It is my pleasure to second the adoption of this report in the Seanad. In doing so, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Jack Fitzsimons, for waiving his right to do so. I welcome this Second Report from the Joint Committee on Cooperation with Developing Countries. I, too, would like to add my words of commendation to the committee and to the dedicated chairperson, Deputy Nora Owen, because I feel that this report is painstaking, thorough and valuable. It gives us an opportunity in this House to discuss and evaluate our bilateral aid programme. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so here this afternoon.
I was interested to see that the committee decided to choose the bilateral aid programme as the subject for their second report. It was a wise choice because it represents a major initiative and the thrust of our entire development co-operation work. Such a review is timely because BAP, as I intend to call it from now on in the course of this debate, has been ten years in existence. An in-depth review and evaluation of its content and operation is desirable and necessary. This the committee proceeded to do to good effect. That represents a significant portion of our ODA, as I have stated. It represents 66 per cent, approximately, of discretionary as distinct from mandatory ODA. Therefore, it is something over which we have direct control because it is administered by Government. It is true to say that it is the centre-piece of Ireland's development co-operation effort and as such it was a wise choice of the committee to make this the subject of its second report to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the past we have had some really excellent debates in this House on development co-operation matters. It is fair and reasonable to say that the quality, standard and nature of the debates in this House have been superior to debates held elsewhere. Also, we have had the opportunity to debate and discuss development co-operation matters more than in another place. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say on this report, particularly members fortunate enough to be members of this all-party committee. I would dearly love to be a member of this committee, but there is no vacancy at the moment. So, I must content myself with reading their reports and following their progress and letting my voice be heard at debate stage in this House.
I, too, welcome the new Minister of State with responsibility for this portfolio here to this House this afternoon and I wish him well with his brief. He has recently been given this very big responsibiity and I know, as Senator Dooge has said, that he will be more than equal to it. We, in the past in this House have had the pleasure of Deputy Birmingham's predecessor, Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, and I, too, would like to place on record my appreciation of and gratitude to him for the tremendous commitment that he gave to this portfolio while it was his remit and responsibility. He certainly travelled the length and breadth of the country. Any groups or individuals involved in development co-operation always felt that there was an open door to them. He made himself known and respected among all these groups of people. I have no doubt that Minister George Birmingham will do precisely the same.
The history of Ireland in development co-operation goes way back in time. It is rooted in our missionary effort and has always had a measure of support from Irish people, albeit relatively less sophisticated than it is today. There is a tendency now to sniff at the notion of the black babies and the boxes pushed under the noses of people to assist in missionary endeavour. Nevertheless, although it is now seen through a certain historic perspective, and is perhaps denigrated, it is not such a bad thing. It did make the plight of the oppressed become impressed on the consciences of Irish people. It was a reasonable foundation on which to build what is today a far more sophisticated and effective style of development co-operation.
Nowadays the whole picture is far more complex. It involves direct aid, political relationship and trade. More and more people are becoming aware of the Irish thrust in this area. They are enthusiastic and supportive of Government endeavour and initiatives. That is good, but I do share the reservation expressed by Senator Dooge and the apprehension that the flood of support engendered by the sub-Saharan famine could dissipate and could be but a momentary, hysterical, gut reaction to a problem. We have to realise that the true nature of the problem is immense and requires much more than that to even attempt to cope with it. It is important to bear this in mind and to recognise the sheer scale, scope and nature of the task that has to be done. The statistics in relation to the diseases which were given in the House this afternoon by Senator Dooge can leave nobody in any doubt as to the scale and scope of the problem.
The joint committee report makes a total of 48 recommendations. In my view all of them are necessary and highly pertinent. The report itself is concise and it is tightly argued. In many instances when I read it I felt the obvious was being stated. Then I reminded myself that it is necessary to state the obvious and to have it there in black and white for the record so that decisions are made against a background of carefully thought-out policy which has been clearly enunciated and articulated.
In this regard I would like to ask the Minister when he is responding to the debate to indicate when it is proposed to unveil the White Paper which has been talked about for a considerable time and is I understand in the melting pot, because the gestation period — if I do not mix my metaphors — has been overly long. It is necessary that there should be a White Paper on the table so that Irish people can see clearly what policy there is because, excellent and all as this report is, its circulation will probably be fairly limited and it will not have the impact of a Government White Paper on development co-operation although I would imagine that much of what is contained in this report would be part of the substance of such a White Paper. I do hope that the work that is probably ongoing in the Department will see the light of day under the new Minister of State.
The committee state as their first recommendation that our BAP policy should be poverty oriented and it goes on to define exactly what it means by this. It states that each programme should tackle the basic needs of the most poverty stricken people of a particular area in a manner directly beneficial to them. It is probably obvious that this must be what a poverty oriented programme means but again it is necessary that it should be established clearly and indeed that it should be adhered to as a basic principle of policy from which decisions as to programmes and projects will be made. I was pleased — and I note that Senator Dooge plucked it out of the report as worthy of strong emphasis — that a special statement was made in the report that aid should be given without regard to the political complexion of receiving countries. It is gratifying to realise that that principle has been clearly enunciated and established. I do wish that it were so elsewhere.
I was very fortunate in January to have been invited to go to the Philippines and I saw there aid policies of another country which were clearly dictated more for reasons of strategic importance and East-West relationships than for any poverty-oriented motives. I saw the folly of such an approach and indeed it is very limited in impact on the ground. Also, I experienced the cynicism of local, native populations who clearly saw through that type of development co-operation approach and I am pleased to know that it will never be part of Irish development co-operation policy. I think such an approach sets us apart from countries whose aid policies are bedevilled by political consideration.
We must remind ourselves over and over again and give ourselves credit for the fact that we are neutral, small and we can, because of those two factors, be particularly effective in the field of development co-operation. It is my very strong gut feeling that we do not give ourselves sufficient credit for that and that we do not build on it and give ourselves the necessary moral authority that can go with neutrality and our small scale. We should do that more and more. I hope it becomes increasingly a feature of speeches and policy emanating from the Department. We have a unique position and we must make far more use of it. We are in a particularly advantageous position to urge that the principles of social justice and a more equitable distribution of resources should be the key factors in development co-operation policies. We should particularly press home these two points in international fora and in the EC where we have a voice and where I feel that it is along those lines it should be heard.
Our past history as a colony creates a very special empathy between us and developing countries who also experienced a history of colonisation. At the same time while much of what I have said could be regarded as a certain highminded idealism it is important to mention that by virtue of the fact of our EC membership we participate in a system of tariffs and protections which in some instances ensure or even guarantee that the capacity of many of the oppressed countries to produce agricultural goods cheaper than we can is not capable of realisation. The very existence of the CAP and its operation ensure than many of the goods from these countries cannot be and will not be effectively marketed. Here is where we can have a certain influence in the EC by bringing up this point and by insisting that it be developed and not be relegated when the CAP is being discussed. Certainly, following the recent price negotiations and settlements in the EC it is obvious that the consumer lobby and those in Europe who are concerned about surpluses and the build up of surpluses are being attended to and listened to increasingly.
The next step is for people to say how can we effectively and without blowing out of the water price structure and production here ensure that the suitable surpluses can be diverted elsewhere but at the same time keep some sort of harmony and stability in trading.
It must also follow from acceptance of the principle of the non significance of the political complexion of a country that countries have the right to overthrow dictatorships and autocracies or other types of authoritarian regimes. However, I am pleased to note that the report in paragraph 67 rules out involvement with countries where a political situation is so odious that any collaboration would be clearly construed as a betrayal of the population. No doubt the committee members had regimes such as South Africa in mind when they specifically included that proviso in that paragraph. I am pleased to see that because it is self-evident that it would be quite unacceptable and would be construed as a betrayal if we became involved as a matter of policy in development co-operation activity in South Africa.
The committee make a recommendation that the possibility of rescheduling or temporarily suspending Third World debt be pursued by Ireland in international fora. I certainly endorse that view because the fact is that control over the World Bank and the IMF is exerted by the developed nations and it is quite obvious that the recipient nations of the Third World should have a greater say in decision-making at these levels. Conditions attached to IMF loans should be less stringent, particularly as they relate to health and welfare programmes. If Third World countries default on debts Western banking and finance generally could be severely endangered. From that point of view it makes sound economic sense globally either to reschedule loan repayments or in some instances to suspend them.
I support the view in recommendation 4 that we should continue to pursue our policy of establishing small scale projects to cater for basic needs in an integrated manner and, of course, in co-operation with our host authorities. The best feature of such projects, in addition to their scale, is that they are capable of a replication and that we can learn from them and modify them to suit prevailing circumstances in different countries where we operate because generally speaking they have been found to be a sure-fire formula. When one has got such a formula one has got to use it, refine it, hone it and improve on it. In that way you will go from strength to strength. These are tried and tested in all our BAP priority countries.
In chapter 2 the report deals in some depth with problems and guidelines for programme administration — slightly turgid stuff but necessary in the context of reviewing BAP. Such a review and evaluation was necessary. In outlining the structures and organisation the various bodies which dovetail with and — or are funded by BAP are mentioned.
On reading through it I was once again struck by the fact that the whole area of development co-operation now has a specialist vocabulary of its own. The pages positively bristled with acronyms — APSO, HEDCO, DEVCO, ICOS — but I was very pleased to see that those who compiled the report decided that a glossary would be a useful addendum. At the back an entire page of abbrevations are listed, so the uninitiated need have no fear and, in fact, can have great fun skipping back and forth to establish the which, what, where and when of the different organisations.
The structure of the administration of BAP is clearly set out. Only two areas were felt to be of concern. The two areas picked out for a closer look at were ones of staff continuity and professionalism.
The committee are heavily in favour of removing the embargo on recruitment to the public service in the area of development co-operation. That should hardly be a surprise. In every area there are special pleadings. I remember during my time as a member of the health board it was one of the areas where it was felt that there should be absolutely a hands-off policy and that the embargo should not apply at all. I can quite understand the feelings of members of the committee who felt that a similar hands-off policy should be applied in the development co-operation field. I support this recommendation because I am keenly aware of the very damaging effects a lack of continuity in policy and planning can have on development projects out in the field. There is nothing more undermining or more damaging than stop-start `lack of funding' type difficulty being experienced by workers in this field. A turnover of personnel can have an extremely demoralising effect on projects.
I support the view that the Department should build up a fund of expertise and should, where necessary, engage specialist consultants. The committee strongly support the view that the wisdom and experience of returned volunteers should be drawn upon. I endorse that view. What is the point of having a body of expertise with pertinent, relevent information if it is not going to be drawn upon in order to enrich our development co-operation endeavours? The difficulty seems to be that there is no formal mechanism for ensuring that this expertise will be drawn upon. The committee in their report offered themselves as the vehicle for this necessary valuable input. This is where I have a certain reservation because the existence of the committee is very much dependent on the will of the Government of the day. It is not so long ago since a Taoiseach decided that a Minister of State with special responsibility for development co-operation was unnecessary. In fact the function was described as "superfluous". That was certainly one of the epithets used. It is true to say that there is no guarantee that future Governments will have the same commitment to development co-operation. The idea that the committee would offer itself as the vehicle for the transfer of experience and information into the policy making area is, perhaps, a limited one. It would be more important to have another vehicle for this necessary input. Perhaps it would be better if formal consultations were set up with Comhlámh, who are the organisation of returned development workers. Comhlámh are a member of the ACDC Council. If the arrangement was formalised that could be the mechanism for getting the information from returned experts and volunteers.
I was interested to read, in paragraph 30, that the development co-operation officer, who is a vital person, has in fact an ill-defined status. A particular difficulty in Lesotho is referred to. Not being a member of the committee. I was not privy to what the particular difficulty was, but it was obviously of sufficient significance to ensure that this whole matter was discussed by the committee. It may be that in developing countries diplomatic status is something of significance. While we here might think that this is something that should not be catered to, nevertheless if it makes the function and the role of our officials in the field an easier one, if it gives better access, if it soothes the way and ensures the success of projects, it should be sensitively and intelligently approached by our people in Ireland so that the lack of such status should never be an impediment or handicap to our work.
In paragraph 32 there was a hint of criticism to the effect that the Department of Foreign Affairs could be somewhat hidebound in their approach to innovative projects. I would be concerned that this might be so. I take the point that in order to get over this difficulty, if it is a real one or a particularly critical one, greater dialogue between the NGOs and the Department of Foreign Affairs would be helpful in this regard. We can all become hidebound. We can all become less receptive to new ideas. We can all become chary of innovation. It is part of the human condition and it does not reflect particularly badly on the Department of Foreign Affairs but it bears watching to ensure that it does not become an established feature of policy. I do not mean that in any particularly critical way. I would echo the sentiments expressed by Senator Dooge when he spoke of my admiration and enthusiasm for all the work being undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs in the field of development co-operation.
In paragraph 33 the committee stress the importance of monitoring and evaluating projects. The importance of consulting the project workers and taking them into one's confidence is emphasised, I have already spoken about that.
One interesting point was made in connection with the lack of monitoring of overseas personnel who have training in Ireland and have gone back to put that training into practice in their countries of origin. I must confess it is something I have never actually thought about. I was aware of the presence of poultry workers in the country, of Aer Rianta's training of airline mechanics, of the various training programmes in administration in the semi-State and Civil Service bodies. One assumed that people went back to their countries of origin armed with a certain knowledge and expertise. I certainly never thought much beyond the fact that they came, were trained and left. The committee forced me to think about the fact that everybody in intern or post-training situations should be monitored and should be assisted and their skills and training re-enforced. I know this would be complex and, perhaps, difficult to set up but I think we owe it to the investment we make in the training of these personnel to ensure that we do not sell them short at that vital stage in their development. It is necessary and important that we should have some sort of process in place so that this can be attended to.
The committee make an interesting point that the basic evaluations of projects should be published. I find this recommendation an appealing one. I hope it will be followed through. We often underestimate the interest of the general public in matters of development co-operation. Particularly, our young people are enthused about this aspect of our foreign policy. I have had the pleasure of chairing CONCERN debates in various parts of the country. I experienced there the general excitement and interest and love of development co-operation work, not only among the selected few who participated in the debates but also the camp followers who were there in force and who, judging from the questions from the floor when it was a sort of "open season" when the adjudicators were doing their work showed that the knowledge and the interest was not confined to those taking part — the actual representatives of the schools—but right throughout the first year students to sixth year students there were at varying levels of sophistication an interest, a concern and an enthusiasm. I am sure that if the evaluations of various projects were published and the debate was brought more into the public arena all of these youngsters would be keen to follow up and to see how various projects were faring.
It is only reasonable that taxpayers, in whose names all of this activity is carried out, should be brought more into the arena and should have access to this kind of information. It is a useful part of an open, consultative democracy that this should be the case.
In paragraph 35 the report stresses the necessity of having rigorous selection procedures for volunteers. That is a necessary point to have made in the report. There is a grave danger, in our recession-ridden western democracies where graduate unemployment is rife, that people without the necessary commitment, motivation and sensitivity would pop up as volunteers. Great care must be taken in screening and selection procedures to make sure that this is not so. At this juncture I would commend APSO and their director, Bill Jackson, for the excellence of the work they undertake in this entire area.
A correct emphasis in the report is placed on the value of proper pre-departure orientation programmes and language training. Having been the subject of a pre-orientation programme before my visit to the Philippines I have personal appreciation of the value of this. It is rather like a lot of other things in life, particularly if one goes out for six months of a year, perhaps after an initial six weeks there should be the possibility of getting a second "go" at an orientation programme. It is only when one has experienced something at first hand that the value of one's orientation programme is felt. Perhaps that is something that could be looked at. Maybe it would be possible after six weeks or two months to bring volunteers together and have a fresh evaluation and "reorientation" based on experience in the field. At that stage very often information can have a far greater significance to people.
The strict application of the four year rule limit is questioned. The report stresses that often the good of the individual project might demand latitude in this regard. The report invites the Department of Foreign Affairs and APSO to exhibit a greater degree of flexibility and to look at this area closely. It may be that in the field of project and programme work the four year limit is too blunt an instrument and, in fact, it could be counter-productive and work against the very project in which it is involved.
In praising and valuing the work of so many excellent volunteers, the report indicates that with medical volunteers, particularly doctors, difficulties in relation to careers are experienced on their return to this country. The IMO are invited to address themselves to the problem. I do not mean to nit-pick or to cavil unduly but reference is made to the IMA and the IMU. In fact for the past 18 months those two bodies are now amalgamated into what is called the IMO, and so a slight correction is necessary there.
At the end of chapter 2, paragraph 39, the report makes a strong plea for better and greater co-ordination between the various agencies. This would have the effect of streamlining activities and avoiding duplication and consequent wastage of resources. The report recommends that the ACDC be asked to undertake the study of this whole area which I also feel would be valuable and cost effective. A strong plea is made that the recruitment, training and administration of volunteers and expert personnel should be the preserve of one agency only which seems to me to be eminently sensible. I think to concentrate expertise of this nature in one agency could only improve the service. I hope that that principle is established as one of policy.
Chapter 3 of the report deals with BAP funding arrangements under two headings — bilateral aid as a percentage of overseas development assistance and, secondly, the relative proportion of BAP funds allocated to its constituent parts.
The committee affirms their support for an annual growth rate of ODA of 0.5 per cent of GNP until the UN target 0.7 per cent of GNP is achieved. I feel that this particular target ought to be declared to be politically sacrosanct. It should never be hostage to the daily, weekly or yearly vicissitudes or political trials and tribulations of individual administrations in the donor country — in this case, Ireland. The blunt facts are — and it pains me to state them because I feel deeply about this area of development co-operation — that successive Governments have regularly and consistently not managed to follow through on promises in this regard.
I take Senator Dooge's point that we, perhaps, are not necessarily in a position to follow-through but, nevertheless, the ideal should be kept firmly in mind. I am sure if it were put to the people, they would want to see this shining target held firm. It is true to say that in times of development recession back home this target can sometimes be seen to be an expendible item. I am hopeful, because of the attitude of the general public and their growing awareness of the significance of development aid matters, that the lowering of our aspirations is becoming less and less likely to occur. I fully endorse what Senator Dooge said about Third World aid never, ever being regarded as a charity. The circumstances of the Irish people are so good and we are so fortunate, that in common humanity and in justice we owe it to the less fortunate and the oppressed to ensure greater equity. We should do all we can to assist this.
It is useful to note that the report states that Irish ODA is expected to grow to £50 million by 1987, which is an increase of roughly 50 per cent on the level of funding in 1984. This scale of increase will have implications for future planning and policy. A major portion of our BAP funds from the ODA goes on projects and programmes in our four priority countries in Africa, namely, Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and the Sudan. The NGOs take up approximately 16 per cent of that funds, which situation is paralleled in other European states. The committee express a view that this balance should be maintained.
The NGO's who were invitees of the committee and had an opportunity to participate and to make their views known, expressed concern about the absence of criteria or guidelines for selecting projects. There is a feeling, on reading the report that structures are badly needed in this area. At present, the Department of Foreign Affairs guidelines for co-financing projects limit its assistance to capital and equipment. They do not allow for the recurring costs involved in funding personnel. This creates problems, particularly for missionary NGO's where the work in health or in adult education is personnel-intensive, and where workers leave relatively well-paid salaried positions in the west to become volunteers. The report requests the Department of Foreign Affairs to have a fresh look at this. The committee would appear to be generally sympathetic towards that problem.
Senator Dooge spoke about our advantages of scale. The committee in their report come down firmly in favour of a `small is beautiful' type of approach to our development education and activity. They make the point that, for a relatively small amount of funding of, for example, a food nutrition centre or a creche the benefits to the local community can be enormous and have lasting significance. In the Third World countries, I have seen what tremendous achievement can be got from small amounts of money and how very significant this type of micro-project is on the ground. On the other hand, the report does not overlook more major projects which may, from time to time, get into difficulties and become ailing. Sometimes such projects need just a one-off injection of funds to maintain viability. An example of such a project is given in the report. It is the carpet factory in the Kilosa region of Tanzania. The committee felt that this type of request should not be brushed aside but that it should be viewed sympathetically. Sometimes a change of direction or diversification or an appeal for funds on the multilateral side could be considered as a way of saving what might be a vital industry in a region affecting the economic lives of several hundreds of people.
The committee, in their report, affirm that our choice of four priority countries, with a similar colonial, historical and language background was a good one. Questions are raised — and I am interested in this — as to whether, funds permitting, we should look at other possibilities. I favour extending our scope beyond Africa. I support the suggestions which, I understand, were made by Concern and Trocaire who were invitees of the committee that we should go into India or even Bangladesh where we find some of the poorest regions in the entire world. If our programme and our policies are to be poverty-oriented, then it makes perfect sense that these are the regions that we could consider going into.
Interest was also expressed in the course of the report in going into Latin America. The Worker's Party made a submission which suggested that we should perhaps consider an involvement with the non-aligned countries. I support this. India, Bangladesh, Latin America or indeed, the non-aligned countries would underline and underscore the two pillars of this report — the one being that we must be poverty-oriented and the second being that political affiliation or political involvement should not mean that we must discount considerations of getting involved in these countries.
The committee, in their report, express the wish that with the likelihood of increased funding it should be possible to designate a further priority country. It gives the date of 1987 by which we might consider this, this country, of course, to be outside Africa. However, it is careful to state that our existing commitment to our four priority countries should be maintained, intact and undisturbed.
In paragraph 60, I was interested to see the breakdown in the sectors in our BAP programme. It is quite predictable that the rural, agricultural sector should head the list with 39 per cent of funding. This was followed in turn by education, 33 per cent of funding; infrastructure, 10 per cent; industry and trade, 7 per cent; and amazingly, health, only 5 per cent. This is really surprising. It was very useful for me to read it. I cannot quite understand it because in any poverty-oriented programme, I feel that health must be a key element. We know that in this country we have an over-supply of medical graduates. We have an over-supply of nursing graduates and of paramedical graduates. I cannot understand why we are not able to get in place systems which would allow these people to utilise their training in an overseas situation under the aegis or umbrella of our bilateral aid programme.
I would also say that we have to remind ourselves that much of this work in developing countries is not "high tech" work. It is in the area of primary health care and preventive medicine. We have so much expertise which could so easily and with encouragement be made available. I would love to see that when we next get a report from the development co-operation division or from the committee that this mere 5 per cent health funding would have gone way up the scale and that it would be, perhaps, second or third after the agriculture and education inputs. I feel that it is really necessary.
