I wish to take up a point made by the Minister. During his contribution he mentioned the fact that contracts taken out under the aegis of this Bill have to be given to one of the countries who are contributors to the International Development Association. It seems to me that this is taking away totally from the good that the moneys can do. If you contribute to the developing country and you award a contract to the people who are giving the money, basically, what is happening, is you are giving the money back to the contributing country and they are the people who will benefit most. Obviously some firm in one of the contributing countries gets the contract, he will make a profit on it and, therefore, the bulk of the money comes back again. I would like to know if that is what the Minister said or is it a misinterpretation by me of what he said?
International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1983 [Certified Money Bill]: Committee and Final Stages.
I am glad of the opportunity to clear up that point. The position is that the contracts are placed with any member country of the association. Any member country includes either a donor country or a recipient country and the provision is not, as Senator Lanigan may have thought, that contracts are confined to the donor countries. They are confined only within the broad parameter of the entire membership of the association, which as I mentioned, totals 130 countries. That is the only limit. I hope that Senator Lanigan is satisfied with that.
It does not satisfy me because it is quite obvious that contributing countries are countries which have a per capita income of more than $875 per head, and if 90 per cent of the moneys are being given to countries which have a per capita income of $475 per head it seems to me that, generally speaking, the contracts will go to contractors from the countries which have the biggest contracting base and will not be given to contractors within the countries which have such a low base of income as $475. This brings home again what has been said by a number of speakers during this debate, that the problem of contributing to so-called Third World countries is that the benefit is not generally going to these countries. The benefit is being given to the contributing countries. Unless we change that attitude this type of aid will not be welcome, just as it is not welcome at present in many countries because it is not contributing to the raising of the income of the very people to whom it is supposed to go.
I do not altogether disagree with Senator Lanigan, but nevertheless I think the tremendous contribution that development aid has made to so many countries in the Third World over a number of years now is significant and is generally recognised. One thing the Minister did not deal with in his speech was how far outside of development has co-operation been established. By now with so many contacts, with such a tremendous input especially with the development aid of the EEC, apart from the OECD, there has been a tremendous investment. In most of these countries the economies are based on one crop or one particular item of manufacture. That creates a difficulty in having the perfect balance that Senator Lanigan would like. I should like to ask the Minister, in view of the tremendous efforts that have been made through development and co-operation, how far have the Department got in getting some of those countries to co-operate on ordinary things such as the situation we had in the midlands during the summer when Miss Noreen Delaney disappeared in Africa? There is a lot of unease expressed at what could be described as lack of co-operation. I know it does not really come under the Bill, but nevertheless if one area is developing the other should be developing alongside.
I take the point raised by Senator Lanigan that in major construction work if one is building a dam or something else, which I suppose would have been done in the early days of IDA, that the developing countries would not have the capacity to provide the major contractors who would be capable of taking on such jobs. That would be a general conclusion one could draw. The position is that in regard to projects funded by the association the association seeks, as far as possible, to ensure that whatever work can be done locally is done locally by local people and that, in addition, so far as local supplies can be obtained, that they are obtained locally. We have the position that of the entire membership of the association every country is entitled to tender for these contracts but there is a specific policy on the part of the association to try as far as possible — I accept the limitations — to ensure that as much work and materials as possible come from the developing world.
In regard to the point raised by Senator McDonald I do not want to discuss it in the context of this Bill. I appreciate Senator McDonald's concern in regard to the case he mentioned. I would certainly be happy to go into the matter in detail with him but in relation to this Bill it would not be right to discuss that important case. He mentioned in broad terms the dependence of countries of the Third World on single crops and single commodities. Of course, that is one of their major problems. Whether that commodity is one agricultural crop like bananas or whether it is one commodity like copper it adds to the economic fragility of Third World countries that when there is a collapse in the price of that commodity the whole country suffers. That is one of the very many problems of the Third World.
It was mentioned that we should try and ensure that the OPEC countries play a bigger part in support of the International Development Association, but it should be pointed out that when one looks at the latest OECD report the OPEC countries in general have spent three times more of their GNP on help, generally speaking, in the Third World than the OECD countries and possibly ten times more than what has been spent by any other country outside the OECD. The question I would like to ask relates to a lot of what we have been talking about. There is in this country at present an organisation called Comhlámh which co-ordinates what has happened and the perception of what has happened to aid amongst the workers who have gone out as voluntary workers. It does not seem at times that there is enough co-ordination as to what happens in aid between Concern, the Government agencies in which Gorta is involved, Trócaire and indeed the International Development Association. Can the Minister give us any indication if any major discussion has taken place between the various organisations which are involved in Third World aid and the International Development Association to see if the very minor amount of money in real terms that we give in aid is being best used?
In regard to OPEC, I would not like it to go forth that I was in particular criticising OPEC. I merely mentioned the fact that four of the 13 members of OPEC are members of the IDA. It is fair to say that, particularly in recent years, perhaps as a result of the additional wealth that accumulated to many of the OPEC countries, these countries have been taking a very advanced position in the provision of aid. I certainly would not like to single them out for special criticism.
In regard to the position of Comhlámh, an excellent organisation, which is mainly composed of returned development workers, it has a high degree of concentration on development education, an area again on which I put a lot of emphasis because there is a need for far greater understanding of the issues. Senator Lanigan was talking about the question of co-ordination. It must be appreciated that while I have an interest in the activities of voluntary bodies such as Comhlámh, Gorta, Concern and so on they are all independent bodies. I do not want it to be thought that we have designs to put them under official control. There is room, I believe, for co-ordination. One of the things I am doing in that area, arising from the comments about Comhlámh is that I hope, in the very near future, to organise a discussion forum between all the bodies involved in development education with officials from my own Department to discuss what is being done by all these different sections with the principal idea of trying to isolate areas which are not being covered so that we can get a degree of co-ordination. I am very cognisant of the fact that all these voluntary organisations are independent bodies and should not be under the official control of either the Minister or the Department.
In regard to the overall question of development co-operation and overseas aid generally I should mention that we have a very important body, the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation. That council has representatives on it from many of the different bodies involved in the development co-operation effort from this country, including the voluntary agencies. It is in the advisory council that very many of the kind of issues that are raised here are fully discussed. I take the opportunity to compliment that particular council on the work and help it gives to me and my Department. Its main function is to advise the Minister on the different aspects of development co-operation and on policy generally in this area.
Arising out of the Minister of State's last remarks, in the course of my speech I referred to the possibility that in the area of development education and peace studies perhaps a submission might be made by the Department to the new curriculum development board which will be set up in the Department of Education. I feel that, laudable and all as the efforts of the voluntary bodies, such as Comhlámh and Concern in the area of development education are, a more co-ordinated approach might be achieved if it were integrated into the educational system by way of an input into civics education, geography or some other relevant subject. I would like the Minister's comments if he feels he has a contribution to make in this area.
I am sorry, I overlooked that very valid point raised by Senator Bulbulia. In fact, I overlooked it because I have asked that such a submission be prepared on that very point. I would be very pleased indeed if in the curriculum review there is found to be a greater place for development education within our schools. So, I am in total agreement with Senator Bulbulia's point.