asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that every possible effort is being made by the Government to pursue the achievement of human rights internationally and, if so, if he accepts the reduction in overseas development aid by the Government as being consistent with this, in view of his assertion that the commitment to continue to increase the percentage involved was taken irrespective of budgetary or balance of payments problems.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Protection of Human Rights.
55.
As the Deputy is aware, we have always availed of opportunities, as appropriate and where practicable, to ensure the protection of human rights internationally.
With regard to Ireland's Official Development Assistance (ODA), there has not been a reduction. Allocations to ODA have increased by over 450 per cent in the past six years. The provision for ODA this year shows a 12 per cent increase over the amount available in 1979, and a 22 per cent increase over the basic allocation for last year.
Does the Minister not accept that those figures are very misleading in that the increases are related solely to those areas where by international convention or otherwise we have to maintain a certain level, and that in the area of voluntary contributions there has been a substantial reduction, apart altogether from inflation and the commitment to increase our percentage of ODA?
Whether one does it on a bilateral or multilateral basis the net effect is the amount we are contributing nationally. While I agree that the bilateral element has reduced, the multilateral element, through Lomé aid in particular, and United Nations agencies has increased. The net effect taking everything into consideration, which is the aid given to overseas development, is that this year there is a 12 per cent increase over the amount paid in 1979 and a 22 per cent increase over the allocation last year. The net effect is that there is a 12 per cent increase this year compared to last year.
Does the Minister not accept that this indicates a lack of commitment and a reneging on the promise made that the level would be increased on a graduated basis year by year? It is clear that the Government are reneging totally on that promise.
We are in very good company if that is the case and, if the Deputy wishes, I will read out the list of western European, North American and Commonwealth nations where the same thing obtains.
That is all the more reason why we should give a lead.
My dear young man we do not happen to be in the same league as a number of other countries from the point of view of GNP and those other countries substantially cut their overseas aid programme this year.
We are not in the same league as they are with regard to GNP but our percentage is much lower.
The Deputy does not have to carry the can financially as we do.
I have to carry the argument because the Minister is reneging on a promise made by a colleague.
In view of the reply given by the Minister I should like to know if it would be preferable within the context of the 12 per cent increase that has been made in the overall ODA budget, that our bilateral aid programme should be kept up to at least last year's standards, which is not the case. Does he agree that our commitment to some of the international multilateral agencies was reduced in the known performance of the call-up date of funds from those agencies, particularly the EDF fund from the EEC? The Government put the cart in front of the horse in this instance and severely damaged our credibility in a number of countries when we were just getting off the ground.
I would like to be helpful during the year and I may be—I use that word advisedly—able to transfer funds from the multilateral to the bilateral programme, as happened in the past. Hopefully, we will be able to do that. We are looking at the situation with a view to finding a way to do that. I should like to enter a cautionary word. Our allocation of about .2 per cent of GNP compares very favourably with other countries. It is the same as Switzerland, is just behind Japan, .23, ahead of Finland, .17 and ahead of Italy, .07. We are not in the same league financially as countries like Sweden and the Netherlands who are at the head of the league but the United Kingdom substantially cut their allocation this year.
That was done by a conservative Government. Are we to expect the same from Fianna Fáil?
It does not have anything to do with conservatism or socialism; it has to do with budgetary constraints that have hit the western world this year.
We have discussed this question for long enough and we must move on. I will take one final supplementary from Deputies Quinn and O'Keeffe.
The Minister has accepted, in principle, the fact that he should look again at the severe cut-backs on the bilateral side and the effect of performance on the multilateral side and I should like to know if he agrees that Ireland's credibility in relation to this bilateral programme is at stake. Does he agree that by having a bilateral aid programme we can have Irish personnel in the field and learn from their experience, something we are not getting from the multilateral aid programme?
I have sympathy for the aspirations the Deputy has mentioned. I am seeking to do what I can, within financial constraints, to make the money go as far as possible and, if possible, to seek further funds.
I should like the Minister to bear two factors in mind. In regard to ODA he should remember that it is not a hand-out; there is a return to this country, directly in some cases and indirectly in others. Will the Minister bear in mind that the purpose of giving commitments is to ensure that there will not be a cut-back because of budgetary and balance of payments constraints? That is the reason why commitments were made by the present administration.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said but in the last analysis our own self-interest as a nation is the paramount factor in any Government thinking on matters of this kind or any other matters.
That is not the kind of sentiment Fianna Fáil expressed when in Opposition.
I should like to ask a supplementary question.
I will allow the Deputy ask one question. We have been discussing this question for about seven minutes and have had four final questions.
Does the Minister accept that in 1975 his colleague, Deputy O'Kennedy, when in Opposition, indicated his commitment regardless of budgetary constraints or difficulties? Does the Minister accept that Deputy O'Kennedy gave the view that there should be an all-party consensus on this and that in no circumstances should the UN target be in any way diminished or watered down?
I take the view, as an Irish Government Minister, that the interests of Ireland are first and if, out of our wealth, our well-being and prosperity we can afford to we should give aid to the utmost extent possible. However, we are in the situation where budgetary constraints caused by many oil producing countries in the third world have meant that many western countries have been put to the pin of their collars to survive in the current year in a financial sense.
Does the Minister believe that promises made in Opposition should be broken?
I believe that the Government, and Government Ministers, should function responsibly having regard to the problems of the time.
Carrying out promises is acting responsibly.
I am talking about carrying out promises as a Minister of this State.
We must move to the next question. We spent ten minutes on this question before Deputy Keating arrived.
People are dying daily as a result of this.
There are many hungry people in the Third World while shareholders of the Irish Trust Bank can get millions of pounds back.
That does not have anything to do with this question. Deputies should not interrupt in that fashion. We were getting on nicely.
Would the Chair like us to leave so that he may be able to get on better?