Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jun 1986

Vol. 113 No. 4

Report of Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries—The Bilateral Aid Programme: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries: The Bilateral Aid Programme.

—(Senator Dooge.)

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am glad to get an opportunity to make my contribution regarding this report. It is very important and very comprehensive. I would like to pay tribute to the committee comprised of nine TDs and seven Senators. In particular I would like to pay tribute to the Chairperson, Deputy Nora Owen.

The fact that this is the second report of the committee indicates the high priority in which bilateral aid is regarded. I listened with great interest to the contributions from Senator Dooge and Senator Bulbulia. I was particularly moved by Senator Dooge's contribution because he is involved in this area personally. He told us that he was concerned in his provessional capacity with the key problem of water and the Third World. He is taking a special interest in this whole area.

It seems to me in this regard that the report, being so important and so interesting, in order to get the maximum benefit a good case could be made to have it printed, to include some pictures which would influence readers and to include some diagrams of Professor Dooge's schemes to show the work he is doing, and to show the benefit which results from that work. That would give emphasis to the help that is given in this area. Perhaps that report could be distributed, on a countrywide basis, in schools, to influence the children who, in later life when they gain experience, might be able to make some contribution by going as volunteers to those countries. A good case could be made for that. The cost would be very small.

Senator Dooge raised many interesting points. He stated, for example, that there are on this planet 1,000 million people who do not have access to safe water. That is an extraordinary number and very difficult to envisage. He said we are in the middle of a United Nations decade of water and sanitation and despite all the efforts, at the end of that decade the problem will remain as huge. He stated that it may be dented. In some sense we could throw up our hands and cry failure. I would like to pay tribute to all the people who are working so hard. When we look at the amount of money that is spent on Star Wars, on experimentation, sending human beings to the moon — I suppose in their own way those schemes are very important — when we consider how some of that money would affect the lives of so many millions in those countries man's inhumanity to man is underlined.

Senator Dooge told us about the waterborne disease and that in every year there are 500 million cases of this disease, 250 million cases of elephantiasis and 200 mil lion cases of schistosomiosis. We read in periodicals like Trocaire the extent of the horror, that as many as 494 million people in the developing countries are suffering from crippling malnutrition. This year more people will die of hunger than ever before and most of them will not be victims of famine. In an average day 40,000 children die of malnutrition and related diseases. In an average year at least 29 million people starve to death or die because of their health has been undermined by hunger. The toll is rising all the time.

I see a certain amount of despair that this problem is getting out of hand instead of being controlled and that the countries which could provide sufficient funds to dent that problem, as Senator Dooge said, do not seem to be inclined to do that. Those under-developed countries have been exploited over the centuries. The strong countries should make some amends for that exploitation but still there is a reluctance to to that. In face of that and of a refusal to make a commitment to cope with that problem even though the part Ireland plays is very small in relation to what those countries could play, it underlines the importance of the smaller countries doing what they can to cope with the problem. In my short contribution I will take a few instances and deal with them. In a report of 59 pages where nothing is superfluous and where everything is so tightly composed it would be impossible to eliminate anything and quite clearly it would be impossible to deal with every aspect of the report.

The bilateral aid programme we are told in the report is Ireland's centre-piece of development, co-operation and effort. For that reason and for its success in the areas where it has been involved it gives us a sense of pride that we have, in a small way and in a way that can be measured, succeeded in playing our part, maybe not to the full extent we should but, as Senator Dooge has rightly pointed out, with regard to our income and position, we can hold our heads high in relation to the funds that we provide vis-a-vis the more wealthy countries.

The committee have concentrated their examination on the bilateral aid programme in the four priority countries, Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and the Sudan, and the non-priority countries which are funded directly by the Government. More emphasis in the report is placed on the conduct of programmes in the former two countries, Lesotho and Tanzania, because members of the committee visited both countries and viewed projects at first hand in early 1985. The question which comes to mind in this regard is why were those two countries picked out as priority targets. I know that there is criticism when public representatives attend conferences and projects of this kind in other countries, but it would seem that here is a very worthy area where it would have been well worth while to provide finances so that members of the committee could have visited all countries. There should be some sound reason for making a choice with regard to visitations. It does not seem that this was spelt out in the report.

In dealing with this problem the report says that the committee has addressed itself only to the questions of education, training, research for agricultural development and development in general. Education and training are the most important aspects particularly for natives of those countries and for those who have got sufficient training to be able to carry on with the schemes that have been initiated by the volunteers and the experts who are provided by this country.

The committee's discussion of the bilateral aid programme and its recommendations, the report says, should be seen in the light of its unanimous opinion that the bilateral aid programme and its activities should have a clear poverty orientation, 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.

The committee goes on to tell us:

In the light of this principle it is the committee's view that, apart from the most exceptional circumstances, aid should be given without regard to the political complexion of the receiving countries.

This is expanded in a few places further on in the report. It is a point of view with which we would all agree. Nevertheless, it seems that the political situation in a country is of paramount importance. I realise that this is an area in which it might be better not to get involved in any great depth. I can see the spirit of what is behind this recommendation. Nevertheless, the political set-up is important with regard to the implementation and carrying on of these programmes which have started. I agree that the particular ideology of a Government should not be taken into consideration but the political sense which I take to mean the science of government in general, is important. While it would be wrong to try to influence political thought I feel some effort should be made to implement long term policies and the work done in the bilateral aid programme should be the foundation of a longer term programme.

The report says that in considering the bilateral aid programme the committee drew attention to the overall context, both political and economic, within which the programme is pursued. The committee view the programme as an expression of Ireland's commitment to longer term development in the developing countries. It goes on to say:

It is the opinion of the committee that direct bilateral aid, no matter how well co-ordinated at an international level, will not of itself resolve the problem of underdevelopment.

In a sense it puts a question mark after the bilateral aid programme. It is obviously a short term solution and nobody expects that it would resolve the problem of underdevelopment. The fact that it is spelled out here in that way lessens the impact of the bilateral scheme. The report says:

The Committee feels that in the context of the efforts of the developing countries to establish a new international economic order great care needs to be exercised by Ireland not to allow its natural affinity with and sympathy for the newly independent nations to be subjugated to the interests of some of our more economically powerful EC partners.

I see a difficulty in this area. There will always be a difficulty of choice. It will be impossible to please everybody but the effort of the Government at all times I hope will be to steer a middle course. If there is to be any deviation from that line it should be in the interest of the developing countries.

The committee drew particular attention to the problem of the debt burden on developing countries. The committee feel it is possible that very soon the cost of servicing their debts will outweigh the net inflow of aid to them. This means that the developing countries could become net contributors to the economies of the developed world. This would be an intolerable situation. Senator Bulbulia in her lengthy contribution referred also to this.

The committee believe that development programmes, worthy of themselves, will inevitably be defeated in their purpose unless the fundamental problem of debt is tackled. They suggest the possibility of satisfactorily rescheduling or temporarily suspending the servicing of Third World debt and consider that this country should be vigorously involved in pursuing, in international fora, this course. I wonder if any effort has been made in that regard? Will the Government take a definite line? I am sure it is an area that would be of great benefit to the developing countries. I wonder what hope there is of getting that done? When the Minister is replying perhaps he would refer to that matter. It is an area of great importance. It is extraordinary to envisage a situation where those countries would become net contributors to the economies of the developed world.

Chapter 1 deals with the general policy and the principles and states:

A comprehensive policy document outlining the principles on which the Irish development policy is based, its aims and general characteristics has never been issued and it is clear that the lack of such a policy document is keenly felt among many of the organisations dedicated to the process of development cooperation.

The committee are satisfied that a White Paper will be published shortly and that it will redress this situation. Senator Bulbulia has also referred to the White Paper which I hope will be published in the near future. Clearly, people involved in this area consider it important that a White Paper should be published. While the committee have undertaken to be a forum with regard to the implementation and suggestions the work they can do is limited. We all look forward to the White Paper.

The policy in relation to development aid changed over the seventies when Ireland crossed from being a developing country to what was regarded as a developed country. We have a particular sympathy and affinity with those people because we have been also a colonised country, having suffered and undergone great deprivation and poverty. The report continues:

At a broad policy level Ireland took a positive stance in relation to the demand of the Third World for a new international economic order which it was hoped would establish more just and equitable economic relations between the developed and developing countries and, in the long run, a more stable and peaceful world.

Senator Dooge has gone into this in great detail and has reminded us that we are dealing with people and individuals. This is the aspect that we should concentrate on. These considerations are included in this report and so also is the Government's aid programme embodying certain principles. I do not want to take time to go into those in detail. One of the principles is as follows:

There was to be balanced growth in various sectors but particularly where Ireland has a special interest or competence (e.g. rural development and education).

We would have much to contribute in this regard, being an agricultural country. Muintir na Tíre are one organisation who have contributed much to this country, from the point of view, for example, of adult education which is perhaps not as developed in this country as many people would wish. Nevertheless, the involvement and the experience we have in those areas could be a tremendous help in the developing countries.

The committee accept the principles outlined as the major priority areas of the Government. The report continues:

The committee recommends that programmes and projects flow from policy and not be established on an ad hoc basis and stresses that the need to tackle poverty should always be the basic criterion according to which decisions on the disbursement of Irish aid should be made.

Money spent on an ad hoc basis would be money wasted. Any money spent should be spent within the terms of an overall plan. Occasions might arise when it would be necessary to have a considerable amount of flexibility. This is dealt with also in the report. The flexibility should be within the overall projections and aspirations of the plan and not a flexibility which would result in ad hoc schemes and situations of that kind. If possible, projects should be capable of replication. Senator Bulbulia emphasised that point. I agree with her that in carrying out schemes by volunteers, certain expertise is required and mistakes can be corrected. Therefore, replication is something with which I would agree. If we acquire an ability in certain areas and we find out that these areas are of special importance we should endeavour to concentrate on those areas because the results are measurable. In that way, too, I am sure that the experts in those countries and the local students in time would become proficient in carrying out those programmes. The report continues:

In drawing up programmes resources should be defined and the needs of a country or region should be studied to establish the best possible way to proceed.

It is always essential to carry out a proper survey. It is important to achieve the best results, to study the situation and to decide on achievable targets. Therefore clear guidelines, as the report suggests, are needed for a future evaluation.

A general aim should be to demonstrate to the taxpayer, who is ultimately the provider of aid funds, that his money is being put to the best possible use for the best possible reasons.

This is very important. People who donate funds, small as they may be, like to think that all or most of the contributions will be spent in the actual provision of facilities.

Senator Bulbulia referred in passing to former schemes which were perhaps of a simple nature, for example, a penny for the black babies, which would be frowned on now. Nevertheless at that time when money was not so plentiful people and, particularly schoolgoing children, felt they were making a contribution and a little sacrifice. Therefore, in this way they were identifying with the problem.

I was very glad that Senator Bulbulia did not denigrate that method of trying to be helpful by the missionaries who gave their lives and their time to those projects.

In passing, I would like to pay a particular tribute to the missionaries of all religions who give their time and their lives for the rest of mankind. Indeed, what greater sacrifice could anyone make than to lay down his life for his friends?

I would like also to pay tribute to the volunteers who do marvellous work. Apparently there is some general rule regarding a maximum period of four years. The committee feel that there should be some flexibility here. There has been some improvement regarding leave granted to civil servants going abroad but perhaps more headway could be made in this regard.

In terms of the full report, it seems to me that this is a very involved area. I find it impossible to memorise the organisations involved from the initials given. Like Senator Bulbulia I am grateful that there is a list of those organisations with details at the back of the report. It seems a terribly involved area. It is an area where there is a certain amount of overlap between the different organisations. What clearly comes through from the report is that the work of the Government is of paramount importance in regard to co-ordinating the work, determining what has to be done, selecting priorities, determining targets and carrying out reviews. In that respect I want to pay tribute to the Government, to the concern of the people and to the Minister who was involved in this regard. I wish him well. I also welcome the report.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is agreed to suspend the sitting after Senator Fitzsimons had made his contribution until 2.30 p.m.

Mrs. Bulbulia

That is fine.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

My understanding was that the sitting would be suspended for an hour or an hour and a quarter. My difficulty is that I have an engagement with the Tanzanian Ambassador at 2 o'clock. It would help me if we could resume at 2.40 p.m. or 2.45 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is fine.

Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.45 p.m.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

First of all I thank those Senators who have already contributed to the debate. Of course, it is not over yet and I know there are other Senators who want to contribute. To date, notwithstanding that it has been a somewhat punctuated debate with a gap of several weeks between the occasions on which we addressed the subject, it has been a most thoughtful and worthwhile exercise.

It is more or less the practice on these occasions for Ministers coming in to speak to express appreciation of the work of the committee that has brought forward the report. Because it is the practice it has become more or less a matter of form. On this occasion I would like to express very generously, very deeply, and very warmly my appreciation for the work of the joint committee. By any standards this committee has to be seen as being among the real successes of the committee system in this House and in the other House. I was pleased, too, that a number of the contributors from both sides of the House have singled out for mention the chairman of that joint committee, Deputy Nora Owen, who has undoubtedly brought an extraordinary degree of commitment to her task.

While I am on the procedural aspects I will take up two issues that were raised before coming to the substance of my remarks. These issues that were raised by Senator Fitzsimons. He suggested that it would be appropriate to publish the report. I got the impression that by publishing he meant publishing in a more permanent and glossier form than is now the case. He suggested that its presentation could be improved by the insertion of a number of photographs of projects in action and that it would be possible to include diagrams, graphs and so on. In response to that, it is a very worthwhile suggestion and what motivates him is very worthwhile. I think it is achieved by the publication every year by the Department of their annual report which follows very closely the form suggested by Senator Fitzsimons. It is distributed very much along the lines he has suggested to the interested bodies and, through them, to schools and so on and indeed directly by the Department to schools.

The other question he raised was the fact that the report has been heavily influenced by the travel of a number of members of the committee to two of the four priority countries. He said why only two? Why not visit the other two? It is a very reasonable question. He seemed to suggest that the reason was lack of funds or lack of commitment to the exercise of bringing the committee members in contact with the scene on the ground. That certainly is not the case. Since the report was prepared there has been a second visit by members of the committee to our priority countries. In the course of that second visit members of the committee, though not the same members who made the original visit to Lesotho and Tanzania, completed the quartet as it were. Those introductory remarks made, I come to the body of the report.

The Second Report of the Joint Committee, which considers in detail the official bilateral aid programme, begins by saying that development aid should be viewed in the wider context of international economic relations generally. This is an important and accurate observation and it seems to me to be an appropriate point of departure.

The tragic famine in Africa in 1984-85 caused great concern and distress in this country and in other developed countries. The basic reaction of people generally was to give expression to their concern by contributing personally to relief programmes; and donations were provided on an impressively generous scale. But there may also have been a certain pessimistic fatalism about the prospects of Africa and other parts of the Third World. There may have been a feeling that just as the poor will always be with us so too the Third World will always be with us and will always be poor.

In the intervening period, the immediate famine crisis has abated. In addition, the commencement of recovery in the world economy has offered the developing countries some respite from the unfavourable external circumstances that have beset them for so long and, of equal significance, the developing countries themselves have shown signs of being ready to grasp the nettle of the internal economic reform that is essential to their recovery.

These developments have understandably led to a reduction in the level of distress about the situation of developing countries in this and other developed countries, but there are encouraging signs that the public's concern is still engaged. The time may therefore be opportune for a more considered examination of the situation of the Third World, and for an approach which attempts to find lasting solutions in addition to providing emergency relief.

Indeed it may well transpire that the most significant development of the past 18 months is that encouragement may have been provided to the public in rich countries to think about and understand the way in which economic decisions and activities in which they themselves are involved can impinge on the lives of people in the Third World. Economic linkages between developed and developing countries are extensive and growing. Such linkages arise in obvious ways, such as in the provision of relief and development aid by rich countries to poor ones, and in less obvious ways, such as in the crippling effects of high international interest rates on the Third World debt burden.

They sometimes make themselves felt positively, such as when increased trade in favourable circumstances brings benefits to all countries, and at other times negatively, such as when a surge of low cost imports from developing countries puts jobs at risk in developed countries, or when subsidised exports from developed countries cause similar problems in the Third World. Although the transmission of economic influences is still mainly from rich countries to poor ones, the reverse flow is not insignificant, as was demonstrated by the oil crisis of the seventies and the indebtedness crisis of the eighties. More generally, developed countries have a stake in stability in the Third World as instability — in which poverty is often a potent ingredient — can harm developed countries as well, for example, by jeopardising supplies of vital raw materials for their industries.

My own conviction is that there is a clear obligation on people in rich countries, based on humanitarian considerations, to do what they can to help their beleagured fellowman in the poor countries. But an interesting and important point that comes out of an examination of the economic linkages that exist is that it can also be in the broadly defined interests of the developed countries to help to promote growth in the Third World; realisation of this fact should reinforce our resolve to contribute to the fight against Third World poverty, even though the humanitarian considerations would be sufficient in themselves to underpin our commitment.

Examination of the economic linkages also helps to identify the particular areas in which there are mutual interests which permit co-operation from which both developed and developing countries can benefit; and it shows how — and at what cost — developed countries can in other respects reduce the harmful side effects of some of their policies for developing countries. These are the insights associated with the concept of interdependence.

The development of a better informed and more balanced attitude towards the situation of developing countries is important at this time because the fact is that, in so far as the prospects of those countries are concerned, matters are delicately balanced between the promise of improvement on the one hand and the threat of further deterioration on the other. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the annual report for 1985 of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was published late last year, makes two separate sets of calculations in relation to the prospects of developing countries.

The first calculation is based on pessimistic assumptions about the external environment, involving a continuation of the interest rates, exchange rates, growth rates in developed countries and commodity prices that have been experienced in recent years. It projects virtual stagnation overall in terms of income per head and a continuing deterioration in the position of the poorest countries.

The second calculation is based on consistent — but, the report argues, plausible — improvement in the relevant factors. It projects that the rate of growth would increase to about 7 per cent per year by 1995 in all the main regions while interest payments and outstanding debt would decline progressively relative to national income. In the latter case, developed countries would also benefit to a significant degree as a result of being able to increase their exports to developing countries. Whatever about these particular calculations, and they clearly have shades of the benign and malign scenarios much favoured by distinguished former Members of this House, there is no reason to doubt the general proposition that improvement in the situation of developing countries is possible as well as being necessary, and that such improvement, if it can be achieved, would benefit all countries.

Having sketched out the background in this way it is clear that development aid is only a small part of the picture and that significant improvement in the situation of developing countries requires crucially favourable changes in the international environment as well as internal policy reform. I know Senator Fitzimons raised the question of indebtedness and I am sure he will have followed with interest the developments that have taken place, even in the last few days, with the announcement of moratoria by the Canadians, the Dutch and by the Nordics. That is a move we applaud. We are not directly involved ourselves because we do not have any debts since all of our aid programme is on the basis of grant rather than loan, but it is certainly something to which we give our enthusiastic support just as we do to the principle that we abhor the prospect of countries finding themselves paying back more than they are receiving. The reverse of that is that we would look with disfavour on any country that found itself the recipient of such inflows. This is the picture, but only part of the picture.

Indeed, it is true that aid is at best a contribution to the efforts of the developing countries to promote their own development, and that it is less important than the trace and other external factors affecting their economics. Nevertheless it is important and particularly so for the poorest countries: in Africa, ODA accounts for 10 per cent of gross domestic investment, and the figure rises to 80 per cent in the poorest, semi-arid countries.

The joint committee perform an important service and contribute to the elaboration of official policy in this area by examining these questions in a careful and positive way. I am in complete agreement with the committee that the objective of aid — and, indeed, of development itself — is to reduce poverty. It is, therefore, important that the effects of aid — whether they arise directly or indirectly — should be carefully analysed. We must try to reach a thorough understanding of the development requirements of the countries we are trying to help with a view to organising our aid in the most effective way possible.

An important point which arises in this connection is that a poverty-oriented development strategy in any developing country must necessarily be broad. There will obviously be a need for measures — such as primary health care — which directly alleviate the effects of poverty. At the same time there will be a need for measures — such as mining and other forms of exploitation of physical natural resources — which influence poverty only indirectly but which are directly productive in an economic sense, so that the overall programme can be financed and the strategy that lies behind it thus sustained. And there will also be a need for measures to improve the efficiency of Government administration so that the quality of economic management will be adequate to permit opportunities to be exploited and pitfalls avoided.

The point of basic importance which emerges from this analysis is that since all of these measures can be essential to the anti-poverty strategy, assistance with any one of them can be equally effective even though some of them impinge on poverty directly whereas others do so only indirectly. This is, of course, an analysis which finds ready acceptance in so far as the management of our own economy is concerned. In the case of economic development in Ireland, nobody would argue, for example, that the production of high-technology computer parts for export is inappropriate because less well-off people generally do not benefit directly from the process. On the contrary, it is universally accepted that activities of this kind can contribute to general economic improvement with significant and worthwhile indirect benefits for less well-off people. The point of relevance for present purposes is that similar considerations arise in the case of Third World development.

In the circumstances, it is important that donors of aid to developing countries should be prepared to be sensible and should be ready to assist across the whole range of measures essential to a poverty-oriented development strategy. Donors should, moreover, be prepared to focus their aid in those areas in which they are best equipped to assist, in terms of the expertise and resources available to them; and they should be prepared to agree a sensible division of labour between donors in the interests of effective co-ordination. The general point here is that the main consideration when allocating aid must be the actual requirements of the particular recipient country. If we accept that then donors must be prepared to set aside any preconceived ideas they may have about the superiority of aid in a particular sector or of a particular form of aid; and they must be prepared to operate in relatively unfashionable sectors if this is what is required to support an overall povery-orientated strategy. In short, aid must be recipient-oriented, not donor-oriented.

In practice, any sizeable aid programme is likely to be involved in projects across the whole range of measures required to support a development strategy. The Irish bilateral programme, for example, assists a wide range of projects:—

—village water supplies are supported in Zambia while assistance is provided to the budget office on the Ministry of Finance in Lesotho;

—village housing units are produced in Kenya involving many other groups, the Irish scouting movement, while cement is manufactured in Zambia and carpets in Tanzania;

—basic primary education is assisted in Kenya while high-level technological training is provided in Tanzanians;

—In Tanzania, community and preventive health services in remote areas are assisted while in Lesotho architectural expertise has been made available for design work at the national hospital;

—rudimentary rural transport infrastructure — in the form of mountain pathways capable of being traversed on horseback — has been supported in Lesotho while the development of an international airline was assisted in the same country;

—village level technology based on wind power is being supported in India while advice was provided to Sudan on the organisation of its national power services.

I should like to assure the House that I am satisfied, on the basis of rigorous evaluation, and while accepting that it is always necessary to search for further improvements, that the Irish programme — in all the sectors in which it operates — is contributing to the reduction of poverty in the Third World. Certainly that is the perception of the people with whom we are co-operating in the developing countries. In the course of the last week I had an opportunity to meet with the Foreign Ministers of each of the four countries with which we have a priority relationship and I was enormously buoyed up by their appreciation of the value of our efforts and impressed by the depth of knowledge they showed about the details of our programme. In one case a foreign Minister was able to mention the names of the individual Irish volunteers who are active in his country and he was able to allocate them to the individual programmes.

The point made earlier that what is now happening in our development programme builds on a much longer Irish tradition of support for the Third World arose in my bilaterial discussions with those four Ministers. Those discussions took place in the context of the UN special session on Africa. In the course of my remarks to the General Assembly I referred to the proud Irish missionary tradition and the fact that long before it became fashionable to talk in terms of development many thousands of Irish men and women had given their lives in service to the people of Africa. If I had any doubts about that — and I had none — that was reinforced for me in my meeting with the Zambian Foreign Minister. When I started to review the history of Irish aid to Zambia and referred to the fact that it originated long before we had an official aid programme which was inaugurated by Dr. FitzGerald, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the mid-seventies that there had been a pre-existing relationship with Zambia involving the IPA which traces its origins back to when Mr. Frank Aiken was Minister for External Affairs. He pointed out to me that Irish-Zambian links go back a great deal further. He referred to the enormous contribution, to the human resources, to the development of a human infrastructure that had been made, in particular, by Irish Jesuit Fathers in Zambia.

Development assistance provided by Ireland directly to individual developing countries is, of course, small in overall terms. It is nevertheless important for the recipient countries concerned and highly regarded by them. It is also important for us because it gives us a direct involvement in the development process. This is helpful in terms of understanding the issues concerned.

The existence of a directly organised bilateral programme also facilitates the utilisation of Irish skills and resources in development projects in the Third World. This is something the Government encourage not only in our own bilateral projects but also in the case of projects funded by international agencies and by developing countries themselves. Of course the fundamental objective is to promote the development of the recipient country concerned but there need not be any conflict involved in utilising Irish skills and resources as far as possible in the pursuit of that objective.

Our programme of official development assistance has grown substantially in recent years. In the early seventies the programme was very small indeed. In 1974 it was £1.5 million or 0.5 per cent of GNP. But a new impetus was given to the programme at that time and this has resulted in very substantial growth in the interim. This year ODA will be about £44 million or 0.265 per cent of GNP. Irish ODA have also grown relative to other donors. In 1974, Irish ODA was equivalent to only about 15 per cent of the OECD average; by last year it had grown to 60 per cent — a four fold increase. Moreover, this increasing trend is set to be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the national economic plan, Building on Reality. On this basis, ODA will reach £50 million or 0.275 per cent of GNP next year. This is the first time funding for ODA has been guaranteed for a number of years into the future. This is a great help in terms of the planning and development of the programme. In ideal circumstances, an even larger increase of ODA would have been provided for. However, it is a fact that ODA was given very favourable treatment as compared with public spending generally in the course of the fundamental reappraisal of the economy and of the public finances which was the basis of the preparation of Building on Reality. In fact, the rate of increase of ODA is planned to be three and a half times faster than that of public expenditure overall. Of course, there are no grounds for complacency in this regard: we must always endeavour to do more and to improve the quality of what we do.

Insofar as the execution of our aid is concerned, the joint committee's arguments about the need for appropriate expertise for aid implementation and about the role of returned development workers are well-taken. In this connection the House will be aware that the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation, whose membership for the period 1986-88 I announced recently, benefits from the participation both of returned development workers and of persons with relevant expertise. The House may also be interested to know in this connection that the specialist evaluation staff of my Department has recently been augmented by the recruitment of a rural development adviser who formerly served as a volunteer in Africa with an Irish NGO who has relevant qualifications in agricultural science and economics.

I also share the committee's concern that the rights of returned development workers in matters such as social welfare entitlements should be protected. Indeed, this was an area that agitated me and caused me concern in my previous role in the Department of Labour. It was an area that Deputy Rory Quinn, Minister for Labour, and myself highlighted during the Irish Presidency of the Community. I am glad to say that together we were successful and those efforts did meet with a very fair degree of success. The House can be assured that efforts will continue to bring about further improvements in this area.

The committee's comments regarding the geographical distribution of Irish aid are also of interest. I fully accept the committee's argument that the need for assistance is evident in all parts of the Third World and I agree that it is desirable that Irish assistance should not be excessively concentrated in any one area. The House will be aware in this connection that about 60 per cent of Irish aid is distributed through multilateral organisations and so is made available, in effect, to all developing countries. Moreover, bilateral assistance through NGOs and the Agency for Personal Service Overseas is made available to a wide range of recipient countries. In the case of project aid under the Bilateral Aid Programme, however, it is desirable, for reasons of efficiency and impact, to concentrate it in a limited number of countries.

Although this approach has been pursued for a number of years now the country programmes concerned are still very small by international standards and could benefit from considerable further development. Accordingly, although this matter should and will be kept under continuous review, there appears to be merit in continuing for the time being with the present approach with a view to discharging adequately our obligations to the existing priority countries.

I have, at my meeting with the Oireachtas Joint Committee, as a number of Members of the House will be aware, contemplated the fact that over the next 12 to 18 months we may achieve a situation where there will be some room for manoeuvre within our aid programme. At that time it would appear appropriate to consider the question of adding to the list of our priority countries. When that point is reached then the views of the committee, and in particular their suggestion that our aid programme should not be seen as being unduly concentrated in any one geographic area, can be taken fully into account.

I should like finally to say that the committee's more specific and detailed comments about various aspects of the aid programme are of interest and will be given close consideration. In general, the analysis provided by the committee is interesting and thought-provoking and represents a valuable contribution to the development of policy in this area.

In conclusion, therefore, I should like to express again my appreciation of the fine work of the committee in a good cause.

Mr. Browne

Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuilim anseo inniu chun éisteacht leis na cainteoirí a bhronn moladh orainne a bhí ar an gcomhchoiste seo. Agus caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuilim mórálach as an méid atá déanta againn ar an gcomhchoiste agus tá súil agam go mbeidh toradh, i gcéin freisin, as an obair atá á déanamh againn. Bhí a lán daoine ag obair go dian chun cabhrú linn agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hAirí, an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Jim O'Keeffe agus leis an Aire Stáit atá anseo. Bhí an tAire O'Keeffe an-dícheallach agus bhí an-suim aige san obair a bhí ar siúl.

Mr. Birmingham

Tá sé ag éisteacht.

Mr. Browne

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil sé ag éisteacht mar rinne sé togha job nuair a bhí sé ann agus tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh sé a thuilleadh oibre in áit eigin eile. Tá siúl agam freisin go ndéanfaidh an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Birmingham, an obair chéanna is a rinne sé sa Roinn Saothair nuair a bhí sé ann mar tá sé dian dícheallach freisin. Beidh cabhair ag teastáil uainn agus beidh cabhair á tabhairt againn dó le cúnamh Dé.

Freisin, ar an gcomhchoiste seo bhí Runaí an-dícheallach, Gary Ansbro. Rinne sé a lán oibre. Rinne sé, is dócha, an chuid is mó den scríobhneoireacht ar fad a bhí le déanamh. Nuair a bhíomar uaireanta b'fhéidir beagánín tuirseach agus ag titim in ár gcodladh, bhí seisean ag éisteacht agus rinne sé an job sin. Bhí sé an-deacair. Bhí a lán cruinnithe againn agus bhí daoine ag caint go tapaidh uaireanta agus iad ag cur isteach ar a chéile. Ach tá an toradh againn anseo. Dúirt tú féin agus dúirt na canteoirí eile go raibh cathaoirleach sár mhaith againn, agus bhí, cinnte. Ní hé amháin go raibh an Teachta Nóra Owen ina cathaoirleach ach bhí sí ina cathaoirleach a thaispéan go raibh eolas agus an-suim aice san obair a bhí a déanamh againn. Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuilim ar an chomhchoiste sin léi. Ní chuimhin liom riamh go raibh mé ag cruinniú nach raibh sí sa chathaoir. B'fhéidir nach raibh sí ag gach cruinniú ach de réir mar a fheicimse é bhí sí ag gach cruinniú ag a raibh mé féin agus bhí mé ag an cuid is mó de na cruinnithe sin. Molaim í go mór.

I do not want to go into a non-stop session of praise for everybody who has been involved in this, but there are times when we regard ourselves as a nation of knockers. We are inclined to criticise right, left and centre. I found, by being on this Oireachtas committee, it was almost the equivalent of doing a thesis for a doctorate. It was an education that I will appreciate for the rest of my life. It meant a lot to me personally. It gave me much more contact with what was going on, and what was theory before this turned out to have a lot of practical connotations. I found that, even in relation to children in school, I was able to talk about the Third World with much more feeling. I was delighted to see the children's own response. On one occasion they ran a sale of work and we sent money to Haiti — which I suppose does not come under our care. That happened because I knew there was a nun home in the parish. I invited her to talk to the children. Her description of going by mule across the hillside is something that means much more to children when they hear it from somebody who has been involved.

Last year two of our parishioners set off for Bangladesh with two children — the baby was only six months old. He was an engineer and she a teacher. We have been in contact since. The children have run another sale of work and sent money to them. It has been an education for me. The committee has meant a lot to me. I appreciate the opportunity I had to be on it.

Having said it was an education and it was like doing a thesis for a doctorate, I do not think I would get my doctorate because I find the more that goes on the more seems to be there. I regret that I have not visited any of these countries.

Mr. McDonald

We will have you on the next one.

Mr. Browne

I hope that is recorded officially — that is only a joke, of course, in case it is. If it comes true, that is fine. It is difficult to listen to people who have come back from these countries and to follow their descriptions without knowing exactly what the ground rules are like. I would not regard a trip to these places as being a holiday trip or what is referred to as a junket. Indeed, some of the descriptions I have heard of the travel arrangements and the schedules over there were more indicative of an ordeal than a holiday. But it would add a lot to know what you are dealing with.

I began by saying that we are a nation of knockers; we are inclined to knock ourselves. I felt very proud of the fact that so many people were doing so much good on this committee. I do not think I would be prejudiced by complimenting the Government as a Government for officially taking the line it has by providing the back-up service it has given. I compliment the Department of Foreign Affairs because it was regarded very highly by different groups we met, for, first of all, its flexibility. They were able to go in almost on a personal basis, sit down and talk to these people. They felt very happy about this. They felt the Department were there to help them and that they were quite willing to help them.

Many of these organisations have received a lot of money, apart from what has been given in an official capacity. Organisations such as Trocaire and Concern hold collections; they get money from the people all over the countryside. I think the Irish people deserve a pat on the back for continuing the great traditions we have, to which the Minister referred, of missionaries going out helping over the years. That spirit is still very much alive; it can be seen regularly despite our own problems. Many people are in difficulties themselves, but as an Irish nation we seem to have a great sense of caring for other people. That report gives us an opportunity to compliment the Irish people on being so generous.

I want to compliment in particular all of those volunteers who leave comfort and head off into places where they have no comfort. They are living in climates which are often not suitable — they may be warm but they are not suitable. They are generally dealing with people who are ill or hungry or in difficulties. I could not sufficiently express my admiration for them. They are prepared to leave comfort. The couple I spoke about from my own parish had a lovely new house with all modern conveniences. They headed out to Bangladesh, he to build bridges as an engineer and she to set up a school. I read a letter only two days ago which she sent to the children in which she described the monsoons battering the bamboo walls of the school and affecting it. This does a lot to help the Irish children to understand that perhaps what they might regard as not being a very polished school is in fact OK; they can realise that they could be in much worse conditions. It helps to put things in their proper perspective.

I have been arguing on committees that these people who go abroad should get every chance of being appreciated in full. I have made the point several times that, while they get leave of absence, often the difference between paying their "subs" and paying them their salaries and they paying "subs" would be very little, because generally people who go abroad are at the lower level of the scale — they have three or four years experience. Generally you do not get people at the top of a scale going off. I have always maintained that as a gesture — it would cost very little — if we paid them their salaries and let them pay their subs they would have a few hundred pounds left over. That is all it would be but it would be a gesture of appreciation for what they are doing rather than simply giving them leave of absence, paying their "subs" and cutting them off. It is a very small amount but at the same time it could be done.

I am delighted that the Minister mentioned in his speech that he has taken on somebody who has been out working in the Third World. I think we are not using these people enough. It is fine to talk about calling them in as advisers every so often, but these are the people who have been out there. Although I have served on this committee since it was founded I would hate to think that I could give advice to people who are going out there. The people who are coming back should be drafted in. I was going to suggest that they should be given work specifically in foreign affairs, to deal with this sort of problem. I am glad the Minister has done that. I hope that he does not appoint only one, that he might draft in a few more who will know exactly what they are talking about. Even visitors out there do not get, and could not in a short space of time, a proper grasp of the situation. If there is any red tape that would prevent the Minister for appointing people like that, let him call on us and we will back him to the hilt. We let their expertise disappear. They come back into parishes and perhaps they organise funds and such things, but in the long run we do not sufficiently use their expertise. I would like to see them used fully in a very direct way.

Senator Bulbulia referred to the idea of poverty being the main aim and politics not entering the situation. This is very important because hunger knows no politics and starvation is not impressed by either socialism or conservatism. It is very important that, as a small nation which can take a genuinely neutral stand, we should be prepared to ignore a certain political climate that may exist and that we would really look after those who are in difficulty. While we cannot be so liberal as to let money be abused, we should not let doctrinaire political jargon affect us as to whom we will support. I am glad we are supporting the idea that we go after poverty.

I have always asked, when we met delegations, if they can help to provide food, provide resources rather than just sending out food. I have always been impressed by details of what is going on in Third World countries. We should never be afraid that some of the ventures we go into may fail. Like love, it is better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. We would not want to assess at the end of the year that £20,000 was spent here or there and it did not work out. In countries in difficulty, we should be prepared to take a certain risk, if it does not work out, certainly I would not go rapping anybody on the knuckles for it.

The report says that pre-departure training is important. Having spoken to people who were there, language can be a difficult problem for people who go over there and it is not so easy to pick it up and get used to the customs. In our report it has been mentioned that often in the fuss of getting ready to go over people have not time to deal with these things. I hope this will be well looked after in future.

I will finish by saying I am delighted to have served on the committee. I did not fully realise that so many of our Irish people were helping so many and in so many places and doing such marvellous work and so genuinely concerned. The people who run all the organisations and came to the committee knew what they were talking about and were able to argue their case. Perhaps they would differ at times from us and maybe among themselves, but not to any serious extent. It is a tribute to the Irish nation that we have people like them doing so much. I hope this work will continue and I hope that, as a committee, we will be able to help them for many more years whether or not there is an election in the meantime.

Mr. McDonald

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak to this, the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries and to express my personal satisfaction at the continued Government commitment to our bilateral aid programme right through a period when even the Government themselves have admitted they are going through a difficult economic period when funds are difficult to come by; when the taxpayers themselves are experiencing difficulty in meeting their taxation demands. Through the entire period of this Government their record in continuing to move upwards towards the United Nations contribution target is, indeed, very admirable. I would like to pay a very sincere and special tribute to the section of the Department of Foreign Affairs who do such tremendous work in this area and whose work has been so efficient and, more important still, effective on the ground in the under-developed areas.

I regret very much that I am not a member of the joint committee. I am almost envious of Senator Browne who has a seat on this committee. During my period in the European Parliament I worked on the commission for the development association. I was an executive member of the ACP for a number of years. I was vice-president of that body for one term which enabled me to visit many countries in two continents that we were specifically trying to help. I am on record in the House as advocating to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that more colleagues from the House should have the opportunity to move out to see for themselves on the ground the problems the populations in developing countries have to face and live with. Even a short visit would enable people to get a feel for the task in hand. Perhaps by association or by visiting the workplaces in the parishes or the districts of Irish missionaries they would be able to get a feeling for themselves of the amount of work that remains to be done. I would like to join with the previous speaker in paying my tribute to the great Irish missionary tradition.

If one were to look at the work and the improvements that these people, apart from their religious commitment have achieved, one finds that those missionaries with very little material resources by introducing more modern techniques and perhaps introducing some educational facilities in no uncertain way have opened up a new era and a new life for very many of those rural tribes in many countries in Africa. I am very glad that our Government, through their non-governmental aid programme, are very willing to help individual mission projects, especially the co-operative projects in many of the countries where they are working. Even though it accounts for a very small percentage of the total funds provided — which the Minister told us this year was in excess of £44 million — in small parochial areas or very small community areas that process would give a great lift to these people who have not very many of the material goods most of us take for granted.

I hope the Government will continue to endeavour to work towards the United Nations target for development aid. It is necessary that the free world should do that. The population of this country last year, in its response to the Bob Geldof effort, showed itself to be charitably disposed towards people in developing countries. Perhaps that is not surprising because 20 years ago — and a bit — when I was going to school we had a great movement for the missions. In every national school in the country I think you have a box for "black babies", and all sorts of aids for the mission societies. The ordinary man in the street, irrespective of his religion, has been acclimatised to that: it is nothing new. When the famine in Ethiopia was highlighted a little more than a year ago, people showed that they cared.

I had the opportunity of visiting Turkey earlier this year. One of the things which amazed me and has amazed me for many years is that the Sultan in 1848 and 1849 was one of the few heads of State who sent Government aid for the famine situation in Ireland. Only one or two countries responded to the need. It was not as well advertised or publicised as the situation in Ethiopia has been in this decade.

On my very first visit to Africa in 1973 I had the opportunity of visiting Ethiopia. They were in a famine situation at that time. Those people have experienced a fairly long period of denigration and suffering. When one looks at the Government's priorities out there and find that such a huge percentage of the national budget is spent on armaments or defence, or whatever heading one likes to put it under, one wonders whether in those kinds of feudal states in the developing countries the ordinary people rate very highly in the priorities of their Governments.

I know that the Minister has clearly identified countries where Irish aid can be more easily fed into the system and can be of greatest assistance. But there is one Francophobe country that I feel is still the very poorest and is one that is getting very little aid. That is Chad. I always feel extremely sorry for the people of that country. Even on the ACP ten years ago the neighbouring countries who were perhaps very much more powerful, could not care less and they very often were not willing to allow goods to be transported across their own countries into Chad. I would ask the Minister, who has a great future in Foreign Affairs — and I wish him success — that irrespective of whether he is in the United Nations or the EC, even if our Government do not decide to give direct aid, to put a greater emphasis on the very many problems that the Republic of Chad are experiencing. The fact that most of the information coming out comes through the French publications should not deter us. I know that we do not have Irish nationals to any great extent there. Still, the case needs to be highlighted.

This is an opportune time to say a special word of appreciation of the great work that organisations such as Gorta, a semi-State or Governmental organisation are doing in assisting people, as their own slogan says, to assist themselves. Mr. Smiley, the chief executive and his chairman and governing council are continuing to play a most significant role, as indeed are our voluntary organisations like Concern, the Cheshire Foundation or the Ryder Foundation or Oxfam. All in their own way are doing tremendous work. They are working in a voluntary capacity with the people who really are in the greatest need. I would hope that the ordinary members of the public would continue to respond to the charitable appeals of those organisations.

I have been saddened of late to find that Trócaire are departing from the charitable role and perhaps would appear to be embarking on the murky waters of international politics. Perhaps it is this liberation theology that prompts them to advocate strikes, lockouts, or embargos or whatever. My only thing against that is that in any of those situations where sanctions are imposed, the people who are calling the shots or creating the policies are not being got at. In those situations the poor people at the bottom of the ladder are walked on, no matter which way the traffic is going, whether it is going up or down the ladder. It is the unfortunate poor of those countries who are going to be left in their continuing misery. I would prefer if the desirable changes could be brought about through assisting the people themselves, through education perhaps, or changing archaic or outdated systems.

Last night's debate in the House on the Philippines on which we will have an opportunity of speaking next week is a great case in point where it was possible to see a ray of hope. Let us hope that some other regimes can be changed for the benefit of the public themselves. If one is the underdog in any of these countries it does not really matter to the guy who is at the butt end of a jackboot, whether it is a left jackboot or a right jackboot. We here in what we would hope is a civilised Christian society — obviously the population in this country have demonstrated in a tremendous way that we are a caring society — would all be concerned to see equality and justice being the order of the day right around the world.

Therefore, it is a great pleasure to be able to say to our colleagues who have served on the Joint Committee on Developing Countries, the report of which we have before the House today that the work is one that must be ongoing. We must find ways of being able to have aid reach increasing numbers of people. There is still great scope for expanding our voluntary services overseas. I know that it is a great contribution for any young woman or young man to give a year or two years of their early professional lives in the service of others. But I would appeal to the organisations at home and to the other Departments, apart from the Department of Foreign Affairs for greater and more practical recognition of voluntary service overseas, irrespective of which country it is given in or whether the service is under an ODA, a BAP or an APSO or Governmental or a non-Governmental organisation. If people are prepared to go and work for little or nothing, or work for their maintenance in the Third World, as so many excellent people are doing, the paths should be smoothed out for them at home to slip back into employment. More important still, their service and their work abroad should be reckoned for incremental purposes here. My recollection is that the Department of Education allowed that a couple of years ago. But I am not too sure whether it is universally implemented. It is something we should look at again.

It is valuable experience for a professional person whether he is a teacher, a medical person or an engineer. If people are working in a different terrain in a different country, it is important experience and it should qualify for whatever incremental scales are available. A person who works in a voluntary capacity in a developing country is a fuller person when he or she comes back because that person has lived through a great humanitarian experience. It would certainly have a beneficial effect on the personality of those young people. I have no doubt whatever, after such a period abroad in the service of such a poor country, that those people would be able to make an enhanced contribution to their chosen professions at home.

Debate adjourned.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Daly)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Professor Dooge

It is proposed to sit again at noon on Wednesday of next week. For the information of Senators, it is hoped to commence business on that day with the Committee Stage of the re-organisation of CIE Bill. We also hope to take the Second Stage of the Urban Renewal Bill and the Second Stage of the Companies (Amendment) Bill.