Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1980

Vol. 94 No. 9

International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1980: [Certified Money Bill]: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Kennedy)

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise a voluntary contribution of £6,230,000 by the Irish Government to the Sixth Replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association.

The International Development Association was founded in 1960. It is one of the organisations that make up the World Bank Group—the others are the World Bank itself and the International Finance Corporation. In effect, the association, which has 122 member countries, is a special fund administered by the bank. The President and staff of the bank are in charge of the day to day running of the association. They report to an Executive Board which is elected by the member countries. Major policy matters are decided by the Board of Governors of the association, each member country electing one Governor.

The association caters for the poorest of the developing countries. These include countries such as India, Bangladesh, and countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly 90 per cent of the association's lending goes to countries with an average annual per capita income of £100 a year. In some cases the average would be even less than this. Masses of people in these countries would, in fact, be subsisting on incomes of one-third or one-half the national average. Within these countries the association concentrates on lending for projects which have a direct effect on the living standards of the poor. Thus, 46 per cent of the association's lending in recent years went on agricultural and rural development. Agricultural and rural development projects undertaken in 1978 and 1979 are expected to directly benefit about nine million rural families. The rest of the association's lending is devoted mainly to basic infrastructural, industrial and urbanisation projects.

Although the association's projects are aimed at the poorest section of the world community they are nevertheless required to meet appropriate economic and financial criteria; they are supervised carefully to ensure the greatest efficiency in the use of resources and, after their completion, the projects are fully evaluated with a view to improving the association's future project work. It is accepted internationally that the assocition operate very high financial control and auditing standards.

The conditions attaching to the association's loans are highly concessional—repayment over 50 years, 10 year grace periods before repayments of principal begin and no interest. There is an annual service charge of three-quarters of 1 per cent on the disbursed portion of each loan. The service charge is intended to cover administrative costs. The World Bank itself, by contrast, lends on essentially commercial terms and the International Finance Corporation also provide equity and loan finance on an essentially commercial basis.

The concessional nature of the lending undertaken by the association is made possible by the grant-type resources which are made available to it. To date these resources comprise, in round figures, initial membership subscriptions amounting to $1 billion, transfers from the surplus income of the World Bank of $1½ billion and nearly $18½ billion from periodic replenishments provided by its richer member countries. The funds for these replenishments have come traditionally from almost all the developed countries—the Part I countries as they are known in the Association. All the members of the EEC and many other European countries participate; also, for example, the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia. There are as well a number of OPEC contributors and, in recent years, an increasing number of better-off developing, or Part II, countries. The latter include Argentina, Brazil, Korea and Yugoslavia. In all, about 33 countries are expected to contribute to the current Sixth Replenishment.

Ireland joined the association on its foundation in 1960, and subscribed $3 million to its capital. This country did not contribute to the first or second of the three-yearly replenishments of resources, but made a contribution of $4 million to the Third Replenishment as a Part II member. Ireland became a Part I member in 1973, because of the economic progress which had been made over the previous decade, and because of our membership of the EEC. It was accepted that this would involve a continuing commitment to participate in future replenishments. As a Part I member, Ireland contributed £3.1 million to the Fourth Replenishment and £5.8 million to the Fifth Replenishment.

Negotiations on the Sixth Replenishment began at the end of 1978 and concluded towards the end of 1979. The negotiations agreed on an overall amount of $12 billion for the replenishment. This represents an increase of 55 per cent in US dollar terms over the amount of the Fifth Replenishment. The vast bulk of the funds will be provided by Part I countries. The basic principle followed in the allocation of contributions among these countries was that each would maintain in this replenishment the same share as it had taken in the Fifth Replenishment, with a number of exceptions in the case of some major contributors. The allocations have been made on the understanding that commitments to them are not final until approval has, where necessary, been obtained from the legislature of each donor country. The outcome of the Sixth Replenishment negotiations, which is generally regarded as successful, has been approved by the association's board of governors. The replenishment will enter into force when member countries contributing about 80 per cent of the total replenishment formally notify the association that they will pay their allocated amounts.

Donor countries have, as heretofore, the right initially to substitute nonnegotiable, non-interest-bearing demand notes for cash payments. The notes are to be deposited over the three years 1980 to 1982. Actual cash payments under the replenishment will arise over the years 1981 to 1990. The precise rate at which the funds are called upon depends on the progress made in implementing the projects financed by the replenishment.

As a Part I member of the association, Ireland is, as I have said earlier, expected to participate in the periodic replenishments. In accordance with the sharing arrangements agreed in the negotiations the Government has indicated that, subject to legislative approval, it is prepared to contribute the amount appropriate to Ireland, that is £6,230,000. The association's management has indicated its appreciation for this undertaking and for the helpful part that Ireland has played in the negotiations. Contributions to the association are regarded as official development assistance.

Ireland's membership of the association is covered by the International Development Association Act, 1960. As in the case of earlier replenishments the Bill now before the House makes provision, by way of amendment to the 1960 Act, for our contribution to the latest replenishment. The proposed amendment also brings together the earlier payments provisions in the 1960 Act and those inserted by the subsequent amending Acts.

This Bill, when enacted, will, therefore, enable Ireland to maintain its role in helping to finance the work of the International Development Association and, through it, to continue to help alleviate the appalling conditions in some of the poorest developing countries around the world.

I recommend the Bill for the approval of the Seanad.

Mr. Staunton

We welcome the Bill which of course is not controversial. It is mandatory legislation designed to allow our country to meet its international commitments as members of the World Bank. The IDA, not to be confused with the Industrial Development Authority, are a section of the World Bank Group and are described as "the soft loan section" in the sense that there are extremely generous concessions through this section to poor countries, what are described as the Third and Fourth Worlds. It is laudable and receives our full support.

In more general terms, discussing the commitment of this country to the Third and Fourth Worlds, there is room for some dissatisfaction. This Bill deals with part of our official development assistance, but on a broader front there is room for disquiet because the agencies in this country which deal with aid to the poorer sections of the world are concerned about the lesser level of Government commitment, especially when related to what had been promised in the commitment that they apparently had sought. The total ODA budget for this year amounts to about £16 million, which is apparently a shortfall of about £5 million in comparison with previous Government commitments.

I am glad that the Minister for Finance is in the House because he is on record in the House in February 1975 as committing his party when in Government to ensuring that irrespective of budgetary or balance of payments problems they would set aside each year the appropriate sum to ensure that we reach at least the target set by the Minister, which is 0.35 per cent of our GNP, within five years.

In relative terms, vis-a-vis the world's poorest countries, we are an immensely wealthy nation. There has to be a minimum commitment of a country such as ours. In world affairs we have earned enormous respect as a tiny country with an independent voice in the forums of the world, with a contribution that is out of all proportion to our size. We have to maintain this moral position, and a continuation of this moral position demands that though we seek from the EEC—for example, the richer countries of the EEC such as Germany and France—financial transfers to ease the relative poverty in this country, in more general world terms we must be generous and come through with our commitment to those poorer sections of the world.

I deplore the fact that we have not come through with money to the extent that we might have. In the broadest terms possible this shortfall of £5 million in a country with such a budget as ours and relative to the overall wealth of the country is a pittance and though we accept this Bill—it is mandatory, there is not an option, it is simply our contribution and we are going along with it—I would appeal to the Minister to hold to the previous commitment which was the bare minimum, and to look to a future in which, irrespective of budgetary or balance of payments problems, there will be a minimum contribution from this country to these appallingly poor parts of the globe.

Ruairí Brugha

I fully support the Bill. The Minister has told us the appalling fact that many people in those countries are trying to exist on £30 or £40 a year I hope the Minister will tell us what the total contribution from the contributing members will be along with the £6.23 million which Ireland will be contributing, and also indicate which countries capable of contributing do not contribute to this World Bank fund.

Professor Keating

It is interesting to put some of the sums of money that we have been given by the Minister into context. If one takes Ireland's contribution, in the relevant paragraphs where he offers some of these sums to us, the initial entry fee and the subsequent replenishments, there is a mixture of dollar amounts and £ amounts. But if one converts the dollars to £s simply by halving them, and if one does not endeavour to make an adjustment for inflation since the initiation of this scheme in 1960 and excluding the first two replenishments in which we did not participate, our contribution has been £12.4 million. This Bill is to enable us to make a further contribution of £6.23 million, a total of £18.63 million in a period of 20 years. Again making the very crude assumption that one will do that in a straight line sort of way, that is of the order of magnitude of £1 million a year, and that is not true either since these increments of money come at different times. I did that crude and distorting arithmetic to get orders of magnitude and to say that, of course, we do not oppose this Bill. But if one calculates an averaged contribution over two decades of £1 million a year, one is talking in terms of 30p, 33p or 40p per citizen of the country per year, which is very little indeed.

The purpose of any arithmetic is to make that point. What we are being asked to contribute is very very little. Of course it has to be said in fairness that the International Development Association, one of the organisations under the umbrella of the World Bank group, is not the only mechanism for Third World aid, but it is an important one, and the response of Ireland on these issues in general is very good, so I would think the number of begrudgers would be very small. In fact what we have been asked to contribute is very little indeed and should give heart-searching to none, because though we are poor in contrast with some of our immediate neighbours, we are rich in comparison to the recipients and it is the very very least we might do. I hope we all agree to do it willingly and recognise how small it is.

It is worth broadening that thought a little on the basis of the figures given to us, because for the International Development Association the initial entry fee of all the then participants two decades ago was two-and-a-half billion—we are working in dollars all the time. The initial subscription was one billion, there was one-and-a-half billion surplus transfers from the World Bank and 18½ billion by way of replenishment. The tot of that is 21 billion, and that is leaving aside—the Minister does not in fact tell us as the previous speakers asked him to tell us—the total amount for all of the donors of the current replenishment to which this Bill relates.

We are talking of a sum over two decades of 21 billion. It is not possible for me without going through source books—and anyway it is slightly arbitrary—to state the numbers of deserving recipients, the number of persons falling within the category of those States which are recipients, but it must be of the order of magnitude, again just to try and get figures roughly into the ball court, of half a billion people. That is soul destroying if one takes it as an approximate plight of the total world population, of the people known to be living at the sort of levels of income that are indicated and to which the Minister and Senator Brugha made reference.

What we are talking about over a 20-year period is 21 billion dollars for half a billion people, and that is 40 dollars per capita over 20 years, and that is two dollars a year, and very crudely that is one pound a year. I do that very simply—forgive me for the crudeness of the arithmetic, it has to be as crude as that—to put it into context. That is to show that not alone is the effort of Ireland through this mechanism a small one but the efforts of vastly richer countries than Ireland are also small. We do not have to be ashamed of our place in the relativity table or of our commitment as an individual country, but based on those figures I want to offer people the thought that in fact in terms of the realities of wealth transfers within the world at the moment, all of these efforts are very small indeed and are dangerously small.

It is presented to us that activities of this kind are terrific and that they are no more than is our duty as decent human beings in the context of a world family. I think that is true, and they are good arguments, but I think that the argument of self-interest is exceedingly important too, because when we talk of figures like a pound per person per annum of transfers through the World Bank mechanism let us put it in the context of the transfers that have taken place due to the change in the price of oil, because whatever earning power we have, the countries we are talking about have no earning power except for single products in most cases. If we have difficulty, as we have, in digesting the increases in the price of energy, what does that do to them?

When I in my time as Minister attended the UNEDO Conference which happened to be taking place in South America, I also attended another international agency which happened to be taking place in that instance in Kenya, and at all of these the confrontation between developed and developing worlds was very easy to see and very dramatic and very sharp, and a sense of outrage at the developing world was also very clear to be seen. Although I cannot do it without elaborate preparation, I have the following thoughts to offer in the context of transfers of the pound per person per year. The extent to which the developing world since the early seventies has been forced to borrow just to retain State structure intact has been enormous, very dramatic, indeed inescapable. Their power to repay is very small, and we see the continuing battles at the international agencies about the rescheduling of loans, about moratoria on loans, and we see that the circumstances in which the developing world now finds itself and which this Bill, in however small a way, is intended to play our part in remedying the circumstances of the developing and the poorest sections, of people with less than 100 dollars per capita annual income, their circumstances, as the seventies evolved and as the energy situation evolved and world trade has evolved, has been deteriorating strikingly rapidly. It is not that they are getting a place in the sun, it is not that they are holding their position, they are in fact—and I say that this is not an altruistic argument, this for us is a survival argument—deteriorating very strikingly.

What has been happening simultaneously is that there is an explosion in communication. If the people—let us take an example that is in the newspapers this week, of Soweto, that appalling and obscene defacing of the earth—see television through the window of a shop that sells television sets, they see it in however occasional a way, or it may be in a pub, they no longer are ignorant of how we live, so not alone is the gap increasing but the knowledge of the gap is becoming more generalised. That seems to me a formula for explosion of a kind that we often underestimate. The conclusion, if any of what I am saying is right, is that helping disadvantaged places of the world is more than altruism, it is a matter of self-interest and survival for us and for the planet as a whole.

I would add the thought, wearing the particular political and ideological blinkers that I do, that in the vast majority of instances the poverty and the other problems we see of social and cultural disruption in these countries are not of their own making. It is no use applying the wasp ethic and saying that if only they worked like us they would be rich like us, it is their fault. It is because of the realities of the development of the world economy, going back centuries, going back to the slave trade, going back to what happened with the gold in South America, going back to the last century and the development of the British Empire. I am using the analyses and the arguments and what seems to me to be the impeccable documentation of the school of economists in Stockholm. When I look at what these people say it seems to me unanswerably true that the poverty of the Third World has been created simultaneously with the wealth of the developed world. The two things are connected and represent a wealth transfer. The two things represent what I with my blinkers would consider as the economic basis of imperialism and, in current euphemism, neo-colonialism. It does not matter what you call the process.

The reality is that our wealth is built on their poverty and their social disruption and their culture shock, their alienation. We have responsibilities for that reason. We have responsibilities as humans whatever the reasons for the present situation, because we are the same species. That seems to me the most serious reason for welcoming this, but what we are contributing is not nearly enough, and we must try and see it not alone for the contribution that we honourably make but to see it in the context of the scale of the need. The reason for making these arguments is that if we do not halt and then reverse the process of the polarisation of the globe, that is a pun but an appropriate pun, because it is dividing into north and south, not that the wealth is leaking down, it is leaking up, it is moving to the top of the globe, if we do not halt that process of differentiation of people whose annual per capita income is less than $100, and if we do not then reverse it and open a path to develop those people into our sort of society, our sort of standards, whether it is more Scandinavian or more like what Margaret Thatcher or Milton Friedman would wish, it does not matter very much because those different aspirations share some common ideal. But if we do not offer them the chance of evolving in that way then they will evolve in another way with other objectives under other leadership. It will be evolution or revolution.

It seems to me that the matter is not one of equity any more: it is a matter of avoiding a third world war. The great powers will fight over these issues if they see a large scale evolution of large parts of the Third World going on a path that is not acceptable to groupings that are now predominant in the market economy world. We have the genesis of a world war. We have the current reality of an obscenely unjust and brutal situation, and it is getting worse. It is not just the very poorest of the countries, for example the Caribbean countries, which have a certain tourism, a certain source of foreign earnings, a certain development of infrastructure, who are in exceedingly critical situations.

I hope I can convey the sense that it is impossible for any of us who try to see the world as a whole, to look to the survival of our species and the avoidance of a world war, to exaggerate the importance of the division between north and south, between rich and poor. It is impossible for us to be complacent when we see that division widening. It is not a matter any more of altruism, though that is a good reason. It is a matter of species survival.

Though the contents of the Bill are indeed admirable, they are not nearly enough, and though I applaud this Bill, I cannot help noting and deploring that in other ways we seem, in the face of our own difficulties, which are real but in this context are nonetheless small, to be drawing back on a commitment to a level of aid and to our own indigenous organisations which behave so admirably to the other half of the globe. That seems to me short-sighted, selfish and, most important, intensely misguided in the context of the size of the crisis that has come because of the economic change in the seventies in regard to the economic survival of the Third World.

Though this is a Bill which I do not think anyone in a month of Sundays could oppose, it is very important for us to see it in context, to see the inadequacy of its scale, to see other activities of the Government not evolving in the same direction in terms of magnitude, in terms of adjustment for inflation and even in terms of enabling us to continue some of the voluntary activities that Irish organisations have both admirably and very intelligently undertaken.

The Bill itself is fine, but the general tendency is not. The scale of the Bill and of our effort is not fine. It could be asked why 3.4 million people rich enough to be in OECD, to be in the EEC, have to be responsible. We have to be responsible because we have a role in the world which goes beyond our numbers. We are the country with the experience of being part of a metropolitan exploiting area which got away from it. We are the country of all of the white countries which can see black as well as white. We can see exploitation as well as the benefit from being the exploiter. We can see what happens to the morale and fabric of life in a country when it suffers the culture shock from defeat and from the undermining of its values, its gods and its whole social structure. If anybody of all the people who possess the northern experience, the developed experienced, the industrial revolution experience, if any nation in the world is able by its history to see both sides, it ought to be us. If any nation has the need to shout out and to point to the danger it ought to be us. Our duty in this regard is a very great one but the scale of our response is not currently adequate.

Professor Conroy

I join in the welcome and support for the Bill. It has been supported from both sides of the House but it raises many points of both principle and detail and of general approach, many of which Senator Keating, in his very interesting contribution, was making. I would find myself very much in agreement with a great deal of what Senator Keating was saying. One of the sad factors in the present situation and it is certainly by no means the main factor or the only factor, but it has been a contributory factor in many of these countries, is that well-intentioned attempts to bring about policies of a type and nature with which Senator Keating is associated has, unfortunately, resulted in great misery.

Senator Keating mentioned the Caribbean and there is a prime example there in Jamaica where, potentially, the country which could and should be supporting its inhabitants in some degree of prosperity, through no doubt well-intentioned but misguided policies, has instead reduced that country close to ruin. However, I agree with a great deal of the rest of Senator Keating's contribution. We are making far too small an individual or a national contribution from this country to the developing world. Certainly, we of all countries, as Senator Keating indicated, should be conscious of and aware of the mal effects of the colonial or post-colonial legacy of the way in which wealth and, perhaps more important than direct wealth, traditions, talents, individuals, have been drained away or discouraged and the cycle has been set up in which wealthy imperialist nations first of all battened on the rest of the world, drew their riches from them and set up a situation which is perpetuated from year to year and grows greater each year, whereby they continue to become more wealthy and the countries which they have impoverished have entered into a cycle which is ever getting lower, with consequent tragedy for the individuals concerned and the detriment of the countries concerned and bringing about a very serious overall situation in terms of world politics.

The International Development Association has had its loans referred to by one of the Senators as being soft loans and this is a necessary and important role of the IDA. There is no way in which many of these countries can possibly take loans on the basis of those offered by the World Bank or similar kinds of institution. They just do not have the wherewithal. There is no effective way in which they could repay the loans if accepted. The IDA loans, even though called soft loans, play an absolutely crucial role if these countries are to have any hope of breaking out of the cycle of impoverishment in which they find themselves at present.

We should differentiate between the various countries concerned. We tend to talk in this catchphrase of north-south relations and to talk of the developing countries as though they were all in exactly the same sort of circumstances or category. Nothing is further from the truth. Some countries in the developing world have almost no hope at all at present of breaking out of the situation. They have no mineral resources. They have no agricultural resources. They have no industrial tradition. They have a low standard of education and, in these circumstances, there is no other effective way in which they can develop unless we in the developed countries and in particular countries such as Ireland come out and help them, both through financial aid and through technical assistance. The two of them must be linked together. It is a criminal waste of money to build, for example, a very expensive high-powered type of hospital in a primitive developing country. It may seem very charitable and worth while and people may clap themselves on the back on the amount of money that was contributed to them and so on. If that hospital is too expensive to run, if the developing country concerned does not have the personnel to man it you end up with the population worse off than before. They probably have made some contribution to this expensive project as a result of which other more necessary health projects, such as district health stations and so on have been starved of the meagre funds which they already possess.

The same applies right through to industrial projects, educational projects: they must be adapted to the circumstances of the countries concerned. Otherwise, the only real beneficiaries are the industrial nations which are selling the industrial concerns involved or which are drawing revenues in relation to the expert assistance which they give. It is very important that we do not just sit back and talk about the actual sums of money involved. They are, in themselves, quite inadequate but even doubling or trebling them will not in itself mean that they are effectively applied.

We have a particular role to play in that we have some historical idea of what is necessary and some practical experience over the last 20 years or so of gradually pulling ourselves up from a very impoverished situation. A word of congratulation is very much in order here to the many voluntary organisations which are actively and very effectively involved in overseas aid and assistance of one type or another. There is a lot of Government encouragement, but we could give them a great deal more.

In relation to the funds involved, this is an area in which we could perhaps maximise the benefit of our contribution. The question of oil has come up and the increase in oil prices, both in the previous debate and in this debate. It is understandable that very few of us, as we suffer from the appalling effects in western economies of the increase in oil prices, should spare very much sympathy for developing nations in these circumstances. Earlier today we were arguing whether we could afford to go on paying ourselves and keeping up with certain standards of living by borrowing overseas in order to make up for the effects of the increased oil prices, but other countries are not in quite such a comfortable position. For many of the developing countries, particularly in Africa, the increase in oil prices has almost entirely used up any income that they had available and, in most cases, is far beyond any foreign incomes or foreign earnings which are available to them. The effect on those developing countries has been absolutely catastrophic.

We in the west and those countries which are members of OPEC should come together and think about this matter a little further. Some form of subsidised hydrocarbon aid to these developing countries which have no possible way of effectively paying present world prices for oil should be considered. We have contributed. I have worked it out in dollars. Senator Keating worked it out in pounds. This 12 million or so extra dollars that we are now contributing represents a 66 per cent increase in our previous contributions, but really it just is not enough. We should be contributing more and we should be extending our support a good deal more.

I was horrified in another context to discover some months ago that we are not a member of the Asian Development Bank which has played a very useful role in developments in poor countries in Asia with which we have had associations—the Philippines, Thailand and so on—where there is poverty just as severe as is to be found in many parts of Africa.

I was a little surprised in a way at the reference to Soweto by Senator Keating. I agree with him about it being an abomination. One of the facts we must realise is that the wealth in Southern Africa as it so happens is in Zimbabwe and in the Union of South Africa. Many people from countries outside South Africa have been going there to get work and, relatively speaking among the African population, have a high standard of living. I take Senator Keating's point about communications and agree with it absolutely wholeheartedly. The problem is to see that this wealth is evenly distributed among all the populations there, whether they be white, black, or whatever colour, or whatever religious or political affiliations they may have. It is not doing a service to an African or indigenous population if we help and aid it in its attainment of independence and the effect of that independence is to impoverish still further the people concerned.

This is something we must look at especially with regard to South Africa. There is no way in the present day world that apartheid can or should be maintained. We must accept and encourage the fact that it must come to an end, and do all we can to encourage its speedy end. We here in Ireland have a role to play. We have not got dirty hands over South Africa, and let us be frank about it, certain neighbouring countries have. We are white and yet we have suffered from the type of apartheid and discrimination, dressed up, perhaps, in a different form, as exists in South Africa. I should like to think that one of the things we can do in our international aid generally, and as regards the developing countries and those segments of the population who are so very badly deprived, is to try to see that when the changeover does take place in South Africa, as inevitably it must, it is not accompanied by excessive bloodshed and that, as far as possible, the indigenous populations there, whatever their colour, stay on and allow circumstances to develop in which the wealth of that country will continue to be increased but spread to the benefit of all its inhabitants.

I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Professor Murphy

I may be driven finally to joining a political party if only to get on the front bench and thus prevent my points being stolen by the time I am called upon to speak. However, all my points have not been stolen. I should like to take the opportunity on this occasion of referring to the widespread disappointment that exists among various bodies which are involved in programmes of aid to developing countries, the widespread disappointment, bafflement indeed, expressed by members of such bodies as Concern, Comhladh, and so on, at the recent reduction in our own aid programmes to certain developing countries. This was a matter which I expected Senator Conroy to touch on but perhaps I am not surprised that he did not. The disappointment one hears from these voluntary workers can only be a small reflection of the disappointment, and perhaps even fury, that must be felt by the people in these countries who have seen projected programmes sabotaged, in effect, by our scandalous decision to cut back on particular aid programmes.

In places like Tanzania the contrast between a remembered and friendly State visit of our President and the present bleak realities of famine stalking East Africa must be particularly bitter. That decision has affected adversely and has diminished our status vis-a-vis the Third World in general and those particular countries in Africa in particular.

Senator Keating dwelt at some length on the question of enlightened self-interest as being, in the last analysis, the reason for survival and why we should be involved in aid to the Third World. He went on to sketch a further dimension to that which I want to develop here. He spoke about our human responsibilities. I want to stress our Irish responsibilities.

What is very important about our aid programmes to African countries and, therefore, what is correspondingly deplorable about the cut back, is that this is something we are doing as an Irish State, not as a member of the European Community, not as a member of any particular international association but qua Ireland. The benefit of what we have been doing up to now is particularly important by virtue of our history, our experience of famine, our atypical non-European experience as a former exploited colony, as a subject nation only recently liberated and, after that, as a small State developing our own expertise in particularly indigenous ways.

This is why we should have a very special relationship with the Third World. The recent deplorable cut backs have diminished that relationship. It is very hard not to see this unfortunate decision as part of a general drift away from independent stances in international affairs. As the House knows, I am one of the unrepentant few who still hold that our horizons have diminished, have narrowed, not broadened, since our entry into the Common Market. I am confirmed in this view by the recent and deplorable decision to cut back in our aid to developing countries.

Professor Keating

On a point of order, with respect to the Senator, this is the third day the Seanad has been sitting this week. For the past two days we started at 10.30 a.m. It is now 5.47 p.m. Is it proposed to have any break? We know we have a very complex and lengthy Bill to deal with shortly. We have a great deal to say about it. Would it be normal to expect some sort of pause about this time? I wonder what the intention of the House is.

Professor Conroy

My understanding is that it is the intention of the House to continue.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair understand that the Seanad agreed on the Order of Business to continue.

Professor Keating

Through the Chair, I realise the Leader of the House is not here. Whether we break at 5.50 p.m., or 6 p.m., or 6.15 p.m., or 6.30 p.m. is not material. I wonder would it be possible for Senator Conroy or someone else on that side of the House to find out if it is the intention to break or not? It would be normal, humane and reasonable if we were to break.

Professor Conroy

It is my understanding, as I mentioned, that there is no intention to break. I will be happy to convey the Senator's suggestion to the appropriate persons.

An Cathaoirleach

We agreed this morning to continue. Senator Conroy may proceed to do what he suggested. I think I should let Senator Whitaker continue. We will have the information for you later on.

Professor Keating

I am still on a point of order. I was present this morning when the Order of Business was agreed. My recollection is that there was neither discussion nor agreement in regard to whether there would or would not be a break at this time. There was certainly no decision that there would not be a break. The matter was not discussed and was not resolved. If one is guided by normal precedent then, after three days of Seanad sittings, at this time on the third day, with a lot of work to come, it would be normal at least to consider the possibility. What I am asking now, courteously, is that someone should discuss the matter with the Leader of the House and we come back with reasonable time to do that. If we do not get a reasonable response, but there is plenty of time to get a reasonable response——

Professor Conroy

I have offered to inquire.

Dr. Whitaker

I welcome the Bill because it confirms that at least one element of our overseas development aid is being maintained despite domestic financial difficulties. We made a progressive—indeed a generous move—in 1973 when, of our own volition, we joined as a Part I member of the International Development Association. We thus recognised our distinctly favourable position in a world in which wealth is very badly divided, a world in which, whatever may be our feelings from time to time about not being so well off ourselves, we are in fact amongst the 25 richest countries in the world.

This contribution to the International Development Association will mean a payment over a period of years by Ireland to the association of £6.23 million. According as it is disbursed this will count as part of our official development assistance. But, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, our total development aid programme has suffered a disappointing setback this year. Many Members of the Oireachtas, and concerned persons and organisations outside, have already deplored the failure of the Government to live up to their commitment in regard to development aid, a failure indicated by the provisions of the 1980 Estimate for International Co-operation, in particular the drastic cuts—even in money terms—in bilateral aid and disaster relief and the cut of almost 20 per cent in real terms represented by the mere repetition and the cut of almost 20 per cent in real terms represented by the mere repetition (APSO).

As the original chairman of that organisation, perhaps I may be permitted to say that the kind of personal service of a training character in developing countries which APSO sponsors is, perhaps, the most highly effective form of development co-operation. It certainly does not suffer from the risk of waste, of diversion, to which Senator Conroy drew attention a moment ago. The regrettable consequences of this real cut in the provision for APSO were instanced by the present chairman at the last annual general meeting on 27 May. I do not intend to repeat them, save only to say very briefly that this limitation on their finances will mean that approximately one-third fewer persons giving this sort of service overseas will be in the field at the end of this year as compared with the beginning.

I have, of course, to moderate my criticism because of my sense of the reality of the financial difficulties which confront the Government and, indeed, of my own advocacy of reduction of budget deficits. Nevertheless, I do have the feeling that when economies were being sought and tax reliefs determined insufficient attention was paid to the commitments we rightly and voluntarily entered into in relation to the Third World and to the degree to which already we have fallen behind in honouring these commitments.

The extent to which our performance is falling short of our promise is indicated by the fact that Ireland's total development assistance in 1980 at £16.226 million will represent less than one-fifth of 1 per cent of our GNP. Contrast this meagre fraction with the seven-tenths of 1 per cent of GNP to which Ireland is committed as its target for official aid—the rest of the original 1 per cent scheduled for aid to the third world is to be, or should be made up by private aid.

Our interim target, several times reaffirmed by the present Minister for Finance, was to have reached an official aid contribution of 0.35 per cent of GNP by now, whatever the budgetary or balance of payments problems. We are short of 0.20 per cent. But these percentage figures, I am faraid, conceal the extent of the shortfall because even 0.15 per cent of GNP is now a sum of at least £12 million.

The discomfiture we should all feel, public as well as Government, because we are not honouring our commitments, should be all the greater because of our lavish spending in more selfish directions. This year's £16 million for overseas development assistance is hardly visible when set beside our current expenditure on alcoholic drink and tobacco which is now close to £1,000 million a year. There is a disproportion here which I hope we would all wish to have reduced, particularly if we realised how terrible is the plight of the Third World.

The recently published Brandt Commission Report should stir us to action. In relation to health alone, that report reminds us of some pretty horrifying facts. Amongst them are these. There are still countries in Africa where one child in four does not survive until its first birthday. Of the 20 million to 25 million children under five who die every year in developing countries, one-third die from diarrhoea caught from polluted water. River-blindness, vitamin A deficiency, or water borne infections cause blindness in 30 million to 40 million people in the Third World. Between 500 million and 1,000 million people in the Third World are under-nourished and hungry. In the poorest countries with a total population of over 250 million, the average annual income per head is about £1.50 a week. As has been mentioned, it is primarily for these countries that the International Development Association caters.

If these facts were more widely known, and also if the broader considerations touched on by Senator Keating and Senator Conroy were more widely known—and I hope it will be the business of the new advisory council on development co-operation to help make them known—I am certain the response of the Irish public would be such that the Government would be strongly pressed to go steadily forward towards the 0.7 per cent target for official aid and, what is more important, would be enabled to do so financially by public acquiescence in the necessary budgetary and taxation provisions. Meanwhile, the Government are to be commended for honouring their IDA replenishment commitment through this Bill.

Mr. McDonald

I am very glad to have an opportunity to comment, however briefly, on this Bill and to welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced it in the House today. During the six-and-a-half years I had the honour to serve in the European Parliament I was either a member of the Assembly of the Ayounde Agreement or a member of the Executive of the Lome Convention. In addition, for a couple of years I served as Chairman of the European Parliament India Relations Committee. For the first year I was there, I was on the Development and Aid Commission of the Community, all of which tended to give me an insight into the problems of the huge masses of people for whom this type of aid was designed and intended. During my membership of the Community I had the opportunity of officially visiting some 20 odd countries. In the main, they were in the Continent of Africa, but also in some of the other under-developed regions of the world.

I do not think there is any great commitment here to the problems of the Third World. Despite the fact that so many people here make a tremendous contribution through the various voluntary organisations, through their work in various parts of the world, nevertheless, we ought to have in the Oireachtas a foreign relations sub-committee. The Seanad could well set up such a committee so that Senators could go out on fact-finding missions and endeavour to instil into the public mind our obligations as a Christian society. No matter how thin the veneer of Christianity is, it is difficult to appreciate the problems until people see for themselves the very stark contrast and the reality of the two-tier society in which people either have their breakfast or have not got it. This is the tremendous problem.

While I welcome the Bill, it is valid to recall that the Minister's budget statement this year evoked very adverse comment, especially in the public press and from people who are making a tremendous voluntary contribution, because of the savage cutbacks in our aid to the Third World. I do not want to dwell on that. I know it has slowed up the very excellent programmes which so many of the Irish agencies, especially the semi-State agencies, are carrying out in Lesotho, Maseru and Swaziland. These programmes bear comparison with the programmes the larger and wealthier countries across the world have undertaken. We are inclined to hide our light under a bushel. The Minister has personnel in his own Department who are very committed and who are doing a tremendous job, and who go much further than they are called to go officially.

I know it is disorderly to mention names, but our personnel in Lesotho represent not only the Department of Foreign Affairs but also the Department of Finance, the ESB and many other State and semi-State organisations. Their contribution to the establishment of necessary infrastructures in that small country will be a lasting monument to them. In my experience of visiting many other countries for not more than two weeks at a time, in the Central African Republic which is a considerable landmass, in Niger, Chad, Peru or, indeed, Swaziland, there is tremendous hardship. As members of the human race, as a Christian people, we must have an order of priorities. While we have problems at home, we must recognise our responsibility to assist people who are at a lower and a later stage of development than we are.

We must remember that in this century the world has shrunk drastically and it is not sufficient or valid to say any more that these problems are at the far side of the world and, therefore, we are far removed from them. I contend that that is not the case. While one can be very sympathetic towards areas of the underdeveloped world, when it comes to practicalities we seem to forget any commitment. For instance, during negotiations on the sugar agreement. I do not think there is any thread of Christianity in our attitude when it comes to fighting our corner. We must make allowances for the tremendous problems of economies dependent on one crop. As members of the EEC we have this in common with other countries. Government Ministers especially take a very nationalistic view which lacks a dimension.

As a developed nation, irrespective of our state of development or underdevelopment, we have traditions and we have a certain stage of development. We owe it to these people to demonstrate that we appreciate their problems and, as far as it lies within our power and our resources, we should be prepared to contribute to their orderly development. International aid does not always have to be in financial transfers or in monetary contributions. The tremendous work of the Agency for Personal Service Overseas can contribute in a very dynamic way to the development of these countries. In my experience the people who have gone from this country, whether they be missionaries or, indeed, people from the public services or the private sector, have worked hard. They seem to have something which puts them apart in the eyes of those people in the developed countries from people who had a colonial background. That makes our people ideally suitable to give a lead, to show these people some light at the end of the tunnel. If we do not work hard to do that, as individual members of society we are failing to make a contribution to mankind and to assist people who are very many times worse off than we are.

Some months ago I was disappointed that the Department could not find some way to contribute a grant to one of the Bantu schools in the Republic of South Africa, even though it was an all-black school. This is where I would ask the Government to consider a change of policy. I do not think we should recognise or support apartheid. We had the same problem in the EEC on the question of Uganda. There was a volume of opinion that we should not support or contribute to that country for the simple reason that they had a nut, a barbarian, at their head. It is not fair for a country such as ours, irrespective of which Government are in power, to label an entire race of people because of the policy of one man who is a dictator.

Similarly on the question of the Republic of South Africa we should look for opportunities to demonstrate as Christians, as white people, as Europeans, to the oppressed people there that we want to help them. Their school systems are assisted greatly by many of the different orders and societies of Irish missionaries. Our Government need not necessarily be connected in any way with the South African Government.

Senator Whitaker, in his excellent contribution, gave the House many very telling figures and, indeed, very important ones. There is one great criticism of the European Community and this year there was a protracted row over the budget of the Community. The Common Agricultural Policy is criticised by many people from different backgrounds and with different philosophies. The main criticism is that it encourages excess agricultural production. It encourages the production of excess food in a world where six out of every ten people are undernourished. This should make us think, and we should find ways of making a transfer of resources, whether they be food resources or others. The Economic Community should be thinking about agri-power, if I can call it that, especially when they are speaking to people who are using energy. Some countries seem incapable of utilising the increased flow of resources to improve their standard of living and to feed their population.

There are many points I should like to raise in this most important debate. Perhaps the House should consider having a standing committee on foreign relations so that we could keep ourselves informed on the problems of the Third World who are numerically in the majority. We should advocate greater support for the voluntary agencies which do such tremendous work. They are not in that business to get thanks. But we should endeavour to ensure that they are adequately financed. I do not mean that they require a huge amount of finance. There is a level which will keep them operating in such a way that the Irish people will continue to appreciate them and provide an Irish presence in the Third World. Despite the fact that there has been a cut back in the fund provided in the budget this year, I compliment our people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who over the years have made a tremendous contribution which is greatly appreciated by many people in the developing countries.

Debate adjourned.