First of all, I deliberately waited until this time so that as many Senators as possible could speak and that would give me an opportunity of trying to reply to the various points made. I would like to thank all of the Senators who have contributed to the debate. May I also thank Senator Avril Doyle for the manner in which she proposed the motion and for the manner in which she spoke to it? It was very sincere and, apart from one or two little points, non-political, and I would like to thank her for the manner in which she proposes the motion. As Senator Lydon quite rightly said, this is a composite motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised if I say that I cannot accept the actual motion, apart from the fact that it starts off by condemning the Government. It is a very complex motion, and it is one that I can have certain sympathy with.
As part of its recognition of the common humanity of man and of its commitment to the maintenance of peaceful international relations, Ireland recognises a special obligation to contribute to the economic and social development of the poorer countries of the world and the poorest population in them. The obligation is expressed through the provision of official development assistance.
In 1974, Ireland established its own bilateral aid programme with the aim of making a distinctively Irish contribution to development through the provision of forms of technical assistance in which Ireland has a special interest or competence. Within the bilateral aid programme, as Senator Lydon said, assistance is concentrated on four priority countries, Lesotho, Zambia, Tanzania and the Sudan, which are among the least developed countries in the world. As a member of various multilateral organisations active in development assistance, such as the European Community, the United Nations and the World Bank, Ireland also provides funding towards the development co-operation programmes of these organisations.
The official estimate for ODA in 1990 is £34.4 million. Nearly two-thirds of that, or £21.4 million, is for multilateral assistance, a point mentioned by Senator Lydon, while the balance of £13 million covers Ireland's bilateral aid programme. The largest item under that heading is the bilateral aid fund for which £9.5 million has been provided in 1990.
This overall amount is very slightly less than the amount of £34.6 million provided in 1989. I am, indeed, very sorry that it has not been possible to provide a larger amount. As I said, I have tremendous sympathy with that part of the motion that seeks an immediate increase of ODA by approximately £20 million because that is what the figure would roughly come to. Indeed, what Minister or Minister of State would not have sympathy with a motion that suggests he would increase his budget by approximately 60 per cent?
I would like to assure Senators that the 1990 estimate for official development assistance was very carefully considered by the Government, who took account of all the issues. However, this had to be done against the background of the general economic situation. The major factor in that situation is the scale of the Government's debt and the related need for continued financial stringency by the Government. I wish to remind Senators that if the Government had not taken resolute action in regard to their finances in the period since 1987, they might now be facing bankruptcy rather than discussing the level of assistance which can be provided for developing countries. It has only been through very difficult decisions — a point mentioned by Senator Finneran — that progress has been achieved, progress which will pave the way for increasing ODA in the future in line with the Government's commitment to maintain and increase it as economic circumstances permit.
In relation to the general issue of Government policy on ODA, may I note that the Government remain committed to reaching the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product devoted to official development assistance. No date has ever been set by this or previous Governments for the achievement of this target and in the present difficult budgetary situation it is not possible to do so.
Senator Doyle suggested that we are at the moment preoccupied with our own debt-servicing crisis and that this was used rather lamely as an excuse for not honouring our commitments over the years. As I said, and as pointed out by other Senators, it is a reality and if we had not taken the action that we took since 1987 then we would be facing bankruptcy. It is of some significance that the annual borrowing requirement in 1986 was £2,145 million. It is estimated that in 1990 it will be £449 million. That shows the actual major reduction that has taken place. As every Senator knows, this was vital to maintain our capacity to provide State services.
Senator Doyle also raised the question of a White Paper on ODA policy and mentioned that a suggestion has been around since 1974 or 1975 that a White Paper is to be published. She wonders what the situation is now. I suppose that if blame has to be apportioned it should be apportioned equally between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, or Fine Gael and Labour and Fianna Fáil, because, roughly, half and half, they have been in Government during that period.
The preparation of a White Paper setting out current Government policy and ODA is something that is constantly kept under review. Senators would agree with me that the timing is very important and at a time when it is difficult to find the finances to fund our existing programme it is hardly practical to discuss producing a White Paper. However, I can assure Senator Doyle that as soon as the situation improves, which is hoped will be very soon, consideration can then be given to that matter.
I know that Senator Doyle, because she mentioned it in the debate, is very aware of the debt problem. Senator Doyle also mentioned APSO and asked whether the Minister is making use of this body in terms of advice and whether a lot more could be garnered from that particular source. Yes, I use APSO any time I can and I take whatever advice they have to give me, but the Senator is confusing the role of APSO and ACDC because, as Senators will know, ACDC is a body set up to give advice to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to development co-operation.
The allocation for 1990 is, as I have already noted, comprised of two main elements, one of which is multilateral aid which covers our contributions to major international agencies and which are generally fixed. The estimate of amounts required under that heading fell slightly for 1990, as compared with 1989, from £21.5 million to £20.8 million.
On the bilateral side, where levels of assistance are generally more open to the Government's discretion, the allocations rose by an average of 4 per cent, thus keeping pace with Irish inflation. The amounts provided are sufficient to meet all commitments and enable us to maintain a basic programme of assistance. I would like Senators to know that the programme is achieving effective results and that it is very much appreciated in recipient countries.
I have recently returned from a visit to Tanzania and Zambia — precipitately, I might add. In Tanzania I participated at the opening of a technical school in a rural district built with Irish aid funds. The establishment of the school is being ably assisted at the moment by a team from FÁs. I have no doubt as to the practical value of this school to Tanzania, which has very severe shortages of craftsmen of every kind, with the result that economic development is seriously hampered and even basic maintenance of existing facilities cannot be carried out.
In Zambia I was particularly impressed by the Irish-assisted project of building and rehabilitating very basic maternity facilities in the poorest districts of Lusaka. Its importance in ensuring safe deliveries for thousands of Lusaka mothers and infants was stressed to me by the Zambian authorities.
I can assure Senators that Ireland's standing is very high in Zambia and Tanzania and other countries: a doubt may well have been expressed by some of the remarks here tonight about that standing. I would like to say a special "thank you" to the many Irish people engaged in these projects and in others I visited and to assure them that their efforts are recognised and encouraged.
I might add that, in relation to the point made by Senator Raftery concerning people who have retired and who could have a role to play, very many of them are actually over there at the moment playing a very vital and important role in our development assistance to various countries.
I turn now to that part of the motion which calls for the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs. This is not the first time that such a committee has been proposed. Motions to this effect were discussed and debated in this House in 1986 and in 1988. I agree that very significant and fundamental changes are occurring right through the world, as mentioned by Senator Hourigan and indeed other Senators.
The Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are accountable in a very real and practical sense to the Oireachtas for their management of Ireland's international relations. Members of the Oireachtas, and through them the public, have a right to be well informed and to express opinions on the State's foreign policy. Similarly, they have the right to criticise Government decisions in this area if they consider such criticism to be justified, and they have done so in the past.
There are many opportunities open to Members of the Oireachtas to exercise these rights and to review and debate aspects of foreign policy. These can be raised and are raised in both Houses either in the form of special motions or on the Adjournment. In the past four months Senators will be aware that issues as diverse as Cambodia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, famine relief and emigration have been discussed in one or both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is clear from this that adequate arrangements exist for Senators and Deputies to discuss in public various aspects of foreign policy. The annual debates on the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and the Estimates for International Co-operation, the presentation of reports on developments in the European Communities and on meetings of the European Council provide valuable opportunities for debate and discussion on our external relations.
Senator Michael Finneran, Senator O'Keeffe and Senator Brendan Ryan mentioned the very practical and down-to-earth nature of Irish projects in the developing world and I can agree, having visited the various projects. I can also assure the House that Ireland's development policies are formed in consultation with the countries in which the bulk of the projects are situated.
Senator Finneran, and indeed Senator Raftery, also mentioned the question of third level education. I agree wholeheartedly with both of them. This is a very important area and approximately £125,000 of our bilateral aid fund is provided for fellowships to provide training for developing countries' personnel in many institutions throughout Ireland and, where necessary, in other countries if we have not got the expertise that is needed by the developing countries.
Senator Lydon and Senator Hourigan mentioned the loss of the Concern ship. We were all greatly concerned about the loss of that ship, which was taken by the EPLF rather than the Ethopian Government. However, I would like to assure the House that the substantial bulk of aid gets through.
Senator Hourigan has drawn attention to the imbalance between surpluses in some countries and the desperate want in others. However, I feel I should reassure the Seanad that a great deal of the surpluses are made available and are indeed transferred to poor countries. However, as pointed out very forcibly and strongly by Senator Raftery, the situation is that some types of products — for example, butter and meat — are very expensive to transport and may become unusable without elaborate storage facilities which are not available in developing countries. Therefore, most of the aid is supplied in cereals with milk powder and the like. I share the concern of Senator Raftery and Senator Hourigan about the effects of war preventing aid getting through and indeed, as Senator Raftery said, the use of famine as a means of war. In that I am particularly conscious of the difficulties in Sudan and Ethiopia at present.
Turning now to the question of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-operation, I would like to pay tribute to the committee which operated during the 25th Dáil and which produced some very excellent reports. While the Development Co-operation Committee did very useful work, I might note that the absence of a committee is not preventing either House from discussing both the broad development co-operation issues such as that covered by the first element of the motion before the Seanad and also specific issues such as the situation in Ethiopia. There was a very well-informed debate on Ethiopia in this House before Christmas and it was my privilege to attend and to respond. I am sure there will be many further occasions for satisfactory debates on the issues involved.
May I assure Senator Norris, in relation to Cambodia, that last year an allocation of £50,000 for emergency supplies was made last November. I would also like to reassure him that we will also accept applications from Irish NGOs for eight projects for Cambodia which will be decided on their merits and if funds are available. An allocation of £10,000 was made last year for an NGO project for Nicaragua. Likewise, we will accept applications from Irish NGOs for Nicaraguan projects in 1990 on the same basis as for Cambodia. However, I think the House will agree with me that it makes sense for us to concentrate the available resources we have in a certain number of countries rather than dissipating them by sending them to a large number of countries. I think it is something that all of us can agree on.
I have sympathy with the general trend of some of the motion, but all I can say is that, as Members of the House will be aware, the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil last month that the question of establishing further Oireachtas committees remains under consideration and the establishment of those committees is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas in conjunction with the Government.