Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1986

Vol. 113 No. 13

Report of the 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. McDonald

The last day we had a very interesting debate on this report. The report deals with an area that has always traditionally been very close to the hearts of the Irish people. For the Oireachtas it is a relatively new area but it is one with which the ordinary members of the public can readily identify. For some years I have been encouraging greater numbers of colleagues from both Houses to avail of whatever opportunity presents itself to visit programmes which are being funded or part funded by money made available from the Exchequer. That is very important. Successive Governments have endeavoured to work towards meeting the United Nations target of contributions in bilateral aid. The figure has been steadily climbing.

Last year the Irish media — Telefís Éireann in particular — created a great sense of awareness. The people responded in a magnificent fashion to the Bob Geldof Band Aid operation. The contributions were significant. I am very glad to see that Mr. Geldof has received a number of distinctions on account of his initiative and his great charity and foresight. I do not know which is the greater — the feat of focussing public attention on the problem of hunger and deprivation in so many countries of the world or the feat of raising the very considerable amount of money which Band Aid succeeded in getting the members of the public to contribute.

We have many national and international agencies such as the United nations, the Childrens Fund, the Development Aid of the EC and the various inter-governmental bilateral aid programmes. To equal the contributions — which are on an ongoing basis from the United Nations participants to the developing countries — we would need one and a half Bank Aids per day to equate with the vast amounts of money which the Governments of the United Nations contribute towards the Third World. I mention that to highlight the fact that from the civil servants' point of view and from the Government's point of view it is an ongoing problem. It is well recognised in all of the countries that contribute. On behalf of the taxpayers of those countries Governments are making a considerable contribution and we should not lose track of that. The big problem is that it has not been highlighted as it should be. I would like to see more of our colleagues in this House and in the Dáil being given an opportunity to visit one or two of the projects which are funded from our NGO funds through the Department of Foreign Affairs or through our bilateral aid programme to the selected countries. it is important that we should be fully aware of that.

There has been another significant shift in contributions to the Third World over the last number of years. Since the Catholic hierarchy introduced the Trócaire organisation a vast amount of charitable funds are directed, by the diocesan clergy, to that organisation. This is a laudable exercise in itself except that I think those funds were flowing almost to the same extent, down through the years, through the ordinary missionary societies, societies such as the St. Patrick Missionary Fathers in Kiltegan or the Holy Rosary Sisters in Killeshandra, the Holy Ghost Fathers, the Society of African Missions, the Dominicans, the Medical Missionaries of Mary or the Salesians and so on. This change of emphasis by the Catholic bishops has redirected much of the funds. Those missionary societies have done very valuable work. Indeed, when one meets the Government people in so many of the African countries one finds that many of them have benefited educationally from one or other of those Irish missionary societies. Moneys made available through the missionary societies and through individual missionaries percolates more quickly to those in need, especially when so many of our missionary sisters, brothers and priests tend to concentrate to a great extent on the development of co-operatives. They adopt the Trócaire slogan of helping these people to feed themselves. This is a continuing need. When I drive through the country and observe huge hoardings, costing Trócaire thousands of pounds, which are dealing purely with political or social policies in South Africa or other countries, I wonder if the cost of that exercise would be more beneficial if it were directed to some isolated village or parish in one of the developing countries which we have selected as being more suitable for the kind and amount of bilateral funds which our Government have available to them.

I am glad we have had the opportunity to discuss the report of the joint committee in this House. I hope they will continue to press the Minister for Finance to make the maximum amount of funds available, demonstrating in a very practical way that we recognise the inequalities and the difficulties of the very large populations in those under developed countries. I would like to compliment the Taoiseach, his Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State and indeed the previous Minister of State, Mr. Jim O'Keeffe, for the care they and the Civil Service took in selecting the specific projects in the countries which the Department have decided are best suited for Irish aid, having regard to the size of the aid in general. If one looks at the progress in the Hololo Valley in Lesotho after ten years, that project has meant a significant improvement in the living conditions of a considerable number of people. The Government selected a small country with a small population where the effort and the finance could readily be identified and one could measure the improvement. That was a good idea. In the developing countries there is a vast amount of manpower available. With the NGO funds I would like greater emphasis placed on the development of co-operatives for agricultural production. When I started working on the land we had a whole range of horse drawn implements. Even though that was 30 or 40 years ago those implements would be a great advance on the oxen plough which is used in the developing countries. That would be the equivalent of the old Oliver plough which was a wooden plough of 150 years ago. If we could devise for some of the areas where diesel oil is not readily available light weight non-mechanical agricultural equipment it would be easier for them to manage and it would effect a great improvement in the situation. The forestry department have made some manual equipment available for some of those projects. I wonder how efficient or effective it has been in the areas to which it has been assigned.

I would like to compliment the joint committee. I wish them well in their work which must be looked upon as extremely important. If we claim to care then we must be prepared to continue increasing our contribution to the entire question of equality of opportunities in the Third World.

In the EC the Development and Aid Commission continues to spend massive amounts of money on the development of markets and on various programmes. This is extremely important in its own way. Though many people would like to think we should be on a continuous buy Irish campaign, we should be conscious of supporting the goods from those Third World countries that we want to support. It is important that there should be a greater equalisation of trade between the developed countries and those developing countries which have just one or two exportable commodities. Indeed most of them are one commodity economies. Although we must be conscious of buying Irish we should make some contribution in trade to the developing countries that we have identified as the ones where we want to concentrate Irish bilateral aid.

Mr. B. Ryan

I speak as a member of the committee and as one who had the enormously enlightening opportunity of visiting a number of our priority countries last year. The experience that our group had on that visit is reflected to a large extent in the report on the Bilateral Aid Programme. It is important to put what we are talking about into its proper context. It is referred to in the report though not in the sort of detail it requires. That is not a criticism of the report, it is just a statement of the way things are. Two things are mentioned by the committee and two recommendations are contained in the report. One, a recommendation that this country should devote itself with considerably greater enthusiasm to the struggle to establish a new world economic order. At the centre of the problem of underdevelopment is the essential injustice of the way the world is structured. To suggest, as prominent spokespersons for the United States Government have suggested, that to let the free market loose all over the world would automatically produce some level of justice in the world is to fly in the face of even traditional economics. Traditional economics would tell you that the powerful will create monopoly positions for themselves and that you need anti-monopoly regulations even in the most free of free market economies to prevent that happening. Since there is no system of world regulation in a world free market system you would run into monopoly situations controlled by those who are already powerful. That would make the existing situation even worse.

The bedrock of real development in the oppressed part of the world is actually a new world economic order. Perhaps the most specific symptom of the need for a new world economic order is the other general area of policy that is referred to in the report. That is the question of international indebtness, the whole Third World debt crisis. Probably the least romantic thing one can talk about either at public meetings or in writing is the international debt crisis. The truth is that we have probably got to the situation where the scale of interest payments and capital repayments that are required to be undertaken by Third World countries are probably net contributors to the so called developed countries, in other words, they are paying back more than is being paid in aid. That is not just cruel, it is an outrageous injustice.

It is because this issue of injustice and a new world economic order is so fundamental that I regret Senator McDonald's attack on Trócaire. It is outrageous that it should be suggested in this House that alerting people to the greatest obscenity in the world today, which is the system of apartheid in South Africa, would somehow be less important than giving aid in the form of cash grants through religious orders. Archbishop Hurley of South Africa, in a most humble and enlightening address to the Trócaire tenth anniversary conference identified the fact that the Church and the missionary orders in South Africa has been shamefully negligent in their challenge to the apartheid system.

It is, therefore, regrettable that we should have to listen here to even an implied attack on perhaps the most enlightened area of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and, in the light of recent weeks, the areas of enlightenment in the Roman Catholic hierarchy are few and far between and are difficult to identify. Trócaire was one of them. I suspect that the cabel of the old right and the new right and old Tories who defeated us last week will turn their eyes shortly on something as enlightened as the Church's attitude to South Africa and will begin to tackle that next. It seems like an obvious target because much that is said by Trócaire is inconsistent with much that was said in this country in the past three weeks. You cannot struggle for justice abroad and institutionalise injustice at home. Something will give and I regret to have to say that I suspect it is the struggle for justice abroad that will be the victim of the institutionalised injustice that seems to be acceptable at home. Nevertheless it has to be said that Trócaire's contribution to enlightening Irish public opinion has been enormous at school level, through the Church, through church bodies and religious orders. I would regret, resent and reject even an implied criticism of them. My only criticism would have far more to do with the level of resources made available to Trócaire through the Church which to be fair, is considerable and is expanding.

The report deals in some length with the policy framework within which a bilateral aid programme should develop. It identifies poverty and need as the basic principle to be used in determining where our Bilateral Aid Programme should be concentrated. It is important to get away from a sometimes fashionable First World notion that we are becoming involved in a form of cultural imperialism by deciding whether people in Third World countries are poor. I am consistently amazed by people who ask how sure are we that these people are so much worse off and say that we are interfering with a lifestyle which has a lot going for it and which has a lot of values which we in western society have lost. Perhaps we are but we are also giving aid to societies where the infant mortality rate is of the order of 130, 150 or 200 per 1,000 live births by comparison with an infant mortality rate that is close to single figures here. That as far as I am concerned is an index of absolute poverty which is unchallengable and those of us who saw what was trying to function as a hospital in one small town in Tanzania last year, a hospital without running water, have also very little doubt about the fact that there is no cultural imperialism involved in deciding that certain countries are unjustly poor and deserve and need a higher living standard. Some of the liberal hand wringing that one hears about, the dreadful tragedy of introducing the consumer society to countries that have their own simple lifestyles, is nothing but the romantic whinging of people who do not want to make choices about which side they are on in a struggle for justice.

The projects that I had the privilege to see and which we were involved with were poverty orientated and were run by people who were trying to work at the bottom of the heap with people who had very little to enable them to make progress. It is right too that we identify, as we have, small scale projects and that we try to deal as far as possible with basic needs because there is a danger of setting up a poverty industry at home and abroad. There is equally a danger of developing a new culture of professional aid workers in permanent transit from one project to another. Many people working in Irish aid projects spoke to me about the international new breed of professional aid workers working in one aid project after another. You begin to get the feeling that the projects have far more to do with sustaining the industry than with actually doing the job they were set up to do which was to initiate a form of development which could ultimately continue on its own without the intervention of either personnel or funds from the First World.

It is necessary to emphasise the requirement of local co-operation. There is no point in implanting a large western European style operation into rural Tanzania, setting it up, getting it going and then expecting it to make some enormous difference. One of the benefits of visiting these countries is that you realise there is only one way to make progress and that is by building on what is there. There are no short cuts which would enable people to make the type of progress that impatient westerners like ourselves may want. You have to make progress within the structure of the environment in which people live. The necessity therefore for high level, well organised, local co-operation is properly emphasised in the report.

The recommendation in the report that funding allocations should spring out of general policy framework is quite correct. The Minister at some stage should look at the development co-operation report of his own Department and look at one country in Africa which is not a priority country. He should add up the sums of money that are allocated via the ambassador in that country. He should consider whether that fits into any policy framework or whether it has far more to do with the fact that there is a substantial body of Irish missionaries working in that country who have I am sure quite pressing needs and claims. However, it is hard to see a series of ad hoc grants here and there via the ambassador fitting into any overall policy framework. If we decide that we want to do this then we should adjust the policy. When the Minister smiles he knows what I am talking about. It deserves to be studied and looked at because any type——

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

I would not smile only that the Senator has not mentioned any names.

Mr. Howard

The suspense is killing.

Mr. B. Ryan

If I mention the country, the ambassador would appear to be the person I am criticising and I am simply saying the Minister can read the report.

Mr. Connor

The Senator can claim privilege.

Mr. B. Ryan

I would not. It is because of this that I refrain from doing so.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Harte)

I advise the Senator that he is not allowed to mention individuals' names anyway.

Mr. B. Ryan

I did not intend to.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. B. Ryan

There is only one ambassador in the country I am talking about unless something has happened that I do not know about.

Mr. G. Birmingham

They changed recently.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Minister of State knows what I am talking about, so there is no problem.

Mr. Connor

The Minister of State remains inscrutable.

Mr. B. Ryan

There is an interesting recommendation in the area of policy that needs to be elaborated on and that is that the amount of funding to priority countries should not have a great regard to the political complexion of the country that the aid is being given to. I agree with that in principle but it is not the same as saying that we make no judgments about the political complexions of the countries we are dealing with. The reason for that is that you could be involved in co-operating with a Government and in the process give credibility to them when they would have little or no credibility among their own people. There are many who argue that our position in Lesotho was close to that. There was a Government which many argued had little or no popular support and which was sustained in power by devices other than the will of the people. Shall I put it like that? At the same time the number of Third World countries that have or indeed could be fairly expected to have western style democracies are few and far between. We have to make choices but we must not fudge any of the issues involved. If the political complexion of a country is such that we cannot guarantee reasonably corruption free operations and reasonably corruption free development then I do not know if we have any business getting involved in development there if all we are doing is making a further contribution to the enrichment of an already enriched minority. I agree with the recommendation that the political complexion should not be a determining factor but it is equally important that we should not close our eyes to the political complexions of the countries we are dealing with.

If we have a policy framework, the question that must preoccupy us is the scale of funding that we make available to implement that policy. There is not much point in making a long speech here about the inadequate level of funding for our Bilateral Aid Programme. Everybody, including the Minister, agrees that it is far too small. The Minister and I will disagree about whether it is possible to make it larger. It is pathetically inadequate and it needs to be said, not for the first time, that the scale of overseas development aid represents in terms of public expenditure about 5 per cent of what is spent on armaments annually in the world. That choice of priorities underlines the fact that to say we cannot afford to expand overseas development aid is a load of nonsense. It is a question of priorities.

The priority we have chosen is to vastly inflate armaments expenditure and to keep overseas development aid severely restricted. It would be quite possible, given the political will, to change those priorities fundamentally and even a 5 per cent transfer from armaments expenditure to development aid would represent a 100 per cent increase in the scale of overseas development aid. I do not think there is any case to be made in the western world generally, whatever about in this country, for not giving greatly increased overseas development aid though I know enough about the question of development to realise that giving aid on its own is not the solution. Anybody who has visited, even briefly, countries in need of development could testify that for every project that has been commenced, there are 100 others that could be commenced immediately. While aid will not solve the problem of itself there is a lot that could be done if extra aid was given.

A quite proper decision was taken to move away from multilateral aid and put increased resources into bilateral aid. It is one of the regrettable facts that most of our multilateral aid is a fixed commitment over which we have no real say. Any decision either not to increase overseas development aid or even more tragically to reduce it produces a disproportionately heavy cut in the area of bilateral aid because the multilateral commitment must be met. I hope we will develop — I would love to hear this said by somebody in Fianna Fáil — a political consensus to increase overseas development aid. It makes a huge difference to people working in the field, particularly in non-governmental organisations, to be able to make some plans for the future. It also helps the public service and the Department of Foreign Affairs to plan for more than a year in advance. We are not much more than 18 months away from an election. It is difficult to plan for the period after the end of next year if no commitment is given by the parties who might be in government that overseas development aid will be expanded and continued in the future. I look forward to hearing that such a commitment will be given by Fianna Fáil in particular.

Our development aid programmes have made considerable progress. As the report identified, there are a considerable number of areas that need to be dealt with. As regards personnel, the constant complaint we heard was that because of the continuous change in personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs who dealt with overseas development aid — this is not what the people in the field said to me but it is my version of it — one had to continuously help people to rediscover the wheel. Just when somebody had really got a feel of the job they were moved elsewhere. Someone else was appointed. They had a reasonable general knowledge but none of the intimate detail which enables people to make informed recommendations or decisions.

One of the recommendations made by the committee which should be vigorously pursued by the Minister is to exempt the development aid area of the Department of Foreign Affairs from the embargo on public service recruitment. It would be tragic given the small number of staff involved if a vacancy was allowed to remain unfilled.

The report also deals at some length with the process of selection of personnel to operate overseas. The quality of selection in some cases has been less than 100 per cent. Most of the reservations I had before I visited Lesotho were adequately disposed of while I was there. I could not find any grounds for criticising the Irish personnel I met. There are some well documented cases which show that attitudes on the part of some professional personnel over the years towards the native peoples of Lesotho have been less than enlightened. It has been recommended to me on a few occasions that one area that should be looked at very carefully is the area of conditions and criteria under which Irish aid personnel in that country recruit domestic service staff. Sometimes these people are not paid proper wages.

Particular sensitivity is required when dealing with Lesotho because of where it is located and because of the monster that surrounds it. It would be tragic if we gave any comfort to those how wish to perpetuate the monstrosity that surrounds Lesotho on all sides. It would be tragic if Irish personnel were selected to work there who did not have a proper sensitivity and understanding of the scale of the obscenity that is South Africa today. Therefore it is important that volunteers and expert personnel be selected with the maximum possible rigour. There have been complaints about differences in recruitment and training between NGOs and Government agencies.

I cannot accept that people can carry out a programme of development aid in either Lesotho or Tanzania if they do not have a working knowledge of the local language. As part of the training programme for people working overseas we should have a proper procedure for teaching people a language. Given that our diplomatic staff who work in those countries are particularly orientated towards development and since our development programme relies on the maximum local co-operation they must have a competence in the local languages. This may not be the easiest thing to develop given the turnover of staff.

The objective of our development aid programme cannot be met if the staff involved do not have a reasonable fluency in the local language. That is purely on a practical basis. There is also the question of the increased acceptability of diplomatic staff who can speak the local language. We are talking of an area where there is a lot that sill needs to be done. It is interesting that the non-Governmental organisations — at least the ones which I saw in operation — put enormous resources into ensuring that their volunteers can speak the local language. If this sounds sentimental then perhaps it is. It is impressive to see quite young volunteers in Tanzania, some of them barely out of college, with a fluency in Swahili and an ease of the language which most Irish people, including myself, would not have in our own second language not to mention a totally different African language. It also gives a sense of their own involvement in the development of the communities they work in. They are not outsiders giving advice. They are participants in the local community. On the basis of the little I saw the whole area of learning languages will have to be extended.

That brings us to another area which the committee quite rightly looked at. That is the area of project evaluation. I was taken aback to be told by Irish people working on development aid projects in both Tanzania and Lesotho that people had visited them to evaluate the projects. They understood that reports had been drafted but they also understood that they would never see the reports or have an opportunity to comment on them. That sort of private evaluation may fulfil one function but there ought to be a proper feedback from personnel in the field about the conclusions in the evaluator's report. Having an all-knowing, all-powerful omnipotent Department which can send out one person to evaluate a project and draw conclusions on that basis is far too simple. It avoids the difficulties that arise when people can actually comment on what is said about them and their work. Any evaluation report ought to be published.

There is a lack of any structured debriefing for people returning from overseas development work. I understand from the Department of Foreign Affairs that they are quite delighted and pleased to hear people's views. Nobody had got around to saying at the time of the drafting of this report that part of the conditions under which people would go to work in one of our development projects would be that on their return they must spend a week or three or four days with the Department of Foreign Affairs or some appropriate agency talking about their experiences, ideas and insights. There is a fund of knowledge which seems to be largely untapped. I know a number of returned workers who hold strong views and who were quite taken aback when they discovered that once they arrived home their expertise was felt to be at an end. There should be a formal process whereby returned personnel ought to be involved in project evaluation. They have an important insight to share with us all.

The report mentioned the area of women and training for women in developing countries or oppressed countries as I prefer to call them. There are extra obstacles in the way of women in these countries. There are enough obstacles in the way of women in this country as we discovered in the last three weeks, but there are even greater obstacles in the way of women in developing countries. The restructuring of agriculture in Tanzania and the restructuring of societies where women tended to be the people who provided food and men tended to be the hunters and the providers of cash crops, has meant that men have to some extent — this is something we remarked on — become redundant. Women have been left with an increasing burden to carry because of the distances they have to travel to gather firewood as a result of the destruction of forests and so on. There is a considerable likelihood of an increasingly unjust distribution of work in many developing countries because of the way things are changing.

The report also identifies a criticism that has come more and more to the front in recent times about the fact that we have, by and large, concentrated our priorities on one continent and have not as yet a programme for identifying a priority area or country either in Asia or Central or South America. I enthusiastically endorse the recommendation of the committee that we should identify one or two extra priority countries outside of Africa. I have one idea about a priority area in South Africa. He should consider it. It seems to be agreed that the practical level of Irish aid in Lesotho has now been reached. It seems to be equally agreed that we cannot dramatically raise the level of aid in either Sudan or Zambia in the immediate future. Therefore the extra funds that will become available because of the Government's guaranteed increase in overseas development aid funding could properly be allocated to a new priority country.

I appeal to the Minister and the Government to ensure that the choice of a new priority country is made on the basis of need. It should not be made either on the basis of political acceptability to our good friends in the United States or anything like that. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in Central America, for instance, Nicaragua would be a very worth while and worthy country to identify as a priority country given the scale of the problems they have and the fact that there is an attempt to build a more just society there. It is a country that is, at this stage, extremely well known to Irish people. It is also a small country. That is one of the countries of Central America which would be a very interesting area. Some people have spoken about India as a priority country. The scale of the problems in India would ensure that Irish aid would be entirely lost. A smaller country in south east Asia could well be considered.

I should like to put on the record insights that I got from the brief two weeks we spent in Africa. It is probably unwise of me because it is foolish for a politician to talk about his overseas travels. He is liable to hit the headlines in every organ of the media. I have no qualms in talking about it and people can say what they wish. The first thing which strikes you is that no matter what you read or how well informed you are, once you land in the countries I visited poverty becomes a different thing. Somebody tells you that communications are very bad in Tanzania. You do not realise that means that even a landrover will have difficulty conveying you along some of the roads in the rain with potholes that are nearly as large as the wheels of a landrover. Indeed one of my colleagues on that journey spent about a month on the flat of his back recovering from the experience of travelling in a landrover when, as some of my friends in the media would say, he was having a junket around Africa. It was a junket for which he paid a very——

Mr. Howard

You get the same effect on the county roads in Kilkenny and Kerry.

Mr. B. Ryan

Is that what is wrong? The poverty that is visible here should be seen by as many members of parliaments of as many European and North American countries as possible because the actual experience of the poverty there can upset peoples consciences more than can any amount of reading or rhetoric. It is not a poverty that can easily be shown on television programmes. It does not have the intensity of starvation in Ethopia. Nevertheless it is very real and it emphasises and underlines the fundamentally unjust distribution of wealth and opportunity in the world.

It is important also to experience the pride people have in their countries and their achievements in spite of all the obstacles they face. I was enormously impressed with the frankness of public officials in Tanzania about both their achievements and their failures. It gave one a great sense of hope for the future of that country. It confirmed my admiration for the person who had led that country for the best part of its period of independence. Material poverty is still considerable though great progress has been made, in the provision of basic services. The pride of the people in their own country has been enormously impressive. It would be a matter of great regret if, as has been suggested, a large part of the interest of the international banking community, of the IMS and of the World Bank in bringing about fundamental changes in economic policy in Tanzania would be as much related to a displeasure with the political policies operated by the Tanzanian Government as it would be with any sort of objective economic analysis.

We also visited Lesotho and this was an enormously upsetting introduction at first hand to what apartheid really means. The first experience of this was at Johannesburg Airport where there were fewer black people visible than at London Airport for instance. The airport is a sensitive area. It is an area, to use a phrase that is now subversive in South Africa, where the white minority government do not trust the black population and, therefore, there is this lily white impression. This is meant to reassure European visitors that South Africa is a very peaceful, placid and likeable country. But then one sees all the people with guns at exits and other places. This is to a much greater extent there than is the case at any other airport I have been through. I have been in a number of airports in eastern Europe and I have never seen anything like the military security presence there is at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg.

There were problems also in relation to development in Lesotho. These were entirely related, both in the eyes of the Government and of many of Irish personnel there, to the regime that surrounds the country. It was extremely difficult, for example, to transfer control of some projects from an Irish person to a native of Lesotho because if a native of Lesotho does business in South Africa he will be charged about 50 per cent more for the goods or services than an Irish man would be charged. If a person is black he is expected to pay more, to wait longer and to accept poorer quality services and goods.

At the centre of all the development problems in Lesotho is the problem of apartheid. We were told this by government officials, Irish aid workers and so on. It is the increasingly vocal opposition to apartheid on the part of a far from idealistic government that produced the obvious South African intervention which brought about the toppling of the government and the military coup in Lesotho. One thing which is not tolerated in southern Africa is any attempt to operate the type of European values South Africans talk about so loudly. They can criticise who they like, they can intervene where they like but other people do not have such privileges. The attitude is that they are black so they could not be expected to have such privileges.

It is in that context that I admire the bravery of the people from Lesotho whom I met who said that, of course, sanctions were the only weapon left and that disinvestment was the only way forward. The southern African states, not just in Lesotho, that are bedevilled by the Frankenstein of apartheid have now said that whatever the short term sacrifices are, they are necessary to achieve the long term objective of destroying apartheid and then enabling what is a homogeneous unit of southern Africa to develop as a unit with the proper co-operation and development between the various independent states.

Western society has three choices. It can either support apartheid, which it effectively does at present by its neglect to do anything else; it can introduce stringent and increasingly biting sanctions of an economic kind or it can reconcile itself to the fact that apartheid will end through armed struggle and take the choice if it wishes of arming the ANC, having chosen to arm the other side over the last 50 years. The least it could do in justice would be to give those who have to fight the equipment to do so instead of standing back and now regretting the violence which western society choose to institutionalise in South Africa over the last 40 years.

Mr. Connor

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like the last speaker, Senator Ryan, I am a member of the committee and was very much involved in the drawing up of this report which is the second report of this joint Oireachtas committee.

As has been said by all of the speakers, the report has looked at the whole area of Ireland's bilaterial assistance. I think — and I am not saying this merely as a member of the committee — that this is a very useful document because it will do something to increase awareness and information about our role internationally and what we do in terms of helping poor and impoverished countries. As I have said before, there is an awful dearth of information about Ireland's role. If these reports do nothing else they are very worth while in terms of the technical information they give. They will increase awareness of this problem throughout the public generally.

The committee prepared also a third report on apartheid in South Africa. It has been available for about three months and I regret that we did not find time to discuss it during this session. It was planned to discuss it before the summer recess next week but because of pressure of other business that will not be possible.

One might commend the Seanad on the fact that it has discussed in full the first report of this committee and has now almost completed quite a long discussion on the second report on bilateral aid. No doubt we will discuss apartheid and the report on development education which we are drawing up at present. I am not aware that these reports have been discussed in the Dáil though they have been available to that House for as long as they have been available to this House. That is a great pity. Again, the excuse will be that because of pressure of business it did not find time to discuss it. This says something about our order of priorities, I do not agree in that report.

Because I am a member of the committee and have been involved in the drawing up of this report, I take liberty of reading directly from certain sections of the report. While Senator Ryan made an excellent speech there were a number of things he said which I thought were inadequate in relation to what the report said in terms of our overseas aid policy. To put the record straight on a number of things I will be reading into the record of the House the exact section which deals with what the reports recommends rather than having some of it said and the matter left a little inadequate from that point of view. The very nature of Ireland's bilateral aid is set out as follows on page 3:

Bilateral Aid Programme:

The committee's discussion of the Bilateral Aid Programme and its recommendations should be seen in the light of its unanimous opinion that the Bilateral Aid Programme and its activities should have a clear poverty orientation i.e. 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. 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.

Here I found some of the things that Senator Ryan was slightly inadequate on. He said we talked about giving aid to all kinds of countries irrespective of political complexion and without making any judgments. We have made judgments because in paragraph 57 the report states:

Relative to the question of the effect on aid policy of the internal political situation in priority countries the Joint Committee recommended in its 1984 Report that emergency food aid, for example, be given without regard to the political complexion of the affected country's government. The same principle should apply to longer term aid, apart from exceptional political circumstances where perhaps the lives of project workers are endangered or the political situation is so odious that any collaboration would be clearly construed both internally and externally as a betrayal of the population (para 7). However, although the Committee recommends that aid be given, in general, irrespective of the political complexion of the receiving country it suggests the establishment of ground-rules for cooperation with governments whose political systems or activities differ or are at odds with the Irish experience.

That is the committee's total position on the issue of political complexion. However, it is fully stated that our bilateral aid assistance has as its first principles absolute need and all its activities have a clear poverty ortientation. The committee want the programme to be Ireland's commitment to the long term development of the poorest of poor countries. The committee want to see it as an essential plank of Irish foreign policy. Our bilateral aid is, in practice, assistance on the ground, for example, developing dairying systems, livestock systems, cereal production, rehabilitating a hospital as in Kilosa and the servicing of educational needs. We would like to see what we are doing in these stricken countries as an effort, not alone to help, but also to identify with their problems. We are like them, another small ex-colonial nation with an awful colonial past. We have words in our history like "Famine", "pestilence" and "disease". This is still in the memory of some of the older people.

The committee make the point that we do not see well co-ordinated bilateral aid assistance on an international level and using the funds and expertise of the world's richest and most developed countries as any complete answer to impoverishment and underdevelopment. The report recognises, and this point was well made by Senator Ryan, that only changing the terms of trade and the trading relations and the political relationships between the First and Third Worlds will fundamentally address the problem.

I welcome the committee's comments on the debt burden. This debt burden afflicts all developing nations and it is especially acute in the four priority countries where we are involved. The point is made in the report that unless satisfactory rescheduling or a temporary suspension of the enormous debt accrued is agreed on between the lenders — the lenders are usually located in the world's great financial centres — and the borrowers who are often the poorest of poor countries, all the best efforts of the various international forum where this country parat nought. We ask again that, in every international forum where this country participates, the Government press home this point. I regret that two months ago at the Summit of the world's richest countries held in Tokyo, the problem of Third World debt was not on the agenda. In keeping the world's economic order, and we in the West have a greater interest in maintaining the present world economic order — this is the most fundamental question. If nothing threatens the economic order of which we in this part of the world are the greatest beneficiaries, more than the debt problem in poorer countries, and, indeed, in not so poor countries.

We make the point that only the wealthiest countries have the power to underwrite or to guarantee or to bring about that small change in the world's economic order which would relieve the debt burden on the world's poor. Instead, leaders such as President Regan and Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Nakasone and Chancellor Kohl in Tokyo last April devoted most of their time to talking about terrorism and its prevention. The summit was hailed as a triumph in that they came to an agreement on the prevention of terrorism. Their only comment on economic issues and the change in the world's economic order was that they welcomed the drop in oil prices. That to them was a sufficient change in the world's economic order to warrant progress as far as they were concerned. More enlightened leaders, rather than discussing terrorism and the drop in oil prices and the economic effects that has on the Western world — of course I am aware that Ireland is a beneficiary of any drop in oil prices — ought to deal with the fundamental causes of terrorism which very often progresses from the resentment one finds among the have-nots in the world for people who have.

I believe the debt burden is at the very core of the economic woes of the Third World. Most of this debt in recent years arose because of the greatly increased need to import food because of natural disasters and disasters that might not be described as natural such as internal insurgence, political upheavals, external interferences such as the South African interference in Lesotho. These developments, with the national ones, have caused enormous economic dislocations which in turn have led to enormous debt.

Throughout the Third World as a whole in the 20 years from 1961 to 1981 food imports moved from 30 million tonnes to almost 100 million tonnes. That is the increase in the amount of food that these countries have had to import just to survive.

The saddest sideline to this development is that amongst Africa's poorest countries food production since 1981 is decreasing, mostly for the reasons I have already mentioned — internal political reasons, natural and unnatural disasters. According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, in the sub-Saharan region of Africa — which is the world's most stricken region — food production has fallen by 1 per cent per person per year since 1981. The shortfall can only be made up by food imports usually paid for by borrowings. Much of the shortfall is not made up and consequently we have famine and all the related horrors which we see on television and in very graphic photographs in the newspapers and in news magazines.

Chapter 1 of the report of the Joint Committee on Cooperation with Developing Countries deals with the fact that the Government has never issued a clear policy document on the whole area of overseas development assistance. A number of organisations in the development co-operation field who gave evidence to the committee in the drawing up of the report made the point very clearly that this had led to a feeling of uncertainty because of a possible change in emphasis. The Government had indicated that it will issue shortly a White Paper which will give a clear line on policy well into the future. I would hope that these clear lines on policy would be upheld by this Government and by any other Government that may come into power over the next decade. I would also like to see incorporated into this policy document — and I am sure that most of the members of the committee will agree with me as well as many Members of the House — a long term policy that we in Ireland would commit ourselves to seeking a reform in the world's economic order; such a reform to bring about a positive advantage to poor countries in their trading and economic relations with the developed world; that we would orientate our overseas development assistance, both bilateral and multi-lateral, towards the principle of attacking the fundamental cause of poverty and underdevelopment; that our assistance would always bring the people that we are attempting to assist along with us; that we would always have a sensitivity towards their personal, national and cultural pride.

Chapter 2 of the report deals with the administration and monitoring by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the BAP — Bilateral Aid Programme — if I may use the initials, as this whole field of development co-operation is full on initials, like ODA, HEDCO, and so on. I commend it for the information it gives in this whole area. Besides the Department's direct involvement in the administration of the programme in this part of the report, we have mentioned the other organisations involved. I will mention a few of them by way of commending them for the very good work they do. One of them is called APSO — the Agency for Personal Service Overseas — which is a State-sponsored body, promoting and sponsoring personal service by Irish people with special skills in developing countries. They rightly receive a grant-in-aid for their activities.

Higher Education for Development Co-operation (HEDCO) and the Irish Council for Overseas Students (ICOS) receive assistance to provide support services in the areas of education and training. I commend these organisations for the positive and good work they carry out.

In Chapter 2 the joint committee make the point in relation to the role and status of development co-operation officers. In at least one instance in Lesotho, the DCO (Development Co-operation Officer) had difficulty in operating as he should because of doubt as to his diplomatic status. It must be appreciated in the House that the African political situation is unlike our own and leaders are very often given to vanity. The prevalence of the one-party system is an inevitable product of this. There is a practice which has grown up that all persons seeking permission to carry on work affecting the lives of possibly thousands of their people within their borders, should have an elevated diplomatic status. The committee felt that in terms of ensuring their maximum effect with host governments, DCOs should have chargé d'affaires status. I would ask the Minister to take note of this particular recommendation.

I commend two members of the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs who were involved with the committee, namely Martin Greene and Gary Ansboro. Both of these two fine public servants have been promoted to the office of DCO, one in Sudan and the other in Kenya.

Acting Chairman

I am advised that it is not the wisest thing in the world to mention the names of civil servants; they are, under other circumstances, open to attack.

Mr. Connor

I regret that I have offended the rules of the House. I was talking about them in a very complimentary way. Two civil servants who were former clerks of the committee have been elevated to the post of DCO, one is being sent to Sudan and the other to Kenya; I am open to correction on this. What I want to say is that both have given excellent service to the committee and I wish them well in their new postings in Africa. To say the very least, if they can give the kind of service they have given to the committee and in the way that they have shown an understanding of the problems, the bringing of that understanding to the ground itself will certainly have a beneficial effect on the way Ireland's bilateral assistance is carried through.

Acting Chairman

I regret to have to interrupt the Senator again but I understand that the Minister takes all the credit and the responsibility for this. In doing this he protects the civil servants.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I have heard everything that was said by the Senator; it is well merited in the particular circumstances — even if he should not have said it.

Mr. Connor

What I have said will reflect also on the Minister of State and on his predecessor. I am aware that Senator Lanigan may be waiting to speak.

Chapter 3 of the report deals with policy implementation and funding. We welcome the growing increase in bilateral assistance relative to multilateral assistance. In 1970 the BAP was less than 4 per cent of all of Ireland's overseas development aid. In 1984 it was 40 per cent, while multi-lateral was 60 per cent of all ODA. Very hopefully a 50:50 ratio will be achieved next year in line with the national plan and hopefully Ireland's total ODA will amount to about £50 million in 1987. That will bring us closer to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product, which is the UN target for overseas aid.

I should like to welcome the fact that we have given funding under the bilateral aid programme to the South African Development Co-Operation Conference. This is a loose inter-state organisation comprising of Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These countries comprise this loose economic and political partnership to promote their economic development and lessening of their dependence on South Africa for trade, et cetera. Crucial to the activities of this inter-state organisation is a food security policy and all the countries mentioned have shortfalls in basic food needs and the assistance we are giving is to fund a project to establish an inventory of the agricultural source base in these countries. This is a basic move in establishing a food sufficiency policy for the region. We all support the concept of attacking the fundamental cause of poverty and hunger. This funding in my opinion addresses the very core of the problem.

Another area dealt with in Chapter 3 is the choice of priority country and, again, this outlines the history of how the four priority countries which we operate in were chosen. May I read into the record of the House, with the permission of the Leas Cathaoirleach, what the committee had to say as to why we chose the four countries we did? Basically, they were chosen because of relative poverty; ability to absorb and use aid effectively; the suitability of structures and policy to facilitate the flow of aid to the most needy; historical cultural, language and administrative links. That, I would take it, is that the four countries involved were ex-British colonies like ourselves and they had certain liknesses like language particularly and certain administrative structures which we would all have inherited from the British.

The last one I see here — the special circumstances — for example, the effect of the South African policy of apartheid in Lesotho — was one good reason as to why we should have got ourselves in Lesotho. I will make the point again because very often we have inadequate reasons as to why we were involved in those four countries and there has been at least a measure of criticism about the countries that we chose and, of course, there is also the criticism that we have not spread our aid over a wider canvass and more countries. I would share that view but I appreciate the money constraint.

A number of the witnesses who came before the committee, especially Trócaire and Concern, made the case for another priority country in Asia. Trócaire made the point that another country should be outside of Africa and should be located in Asia. I would wholeheartedly agree. Given our established criteria of absolute need, the obvious choice in Asia would have to be India or Bangladesh. I would recommend that we might, if we are to extend to another priority country, choose India. I am not pre-empting anything the Minister might say but I think there is a feeling within the Department of Foreign Affairs that, given better resources and greater level of development in the four priority countries, the level of involvement can decrease, thus releasing resources to go elsewhere. I have had the experience of travelling for one month in the fairly recent past in southern India and experienced poverty and poverty-stricken people at a most appalling level: a level of squalor, not just in the large towns and cities but also in parts of rural India, that part that is called Village Loch. For that reason I would love to see this country taking India as a priority country and initiating projects under BAP, particularly agricultural projects which we are very good at. Our agricultural projects in any of the four priority countries are absolute paragons. Of course, we recognise the practical difficulties of extending into another priority country and the fact that the available scarce resources for the foreseeable future will be absorbed in the ongoing process of developing the various schemes to a state of viability in the present four priority countries. Only in Lesotho is the Department of Foreign Affairs satisfied that the projects undertaken have reached a satisfactory level. It would be disastrous and, indeed, a betrayal to make any premature rundown or withdrawal from the projects in existing countries, even if this was done to make way for another priority country. Nevertheless, the extension of the project must always be a live one, especially as the BAP gets to and possibly exceeds 50 per cent of ODA, and each year brings us closer to the UN target.

In conclusion I will return to general comments rather than deal with specific chapters in the report. Again, I want to comment on the total lack of necessity that anyone in Africa or in Asia or, indeed, in Latin America should suffer the scourge of hunger and famine. The supply of food in the world over the past 20 years at least has been greater than the demand to consume it — that is in a market sense. Nevertheless, in that period countless thousands and maybe more have died as a result of famine and of hunger-related diseases. This has happened purely because these unfortunate people lived in countries which had not the purchasing power to procure essential food for their populations. At present world food surpluses are historically high, especially the surpluses generated by the European countries and by the United States of America and Australia and the other major agricultural producers. Dr. Allen Matthews writes a very interesting article in this year's Departmental Report on Assistance to Development Countries published last month. He makes the point that the food aid requirement for all of Africa amounted to 8.5 million tonnes, that is the food aid requirement of countries with food deficits. This is at a time when the world grain stocks stand at 190 million tonnes surplus to demand. That figure gives us some idea of how unbalanced the world's food supply is and how such a small proportion of the western world's food surplus would wipe out the famine and hunger could it be got to people who need it.

This massive piece of grotesque immorality must be tackled. The EC food mountain is a direct result of the Common Agricultural Policy. This country naturally is a major economic beneficiary of the CAP. We also must bear in mind that it protects this country from much poverty among small farmers. It is relative poverty I am talking about but, nevertheless, poverty. I object to this blind storage of surplus food grains, and meats and dairy products. All of these products probably deteriorate by one third of their value for every year in storage. Some of them have been stored for so long that they are likely to become or have become unusable.

This blind policy, if I may call it that, is pursued because of the kind of conventional economic wisdom that this food had to be paid for, that its storage had to be paid for and that its disposal or its use must somehow be related to market values. There is an inbuilt resistance to entering into any kind of negotiations by which at least some of these surpluses could be sold to countries with food deficits on favourable terms.

I would see two cold economic advantages to start with by such an approach being taken to the European food surplus situation in particular. The food would be disposed of at prices below intervention prices but in many instances it would be disposed of at prices higher than it would be worth if left in continued storage. The point I am making is that the value of this food stored in such huge quantities for such lengths of time deteriorates quite rapidly and, consequently, the money value of it deteriorates also. That seems to me to be a point lost completely by the policy makers, especially the food mountain management people within the European Community.

There is the other effect that cheaper food imports would inevitably lead to a lessening somewhat of the debt burden of very poor countries. That would have the effect of relieving the nerves of the international bankers who lend to them. That is another cold economic advantage that would accrue from a new bold policy in relation to disposing of our surpluses to poor countries on favourable terms to them. That leaves aside completely the amount of misery and the amount of hunger and the amount of starvation that it would relieve throughout the poor parts of the world.

I am delighted that, as a member of the committee, I had some small participation in drawing up this report. I said at the beginning that I would not be indulgent in saying that because I am a member of the committee. It is a comprehensive document and very well balanced but it sets down in very reasoned and in a very reasonable way Ireland's role in terms of its Bilateral Aid Programme. This country of ours is a small country. We do not belong to any great power bloc. We have no great influence on the world's military situation or the world's military balance, nor, indeed, have we any great influence on the world's economic matters. I would submit to the House that we can have a great influence on the balance of morality——

Mrs Bulbulia

Hear, hear.

Mr. Connor

——in international relations in the way one country relates to another, in the way rich countries relate to poor countries and vice versa. Because of our history we are in an especially good position to take that kind of stance in terms of our foreign policy. I would submit, and I think I have said it already, that an essential plank of Ireland's foreign policy should be a special relationship with poor countries. This country of ours, living in the First World, being part of the First World, should use its position of living in that privileged circle to talk to the other members, to say that many of the policies that are being pursued are wrong and certainly do not serve the interests of the Third World and long term they certainly do not serve our interests either.

Mr. Lanigan

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this report. The report itself gives a fine indication of the work that is being done by both Government and non-Government organisations in an effort to stem the tide of poverty that stretches right throughout the world at present. I am not, in the main, a great supporter of bilateral aid programmes because there is always the problem in bilateral aid that you may get drawn into the trap of giving aid with one hand for your own purposes and taking it back with the other. I am afraid too much of what is given as aid in the world today is not aid. It is being given in a mode of charity by the bigger nations who are seeking in many ways to solve their own conscience, on the one hand, while supplying arms and armaments on the other to these countries which are poverty stricken.

It is totally wrong that at a time of extreme want, particularly in Africa, the larger and richer nations of the world are pouring arms and armaments into these countries and, at the same time, not providing the basic levels of food and sustenance that the people need. Because of that I am very sceptical of bilateral aid programmes but it has to be said that the bilateral aid programmes that we in Ireland have got involved in seem to be monitored in such a way that it cannot be said that we are in it just for the sake of funding programmes, on the one hand, and selling products or expertise on the other hand. The nature of the projects we have got involved in are of benefit to the African Continent and if they are followed through in a rational manner, can be of long term benefit. It is interesting and I suppose it is not unusual that the countries getting aid in general are former colonial countries, countries which were raped by the colonialists in the past. They were raped of all their wealth. They were raped of their food producing capacity.

No matter where one goes in Africa, one can see that this rape has resulted in the levels of poverty and deprivation that exist in these countries. The changeover from the traditional slash and burn methods of farming in Africa to the European type of farming did away with the soil structure in these lands and has resulted in the extension of the desert. The desertification of many thousands of extra acres of land every year is an enormous problem. It will be hard to change that to a method of farming which can sustain, in the long term, the people of the countries. Extensive tree planting will have to be done so that the roots, when they take hold, will hold water and will not allow the water to run off the soil during the rainy season. I am glad to see that the report does state that in Lesotho there is an attempt being made to have planting and farming projects going side by side. That is the correct method.

The main thrust of the report is on the policy decisions which are needed to ensure that aid is orientated towards a reduction in the levels of poverty. We are addressing levels of poverty and our priorities will be the countries which have the highest level of poverty. I agree with the sentiments which have been expressed that we should not get involved in political arguments on whether or not we should send aid to countries which do not have the type of Government we might like to see. The aid should be addressed to the areas of greatest poverty irrespective of the political situation in the receiving countries. It has to be said that much of the poverty has been created sometimes because of internal problems but in a large number of cases it is due to lack of political stability because of incursions by outside influences who are not there for the good of the people. This applies particularly to some of the African countries.

I am glad to hear speakers talk about the need to look at the debt problems of the African Continent and countries in all the Continents of the world at present. It has been said that much of this debt has been caused because these countries have to import so much of their food. Equally, it can be said that a lot of the debt has been incurred because of the greed of bigger nations who send in machinery and armaments to countries which they know cannot pay for them. Unfortunately, the debts are mounting up in strong currencies and there is no hope of these countries ever repaying the capital. In fact, they will have no chance of repaying the interest which is being charged. The larger countries to whom the debt is due, generally speaking, have made large profits out of the sale of goods and services into these poverty stricken countries. This problem should be addressed by the international community but, of course, it will not be.

There is no point in our pretending in this House that we have any influence in what will happen at world banking level or at International Monetary Fund level. The facts are that the richer countries are raping the poorer countries, the rich are getting richer and the poor are definitely getting poorer. Unfortunately, the instability which is caused because of this is beginning to show itself not only in political unrest and poverty but also in attacks, increased militarism and a rise in the wish of the people to get rid of their own governments whereas it is not their own governments who are at fault in the first place; it is the major capitalist countries who have created the problems.

There is one aspect of the report which is a little problematic. It is mentioned throughout the report that consultation should take place on a regular basis with people who have worked in the Third World and that when people come back from the Third World there should be some formal method of getting there to talk to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to give their experiences on a formalised basis. There is mention of consultation with the NGOs and so forth. The report does not seem to address itself sufficiently to the need to consult with the people on the ground in the receiving countries. There is mention of consultation with governments of the receiving countries but there should be more consultation on the ground. Too often, the perception we have of what is needed in African countries is not the perception that the Africans themselves have. Too often, the wishes and the expertise of the African people are not taken into account when we get involved in aid programmes. There should be more co-operation and consultation with the people on the ground. Mention is made of the need to have expert analysis of each project at all stages. It is all right to say that you need experts to analyse the problems and assess the progress of these projects but, in essence, we are talking about, generally speaking, small type agricultural projects. A small farmer would have as good an idea as the best expert in finance as to how to keep some of these programmes going.

Mention is made of the problems of cash cropping in African countries. There is no doubt that there is a major problem in that too often people will get involved in crops for cash and then have to import food to sustain themselves. That problem will have to be addressed, how to get a balance in the agricultural system of these countries, to ensure that there is a certain amount of cash cropping but also a level of farming for sustenance. Otherwise, there will be a continuation of poverty. There is no doubt about that.

Education is addressed in the report. It is good to see that more emphasis is placed on the need for primary education in these African countries than education at higher levels. I would totally agree with that. If these countries can get a basic educational standard, they will mature and get the benefits which are needed from an educational system.

I am glad that mention has been made in the report of the problems of migration and the problems particularly of the Lesothans who have to emigrate to South Africa to work. It is suggested in the report that there is need for training of these migrants who will be away from their families and their homes for many months, indeed, in some cases they are away from their families for life. They come back for a very short time only to leave again. The disruption in family life because of that is immense. Of course the major problems that these people face when they are working in South Africa are horrific. They are treated as less than human at all times. I am glad that this is partly recognised in the report before us.

It is suggested that we should extend our area of operation of the Bilateral aid Programme to countries other than those with which we are involved at present. With the funding that we have available, and even if we reach the 0.7 per cent of GNP. I think it would be a mistake to extend too much our present commitments. I am not suggesting that we should stay in these particular countries but we should follow through the aid programmes we are involved in until such time as they have come to fruition, in other words are of permanent value to the people of the country in which they are operating. If we extend ourselves we weaken the value of what we do. I can see the point that was made by Senator Connor about the major problems in India at present. Indeed there are major problems in more places than India and I think that it would be as I have said creating problems to extend ourselves too far with the very limited funding there is available even though we seem to be heading towards what is the United Nations norm for aid.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Lanigan

I was talking about the situation of migrant workers in South Africa, the appalling conditions under which they work and the need for some sort of a training programme which would allow them to adapt themselves if they are driven by need to go into South Africa to work in the appalling conditions they experience there. The situation for these people is atrocious and they have no lifestyle by our standards. Their families, of course, are in a similar position. Every day they face the fact that the husband or father is away working in slave labour conditions for very little money. The unfortunate part about it is that this money is being earned in South Africa and they are contributing in the main to international companies which could not care less about the conditions under which these migrant workers have to survive.

It is very disappointing, as Senator O'Connor said, that at the last international forum in Tokyo where the heads of all the major nations met, that the economic problems of these people, the problems of poverty and deprivation were not confronted at all. The only major announcements that were made after that meeting was that every attempt would be made to eliminate terrorism from the world. They did not define what they meant by terrorism and, as Senator Connor and Senator Ryan did say, what the United States and Britain called terrorism, people fighting for their just rights, fighting to establish themselves in their own countries, should not in any circumstances be considered as terrorism. There is an international terrorism which does not recognise borders and the problems of anybody but there are freedom movements in the Third World countries, countries of the Middle East, and when they confront governments from outside their States, when they confront corrupt governments within their own States in no circumstances should they be considered to be terrorists. The underlying cause of a lot of unrest in quite a number of countries is that people live very, very close to the poverty line and it is very hard to expect them to conform to modes of living that we would expect in a society such as we have in Ireland or in any other developed country.

The plight of refugees from countries like South Africa and from Afghanistan is addressed and the report says that in a submission to the committee, the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement have drawn attention to the plight of refugees in Africa and in particular to the situation of South African refugees. It goes on to say that the committee note the distinction between refugees driven by hunger and those in South Africa or Afghanistan driven by political oppression and that it is felt that from the point of view of bilateral aid, action relative to the former is properly in the area of disaster relief. We learn from the report, too, that the Anti-Apartheid Movement has suggested that the latter category, members of which may well become their country's future leaders and administrators, should receive direct aid from the BAP particularly in the areas of education and training and that the committee feel that this suggestion is worthy of consideration and recommend that the Department of Foreign Affairs seriously consider its feasibility.

When the plight of these refugees was being considered it was a pity that the plight of the refugees who are in UNRRA camps right throughout the Middle East and which were seen at first hand by Senator Ferris recently, was not also addressed. The situation of the refugees from the political oppression of the Israelis in camps on the West Bank and in the camps in Beirut is horrific. Through the efforts of Senator Ferris, the Department of Foreign Affairs did increase our allocation to UNRRA this year and the people in UNRRA and the people in the camps are particularly appreciative of that action. It is UNRRA's role in the areas that are mentioned in (g) of paragraph 78 to direct their major attention to the areas of education and training and were it not for the education and training that these people get from UNRRA I am afraid that the very low level of sustenance that they have would be much less. I sincerely hope that when the committee get out a future report they will address themselves to refugees driven out of their country by political oppression, that area of concern will be enlarged to take in countries other than South Africa or Afghanistan.

The report is very important but unfortunately it is a report which is not going to get very much attention in the media or indeed in public debate. As Senator Connor did say it is a pity the Dáil have not given time to consider many of the reports that have issued from joint committees of the Oireachtas over the past three or four years. It has to be said that the present Government have done a reasonable job in the setting up of these committees and the committees themselves have worked extremely hard. Of course all this good work is brought to nought when the Dáil does not take time to debate the issues involved. Much of the legislation that comes through the Dáil could be strengthened if before the Bill were brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas the reports of the committees were first considered. I feel there would be a much more balanced and educated level of debate and that legislation would be strengthened if the Dáil took the time to address itself to these reports. The Seanad has gone through 33 reports in this session. The Dáil have debated three or four. There is imbalance as between the Dáil and Seanad in debating reports from joint committees. I would appeal to the Government to get into the business of debating reports not only from this joint committee but from other joint committees. There is a joint committee on acid rain which has issued a major report which will not be debated in the Dáil but which is being debated in the Seanad at present and the discussion will continue, if not tonight, next week at a time when the problems of acid rain and air pollution are very much in people's minds.

I said at the beginning that I was not very much in favour of bilateral aid programmes because they can be tied too much to tit-for-tat bargaining. "If you support the way I think, I will give you aid" seems to be the motto of the larger countries at present. I sincerely hope that the Department of Foreign Affiars never allows itself to get into a situation where we would trade off the hunger and poverty of people in the African Continent for some minor gains in trade or jobs. There is a suggestion in the report that a spin-off in terms of tying aid to the use of expertise or goods and services should not be an end in itself. I sincerely hope that the Department will follow that line to the very end because it is essential that we in this country who have no colonial background, who have nothing to fear from being involved in aid to those who are deprived should give that aid as a right to the people who need it and not as a trade-off for goods, services or jobs.

The report addresses itself to the idea that Ireland should, at various international fora, push the idea of aid being given to countries which need it for projects which will be of ultimate benefit to the people of those countries rather than to the donor country. The Department of Foreign Affairs through the bilateral aid programmes and the NGOs who are working here have done a tremendous job in helping the people of Third World countries to sustain themselves and in giving them hope in areas where they did not have hope before.

Mention has been made of some of the work done by Gorta and Trócaire throughout the years. Tremendous work is being done by teams from GOAL and various non-Government organisations. The work that they do is of inestimable value. It cannot be quantified in terms of moneys donated for aid programmes. The work that is done by volunteers is done, not because they are going to be financially better off or because it is a job of work but because of the desire to do something for the people of the Third World. Obviously, the volunteers work exceptionally hard. They are dedicated to the projects in which they get involved. The results of this extremely hard work could not be valued in money terms.

The idea of pursuing, in the international fora, the objective of a more balanced economic world order is one that we should not be afraid to address ourselves to. Unless the First and Second Worlds do address themselves to the problems of the Third World the problems of the Third World could become so great that they would overpower the First and Second Worlds. The people of the Third World are not going to go away. They are growing in numbers. The birth rate in these countries is higher than the birth rates in the First and Second Worlds. I would not like to express fear but there is a definite move towards militancy in all the countries of the Third World which could eventually break out and the consequences for those of us who live in the relative comfort — even though we might have our own problems — of the countries of western Europe and North America could be serious. The debate was directed towards the localisation of aid projects. The degree to which localisation should be allowed to occur is a very important consideration.

Fear was expressed in the report and, I think, in some of the contributions here that people from the Third World might not be able to take over some of the projects which have been started and brought to reasonable levels by the residents of Third World countries. I would not have that fear. Unless there was political or outside interference, if the projects have been developed in co-operation with the local inhabitants these projects can be brought to a very successful outcome — I cannot say conclusion because conclusion is not what we are after. We aim at a situation where the project will be of ongoing benefit to the people of the area to which the moneys are being directed. The situation of Third World countries is such that unless you visit them you can have absolutely no idea about them. The unfortunate part about it is that the media presentation of poverty is a false one. People are horrified when they see pictures of starving children and people on television. They are horrified by pictures of starving children on the papers. The scenes are horrific. In television there is sound and vision. The element that is missing is the smell of abject poverty. Anybody who has not gone into a refugee camp or has not gone through a Third World country has no realisation of what poverty is like. One has to go there and see it at first hand, one has to get the smell of death and deprivation.

Water is something that we have rows about at county council meetings, about charges for it but the lack of it is one of the elements which make up the major problem of deprivation because sanitary systems break down. There is no sanitary system if there is not water. From birth to death the lack of water generates every type of horrific disease. It is said that the people in the countries where they have not got enough water are dirty. That is the same as saying that the egg inside a dirty shell is dirty. The shell on the outside can be dirty but inside there can be something which is useful and beautiful and the very same applies to the people of the countries to which we have been addressing ourselves here this evening.

It is essential that the work of the Bilateral Aid Programme is publicised more and that we keep up a reasonable level of contribution even though some people may feel that we have enough problems here in Ireland without getting involved in the problems of the Third World. The problems of the Third World are problems that, unless we see them or live through them, are beyond our comprehension. People die of starvation as a matter of course, people die of starvation daily, people die of starvation not by choice and not because they have not got access to government services but because they just have not got food. We as a small country, without any colonial background, can play an enormous part in addressing the international fora, in trying to get them involved in aid programmes which are for the benefit of the recipient nations. We should use our influence in the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the EC to try to get the bigger nations to get away from tying aid to trade and services. If aid is tied to trade and services it becomes charity and the people of Africa or the Third World do not want charity.

The Department of Foreign Affairs over the past number of years have been doing their best with limited resources to secure the best value for the small amount of money we give in aid. When I say a small amount of money, 0.7 per cent of GNP is the United Nations suggestion for aid for Third World or deprived countries and we are approaching that 0.7 per cent but, unfortunately, the bigger nations of the world are well below us in regard to aid to the Third World. I read recently that there was more money spent last year in America on beauty treatment in hair salons and on facials than on aid to Third World countries. That gives some sense of the priorities in that country. But they are not alone in their unfeeling attitude towards Third World countries. Great Britain, Russia and the bigger nations definitely have not lived up to their responsibilities in the Third World and unless they do — there is no point in putting a time scale on it — I fear the Third World will rise up in a single tide and when that tide hits the First World I would not like to be around. I can understand the feelings of people who might develop a more militant attitude towards the type of world they live in.

I should like to thank the committee for this excellent report and I am glad to see that the next report they have prepared and which will be coming here shortly is a report on the apartheid system in South Africa. Apartheid is a crime against humanity and it is essential that we discuss that report here as soon as possible and in doing so tell the Government of South Africa that even though we are a long way away from them, under no circumstances do we as a small country without much influence in the world, condone what is being done to a race of people because they are a different colour from us.

Mr. Ferris

I want to join with Senator Lanigan in paying a tribute to the members of the committee who have submitted this excellent report. Seven Members of this House sat on that joint committee to deal specifically with the question of aid, whether multilateral or bilateral, to the Third World. In dealing with bilaterial aid assistance we have chosen priority countries such as Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and the Sudan and members of the committee who visited these countries recently expressed satisfaction with the way our aid was being deployed to get the best possible response from the amount of resources we make available. The committee assume that on present thinking an attempt may be made in the next two years to bring the programme in Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania up to the minimum funding level achieved in Lesotho which is £3 million in each case. The level of funding in 1984 for Sudan was £.36 million, for Zambia, £.87 million and for Tanzania, £1.77 million. These figures might sound considerable to us when we relate them to the overall budget figures available to us but in real terms they are minute when related to the actual problems that these people have in the underdeveloped countries.

As Senator Lanigan has said, it is only when one senses the problems on the ground there that one realises that these people just cannot be left to die of starvation for the want of assistance from small countries like ourselves, rich in generosity towards people in trouble. We have come through traumas ourselves and we have come through famine and that has conditioned us to be compassionate towards other less fortunate nations in the world. As part of the European Community and part of the United Nations we play a major role in elevating the awareness of our colleagues in other nations, much wealthier than we are, to the problems of these developing countries. Recently we were all suddenly confronted with the spectacle of Ethiopia. We had in the past assisted other countries prior to that. There have been calamities throughout the world following earthquakes, floods and so on and we have helped them all but it was when the starvation in Ethiopia was brought into our homes through the media that we realised that human beings were dying for the want of people to take care of them or to take an interest in their problem. For that reason alone we are grateful to people like Bob Geldof and his colleagues in the entertainment world who have devoted so much of their talent to sharpening awareness among all of us of the need to contribute in these situations.

The Irish people can be very proud of what they contributed and proud of Bob who represented our view in such a way that he made world leaders sit up and take notice of the major problem there. He brought it to the very floor of the United Nations where, unfortunately, because of the power of politics that are applied at that level, small nations, particularly in the developing world, can go practically unnoticed.

Senator Lanigan mentioned the section which deals with refugees and while it does not specifically deal with the refugees under the United Nations subsidiary, UNRRA, I must point out that this year we have increased our contribution to the UNRRA refugees by 10 per cent, which makes a major contribution to a race of people who are homeless, who have no identity and have no opportunity to use their talents or even to do the basic thing of going to work.

From having seen them at first hand I would suggest that the conditions in parts of Gaza are not unlike the famine days in Ireland. They have been looked after by that subsidiary of the United Nations. Their allocation of funds is divided in consultation with the refugees themselves. Their first priority, out of very scarce resources, is education for their children and training their children to be competent and skilful, vocationally and academically. Their second choice is the health of their fellow refugees in a health care programme and health advisory programme and all matters pertaining to the women in that society who have had the major task of bringing up large families in hunger situations. Their third priority is food. In other words, what is left over after the two priorities of education and health, they devote to giving food to people who are unable to provide it for themselves.

Those are the problems that face the world in 1986. People would need to see it to appreciate the difficulties they experience. The Government have been generous, they have increased their allocation for this year and they have a commitment to further increase it. In our four priority countries in which we try to deliver the aid that we have agreed we have followed the kind of policy that we believe will deliver to the people themselves the ability to look after themselves. At page 33 the report the priority infrastructural development projects are outlined. They would devote 39 per cent of the aid to rural/agricultural production, 33 per cent to education, 10 per cent to infrastructure, 7 per cent to industry/trade and 5 per cent to health. If we look at that and see that, applied in that way, it can produce on the ground the results we want, we come to the point raised by Senator Lanigan, that our aid should not be tied in any way. Indeed the committee were emphatic that at any future date our aid should never be tied to conditions. Admittedly the Irish people can produce a type of expertise which, if we link it in as part of our aid, can produce excellent results on the ground. At page 46 of the report where they refer to tied aid they are talking particularly about the kind of expertise that we can produce, deliver on the ground and help people to help themselves. In that way we do not expect anything in return but we will ensure that whatever we give them by way of expert advice and training programmes will have the greatest spin-off. I want to join with Senator Lanigan and the members of the committee in saying that that is the only way we should tie our aid, that if the agencies dealing with these problems consider it should be done in any other way in the future then we should, if we are as generous as I hope we are, ensure that we do not put in provisos that it must be spent in any particular way.

Part of the recommendations also for the expenditure of our Bilateral Aid Programme talks about research for agricultural development. The multilateral assistance is developed mainly through the United Nations and the European Community. There is a surplus situation in the European Communities at present. There are mountains of butter, massive amounts of beef in intervention, milk and wine lakes. Because of the powers that be and the politics that are played at certain levels about the protection of the markets we are unable to move this food to people who are in need of it. The Community, through the Commission, are now recommending that good productive agricultural land within the Community, including Ireland, should somehow be taken out of production. Farmers will be paid not to till their land. Farmers will be paid to be non-productive, to reduce production of those elements of food which are so vital to feed the hungry people. Community farmers are being asked to either change their style of farming or get out of farming and leave land idle and be paid for doing so. Yet we send experts elsewhere to teach people how to till their land. It is difficult to relate one problem to the other but they are interlinked. We are fortunate that we can produce more than what we require in the line of food. We can export food to developing countries, we can have GATT arrangements with the United States, we can have all sorts of inter-Community policies and yet we have massive surpluses and we are wasting public money in the Community by paying people to stop producing when half the world is starving. We are sending out people to ensure that the developing countries are capable of researching agricultural development. Somebody somewhere will have to address this problem. If not we could all starve because there will not be anybody left in a producing situation. It will be uneconomic to produce. If that happens we could have a repeat of crises that have happened in the past in the agricultural sector.

We have had one of the worst years in farming. Animals have gone hungry and farmers have become bankrupt as a result of bad weather. In our own small way we are trying to assist them from resources within the State and having access to Community funds. There are millions of ECUs available to people to stop producing. I would suggest that in addressing this problem, the Department of Foreign Affairs should have regard to this and should continue to promote the idea within the Community and the Commission that there should be a movement of foodstuffs to people who need it which will not disturb the market price. These people will never be able to afford to buy it. They should be as entitled to benefit as the Russians or anybody else who benefits from food that eventually has to be dumped.

I commend the committee on highlighting the programme. It is a programme we can be proud of. By comparison with other countries and by comparison with our own gross national product, it is a reasonable effort to ensure that we are not unmindful of the problems of our fellow man in other parts of the world, particularly on the African continent where there has been such a devastation of life. Those people are unable to fend for themselves because of climatic and political conditions, like the political conditions in South Africa outlined by Senator Lanigan where the ordinary people are suffering from a political system of apartheid that is totally unacceptable to all of us who have any sense of concern for the ordinary democratic process.

It is an unacceptable political system and it is leading to violence which is taking the lives of the people of that country, not people who occupy the country, not the landed gentry, but the people who were born and reared there and who are looking for an identity and a voice in their own political systems. That whole continent is one of problems. The sooner white men realize that there are people of other coloured skins who are capable of looking after their own interests if they were left to do so the better. By giving them assistance and expertise and with these bilateral assistance programmes that small countries like Ireland develop for them, there could be a future for the African continent. I commend the report to the House and I hope that the other House get an opportunity to discuss this type of programme which is of tremendous importance.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I had an opportunity to speak at length on the report. As Fine Gael spokesperson on development co-operation it is appropriate at the conclusion of the debate that some few words should be said to wind it up. It falls on me to do this.

I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs who has responsibility for development co-operation for being with us in the main during the course of the debate in the House. I also thank his substitute the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare for being here briefly this evening in the absence of the Minister.

I listened to all contributions from all sides of the House during the course of the debate. I always find it of great value to hear what my colleagues have to say about development co-operation. One of the things that struck me forcibly was that the contributions from the members who had been privileged enough or fortunate enough to go on field trips in the Third World countries had a particular quality which made them stand out, without wishing in any way to denigrate the contributions from other Senators who were not so privileged. Those Senators who had travelled to countries where our development co-operation programmes could be seen and visited by them, and indeed Senators who spoke movingly of visits to refugee camps in the Middle East, though not the subject matter of the report, conveyed a strong emotional feeling that they had got from experiencing, at first hand, the living conditions of people in Third World countries.

We have to remember that the majority of people in the world live in underprivileged conditions. It is high time that those of us who are, relatively speaking, very fortunate remember this more frequently than we do. The contributions from those travelled Senators had a quality of compassion and understanding and feeling and also a wish to see our development co-operation programme, and in particular our bilateral aid, develop and receive more funding. This is to be welcomed. It has underlined the significance and importance of actually giving parliamentarians the opportunity to visit Third World countries and to see Irish aid in practice on the ground. I concur with the remarks of Senator Brendan Ryan when he said that too often such trips are lightly dismissed as being junkets. This is not so. As somebody who was privileged under the auspices of Trócaire to visit the Philippines recently, I state firmly that it is not a junket to share at close hand the lives of the poor, to sleep on a coconut mat in a shanty town, or to enter refugee camps to see death, hunger, deprivation and poverty. It is an extremely telling human experience and one that I would wish more colleagues took the opportunity of experiencing. It sharpens the perceptions and it brings about a keen awareness of what exactly the problems are in Third World countries.

I should like to make reference to some remarks which Senator MacDonald made in the course of his contribution dealing with Trócaire. He is not the only parliamentarian who has in the past expressed certain reservations about the particular role and functioning of that Third World body. Senator MacDonald stated, and I quote from column 377 of the Official Report for 5 June 1986:

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.

He goes on to talk about sanctions and so forth and to develop the theme.

In the context of development co-operation we have to recognise that there are many ways of going about the business of bringing aid and assistance and development to people in Third World countries. Trócaire has chosen a particular role. It is one of changing structures within societies, not from without but assisting people to see inequality and to arrive at solutions which are appropriate in the context of that country; to change the system and to bring about a greater equality. This is a basic way to go about getting improvements and raising the standards of living of the poor. It is teaching people how to fish rather than giving them fish, which I assume is the charitable way that Senator MacDonald referred to in the course of his contribution.

From my albeit relatively limited experience of the work of Trócaire I approve of what they are doing; they are heightening awareness in the developing countries but more importantly they are achieving a remarkable distinction in their role in this country by bringing about an increased awareness amongst the people of the structural problems, both political and infrastructural, of Third World countries. I commend Trócaire for their role in this. It is important that this establishment group, backed by the Conference of Irish Catholic Bishops, should call for sanctions against South Africa; it is important that they should display their notices and billboards throughout the country pointing out the evils of apartheid and asking the people to address themselves to this, it is necessary that they should have a view and a voice and to bring them forward in the Irish forum. Trócaire's work is no less valuable than that of Gorta or Goal or the many other agencies who work in the Third World with a slightly different modus operandi. There is a role for all of these bodies to play and if they overlap or if they diversify in order to show up a different facet, so much the better. We are all the richer for this and so are the people in the Third World countries when this multifaceted approach is adopted by our aid groups.

All Senators made reference to the wish to see a White Paper emerging from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The report is an excellent one. I congratulate all colleagues in both Houses who were members of the committee and in particular its chairperson, Deputy Nora Owen, and of course the secretarial staff who did a trojan task in preparing and bringing forward the report.

The report will have a relatively limited impact. I share the view expressed by Senator Lanigan that it is a great pity this report and so many others have not been debated in another place. In the Seanad we have an excellent track record of addressing ourselves to important reports of select committees. We should give ourselves a bouquet from time to time for our work rate and for the depth and analysis which we have put into the reports which come before us. We can stand over that record. Senator Lanigan mentioned a figure of something like a ratio of 33 reports considered in Seanad Éireann and three in another place. This is a monumental imbalance and it is one that should be addressed, not by us of course. All speakers made reference to volunteers. They are dealt with in some detail in the course of the report. I would just like to emphasise again the significance and importance of availing of the expertise, experience, insights and attitudes of returned volunteer workers. One of the Senators speaking in the course of the debate referred to the possibility of a debriefing few days with either members of the Department of Foreign Affairs development co-operation division or some of the NGOs so that all that wealth of information and insight would be tapped and used in order to enrich, expand, develop and improve on our activities in the Third World.

Reference was made by many Senators to South Africa, because Lesotho is one of our bilateral countries, and one cannot talk of Lesotho without reference to South Africa. It goes without saying that I deplore the apartheid regime in South Africa. I have had contact with it and been familiar with it for some 25 years and I grow daily to despise it more and more and to wish speedily for its demise. There is a further report — the third report of the all party committee — which is due to be debated in this House. In a way I regret the fact that we are not debating it now when matters are so crucial in South Africa. It would have been important and significant if it had been on our agenda now because, though we are due to debate it again in October, who knows what will have happened in South Africa in the intervening months? I feel there is a cauldron steadily and slowly boiling there which will reach the point of no return. I hope that early in October we can get to grips with that report and discuss it in the light of current events in South Africa.

Basically those are the few points I felt were significant and that I wanted to say by way of concluding remarks to the debate. We have had in the last month two debates on Third World matters; one a Fine Gael Private Members' motion on the Philippines which was addressed by Senators from all sides of the House and also the debate we are concluding here on bilateral aid. Both were valuable because although we are particularly preoccupied with our own domestic and constituency concerns, it is important that we would look outside the narrow confines of our own interests and realise that what we are talking about is one world — the family of man. We need to keep that in a certain focus because by so doing our own urgent, pressing problems attain a certain perspective and that manages to keep us all balanced to some degree. I would again express my appreciation and thanks to the all party committee and say how very much I look forward to continuing reports from that body.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mullooly)

A supplementary Order Paper has been circulated and it has been agreed that item No. 2a should be taken at the conclusion of item No. 7.