Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1990

Vol. 124 No. 5

Overseas Development Aid: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government's totally unjustifiable cutback in the current level of Overseas Development Aid and calls on the Government:

(i) To take immediate steps to increase the level of Government aid to 0.25 per cent of GNP as it was in 1987 and to aim at a target of 0.27 per cent of GNP in the reasonable future.

(ii) To reconstitute the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Aid.

(iii) To establish an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

—(Senator Doyle.)

Mr. B. Ryan

Having spoken last week about attitudes to ODA, to foreign policy and related issues, I want to use the last five minutes of my address to look at one small country where development was achieved, where progress was reported, where prosperity had begun to reach ordinary people in terms of both economic well-being, of their educational achievements and their health services. I refer, of course, to Nicaragua and to the extraordinary achievements of that country in the first three years after its triumphant revolution against dictatorship. Infant mortality dropped dramatically, illiteracy of the adult population dropped from 53 per cent to 17 per cent and agricultural production grew dramatically. Indeed per capita GNP grew faster in Nicaragua than in any other Central American country in those early years after the Revolution. It was a welcome, courageous, outstanding development of the kind that one would think would be welcomed but what happened?

The Government of the United States of America, with the passive compliance of virtually every western country, turned the full ferocity of their hatred on that country's achievement. In the name of freedom they murdered, bombed, brutalised and economically assassinated that country and for almost ten years the people of that country resisted. Having brutalised and having bombed and having terrorised, they then proceeded to give them a lecture about democracy. Apparently they could not believe that justice was possible in a poor country. They could not believe that economic dignity was possible in a poor country and, above all, it appears they could not accept that actual development was really possible.

Given the size of Nicaragua, given its political and indeed its military insignificance, the only assumption one can draw is that it was just in Nicaragua, it was democracy in Nicaragua, that presented a threat; the threat of good example, presumably, the image of achievement, of progress and of freedom, and what that could do in Guatamala, in Honduras, in El Salvador and in Mexico. What we saw then was that assault on democracy by the so-called democracies.

The unfortunate compliance in that policy of a number of Irish Governments dominated by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael makes a mockery of this motion. It is obviously not possible to oppose this motion but it would be much easier to support it if we could see clear evidence of Fine Gael's commitment to development in the attitude of their then Minister for Foreign Affairs to these issues. If he had said a simple thing like saying that to murder Nicaraguan peasants to achieve political change is murder, is wrong and disgraces western Governments, if he, or indeed his succesor, had been prepared to say that those things were true, we could then talk about development. To say that any political leader who supports that is guilty of terrorism and guilty of murder himself is to me self-evident. It was particularly unfortunate, therefore, that Members of this House gave a standing ovation to the man who initiated that policy of international terrorism against Nicaragua.

I conclude by paying tribute to the FSLN in Nicaragua. I want to say it in their own words: “toda fue mejor”, “y toda sera mejor”. Venceremos!

Mr. Finneran

It gives me great pleasure to be in a position to speak on this motion. Even though I do not necessarily concur with the full wording of the motion, I have great respect for some of the sentiments expressed in the debate in the House so far. I first have to commend the work and the attitude to various matters of our Minister of State, Deputy Seán Calleary at all times. This is acknowledged both at home and abroad. He is the man responsible for putting forward Ireland's view on many matters and I must congratulate him on the way he has done this.

The Government in 1988 provided something in the region of £32.4 million in aid. This is a very large sum if one considers that at that time, and indeed since then, they have had to deal with severe problems and have had to implement severe measures at home to save the country from possible bankruptcy. All those things had to take their place but the Government in that time provided that amount of money. They have to be respected and indeed congratulated for it. Ireland has a proud record in the provision of finance and personnel to developing countries and Third World countries. We must all be pleased with the Irish development projects in Third World areas. In particular, we must be pleased with the practical methods and designs that have been used in Irish-assisted projects. We must be conscious that these projects at the end of the day help the developing countries to reach their own potential in vital areas such as health, education and agriculture. Every one in this country is conscious of the Irish people's great involvement in overseas development. There are very few villages, parishes, areas or regions where people have not seen one or more priests, nuns or brothers leave our shores and go out to work on our behalf in Third World and developing countries. We as a nation are not so far down the road from poverty. I am not a very old man but I remember the arrival of rural electrification in the region from which I came. We have only had pipe water in recent times. Indeed there are still areas that do not have piped water. Tarred roads are everywhere at this stage but I still remember some roads that were not tarred. We are not that far down the road from poverty and indeed oppression and every Irish man and woman is conscious of the link between the two.

Indeed, people in other countries have taken note and followed in the footsteps of Irish people who have done what we would consider to be great things. A typical example would be Nehru in India. He definitely followed in the footsteps of Eamon de Valera. He took on board his views, his principles, his whole philosophy. The Irish in America have played a major part in the develpment of that country and if we look at the Declaration of Independence we can see the Irish involvement. We have GOAL, CONCERN, GORTA and Trócaire. All these bodies are doing massive work on behalf of the Irish people. We just cannot take overseas aid on the basis of GNP. These statistics are important, they are what will show in history, but there are very few of us who would consider that to be the input of the Irish people or the Irish nation in human terms. The semi-State bodies such as the ESB are playing a major role. They are involved in projects throughout the developing world. Their contribution has to be taken into consideration. Ireland itself is playing a major role at EC and UN level. I am always glad to hear the statements of our Minister and our other representatives at those meetings. There we are playing a major part but we can play a part regarding overproduction and the distribution of food subsidies and I hope that at some stage the European Community will consider such a proposal. That is an area where overseas aid to the Third World can be tackled.

The other area that we as a nation should look at is third level students. Ireland plays a minor role in this area and that is a pity. That is an area that could be expanded. Maybe some of our third level institutions have cut back on the subsidies that used to be given in that area. Indeed, some of them may be subsidising their institutions at this stage with the involvement of third level students. The reverse should be the case. We should have an opportunity of taking students for Third World countries into education here. They can bring back the knowledge, expertise and indeed understanding of what is necessary to develop their own regions and their own countries. We have a fine educational system here. We have a lot of the ethos and beliefs that are in those Third World countries due to the involvement of our missionaries abroad. I think we would be talking to the converted and those people who go back could be a great advantage to their own nations.

I believe Ireland is playing a major part in overseas development. It is providing £32 million odd. That is a big figure. Everybody would like if we were in a position to give more but we all have to be conscious of our own situation up to now. I have no doubt that the Government agonised, and everybody agonises when we have cut back on any development. We had to cut back on hospitals, health, and education in our own nation. They were not easy decisions. In all cases the decisions were taken in the interests of the country and in the interests of our survival as a good open economy. They have proved to be very successful decisions in so far as we have achieved, by and large, the end results.

We as a nation are doing our bit and our Minister is a great ambassador for us abroad. I do not think we in this House should consider that Ireland's contribution to the developing and Third World countries can be managed alone on a percentage basis. We have to take other matters on board.

Mr. Hourigan

I am very glad to support this motion. It is a three part motion, and the different parts are interlinked in many respects. Firstly, we are talking about taking immediate steps to increase the level of Government aid to 0.25 per cent of GNP as it was in 1987 and to aim at a target of 0.27 per cent of GNP in the reasonable future. Second, we want to reconstitute the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Development Aid and third, to establish a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. While 0.27 per cent of GNP has been indicated as a target, I feel we should make every effort to exceed that, and certainly to achieve it in a short period. Throughout the world there are very profound changes taking place that nobody could have envisaged a short time ago. These changes have taken place through Europe, Africa and the Americas. We feel very strongly than an Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee is an essential vehicle at this time to enable us to play our part as a nation towards meeting the needs of the nineties and ensuring that this country will play a fuller role in the changes to which I have referred both politically and socially. One cannot be too specific but there at this moment major changes taking place in the central American area. There are massive changes, particularly in South Africa. There have been changes too, in other countries adjacent to it, in the Far East, the Middle East and, I suppose most significantly of all from our point of view, in Central and Eastern Europe.

We must respond responsibly to these various changes. We cannot stand idly by and let these things happen. We are a small nation and money is not necessarily all that we can contribute. We can contribute very significantly in terms of influence and in terms of ensuring that other nations that are financially better off than we are, contribute their due share of what is required to the various nations that are so badly in need of help at this time. If we do not respond actively we can easily be submerged in these various changes that are taking place. Quite honestly, without being political, because one would not want to be in a situation such as this, a reduction in our contribution to overseas development at this time is not to be condoned. There was, in fact, in the recent budget a reduction of approximately £11 million. This is something that should not happen. It is not the amount of money itself, but the very principle and what it might represent as our stance in regard to the situation.

There is, of course, a major stumbling block, in the political sense, in transferring aid from countries that can afford to give aid to countries that badly need it. That whole political position is very complex and, in fact, one would need a lot of time to go into all the ins and outs, rights and wrongs of this. There are many under-developed countries throughout the world that badly need the massive surpluses that exist in other parts of the world and politics does, as you know, dictate a fair amount of what can and cannot be done. Unfortunately people in countries that need aid very badly are, in fact, unable to pay for the transportation of the aid to their countries, even though the assistance is free of charge. It is regrettable that while on the one hand, we have surpluses of large proportions, each day almost 40,000 children throughout the world are dying from lack of food. This is a very serious position.

Further to that, we have a position where approximately 500 million people, or ten per cent of the entire world population are still seriously in need of food, some are in a very desperate state, some not quite so bad. These matters highlight very clearly that no stone must be left unturned to try to get aid to the countries where it is needed. Unfortunately — and I want the House to acknowledge the reality — we have a position where civil war and strife is preventing real progress in the context of getting the aid into the countries that need it urgently. If any individual in this State gives £10, £20, or whatever, towards a good cause in any of the poor countries, there is a question as to how much of that reaches the individual in the end. There is the whole question of administration, of ensuring that the maximum amount of every £ contributed by individuals and by nations actually gets to its proper destination.

To be selfish about it, it is in our interest in the longer term that these under-developed nations should survive, that they would go through the trauma they are going through at the moment because we, as a developing nation ourselves, could do with a great deal of the raw materials that are produced in these countries. We have still a long distance to go before we could be classified as a fully developed nation. It is only 140 years ago or thereabouts since we had a massive famine in this country, a famine of proportions just as great as exist now in many of these nations. There is no way we can turn away from our responsibility in this whole area. We must contribute the maximum amount possible and in addition to that, we must have established this Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Aid and also the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs effectively to handle the aid our country can contribute. As we progress and develop further, hopefully that can be proportionately far greater.

There is an onus on each and every one of us to make sure, regardless of political affiliations, that we give the best possible help in whatever way we can, whether it is money, food, advice or influence, to these countries so badly in need.

Acting Chairman

Before Senator Lydon begins, I might indicate that the Minister wishes to reply at 7.20 p.m. Perhaps the remaining Senators who are offering will share their time with one another.

Mr. Lydon

Basically, the overseas development assistance which we give is divided into two parts; multilateral and bilateral. The multilateral part of this assistance is where we are a member of different international organisations and they in turn distribute the aid for us. There we are providing, in 1990, almost £21 million. Now in the bilateral area — that is country to country — we provide £13 million. There is a bilateral aid programme of about £9.5 million, of which £6.5 million goes to four countries that Ireland has specifically designated for relief, these are Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and the Sudan. A further £3 million goes to other countries. The remainder of the £13 million is divided up between the Agency for Personal Services Overseas, the Refugee Resettlement Committee and the Advisory Committee on Development Aid. So this year there is a total of £34.36 million provided. That is a fair amount of money for a country of this size. We all want to help and it is very easy to put down a motion like this which says there is a totally unjustifiable cutback.

I have difficulty with this motion from another point of view in that it is a composite motion which I do not like. There are three parts to it. You might want to vote for one part and vote against the other but you are given a package. For that reason I will find it difficult to support this motion.

The strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade — 1971 to 1980 — was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1970 and called upon economically advanced countries to do their best and to give a mimimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP to net official development assistance by the middle of the decade. We committed ourselves, and all Governments since that time have committed themselves, to trying to reach this target but without a time limit for its achievement and we still have not reached it. I know we should reach it, but we do not have the money for all we would like to do. Running a country budget is the same as running a household budget.

We help other countries in other ways. For example, out of the disaster relief fund this year, £100,000 went to purchase medical supplies for Romania and £50,000 to purchase medical supplies for Ethiopia. Of the aid we give Ethiopia, $300 million from the EC was taken by Mengistu and was not used for aid purposes. Why can we not meet this target — at the moment we give 0.16 per cent of GNP? The reason is the national debt. We have to pay the debt before we pay anything else. It is like running a family home. If you do not pay your mortgage you cannot give money for anything else no matter how needy the cause is. We have had a series of cutbacks in all areas, such as eduction and health, and we have to service the national debt. We have been doing well on the national debt. We have brought down the servicing from 1986 to 1990 from £2,145 million in 1986 to £449 million in 1990 but we still have to meet a phenomenal servicing figure.

Senators might ask why. As Senator Doyle mentioned last week, one of the reasons was the oil crisis when we were in Government. That did not help. When the Fine Gael and Labour Coalition took over they succeeded in doubling the national debt. We are left with legacies of these things and we have got to try and pay them. Instead of criticising we should try to help. We have to distribute the food surplus. To talk about a mountain of food or a lake of wine is phenomenal when people are starving. I do not see why they could not be distributed better.

I am sure the joint committees are for the Whips to decide in consultation with the parties. I have nothing against these committees being set up and as the Taoiseach said, they are under review and they may or may not happen. I have no comment to make on them because I am only concerned with the aid part of the motion. We could do better and we must always strive to do better. Under the present stringent economic circumstances we are doing our best. Our best is never good enough when people are dying but it is our best and we have to keep on trying to improve it. However, I do not see any point in attacking the Government at this stage and saying they are not doing something. They are helping and £34 million is a substantial amount to provide.

Dr. Upton

Like Senator Lydon I will be brief so that my colleagues, Senators Raftery and Norris, can make their contributions. I would support a committee on overseas development aid and a foreign affairs committee. The suggestion that grant aid would be raised to 0.25 per cent of GNP, and ultmately to 0.27 per cent of GNP, is disappointing; they are a third of what the United Nations recommend. It is depressing that that is the best objectives we can set for ourselves in the foreseable future. Our record in Third World aid is very depressing. There have been significant decreases since 1986. In 1986 we were providing 0.25 per cent of GNP which is very modest, and that has declined to 0.16 per cent of GNP. That has to be seen in the context of what is recommended by the United Nations — 0.7 per cent of GNP — and in the context that some of our European partners considerably exceed that contribution.

The other thing I find very depressing is the way overseas aid has been reduced in the past few years. You can look at overseas development aid under two broad headings — first there is the multinational aid and second, there is bilateral aid. The reality of the multinational aid is that one way or the other we are locked into it. It is not discretionary. We do not have any choice but to pay that amount. However, we have a choice in relation to bilateral aid and since 1987, there has been a reduction of 30 per cent in this area. If one is to believe what one hears, some elements in the Department of Finance were anxious to fully phase that out. I find that very disappointing. It is disappointing that the Sudan office, which was established to promote aid in Sudan, has had to be closed. These are the reductions which have taken place in the context of Ireland claiming very high moral positions in a variety of differing areas on the world stage.

It is depressing that Third World aid is reduced when it may be very much in our own interests to make worthwhile contributions. A lot of the money which will be contributed would be used to employ Irish people in the Third World; Irish products will be sold in the Third World; Third World students would use the Irish aid money to come here, and that would circulate back into the Irish economy. Above and beyond all that, there is the question of the goodwill which this country could gain for itself by committing itself to the United Nations' targets in relation to world aid.

The question of how we respond in the need for world aid is a moral question. The problems of the Third World are appalling. Large numbers of people in this country must find it very difficult to comprehend how dreadful the situation is. Large proportions of the population in some of these countries suffer from protein energy malnutrition. Their income is minimal compared to the income of people in this part of the world. We are in the first league of the world in terms of development. It is appalling that we cannot do better than 0.16 per cent of our gross national product.

I find it disappointing that we do not seem to have many ideas, nor is there very much debate, on issues relating to the development of the Third World. There has been little debate on how that would be best approached, what strategy should be and what the Irish contribution should be by way of suggesting new initiatives. This has not been a very live issue. The fact that the Third World can be marginalised to the extent it is and that real reductions have taken place confirm my belief that as far as the Third World is concerned the Establishment do not care.

Professor Raftery

I support this motion calling for a modest increase, restoring the Government aid to 0.25 per cent of GNP as it was three years ago, and with the aim of reaching 0.27 per cent in the reasonable future. That is a very modest target, perhaps too modest.

I would also like to support the motion calling for a reconstitution of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Development Aid. In that respect it is regrettable that the Government are opposed to the establishment of an Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs. I speak on this subject as a former member of the council of Gorta for many years, during which time I got an insight into the problems of hunger in the developing countries and how these problems might be dealt with. I also speak as a former member of the European Parliament, during which time we dealt with the problems of hunger in Ethiopia, the Sudan and elsewhere and during which time too, we were wrongly criticised for the surpluses which existed in Europe while famine existed in Africa.

Very simplistic views were expressed then, as is also the case now, about the whole question of surpluses in this part of the world and deficits in other parts. My experience teaches me that the most effective way we can help these people is to adopt a philosophy of giving them a fishing rod rather than a fish, in other words, teaching them how to help themselves rather than handing food or cash to them. We in Ireland are poor in terms of material things, although rich relative to the very poor countries, but we are rich in terms of technology. It is in this respect that we can help most.

Senator Finneran has already referred to teaching them, bringing them to this country to our universities, to our regional technical colleges and so on. He is absolutely right. In fact, in my own college I have advocated it for many years and in my faculty of food science we are now increasing the amount of help we are giving to Third World countries. That is to be welcomed. We hope other colleges will do the same.

We can also help by encouraging more Irish people to go out and work among these underdeveloped countries. We do have a situation in Ireland at the moment and indeed in most developed countries, where people are retiring earlier. These people have a lot to offer. I can think of people from the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Education, from outfits like the Agricultural Institute and ACOT, now Teagasc, who have an enormous amount to offer. Many of them, when they reach retiring age, taking early retirement at 60, have still plenty of energy left to undertake a new challenge and at that stage in life, they are very often free of family commitments. It would be very desirable for the Government to encourage these people to go out to help the less fortunate brethren in the Third World.

I want to refer to something that time and again we were criticised for when I was a member of the European Parliament, that is, the food surpluses we had in the Community while people suffered hunger in Africa. Despite our best efforts trying to get food to them we were frustrated by Governments who were using salmon as a weapon of war. It was galling to see ships from the Community carrying food and grain into the ports of Ethiopia, having to queue up and wait while shiploads of arms from Russia were being unloaded. It was galling to find that food convoys were being strafed by Government jets to prevent that food getting to the needy in Eritrea and other areas. That is the kind of problem we were up against.

There is another problem also. Most of the surplus we had were unsuitable for these people. For example, what is the point in talking about a wine lake? God knows their problems are bad enough without give them our surplus wine. How can we give them our surplus butter when they do not have the cold storage facilities to handle it? Similarly how can we give them our beef when they have no cold storage facilities? The people who talk about these solutions simply do not know what they are talking about. There is only one form of surplus we have that we can usefully give to them, that is our surplus grain. That we have been doing as best we can although I think we have to put more political pressure on leaders like Mengitsu who use famine as a weapon of war.

There is one other danger about giving food to these people. Of course, we must keep them alive — that is absolutely essential — but simply throwing food at them indiscriminately carries a danger in itself. Let me recall for Senators what President Kaunda of Zambia said to us in the European Parliament when addressing a world conference on food and hunger. He said food aid simply fertilises famine. He meant by that that if you simply dump food into these poor and needy countries, you will undermine the local producers and when you have not got a surplus next time round, the local producers are gone and you have simply exacerbated the situation. This is a danger we must always bear in mind. Above all, we must try to ensure that whatever we give really gets to the needy, not to the greedy. I am afraid too much of it in the past has got to the greedy. I wish to support this motion, I sincerely hope it will have the full support of this House.

Mr. Norris

I would like to express my appreciation to the other Senators who have made time for me. First, I would like to say how heartened I am that so many speakers have referred to the question of a foreign affairs committee. Nothing illustrates the need for such a committee better than this debate. I invite the Minister to withdraw his comments made in the other House yesterday, as I understood them to be reported, which seem to imply that sensitive negotiations could be prejudiced by the existence of a foreign affairs com mittee.

Acting Chairman

I would like to point out to Senator Norris that he should not make references to procedures in the other House.

Mr. Norris

I am just referring to reports in the newspapers, I will address the principle then that I think it is a libel upon Members of the Oireachtas to imply that they are not as trustworthy as civil servants. I welcome the support for a foreign affairs committee.

I would like to point out that on 23 November 1989, the Taoiseach indicated that the Government remained committed to meeting the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP being devoted to overseas aid. He then proceeded to announce a series of cuts. I would like to ask the Minister if he can demonstrate to me the logic of how you can achieve a target by moving backwards. I seem to remember something along those lines being proposed in a comic novel by Lewis Carroll but I was not aware that it had become a feature of practical politics. I believe it to be a matter of self respect for this country that, in the light of our understanding of our history and of the famine that struck this island in the 1840s, we should do something to redress the imbalances that exist on the globe, particularly with regard to those traditional recipients of funding.

It is difficult to believe that the Government are serious about achieving their targets when they have indicated that Overseas Development Aid will stand at 0.16 per cent of GNP in 1990 as compared to the target of 0.7 per cent, which is even quite a small amount of money. I find it difficult to give credence to the kind of thing I heard earlier when we were told that this was a budgetary matter. Does anybody actually seriously believe that these miserable, parsimonious, tiny, almost microscopic amounts, in terms of our national budget, will really over balance things? Can we not afford to be moral?

I know that it is no longer fashionable to espouse the cause of socialism or indeed communism but I have no difficulty, and I think the plain people of Ireland have very little difficulty, with what used to be the basis of the Communist credo, "to each according to their need, from each according to their capacity". There is no question of doubt in my mind that our capacity far exceeds 0.16 per cent of GNP and that we ought to move rapidly towards fulfilling our obligations, as the Taoiseach has indicated.

I would like to make one final point, I appeal to the Minister to make exceptional efforts to ensure that two countries in particular are included in overseas development aid. From statements he has made in this House and in other places in the past year or two, I know that the Minister is sympathetic to both. The first one is Cambodia, which is being starved of development aid. Now that there is the appearance of a package and that the threat of the Khmer Rouge may well be faced by the international community, for God's sake can we not get some aid directly to the unfortunate people there? Now that the Americans have pulled off their little trick of subverting the unfortunate people in Nicaragua, of starving them into voting the way "big brother" wants them to, can we not look favourably upon the needs of this small country with a history similar to our own?

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

First of all, I deliberately waited until this time so that as many Senators as possible could speak and that would give me an opportunity of trying to reply to the various points made. I would like to thank all of the Senators who have contributed to the debate. May I also thank Senator Avril Doyle for the manner in which she proposed the motion and for the manner in which she spoke to it? It was very sincere and, apart from one or two little points, non-political, and I would like to thank her for the manner in which she proposes the motion. As Senator Lydon quite rightly said, this is a composite motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised if I say that I cannot accept the actual motion, apart from the fact that it starts off by condemning the Government. It is a very complex motion, and it is one that I can have certain sympathy with.

As part of its recognition of the common humanity of man and of its commitment to the maintenance of peaceful international relations, Ireland recognises a special obligation to contribute to the economic and social development of the poorer countries of the world and the poorest population in them. The obligation is expressed through the provision of official development assistance.

In 1974, Ireland established its own bilateral aid programme with the aim of making a distinctively Irish contribution to development through the provision of forms of technical assistance in which Ireland has a special interest or competence. Within the bilateral aid programme, as Senator Lydon said, assistance is concentrated on four priority countries, Lesotho, Zambia, Tanzania and the Sudan, which are among the least developed countries in the world. As a member of various multilateral organisations active in development assistance, such as the European Community, the United Nations and the World Bank, Ireland also provides funding towards the development co-operation programmes of these organisations.

The official estimate for ODA in 1990 is £34.4 million. Nearly two-thirds of that, or £21.4 million, is for multilateral assistance, a point mentioned by Senator Lydon, while the balance of £13 million covers Ireland's bilateral aid programme. The largest item under that heading is the bilateral aid fund for which £9.5 million has been provided in 1990.

This overall amount is very slightly less than the amount of £34.6 million provided in 1989. I am, indeed, very sorry that it has not been possible to provide a larger amount. As I said, I have tremendous sympathy with that part of the motion that seeks an immediate increase of ODA by approximately £20 million because that is what the figure would roughly come to. Indeed, what Minister or Minister of State would not have sympathy with a motion that suggests he would increase his budget by approximately 60 per cent?

I would like to assure Senators that the 1990 estimate for official development assistance was very carefully considered by the Government, who took account of all the issues. However, this had to be done against the background of the general economic situation. The major factor in that situation is the scale of the Government's debt and the related need for continued financial stringency by the Government. I wish to remind Senators that if the Government had not taken resolute action in regard to their finances in the period since 1987, they might now be facing bankruptcy rather than discussing the level of assistance which can be provided for developing countries. It has only been through very difficult decisions — a point mentioned by Senator Finneran — that progress has been achieved, progress which will pave the way for increasing ODA in the future in line with the Government's commitment to maintain and increase it as economic circumstances permit.

In relation to the general issue of Government policy on ODA, may I note that the Government remain committed to reaching the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product devoted to official development assistance. No date has ever been set by this or previous Governments for the achievement of this target and in the present difficult budgetary situation it is not possible to do so.

Senator Doyle suggested that we are at the moment preoccupied with our own debt-servicing crisis and that this was used rather lamely as an excuse for not honouring our commitments over the years. As I said, and as pointed out by other Senators, it is a reality and if we had not taken the action that we took since 1987 then we would be facing bankruptcy. It is of some significance that the annual borrowing requirement in 1986 was £2,145 million. It is estimated that in 1990 it will be £449 million. That shows the actual major reduction that has taken place. As every Senator knows, this was vital to maintain our capacity to provide State services.

Senator Doyle also raised the question of a White Paper on ODA policy and mentioned that a suggestion has been around since 1974 or 1975 that a White Paper is to be published. She wonders what the situation is now. I suppose that if blame has to be apportioned it should be apportioned equally between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, or Fine Gael and Labour and Fianna Fáil, because, roughly, half and half, they have been in Government during that period.

The preparation of a White Paper setting out current Government policy and ODA is something that is constantly kept under review. Senators would agree with me that the timing is very important and at a time when it is difficult to find the finances to fund our existing programme it is hardly practical to discuss producing a White Paper. However, I can assure Senator Doyle that as soon as the situation improves, which is hoped will be very soon, consideration can then be given to that matter.

I know that Senator Doyle, because she mentioned it in the debate, is very aware of the debt problem. Senator Doyle also mentioned APSO and asked whether the Minister is making use of this body in terms of advice and whether a lot more could be garnered from that particular source. Yes, I use APSO any time I can and I take whatever advice they have to give me, but the Senator is confusing the role of APSO and ACDC because, as Senators will know, ACDC is a body set up to give advice to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to development co-operation.

The allocation for 1990 is, as I have already noted, comprised of two main elements, one of which is multilateral aid which covers our contributions to major international agencies and which are generally fixed. The estimate of amounts required under that heading fell slightly for 1990, as compared with 1989, from £21.5 million to £20.8 million.

On the bilateral side, where levels of assistance are generally more open to the Government's discretion, the allocations rose by an average of 4 per cent, thus keeping pace with Irish inflation. The amounts provided are sufficient to meet all commitments and enable us to maintain a basic programme of assistance. I would like Senators to know that the programme is achieving effective results and that it is very much appreciated in recipient countries.

I have recently returned from a visit to Tanzania and Zambia — precipitately, I might add. In Tanzania I participated at the opening of a technical school in a rural district built with Irish aid funds. The establishment of the school is being ably assisted at the moment by a team from FÁs. I have no doubt as to the practical value of this school to Tanzania, which has very severe shortages of craftsmen of every kind, with the result that economic development is seriously hampered and even basic maintenance of existing facilities cannot be carried out.

In Zambia I was particularly impressed by the Irish-assisted project of building and rehabilitating very basic maternity facilities in the poorest districts of Lusaka. Its importance in ensuring safe deliveries for thousands of Lusaka mothers and infants was stressed to me by the Zambian authorities.

I can assure Senators that Ireland's standing is very high in Zambia and Tanzania and other countries: a doubt may well have been expressed by some of the remarks here tonight about that standing. I would like to say a special "thank you" to the many Irish people engaged in these projects and in others I visited and to assure them that their efforts are recognised and encouraged.

I might add that, in relation to the point made by Senator Raftery concerning people who have retired and who could have a role to play, very many of them are actually over there at the moment playing a very vital and important role in our development assistance to various countries.

I turn now to that part of the motion which calls for the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs. This is not the first time that such a committee has been proposed. Motions to this effect were discussed and debated in this House in 1986 and in 1988. I agree that very significant and fundamental changes are occurring right through the world, as mentioned by Senator Hourigan and indeed other Senators.

The Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are accountable in a very real and practical sense to the Oireachtas for their management of Ireland's international relations. Members of the Oireachtas, and through them the public, have a right to be well informed and to express opinions on the State's foreign policy. Similarly, they have the right to criticise Government decisions in this area if they consider such criticism to be justified, and they have done so in the past.

There are many opportunities open to Members of the Oireachtas to exercise these rights and to review and debate aspects of foreign policy. These can be raised and are raised in both Houses either in the form of special motions or on the Adjournment. In the past four months Senators will be aware that issues as diverse as Cambodia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, famine relief and emigration have been discussed in one or both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is clear from this that adequate arrangements exist for Senators and Deputies to discuss in public various aspects of foreign policy. The annual debates on the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and the Estimates for International Co-operation, the presentation of reports on developments in the European Communities and on meetings of the European Council provide valuable opportunities for debate and discussion on our external relations.

Senator Michael Finneran, Senator O'Keeffe and Senator Brendan Ryan mentioned the very practical and down-to-earth nature of Irish projects in the developing world and I can agree, having visited the various projects. I can also assure the House that Ireland's development policies are formed in consultation with the countries in which the bulk of the projects are situated.

Senator Finneran, and indeed Senator Raftery, also mentioned the question of third level education. I agree wholeheartedly with both of them. This is a very important area and approximately £125,000 of our bilateral aid fund is provided for fellowships to provide training for developing countries' personnel in many institutions throughout Ireland and, where necessary, in other countries if we have not got the expertise that is needed by the developing countries.

Senator Lydon and Senator Hourigan mentioned the loss of the Concern ship. We were all greatly concerned about the loss of that ship, which was taken by the EPLF rather than the Ethopian Government. However, I would like to assure the House that the substantial bulk of aid gets through.

Senator Hourigan has drawn attention to the imbalance between surpluses in some countries and the desperate want in others. However, I feel I should reassure the Seanad that a great deal of the surpluses are made available and are indeed transferred to poor countries. However, as pointed out very forcibly and strongly by Senator Raftery, the situation is that some types of products — for example, butter and meat — are very expensive to transport and may become unusable without elaborate storage facilities which are not available in developing countries. Therefore, most of the aid is supplied in cereals with milk powder and the like. I share the concern of Senator Raftery and Senator Hourigan about the effects of war preventing aid getting through and indeed, as Senator Raftery said, the use of famine as a means of war. In that I am particularly conscious of the difficulties in Sudan and Ethiopia at present.

Turning now to the question of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-operation, I would like to pay tribute to the committee which operated during the 25th Dáil and which produced some very excellent reports. While the Development Co-operation Committee did very useful work, I might note that the absence of a committee is not preventing either House from discussing both the broad development co-operation issues such as that covered by the first element of the motion before the Seanad and also specific issues such as the situation in Ethiopia. There was a very well-informed debate on Ethiopia in this House before Christmas and it was my privilege to attend and to respond. I am sure there will be many further occasions for satisfactory debates on the issues involved.

May I assure Senator Norris, in relation to Cambodia, that last year an allocation of £50,000 for emergency supplies was made last November. I would also like to reassure him that we will also accept applications from Irish NGOs for eight projects for Cambodia which will be decided on their merits and if funds are available. An allocation of £10,000 was made last year for an NGO project for Nicaragua. Likewise, we will accept applications from Irish NGOs for Nicaraguan projects in 1990 on the same basis as for Cambodia. However, I think the House will agree with me that it makes sense for us to concentrate the available resources we have in a certain number of countries rather than dissipating them by sending them to a large number of countries. I think it is something that all of us can agree on.

I have sympathy with the general trend of some of the motion, but all I can say is that, as Members of the House will be aware, the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil last month that the question of establishing further Oireachtas committees remains under consideration and the establishment of those committees is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas in conjunction with the Government.

Mr. Staunton

I welcome the Minister to the House. I was a little bit embarrassed at his precipitate return from Africa and the circumstances involved, especially as he was the bearer of goods and good wishes to a brother of mine who works in Tanzania. My apologies to the Minister.

Having said that, I cannot compliment the Minister too much for his speech because it is running counter to what we seek in this motion. Let me refer briefly to the motion: "That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government's totally unjustifiable cutback in the current level of overseas development aid..." The motion then calls on the Government to take immediate steps to increase the level of Government aid to 0.25 per cent of gross national product, as it was in 1987, and to aim at a target of 0.27 per cent of GNP in the reasonable future. This is against the background of the United Nation's target of 0.7, which is approximately three times our present level.

It is very important that there should be a bilateral approach on this Government aid issue between Government and Opposition because of its hugely fundamental social significance. It has to be very tempting to any Government in office in difficult times to seize whatever revenue it can lay its hands on for sound national purposes. There are issues at the moment such as the flooding of the Shannon and elsewhere in the country, issues in the agricultural sector, or relating to storm damage and so on; there is a huge temptation to dive in where there is limited political sensitivity, grab the loot and transfer it. It is a temptation that should be resisted in all possible cases.

In relative terms we have to say we are a wealthy nation. There is no getting away from the fact that Ireland is a very wealthy nation in global terms. We are members of an extremely élite group in the European Community and we are one of the poorest nations only in that context. We use all the levers at our disposal in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg to argue the case that, as one of the poorest countries in western Europe, we have special grounds to take huge chunks of money out of the European cake for our regional development needs, for our small farmers, for social and industrial purposes. At the same time we are arguing in a western European context of our relative poverty, we are much less than generous when the shoe is on the other foot and when we are in this relatively very wealthy position in this country in comparison to the abysmal poverty and deprivation which exists in the Third World and in the Fourth World.

There is a massive level of dedication to the Third and Fourth Worlds by the vocational sectors in this country. We have the most incredible people working in the missions — men and women — on the African continent, South America and Central America. You meet the most embittered agnostics and atheists working in those areas, in those countries, who have the highest possible regard and respect for the work done by Irish Christian missionaries and lay missionaries such as teachers. That is the saving grace when we look at what Ireland is doing abroad, but at Governmental level I submit to the Minister we are not doing enough. Regardless of what the Irish problems may be — the problems we have had in the economy; the problem we are facing at this time — this is a very fundamental issue where I would like to see agreement between Government and Opposition in the Dáil and Seanad that there is a certain proportion going in there increasing annually, a proportion of GNP agreed across the House, that it is sacrosanct and is going to be untouched regardless of the national circumstances.

The second part of the motion which we put down seeks the reconstituting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Aid which was establshed some time ago and which operated through the 25th Dáil. We know the terms of reference: nine Members of Dáil Éireann, none of whom should be a member of the Government, to be joined with the select committee to be appointed by the Seanad to examine such aspects of Ireland's relations with developing countires in the field of development co-operation and the Government's official assistance in developing countries. There was a distinguished membership of that committee. Reading it from the list of Members and not giving any political preference to any party: Fine Gael — Deputies Owen, Glenn, Enright, Crowley; Senators O'Brien, Connor, Browne. Fianna Fáil — Deputies Niall Andrews, Leonard, Kirk, Ned O'Keeffe; Senators Hanafin, Killilea. Labour — the late Frank Cluskey, Senator Michael Higgins and Senator Brendan Ryan.

There was a prestigious membership of Members of the Oireachtas on that committee. The Minister in his speech paid them a tribute. He paid tribute to the excellent work which they did in the 25th Dáil and he referred to the fact that they produced excellent results. At that point the Minister's speech is simply full stop. Having paid such glowing compliments to this particular committee for the work which they did and the excellent results which they produced, the Minister does not say at that point whether it is the intention of the Government or of the Minister to re-establish the committee. I think we are due clarification there. The implication of the Minister's speech seems to be that, despite their excellent work, since their demise work has continued effectively; and, possibly by implication, it is not necessary to reconstitute the committee. However, the Minister does not say clearly it is the Government's intention.

There is a little line at the end of it, that the Taoiseach states it is possible that future Oireachtas committees may be established, that it remains under consideration. May I ask the Minister specifically, what is the position of the Minister and Government on that point? Is it the intention of the Minister, along with the Government, to re-establish that committee or is it not?

Mr. Calleary

If I may answer the Senator, the answer is as in the last four lines of the speech. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil last month that the question of establishing further Oireachtas committees remains under consideration.

Mr. Staunton

With respect, that is terribly ambiguous. Is the question of re-establishing this——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Finneran)

I advise the Senator to ask his questions through the Chair.

Mr. Staunton

I apologise. I thought I was speaking through the Chair. Through the Chair, is the Taoiseach stating that the question of the re-establishing of this specific committee is under consideration?

Mr. Calleary

Committees.

Mr. Staunton

Does that include this specific committee?

Acting Chairman

I think, Senator, it would be unfair to allow this to develop into a situation of question and answer. You have the right of reply and I would advise that you would address yourself to that.

Mr. Staunton

I will. It was merely what I think was a reasonable request for clarification, which the Minister has attempted to satisfy to an extent, but the matter is not clear, so far as I am concerned. I believe the committee should be reconstituted.

The third issue we have in this motion is that we are calling on the Government to establish an Oireachtas Joint Committee on foreign affairs. In relation to this matter there is a very strong desire in this House in the most apolitical sense to establish such a committee. It has been a matter discussed on the Order of Business for some weeks now, it has been a matter to which the Leader of this House has given a personal commitment. It has been an issue in relation to which members of the Government party here have been as strong in advocating the establishment of this committee as have been Senators in the opposing parties. The Leader of the House has been implying to us here that this committee was going to be established. The Minister in his speech states fairly categorically that no such committee will be established. It is running very much in conflict.

Mr. Calleary

He did not say that. The last five lines again said the same thing.

Mr. Staunton

The whole tone of the Minister's speech——

Acting Chairman

I will have to intervene again. The Senator is developing this into a question and answer session and I advise him that he has the opportunity to reply. I would ask him to confine himself to that.

Mr. Staunton

I will, but let me say this. The Minister, in his speech in relation to the foreign affairs committee, makes a number of statements which imply that the Government do not see the need for the establishment of such a committee, that adequate arrangements exist already so why go into this committee. I do not accept that adequate arrangements exist. There are suggestions that there would be duplication with the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Community. I cannot accept that statement for one minute. The Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Community is a reactive type of committee, dealing with legislation as it comes to us from the European Community. It is dealing with issues of a very historical nature, dealing with many issues about wine lakes, olive oil lakes and issues that have very little relevance for this country. It is certainly not in the policy sector. I would reject completely there being any question of duplication with the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Community.

I must also dispute the Minister's remarks that the additional burdens of the European Community Presidency in Ireland at present make this time unsuitable. Time is passing very quickly. We are now into the middle of March. Even if there was the will politically to establish this committee, the time is certainly right now to get on with it because by the end of June that Presidency will not be our burden any longer.

There is mention in the Minister's speech about sensitive negotiations and the implication that a parliamentary committee might somehow or other impede or make difficult existing workings within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not accept that for many reasons. There are so many precedents in the Oireachtas with existing committees and recently established committees where there are no breaches of confidence — for example, the recent development of an Oireachtas committee concerning semi-State bodies, which I regard as an excellent development. It should, perhaps, have happened many years ago. Within the semi-State bodies there are sensitive issues and yet this rapport that is developing or the cut and thrust between that committee and the semi-States is, I believe, very healthy for this country. It has not in any sense done any damage in the area of confidentiality, in so far as I am aware.

We have our other committees in the House. We have our Committee of Public Accounts, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the European Committee. I do not see for one instant that the establishment of this specific one creates all kinds of problems which have not been created elsewhere. I do not think there is evidence to suggest it would do that. That is my view.

I also understand that, if we are looking at this area of foreign policy and parliamentary committees, this is one of the very few countries in Western Europe which does not, within its Parliament, have a committee dealing with foreign relations. We are very much the exception rather than the rule if we believe that we can proceed on the basis of debates in the House on the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs or special motions. There is a great deal of evidence that the committee system can work very effectively and there is no reason why it is not as necessary in the area of foreign policy as it is within other areas of public activity.

The last issue I would like to deal with is to point up the necessity for such a committee for foreign affairs. It relates to our membership of the European Community. That is of profound importance. It is a fundamental truth that since we joined the Community in 1973 there has been a huge shift of power to European institutions. It is an enormous fact of life. I said in this House today on the Order of Business there are times when I feel more like a member of a county council in the Seanad now than a member of a national Parliament. An issue I raised relating to the importance of foreign affairs——

Mrs. Honan

There is nothing wrong with being a member of a county council.

Mr. Staunton

There is nothing wrong whatever with being a member of a county council. I was an elected member of Mayo County Council for about 13 years and I was every proud of it — with the Minister, in fact. The point I am making is that this is a national Parliament with a different function. What I want to hit at here is this: with that shift in power we do not, as parliamentarians, have a fraction of the power that the people we succeeded had prior to 1973. The issue I want to raise is that if a Member of the Seanad or the Dáil has a particular interest in regional development, in agricultural policy, in education, in social welfare, in infrastructure, in environment——

Acting Chairman

Your time is up, Senator.

Mr. Staunton

I am just concluding on this sentence. If we want to follow up a line and to investigate and to establish a satisfactory brief so that we can address ourselves as we should to these issues in this House, there is no arrangement within the Oireachtas, either in the Dáil or in the Seanad, and there is no arrangement through the offices of the European Community to facilitate that type of fundamental activity. That is the root of this issue that I am addressing. It is for those reasons that we call on the Government to take these steps under these three headings.

Question put: "That the motion be agreed to".

The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Harte, John.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P. N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.

Níl

• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Finneran, Michael.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Neville and Jackman; Níl, Senators Wright and McGowan.

Question declared lost.