Joint Committee of Co-operation with Developing Countries: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Barrett,

Clare): I move:

(1) That a Select Committee consisting of 11 members of Dáil Éireann (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries to examine:

such aspects of

(a) Ireland's relations with developing countries in the field of development co-operation, and

(b) the Government's Official Development Assistance programme,

as the Joint Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;

(2) That in the absence from a particular meeting of the Joint Committee of a member who is a member of Dáil Éireann, another member of Dáil Éireann nominated by the Party to which the absent member belongs may take part in the proceedings and vote in his stead;

(3) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote;

(4) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative;

(5) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit;

(6) That 5 members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least 1 shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Deasy

We welcome the establishment of this joint committee. The debate today highlights the lack of a Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs, something we have pointed out on many occasions. The attitude of the Taoiseach in regard to this matter is to be regretted. Some weeks ago the Taoiseach said that the previous appointment by the Coalition Government was superfluous and supernumerary. Members on this side take grave exception to that remark. It is a fact of life that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, due to pressure of business, has been absent on all occasions when matters relating to his Department were discussed in the Dáil. This is the fifth occasion when either a Bill or a motion dealing with his Department were discussed in the House and the Minister has not been present for any of them. That is an indication of the dire need for the appointment of a Minister of State in that Department. In the second last Government, when Deputy Lynch was Taoiseach, such an appointment was made. At that time Deputy David Andrews was Minister of State in that Department and he did an excellent job. Unfortunately, when Deputy Haughey took over in December 1979 he did not see fit to fill that post. He did not seem to think it was of any use. Unfortunately, the opposite has proved to be the case. There is a serious and definite need for such an appointment. In the last Coalition Government Deputy O'Keeffe did an outstanding job as Minister of State in that Department with special responsibility for development and co-operation with Third World countries. It is about time the Taoiseach gave serious consideration to making such an appointment.

The target which has been set by the United Nations for contributions by developed countries is .7 per cent of GNP. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to attain that figure or to go anywhere near it in our aid to such countries. In 1981 it was as low as .18 per cent of GNP. That represented £18 million of aid from Ireland to Third World countries. The Coalition gave a commitment that they would endeavour to bring that contribution from .18 per cent of GNP to a 70 per cent figure requested by the UN by the end of the decade. In other words, within a ten-year period we were to meet the requirements set by the UN. In the course of fulfilling that commitment the Estimates for 1982, as set out by the National Coalition Government, contained a figure of £26.335 million which represented .23 per cent of 1 per cent of GNP. That was the first stage of our promise to meet that commitment. We have had no commitment from the present Government to an endeavour to continue that progress. What is required is that in each of the next nine years our contribution to the underdeveloped countries in this world be increased annually by .05 of 1 per cent of GNP. That is not an immense amount of money. It is a significant amount of money, but surely we should be able to get a commitment from the Government for such an annual increase. It is only .05 of 1 per cent of our GNP. We know that times are difficult and money is scarce, but the commitment was given less than six months ago by the previous Government and I fail to see how the present Government cannot continue to set a target for the attainment of aid to the extent of .7 per cent of GNP by 1990.

Also, one of the major benefits of having a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs is that there is a great deal of personal contact between this country and those countries which we are dealing with in the Third World. Deputy O'Keeffe on occasions visited those countries and set up a very worthwhile personal contact. Nothing is more effective when you are dealing with people and work schemes of such a nature than having a man-to-man situation and personal contact. That benefited enormously not just aid to Third World countries but also our contact and liaison and it is a pity that liaison is not being continued. There is nothing like a personal relationship to make people feel that they are wanted, to make people realise that you are interested in them, and to see at first hand how the money is being spent. Deputy O'Keeffe made several trips and they were of great benefit to and greatly appreciated by the countries which he visited in Africa.

When in Government we made a commitment that we would produce a White Paper outlining our intention regarding aid to Third World countries. No such commitment has been forthcoming from the present Government, nor has any indication as to whether they will continue the work on such a White Paper, which obviously is very badly needed in view of the concern which exists in this country at the state of affairs in those underdeveloped countries. I would like the Minister here today to give us some word, some promise, some commitment as to whether the Government will produce that White Paper which was initiated by the previous Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe. Far from being superflous and supernumerary as described here one day at Question Time by the Taoiseach who was badly rattled following the loss of the Dublin-West by-election, Deputy O'Keeffe was a major asset not just to this country but to the most deprived countries in the world, and the Taoiseach showed total disregard in so referring to such an outstanding individual and to a post so beneficial to mankind in general. I hope that that trend will be reversed. It is uncharitable and unworthy of any Deputy in this House to make such a remark and to adopt such an attitude.

The Third World liaison to which I have referred is achieved far better if carried out on a personal basis. It is sad to relate that the transfer of 70 per cent of the moneys to those countries is done through the agency of multinational organisations. It would be far better if that money were transferred on a bilateral basis. Only 30 per cent of it is transferred on a bilateral basis and we would all like to see 100 per cent of that money transferred, donated and utilised on a bilateral basis with a greater personal involvement, particularly between individuals and a Minister of State in this country and senior civil servants and officials in the countries for which it is destined.

I would like to pay tribute not just to the Minister of State but to those officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and also those people in voluntary agencies throughout the country, particularly members of the Church, who have gone to considerable rounds and considerable trouble to organise the distribution of this money, this aid, in the underdeveloped countries. Those people have given great and unstinted service and most often at no cost whatsoever to the Exchequer. All that they do is on a voluntary basis. No praise really can compensate those people for the work they have carried out. On a more localised basis I let the House know that in Waterford a project has been in operation for several years past which could be copied with great effect by many other cities, towns and areas here. Some six or seven years ago Waterford city adopted a very underprivileged area of Kenya known as Kitui and in the intervening years workers in Waterford in every form of industry and every type of work have weekly made contributions to provide aid for that area. This is an example of what can be done on a localised basis to help deprived areas in the Third World. It would be an outstanding idea if it were emulated in other parts of this country, if various towns and cities sponsored and adopted deprived areas such as Kitui and other parts of Kenya, Tanzania, Lesotho and so on, which are in need of aid from developed countries. People are much more willing to give their money if they know the specific area involved and the problems that affect that area and if they have a relationship or liaison with individuals in that area. It is very difficult to induce people to donate money on an impersonal basis. The degree of contributions to Third World development would be far greater if people were aware precisely of where the money was going and how it was to be utilised. A great deal is to be recommended in having that type of localised and personalised relationship with areas in the Third World which are in need of assistance.

I reiterate my party's support for the formation of this committee who, I hope, will continue to do the good work for which they were inaugurated some years ago. I hope sincerely that the Taoiseach will have a change of heart and agree to appoint a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for co-operation with developing countries.

Mr. Higgins

When this matter was before this House on 1 June I made a number of observations on behalf of the Labour Party and I do not propose to delay the House by repeating them. They had a validity then and they have a validity now and it will be my purpose today to list them rather than justify each of them in turn. These remarks were explained and amplified in my earlier speech.

The Labour Party welcome the establishment of this committee. I should like, however, to join with those who have spoken about the absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs from a debate involving matters of development co-operation. We have on a number of occasions discussed matters such as the International Tin Agreement which have raised the specifics of our relationship with the developing countries. My party see development co-operation and our relationship with the Third World in general as an aspect of foreign policy and we believe it should be seen to be an integrated aspect of foreign policy. In an earlier debate I drew attention to what can happen if we allow what we do in one realm of foreign policy to be clearly in conflict with what we might be doing in, for example, development co-operation. I am not satisfied that we have received a satisfactory reply and that we will see matters of development brought within the general structure of foreign policy.

It is too easy to say that these are matters to which the committee can quickly direct their attention. The committee can certainly produce reports but, as happened on many occasions with the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, it may be difficult to find time in Dáil Éireann to debate these reports. The general issues of philosophy and principle in relation to development aid are overlooked. It is important that development co-operation should be integrated as an aspect of foreign policy.

The second fundamental point relates to the necessity for a White Paper and I am in agreement with the previous speaker on this matter. The motion to establish the committee refers in section (1) (b) to "the Government's Official Development Assistance programme" but I find it very difficult to discern exactly what that programme is. Most of the discussion on development aid tends to be confined to the total sum allocated. The point has been made that the only time we can concentrate on the total sum actually conveyed is when we have reached the international target which we have verbally accepted. We have been inclined to neglect other issues.

I paid tribute in my earlier speech to the work initiated by Deputy O'Keeffe in the area of development co-operation. The real test is that the initiatives which were taken were welcomed by all the people involved in the aid programmes with the developing countries. That spoke for itself. It is retrograde to move back from examining the structures of development co-operation.

The phrase "the Government's Official Development Assistance programme" has meaning only when we have been able to examine the philosophy that lies behind it. I am speaking about whatever Government might be in power. The issues which must be addressed within a White Paper would deal with the appropriate forms of Irish aid policy, how that policy fits with the strategies of the EEC towards the Third World, the whole question of how both might be in harmony or in conflict in relation to general strategies of world development, the whole question of development co-operation and the structures which exist within our own State for discussing issues of development co-operation and the formation of Irish personnel in terms of education and experience for participation in the developing countries' economies and societies. Other issues are the structure of commercial interests and their relationship to developing countries, the role of the public sector in this matter, the whole question of what are appropriate forms of intervention that will acknowledge the basic right of these countries to develop democratically towards just structures, the role of the multinationals, the transfer of technology, the idea of aid to which strings might or might not be attached, and the appropriate forms of education and technological formation for people from the Third World who might want to study in this country. None of these issues has been debated systematically and properly and they form an agenda of concern about matters that should appropriately be developed within a Government White Paper. I strongly commit the Labour Party to the demand that we have a White Paper on this matter.

The other points I wish to make relate to the general principles of development co-operation. I worry about the answer we received on the previous occasion when we were told that the committee could quickly turn towards examining issues of development co-operation in their own proceedings. I wonder about that because what happened in, for example, the case of the committee dealing with secondary legislation was that they concentrated on specifics and tended to neglect more general issues of policy.

In relation to development co-operation, the general issues relate to the structure of the world economy — for example, the atmosphere that will follow the now almost neglected Brandt Report.

The question of world poverty needs to be addressed. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that, while the average income three years ago of the 260 million people in the EEC was $6,000, that of 300 million people in the Third World affected by the Lomé Convention was $330. That is an injustice in international economic terms and I should like to know what Ireland's attitude is towards a structure of world economic order which allows such great disparities and how we propose to move into the conditions in which we will face the renegotiation of a new world economic order. Is development co-operation in terms of economic growth to be a different kind of animal to development co-operation in terms of stringency? What are the principles of development co-operation? We have been told that to appoint a Minister of State is a waste of time and we have not been given a guarantee of a White Paper. Yet this motion refers to "the Government's Official Development Assistance programme". The capital letters used indicate nothing to me but they may be intended to indicate that the Government's programme is different from that of the voluntary agencies. I am aware of that rather fundamental distinction. It is offered here without any justification and I repeat the necessity, if we are in any way sincere about development co-operation, for some coherence in our approach.

There is another issue which arose as a matter of controversy since we last spoke on this matter and it relates to whether development co-operation should be simply assistance or should be involved in what many agencies concerned consider the work of justice. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the kind of poverty which exists in the Third World arises as a consequence of specific structures. The situation in Central America in countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, before the departure of Somoza, came about not as in the case of bananas which grow in some countries and not in others: poverty has no natural source. For example, the fact that the Somoza family owned 47 per cent of all the land is crucial in understanding the starvation of the peasants in Nicaragua. It is important that we are free to investigate the injustices and inequalities which flow from structures which are themselves exploitive and repressive. Every penny that finds its way into the Third World and advances democracy, participation, literacy and facilities for establishing structures which are suitable to these countries is money well spent.

Nationally our approach to poverty is that we have made a transition from compassion to justice and any transition back in the area of development co-operation would be a retrograde step. I wish the committee well. In the international sphere Ireland will be judged on whether it is in solidarity with the needs of the Third World. Are we, as a small country with limited economic resources but with great possibilities for moral influence, on the side of Third World development and a renegotiated economic order; or are we operating in the shadow of the great imperialist powers, many of them with an imperial history? For example, what is the difference between the Irish aid strategy and the Belgian aid strategy? What is the difference between our aid strategy and the West German one? What is the difference between what we do in bilateral aid projects and what we do as members of the EEC?

The real test of whether we are offering crumbs or looking at the rights of men and women to live in freedom will be judged by the work of the committee. I find it hard to believe that we are establishing a committee with precise procedures for what constitutes a quorum and so on and arranging for its reports to come before this House in print and at the same time credit that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the philosophy which might underline our attitudes towards Third World development or the strategy which might implement that philosophy by way of a White Paper. We have passed the time of waiting for a specific commitment in this area from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he regards development co-operation as a central aspect of foreign policy. I shall draw the attention of the House in the strongest possible manner on the next occasion to this should we not in the meantime have some assurance from the Minister that he regards development co-operation as an integral part of Irish foreign policy and one worthy of his attention and of debate in the House.

Mrs. Owen

I join with Deputies Higgins and Deasy in saying how reprehensible I find the Minister's lack of commitment. Perhaps there was a reason why he could not have been here when the expediency motion was before us, but one would have imagined he would have made an effort to be here for this debate. The lack of his presence highlights the point made by previous speakers, that of the lack of a Minister to deal with development co-operation. Co-operation with developing countries is as integral a part of our foreign policy as our association with America and the EEC. During the last debate Deputy Wilson sat in for the Minister. Today we have Deputy Barrett. If we go on perhaps we will have every Minister before we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This would mean they would all have experience of foreign affairs and be able to do the job themselves. The Minister for Foreign Affairs certainly seems happy to delegate his responsibilities.

We do not know the Government's commitment to the timetable set out by the Coalition Government to meet the 0.7 per cent target in ten years. In his reply to the last debate, Deputy Wilson stressed that the Minister was very committed to the whole concept of co-operation with developing countries. However, we were given no facts and no details of their policy. It was another put off until tomorrow situation. It is not good enough. During the seven months of our term in office Deputy O'Keeffe did more for development co-operation by highlighting it and creating an understanding of what it was all about.

For many years we all saved our pennies for the black babies. That was the extent of our understanding of the problems of the Third World. The teacher in charge of the class wrapped up all the pennies and sent them off and we were told we were buying a black baby. Thankfully our understanding and commitment to development in these countries has come a long way. The work done by missionaries and volunteers at that stage was the base on which we had built and have come to the stage where we now have a joint committee of the House to study and discuss our co-operation with developing countries.

It is easy in these days of financial constraint to say we will forget about helping them. It saddens me to hear people say we have enough poverty here and should not be sending £26 million to help developing countries. My understanding is, from speaking to volunteers who have worked in these countries, that we do not know poverty to the same extent as it exists there. We do not know hunger or homelessness as it is in those countries. The financial aid we send will reap untold benefits in those countries in comparison to what it could do if spent dealing with poverty at home. It would be sad if we said that because we were going through difficult times we would scrap our development programme and only help our own people. It would be akin to a county council deciding that all they would do for the next ten years was deal with housing, roads and so on and forget about developing green spaces and parks. That would be a foolish and retrograde step. I hope that the Government's apparent lack of commitment does not mean that they will let it ride for a number of years until they get out of the financial difficulty they put themselves into.

For a small country our contribution has been enormous. We have had a lot of spin-off benefit. Perhaps the reason we should become involved with the development co-operation is because of a Christian desire to help alleviate extensive suffering. Deputy Higgins touched on the benefits we have received. But for co-operation with developing countries we would not have built up relationships or had dealings with certain countries. Therefore it is not correct to label what we are doing for those developing countries as pure charity. We, too, are gaining experience. Our young engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses and others who go out to help in these countries bring back experience they could not have gained at home, experience from which this country will greatly benefit. Our aid to and trade with developing countries can only stand to our good. Being slightly philosophical about it, it will be character-forming but also it has been and will continue to be good for our economy. After all, we should remember that it is not so long since ours became a developed country; it is not so long since we had to dig our ditches, dig our wells and reclaim our land. Therefore we have the fresh experience of having had to pull ourselves up by the boot straps and get going.

We may not be able in one fell swoop to reach the United Nation's target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. We may not be able to reach that target for perhaps a decade and, at the rate we are progressing, regrettably it may take longer. We have a lot more to offer apart from any financial contribution. We have the manpower and expertise in the various fields. We have also the dedication and the willingness of our people to drop everything, give up their jobs and go out. I am sorry the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has left the House because he attended a meeting with me at which Father Michael Cleary spoke. At that meeting he described his very happy reaction at the effect of a simple article he wrote in a Sunday newspaper, an article which he said had not emanated from any great motive on his part. He had to write an article on some subject for a column in a Sunday newspaper and he decided to write on the problems of the Third World and its needs. He said he was bowled over by the immediacy of the reaction of the ordinary men and women in the street, by the enormous amount of money that flowed in, the enormous willingness of people to commit themselves into going out to these countries in order to help, giving a couple of years of their lives. We must remember that the way of life is not easy in these countries. That is why the benefit accruing to volunteers who work in them is not something that can be measured in financial terms. Indeed the money they receive, if any, is minimal and barely keeps them in basic human comfort. But the benefits accruing to them by way of character-development, of expertise in their fields of operation, of understanding of the human condition which they bring home and put into practice here are benefits we, as a nation, must benefit also. It is unfortunate that not only has the Minister not been in the House for a number of recent debates in connection with Foreign Affairs but I understand also that since his appointment he has met only once the advisory council set up to advise on co-operation with developing countries. Perhaps I am doing him an injustice and that he has met them again in the past week or two. But within the few short days I have had the privilege of speaking on this topic it would appear he has not met this advisory council. Indeed, in many areas advisory councils are not always necessary but certainly they are needed in that of development co-operation. We cannot all know what conditions are like in these developing countries because of their remoteness from us, because of their different cultures and so on. Therefore we must depend on our fellow countrymen who have been to them. We must depend on our experts who have helped in their irrigation systems, their food processing and so on. We must depend on their help and advice in this respect. In my capacity as spokeswoman on development co-operation it will be my intention to establish contact with as many of these people and groups who have travelled abroad and helped in such projects, to learn from them and be guided by them on how we can go forward and help in this most worthy and necessary task.

The Joint Committee on Development Co-Operation will help to bring about a better understanding even amongst Deputies of this House — and here dare I say that there are probably many, including myself, who, up to recently, had not much understanding of our enormous involvement through various semi-State bodies, private concerns, voluntary agencies and so on with these developing countries. The establishment of this joint committee should help in the dissemination of this information. While all Members of the Houses cannot sit on this committee those who do will have a better understanding and, in turn, by conversing with their fellow Members, should ensure a wider understanding of the problems and of the commitments we as a nation must have in this respect. Indeed such must be stressed to the Government. If this Government cannot say categorically that they will continue the programme and timetable initiated by the Coalition Government then this country will be all the worse therefor and we shall suffer repercussions around the world. Indeed we shall suffer internally and it would be a sad day should that happen. Having spoken to Deputies on the Government benches it appears there are many interested in this subject, who would wish to contribute, to be kept informed and indeed become involved. It would be a shame were the Government not to come out and say where they stand in this respect.

I endorse Deputy Higgins' request for a White Paper on this subject. Such a White Paper would bring the whole subject on to the floor of the House where a full open and informative debate could take place. I urge the Minister present to convey our misgivings and worries about Government commitment to development co-operation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Markey

The few points I want to make are of such a nature I feel they represent real questions which this House and indeed the joint committee we are establishing must face up to and perhaps answer. It is to be hoped with confidence that the incoming committee will examine the real questions involved in this whole area of development co-operation. I am not sure whether this or any other Government who have been operating in this field of development assistance — under either the bilateral or multilateral programme — have been willing to face up to what are the real difficulties being experienced in these countries. I do not think we should clap ourselves on the back for merely giving assistance. Resulting from our history we are perhaps the one country in the world which should be in the front line of giving the maximum amount of assistance in any one year, particularly when it is realised that a survey undertaken showed that on the African Continent 15 countries had had a negative growth rate in the past ten years and that, of the 35 poorest countries in the world, two-thirds are on the African Continent. I acknowledge the assistance given by any Government under the bilateral aid programme, particularly to the four African countries, Lesotho, Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania.

The Brandt Report for the first time has brought the central issue in this development co-operation to the front of our minds. I detect a stagnation over the past 12 months with regard to doing anything about that report. I detect a certain unwillingness that has very little to do with the availability of finance on the part of any Government in the world interested in this subject. That unwillingness to give more funds than hitherto may derive from a feeling that the Brandt Report contains very definite hot potatoes for many Western countries. Many questions raised in the Brandt Report will have to be answered by many of those countries if they are to fulfil what the Brandt Report sets out in its recommendations.

The predecessor to the Brandt Report, the Pearson Report in 1969, had as its central theme "enlightened self-interest". This meant giving more and better aid to developing undeveloped countries and giving more and better private investment. Those features contained certain advantages for countries which were the givers because they saw in that central theme of enlightened self-interest something from which they would benefit in trade and in other ways.

The Brandt Report was published in 1980 and it had as its theme "international social justice". The book was opened wider than ever before in the Brandt Report to embrace areas of health, jobs, land reform and things which might well stick in the throat of certain countries in the western world. The Brandt Report asked how do all the capitalist countries face up to land reform? This question arose in the El Salvador situation. How would we face up to health and treatment of health in very over-populated countries that need development assistance? The common recommendation of both reports had to do with the colossal debt which those countries experience, their inability to meet interest repayments, never mind capital repayments, on moneys loaned to them by many of the western world banking institutions. The other common recommendations had to do with assistance, monetary and otherwise, and trade development between the undeveloped and the developed nations.

The big question from the Brandt Report remains. Can the whole field of development be taken outside what can be trade, political and even class interests and put into a wider sphere where we can look on it as something which has to be dealt with for its own sake? I believe that, because the Brandt Report was brave enough to outline many of the issues which would have to be faced up to, that is one of the reasons why there has been a certain slowing down in further debate and discussion on the recommendations of that report.

I would like the new committee we are establishing to look into exactly what the Brandt Report entails for the western world and for this country. It is our money which is being given to help those undeveloped countries. Are we prepared to face up to the issues which will be laid before us if we pursue the logic of giving assistance to countries and have to face up to the problems which development to them means other than purely financial and food assistance.

I notice in paragraph (2) of the motion that, while provision is made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the joint committee who are unable to attend particular meetings, it stops there, as distinct from a similar paragraph in relation to establishing the joint committee to deal with secondary legislation of the European Communities, where there was a provision that members of either House who were not members of the joint committee should be allowed to attend meetings and take part in the proceedings without having the right to vote. Why is such a recommendation included in the motion setting up one committee and dropped from the motion setting up the committee we are now discussing? I would like the Minister to clarify that because, as the previous speaker said, it is extraordinary the number of Members of this House who are interested in the whole field of development co-operation.

We have an opportunity here to bring as many Members as possible of this House into that debate, to give them an opportunity, as we have in the case of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I know this question was raised before and the answer given was that any Members in the House, although they were not members of the joint committee, could regard themselves as visitors and therefore be entitled with the agreement of the joint committee, to be present. That is not a good enough explanation for Members of the House. We should not be regarded as visitors like officials from Departments or members of outside bodies who are involved in the whole field of development co-operation, who have to seek the agreement of such a committee to be present at all. We are members of the primary Legislature and if there is a contribution to be made in the field of development co-operation, as in the important field of EEC legislation, a similar privilege should be extended to Members of this House.

The field of education, to which a certain amount of money is budgeted by the Government every year, is so important that I believe the committee must use whatever means they can to have the people made fully aware of what development co-operation means and what their money is being spent on. A survey conducted some time ago by the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation came up with some startling revelations. It not only indicated a widespread lack of awareness among Irish people about the countries which were embraced by our bilateral scheme of aid, but some of them had never even heard of a country like Lesotho, to which their money was being contributed. Lesotho gains by far the biggest amount of finance under our bilateral aid programme. That survey also showed that the Irish public were not well aware of what we do through the other ODA programmes. Approximately 35 per cent were not even aware that we give aid overseas. I welcome the establishment of this committee and hope that it will examine what the priorities of the country should be in the field of ODA, what exactly development assistance means in our historical context and what ODA should mean to the people of this country. The committee should certainly try to ensure that there is a far greater awareness among the public of what the public's money is being spent on.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Barrett,

Clare): This is the third step in the procedure to establish the Joint Committee on Cooperation with Developing Countries. The first motion was debated in this House recently and the second stage was passed in the Seanad last week.

This Committee will provide an important forum in which members of the Oireachtas can consider and discuss the full range of development cooperation problems. These include the major issues confronting the development organisations including trade, commodities, finance, as well as Ireland's contribution to developing countries through our Official Development Assistance.

This year ODA will amount to £26.335 million, which is the largest amount ever. Of this, approximately 67 per cent, not 70 per cent as Deputy Deasy said, will be allocated to multilateral aid, including the EEC and United Nations development agencies, while the remainder will be directed through bilateral aid channels. Chief among these is our Bilateral Aid Programme which this year will channel almost £8 million to developing countries.

The committee will also have an indirect role in relation to development education. The need to increase interest in and awareness of development problems among Irish people generally, is, I believe, accepted on all sides of the House as a necessary and desirable development. This committee, through its very existence, will draw public attention to development problems and focus public concern on this most deserving of areas.

Finally, I would like to thank Deputies for their support for this measure during the earlier debate on the motion of expediency. I believe that the subject of development co-operation commands a great deal of interest and enthusiasm on all sides of this House and the Seanad and I am confident that this will lead to a substantial degree of co-operation and harmony in the work of the committee.

With regard to the Brandt Report, it has been debated quite often during the past 12 months, at the Ottawa Summit and recently at the Paris Summit in Versailles. At those Summit meetings there was a strong commitment given to implementing the proposals in the Brandt Report. The main reason for delay is because of lack of commitment by some of the more powerful countries involved.

The absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, has been commented on. Perhaps Deputy Owen was not in the House when I explained the reasons for his absence. Deputy Collins is attending a development council meeting in Luxembourg. It should be understood that being Minister for Foreign Affairs entails travel and attending different functions and conferences abroad, whether in the UN or the EEC. The nature of his work demands this.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 15 Jun 1982

Joint Committee of Co-operation with Developing Countries: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1982