 87 No. 9

International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1977 [ Certified Money Bill ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Dr. Whitaker

Ní bhfuair mé faill aréir ach chun fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Ansin, b'éigean dom scoir. Last night, in welcoming this Bill to authorise further aid for the Third World, I was saying how appropriate it was that such a Bill should follow so soon on the Economic Planning Department Bill which was concerned with our own economic and social development. I say "appropriate" because I have always felt that we should never become so preoccupied with our own problems, serious as they may be, so preoccupied with our own advancement, as to forget the fact that we are already amongst the 25 richest countries in the world. In fact, we are No. 21 on the list. An enormous gap separates us from the 1,200 million people—over 40 per cent of the world's population—who, despite all the efforts made so far, still have to try to survive on less than £1.50 per head per week. They are, in other words, condemned to live in squalid and degrading circumstances. Amongst these, as the Parliamentary Secretary remarked, there are at least 750 million in a state of absolute poverty, at the very margin of physical existence, and the sad fact is that their condition has virtually stagnated over the past decade, which has been accepted as a decade of development.

I have been brought to a knowledge of these grim facts by the assiduous and eloquent concern of Mr. Robert McNamara, who is President of the World Bank and President of IDA, the organisation for which we are in this Bill providing additional finance. I have had the honour of being for a period of years alternate governor for Ireland of these institutions, the Minister for Finance being the governor for Ireland. Mr. McNamara's speeches at the annual meetings have focused on the plight of the poorest nations. In one of his latest speeches, the one he delivered in Manila last year, he summarised this plight in frightening terms. I quote from his speech:

Compared to those fortunate enough to live in the developed countries, individuals in the poorest nations have:

—Remember, these are the 1,200 million people I referred to—

an infant mortality rate eight times higher; a life expectancy one-third lower; an adult literacy rate 60 per cent less; a nutritional level, for one out of every two in the population, below minimum acceptable standards; and for millions of infants, less protein than is sufficient to permit optimum development of the brain.

This, to me, is one of the most startling and appalling things of all. In other words, what is being said is that children are mentally retarded or stunted permanently without hope of recovery simply because of a deficiency of protein in their early years. To resume Mr. McNamara's speech:

This is what absolute poverty means for some 750 million human beings in these nations. With an average per capita income of less than $100 today, and little more than a faint promise of a miniscule $2 annual increase over the next decade, they are locked into a set of circumstances that they cannot break out of by themselves.

It is not a scene that any one of us here, so favoured, so fortunate, so surrounded in our personal lives by privilege and advantage can contemplate without compassion and resolve.

Mr. McNamara has said with frightful clarity that it is beyond the power of any set of statistics to illustrate the human degradation involved. The picture I have just given persists in spite of the great increase in aid, both on commercial terms through the World Bank and on concessionary terms through the IDA, over the last 15 years. It persists mainly because other forms of official development assistance have tended to slacken off or decline. It is now a good many years since a target of 1 per cent of GNP was proposed as a reasonable indeed, moderate measure of the resources which the richer countries should be passing, through official and private channels, to the poorer countries to help them develop.

Further precision was given more recently to the official aid content in this 1 per cent. The United Nations in 1970 and the EEC in 1974 prescribed 0.7 per cent of GNP as the minimum target to be reached by each economically advanced country—and we are in that category—by the mid-seventies. Unfortunately, these developed countries have in general come only about half-way towards this prescribed minimum. Mr. McNamara has described their performance as "disgracefully inadequate". In our own case, as the research paper published last week by Trócaire and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace points out, we have gone less than one-quarter of the way towards that 0.7 per cent minimum target. We are only about the 0.14 per cent stage. Any indication, such as this Bill provides, of our willingness to do better is to be warmly welcomed.

Without being captious I was sorry to see one particular word in the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement. It was the word "unfair" in reference to what I think he meant was a disproportionate suggestion for increase in our concessionary aid through IDA. From my point of view I should like to avoid any suggestion of unfairness in reference to the contribution we should be making to the Third World. Having said that, I do want to say that great credit is due to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and to his Finance colleague for the quite remarkable advance in our official development assistance from less than £1 million in 1972-73 to £7.3 million for the current year. I do not intend to go into past history and criticise anybody for not doing better in the past because I am sure the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Finance colleague will carry forward this trend so that within a reasonable period of years Ireland will at least catch up with—and I would love to see it give a lead to—its fellow countries in the better-off category in terms of percentage commitment of GNP to official development assistance.

In this context I would urge on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary the desirability of early decisions on the structures for an effective and expanded programme of Irish co-operation in the development of the poorer countries. As you may know, I, as the Chairman of the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, had the privilege of presiding at a meeting in the spring of 1975, attended by a wide range of organisations, not just voluntary organisations in this field, but organisations representing trade unions, industry and farmers and I am glad to say we reached a consensus in recommending what these structures should be in relation to the expansion and better direction of our programme of development co-operation. These are on the table of the new Minister. I understand that he hopes soon to be able to announce his decisions. I very much hope he will at least accept the desirability of the early setting up of a National Development Co-operation Council because it would serve two urgent needs, not only that of bringing the advice of voluntary agencies and other interested bodies to bear on the formulation of Government policy about overseas development assistance but also, as a second important function, of bringing back to representative bodies and to a wider national public a more lively education about the need for a greater effort in development co-operation. This educational process would, I hope, increase public support not only for greater overseas development assistance but also for greater development co-operation in the wider sense which includes very awkward things like agreeing to admit the products of less developed countries more freely. In so far as this educational process worked, it would make it easier for the Government to increase their commitment; indeed, it would also put some valuable pressure on the Government to increase their commitment.

This commitment takes various forms. As Senators know, there is a distinction between multilateral and bilateral aid. Multilateral aid, which is the biggest element in our official development assistance—it represents 80 per cent of the £7.3 million—includes what we are talking about today, the contribution to IDA. It includes also our contribution to the World Bank, to the World Food Programme, to the EEC Development Fund and so on. Bilateral aid covers personal service overseas, with which I am particularly concerned, and it also covers the development projects which, to an increasing extent, the Department of Foreign Affairs is mounting in a selected number of less developed countries.

Having mentioned personal service overseas, I should like first of all, to say that it seems—and I am answering Senator FitzGerald in part here—to be a form of aid singularly free of any corruption or any possibility of corruption because it is given directly. The aim behind all the voluntary service and expert service which APSO assists is not only to pass on aid now through the persons sent abroad, whether they be volunteers, experts in agricultural science, irrigation or genetics, but also to build up in the countries concerned native skills in these particular occupations. In the past bilateral aid was usually looked upon with some misgivings because of the possibility that it was commercially oriented or in some way tainted with a form of neo-colonialism. One can say without any hesitation that no such stigma attaches to our aid. It is no way questionable. In fact, one could even think of it as being more altruistic, perhaps less commercially orientated, than some of the end-products of multilateral aid.

While I am talking about commercially oriented as against altruistic aid, I express the hope that in Ireland, while we may pursue our legitimate entitlement to a proper share for our own nationals whether they be individuals, companies, professional firms or State bodies, in the final spending of multilateral funds, we will always give primacy to the altruistic aspect of our concern for the Third World? We should remember that we are not the losers for being generous. In this matter of development co-operation, there are not two sharply divided categories of givers and receivers. We are all engaged in what has been rightly called by a very distinguished Frenchman in the voluntary service field, the Abbé Pierre, un development humain reciproque, a mutual human development, from which both sides gain significantly. Moreover, I firmly believe that helpful concern and compassion for the peoples of the Third World would do much to put our own problems in perspective without in any way diminishing our capacity or determination to remedy them.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, welcome this Bill as a positive contribution to Ireland's official development assistance. Regrettably, Ireland's record at the official level in providing aid to developing countries does not match in any way the voluntary contribution it has made. I should like to pay tribute to Senator Whitaker, as someone involved in co-ordinating that voluntary commitment and who speaks with great authority on the subject.

He mentioned some valuable research which has been done into Irish Government aid to the Third World, specifically the review and assessment carried out by Mary Sutton and published by Trócaire and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. Copies of this research are being sent to Members of this House and it is certainly well worth reading, but it is chilling and rather depressing reading. Although the research is balanced and thorough, the tone of the assessment is very critical. It is critical of the Irish Government down through the years. The Irish Government act on behalf of the Irish people, so we have nothing to congratulate ourselves on as far as the official picture of Irish aid to developing countries is concerned.

Senator Whitaker made reference to the United Nations target of official development assistance from the more developed countries of the world, and Ireland is in that category. This target was first proposed by the World Council of Churches in 1958. It was adopted by the United Nations in 1970 and by the EEC in 1974, and it lays down that each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of .7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the decade. The decade referred to is 1970-80—the target was by the mid-seventies—so, in essence, we are past that point.

As I say, the record is a dismal one and neither Fianna Fáil nor the Coalition Government can congratulate themselves. The record of Fianna Fáil down the years does appear to have been substantially worse than the record of the Coalition Government in their relatively short span in power. This may be to some extent because the term of the Coalition Government coincided with our membership of the EEC. Undoubtedly, from 1973 on, the commitment to set a target for official development assistance was a much more precise one. In 1974 a very clear target was fixed by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, when he provided that the Government was comitted

... to aiming at an annual increase in ODA of the order of .35 per cent of GNP, taking one year with another over the next five years.

This fixing of a definite target was a milestone in the history of our official aid to the developing world. It meant that those who were involved in providing and promoting the aid were dealing with a definite target, a definite official commitment. However, this .35 per cent target does not appear to have been maintained and that is regrettable. It was a very substantial achievement to fix the official target and it is regrettable that it does not appear to be maintained.

One of the weaknesses was that the amount of official development assistance which was intended to be paid each year was not fixed either as a percentage of GNP or in money terms. Statements at the time from Deputy FitzGerald, from Opposition spokesman Deputy O'Kennedy, and from other interested persons and groups, showed that at least from May, 1974, until the autumn of 1975 the target statement was taken by all concerned to mean that by 1979 official development assistance would be up to the target of .35 per cent of GNP, that is half the UN target. By 1979 it was expected that we would have reached half the UN target which had been established in 1970 and accepted by the EEC in 1974. However, after July, 1975, and since that date, there appears to have been a certain revision downwards in our target and we now appear to be aiming at .25 per cent of GNP.

One very important point is that as yet the Fianna Fáil Government have not made an explicit commitment as to the present target for official development assistance. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to state clearly what that target is, to make it as explicit as possible so that we can know what is being aimed at. In his speech introducing this Bill he appeared to be very vague on this point. He mentioned that:

The fact that Irish contributions to IDA take up well over 10 per cent of our total annual spending on official development assistance speaks for itself and the proposed contribution of almost £6 million enables us to demonstrate our continued support of the association.

That is the only explicit reference I can find to this being a certain proportion of official development assistance. I should like to be much clearer on what the target is, what will be realised each year, and what the percentage will be in 1979. I would welcome a specific commitment on this.

I am aware that since the change of Government the Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken on the subject. In November, 1977, he said that there would be a difficulty just to catch up with the target of .5 per cent annually. I should like to know whether this means that he intends to overcome that difficulty and achieve the target, or whether he has decided to set the target at a lower level. The research review analyses fully the position both of the Coalition Government, of Fianna Fáil prior to that, and subsequently, and this very close monitoring of the political position makes depressing reading. Many people here, emphasising the voluntary commitment to helping developing countries, believe that we play our full part in aiding developing countries, and in taking what Senator Whitaker rightly calls "sometimes very uncomfortable and tough decisions", not just of giving financial or other type of aid but also of allowing these developing countries to build up their own industrial base, giving them access to our markets and, therefore, necessitating very tough decisions because of the possibility of endangering Irish jobs. This is all the more difficult because of the unacceptably high rate of unemployment here.

Nevertheless, it is the desire of the people that the Government play their full part in the official development assistance, but that, unfortunately, we are not doing. In a sense we seem to have forgotten our own roots as a people.

We have relatively recent experience of being a small, underdeveloped, exploited country that had to struggle to achieve independence. We have very recent recall as a nation of a famine that blighted the whole country; we know deeply what poverty, starvation and deprivation can do to a people. It is not just a question of providing further encouragement of voluntary commitment and voluntary resources—welcome and important as these may be—it is also a question of ensuring that we maintain at least the target set in 1974 and that we then think in terms of the target in the years after 1979. There are two parts to the specific point I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on: what is the official development assistance target up to 1979? Is it the target set in 1974? Secondly, from 1979 for the next few years, what is the time scale to achieve the minimum of .7 per cent of GNP which was set by the United Nations?

I should like now to turn to the actual contribution which the Bill will make towards our official development assistance. If one looks at this measure in the context of our membership of the World Bank it is not really as generous as it may seem, to note that we are contributing over £5 million, because Ireland joined the World Bank in a very self-interested way, to avail of the substantial loans which would be available. I should like to refer to the analysis of this in the review, "Irish Government Aid to the Third World", already referred to, which states:

Ireland has been a member of the World Bank since 1957. By joining the Bank the Irish Government hoped to obtain both expert advice on the development of the Irish economy and financial assistance to supplement the domestic funds available for productive capital investment. Ireland has secured eight World Bank loans, the first in 1969 and the latest in 1975, the total funds approved over this period amounting to $152 million. These loans have been obtained at interest rates slightly lower than those prevailing on world capital markets. Ireland would not have been able to borrow the large sums involved without having made the capital subscriptions demanded of members. Nevertheless, the entire capital subscription is described as Official Development Assistance. To date Ireland's capital subscriptions have amounted to £3.5 million approximately.

The report states that it is useful to consider the International Development Association, which is an affiliate of the World Bank, and then goes on to assess Ireland's membership. The report states:

The IDA is an affiliate of the World Bank. It was established in 1960 to provide financial assistance on easier terms and for a wider range of projects than the World Bank. Only developing countries are eligible for IDA Loans which are usually free of interest, enjoy a 10-year grace period before repayments begin, and have a much longer than usual repayment period, usually 50 years. The IDA depends for its resources on subscriptions from member governments all of whom are members of the World Bank. Ireland has been a member of the IDA since its establishment in 1960. In 1973 it became a ‘Part I' member, thereby committing itself to taking part in all future replenishments of the Association's funds. The fifth replenishment is at present being negotiated. It, like the previous replenishments will cover a three-year period, in this case July 1st, 1977, to June 30th, 1980, with Ireland's contribution likely to be around £5.8 million.

Indeed if one recalls the analysis of the actual way in which the payment is structured, contained in the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech, we will see that it is not even a commitment over three years. It is, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, a commitment over a period of six to nine years. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it is a question of non-negotiable, non-interest bearing demand notes deposited with the IDA and, in effect, we will pay the £5.8 million over a period of six to nine years.

If one further considers that it is because of our membership of the World Bank that we are members of the International Development Association, the figure of our contribution is a comparatively modest one in contrast with the very significant benefit we ourselves have received from the World Bank. The point I am trying to make by emphasising this is that whereas in a western-European or Anglo-American context Ireland is still a developing country with substantial problems of regional development, high unemployment, acute problems of a young population—and none of us wants to see this population forced to emigrate from the country to look for jobs and a future—if we look at Ireland in world terms and think of the development of countries in the world we are in a privileged and advanced position in comparison with a very significant number of other highly populated countries.

Because of our own historical development, our identification with developing countries and our knowledge of poverty and deprivation we should ensure that at official level we keep pace with the target set at an international level. Furthermore, we should actively encourage the kind of voluntary contribution which Senator Whitaker spoke about. However difficult it may be in the internal political context, we should ensure that the Irish target for official development assistance fixed up to 1979, and from 1979 for the next few years, reaches the minimum target set by the United Nations in the shortest possible time. At the very least the Parliamentary Secretary should give a clear and specific indication of Government thinking on this question of the target. He should indicate in quantitative terms what this would involve for the country. I deliberately did not emphasise unduly the very dismal record in recent years of official Fianna Fáil contributions, while in Government, to developing countries. It is important that the largest political party here have a clear commitment, implemented when in Government, to allocate a sufficient amount of official aid to meet the United Nations' target.

Mr. Brennan

I do not wish to detain the Seanad on this Bill. The major world scandal which exists today is poverty. National assemblies, apart from this one, should devote a sufficient amount of time to considering this major world problem. It is a pity that Senator Robinson chose in her speech to make a political football out of this issue.

Mrs. Robinson

I was deliberately minimising that. The report was more critical of Fianna Fáil than I was.

Mr. Brennan

The Senator was speaking about the Fianna Fáil contributions. I hope to leave mention of the various political parties out of this debate. It is a major world problem and it is a matter for the nation as such.

There is abundant and shocking evidence that an increasing number of human beings suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Estimates from the World Bank at the moment suggest that possibly as much as one billion people do not receive sufficient food and most of these live in poor or developing countries. Malnutrition causes millions of premature deaths every year. It is a major contributing factor to disease. In some developing countries up to 40 per cent of children die before they reach the age of five years. That is a shocking statistic. Most of these die from nutrition-related diseases. A substantial proportion of the children who survive suffer severe handicaps of learning and behaviour and work capacity because of their inadequate diet.

Hunger and malnutrition have plagued the world throughout history. With the rapidly increasing growth in world population the magnitude of the problem is escalating in that the absolute number of undernourished people is increasing daily. I appreciate that the overall percentage has decreased somewhat. The severity of malnutrition varies among countries. In the poorer countries, with GNP per capita up to £100 per annum, which includes almost 1½ billion people, in 36 extremely poor countries across Asia and the middle of Africa, an estimated one-third to one-half of the people are malnourished. These low-income countries provide the least amount of food per person and are also in the terrible position of having limited capabilities for increasing food production per person or for financing food imports in their own right.

Nutrition is fundamental to life. The United States Report on World Food and Production came to the interesting and startling conclusion that in developing countries effective nutrition interventions are likely to have more of an effect on human health than comparable investments in medical care. In other words, if we have money to spend then for God's sake spend it on nutrition. In that context it is even more important—if one can make that terrible decision—than spending it for medicinal purposes. The most important requirement for the Third World today is to alleviate malnutrition. That rather authoritative report backs up that point strongly. The only way this can be done is to double the food production in the Third World by the end of this century. Ultimately, that must be the major target in tackling the huge world catastrophe of today. This goal is attainable given the political will of the developing and higher-income countries.

The problem of alleviating hunger and malnutrition, as we all know, is an extremely complex one. The success of it will depend on how effectively we undertake such major tasks as increasing the supply of the right kind of food, improving the stability of food supplies and decreasing the rate of poplation growth. International organisations, such as the World Bank and the institution we are speaking of under this Bill, have a vital role to play in helping the poorer countries to help themselves and to help them to attain the necessary doubling of their own food supplies by the end of this century. In 1975 and 1976 the IDA's lending was designed to benefit an estimated 18 to 19 million of the world's rural poor with the aim of doubling their income and increasing food production substantially.

The present Bill relates to the raising of the limit of the Irish contribution to £5.8 million, as part of the fourth replenishment to the IDA. I recognise the important contribution which the IDA have made to helping developing countries feed themselves and because of that this Bill is most welcome. It provides concrete evidence of our commitment to aid developing countries. It also slots in as a major part of our contribution under Ireland's own development assistance programme. In 1973 the Irish Government formally undertook to increase assistance to developing countries. The Government committed themselves to increasing aid each year both in absolute terms and as a share of GNP. The result of this policy is that Irish assistance has increased eight-fold from the figure of £937,000 in 1972 to a budgeted figure of more than £7.3 million in 1977. It is estimated at almost .15 per cent of GNP. The fact that it has increased eight-fold since 1972 is some progress.

Within this increasing allocation the Government established in 1974—and I give them credit for this—a bilateral aid programme which pays attention to sectors here which have a special interest or competence. Thus the programme is concentrated on education and training. One of the National Science Council's functions is to advise the Government on matters relating to science and technology. They act in an advisory capacity to the Government in the scientific and research type activities of the Irish aid programme. The National Board for Science and Technology when established must get increasingly involved in this problem and be of increasing assistance to the Government in this whole area of underdeveloped countries.

In addition to the formal programme of aid to the developing countries a great deal more activity is taking place in Ireland which is directly or indirectly related to the needs of developing countries. Because of our relatively recent development—Senator Robinson made this point—and the intermediate position which the country still occupies on the development spectrum, it will be seen that the level of activities in Ireland, and our experiences in developing ourselves, are more relevant to developing countries than to those of the more industrialised countries.

There is therefore plenty of opportunity and scope for co-operation and assistance to the poorer countries. To this effect I know some important initiatives have already been taken by all governments. Irish public enterprises have recently organised themselves into a co-operative consortium called DEVCo and, because of the importance of the public enterprises in the Irish research and scientific set-up overall, these public enterprises can play a major role in Ireland's undertaking to the Third World. They are ideally situated to provide the scientific and technological background to aid the Third World.

Another development is the recent organisation of a higher education consultation group, which is identifying possible areas of technical co-operation within this whole area. The third level institutions here are, as they should be, the reservoir for much of our scientific and technological expertise. They have an obvious important role to play in the whole area of education and training activities. However, they can do a lot more than they are doing at present. Trinity College, for example, has commenced a master's degree programme in systems development. The purpose of this is to give students from developing countries a good grounding in systems analysis techniques and how they might use these techniques in administration, commerce and industry. A feature of this programme is the time which students will spend working in relevant Irish organisations and thus gaining practical experience of solving problems which face them in their own country. Again, perhaps Trinity College could do a little bit more in this regard.

A centre for development studies has recently been set up in University College, Dublin, in which attention is being paid to the models of development being adopted by national and international agencies. Overall, apart from the Government drive, our higher education bodies and our universities in general should take a closer look at their involvement in this whole area.

I should like to take the opportunity of putting a proposal to the Parliamentary Secretary which might be considered at another time. It is very important to understand that in this tragic and human problem which I feel is the major problem facing the world, as many of us as possible outside the bounds of parties should try to come to grips with the real solution. It is very simple to say that we will sign a cheque, that that will bring up our percentage from point something to point something else, and then say we can wash our hands and finish with the Third World. I do not see it that simply. Each of us has to decide the more practical and more definite steps we can take. In this regard I have identified the major problem as one of education and training requirements.

I should like to recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary that a training institute—be it a State training institute, or a semi-State institute—be set up here specifically designed to meet the requirements of developing countries. Developing training centres exist in many other countries and the establishment of an equivalent institute here would have many advantages not only in helping the Third World but also for the image of Ireland as being a caring island which cares for the problems of the world. Despite the undoubted demand for training and education, the actual number of students in Ireland from developing countries is still disgracefully small. The lack of a formal mechanism for getting the students to Ireland, coupled with a lot of administration difficulties, is a major impediment which can be overcome if the suggestion I put to the Parliamentary Secretary is implemented.

The institution I suggest should be specifically designed to meet the major training requirements of developing countries and that, in a nutshell, is the need for well-trained technicians. It might, therefore, be envisaged as an AnCO type operation concentrating initially on agriculture, food technology and, certainly, on marine science. These are the three areas where the developing countries require skilled technicians, and Ireland has the capabilities and experience to provide the relevant training. What we need now is the political will to do that.

The question of funding such an institution would obviously be a problem and I see no reason why the World Bank or, indeed, the International Development Association, coupled with, perhaps, an increase in our own programme, would not solve that difficulty over a period. While the objective of the proposed institution is clearly to assist developing countries, it would also, from a selfish point of view, have some long-term return for Ireland. I reiterate that that should not be our main concern. It has been shown that very often when students are trained in a country like Ireland in a certain expertise, that expertise comes back to benefit the country itself. For example, if students in the establishment suggested were trained on farm machinery, tractors and Irish equipment, when they would return to their own country as fully trained technicians they would be inclined to buy that equipment from us as their own countries develop. That should not be an important consideration, but nevertheless it is a consideration.

In conclusion, I should like to say that we have had much emotion in regard to this problem. Ultimately, when one looks long and hard at it, Ireland can do a lot for developing countries—perhaps not so much in monetary terms—whether or not we get up to the 1 per cent. Of course that is important; but for our longer-term image, and in helping the Third World, if we have the right type of institution, the right type of approach and can act as an arm-twister in the councils of the world, if we can say at the UN and other world bodies that Ireland has at the top of its list of priorities help for these people of the Third World, then we can do more for the Third World than by simply signing a blank cheque.

Professor Murphy

I have no wish to be either lengthy or contentious on this Bill. I cannot help observing that Senator Brennan's concern for rapid population growth and the need to slow down that population growth as a solution to the Third World problems, stands in somewhat amusing contrast with the lack of initiative of his own party in regard to any kind of family planning development here.

Mr. Brennan

I thought the Senator was not going to be contentious.

Dr. West

Maybe Senator Brennan is going to promote it himself.

Professor Murphy

I could be much more contentious. I welcome Senator Whitaker's contribution because he drew attention to the fact that it is necessary to educate our own public opinion at home on the urgency of doing what we can for the underdeveloped countries. For historical reasons our people, up to about the last two decades, when they thought of the necessities of the outside world tended to think in terms of the spiritual needs of black babies. It is only really with the television age, and the age of the media, that the incredible poverty and subhuman existence of nearly a quarter of the world is being brought home to them. We have our poverty at home, which is all too apparent to anyone who walks through the city, but that should not exempt us from our obligation to alleviate the larger and more terrible poverty which prevails throughout much of the world.

I should like to keep my contribution broadly philosophical and say that we must convince people that there are a number of reasons why this problem is an immediate one even for a small country like ours. There is the absolute elementary feeling of human compassion, of altruism, of humanitarianism. There is enlightened self-interest which can be explained at several levels. Senator Whitaker pointed out again it is a question of mutual development, of commercially being dependent on one another ultimately in world trade. There is another aspect of this enlightened self-interest and that is the fear that, if the poverty of the Third World continues to accelerate and the wealth gap continues to be more stark, in the end we will be overtaken by a global Nemesis. Now that is altogether apart from another aspect of enlightened self-interest, namely, that if we are sincere in our allegiance to western values, the values of western democracy, and if we want to preserve, if you like, the Third World from what we seem to regard as the horrors of communism, then clearly that is another reason why we should put our hands in our pockets. I must say that, if I were a politically conscious member of one of these dreadfully poor nations, I should have no hesitation in choosing between the Marxist concept of freedom, which is freedom from want and freedom from unemployment, and the western concept of freedom which, alas, is a luxury afforded only to the very few.

The debt of obligation is another aspect of our duty to the Third World. I mean—not for us, perhaps, but for some of our EEC partners—there is a sense in which they have to discharge an historical debt. Senator FitzGerald yesterday raised the question as to whether the connection between Third World poverty and western wealth is a causal one: that is to say, does the wealth of the western world rest on a stratum of exploitation of the Third World? My own feeling is to think that it does but, even if it did not there is the fact that the west has done well out of the world that it colonised and imperialised, to which it says it has brought civilisation and trade. But these were frequently euphemisms for exploitation. In our own case we have none of this murky imperial past and that is all the more reason why, Senator Robinson reminded us, we have much more in common with these wretchedly deprived people than our wealthier European partners. Because we were one of the first victims of western European imperialism we should have a special rapport with the poor developing countries, sharing with them a common history of colonial exploitation.

Senator Whitaker stressed how important it was that aid such as this should be free of corruption. It should also be free of any strings attached. Again we are strongly placed in this regard. I would hope that there survives for us something of that high regard in which we were held when our foreign policy was much more independent than it now is. Bodies like the episcopal commission have a perfect right to criticise the level of our contribution. Obviously we must give as much as we can. Senator Robinson and others have spelled out the detail of that and there may be an argument for increasing this contribution. But ultimately, and I agree here with Senator FitzGerald, it is the responsibility of the Government answerable to the Oireachtas and, for the moment at any rate, I am very happy to welcome this measure.

Professor Conroy

I would like to welcome this Bill. The principle is an excellent one. It is very evident that nobody here is going to disagree with it but is the method, I wonder, really the best method? However acceptable the principle, I think the method of emphasis on aiding Third World countries, of aiding developing countries, by financial means must be very suspect. It is the method that has been tried now since the Second World War. It has been tried for the last 20 to 30 years. The simple fact is that Third World countries are falling further and further behind and so we should have great reservations about this financial basis for aid to the Third World. One or two Senators have dealt with the matter, Senator Brennan particularly. The human factor is very much more important than simply giving financial aid which quite rightly, I think, allows the wealthy countries to pat themselves on the back, to talk about the percentage of aid which they have given, with the occasional mea culpa that it is not any more. It is a higher percentage but nonetheless basically saying: “Look at all this money we are giving to the developing countries”. In actual fact from the point of view of Irish official aid, first of all, one must be a little dubious about the principle and, secondly, relatively we have made a very substantial financial contribution, one which has recently been much increased, when you recognise the fact that we are making a contribution out of relatively limited resources. It is far easier for one of the wealthy industrialised nations to give a very small percentage of its financial resources to Third World countries on the basis, No. 1, that such wealthy nations have a relatively large amount of cream and, taking our proportion of it, it is much easier than for us with very little cream in our finances. Secondly, in actual fact a great deal of this money comes right back again to the enhancement of industrial countries in one form or another and, naturally, this will not happen with us to any significant extent.

In the past we have done a great deal in relation to human aid which basically is infinitely more important. We have done a great deal already— our missionaries have been mentioned —in practical terms as teachers, whether missionaries or not, as nurses, as medical people. We are, I think, now seeing a new era and this is where I would like to see the Government emphasis on encouraging such bodies as our semi-State concerns and private enterprise, but particularly our semi-State bodies, in such areas as electricity, by the provision of electrical engineers and advice on electrical plant. Some of this has been done already but it could be further encouraged. There could be communications experts on the running of airlines. There could be all these in addition to what we have already been doing as regards teachers and medical and paramedical personnel. This is where we can make a far greater contribution than by arguing about the point of a percentage of financing which we are giving or not giving.

It is an unfortunate fact that the gap is widening, that very few of the developing countries have managed to pull themselves up and come anywhere near the developed countries. The exceptions, and perhaps those who have been referring to the socialists and the communists may be a little unhappy about this, are, on the one hand, those countries which have had the good fortune to discover vast natural resources, such as Kuwait, for example, and, on the other hand, those countries which have followed principles of private enterprise, which we certainly might well consider excessive, countries such as South Korea, which not so many years ago was a desperately poverty-stricken, extremely backward country, and which now is becoming very rapidly an extremely advanced country with a very rapidly rising standard of living. Taiwan, under some form of military occupation, is another curious example of a country developing purely from the point of view of the economic development of the wealth of the people. Singapore is a somewhat different example. These examples are very few and I wonder does the pouring in of money really help anymore. One sees this in all sorts of different circumstances. We should look at this idea of financial assistance as the answer, and an answer which, when given, we can to some extent forget about. We should query it very much.

We have to suggest what in practice we can do instead. Senator Brennan referred to education. I do not altogether agree with his criticism of the third level institutions here. Both Trinity and National have done a great deal in this respect. I think what he is suggesting really is that they could do a great deal more. If they are to do a great deal more they must get Government support. The taxpayer is paying for this and I think our money could well go in this direction to a greater extent.

I would like here, if I may, to pay a small tribute to the institution where I am employed as a professor. One-third of our intake of medical students are from the developing countries. For example, we take a group of students from one of the developing countries which is unable to have a medical school of its own, not simply because of lack of wealth, although this is a part of it, but also because the population is insufficient to provide an adequate basis for a medical school. In this practical way we could do a great deal more for the developing countries. The second point, which we should be very clear about since it is repeated so often by people whom one would hope would know better, is with regard to food production. We have heard so often that population is outstripping food production. In actual fact, since the Second World War, it has been the other way around. Food production in relation to population is increasing and could well be increased a great deal more. The problem is one of distribution. We know that this country—perhaps again this is a practical way in which we could help—is capable of producing far more food than it already does. The problem is to distribute this to areas where people are dying of hunger. Surpluses are being regarded as a disaster in EEC countries and in the United States while, in other areas, unfortunate children are starving to death. We should look at the hard realities of this overseas aid about which one hears a great deal.

I support the Bill, but I am very dubious about the emphasis on finance.

Mr. Markey

I shall be brief. My observation on this sort of measure is that it appeals to humanitarian dictates in that we should provide financial assistance to Third World countries, appeals to even moral obligations in that we should help those less well off and give so much from the Exchequer each month to help Third World countries. It seems to me to fall to a certain extent on barren ground like all appeals for more education and a greater provision of State funds for the improvement of our educational system seems to fall on barren ground. There is a human problem in this as it pertains to us just as much as there is a very human and tragic problem pertaining to financial assistance to people in Third World countries. What we should be bending our minds to is not so much the principle since there is a very broad consensus in both Houses that aid should be given. What we should be bending our minds to is why allow shortfalls in the target set and allow this to happen repeatedly. This is what we should try to resolve. There must, first of all, be a political commitment on the part of the Government to fix a target and stick to that target. Any government, of course, will always be prone to the temptation in times of recession to cut back expenditure across the board.

One way in which a target can be made stick is by setting up some structure, or some body, which will be responsible for the administration of the funds voted by the Government. If that structure or body were to submit annual reports and publicise the work being done with the moneys voted, then the Government would find it difficult to cut back on the moneys voted. What we should aim at is setting a target and making sure it sticks. We should also acquaint the public more of what it means for these people in the Third World countries to receive funds from countries which are regarded by them as being better off.

This country has not in the past century experienced the impoverished state that these countries have to live in from day to day. They are merely existing. They are not living as we live. It is only when we see catastrophes depicted on our television screens or read about them in the newspapers, catastrophes like the recent Indian disaster as a result of cyclones, that the full impact of the bare subsistence level at which those people live from day to day is brought home to us. Recently one of the Peace women from Northern Ireland—perhaps she was caught offguard—when interviewed about winning the Nobel Peace Prize and asked to what she would devote the money, immediately answered that, as far as she was concerned, the conflict in Northern Ireland was only a trivial conflict as compared with the troubles which afflicted countries in the Third World. That was a realisation on her part. I think it is a realisation on the part of anybody who goes abroad and sees the subsistence level at which these people live.

I would go along with the point that we should not regard financial assistance as the only form of assistance. For centuries this country built up a very commendable reputation for the great voluntary work it did through its missionaries, its teachers and its nurses and, in more recent years, through organisations such as Gorta, Trócaire and so on. The Electricity Supply Board has in recent years done survey work and research work for many Third World countries. Admittedly, they do this on a fee basis but I think the long-term results of what they are doing will be far more beneficial than an annual subvention. Our Industrial Development Authority could, perhaps, help as regards giving the benefit of their tremendous skills, expertise and knowledge gained from the development of industries here over the past 20 years. Why is it—this is something I find difficult to accept—can we not see our way to giving the full amount asked for by the International Development Association? The difference over a period of five or six years, and it takes that length of time for the money that we vote to be actually taken off, is I think £1½ million—that is the difference between what we are giving and what is being asked of us. We should have met that target in full and, having met that target in full, the only thing that remains then for us is to set up a State structure which will ensure that that money is spent in the best possible way, spent correctly, and that there are regular and annual reports to the Oireachtas as regards its expenditure. We have all the arguments and all the statistics but I am sure the people of these impoverished nations do not want to have statistics flourished in their faces. It is not percentages they want to hear about. It is food in their stomachs that concerns them. When all is said and done, the political commitment must be there for a start, followed by the means to ensure the implementation of the commitment.

I welcome this Bill. I would have hoped that the Government would meet the full target and that we could start off on a sound footing for the future to ensure that similar targets would be met in future. I also look forward to other assistance continuing in the form in which it has already been given over the last century through our various voluntary bodies and I hope some of our own semi-State agencies will be encouraged, like the Electricity Supply Board, to go into this field.

Lady Goulding

Food is not enough. If we produced more food here and gave it to Indians or Malaysians they would still starve because they cannot stomach the food we eat. Money is what we must give. Our voluntary organisations are all excellent but I would ask that just one thing be borne in mind. When the money leaves Ireland and goes to any of these countries, would it not be possible for someone from Ireland to go with the money and see that it goes where it should go? I am not pointing my finger at any country or at any organisation, but I feel that the money should, up to 80 per cent, get to the point of disaster where it is needed. It is not just food. It is agricultural equipment, everything. I may sound a bit emotional about this but I have been in the Far East and day after day I have walked down roads and seen dying children on the pavements, dying and odorous. I have seen them and smelt them day after day. Therefore, I urge that we send every penny we can but, for goodness sake, let us see that it gets to the right place, at the right time. I urge the same approach in regard to the right equipment and the right food.

Dr. West

This has been a very interesting debate. It shows first of all, that we have a strong commitment to help the Third World. It is a proud part of our historical tradition that we should welcome the fact that the de-debate has shown, from very many different points of view, that people really do care. The question is how do we translate that caring into something concrete. Our tradition is one of personal service and not of financial aid. It is a very proud tradition. First, we have the missionaries who have provided educational and medical services, a basis for these services for many Third World countries. It is a very touching thing for anybody going abroad to meet Irish missionaries who have worked overseas all their lives and who have really made a tremendous contribution to a country's development, much more than just looking after black babies or something like that. It is something of which we can be very proud.

We also have another tradition which we sometimes overlook and that is the fact that we supplied very many of the leading administrators in the British colonies. Whereas we sometimes tend to decry our links with imperialism, in fact I believe that the Irish administrators in the British colonial service were particularly good because they saw colonialism working in reverse in this country and, when they went abroad, they had a wider view of the way in which life should be administered. Coming from the home country, they had seen the disadvantages of imperialism as well as some of its advantages.

However, those avenues of service are not now so popular for various reasons. For one thing, the British Empire has disappeared. Younger people do not all wish to go into Holy Orders to serve abroad and so we have a whole growth of voluntary organisations—Gorta, Trócaire, APSO have been mentioned by Senator Whitaker— and I think that our people are expressing their desire to serve abroad through these organisations. The tradition remains. It is just the avenues that have changed. New avenues have been found. They have also been mentioned. DEVCo is a particularly important one where the expertise of our semi-State bodies is now being used and found to be of benefit to the developing countries. A number of semi-State bodies have been mentioned which have taken part in DEVCo. I should like to mention the work done by an Foras Talúntais in its programme of research. It has done a great deal of consultancy work for the developing countries. One of the reasons that I opposed bringing an Foras Talúntais into the national agricultural advisory service was that it seemed to me there was a danger that the tradition developed by the scientists in the agricultural institute could have been stymied by extra civil service control. The fact that they went abroad and the fact that they got paid consultancy fees for working abroad would have been somewhat stifled if the body were brought entirely under civil service control. I am glad to see that their autonomy will be preserved. They have a tremendous contribution to make because, as has been pointed out, money is just not enough. One wants to increase our financial aid to meet the target set but it is equally important that we should have some input into how the money is spent.

The Minister for Finance is the person who, as a director of the World Bank—the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me—would actually put our input into the system and, therefore, would feed some of our ideas into how the money should be spent by the spending agency. It is important that we do this because—I think Senator Conroy made the point that it is just not enough to give blank cheques—you have to have control over the way the money is spent. In fact, it seems to me, that some of this money will be spent by the World Bank in sending Irish personnel out to set up a training scheme in the developing countries. That would seem to me a very useful exercise.

Senator Brennan talked about the basic need being one of education and training. I would agree with him there but I would disagree slightly when he says that we should continue to develop programmes in this country, bringing people from the Third World here, educating them and then sending them back. Now the philosophy is changing somewhat. In certain areas this will have to be done. In Senator Conroy's own area, in a country where you have not got a medical school, you have got to have your doctors trained abroad. The increasing advantages of having people trained on the spot is paramount. Take a particular subject in my own area of mathematics. I have been involved with UNESCO in a scheme for the development of mathematics in Africa. The Africans are not receptive to the idea that a training centre in Trieste is the place where Third World people should be trained. They want, and I think basically they are right, to have a centre established in an African country. Of course, as soon as you do that, all sorts of political problems arise. I was on a committee discussing this and the number of countries—even the Africans themselves admit this—that are politically stable enough to have such a centre in which one can hope for at least ten or 20 years of untrammelled development are very few. The number is now down to about two or three and it seems to me that the stability depended on the longevity of certain old men who were in the driving seats in these particular countries. There are always difficult problems administering something on the site. It is much easier for educators and so on to operate here in an environment which they know but I think what we should look to more and more is to have teams going from here abroad and actually, when we encourage our universities to set up training schemes, we should encourage them to set up training schemes with Government assistance and World Bank assistance in the country in which the schemes are going to be applied because it might be nice to use Irish agricultural equipment on the beet fields in east Cork in December but you will not find those conditions in the Sahara or in any other part of the developing world.

We want to change our philosophy there, but I would like to see more control over the way in which this money is spent and that is up to the Minister for Finance. The philosophy behind today's debate is that there are many problems but at least we are beginning to see the problems of the Third World. We are beginning to appreciate these problems and Senator Whitaker made this point forcibly, by looking outside, and by appreciating the fact that other people are in situations which are not comparable with ours, that they have problems of a magnitude which ours will never line up with, this helps us psychologically to get our position into perspective and to develop our own national life. I am sure all the efforts that we put in, particularly through our personnel going abroad, our training schemes and educational programmes for developing countries have a tremendous feedback and a tremendously beneficial effect on life and industry.

Mr. Jago

I should like to add some information to what has already been said. There are four main organisations in this country that collect money for the Third World— Trócaire, the Bishops' Appeal Fund, Gorta and Concern. It is only with one of those that I have any association and that is, Concern. Concern was formed way back in the time of the troubles in Biafra; at that time it was called African Concern. When the Biafran troubles were over, because of the troubles in Bangladesh and elsewhere, they changed the name of the organisation to Concern.

Over the years they have had teams of volunteers working in various parts of the world. Those teams are financed from Ireland and by help from other countries. During the last 12 months the amount of money available from private sources for Concern has been reducing. I understand that at this moment the amount required from Ireland is about £1,000 per day to keep this organisation on its programme. Today it is a case of living from hand to mouth.

In the next few weeks Concern will be putting on a fast. The idea behind that is for Irish people to fast a certain amount over Christmas and give the money to the people in the Third World. Part of the policy of Concern is to get people to help themselves. The teams who go out there are to a certain extent experts in engineering and other fields, helping people to build houses.

One point which I do not think Senator Whitaker brought out was that it is very difficult to help them. Due to the lack of protein and to their physical and mental condition, you cannot help them because they are not capable of being helped and they cannot help themselves. This is a problem which we have got to get over. Concern at present tries to help them by giving them handicrafts to make which are then brought to Ireland and the Irish people are asked to buy them. If some of our local people come to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I would ask him to treat them generously so that this work can continue.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Senator report progress? Before proceeding to the matter on the Adjournment, may we inquire when the Seanad will sit again?

Mr. McDonald

Could I have two minutes on this because I will not be here next week? I was on the missions last week in Soweto and I would like to put two points to the Parliamentary Secretary, if the House is agreeable.

Mrs. Robinson

Senator McDonald mentioned this earlier and I would be prepared to forego part of the Adjournment time to enable him to make a brief contribution.

Mr. D. Andrews

I will not be able to reply to the Senator now, but he will see my reply in the Official Report. I will be glad to give any assistance I can.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to make two points——

An Cathaoirleach

We have not settled when we will meet again.

Mr. E. Ryan

It is proposed to meet next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. subject to the agreement of the House. I think there is general agreement that we should try to finish all business next week which means, if necessary, sitting the following Thursday and Friday, rather than sitting the following week. I will be proposing on Wednesday that we sit Thursday and Friday, if necessary, to finish all the business, subject to a discussion among the Whips.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

And subject to our ability to finish all the business on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Mr. E. Ryan

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

It is agreed that we will adjourn until 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday.

Mr. McDonald

I want to make two short points. After the Lomé Assembly meeting last week in Lesotho, I took the opportunity of going into the Republic of South Africa and looking at an area which attracts a lot of Press publicity. Many of the points that have been raised this afternoon are valid. I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary not only on the inter-governmental aid but on the support he is giving to the non-governmental agencies. Our bilateral programming in Lesotho is one that every citizen and taxpayer can be proud of.

I had the opportunity of speaking with Mr. O'Hara, who is seconded from the ESB and who is managing director of the Electrical Corporation there, and with Mr. McCarthy on the distance teaching. The work they are doing there is of tremendous importance. As has been said, they do not disburse any moneys but they are giving people tremendous technical know-how. Our teaching organisations could play a tremendous role by making available to some of the African schools wall charts and various aids which are not obviously available in a number of the schools I visited. I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would increase this year the amount of aid that has been made available to the non-governmental agencies which includes the missions. Our Christian missions are doing tremendous work in seven or eight African countries which I had the opportunity of visiting over the last few years.

I thank Senator Robinson for giving way to me and I am sorry for trespassing on her time.

Mr. D. Andrews

I will correspond with the Deputy directly in relation to the queries he raised.

Debate adjourned.