Vol. 326 No. 9
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate each subhead of each Vote for which he is responsible which is to be increased in the 1981 Estimates by less than 16 per cent and/or the officially expected rate of inflation in 1981; and how economies, if any, are to be made in respect of each such subhead so as to keep within the provision in the subhead.
12.
andMr. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how he expects to effect each of the reductions in expenditure, as provided in the Book of Estimates, in the following matters in 1981: (a) £600,000 on travel etc, (b) £90,000 on post office services, (c) £19,000 on the £45,000 provided to repatriate destitute persons, (d) £15,000 on information services, (e) £27,000 on cross border services, (f) £280,000 on grants to UN agencies such as UNICEF and the UN Development Association and (g) £250,000 on disaster relief; and if these will lead to any reduction in the level of services provided.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
The detailed information sought by the Deputies can more appropriately be raised when the two Estimates for my Department come before the Dáil.
In the meantime, I should like to state that the allocations shown in the Book of Estimates conform with the overall allocations decided by the Government, that the Vote for International Co-operation represents an increase of 30 per cent on last year and that the provision for both Votes is nearly 12 per cent higher.
Why does the Minister propose to cut the contributions to the various United Nations agencies, not only to last year's levels but even to a lower level than obtained in 1979? Does he consider the impact which it would have on very reputable organisations such as UNICEF if all Governments were to adopt the attitude which his Government seem to intend adopting in this case? Further, does he expect that there will be half as many destitute Irish people having to be repatriated from abroad by their Embassy this year as last year, in view of the fact that he has cut that contribution in half? In view of the increase in travel costs, how does he expect to reduce the amount spent on travel by Irish diplomats by more than £½ million this year on what was actually spent on the same subhead last year?
On the latter point, I have already devoted considerable attention towards cutting down costs, in regard to travel particularly, if it is feasible. As regards the overall question of contributions to international agencies, I have decided as a matter of policy to concentrate on our bilateral aid programme which is increased by 26 per cent——
I would not push that too hard. We shall come to that. That is a quagmire that I would not go too deeply into.
——and to trim contributions to multilateral agencies in which, quite candidly, there has been a certain amount of waste, in my opinion. The most effective way in which we can make our contribution within the financial constraints is through bilateral aid, which we have increased by 26 per cent.
Is the Minister saying that there is a certain amount of waste, to use his own words, in the programme operated by the agency UNICEF?
I am referring generally, in principle, to how we can allocate funds best. We can allocate funds best through Ireland's own bilateral aid programme, which is increased by 26 per cent in the current year. This is a policy decision for which I have taken full responsibility and can back.
Is the Minister aware that a substantial proportion of all the sums of money given to the Minister and voluntary agencies is given to UNICEF and, therefore, if the Minister is casting an aspersion like this he is casting it directly on an agency such as UNICEF which I would regard as highly unwarranted.
All I am saying is that, within the constraints of an overall budget, one must allocate funds where one can see them utilised to the maximum effect and, in applying that criterion, in my view the maximum efficiency is procured through our own bilateral aid programme.
I could not put it better myself — no money.
Am I correct in thinking that last year the Minister sought refuge in the fact that there was an increase in the multilateral programme? What I really want to ask is, on the basis that the overall aid programme this year will be around £18 million, is this not a shortfall of at least £7 million, if we were to have any reasonable aid programme in pursuance of our United Nations obligations?
The bilateral aid programme is up by 26 per cent.
I am talking about overall aid.
I have answered that question already.
The Minister hopped on the multilateral programme last year and is trying to confuse people with figures by doing the same thing on the bilateral programme this year. I put a specific question to him. Is not the overall aid programme this year going to come to around £18 million, when it should total at least £25 million, which was the figure recommended by the Minister's own advisory council, if it were to make any inroads at all towards reaching the UN target to which we are committed?
The Deputy will have all the details in my reply to the next question.
A final supplementary from Deputy Quinn.
The Minister is evading that. We shall come back to it in the meanwhile.
I never cease to wonder at the skill and acumen of the Minister in totally evading a question which I shall now put to him again. With the permission of the Chair, could I, in this democratic assembly, ask the Minister to simply answer Questions Nos. 11 and 12 on the Order Paper and not fob us off as he has done, with the apparent acceptance of the House.
Would the Deputy put a specific question?
The Minister got written notice of this question and he has told the House that he will answer the question when the Estimates come up. We have no agreement as to what form the Estimates will take and no undertaking as to when that will happen. Can he not answer Questions Nos. 11 and 12? Is he that scared?
That is my responsibility, Deputy. Ceist 13.
I am answering them in a stock formula.
With all due respect to the Chair, two questions were asked in some detail for specific figures and the Minister has refused to answer them. The Chair will stand charged with allowing the Minister to evade his responsibility to the House if it allows him to get away with it, if we cannot pursue the subject by means of supplementary questions. The Minister simply refused to answer the questions by saying that he will answer them at another time.
I have already explained to the Deputy that the Minister can answer the question in his own way. I have no input into the Minister's reply.
You are protecting the Minister.
With your permission I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of this question.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
