Food Aid Convention, 1971: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Andrews)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the Protocol for the Fifth Extension of the Food Aid Convention 1971 which has been laid before the Dáil.

The Food Aid Convention 1971, which is part of the International Wheat Agreement, was originally established for a period of three years which expired on 30 June 1974. Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, Ireland was obliged to accede to the Food Aid Convention because the original member states and the European Economic Community as such were parties to it. We did so in June 1973. In June 1974, June 1975, and June 1976, with the approval of Dáil Éireann, we deposited declarations of provisional application of protocols for extensions of the convention. In 1976 the extension was for a two-year period. In 1978, again with Dáil approval, we deposited a declaration of provisional application of a protocol for a further extension of the convention until 30 June 1979. The proposed extension this year is for a two-year period until 30 June 1981.

Negotiations on the establishment of a new International Wheat Agreement and Food Aid Convention have continued under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The most recent conference on the subject was held in Geneva from 22 January to 14 February 1979. As no agreement seemed possible the conference was adjourned and it was decided to extend the existing Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention for a further two years, until 30 June 1981, to allow for sufficient time for negotiations on a new International Wheat Trade Agreement to take place.

On 19 March 1979 the Council of Ministers of the European Community decided that the Community and its member states should participate in this two-year extension. Arrangements are at present being made by the individual states to ratify, accede or provisionally apply the Food Aid Convention. This will be followed later by the depositing in the case of Ireland of a formal instrument of accession.

The objective of the Food Aid Convention is to carry out a food aid programme in cereals, mainly wheat, for the benefit of developing countries. The countries party to the convention, apart from the Community, are Argentina, Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. Under the convention and its protocols, the Community has undertaken to supply 1,287,000 tonnes of cereals as its minimum annual contribution in the form of wheat, coarse grains or derivative products suitable for human consumption. This contribution is discharged partly by the Community from its own resources and partly by the member states in accordance with a fixed scale. For 1979-80 Ireland's percentage share is 0.54 per cent of that part discharged by the member states, which amounts to 3,100 tonnes.

Ireland's national contribution under the Food Aid Convention is channelled through the World Food Programme and, in the current year, the Government have again allocated a sum of £500,000 in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture for the discharge of this obligation.

In a world where so many people are hungry and where so many can never hope to secure for themselves an acceptable standard of living, the provision of a food aid programme in cereals can be of significant benefit. The problem of food production in countries where food shortages exist are unfortunately all too familiar to us. The combination of inefficient production methods, poor soil quality coupled perhaps with adverse climatic conditions and natural disasters create a vicious circle from which escape seems impossible. Every effort must be made to encourage more efficient agriculture production in the developing countries. The developed countries recognise that, in addition to actual food aid assistance, advice on animal husbandry, crop selection and cultivation, soil protection and improvement must also be offered if the developing countries are to become self-sufficient in food. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, to which Ireland has pledged a sum of £570,000, is now operational and will be of immense benefit in dealing with the problems encountered by the Third World.

Mr. O'Keeffe

In view of our experiences of famine and want we have every reason to give a lead in food development aid. Admittedly our resources are somewhat limited. At the same time it is important to put the provision into perspective.

Throughout the world today 25,000 persons will die from water-borne diseases alone. That number is so huge and the problem is so tremendous that in many ways the enormity of the situation passes over our heads. The matter could be put into context by relating it to the equivalent of the population of Tralee being wiped out today from water-borne diseases. When we compare the figure of 25,000 deaths today with the expenditure of $400,000 million for military purposes we get an idea of the priorities of mankind in today's world.

It goes without saying that the Minister has our support for the motion to extend the Food Aid Convention. The objective of the convention is to carry out a food aid programme with the help of contributions for the benefit of developing countries. Under the convention certain countries have agreed to contribute as food aid wheat and grain suitable for human consumption or the cash equivalent, according to agreed quotas. Presumably our contribution is by way of cash.

Apart from the increase in the EEC contribution, presumably as a result of the extension from six to nine, there has been no increase in the figures since the original convention in 1971. The EEC contribution is currently fixed at 1,287,000 metric tonnes. Looking at the figure in the original convention and the figure in the current extension, there has been no increase in regard to any of the countries other than the increase on the accession of the other three countries in 1973.

I understand that in 1976 the European Parliament suggested a minimum annual target for the EEC of 1.650 million tonnes. I gather that this figure was to be achieved over a three-year period. The figure of 1,287,000 tonnes under the fifth extension is the same figure as under the fourth extension. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why this figure has not been achieved.

One is also entitled to question the non-participation of the USSR and other eastern bloc countries in the Food Aid Convention. The convention is confined to Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EEC, Finland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. I wonder why other countries, many of them powerful, who preach the brotherhood of man are not contributing to the convention. I notice that our efforts are small. I would ask the Minister to be more specific in regard to the amount. As I understand it, it is fixed at .54 per cent of the entire EEC contribution. In his speech the Minister said that our contribution is channelled through the World Food Programme and that the Government have allocated a sum of £500,000 in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture for the discharge of this obligation.

Is that the total amount, because my understanding of the arrangements made under the Food Aid Convention was that portion of the commitment was paid directly from central funds here but that there was some portion channelled through the EEC budget? Therefore it is approximately half and half. If that is the case we would make an indirect contribution through the EEC budget. I am interested mainly in knowing whether the amount which we are paying, directly or indirectly through the Food Aid Convention, is £500,000 or £1 million. Be that as it may, and small as it may be, it entitles us to put pressure, moral and otherwise, on other stronger countries to join in the effort. The Minister mentioned that there was a conference held under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which was, I believe, reconvened in September 1978, and which met again in January and February of this year for the purpose of establishing a new Food Aid Convention.

We are now merely debating an extension of the 1971 Convention. I would ask the Minister to indicate what progress has been made from the point of view of arrangements for a new Food Aid Convention. Is the idea that such a convention would be broader in its ambit and more effective in its attempt to tackle the basic needs of the starving millions of the world? I should be interested to know whether there are any other countries that would be willing to join in such new Food Aid Convention. That is relevant because this is the fifth extension of the 1971 Convention.

Mr. Andrews

I agree it is very relevant.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Therefore I would be very interested to know what the Minister has to say in regard to the new convention.

The other major aspect which needs to be referred to is the establishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development to which the Minister referred in his statement. Obviously while we must help in feeding the hungry substantial priority must be given to increased and more efficient agricultural production in the developing countries, the fund to which we have committed a contribution of £570,000 over a three-year period and which is now operational. I am strongly in favour of the provision of technological advice and specific assistance in helping the under-developed countries to develop their capacity to feed themselves. If I might be permitted to paraphrase a quotation, I recall hearing one time that you give a family a fish and you feed them for a day; show them how to fish and you take them off the breadline. Perhaps the Minister could outline what progress has been made by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, giving an idea of its range and scope, the number of countries contributing and what impact he expects it to make on this aspect of the problem. Historically and otherwise we should be giving a lead in so far as we can, bearing in mind our resources and problems, bearing in mind also our standard of living relative to the enormous and indeed desperate problems in many parts of the world. Generally, therefore, there is every reason for us to participate in the food aid programme and, accordingly, I totally support the motion approving a further extension.

Mr. Kavanagh

I join the previous speaker in welcoming this motion approving the protocol for the fifth extension of the Food Aid Convention. Indeed I think all sides of the House welcome it. If we have some critical comments to make that is simply because the aid is insufficient to solve the great problem obtaining in the poorer regions of the world.

I should like to deal with this convention particularly as it pertains to Ireland as a Member of the EEC, which Community makes its arrangements with the convention in respect of all nine member countries. In that respect I welcome the proposals the Commission have put forward for the three common food aid programmes dealing with cereals, skimmed milk and butter oil. However, before dealing with those commodities, I should like to express my regret and that of my party at the fact that the Food Aid Convention, held in Geneva between 22 January and 14 February of this year, has collapsed. I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he becomes Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the EEC in a few days time, will make every effort in that very important capacity to ensure that this Convention is revived as soon as possible, thereby enabling the work to be done through this organisation to be carried out as quickly as possible. Because of the worldwide increase in demand for the products I have mentioned, the appropriations for their 720,000 tonnes of cereals some months ago, was totally inadequate. When the Minister mentions a figure considerably in excess of that in his brief, I assume that takes into account contributions from countries outside the EEC. I would hope that the figure he gives is a revised one and is considerably higher than that available to us in the European Parliament a few months ago because in his introductory remarks the Minister said:

Under the Convention and its Protocols, the Community has undertaken to supply 1,287,000 tonnes of cereals as its minimum annual contribution....

which is considerably in excess of the figure which was available to us only a few months ago. I would gladly welcome such increase, if that is what has happened, because it was the intention of some of us to ensure that a supplementary budget would be introduced to increase that amount radically, since it was totally inadequate for the reasons I have mentioned.

In the area of the provision of skimmed milk powder the figure of 150,000 tonnes obtaining a couple of months ago—that being the supply by the Community—would be totally inadequate for present needs and, within the ambit of the budget, should be increased by at least one-third to make an even small impact on the needs in that area. Of course, skimmed milk powder has a very high nutritive value which is needed in developing countries. Therefore if the amount of this product was increased it would be all the more welcome. Indeed, because of the over-supply of milk products within the Community, there should not be any great problem in supplying the extra amount needed. Certainly where quantity is concerned, we are all aware that this product is available in warehouses throughout the Community.

When talking about surpluses in the Community it has often been mentioned that we should reduce these surpluses by distributing them to the developing countries and to the Third World. Where supply is not a problem this type of thing should be considerably extended.

The proposals in relation to butter oil, 45,000 tonnes, is lower than it should be when we take into account the obvious need. The budgetary contribution should be increased so that this figure can be increased by as much as 25 per cent. The House will agree with the criteria drawn up by the commission for the distribution of this aid, in that 90 per cent of aid should be directed towards the poorest countries. The criteria should be more flexible in other respects because we know that demand far exceeds supply. During the next six months, I hope the Minister will try to influence policy so that the criteria will be made more flexible in the future.

In relation to the existing distribution structures, we are all aware of rumours that the food aid being supplied by the Community and convention countries, does not always reach the people it is intended for. Although the aid may go to the country in question, it sometimes fails to reach the needy sections of the population. Before a country gets food aid, prior guarantees should be given, that it will go to the people for whom it is intended. The international organisations who generally distribute this aid should have satisfactory control over the use of Community food aid and the Community authorities should be allowed to make a comprehensive check on the implementation of agreements.

Food aid should be determined without reference to Community agricultural policy. We should not just supply a commodity because we have a surplus. We should not base our food aid donation on such criteria. We should be prepared to supply a commodity whether we have a surplus or not. Certain conditions are being brought about to reduce surpluses within the Community and this should not mean that the under-developed countries are the first to suffer. Our policy should be generous and not based on ridding ourselves of surpluses.

As Deputy O'Keeffe said, food aid is really only a transitional solution to the problem of the needy. We must also contribute to the agricultural development of the recipient countries. It should be our long-term aim to develop these countries so that they can supply their own needs. In this context I would draw the attention of the Minister to the World Conference on Agrarian Reform in Rural Areas, convened by the FOA for July 1979 which calls upon the institutions of the Community to draw up proposals for the development of agriculture in the Community countries. I hope the Minister will be actively involved here to raise the level of production of agricultural products in countries which at present receive food aid. I also wish the Minister to pay particular attention to the small farming units in these countries. I will welcome the proposal before us as do the rest of my party.

Mr. Bruton

In welcoming this proposal I endorse what has already been said. I have some reservations about the concept of food aid. It is good that food should be given to help people faced with hunger to survive. If that were the sole motivation of donations of food, one could not but applaud it. However, problems arise is relation to food aid. The diet of a people is not easily changed. It is hard to get people in underdeveloped countries used to consuming their own produce, to change their diet, to incorporate some of our grains, and it is equally difficult to get them to change again if their own produce becomes available in sufficient quantities. Food aid could make some of the people in the Third World dependent on a permanent basis on the type of food that can only be produced in the western world. Food aid could become a form of colonialism in effect, because it makes people in Third World countries dependent on us, to a greater extent than they were prior to the introduction of food aid. An example of this is to be found in the case of food aid given by the US in the form of soya beans. In some underdeveloped countries they were used for animal feed, and when the price of soya beans went up six fold and were not made available in the form of aid, these countries, because their economies had been geared to using them for animal feed, had no option but to continue buying soya beans at the increased price. This is the great danger than can arise from food aid.

We must not delude ourselves that food cannot be used as a means of achieving a political objective. In 1964, Senator McGovern whom nobody will accuse of being an imperialist in American terms, because he is perhaps one of the most liberal and enlightened members of the US Senate, said that the great food markets of the future were the very areas where vast numbers of people were learning through the Food for Peace Programme to eat American produce, that the people they assisted today would become their customers tomorrow and that an enormous demand for American produce of all kinds would come into being if India could achieve even half the productivity of Canada, a very good US customer.

On the same occasion, Senator Humphrey, another noted liberal in the US, said:

I have heard that people may become dependent on us for food. I know this is not supposed to be good news. To me, that was good news because before people can do anything they have got to eat, and if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you in terms of their co-operation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific.

That bears out what I have been saying, that food is seen by certain people as a means towards securing dependence by the recipients.

Here I should like to echo strongly what our spokesman on Foreign Affairs has said, that the priority is not food aid, though I am not against food aid, but to enable peoples in the Third World to produce their own food with the type of technology suited to their economies. It is no use selling to people in Bangladesh the type of technology appropriate to producing wheat on the Canadian plains, because on the Canadian plains in the production of wheat there might be full-time employment for one farmer on every 700 or 800 acres. A technology introduced in the Third World that gave employment to only one farmer on every 700 or 800 acres, no matter how efficient it was in the physical production of food, would have serious disruptive effects on the economies of such countries.

To a certain extent that is what has been happening as a result of the introduction of what has been described as the green revolution in Third World countries; by virtue of introducing new varieties of wheat certain things have happened. First, Third World countries have come to depend more on expensive means of farming which would employ fewer people, and also they have become more dependent on imports of fertilisers. The essential ingredient in the green revolution is the production of new varieties of wheat which respond to fertilisers. If you gear an agricultural economy entirely to the production of perhaps not enough food but a certain amount to indigenous sources and you replace that with a different variety of grain which is not dependent on indigenous fertilisers but on imported fertilisers, although there may be short-term gains in the physical production of food, you are weakening the economic position of Third World countries.

To a certain extent that is what is happening, and I suggest that the Third World will probably suffer more than any other part of the world from the present energy crisis which will push up the cost of fertilisers. For instance, nitrogen, the important fertiliser as far as growth is concerned, is oil-based because one of the major sources of nitrogen is urea, a direct by-product of oil-production. If you introduce new technology into the Third World which makes those countries more reliant than previously on imported nitrogen, you are making them far more sensitive than heretofore to the hike in oil prices which is happening at the present time. This weakens rather than strengthens their position.

Therefore, we must be careful that any aid given in the future will be of a nature that will encourage more independence on the part of those countries rather than more dependence. I cannot see any safeguards in the text of the convention we are now discussing against this kind of thing happening. I cannot see anything in the convention which provides that aid shall not be given which would have the effect of creating undue dependence on Western products. I suggest there should be something written in to ensure this will not happen.

It is equally important that the giving of food aid will not disrupt the supply of other indigenous commodities in Third World countries. For instance, if in a given year a Third World country produced not quite enough food from its own indigenous sources, say it produced 95 per cent of its own needs, and the price was high, and then it received food aid equivalent to 10 per cent of its needs at a much lower price, the effect would be to knock the bottom out of that country's domestic agriculture which would be undercut by cheaper imported food, thus destroying the profits of the country's own farmers. That would be a very serious situation, if it were to arise. I do not think it is likely to arise because I cannot see those on the food aid committee allowing it to arise. I suggest there should be something written into the convention to prevent it arising.

The big need in the Third World as far as food production is concerned—I hope the Minister will give attention to this—is the development of technology in food production which will be appropriate to the economies of the Third World. The type of technology being developed in our countries is suitable to our economies but it is not appropriate to the Third World without severe disruption of their economy. They do not have enough resources to develop their own technologies; they do not have resources to invest in large agricultural institutes and so forth. Therefore, it is not a matter of transferring our technologies but of giving them the means to develop their own technologies. It will probably be small-scale technology which will enable them to do things for themselves, using existing domestic resources rather than imported ones. That is the type of plan for the Third World that should be developed with the help of money from countries like Ireland.

I should like to see us de-emphasising food aid over a period and emphasising to a greater extent the type of technology which will enable these people to produce their own food from their own resources. The decisions to be taken about the type of research to be employed, the type of institutes to be set up, will have crucial effects in the long run and I hope the Minister will give it his attention.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Andrews)

I thank Deputies who have contributed and I should like to congratulate Deputy O'Keeffe on his appointment as spokesman on Foreign Affairs. I wish him well with his new brief. I agree with his opening remarks about the idea of 25,000 people per day dying on this globe of ours—I do not know where he got the figures but I am sure they are ascertainable—while on the other hand we can spend somewhere in the region of $400,000 million per annum on armaments. We appear to have our priorities all wrong in that regard. It makes me look askance at the recent agreement of SALT II between the Russians and the Americans. They all talk about limitations as if it was a victory for sanity and peace. I can only look on that type of agreement with a certain amount of limited pleasure. I do not know what it achieves. If people like President Carter and the Russian leader Brezhnev would sit down and talk about what we are talking about today they would be doing a far better job for humanity. However, as Deputy O'Keeffe has said, the figures are there, and in the context of armaments and the daily deaths of people in the various countries of the world, the world leaders seem to have their priorities all wrong.

This is where Ireland has a very important role to play. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, while he would not express himself as crudely as possibly I have done, nevertheless has stated that Ireland has a very important moral role to play in world affairs in bringing to the attention of the nations of the world the priorities needed for those people who are less well off and those who are dying daily. We must bring to world attention the need to alleviate the stress and poverty which afflict those nations on a daily basis. Ireland will have an influential part to play when the Minister for Foreign Affairs takes on the Presidency of the Common Market within the next few days.

Ireland's contribution is in the form of cash to the world food programme. No increase is provided for during the course of the existing convention, as Deputy O'Keeffe rightly pointed out. However, in the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention the Community have indicated their readiness to increase the figure. Therefore, there is a will there to increase the figure and to bring about a situation which the Government, Deputy O'Keeffe and Deputy Kavanagh have expressed a wish for. There is no lack of will on the part of the Government as far as increasing the figures is concerned. Both Deputies are pushing an open door in that regard.

To come back to my original proposition, Deputy O'Keeffe has made the point, that the larger nations of the world have a very serious obligation which, in my opinion, is over and above those of the smaller nations. The smaller nations, where we do not see the larger nations discharging their responsibilities to mankind elsewhere or where we consider that they are not doing so, have a moral obligation on the world fora to point out their deficiencies in that regard. In saying this I am speaking personally; let me not put the Government in an embarrassing situation. Deputy O'Keeffe asked whether the USSR could become party to the convention. The simple answer is that they can. The follow-up to that question is that they have not become a party to the Food Aid Convention. Again, this is not good enough. Of course they should be members of the Food Aid Convention. Of course they have obligations to the rest of mankind, and of course they are not discharging their obligations in that regard. However, they are not the only ones who take a rather unusual view of their role in regard to the matters we have been discussing. Again, these are my personal views.

The new Food Aid Convention and the International Fund for Agricultural Development are being processed at the moment. As Deputy O'Keeffe has pointed out, Ireland contributes to the Food Aid Convention through both the Community budget and a direct contribution of 3,100 tonnes. Therefore, as the Deputy says, the total of Ireland's contribution is somewhere in the region of £1 million per annum. He has asked what the prospects are for the completion of the Food Aid Convention. Negotiations on the International Wheat Agreement were suspended in February last and the present conventions with regard to food aid and the wheat trade have been extended for two years to allow adequate time to negotiate a new agreement. Prospects for a new agreement are difficult to predict. Ireland and other EEC countries are pressing for an early agreement. Here again Ireland has a very important role to play. I assure the House and Deputy O'Keeffe who raised this matter that Ireland are pushing ahead for a new agreement and the Government of Ireland cannot be blamed for any delay in that regard. We are pressing ahead for this new agreement as a matter of urgency.

I am grateful for Deputy O'Keeffe's contribution, for what he has said will be noted and if we can do anything to deal with some of the matters he has raised we will do so.

Deputy Kavanagh raised again the matter of the protocol signing and there is no delay here on the part of Ireland. He regrets that the Food Aid Convention and new International Wheat Agreement negotiations collapsed—to use his expression—last February. This is not altogether a true description of what happened in February. As Deputy Kavanagh probably better than most other Deputies will appreciate, the negotiations have been extremely difficult. As I have stated in reply to a query raised by Deputy O'Keeffe, it is hoped that the matter will be continued in September next.

Deputy Kavanagh referred to the figure of 1,287,000 tonnes in excess of the figure he received from the EEC a number of months ago. That figure, which I quoted at the opening of this discussion, covers not only the amount borne by the Community budget but also that borne by member states. As the Deputy says, the EEC hope, in time, to supply 1,650,000 tonnes. In that regard I will give figures in relation to the annual contribution of each party to the protocol. They might be well placed on the record, having regard to the countries that have been mentioned, Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EEC—I have given that figure— Finland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. The minimum annual contribution of Argentina to the protocol was fixed at 23,000 tonnes, Australia 225,000 tonnes, Canada 495,000 tonnes, the EEC 1,287,000 tonnes, Finland 14,000 tonnes, Japan 225,000 tonnes, Sweden 35,000 tonnes, Switzerland 32,000 tonnes, USA 1,890,000 tonnes. This gives a total somewhere in the region of 4,236,000 tonnes, which is a quite substantial amount.

The Food Aid Convention does not cover skimmed milk. However, the Community provides skimmed milk and butter oil as part of its food aid programme. Ireland has consisently sought over the years to support efforts to increase all forms of Community food aid.

Deputy Kavanagh raised the question of distribution. He may be referring to both the Food Aid Convention and the Community's food aid programme. The Community have drawn up criteria to ensure as far as possible that the food goes to the poorest developing countries and to the poorest sections of the population within those countries. He also mentioned the World Conference on Agarian Reform and Rural Development which is to be held in Rome next month and will be attended by the Minister for Agriculture. If Deputy Kavanagh wishes to bring any matter to the attention of the Minister I am sure he will be willing to consider his point of view.

Deputy Bruton in his pithy and wise observations raised the matter of the use of food aid and the material products supplied to various countries. He mentioned the dietary problems in relation to usage of imported food by indigenous populations and the fact that they are not used to the type of food they receive. This aid is to ease the food shortage suffered by the people to whom it is sent. It is an addition to the food they produce themselves. Dietary regulations are quite clearly set out. I agree that people could become dependent on imported food and the day may come when that food may not arrive and these people would have to look for alternatives. The metabolic balance could be upset and people could become physically ill. I will bring Deputy Bruton's point of view to the attention of the people concerned.

There is no doubt that food can be used in a political sense. Ireland would have a very important role to play here. The people who would attempt to exploit populations through the disposal of food would be guilty of the most gross hypocrisy and cynicism and if Deputy Bruton has any information in that regard he has an obligation to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister has misunderstood what I said. I was referring to a situation where dependence was created on western countries. I was making the general point that food aid can have political repercussions which may not be desirable. I was not making specific allegations.

Mr. D. Andrews

Someone must bring about the situation which the Deputy has pointed out. People who indulge in that form of exploitation should be exposed.

Deputy Bruton properly says that it should be a priority to enable people in the Third World to produce their own food. That is agreed. I take his point in relation to what has been said by Senator McGovern and the late Senator Humphrey and in relation to the Food for Peace Programmes.

The matter of appropriate agricultural technology was also raised by Deputy Bruton. It is not strictly relevant to the Food Aid Convention, which is concerned with the granting of food aid in circumstances which do not disrupt the normal food market. Food aid helps to satisfy existing demands and releases foreign exchange for other developing purposes. I have no doubt that the finance so released is properly used for agricultural technology.

Mr. Bruton

Not necessarily.

Mr. D. Andrews

I am grateful to the three Deputies who participated in this discussion.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I wish to raise a point of information. The contribution we will be making this year is expressed as 3,100 tonnes. It will be made not in kind but in cash. We are entitled under Food Aid Convention to do this and the original convention expressed the cash equivalent to be related to $1.73 per bushel. Has that rate of exchange been changed since 1971 in view of the very substantial increase in the price of grain on the world markets since that time?

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 26 Jun 1979

Food Aid Convention, 1971: Motion.

Mr. Andrews

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 1979