The debate was distinguished by commitment, compassion, concern and finally by consensus. I am most grateful to the Senators for their contributions. Brief though they were they contained the general feelings of the nation as a whole and for my part I am grateful to them for the non-controversial fashion in which the IDA Bill before the House was received by them.
During the course of their contributions I took some notes. In fact, for the benefit of the historians who will come to look at this House in years to come, this is, in fact, the third occasion in which I have been in the House with this Bill. The matter has been articulated by Senators on three separate occasions. I have now formulised the notes which I made during those sessions. If, at the end of my, hopefully, brief but equally committed contribution I have not dealt with any points which have been raised by the Senators I will be glad to do so within my competence and my knowledge of the Bill.
This IDA Bill is not a direct function of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In fact, it is a matter which in the normal way is dealt with by the Minister for Finance. I am dealing with the matter on the basis that it is a Department of Finance function having regard to the World Bank features of the Bill.
As I have pointed out, the general agreement and welcome by the Senators of the Bill was certainly appreciated. I think they will agree that the work of the International Development Association is of crucial importance to the developing countries. In the context of this Bill we are talking about a minimum of 750,000,000 people living in the most abject poverty. I was very glad to hear Senator Goulding stating that she spoke from her own first-hand experience of visitations to these various areas over the years. I had the privilege, last year to visit the Indian sub-continent, including Bangladesh and Pakistan. When I say "the privilege" I do not know whether I would consider it a pleasure. I do not wish to be inhospitable to my hosts but certainly what I saw I think was reflected in the brief but concerned contribution of Senator Goulding. If one takes what we consider to be our poverty line and relates it to the horrors one sees in the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere, I reckon that they would consider our poverty to be somewhere in the nature of luxury. That is the reality of the situation.
To return to the general and specific points made by the Senators, the present replenishment of the $7,638 million will allow the IDA to continue to increase the value of their commitments in real terms over the next three years. In the last few days we have become aware that the replenishment is now fully effective as members allocated 80 per cent of the replenishment they formally committed themselves to contribute. We cannot give a formal commitment to contribute until this very important legislation passes through the House.
Senator FitzGerald and others had some doubts under a number of headings, for instance, whether the development assistance really found its way to the people for whom it is intended, and those people most in need of help. The most successful outcome of the prolonged negotíatíons on International Development Association Five demonstrates the widespread support for IDA in the international community. The larger industrialised countries with close strategic, economic, financial and traditional links with the developing world have to set a balance between the level of their bilateral aid programmes, which they can control directly themselves, and contributions to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and IDA.
The continued strength of their support for IDA must, therefore, be taken as a reflection of the honesty, efficiency and appropriate and united nature of the IDA's operations. We share this view. This happy result has not been achieved by any accident. The IDA are constitutionally bound to aim their lending at areas for which neither commercial nor World Bank finance would be available. Only economic considerations can be taken into account in arriving at decisions. The IDA operate an extensive system of internal and external audit and financial controls which allows representatives of donor countries to air any views they may have on the handling of the funds provided.
Despite the wide range of technical assistance, economic and agricultural research, aid co-ordination and interagency co-operation activities of the World Bank group as a whole I think I will prove to the Senators that administrative costs are effectively kept to a minimum. Total World Bank/IDA administrative expenses in the financial year 1977 at $213 million will come to about 3 per cent of the $7 billion committed in loans in that year. The effectiveness of World Bank/IDA operations in alleviating poverty is continuously under review. While economic growth as such has never been the sole aim of the World Bank/IDA lending, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out in the Dáil, the World Bank group are increasingly concerned to find projects which will directly affect the living standards of the poorest sections in developing countries.
Senators Whitaker and Markey had some queries about the level of the Irish contribution to IDA Five. Since the notes I have prepared were typed a similar number of queries have arisen on the same point. At £5.8 million the contribution is nearly twice their contribution to IDA Four three years ago. It has been suggested that donors might maintain IDA Four shares in all IDA Five replenishment from the traditional donors of $7.2 billion. However, I might point out that the calculation was done in dollars. This meant that expected contributions in their own currency of countries whose currency had floated down against the dollar were inflated, and visa versa. When one considers that in general those countries whose currencies had fallen in value were hardest hit by the recession the shortcomings in this method of calculation are clear. In Ireland's case this method of calculation suggested a contribution of over £7 million. That is a 130 per cent increase over our IDA Four commitment whereas the average increase in dollars for the replenishment was 60 per cent. In the event, the undertaking to seek legislative approval for an Irish contribution of £5.82 million was warmly welcomed by the bank management.
As Senator Robinson pointed out, although the replenishment covers a three-year commitment period payments are spread over six to nine years as projects in developing countries for which funds have been committed come to fruition. Payments are not spread evenly over the period but come to a peak in the period three to six years after the replenishment becomes effective. Furthermore, payments overlap with payments under previous replenishments and replenishments to be agreed. Payments for 1978 are expected to come to about £1¼ million. IDA Six negotiations will start next year. I think Senator Robinson will agree, therefore, that the process is a continuing one and a continuously expanding one.
Another matter relates to the use of the word "unfair" in my opening statement. I was brought to task on that particular point by Senator Whitaker. I accept his criticism. I think the use of the word "unfair" was necessary. I accept full responsibility for its use in my opening remarks. It was possibly the wrong word to use in the context of what was stated.
It might be no harm at this stage to clear up a point about our subscriptions to the capital of the World Bank. It is true that as a member of the World Bank Ireland has benefited substantially from its advice and financial assistance through the years. Membership is obviously a sine qua non for receiving assistance. The contribution to the bank's resources, which counts as official development assistance, did not have to be made to secure these loans. To count as ODA, Ireland's paid-up capital in the bank had to be released in useable form, that is, a form which the bank could use in its lending operations. Many developing countries which receive loans from the bank are not able to contribute to its resources in this way. However, as a Part I member of IDA, Ireland will now be expected generally to release in convertible form any further increases in its paid-up capital. The borrowing phase of our relationship with the bank ended some years ago. No new loans have been received from the bank since 1975.
I would remind Senators that the Bill refers specifically to the International Development Association and that it is requesting payment to the replenishment of the fifth fund. In the circumstances, the debate was rather extended—I do not say this in criticism —into the general area of overseas development aid. It is a natural corollary to it, that it might be extended, but in the circumstances that might have been going outside the terms of reference of the Bill. However, Senators had the opportunity to express their point of view on ODA. I think on the basis of the natural courtesies, that I should be expected to reply to them.
The Senators, as I have said, took the opportunity during the debate to comment generally on the problems of the Third World, and what the appropriate Irish response to the Third World should be. The appropriate response, apart from the financial aspect, which is very important, is one of anxiety to continue to commit ourselves in every way possible to the Third World. Senator Conroy pointed out, although I do not necessarily agree with him, that it is not all about finance. That is a reasonable point of view but I would respectfully suggest to him that it has a lot to do with finance.
To return to the various contributions and to the notes I have made on them, while most of our multilateral commitments in the field of overseas development assistance arises as a result of the obligations of membership of various international organisations I would like to dispel the notion that all that is involved on our part is a cheque-writing exercise. This may answer Senator Conroy's point.
The development policies and programmes of these organisations are the direct responsibility of the member governments of the organisations concerned. This country has a role to play both in the process of policy formulation and programme implementation. I should like to mention, in passing, especially as some Senators referred to the problem of food scarcity in the world, that this week the governing council and executive board of the recently established International Fund for Agricultural Development are holding their first session in Rome. Having ratified the agreement establishing this fund in October, and having pledged an initial three-year contribution of £570,000, Ireland is a member of this governing council which will have a responsibility for the overall policy of the fund. In addition, we are part of a five-country "constituency" for the purposes of representation on the executive board, which is a body of 18 members with responsibility for the management of the fund. This involves a fairly intensive co-ordination of policy both within our own constituency—this is of primary importance to us—and among the member states of the European Community.
It is through the Community to an ever-increasing extent that Ireland can play a meaningful role in relation to the aid activities of these international organisations. The process of harmonising member states' development policies, in the context of international organisations, such as the United Nations and the United Nations' Conference on Trade and Development— UNCTAD—is well under way. While this will inevitably take place gradually it is undeniable that through the adoption of unified positions the Community can exercise a most significant influence on international development. Through the Lomé Convention, for example, the Community is already in the forefront of efforts to establish a more equitable international economic order. The convention explicity acknowledges the reality of inter-dependence and recognises, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently stated, that "we are no longer living in a world where the better off give something of their surpluses to the poor".
Our programme of bilateral assistance is, as yet, small but it represents a significant acknowledgment of our willingness to do something more for the Third World than merely fulfil the obligations which arise in this respect from Community membership and from membership of international organisations. Senators will be interested to know that last evening Dáil Éireann passed a token Supplementary Estimate to enable certain unexpended multilateral aid funds to be transferred to the bilateral programme so that additional commitments could be made before the end of the year.
I was very glad to note the approval of many Senators for a policy utilising the expertise and resources available in Ireland to the maximum extent possible in our development co-operation with developing countries. This is given effect partly through encouraging the involvement of Irish organisations. Many Senators made this point, which is a reasonable one, that in addition to the financial commitment, which is required by the nation as a developed nation to the less well-off countries, to the multilateral organisations, there are many other agencies which give magnificent assistance to the Third World and elsewhere. This has partly given effect to encouraging the involvement of Irish organisations in the operation of aid programmes of multilateral agencies, but mainly through the bilateral aid programme administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and, of course, the activities of the Agency for Personal Service Overseas—APSO—which is presided over by Senator Whitaker. He spoke with great authority and he spoke generally on a subject with which he has been deeply involved and deeply committed to. I am grateful to him and to other Senators for their contributions.
Encouragement and financial assistance are made available to support the mobilisation of the resources available through our universities, voluntary agencies, semi-State bodies, private sector firms, the co-operative movement and other sectors. The aim of the programme is to draw on the resources available in the country which will be of benefit to the developing countries. The procedure adopted is that consultations are first held with the developing countries concerned with a view to identifying the requirements that might be met by Ireland. This, effectively, is the mechanics of the lead up to prospective aid. The necessary skills and resources are then recruited in this country from wherever they are available. The projects formulated may involve the assignment of Irish personnel, the provision of Irish goods, of professional service, the operation of training courses or a mixture of all these. In each case the nature of the project is determined with reference to the particular requirements of the developing country concerned.
In this way finance made available for bilateral aid is spent on projects that have priority rating with the Government of the recipient countries and I think we are able to satisfy ourselves that resources made available are put to good use. The whole monitoring process is outlined in my introductory remarks in relation to criticism regarding the aid effectively getting to the people for whom it is intended. This is another feature of our own multilateral and, of course, bilateral aid. We have to monitor it to make sure that it is getting to those people who should benefit from the aid we give them. Again as has been expressed here, the enthusiasm and commitment of Irish society are channelled into a very practical programme of action.
I was very pleased, indeed, that Senator McDonald who had to be elsewhere this week had an opportunity of examining a number of bilateral aid projects in Lesotho. These projects were set up by the Department of Foreign Affairs and naturally by definition I am very pleased that the Senator got such a favourable impression from what he saw in that country. He will be pleased to learn that we hope to develop a number of new projects in Lesotho along similar lines in the near future. This bilateral programme is proving to be very successful and I should like to assure the House that provision will be made for a significant expansion in future years. It is intended that the bilateral component of the overall development aid programmes will increase at a proportionately faster rate than the growth in the programme as a whole. I told Senator McDonald that if the reply I have given now was not comprehensive enough, I would be glad to deal with the matter in more detail. Possibly I should correspond with him but if having read the Seanad debates he is still not happy with the fulsomeness or otherwise of what I have just said now I would appreciate if he would bring the matter to my attention when I would be happy to deal with it in more depth.
Senator Brennan made a number of excellent points during his contribution. He mentioned the provision of training facilities for people from developing countries and I naturally share his concern that such facilities should be made available as extensively and as effectively as possible. I welcome his support for the developments in this direction. Personally I like his idea about the educational establishment for those people going to the Third World. I think that was basically what the Senator had in mind. I certainly like that idea and I will have it examined.
However, in addition to what Senator Brennan pointed out during the course of his contribution, that type of training is catered for through the development of training resources within existing institutions and it might be that an additional new organisation would only add to the pyramid in the context. However, a substantial amount of technical co-operation with developing countries in the area of education and training is already taking place. This necessarily represents a satisfactory basis for future expansion. Of course this is not to suggest that the Senator's idea should be dismissed in any way. It should be examined very critically and if it was found good in addition to those organisations already offering training resources, it would be all the better that we should avail of his suggestion.
Senator Whitaker in referring to the question of administrative structures in relation to an expanding programme of aid to the Third World, urged that an early decision be taken on the establishment of an advisory council on development matters. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, with whom I discussed this matter, and indeed all the questions raised by the Senator, accepts the need for an advisory council. At the moment the Minister is at an advanced stage of consultation with other members of the Government about this proposal.
Senator Robinson raised in some detail the question of what target in respect of overseas development assistance this country should aim at in the immediate future. Again, this question was raised by Senator Keating in his usually clear contribution to the discussion arising from the Mary Sutton Study produced by Trócaire and the Committee for Peace and Justice, if that is the proper title for the committee itself. I do not say that in any flippant or facetious manner. Ultimately the target to be attained by all developed countries is the 0.7 per cent of the GNP prescribed in the United Nations' strategy for the second development decade. It is recognised, however, that some developed countries cannot be expected to reach this target by the end of the decade. In this respect a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the European Community in April, 1974 acknowledged specifically that three member states, including Ireland, would need more time than others to reach the target. This is because the three countries in question have either domestic structural difficulties, a relatively low per capita income or that their aid programmes are of relatively recent origin. Pursuant to that Council resolution the previous Government adopted a five-year programme of planned increases in overseas development assistance which has resulted in an overall allocation of £7.3 million in the current year. The amount of next year's allocation is in the final stages of consideration by the Government while the question of the appropriate target which this country might aim at in the immediate future is still being considered and I understand is still under consideration by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I am very sorry I took so long to reply to the debate but I considered the contributions to merit a fairly detailed reply. In relation to the contributions made since I prepared the more comprehensive replies just articulated, Senator Butler said that Senator Whitaker declared that Ireland was one of the richer nations of the world. We are reasonably high up in the league of wealthy nations. We should be grateful for that and I think equally we should take cognisance of the fact that we are well off and better off in relation to the countries whom we would hope to assist through the multilateral and bilateral agencies.
Senator Gordon Lambert displayed a patient approach in relation to our present economic circumstances and he suggested that we give more notice to the buy-Irish, sell-Irish, work-Irish campaigns, that by so doing will bring up our gross national product and that as a consequence there will be a spinoff to charity arising from the increase in national wealth. This is a very worthy idea and it is something that should be sponsored and encouraged as far as possible.
One of the more important statements made by Senator Keating was that to argue about which party did most in this regard was to bring the whole thing down to a futile political argument which was to nobody's benefit. That is the proper approach. We should not bring this discussion into the acrimonious political arena. By definition we have to bring it into the political area because we are politicians but to engage in acrimony about who did what is totally wrong in the context. I appreciate the Senator's articulation of that point of view. He will have listened to other contributions and will agree that generally his guidelines for the debate were followed very thoroughly.
I should also like to suggest to him that some developed nations can abuse aid to their own selfish national interest. They produce tractors and other technology which are not required in the first instance by the Third World or the Third World nations to whom those particular pieces of scientific technology are directed. The Senator continued in his exposition to deal with how the aid should be given. He pointed out that this nation has a moral place, that it plays a good role, that it has an example role to play and that it has a psychological role by virtue of its history, as pointed out so succinctly by Senator Harte when he quoted Article 25 of the United Nations' Declaration on Human Rights. If I may paraphrase him, he suggested that we should not be giving this by way of charity, that we should be giving ourselves, our people and our finances to the Third World not by way of charity but by way of entitlement. That is what the Senator was saying and I appreciate his point of view.
Senator Lyons traced the role of Irish history in relation to the Third World and suggested that Ireland more than 100 years ago was a famine country—1845, 1848, and 1849—and now in excess of 100 years on we find ourselves in the role of a developed country. He said that in our own selfish national interest we might consider that those countries that we are now helping might well find themselves developed countries in 50 or 60 years' time. That is a point of view that is worth remembering.
I do not think there is anything further to add. Again, my apologies for being rather lengthy but in the circumstances I felt that the contributions required that they should be dealt with in some depth.