asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the total amount allocated for Irish Official Development Aid for 1988 and 1989; if he will give these figures as a percentage of the gross national product; if the achievement of a level of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product remains an objective of the Government; when that target is likely to be met; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The amounts allocated for official development assistance in 1988 and 1989 are £32.76 million and £33.72 million respectively. The percentage of GNP for both years is 0.18 per cent.

The United Nations target figure of 0.7 per cent of GNP for official development assistance by developed countries has been accepted by successive Irish Governments but no date has been set for its attainment.

In present economic circumstances it is not realistic to expect that we could come close to that target at an early date but we continue to accept the target figure in principle and it remains the intention of the Government to work towards it according as our economic circumstances permit us to do so.

Surely the Minister does not expect the people of the Third World to live on a promise that we may reach the target of 0.7 per cent of our GNP some time in the future? Will the Minister not agree that it is unacceptable to our people, who have been so generous on a personal level in supporting disasters of one kind or another and appeals from aid organisations, that we have not progressed from the 0.18 per cent of our gross national product? Will the Minister agree that it is wrong that we are not further along the road than we were in 1981?

I can accept much of what the Deputy has said but I should like to remind him that to reach 0.7 of GNP would cost approximately £100 million. When the Deputy considers that I am sure he will realise that it is impossible for us in present circumstances to reach that target. None of us is entirely satisfied with the amount of aid but developed countries are faced with many difficulties.

On a point of order, I take it that as the Minister of State is answering Question No. 10 on its own my Priority Question No. 48, remains intact.

Absolutely.

Will the Minister accept that we are not demanding that 0.7 per cent of our GNP be paid this year, that we are not looking for a payment of £100 million in 1988? Will the Minister accept that we are looking for a commitment from the Government to increase Official Development Aid to reach the target as quickly as possible? A target date should be set.

Ceist le d'thoil, a Theachta.

We are giving the same amount of ODA this year that we gave last year.

The Deputy is not asking a question.

Does the Minister accept that the Government do not have a commitment to ODA?

I must call Deputy Flaherty.

The Minister's argument is that ODA should be treated the same as any other budgetary item and I do not accept that. I should like to know how the Minister defends the decision in the last two Estimates to cut ODA by more than the average level of cuts for all Government Departments.

Having been a Minister of State for a number of years the Deputy will be aware that each Government Department must accept any cuts made. If we had not implemented those cutbacks and got the economy into a healthy position we would not have been able to continue with ODA. I am sure all Members agree with that statement.

Mr. M. Higgins rose.

I observe that Deputy Higgins has tabled a Priority Question on the same subject matter and I should like to ask him to permit me allow Deputy Flaherty put a further supplementary question to the Minister.

My question on this subject is not likely to be reached. I accept that the Minister is in an impossible position and I should like to point out to him that his commitment to ODA is not in question. Will the Minister accept that there is a lack of commitment and vision by the Government in regard to ODA? Will he accept that the years of progress in regard to ODA have been eaten away by the Government in two years? Will the Minister accept that the Government have protected certain areas from the cutbacks, such as benefits for the longterm unemployed? They correctly identified that area as one that should not suffer.

The Deputy should not try to debate the matter now; that is not an order.

Will the Minister confirm that with the right political will it would be possible to exempt ODA while maintaining the broad budgetary strategy? The House is unanimous in the view that area should be exempt and that the Government should move steadily towards the UN target. That has been done in Denmark.

The Deputy has made her point.

The Deputy has to learn a little about the facts of life. The argument she has put forward can be made for Health, and has been made, and it can be made for Education, and has been made. The Government are fully committed to reach the target of 0.7 per cent as soon as possible. I do not accept that the Government are any less interested in ODA than any other Government.

Action speaks louder than words.

The Government have shown they are not interested; they are the first Government to have cut ODA in 20 years.

I accept the Minister's commitment in this area and I should like to ask him to raise once more with the Cabinet the need to increase the allocation for 1989.

I will take into account what the Deputy has said.