Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Nov 1975

Vol. 285 No. 6

Lomé Convention: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé, signed on 28th February, 1975, together with the related internal agreement on the measures and procedures required for implementation of the convention and the internal agreement on the financing and administration of Community Aid, signed on 11th July, 1975, copies of which have been laid before the Dáil.

The Convention of Lomé represents the outcome of negotiations opened on 17th October, 1973, after an inaugural conference in July of that year, and concluded some 15 months later on 31st January, 1975. The convention was signed, subject to ratification, at a ceremony in Lomé, Togo, on 28th February, 1975. I am advised that legislation may be required to give effect to some provisions in the instruments.

The origins of the negotiations of 1973-75 lie in two previous agreements between the Community and groups of African States. In 1963, 18 former colonies of member States of the Six signed a Convention at Yaoundé, Cameroon, by which they entered into an Association Agreement with the EEC. This was followed by the agreement signed at Arusha, Tanzania, in 1969, establishing an association between the Community on the one hand, and Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda on the other. These agreements provided for reciprocal preferential trading arrangements.

By 1973, when further periods of association were to be negotiated between the parties to the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom had acceded to the European Communities. Instead of the extension of the provisions of the existing conventions to the new member states, it was envisaged that a new form of association be negotiated between the nine on one side, and a wider range of developing countries on the other, including in particular, the Commonwealth countries enjoying a special trading position with the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Community invited certain African, Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific countries in June, 1973 to take part in negotiations designed to define their future relations with the Community. The following countries were invited: the 18 signatories of the Yaoundé Convention; the 20 independent Commonwealth states mentioned in annex VI of the Accession Treaty, including the three Arusha signatories; and four other independent African states—Ethiopia, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, and the Sudan. Invitations were subsequently extended to four states who had become independent during the period of the negotiations namely Grenada, the Bahamas, Equatorial Guinea, and Guinea Bissau.

The negotiations between the EEC and the 46 ACP countries were held during a period of great significance for the future relations of developed with developing countries. In April, 1974 there took place the Sixth Special Session of the UN General Assembly, the first Special Session devoted to Raw Materials and Development, to which the Seventh Special Session this September was a sequel. The Sixth Special Session adopted a declaration, as well as a programme of action, on the establishment of a new international economic order. These resolutions were followed by a Charter on the Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted in December, 1974 at the 29th Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly. These resolutions did not command the unanimous support of UN member states, as the industrialised countries had reservations in varying degrees on several points. In this context the successful conclusion of the EEC-ACP negotiations was an important break-through as an example of successful co-operation between developed and developing countries. In the goodwill it engendered, in its wide range, in the fact that all sides saw themselves to benefit, the Lomé Convention is already recognised as a model for relations between states at different stages of economic development and of widely diverging economic and political interests. In my view there is more to be done in devising more equitable relationships between developed and developing countries in general and there are other areas of economic policy in which the needs of developing countries will have to be taken into account. But given the practical situation facing the EEC and ACP negotiators we have every reason to take satisfaction from the outcome of their work. The Lomé Convention was a step on the road to real consensus between developed and developing countries, and, hopefully, to a relationship that will be generous and fruitful.

It is a cause for particular satisfaction that the convention was signed during the Irish Presidency of the European Community. I had the honour of leading the Community's delegation in the arduous concluding negotiations last January that led to this agreement and in the signing ceremony that took place in Togo at the end of February. I had the special and memorable honour of signing the agreement both on behalf of Ireland and on behalf of the Community. During the negotiations it was possible to observe at first hand both the extraordinary complexity of the problems that faced us, representatives of 55 states in seeking to place our relations on a new basis beneficial to some degree at least to every one of these 55 and also the goodwill shown by all sides in seeking solutions to the problems raised by negotiation.

The new convention is set out in the form of titles governing various areas of co-operation. The full text, as well as a useful explanatory memorandum prepared by the Council secretariat of the European Communities, has been made available to Members of the House. It might be useful to summarise the contents of the different titles and to touch on their more important implications.

Title I provides for access into the Community without customs duties or quantitative restrictions for industrial and agricultural products from the ACP countries, except for agricultural products subject to the common agricultural policy for which special arrangements have been made. Title II concerns the stabilisation of export earnings—a novel feature in the field of international economic co-operation to which I shall revert later. Title III governs industrial co-operation, to which I shall also return. Title IV on financial and technical co-operation provides for projects and programmes which will contribute to the economic and social development of the ACP states. Title V governs provisions relating to establishment, services payments and capital movements. As regards the arrangements to be applied to establishment and provision of services, the convention lays down the principle of non-discriminatory treatment in ACP states in respect of nationals and companies or firms of member states, and in the member states, in respect of nationals and companies or firms of the ACP states. Title VI on institutions provides for an ACP-EEC Council of Ministers, Committee of Ambassadors and a Consultative Assembly. Title VII on general and final provisions provides that the convention shall expire after a period of five years from the date of its signature, namely on 1st March, 1980.

In addition to the titles there are seven protocols, dealing with the concept of "originating products", the application of financial and technical co-operation, the special products sugar, bananas and rum, the operating expenditure of the institutions, and privileges and immunities.

Title I on trade co-operation is, of course, central; it provides for access into the Community without customs duties and taxes of equivalent effect, and without quotas or quantitative restrictions, for all ACP industrial and agricultural products except for agricultural products that fall under the common agricultural policy. This is a concession of major importance, and it is in accord with the new emphasis placed by developing countries on improving their terms of trade. It might be noted that the trade provisions in the Lomé Convention are not restricted to manufactured and semi-finished products, as is the generalised scheme of preferences already implemented unilaterally by the Community. In consequence, the Lomé provisions extend to primary products of tropical origin, which are a major element in the export trade of many of the ACP states. Another key aspect is that the Lomé Convention, unlike the Yaoundé Convention and the majority of preferential agreements, does not involve "reciprocity"—no obligation in principle is laid on the ACP states as regards the extending of preferences to the Community.

As already indicated, another main feature of the convention is the provision for financial and technical co-operation, designed to correct structural imbalances in various sectors of the ACP countries' economies. For this purpose, the convention allocates a total of 3,390 million units of account—almost £2,000 million at current values—of which 3,000 million units of account—or £1,710 million approximately—will be made available from the European Development Fund (EDF) while the remaining 390 million units of account—or £220 million approximately—will be furnished by the European Investment Bank (EIB) from its own resources. I should mention here that the Council of Ministers and the governors of the bank have decided that, for the purposes of the convention, the unit of account should be defined in terms of a "basket" of the currencies of the member States and that the value of the unit in the various national currencies should be calculated by the Commission using daily market exchange rates. Accordingly, references to amounts in sterling in relation to the convention are made on the basis of the current value of the unit of account which is £0.57.

The composition of the aid from the European Development Fund is 2,100 million units of account—or £1,200 million approximately—in the form of grants, 430 million units of account—or £245 million approximately—in the form of special loans, 95 million units of account—or £55 million approximately—in the form of risk capital and 375 million units of account—or £210 million approximately—in respect of the stabilisation of export earnings. Article 46 of the convention outlines the very wide variety of projects and programmes which may be financed. These include: capital projects in all the main economic and social sectors; schemes for the improvement of the structure of agricultural production; schemes relating to technical co-operation, industrial information and promotion, and marketing and sales promotion; projects for the assistance of small and medium-sized firms and, finally, what are described as "microprojects" for grassroots development, in particular in rural areas.

Among other main provisions are those relating to regional and interregional co-operation, the special needs of the least developed ACP countries and the granting of exceptional aid in the case of serious difficulties arising from natural disasters. Moreover, the Financial and Technical Co-operation Title is supplemented by a detailed Protocol, namely, Protocol No. 2, specifying the relevant administrative arrangements and procedures governing the implementation of these provisions of the convention. Both the convention and this protocol provide for a high degree of participation by the ACP countries in the management of Community aid. In general, it is recognised that this aid can only be complementary to the ACP countries' own development efforts and that it should be integrated into the economic and social development plans and programmes of these countries.

It is clear that the provisions for financial and technical co-operation will afford new opportunities for foreign earnings to the Irish business community. Under Title IV of the convention and Protocol 2 on the application of financial and technical co-operation, machinery had been established whereby Irish firms can tender, on equal terms with their Community and ACP counterparts, for works and supply contracts, financed by the European Development Fund, whose resources are managed by the Commission. In addition, it is open to Irish firms to register with the Commission for selection for consultancy contracts in the architectural and engineering sectors. I am happy to note that several Irish business interests are already active in this regard.

It is difficult to forecast how much of this business will go to Irish firms. As I have already said, competition will be with firms both in the other member States and in the ACP. It is reasonable to hope, however, that Ireland's share of the new business could be considerable. Exactly how much success we enjoy will depend on the energy and imagination shown by Irish concerns in competing for the available contracts. The advice of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and of my Department, will be available at all times to members of the business community who wish to be appraised of the formalities involved for Irish exporters, consultants, construction companies, and so on, under the new arrangements in order to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities which these present.

It is worth drawing attention to the innovatory significance of the provisions for the stabilisation of export earnings. This scheme, known in abbreviated form as "stabex" is the subject of Title II.

The problem which the stabilisation scheme is designed to counteract is the disturbance caused by fluctuations in export receipts, as, for example, when a country with very few major exports is dependent on a commodity from which the income is unstable. Such fluctuations create difficulties for economic planners: they disrupt investment projects, force Governments to increase taxes or resort to borrowing in order to maintain the level of public expenditure, and provoke other undesirable reactions in the economy which inevitably result from a climate of uncertainty.

In looking for measures to prevent excessive fluctuations, the EEC and ACP negotiators avoided a solution which would have seriously interfered with the free play of the markets or created confusion in international trade.

The stabilisation system incorporated in the convention involves the Community making moneys available from the European Development Fund to compensate producers in the ACP countries for sudden, sharp falls in their income from particular commodities. Compensation is in the form of concessional loans. The ACP States which receive such financial transfers are obliged to contribute in the five years following allocation of each transfer towards the reconstitution of the resources made available for the system by the Community. ACP countries which are regarded as being the least developed—these are listed in article 48 of the convention— are exempted from having to make any contribution to the reconstitution of the fund. To become eligible for compensation, a country has to depend to a certain degree on income from a particular product; and secondly, income on that product in the year in which a claim is made must fall below a certain level.

The detailed workings of the system are set out in article 19 of the text of the convention. As a final observation, I will point out that the reference level in establishing whether there has been a significant fall in income in respect of a particular product covered by the system is the average of the previous four years' income; it is, therefore, a figure which changes from year to year; so that the conditions on which compensation can be claimed by the ACP exporters adjust themselves in accordance with long-term trends in the patterns of trade.

This stabex system is novel in that it compensates states for a fall in export receipts for particular commodities, and helps them to plan their economies without the pitfall of unpredictable falls in earnings in key sectors. It is thus a system which is designed to encourage, if I may use the phrase, the organic growth of economies, and it is moreover a system which seeks to avoid seriously disrupting the workings of market forces. As the scheme is original in conception, so it tries to be generous with respect to the detailed arrangements negotiated between the European Community and its ACP partners.

Another innovatory feature of the Lomé Convention should also be mentioned, namely, the separate and extensive provision made for industrial co-operation. Although financial and technical co-operation is the most important factor in this field, a separate title, Title III, attempts to cover the full range of possibilities for co-operation with the ACP States in their attempts to expand the industrial sector of their economies. This corresponds to the resolve in the Preamble to the Convention to establish a new model for relations between developed and developing States. In the provisions for industrial co-operation, the European Community recognises the increasing part to be played by developing countries in industrial production and in the international trade in processed products.

Perhaps the most original part of the industrial co-operation chapter of the convention are the "animation" or promotion arrangements. The convention provides for an industrial co-operation Committee to monitor progress on the implementation of Title III, and also for an Industrial Development Centre, operating under the supervision of the Committee and concerned with the exchange of information, the making of contacts, and other activities connected with industrial promotion.

The mechanisms established at Lomé for the stabilisation of export earnings and for industrial co-operation are of relevance to those engaged in other fora in the devising of new forms of relationships between the developed countries and the Third World.

In addition to the Lomé Convention itself, the Dáil is being asked to approve two related internal agreements.

This internal agreement provides for Community consultation in determining the common position to be adopted by the representatives of the Community in the Council of ACP-EEC Ministers, as laid down in the convention, and has provisions for implementing the various articles of that convention which may require action by the Community, joint action by the member States, or action by a member State. In addition, the agreement lays down the rules governing implementation within the Community of decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of ACP-EEC Ministers, and provides for procedural rules for the settlement of disputes which may arise between member States with regard to the convention.

The second internal agreement concluded by the member States establishes the provisions for the financing and administration of Community aid under the convention.

As regards financing, the agreement establishes the fourth European Development Fund consisting of 3,150 million units of account, i.e. 3,000 million units of account for allocation to the ACP countries as prescribed by the convention and an additional 150 million units of account for the overseas countries and territories which are associated with the Community under Part IV of the Treaty, as amended by Article 24 of the Act of Accession and the French overseas departments. Ireland's contribution to this fund has been assessed at 18.9 million units of account or 0.6 per cent of the total which corresponds to our share of the Community's GNP.

For the reasons already indicated, it can be expected that the value of the unit of account in terms of each national currency will fluctuate throughout the period covered by the convention. It is not possible, therefore to indicate precisely what overall contribution in Irish pounds this country will be called upon to make. However, on the basis of the current value of the unit of account, viz, 1 unit of account=£0.57, our overall contribution would be in the region of £11 million. At this stage, it is not expected that our annual subscriptions will follow a uniform pattern: they will be lower than average initially and rise to a peak in the later years of the convention. Moreover, while the Community has agreed to endeavour to implement fully the financial provisions within the period of the convention, it is possible that the call-up of subscriptions from the member States might not be completed and would, therefore, extend beyond that period.

As regards the European Investment Bank, the internal agreement provides for loans from the bank of up to 400 million units of account, i.e. 390 million units of account for allocation to the ACP countries in accordance with the convention and an additional 10 million units of account for the overseas countries and territories and French overseas departments, already referred to. In this connection, the member States undertake to act as guarantor for the bank, in proportion to their contributions to its capital, to the extent of 30 per cent of the credits opened by the bank. These undertakings will be the subject of contracts of guarantee between each member State and the bank.

The internal agreement also determines rules for the management of financial co-operation, the procedure for programming, examining and approving aid and detailed rules for supervising the use of the aid. It is provided that two committees of representatives of the Governments of member States should be set up under the auspices of the Commission and the bank respectively and with terms of reference as prescribed: one, the EDF Committee, will furnish an opinion on financing proposals for projects or programmes financed by grants or special loans while the other, the "Article 22 Committee" will give an opinion on requests for loans with interest rate subsidies and on proposals for financing by risk capital. Ireland will, of course, be represented on each of these committees and we propose to play an active and as positive a role as we can in their deliberations.

I have endeavoured to give the House a general review of the content and objectives of the ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé. Advance implementation of the provisions relating to trade began on 1st July. It was agreed at Lomé in an exchange of letters that these provisions would be put into effect by means of unilateral decisions; the necessary regulations were adopted by the EEC Council of Ministers on 24th June. The convention itself, however, cannot enter into force until it has been ratified in accordance with the appropriate internal procedures by at least two-thirds of the 46 ACP States and by all the member States of the Community. To date 26 of the ACP countries have completed ratification procedures. Denmark is the only Community member State to have done so as yet.

I suggest that the motion before this House is worthy of our wholehearted approval. In the first place, the Lomé Convention is an appropriate response on the part of the European Community to the very considerable needs of the developing world, in keeping with the pattern already established by the Community's generalised scheme of preferences, and other concrete efforts by the Community in recent times to respond positively in terms of the evolution of a new order of economic relationships between developed and developing countries.

In this convention, as I have said, the Community is entering into a commitment to open its markets fully to products from a large number of developing countries, without those countries having to undertake a reciprocal commitment; this substantial improvement in the ACP partners' terms of trade is supplement by generous financial aid and by innovative schemes in the fields of export earnings and industrialisation.

The convention is not one-sided, however; the European Community, too, expects to benefit from it. This is true first in the general sense that the Convention of Lomé is designed to establish a special and more equitable form of relationship between the Community and a large group of developing countries. Moreover, by entering into this co-operative venture, Europe has been strengthened in its relations with the rest of the world; Europe now has a special relationship with about half of the developing countries in the world— countries which are responsible for the production of a substantial percentage of the world's raw materials.

Finally, we should recognise that in so far as the ACP countries increase their prosperity as a result of the Lomé Convention, there will be an increased demand in those countries for European goods and services. The Irish business community can hope to benefit substantially in the longer term by seeking to supply this increased demand.

On all counts, we in Ireland should be especially pleased to lend our goodwill to the new enterprise of the Lomé Convention. It hardly needs to be argued in point of history, we have a great deal in common with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, Ireland being the only member of the European Community which has itself been a former colony.

We know the importance of economic development, and the difficulties to be overcome. Our own economy has been undergoing a transition of the kind to which our new ACP partners aspire—I mean the transition from being a predominantly agricultural economy to becoming one with a strong industrial sector.

We recognise too that we ourselves have much to gain from the Lomé Convention, and from the type of international co-operation it represents. We are an open economy and stand only to benefit from increased stability in international trade. And as a small country, we have an interest in ensuring that international relationships, both political and economic, be conducted on the basis of mutual interdependence and cooperation—be conducted, that is, in the spirit of the Lomé Convention. Without hesitation, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Without hesitation we support the motion introduced by the Minister. One is reminded to a certain extent of the constant need to reiterate the obligation all of us have to destroy the almost terrifying problem of world hunger. It was said of Cato in the Roman Senate that, so that he could activate his colleagues in the Senate and the Romans in general, on every occasion on which he made any speech he prefaced it by saying, "Carthago delenda est". Generally, we here could preface any major speech that we might make in the matter of international relations by saying, "Fames delenda est" because not just to preserve our own position but to making a commitment to destroy hunger and create development in those countries, we, too, maintain our own position of security in the western world.

Over and above that, we have an obligation which I am glad to say this convention goes a considerable way towards meeting. It is another positive consequence of our EEC membership that we can be a party both in our own right as a nation and fortuituously as President of the Community, to such a convention. At the outset I should like to acknowledge the personal contribution which the Minister has made towards finalising the details of this convention. It was a happy coincidence that an Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs should have had the honour and that opportunity. By way of the diligent and enthusiastic manner in which the Minister set about this task he earned for this country a degree of recognition of our concern for this problem. Also, from the point of view of the Community it is an indication of the determination to solve this problem. I pay tribute to the Minister and to his staff for the very effective way in which they discharged their responsibility to this nation, to the Community and to the ACP Countries.

As the Minister has reminded us, the Irish position in regard to this convention is a very special one because we are the only member of the Community that have shared the experience of most of these ACP countries. We know to some limited extent, because of our historical experience, the problems these countries now face. To that extent we can expect to have for them a greater degree of understanding and support. Our position imposes on us a greater obligation but it gives us also a greater opportunity than may be the case of other countries.

If we consider our own progress from being what one might refer to as a static economy to a developed economy in comparatively recent times, we become aware of the agencies through which our economy got off the ground. In this way we can identify the agencies through which we can help most effectively those ACP countries. In making comparisons between our economy and theirs we think first of the intense lack of capital which this nation experienced, a problem that must be faced by these other countries now. In a sense we have overcome this problem. At least, we have progressed from a situation in which little or no capital was being generated to a point where considerable native resources are being applied although we are dependent yet on foreign investment.

Like these other countries, we know the problem of emigration. This is a problem which has been characteristic of all these countries except in so far as restrictions on emigration from them to certain other countries may have prevented emigration. Coupled with their emigration factor is a high level of unemployment. Unfortunately, the latter is still a problem for us, too, but it is mainly a question of national resolution, having regard to what may be our economic conditions. On this occasion I do not intend to become involved in the overall area of policy-difference in this regard as between the Government and ourselves. Suffice it to say that the problem can be remedied.

As we overcame to a large extent our emigration problem and as we progressed from that period of the fifties to the period of growth of the sixties, so, too, we can help those ACP countries with their difficulties. They have specific machinery for making use of assistance from states such as ours. We can make our contribution by way of personnel services and technical advice and we can apply to them the knowledge we gained from our own experience.

Another factor is that each of these countries has a very weak industrial arm and, like us, was dependent for a considerable time on major world economies. Basically, they are dependent on their primary produce and raw materials. They have very little industrial development or processing of these materials within their own countries. To this extent, too, they are in a position similar to that which we were in in the thirties, forties and even the fifties. Their exports have been almost exclusively to markets of much stronger economies and in so far as each country was concerned involved a single commodity whether one thinks of sugar, cocoa or coffee. Their main exports were coffee and cocoa which accounted in some cases for as much as 70 per cent of total exports. This is an indication of how vulnerable they can be in times of recession in the market for those products or, more particularly, when the market forces throughout the world can bring about a reduction in the price of those products.

They have suffered, too, from a lack of expertise and this can be as great a problem as the lack of capital. The development of native expertise and technology is an essential part of the growth and development of any country. It is in this field that lies one of the crucial problems associated with these countries.

We, too, experienced those problems in the early days of this State. We were dependent to a considerable extent on the goodwill of other nations but we had no real international association during the thirties and forties on which we could rely to ensure our economic development. In this regard the countries we are talking of here have an advantage compared with what was our situation in that they belong to what has been described as a surprisingly uniform political grouping. This is what the ACP countries have proved themselves to be. This advantage puts them in a bargaining position and this is important. It is a position which the Community, the US and the USSR must recognise although I am not suggesting that that is the basic motivation for this convention. However, it is a factor that we must take account of not only in relation to this convention but in relation to any associations we may have with what are referred to generally as the developing nations of the Third World.

No comparison can be completely accurate. We are ourselves still in the process of developing and learning and to some extent, many of these countries may in some areas have surpassed our experience. One of the problems we had to face some 50 years back as an emergent nation was that of understanding and appreciating and having respect for the institutions of our State. We had good reason here not to have very much respect for the Establishment, as it was then, and I believe the same can be said of the people of these countries. When they look back on their experience under former colonial powers it is understandable if they have a certain inhibition—antagonism would be too strong a word—in regard to their understanding of former colonial powers. From that point of view our experience in the development of the institutions of this State can be helpful to them and I see real opportunities now for putting our experience into practical effect in whichever of these countries it can be most effectively applied.

It is vitally important that we should establish good relations with these countries. It is not at five minutes to 12 the clock has stopped. It has actually stopped at ten seconds to 12 as far as these countries are concerned. It stopped for them because many of them are caught up in constant hunger and starvation. It has stopped for us and if we do not recognise that then all of us in this secure western world are in a very vulnerable position because we cannot expect these nations to tolerate the level of starvation they have tolerated up to this.

That starvation is in some measure due to the fact that they have been exploited and so we owe it to these countries in both a moral and a literal sense to pay a debt and give back what we have taken from them. When I say "we" I include Ireland as one of the developed countries though we did not have any colonial associations but anything we can do to repay the debt we must do.

I hope the remarks I have made as to the Minister's commitment and his contribution will be seen clearly as an indication of what I think his contribution is. The commitment he has shown is in a real way a great lead to us and to the community. The Minister said that our contribution to the fund is approximately £11 million over roughly five years. There is provision for extending the period, if necessary, beyond five years. It is possible we may not be called upon to contribute the total amount within that period. It must be remembered that our contribution will be seen as being in satisfaction of our obligation under the UN target of .7 per cent of GNP by way of direct aid to developing countries. This, therefore, does not impose any new financial obligation on us. It does, however, in a very real way give us an opportunity of using whatever contribution we make to much better effect through the agencies established under this convention. I do not doubt the Minister's commitment to maintain what he said when he first came before this House but I have to compare it with the actual support he has got from his Government. Let it be noted we are behind the recommended UN target. We had something like .1 per cent as distinct from .7 per cent and the signs are we will have to increase considerably our contributions to maintain the target which we have an obligation to honour.

This is one area in which there should be no political debate. The hands of any of us are not entirely clean. I invite the Minister and his Government to accept that and, in turn, to remind us, when hopefully our turn comes, what the position is. There must be bipartisanship on this to the extent that our contribution must not come up for grabs at the annual budgetary review. Our contribution must not do battle with the demands of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, with the demands of the Minister for Education and the demands of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, particularly at a time of fairly stringent economic conditions. Looking at the last budget on the basis of that kind of competition it is not surprising that the Government failed to meet their commitment in honouring the Minister's application. If the reaction is that in a relatively bad economic climate we will cut back on the contribution we owe to those in much greater need and difficulty, then what hope will there be for them if the Germans, the French, the British and the Americans all react in the same way?

What hope will there be for these countries if we go back on, instead of maintaining, our commitment? The target does not demand too much and we must set aside the requisite amount every year in the budget so that we honour our obligation. If we have not within ourselves the determination and community sense to meet our obligation that is a sad reflection on the state of Irish society and on the leadership we give to that society. How can we preach unselfishness to our community when we do not practise unselfishness? Are we too remote from our own suffering past to recognise the suffering present of others in many of the countries referred to in this agreement?

The Irish people do not need to be activated. It is we, the "leaders", who need to be activated. The people have proved what their commitment is by their huge and continuing contributions at the voluntary level. If we do nothing but follow their lead, we can be consistent in our associations and discussions with other members of the Community in the United Nations and elsewhere. We can speak with conviction. We can speak in the knowledge that we are attempting to play our part to the fullest possible extent, no matter how much it may hurt us in the short term.

The Irish people recognise that whatever our problems may be—and we have problems—they are as nothing in comparison with the problems experienced by these countries. We must not make them pay for the causes of our problems here. I do not want to go into the national economic argument because that would not be appropriate. I hope our national budgetary position will become stronger in time and then we can resume our obligations to these countries.

Those who are engaged in activities concerning the Third World, as it has been called—and now we have a new category, the Fourth World—are devoting almost a third of the funds made available by the Irish people to educating the public to their obligations at every level. This is an indication of what we must do here. This cannot be a once a year debate during which we satisfy ourselves that we in the Dáil are doing our bit. There must be a constant awareness at every level, the voluntary organisations, the young people at school, the trade unions, at every level of administration, at local government and national government level, of each of those areas. That is what I mean by education. There must be a constant programming towards each of these areas, matched by a determination to use every possible opportunity such as this convention gives us to discharge our obligations.

Coming to some of the opportunities which arise under this convention, because of the reasons I have stated— and they are obvious and needed no great original thinking on my part— we have had experiences similar to the experiences these countries now face. We devised different forms of development during that period, and particularly the State bodies. We can now apply some of their techniques and experiences and, perhaps, learn from the mistakes made by many of these bodies.

I welcome the establishment of the development corporation the Minister has established which is the overall co-ordinating body for the State bodies. Its potential will be very great, particularly through the agencies of this convention. It is particularly appropriate that it was established around about the time the convention was being concluded. Because of their experience and because of the associations they have had, our State bodies will be able to play a very real role in the development of suitable institutions and structures for development in these countries.

The export of industrial goods to world markets is a key to economic prosperity. It was not until we launched the export promotion in the late 1950s and 1960s that we came into a period of prosperity. Our experience in the various State sectors such as the IDA, and the association they had with the infant industries and their experience in attracting foreign industry, can be applied through the agencies established under this convention. We must play the fullest possible role in these agencies to help them to achieve what was achieved here during a similar period.

As a small nation we are reasonably sensitive to the fact that there are characteristics, particularly of culture and tradition, which are peculiar to each country which do not always correspond to those of their neighbours. Thank God for that. The characteristics of each nation are the guarantee of the development of what might be called a world culture. All these countries have long traditions which are very different from the traditions in a western democracy, some of which may make it a little more difficult to establish certain norms of industrial activities which would be readily established in a western democracy. They make personnel relationships that little more difficult.

We have not always been regulated and disciplined in our approach to the demands of an industrial society. Many of the people who have been associated with industrial development here know the problems of a society coming into a period of industrial activity out of a period of industrial lethargy. Through the agencies of this convention, we can play a real role in overcoming some of the problems which will arise inevitably. Allowing for the assistance which is being provided either through the European Investment Bank, or directly from the European Development Fund under this convention, because of the lack of capital in all of these countries there is a great need for the efficient use of capital for problems which we also had, and more especially for the development of labour intensive industry to cure the unemployment and emigration problems as we did from the 1950s into the 1960s.

There will have to be the development of technology suited to small scale rural industries of the type we developed during that period. Almost all these countries have a relatively small population in relatively big land masses. A great proportion of the land masses of each of these countries is almost inaccessible. To a very considerable extent we are not dealing with overpopulated areas but areas which are rural, basically, in their traditions and in their geographic structures. For instance, in an area of 246 square kilometers there is a population of 4,000,000 people—that is not very intensive by any standard— that is in Guinea and Upper Volta. This pattern continues throughout and, to a considerable extent, reflects the pattern we knew here—the need to develop the outer arms of the country, particularly through regional policies such as we have implemented and which we need to continue to implement with a greater degree of urgency. Through those same policies we can also use those opportunities in relations with these countries.

Since coming into office the Minister has established two organisations. One known as APSO, the Association for Personal Services Overseas, and DEVCO, which is appropriately named, the Development Corporation for State Bodies and Departments. Perhaps the Minister would tell me whether he has yet been in a position to adopt what was proposed to him from various sources—a development desk, so called, in each Department and each State body to ensure that a particular section of each Department or State Body is totally committed to and taken up with the potential of that Department or body in discharging its obligations under the convention and in discharging our obligations generally. There will have to be that constant type of liaison, or constant reminder, within the Department or body. Unless there exists within each Department such a permanent structure there cannot be liaison with other Departments. I know some steps have been taken in that direction and that it is not entirely the responsibility of the Minister but perhaps he could indicate to what extent those recommendations have been implemented.

It is interesting to note also that things we might take for granted— although the public at large might not do so to the same extent—constitute, in a very real sense, the problems of newly developing democracies. For instance, we tend to take for granted here appointments to Government bodies, State bodies, semi-State bodies, local authorities and the civil service because the Local Appointments Commission function very effectively on a very fair and equitable basis, as does the Civil Service Commission, guaranteeing that people are appointed on merit and opportunities made available within the public service to those best qualified. Such is now taken for granted despite whatever doubts may be held by certain sections of the public and despite certain regrettable trends to which I do not want to refer now, in areas under the direct authority of the Government. Again, none of our hands are that clean.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We will not make comparisons of cleanliness but the Government who, when in Opposition, proclaimed their virtues so constantly and their determination so vehemently when in Government fell far short not just of their own standards but of ours leaving some cause for question. When one makes a virtue of one's virtue and finds that it falls very short even of the other's, or merely measures up to it, there is some ground for concern.

Having said that, our structures— which do not depend on governments that come and go—are indeed commendable. In the development of the democratic activity of each of these countries I am sure they can learn from us, for example, through the operations of the Local Appointments Commission, the method of appointment to State bodies, the operations of the Civil Service Commission. It is understandable that these countries, having been deprived for so long by those in a certain position of power and influence, would have a degree of corruption in their operations, particularly as the examples given by their predecessors will not always have been generally commendable. To that extent, in a very practical way, we can help in the development of democracy as we know it.

I welcome particularly the system called "stabex" mentioned by the Minister which relates to the stabilisation of exports and export prices of basic commodities of each of these countries. Until such time as they can be guaranteed stable prices for their almost sole commodity—certainly they have had no diversity of export commodities—they will be in a very weak position, as they have been in a very weak position. This innovation, as the Minister correctly called it, is a very effective way of tackling that problem. It means now they can be guaranteed at least a basic price for their commodities. In so far as such is being guaranteed by a Community as economically powerful as the EEC, it should help to stabilise also their development and secure their economies. The problems they have experienced to date, on an uneven path of export price, with obviously fluctuating economic conditions at home, have prevented them from maintaining any constant pattern of development.

They have always been in the van of those under attack whenever world conditions changed. We thought we suffered during the energy crisis; we howled about our suffering, but if we did suffer it was nothing in comparison with their suffering. This stabilisation of prices, guaranteed by a Community so strong, should help and should also set a target for other groups, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and others can in the interests of the development of and their associations with these countries.

While all that is being done it is well to remember that Ireland is classified as a developed country. We are too often ready to put on the poor mouth, to point to conditions outside Ireland as being the cause of all our problems. I do not believe that is good for a national character, morale or dignity. If we excuse ourselves for our failings, always with reference to what happened outside and more particularly when the storm of inflation has passed —in the sense that our rate now is higher than countries to which we point—we are not doing ourselves a service. Similarly, we must recognise that we are a developed country by comparison with the countries included in the ACP group of states. It may be a rather strange admission to have to make but such is the case. By comparison with other developed countries we are an undeveloped country. For that reason I am glad also that article 10 of this convention contains the safeguard that, when difficulties arise within any one of the member states of the Community, which may result in a deterioration of a sector of the economy of a region of the Community, there is provision for correcting that problem.

It is fairly evident that Ireland is potentially, if not in fact, the most vulnerable member of the Community as a result of any new negotiation entered into or arrangements made, even with countries as undeveloped as are these to which I have been referring. While we must always recognise our obligations and our comparative security and comfort, nonetheless there will be time when some sections, particularly of our industry, may need to apply the protections introduced in article 10 of this convention, not, I hope, to the detriment of any member of the ACP states, but by way of ensuring that we can help them mutually and not at the cost of injuring some sensitive area of our industrial development. I know it is not an article under which we would want to apply for or claim relief too readily.

I think it is realistic that it should be there, and I hope that the need to protect our position under that article will not arise, or that it will arise only rarely. Would the Minister clarify what I am not able to understand from the explanatory memorandum, which has been very helpful? I quote from page 10 in relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention:

Treatment applied to products originating in the ACP states may not be more favourable than that applied by the member states among themselves——

that seems fair enough but then it goes on:

An exception to this limitation was, however, agreed for products originating in the ACP states, since the retention.... as a transitional measure of certain residual customs duties and charges having equivalent effect between the original member states and the new member states does not apply to these products.

I cannot understand that. I am sure the Minister will have the answer. It seems contradictory when it says you will not have any more preferential treatment for these states than for the member states and it then goes on to say that an exception was made for products originating within these states. I expect the Minister will be able to solve that little puzzle.

There are aspects of this which I think must be enthuasiastically welcomed, as well, of course, as the whole general principle behind the convention. However, Article 38 states generally—and this is again I think by way of a recap on what I said about the need to be sensitive to the culture, attitudes and economic condition of the countries that one attempts to assist under that programme that each state itself should establish what it sees as its priorities and to the extent that the member states of the Communities can satisfy that state that it will work in accordance with the priorities established by the ACP state, then this guarantees that the developments will be directed according to the wishes of the states who are being assisted. This is very important because, if simply by virtue of programmes of assistance that are implemented, any member of the Community or the Community as a whole would think that they had the right or obligation also to direct the nature of industrial development, they would be making a great mistake, indeed. I think that the provisions written into Article 38 will ensure that as far as possible what is done will be in accordance with the wishes and character of the country concerned and that the assistance which will be applied throughout the Community or member states of the Community or for that matter made through the industries of the Community who can use this convention to give their assistance, will be fully in accord with the development programmes of each of the states, whereever they are applied. The institutions which are established under this convention, such as the Centre for Industrial Development and the Committee for Industrial Co-operation, again will give great opportunity to Ireland to provide what we have in a very rich and constant supply, personnel and experience. We may not have great resources of capital or extensive technological equipment, but we do have experienced personnel who share both dedication and determination. Agencies such as those, the Industrial Development Centre and the Industrial Co-operation Committee will enable the organisations that have been established here in recent times, the Development Corporation, the Association for Personal Services Overseas and many other bodies to play a proper role in achieving the targets set by the convention.

Could the Minister say what part can the voluntary organisations play and how can they be fitted into the structures of the convention here? This may not be a matter of such pressing importance to the other countries of the Community, but everyone will recognise that the voluntary organisations here in Ireland represent substantially our constant contribution to the Third World. I do not, on the face of it, see how they can be fitted into the constitutional structure and the framework set up by the convention. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me and them that there is a place for them in the institutions being established here.

The fact that there is a provision in the convention for special rates of interest in the least developed countries of the ACP states is very important, because there are, unfortunately, degrees of hunger and starvation. Some of these countries are in a much more critical condition than others, although that is not to suggest that any one of them is not in a critical condition. Most particularly, I welcome the provisions which stipulate that special loans for a duration of 40 years, with a grace period of 10 years—in other words, a possible duration of 50 years—can be made available at an interest rate of 1 per cent. That type of facility, first of all, long term and, secondly, at a low interest rate, can guarantee, in so far as anything can guarantee, a real effort at solving the long term problems of these countries.

An interesting aspect of the convention and one that will, I hope, work to great effect in the interest both of the Community and of each of these member states is the establishment of institutions to give effect to the decisions which were reached under the convention. To simplify it, one could say that, as you have a Council of Ministers in the European Economic Community so you will have a Council of Ministers of the Community and the ACP states; as you have a Parliament, though not a very strong one, in the European Community, so you will have parliamentary representation between the Community and these states; as you have a Commission, so also you will have a permanent structure of civil service administration between the Community and these states.

All of this guarantees constant association, constant planning and, above all else, greater understanding at every level, at parliamentary level, at executive and administrative level. It is only by having these institutions established that you can ensure this constant contact and understanding which is the best guarantee of the success of this programme. This economic co-operation is a matter for political commitment and political decision.

You cannot give effect to political decisions unless you have political institutions through which you can give effect to them. I particularly welcome the detailed instruction of this convention for the institutions through which the member states and the Community can co-operate with each other. I have some queries with regard to details which the Minister may be able to deal with in his reply or, if not, when he has had a chance of considering them, I hope he will be able to deal with them at a later stage. Under Article 56 the principle of the convention is that for operations financed by the Community participation in tendering procedures and other procedures for the award of contracts shall be open on equal terms to all natural and legal persons of member states and the ACP states. Legal persions are obviously intended to refer to corporations. I note that an exception to that would be that where the contracts are for amounts less than two million units of account a 10 per cent preference is applied to the tender being supplied from the undeveloped ACP states. Relatively small contracts get a 10 per cent preference but apparently this does not apply in relation to the major contracts.

Sometimes, because of the advantage which the contractors from the Community would have over their counterparts in the ACP states there should possibly be a 10 per cent preference supplied all round not just to contracts under two million units of account. I know this is something which must have been considered in great detail and it may be easy for me to make such a suggestion here. Obviously, if the intention is to develop the industrial arm in these countries, then one must acknowledge that even in projects being financed by the European Community, the best way of doing that is to put them in a position where they can at least have a more than equal opportunity of being awarded the contracts which are being applied if they are equipped for them.

In so far as many multi-national companies, who do not have their original base within the Community, will have a base in one or other of the Community states, it would seem, on the face of it, that they will be entitled to tender on an equal basis for contracts which will be implemented under this Lomé Convention. In so far as they would be entitled to tender on an equal basis with potential contractors from the member states of the ACP, that would seem to me to guarantee that they would be tendering on a more than equal basis. I do not expect a ready response from the Minister but I would like him to look into that in some greater detail and perhaps, make some suggestions which will correct this potential problem.

Would the Minister confirm what seems to be implicit in the convention that there will be a permanent resident delegate from the Commission in each member state? I presume that would involve a permanent structure from the Community in each of the states to implement this convention. I believe that can be only towards the benefit of the states and the Community. I should like to have confirmation from the Minister that this will be the case.

Dr. FitzGerald

What will be the case?

Mr. O'Kennedy

That there will be a permanent representative from the Community in each member state. This seems to be the case from the explanatory memorandum but it is not quite specific. Generally, one must welcome the spirit of this convention, the part the Minister has played in it and, in particular, the intention of this convention subject to the few reservations I have expressed. I should like the Minister to clarify for me how this general spirit coincides with some alarming indications we have had from the Community recently in this area, especially in relation to the proposed budget cuts for development aid which we hear were suggested by the Germans, not just in relation to the regional fund and the social fund but also in relation to the development aid programme of the Community.

I should like to know if such proposals have been made and, if so to what extent the Minister has resisted them strenuously and to what extent these proposals could in any way be consistent with the principles and provisions of this convention. We have not had an opportunity of discussing that in the House up to the present. It seems to me that if we are to believe the reports of these cuts in the development aid from the Community to the Third World we have reached a very sorry position. It would then seem the first thing the Community, as distinct from the individual members of the Community, will do, when things are difficult within the Community, is to dishonour the obligations they have to those who need the most. I hope that if there is any such proposal our Minister will strenuously resist it. I also hope he will be strengthened in his hand in doing so by saying: "What I am asking you in the Community to do we on our part in Ireland have done." He would not be able to say that at the moment but I hope he will be able to say it when this matter comes up. The Minister should not look puzzled in relation to that.

Dr. FitzGerald

What is the Deputy saying we have not done?

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Government have not maintained their commitment for our proportionate contribution from our GNP. I hope the Minister will not try to bamboozle us with figures in relation to that. Anybody who is concerned with the matter is aware of this. The Minister's hand would be all the stronger if he could say to the European Community Ministers: "We have honoured our obligation and we insist on you honouring yours as well." If the Minister's hand is weak he cannot have much conviction in calling on the Germans or others to honour their obligations. While the cutback in our aid will be of relatively little importance——

Dr. FitzGerald

What cutback?

Mr. O'Kennedy

The cutback from our target. It may not be a cutback from our contribution last year but it is a cutback from our stated target.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sure the Deputy recognises that our aid is bigger.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It still is a cutback and the Minister can argue until the cows come home on this. He must notice a cutback in our stated target. I hope we can mend our hand there. No matter what happens there cannot be a political discussion in the House. If we mend our hand we are in a position, with determination and conviction, to call on others to mend their hand. If we cannot move this problem at least we can help to motivate those who can. While one is only talking in terms of hundreds of thousands of pounds where Ireland is concerned one is talking in terms of millions of pounds so far as the Community and other countries are concerned.

The Minister must also take account of the fact that one of the effects of the decision of the Council of Ministers sometime last year—I thought it extraordinary—was basically that the Community would maintain its level of financial contribution to the Third World provided that other developed countries, notably the United States and Canada, did likewise. We are left with the position that if the United States or Canada apparently do not maintain their level of development aid for reasons best known to themselves the Community do not find themselves obliged to maintain their level. I hope that if these reports of supposed cutbacks in development aid from the Community are true that the Americans and Canadians will not react by saying: "Because you have now cut back, we are entitled to cut back." That would seem to be the strangest and saddest conclusion.

I never did understand how the Council of Ministers could justify the apparent conclusion that they would maintain their commitment provided others over whom they had no control, maintained theirs. I should have thought it would be rather the opposite if there was a real commitment; that if and when others failed to meet their commitment the Community would so far as possible try to step up its aid so as to correct the problems arising as a result.

I am glad to note that the convention is sensitive to the political traditions and history of each of these countries and while, I suppose in a selfish way, the Community could see that through the agency of this convention they are not just discharging their obligations—and they are obligations; they are not repaying a debt— and there are debts—they are also—I suppose they could see it this way— protecting themselves, western democracies and the democracies of the world as we know it. Indeed they are, but at the same time we should not use or attempt to use these conventions as an agency by which we should impose our systems on them. I am glad this convention does not seek to do this.

It is a matter for each of these countries to develop their structures of Government as they see fit. It is only when we show no concern that it is likely that they will react against selfish democracy, as they may see it. If we prove that democracy in its real sense is true to itself, can never be selfish, cannot be selfish within itself for its own members, and neither can it be selfish vis-à-vis those outside its limits, then I expect they will contribute in a real way to the further development of democracy because the African and Pacific countries are the hope of the world of the future. Of that there can be no doubt. Nations that have been so deprived, so exploited for so long have now come to a new sense of dignity and appreciation of their own right and their role in the world and if we can effect a real understanding with them and make a real commitment to work with them I can be quite sure that whatever systems emerge in these countries will be systems which will guarantee an understanding and tolerance towards the democracies that we are most closely associated with and can also guarantee a fair development and economic expansion in each of these countries.

In a very real sense we owe to these countries what is being provided in this convention. We should not look on it in any other way. Even at this late stage although Ireland has not been in a position to extract benefit from the resources of these countries as other countries have, even if we only look at it that way we can reach a new respect from them towards the countries which for a considerable time may not have shown the concern they should have shown. Our own contribution will never be very significant but our commitment to whatever contribution we make can be. Ireland has a respect from these countries because of our experience and because we also were under a colonial power and because we have emerged from a period of repression—I am not trying to suggest a state of slavery or anything of that nature but it was a period of repression in one form or another; of economic disadvantage—into a new awareness and understanding and because of that we have a very special obligation vis-à-vis these countries.

I hope through this convention we can implement it and I hope the Government in their own area will ensure that henceforth the targets we set we will maintain because if we do not, we are doing ourselves and our community a disservice. They have proved to us what they want by their voluntary contributions and we should not expect very much in our own national programme if we are not prepared to face up to our obligations in this area. This convention, in my view, does much to help us to meet those obligations. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify some of the points I have raised in his concluding remarks.

Mr. Kavanagh

I want to deal very briefly with one aspect of the Lomé Convention but before doing so I want to join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the spokesman for the Opposition, Deputy O'Kennedy, in giving a very warm welcome to the ratification of the convention by this Parliament. We are the second of the nine to do so after Denmark. Perhaps if it had not been for the Recess we would have been first. The remarks of the Minister and of the Opposition spokesman sum up what we all feel in this Parliament about the terms of the Lomé Convention. It is a great step forward in international relations. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the Minister on his handling of the final negotiations that led to the completion of this convention on 28th February last.

The Minister referred to the aspect of the convention which I would like to examine further and that was under Title VI on the institutions being set up under the convention. The Commission state that the convention will be jointly administered by a council of ministers, a committee of ambassadors and there is provision for a consultative assembly consisting of members of the European Parliament and representatives appointed from the ACP countries. Article 80 of the convention reads as follows:

The consultative assembly shall be composed on a basis of parity of members of the assembly on the one side of the Community and of the representatives designated by the ACP states on the other.

It also states that a consultative assembly shall meet at least once a year.

There has been considerable discussion, and a little dissension with the European Community on the one side and the ACP states on the other, about the form and make-up of this assembly. On 29th January last the President of the Parliamentary Conference, Mr. Yace, on behalf of the APC countries and Mr. Spenale, President of the European Parliament, had discussions about the parliamentary institutions of the new convention. Last May, they met again in Dublin and produced a formula which suggested that an assembly of 92 members from the ACP countries—two members from each country—and 92 members from the European Parliament be set up. They also suggested that there should be a steering committee consisting of one member from each of the APC countries and 46 members from the European Parliament. This was in line with the old institution of the Yaounde Convention which was set up on a similar basis although the steering committee was set up on an area basis. One-third of the assembly was represented on the steering committee on the basis of area and region rather than a single member from each of the countries.

Those who attended the conference in Dublin in May will remember that there was considerable dissension between the ACP and the parliament about this question. The ACP countries felt they could not be adequately represented on a joint committee on a regional basis and that each country should have a member appointed. This was not acceptable to many members of the European Parliament and, I am afraid, is still not acceptable but, nevertheless, this formula has been proposed by the two Presidents. Some disagreement has been voiced about the proposal in the parliament. The Secretary General of the parliament, at the instigation of the Committee on Development and Co-operation of the parliament put forward a formula that there be one member from each of the ACP countries and a like number from the European Parliament for the assembly, and that there be 18 members from the ACP countries and a similar number from the parliament on the joint committee.

The duties of the European Parliament are expanding while the membership remains the same. All the members of that parliament have dual mandates and to add another important and extensive committee, or assembly, to the work of an already overloaded body would put too much demand on the time of members of the parliament. An assembly of 184 members as suggested in the Yace-Spenale document, would be an unwieldly body and would require a lot of back-up staff. The discussions of the steering committee of 92 would be most unwieldly and would lead to weeks and months of endless debate about agendas and the like. This is an important topic and I hope the Minister is taking note of it. I would welcome suggestions from him in this regard.

Undoubtedly the Yace-Spenale suggestion, for many reasons—not only membership but also cost—is running into a good deal of trouble. Many of the ACP countries have not democratic institutions and, therefore, their representatives are not elected by the public. I can see problems with members of the European Parliament, who are elected by the public to their national parliaments, debating with representatives who are not directly elected. It would be a pity if this convention should run into problems like this but it is a problem we should consider. I know the Minister, who put such a lot of work into the successful conclusion of this convention, will want to see that this important aspect of the convention is successfully dealt with in the near future.

The fact that article 80 demands equal numbers from the EEC and the ACP countries leads to a problem. That aspect of the convention may have to be looked at again. There is no necessity for 92 people to sit down for a day, a week, or once a year, to discuss the problems. If they have to because of their duties in the European Parliament, and their national parliaments, they will not be able to attend. Therefore, the assembly would deteriorate into a farce, a sad occurrence if it is allowed to happen. The Minister should pay attention to this aspect of the convention and I hope he shows the same interest in it as he showed in the rest of the convention. In his speech he hardly mentioned this problem. I congratulate the Minister on his work in bringing this convention to a successful conclusion. He will probably look back on the Lomé Convention as the highlight of his term as President of the Council of Ministers. It was one of the outstanding initiatives of the EEC and the Minister is to be congratulated on the part he played in it.

Mr. Moore

I should like to join with Deputies O'Kennedy and Kavanagh in welcoming the motion and to offer our appreciation of the efforts of the Minister and his staff, in bringing about this tremendous instrument for world humanity. When one sees that 55 nations were involved at one stage, one can appreciate the amount of hard work and dedication it took to perfect this instrument.

Since the Minister started his speech at 4 o'clock many people have died of hunger or thirst. This Lomé Convention is a highlight in international co-operation and justifies this country's decision to join the EEC. It is as a member state of this Community that we will play a big part in helping these countries all we can. I do not want to stress help as if it were a hand-out, but we should strive to give these people an opportunity to develop their countries to the same high standards as those attained in European countries.

We are classed as a developed country, and we are developed when compared with the conditions in many ACP countries. Even before the foundation of the EEC or the League of Nations, the Irish people admitted their commitment to international aid by contributing the small amount they could afford for international development. I refer specially to the Red Cross Society, Gorta and Trócaire.

We support this motion and feel that the Irish people will be generous in their support of any commitments by which we are bound when we sign this convention. We must not disappoint these nations by not going far enough with our help. Would the Minister consider helping these countries by providing educational institutions? The people could be taught technology, commerce, local government and so on, which would help them develop their own resources. They could also avail of the expertise of the more advanced countries.

Of the nine, Ireland is the only former colony. Luxembourg and Ireland are the only two countries who have never had colonial possessions. France and Germany will contribute very heavily to this development fund. By comparison our contribution will be puny. Belgium will contribute 6.25 per cent, the Federal Republic of Germany 25.95 per cent, France 25.95 per cent, the United Kingdom—who are in an impoverished state at the moment—18.7 per cent, and our contribution will be 0.6 per cent. Would the Minister tell us what percentage of our total GNP will this 0.6 per cent, plus other commitments which we have entered into, amount to? Will it be 1 or 2 per cent? It has been suggested that we should provide a certain percentage of our GNP for international aid.

Dr. FitzGerald

Does the Deputy want to know what proportion of our GNP would our commitment under the Lomé Convention be?

Mr. Moore

Yes, and the total in international aid generally.

Dr. FitzGerald

The difficulty is that the Lomé Convention covers a five-year period. Therefore, it is not clear what the spread will be and it is hard to relate it to a particular year.

Mr. Moore

Is the sum £11 million over five years?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Moore

Our contribution looks rather small when compared with the contributions of the other countries. But if we contribute the amount for which we contracted, that is 0.6 per cent, we will be playing the part we agreed to.

The former colonial powers may feel that they must pay back something to the nations they exploited. Let us not pull our punches here: those countries were shamelessly exploited through the centuries. The fact that the former colonial powers intend providing a large slice of their national wealth to helping these countries will be appreciated by the men of goodwill in the ACP countries and will help to build a better world.

Under this agreement there will be great opportunities for our trade to expand. As the Minister rightly said, much will depend on the amount of hard work our industrialists, farmers and everybody involved put into their businesses. In this way not only will we benefit the developing countries, but we will also be helping our economy. There is a certain amount of goodwill between those countries and Ireland because they realise we never exploited them—whether we could or not is another matter. The point is we did not do it and we are now joining with our EEC neighbours to ensure that the wealth of Europe will be made available to the ACP countries.

One must be realistic, however. It is laid down in article III that an ACP country may not get any better terms from us than we allow to our fellow EEC members. Has this worked as smoothly as we would wish? One reads occasionally that France, for instance, would not allow Italian produce in and we have our own trouble here from time to time. I am sure there will be in-built assurances that there will not be dumping through the operation of this convention.

We look forward to the operation of this tremendous movement but we must face a situation where there may be hold-ups, when things will not always run smoothly. I assure the Minister, as did Deputy O'Kennedy, that we will help to ensure the continued operation of this, which will require good husbandry and bookkeeping by the Government in the next five years so that the value of our 0.6 per cent contribution will not be diminished by inflation. This convention will mean an enormous element of goodwill between the ACP countries and ourselves because we will have shown as a small country that we are prepared to play our part in this great work. I am sure the Minister, during our Presidency of the EEC Commission, felt a touch of pride that after prolonged negotiations he had the honour of signing this great convention.

The convention is a good lesson in geography because of the many new developing countries. Perhaps we had been inclined to become rather complacent over the years despite all we had been told by the various organisations. It is good to know that so many men and women had been working for so long preparing this document. The welcome it has got in the House shows the dedication of our people to help the less fortunate in the developing countries. I hope the work of the convention goes through without political overtones or attached strings.

We might join with the US, that country which despite all the criticism disburses a huge amount of its national wealth towards helping the less well off nations. It must now be realised that the Americans' generosity is not influenced by a desire to extend their influence but for the good of mankind. They with the peoples of Europe realise the debt we all owe to the ACP nations who, I am sure, realise that we are offering them a charter to help them to develop their resources—that this is not a charitable hand-out but assistance to develop their nations in line with a developing world where we hope to see the abolition of injustice and suffering and where the wealth and expertise of Europe will be available to the developing nations. In this way we shall be able to build a commonwealth of world nations in which, following centuries in which Europe acted in a way she should not, there is now a new understanding and a sincere wish to help the less fortunate peoples of the world to develop. France has been known as the cradle of western civilisation and we are now joining that cradle of civilisation in the help we are offering to the ACP nations.

Mr. Lalor

Like Deputies O'Kennedy and Moore, I welcome the convention. It would be surprising if anyone in the Dáil were to oppose it. The opportunities it appears to offer to the developing countries are fully in line with our normal thinking. The 46 countries with which this agreement has been drawn up need the greatest co-operation and encouragement. I was surprised to note that the Minister departed from his circulated script towards the end of the second paragraph and that subsequently he did not endeavour to develop his statement further. Having declared that the convention was signed, subject to ratification, at Lomé on February 28th, 1975, he went on to say that he was advised that legislation may be required to cover some of its provisions. On hearing that it occurred to me that this was a very important announcement, that it should have been part of the circulated statement. I think from the Minister's reaction that this formed part of his script but not of that which was circulated. I am somewhat suspicious of this type of operation and would hope that when replying the Minister would give us some idea of the advice he has received in this regard. I cannot visualise a need for comprehensive legislation in relation to the convention.

There are a couple of other points that I should like to refer to. I was a delegate to the recent meeting in London of the Inter Parliamentary Union. There are some who say that this organisation is merely a talking shop for parliamentarians from all over the world. I go some way with that opinion but at the same time I realise that personal contact among parliamentarians can be beneficial. From that point of view I consider our association with the IPU useful. However, at the recent meeting I was a member of a sub-committee that was suggesting freedom of access for imports from all developed countries. I was endeavouring to table an amendment to the effect that steps be taken to protect industries in respect of which there was a recession in any country. However, I was opposed strongly in this effort by the Eastern block which was supported fully by the developed countries which claimed that if this exception were built into the resolution it would spoil the whole effect and would mean that any country could build up a barrier to prevent the importation of any commodity on the grounds that they were in economic difficulties in regard to the commodity concerned. Consequently I had no success in regard to the amendment.

After the circulation of the document relating to the conference and of the explanatory memorandum issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs I set about ascertaining what were the principal products of the ACP countries with a view to finding out whether we were opening our doors to, for instance, boots and shoes and textiles from those countries. Any fears I had in that regard appeared to be groundless apart from the question of sugar exports since some of those countries produced a considerable amount of sugar. I was thinking in terms of this situation having an effect on our agricultural industry but I discovered that built into the convention is a provision whereby these exports could not interfere with the CAP arrangements within the EEC.

I then set about ascertaining how the GNP of those countries compared with ours. In this regard I could find no grounds for opposing the convention in so far as this question is concerned. We had been making very good progress in relation to our GNP up to a couple of years ago but as a result of Government mismanagement since then there has been a falling back. Despite this, however, we are very far ahead of the ACP countries and with a change of Government we shall be able to get back once again on the path of progress that obtained up to the time this Government assumed office.

Of the 46 states involved, a number are mentioned under article 48 as being the least well-off and it is specified that certain states shall be eligible according to their needs for the special measures established under that article. Built into the arrangements for assistance there is the provision that all countries which are benefiting by way of grants or loans are to be able to take certain measures and that they will be helped by way of funds from the EEC. Under this article there is a list of countries that may not be expected to generate wealth from their own resources and to which money can be advanced. This is a point that the Minister might expand on in his reply.

Regarding the GNP of the ACP countries I calculated that the figure per head of the population is 100 dollars in most cases. While appreciating that the dollar continues to appreciate as against our £, a mean average GNP of 100 dollars is very low. Some countries such as Nigeria and Kenya are not included within the terms of article 48. They must therefore be looked upon as that little bit more developed than the countries mentioned here. There are some countries which have a greater GNP than Nigeria, where the GNP is roughly 100 dollars per head of the population.

Dr. FitzGerald

I wonder if the Deputy is confusing Niger and Nigeria. I think Nigeria is substantially higher.

Mr. Lalor

The GNP is 7,840,000 dollars. The population is 79 million. If we make the GNP 7,977 million, which is a little higher that it is, and do a population job on that, on my reckoning we finish up with 100 dollars per head of the population. If you divide 79 into 7,900 million you get 100.

Dr. FitzGerald

I take the Deputy's point, but I find the figure he arrives at surprising. I wonder if there is, perhaps, some error somewhere.

Mr. Lalor

If I am in error in that one then I am in error right across the board.

Dr. FitzGerald

Not necessarily. I shall do my best to check it.

Mr. Lalor

Togo has a GNP of 300 million and a population of 2 million so the GNP there is 150 dollars per head. Doing the same kind of sum in relation to Nigeria we find the GNP in Nigeria is 100 dollars. I cannot come to any other conclusion. Kenya works out at 156 dollars per head and Nigeria at 100 dollars per head. Zaire is not included in the list. I am not finding fault. I take it the bigger countries like Kenya and Nigeria have a better way of developing trade, particularly as they are encouraged to provide moneys themselves for development. Basically I was trying to find out how the countries mentioned came to be segregated.

I do not know if we have a great deal of trade with the Bahamas. I am inclined to think that with our present rate of growth, or lack of growth or falling back in growth, we will not have very long to wait before the GNP in the Bahamas will be ahead of ours. I am wondering whether at that stage the Bahamas will be regarded as a developed country and we will find ourselves in the position of having to go on contributing towards its further development. Its GNP seems to be extraordinarily good. I know it is an approximate figure. I do not want to be accused of faulting the convention but there are a few points I find it difficult to understand.

The life of the convention is five years. The ACP countries regarded as being the least developed are listed in article 48 and are exempted from making any contribution to the reconstitution of the fund. That is why I make comparisons between these countries and others of the 46. According to the Minister it is not expected our annual subscription of the total £11 million will follow a uniform pattern. Initially it will be lower than average. That supports Deputy O'Kennedy's point that we seem to be falling short of our target. I am very happy about the Minister's projection of the result of the next general election. Perhaps we will get a more solid Government prepared to pay the amount to which the Minister committed us in February last. Apparently the Minister could find himself in the position of having to settle for something less than £2 million in the provision for next year. Deputy O'Kennedy has already dealt with the way we view that particular aspect.

In his opening statement the Minister said:

Title I provides for access into the Community without customs duties or quantitative restrictions for industrial...products...

He stressed this was not of major importance. But it is of major importance. A short time ago when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce I remember the IDA endeavouring to attract industry here, particularly the the multinationals, which are now frowned upon, in order to provide employment and I always found the IDA were competing with, say, Puerto Rico.

I am wondering whether in due process of time we may not be creating a problem for the IDA here as a result of the benefits and assistance offered to specific Caribbean, African and Indian Ocean countries. I should like the Minister to let us know whether we may visualise a situation in which under the two different forms, the European Development Fund and the European Investment Bank, we will have under article 46 the grant-aiding of selected industries, perhaps industries which the IDA are trying to attract here. Is there any likelihood or any possibility that some of our £11 million, together with all the other moneys which will be made available to those countries, may be used to counter-attract industries the IDA might be endeavouring to attract here?

We are finding it difficult to get money from the regional fund. I am not cribbing about this contribution. I wonder would the Minister persuade our colleagues in Europe to increase the units of account under the regional fund which we so badly need. If I were to embark on a discussion on regional policy and the availability of money from the regional fund, it might be suggested that I was opposed to this convention. Can the Minister tell me is there any possibility of people in some of these 46 states attracting some of the multi-nationals the IDA are trying to attract here for the development of industry?

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to thank Deputies for the kind things they said about the efforts this country made, and which they were good enough to attribute to me and, above all, to compliment the Department of Foreign Affairs on their work in the negotiations for this convention. One Deputy said we must have taken some considerable pride in our involvement. That is perfectly true. We take considerable pride in our contribution to the convention.

It happened that the concluding negotiations—and they were certainly the most difficult since all the difficult problems were left to the end—took place at the very beginning of our Presidency. It was a somewhat intimidating problem to be faced with. In the first fortnight of our Presidency we found ourselves leading the Community delegation and tackling an enormous range of very complex problems with which I had not been able to become thoroughly familiar during the preceding months. The fact that in the two separate negotiations in mid-January and at the end of the month we succeeded in finding our way through these difficulties is a source of great satisfaction to us. Many thought at the time that it would not be possible.

There were moments during the negotiations when I almost despaired because of the extreme complexity of the problem of producing an agreement which would give something to every one of 46 countries, all with very different economies and very different problems, and which would not impose, as a result, a burden on any or all of the nine which they would find intolerable, individually or collectively. The mind should boggle at the complexity of that.

In the negotiations at certain points we found ourselves dealing with the best part of 50 outstanding problems simultaneously and trying to juggle with them to achieve a result which each country could accept. It was a very complex negotiation indeed, and it certainly was a test of the Irish team. I should like to pay tribute to the extraordinary assistance I got from what necessarily, because of the nature of the work, was a very small number of people whose command of every detail enabled me to carry this through. I should also like to pay tribute to the negotiators of the ACP countries who carried out their functions in a notable manner, negotiating with great skill and in a way which made the whole thing possible. They did not try to win every point. They did not try to achieve success on every single item. They had a strategic view of the negotiations.

It was possible to do business with them at a very high negotiating level and to work closely with them and, with great mutual trust and confidence, to achieve this result. It was an experience which I shall recall for many years to come. The fact that this country was involved at that level of negotiation had a particular value because we were probably less suspect to the 46 countries than any other member of the community. We could hardly be seen in the guise of capitalist exploiters. The fact that our own historical experience was so akin to theirs, as I had the opportunity to point out at the Parliamentary Conference at Abidjan between the two sets of negotiations, gave them confidence that we would not be seeking to impose unfair decisions on them and that in the negotiations we would be taking their interests into account as well as those of our partners in the Community whom we represented.

Before coming to the details of the convention—and many interesting and worth-while points were raised in the debate—I should like to join issue with Deputy O'Kennedy and, to some degree, with some other Deputies on the question of our general commitment in regard to development aid. Obviously there is a misunderstanding about this. It is not confined to the Opposition benches. Other people of goodwill seem to feel that, in some way, we are failing to live up to commitments entered into. Therefore, I think it is right that I should answer this allegation and make it clear what the Government are doing in this respect.

The Government decided last year, on a proposal which I put forward, to enter into two commitments in respect of development aid. The first of these was a commitment which applies to every year, that is, to increase both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GNP, the amount devoted to official development assistance. The second is a quantified commitment with regard to the target we are aiming at, which is expressed very carefully in terms which involve taking one year with another. It sets out a line we should be following, a direction in which we should be going, an ultimate target at which we are aiming and which we intend to achieve.

This is expressed in the following form: aiming at an annual increase in official development assistance of the order of 0.05 per cent of GNP taking one year with another over the next five years. That is the course we have set ourselves. The ultimate results can be roughly quantified from that, although the precise amount involved in the fifth year will depend on the rate of inflation which affects the arithmetical calculation. It is expressed quite specifically as an aim, an object. We are aiming at an annual increase. It is quite specifically stated "taking one year with another". This makes it quite clear that there will be years when we will fall behind and years when we will move ahead.

Because of the economic situation we must impose some flexibility in the rate of progress. All of that proviso is within the framework of the absolute commitment to increase both in absolute terms—which I and the Government take to mean real purchasing power and not just money terms—and as a percentage of GNP the amount devoted to official development assistance each year.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Does that not run contrary to the decision of the Council of Ministers—and I presume the Minister was present on that occasion— that increasing the proportion of GNP should not be influenced by budgetary considerations of the member states? If one takes one year with another that is a very saving factor.

Dr. FitzGerald

The commitment we have is an absolute one in relation to the amount in absolute terms of percentage of GNP each year. The question of the exact amount in any one year is something which is subject to some margin around a general course towards the target. We entered into that commitment after a careful consideration of where we stood at the beginning of this period and where we had to get to at some point in the future. Where we stood at the beginning—and the House has to be reminded of this whether or not Deputy O'Kennedy welcomes it—is that we inherited a position where, under the last Government after 16 years in office, the progress made towards the UN target was that we were spending .035 per cent of GNP on official development assistance in the year 1972-73.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Will the Minister state when the UN target was established?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will have to dissuade the Deputy from interrupting.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The UN target was established after this Government came into office.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unless the Minister wishes to give way, the Deputy may be assured he may raise some questions at the end of the Minister's speech. In the interim he must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Dr. FitzGerald

The UN target was established in 1970, as the Deputy, as a member of the Government in office at that time, should know. In 1972-73 Fianna Fáil had reached the stage where they were spending £750,000. There was no bilateral aid programme, no agency for personal service overseas, nothing but the absolute minimal commitment of an absolute obligation to subscribe to certain funds as a result of multilateral obligations entered into with the United Nations —nothing but that. A figure of .035 per cent of GNP meant we were at a point one-twentieth of the target, 5 per cent of the target, with the remaining 95 per cent left to this Government to make up.

Since then we have made immense progress in catching up on the situation we inherited from Fianna Fáil. Perhaps I may give some figures to indicate this progress. In the year 1972-73 it was £750,000, or .035 per cent. The following year the amount spent was of the order of £1.35 million. We provided for £1.5 million but a number of the commitments we entered into were not taken up by the international organisations concerned and we replaced the great bulk of that shortfall by special ad hoc payments. Because of that the amount we actually spent fell slightly short of the amount to which we were committed. For 1974 the figures are complicated somewhat by virtue of the fact that we had here a nine-month financial year. There is some difficulty in disentangling the nine month financial year, the notional financial year 1973-74 and the calendar year 1974. But if we use the calendar year 1974 as a base, the actual amount spent was £2.4 million, which was .082 per cent of GNP. In the current year—the year in respect of which all these cutbacks are referred to—the amount we will have spent, as far as I can estimate it at present, and there are two months to go, will be approximately £3.8 million or .107 per cent of GNP. Therefore in the current year we will have increased the share of GNP by almost a third, thereby going far beyond the commitment entered into to increase the figure both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GNP. We are not merely increasing it marginally as a percentage of GNP; we are increasing it by a very big proportion indeed.

The result is that after a period of less than three years in office—that is from 1972-73 to the calendar year 1975—the amount we are spending is five times what Fianna Fáil were spending and, as a share of GNP, is almost three times as large. That represents substantial progress. It is my intention and that of the Government that in the year ahead that progress will continue and that we will add substantially both to the amount of development aid and to the share of GNP devoted to it; that there will be an increase in the amount of the order of magnitude of that required by our more precise formulation, that is, aiming at an annual increase in ODA of the order of .05 per cent of GNP. Obviously at this stage it is premature to go into details, because the budget is not yet formulated. It is our intention to increase official development aid in 1976 by an amount approximately of that order of magnitude—the precise figures are not yet available—.05 per cent of GNP.

Any talk of our failing in commitments is completely false and it is important that that should be said because people of goodwill have been asserting the contrary. It is my intention to publish these figures in due course and to explain in detail how we see the future development of our official development assistance programme. This is something which is best done when we have the firm figures for 1976, something which can be done in a couple of months time. But I have said enough to make clear the extent of Government commitment and the extraordinary contrast between what we have been doing and what was the situation we inherited in 1973, three years after the UN target was set and when nothing whatever had been done about attainment.

Incidentally I should make the point that in each of these recent years—last year, this year and next year—we have not confined ourselves to the very substantial increases required of us by our obligations within the EEC. Another Government might have—and I am afraid a Fianna Fáil Government would have —simply rested on the laurels of what we were obliged to do through EEC membership——

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister is quite wrong in that.

Dr. FitzGerald

It rested quite happily on the laurels of the tiny amount we were obliged to subscribe to United Nations funds of various kinds that were obligatory. One could have continued with that policy of the Fianna Fáil Government, of merely providing what we were obliged to provide to, for example, the International Development Association and so on.

Mr. O'Kennedy

A Cheann Chomhairle, might I just say to the Minister, to clarify this point——

An Ceann Comhairle

It would not be in order, Deputy. The Deputy has already made his contribution and interruptions of this kind must be deemed to be disorderly.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I said in the course of my remarks today, and elsewhere, that I recognise that the contributions by previous Administrations, the Fianna Fáil Administration and others, were not adequate. I simply stated to the Minister that in fact the contributions being made by his Government were not measuring up to his commitments, and that on a basis on which both of us could agree——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not in order. If the Deputy has a legitimate query he may raise it at the end of the Minister's speech.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I said he——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to contain himself. If he has a relevant question——

Mr. O'Kennedy

I scarcely imagine I am being disorderly.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is disobeying the Chair. That must be deemed to be disorderly.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Then I am afraid the Chair's standards of what is disorderly are rather stringent——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Chair, Deputy.

Mr. O'Kennedy

And not in the interests of the debate we are having.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am seeking to assist the Deputy in respect of any legitimate questions he may have. In the meantime we cannot have interruptions of this kind.

Dr. FitzGerald

Let me recapitulate, as non-controversially as I can. The position we inherited from the previous Government, the amount provided for official development assistance was simply that amount which was obliged to be subscribed to United Nations funds of which we were Members. There was no additional element; no voluntary contribution beyond that; no bilateral element in the programme; no arrangements for voluntary service overseas. We have not merely found ourselves in the position, because of EEC membership, where we are obliged to increase the payment substantially through the EEC mechanism, and to some degree also through the United Nations, but have gone well beyond that and have introduced into our programme an additional, voluntary element of a substantial character. Even though our obligations alone would have involved a quadrupling of the ODA figure we inherited from the previous Government, we have not been content to quadruple it, as we have been obliged to do, but have gone beyond that to add a substantial, additional element. It is important that that point be made and be clear.

Having said that, let me now answer a point raised by Deputy Seán Moore. First of all he raised the question about the 0.6 per cent Irish contribution to the Lomé Convention development aid provisions. The figure of 0.6 per cent is small but, of course, is one arrived at by reference to our share of the Community's GNP. It represents exactly the proportionate share we should subscribe by virtue of the fact that we produce 0.6 per cent of the Community's GNP. Therefore our contribution to this fund is directly proportionate. There is no question of our not paying our full share.

Indeed it may be said that the negotiations within the Community on who was to pay so much of the fund were extremely difficult and thorny. It was perhaps the most difficult element of the whole of the negotiations. But I was facilitated in carrying out that task by virtue of the fact that, almost alone among the Governments of the nine, I was put in a position by my Government to offer to pay our full share and no argument about it. That gave me the moral position necessary to knock the heads of the other eight together and get them to agree to pay shares appropriate in varying degrees to their contribution to Community GNP.

Deputy Moore also asked what proportion of our GNP the commitment to the Lomé Convention would represent. I said to him it was a little difficult to calculate because this £11 million was spread over five years and would be paid over a longer period and some of the commitments involved would probably overlap into the next five-year period. However, roughly speaking, I think in the years immediately ahead, 1976 to 1979, it will probably be of the order of 0.04 per cent of our GNP, plus or minus a certain margin.

There was another query raised by Deputy Lalor who misunderstood a reference in my speech. I would like to clarify it because on rereading it I can see how he did genuinely misunderstand it. I said:

At this stage it is not expected that our annual subscriptions will follow a uniform pattern; they will be lower than average initially and rise to a peak in the later years of the convention.

It was not clear from that reference as put that this is a reflection of the way in which the total fund will be spent. There is no question of our share of the fund being lower in some years than in others. Our share is fixed at 0.6 per cent of whatever amount is required in each year, but the amounts required each year will rise over the first few years and reach a peak later on because of the way in which the Community will enter into commitments to spend this total amount. The House will appreciate that it takes some time to get the whole thing moving into gear so that the amounts actually being spent represent the full size of the Community commitment, because you may enter into a commitment in the first year but some of the money may not be called for until, perhaps, two years later. There is no question of our not paying our full share in each year. Deputy Lalor misunderstood me there, but I can see that the fault lay with me in the phrasing I used and that the misunderstanding was genuine on his part. We will pay our full share of whatever amount is called up each year by the Community.

I should like now to deal with the other points raised by Deputy O'Kennedy. He expressed his happiness at the emergence of DEVCO, the initiative taken by the State enterprises in the development aid sphere. I regard this as one of the most encouraging aspects of this whole area of development aid in Ireland, because in this instance it was the State agencies themselves who initiated this idea, who developed this commitment to contribute something of what they have been learning in the process of developing our economy to the economies of the developing countries and who came up with the idea of making this contribution and of co-ordinating their own activities in this area so as to make the contribution effective. They are to be congratulated on this initiative which goes beyond what one could reasonably require of busy executives of State enterprises who have responsibilities in this country to carry out. The fact that they are willing and able to look beyond this country and to see their commitments in a wider framework is encouraging, and the initiative they have taken is one about which the Government are very happy indeed.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of whether we have a development desk in each Department. No. The major State agencies who are actively involved in this will certainly have a development desk in the sense of at least one person who will be responsible for this kind of work and for organising their involvement in it. Our Department have, of course, a development desk in the sense of a section of the Department dealing with the assistance and dealing particularly with the expanding bilateral aid component of our programme. This would not be true of other Departments of State, and the involvement of many Departments in development aid would be so sporadic in many cases that it would not warrant one officer being set aside for this purpose. A situation could arise in the Department of Transport and Power where the activities of the ESB in the development aid sector would involve the Department in making ad hoc arrangements on a particular occasion, but it is only as and when particular issues arise that this would happen. Therefore, outside my own Department, I do not think at this stage the scale of what is being undertaken would warrant people being set aside in each Department for this purpose, although I am sure that in the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance there must be provision of this kind because they have an important role in development aid, but outside those Departments I would not have thought that at this stage there was a need for a person or persons to be operating continuously on this problem.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister has mentioned the fairly obvious Departments, Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance and possibly Industry and Commerce, but he is not quite sure that a desk does exist even in the two Departments to which he has referred.

Dr. FitzGerald

I shall mention to my colleagues the point the Deputy raises but, having regard to the amount to be done in these Departments, I am not sure that it warrants having a regular arrangement of that kind. What is mainly involved in the case of Finance, for example, is a decision as to how much money has to be allocated each year, say, to the International Development Association. I could not say offhand whether there is a need to have a person or persons continuously engaged in that work, but I shall mention the point raised by Deputy O'Kennedy to my colleagues.

Deputy O'Kennedy seemed to be scandalised by the fact that in a particular instance the Community made the aid it was giving to the developing countries conditional on others contributing too. The case he is referring to is, I think, the UN Emergency Fund of 3,000 million dollars which was proposed and put into effect last year to help the poorest countries who were suffering as a result of the sharp increase in the price of oil. What happened here was that the Community took up the initiative that had been originated elsewhere and sought to give it impetus by saying: "Yes, we are willing to pay our share, but our willingness is related to other people's willingness, and we expect other people to pay their share too."

This was a successful way of twisting the arm of other countries, and it produced the desired result. The Deputy suggests the Community should have said: "We think this is very important. If other countries do not pay their share, we will pay it for them."

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is not quite what I said.

Dr. FitzGerald

That seemed to be the suggestion. I think the Community acted rightly in trying to get other countries to take responsibility, and the fund was fully subscribed.

Within the Community itself we were unhappy about what happened because, instead of the Community subscribing from Community funds the whole 500 million dollars, it subscribed only 300 million dollars, because several countries said they were making bilateral contributions of their own which would count towards this emergency fund. As a result of those unilateral decisions of member countries to subscribe directly, the Community contribution was, therefore, only 300 million dollars and that left countries like ourselves having to make separate bilateral contributions to make up our share. This we did, but it was not to the advantage of the developing countries because, owing to the complex method of calculation of contributions—I hope the Deputy will not ask me to explain this because I could not offhand without careful briefing—although we subscribed the full amount in Irish pounds that we would have been committed to had the Community honoured as a Community the whole of its commitment, these Irish pounds did not buy as many dollars when we subscribed them directly at that stage as they would have done had they been channelled through the Community at the right time. Therefore, although we honoured our commitment in full in terms of the amount we were required to provide, it did not produce as good a result as if it had gone through the community, and this is true of other countries' contributions as well.

It is most unfortunate that several countries insisted on doing their own thing on this occasion for their own reasons, which may not have been solely concerned with the interests of the developing countries. We, in any event, paid the full amount we would have had to pay if this had gone according to plan. I would like to say, on this occasion as on so many others, the Minister for Finance has shown understanding and sympathy with problems of this kind. It might have been easy for him to have said: "The money is not being called up by the Community. What do you want to pay it for?" In this, as in many other instances, he has been very willing to honour our moral commitments as well as our legal commitments.

The Deputy also raised the question of recent threatened cuts by the Germans in the budget and German opposition to some aspect of development aid. The aspect in question is development aid for non-associates and food aid. The German proposals in respect of this were resisted by us. The position is that in advance of the Development Council of the 13th October the Federal German Republic advised the other eight member States that they considered that more time was required to allow member States to assess the overall level of their commitments arising from the seventh special session of the United Nations, the commitments due to arise in the context of the forthcoming conference on international economic development. This resulted in the Council being unable to take positive action on aid to non-associates and on the increase in food aid. We strongly supported both of these and, in addition, advocated Community contribution to the international fund for agricultural development.

The motivation of the German objection to this is not perhaps entirely clear. It has been suggested in newspapers that it is in some way linked to the question of British attitudes to participation in this conference. I have no reason to believe that this is true and I have no knowledge of whether or not this is true. I hope the German resistance to the provision of aid under these headings will be withdrawn and that we can in the Community expand food aid and extend our aid provision to non-associates. This is a matter which the British, the Netherlands and Irish Governments have been pressing quite strongly. I hope we will be successful in securing agreement on it.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised a point— when I look at the text I can see why he raised it—about the wording of article 2. He referred to page 10 of the explanatory memorandum of the Community. I should explain that this is an explanatory memorandum of the European Commission. It is not ours and this might perhaps help to explain the fact that the language is less than clear. It took me quite a long time, after the Deputy raised the point, to understand what the language is meant to convey. I will read out the second paragraph on page 10 as I think it ought to have been written and the Deputy may understand it a little more readily than in the form in which it is printed at present:

An exception to this limitation was, however, agreed for products originating in the ACP states, since the retention by Community member states amongst themselves, as a transitional measure, of certain residual customs duties and charges having equivalent effect between the original member states and the new member states does not apply to the products concerned when they come from the ACP states.

You have to spell out parts of it to make any sense and even at that it is still not very easy to understand. I hope I have helped to clarify that point. I had not noticed how unclear this particular explanation was in the Commission's document. It certainly needed to be clarified.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of the possible role of voluntary organisations in relation to the Lomé Convention. The position is that the European Commission are endeavouring to take action on this to help to ensure that voluntary organisations can play a part. There is a proposal on this which I hope will come into effect. While not specifically provided for under the Lomé Convention the Commission have commenced a series of discussions with non-governmental organisations in the member states with a view to assessing the extent to which these voluntary non-governmental organisations can participate in joint aid projects, that is aid projects financed up to 50 per cent from Community funds. This proposal was on the agenda for the Development Council of the 13th October but was not considered in substance. Earlier on the Budget Council had not accepted the token provision of five million units of account which the commission proposed for this purpose. The Commission are continuing to pursue the idea and we have already indicated general support for it.

The Deputy was quite right in raising this question. It is an issue which needs to be followed up. I might perhaps take the opportunity of this reference to voluntary organisations to say how much we value, and depend on, the work of voluntary organisations in the whole field of development assistance. I am consulting with these bodies. I have already had preliminary discussions with APSO as to how we can set up structures in this country that will bring the voluntary organisations into the whole area of policy formulation for development aid. The Parliamentary Secretary is particularly concerned with this area. I hope to be able in a few months time to come to a conclusion and to announce proposals for this purpose. It is clear that development aid, while it is an area which must be under Government control and where Government policy has an important part to play is also an area in which the voluntary organisations have a very important role. We must try to ensure that in this area the voluntary organisations, the Government and State enterprises all work harmoniously together with a minimum of structures of bureaucracy and the maximum effectiveness. I want to ensure that whatever structures we establish are ones that are the result of close consultation with the interests concerned and that we have worked them out in common. I hope to have the opportunity to spend a little time with a number of interested parties in discussion of this during the next month or two before coming up with proposals as to how this should best be done.

Deputy O'Kennedy asked why the 10 per cent preference element was not extended to all contracts but only to the smaller ones. This is something which some of our partners in the Community had a view on. They were not prepared to give this preference to the larger contracts. It is fair to say that for many of the larger contracts the ACP countries would not have people to undertake them so it is probably not as serious a disadvantage as it seems. There was not willingness to extend this to all contracts and in these matters we have to accept the certain consensus which emerges. We would have had no difficulty about it but some of our partners have important interests here which they were concerned about.

The Deputy raised the question of multinationals and their possible role in these matters. There is no distinction made between multinationals and others. Contracts are open to all natural and legal persons of both the member states and the ACP states. They are awarded on a merit basis of open competition, having been advertised in the Journal Officiel. As there is no explicit restriction on subsidiaries of multinationals based in the EEC or ACP states tendering for such contracts consultancy contracts, which have tended to constitute between 10 and 15 per cent of European Development Fund contracts hitherto, are awarded from a short list of candidates registered with the Commission on the basis set out in a note which I have here. I do not want to waste too much time going into detail. In this area also there are no explicit restrictions on subsidiaries of multinationals. Such distinction would be discriminatory and perhaps not possible within the Community. In any event it is not done.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not engaging in the usually popular game of knocking multi-nationals; I am simply saying that because what he states now is the position that it puts them in a "more equal" position than those who would be contracting or tendering for contracts from the ACP states.

Dr. FitzGerald

Why "more equal"?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Because of the resources they have and their experience, obviously they would be in a better position to win contracts than those from these states who will be applying for the same contracts.

Dr. FitzGerald

This is equally true of large Community companies. Within the Community it is not possible to distinguish a native, Community company and the subsidiary of a multi-national which might be of American origin, for example. Such a distinction is not made and it would be difficult to make it. It would introduce a whole new element into the legal system of the Community. Certainly it is impossible to do it just for this purpose.

The Deputy asked whether there is a permanent representative of the Community in each state. The position is that the Commission will be represented in each ACP state or in each regional grouping which expressly so requests. They will be represented by a European Commission delegate approved by the ACP states themselves under article 31 (1) of protocol No. 2 of the convention.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It depends on whether a request is made by an individual state?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. O'Kennedy

And if they do so the Commission can be represented?

Dr. FitzGerald

Will be represented, yes. Deputy Kavanagh raised the parliamentary question, the question relating to the consultative assembly. This is a very tricky one and I do not want to get involved. It really should be settled by the parliamentarians themselves. The problem is, as he says, that you have 46 ACP countries and if they are all to have at least one person, that is 46. If you are to have equal representation from the Community you are already committed to one-quarter of the European Parliament being involved and if they are to have two each, it is half the European Parliament. There is an inherent arithmetical problem here and I do not know the best solution. I take his point also about the fact that some of these parliamentary representatives have never been elected. Many of them have never been elected.

But that is an old problem which we will not solve very quickly because many of these countries do not have parliamentary systems similar to ours. Yet there is a desire to have some kind of parliamentary relationship between the European Parliament and such parliaments as exist in these countries. If you begin making distinctions as to which parliament is properly elected and which is not you would be running into great difficulties. This is a problem because of the non-representative character of a number of parliaments concerned and because of the disparity in numbers. I cannot help Deputy Kavanagh here. This is something that must be tackled by the parliamentarians and I think we would go along with whatever solution they find.

Deputy Moore suggested that we should put the emphasis on our own development and bilateral aid programme for these countries and perhaps more widely on educational aspects. It is interesting that the bilateral projects which we have financed— I think already £200,000 has been committed for this purpose—are largely educational in character. Perhaps I should mention them as I do not think the details have so far been published. First, there are IPA training courses, training courses by the Institute of Public Administration— for example, in hospital administration for Zambian officials. Secondly, there are projects which involve UCD and Córas Tráchtála in conjunction with the International Trade Centre in Geneva, the United Nations GATT body. These involve assisting in preparing people for the work of export promotion. It has an educational element in that it is training and UCD is involved. Thirdly, there is the development centre at Shannon where we are assisting SFADCo to establish this centre for the purposes of providing training facilities for participants from developing countries. Fourthly, there is provision of aid to Lesotho, a country for which we feel a particular concern because it is completely surrounded by South Africa and has particular problems arising from that. We are looking into the question there of helping them with a teaching centre and with scholarships. Again, this is in the educational area. Finally, there is provision also to assist Irish management training courses in Kenya and Tanzania. So that Deputy Moore hit the bulls-eye in that in fact the emphasis of our bilateral policy as it has emerged in response to interest shown by bodies here and the demands from some of the countries we are in touch with is on education and training. I think that is right and that we have much to offer in that respect.

Deputy Lalor said that I departed from my script in referring to the need for legislation and I must apologise to the House. I was unaware that I was doing so because the script in front of me contains a reference to this and it was only when he drew attention to it that I realised that it was not in the copy given to him. This was because we were getting advice on this point as to whether legislation would be required and unfortunately in the version circulated to Deputies this reference was not included. It seems that legislation will be required certainly in respect of the immunities and privileges attaching to the Lomé Convention but this is a matter which is under consideration by the Attorney General and exact details of what will be needed are not yet completely clear. The House should take it that some legislation will be needed, but the exact nature and extent of it is something I could not go into at this stage.

Deputy Lalor spoke of the possible need for safeguards in regard to trade from developing countries. He also raised the question as to whether the assistance we are giving through the Lomé Convention to countries to develop their trade and establish industries might not cut across our own industrial promotion efforts. We must be clear about this: there is a potential clash here. It is a clash that I think in practice will be minimised, but there is a clash of interest because what these countries need above all is the opportunity to develop industries of the kind they can cope with and a level of technology they can cope with and access for the products of the industries to markets in the industrialised world including EEC. If we give them no assistance with this we would in fact inhibit their development very much. The transfer of technology to these developing countries must be a very major element in their future development. However, the kind of industries they will tend to develop at this stage in their economic progress will be those with a relatively low level of technology whereas the industries we are promoting here through the IDA are, on the contrary, industries with a very high level of technology.

But it is important that we should recognise that some of the kind of industries we have traditionally had here are really low technology industries more appropriate to countries at an early stage of development. A large part of the work carried out in the 1960s by, for example, the Committee on Industrial Organisation was designed to get this message across to Irish industry: that Irish industry should not continue to invest in types of industry and technology which would be vulnerable to this kind of competition from other countries whose labour costs would be lower and which would be quite capable of undertaking the kind of industrial production involved. It is important for us to shift the level of our technology upwards so that we would move out of the area which would be vulnerable to this kind of competition.

There is a problem here and Deputy Lalor was quite right to raise it. It is one we must face. There is an inherent clash of interests between some of our least technological industries and some of the industries in the developing countries which we must help to get off the ground if these countries are to have a chance of achieving any kind of viability.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Does it not depend on direct application?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, it does. However, I am saying to the House that we should not pretend to ourselves that there is not a problem here; there is a problem and we ought to be honest with ourselves about it. Of course, there is safeguard provision in Article 10 but in the long term we have to face the fact that these countries are going to develop with the kind of industries we used to have 30, 40 or 50 years ago. If we continue to rely on these industries and do not develop higher technology industries as we are doing successfully with the assistance of the IDA, we will be in trouble and we have to face this. There is a natural division of activity here between countries at different stages of development. We belong to the industrialised world and we will have to gear ourselves up to that or we will be vulnerable in this respect.

Deputy Lalor raised the question of whether the list of 24 worst off countries in Article 48 is a fair list if, as he said, Nigeria is not on the list while that country's per capita income is only 100 dollars. I have not been able to check this in the time available to me. Deputy Lalor was working from the explanatory memorandum and on the figures he has produced his point is well taken but my own recollection is that Nigeria is at a significantly more advanced stage of development with a significantly higher GNP per head. I can only say that the figures do not look right to me. Nigeria, with its oil resources, is a relatively wealthy country by African standards. I cannot offhand explain or say what the answer is to Deputy Lalor's point but there may be some error in the figures.

I have dealt with the points raised in the debate and I trust I have answered them adequately. If there are any other points Deputy O'Kennedy should like to raise I will be happy to give him a quick reply.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Perhaps it is well that I have not received the copy of the Official Report when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was deputising for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs acknowledged 12 months ago that the level of direct contribution was less than the target the Government set themselves. That Minister acknowledged that and the figures are there to prove it. I do not want to go on in this vein because of the clear and absolute statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we had not fallen short. I do not want to set any division between himself and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is confusing two things. I have pointed out that there are two Government commitments.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Yes, one is taking one year with another and the other is a saving clause as the Minister must know. If in one year we fall below our stated commitment, we have to have a much more significant increase to get back on the path we set ourselves.

Dr. FitzGerald

I said that we would aim at an annual increase in ODA of the order of 0.05 per cent of GNP, taking one year with another over the next five years. It is perfectly clear what that means. It does not mean that in every year we will be exactly on that figure; it means that we are committed to moving along that course and to arriving at that result. In 1975 we have gone far beyond the absolute commitment we entered into to increase both in absolute terms as a percentage of GNP the amount devoted to Official Development Assistance. We have increased it by almost one-third. In 1975 the amount is not dead on the line of 0.05 per cent and I have made that clear. Taking one year with another, there is no commitment to do it in each year. If the Deputy found us year after year falling further behind, he would be perfectly entitled to raise doubt as to whether we were serious about our commitment but that is not the case. It is our intention to increase the amount of ODA in 1976 by an amount which would be of the order of 0.05 per cent of GNP and there will be no question of falling further behind.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We await next year's budget, if the Government introduce it, to see if we have two years to judge by whether, taking one year with the other, the Government are remaining on target. We will be able to weigh the matter up then.

Question put and agreed to.