Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

This legislation provides one of those rare windows of opportunity for reflecting on the Bretton Woods institutions. When these were instituted in the 1940s, the structure of accountability went from them through the United Nations to an assistant secretary general. They were specifically described in the founding statutes as development institutions and just that. I need to repeat this point in the House far too often but as time evolved, the institutions spun away into a kind of self-articulated autonomy. For example, even when there was a fine moment in an ambience of bad moments at the United Nations, people spoke about the needs of development, the elimination of poverty and so forth. These institutions were no longer in the same relationship with the Secretary General as they were in their founding.

The Minister of State will need to give an assurance to the House on this matter. I refer to the eight millennium development goals. The eighth goal as it relates to trade is being debated in Hong Kong. There is no guarantee from the International Monetary Fund or from the different agencies that are related to the development banks that they are constructing their proposals in accordance with the poverty elimination principles of the eight millennium development goals. It may be said that this is a finance measure and has nothing to do with development. I argue it has everything to do with development and I refer to the previous, very minor debt relief schemes. Four things hang together and they are aid, trade, development and debt. To some extent, forms of technology transfer should be included. The conditions that have been imposed repeatedly are such as to frustrate the poverty reduction strategies that may be made possible by either debt relief or by increased aid or by changes in technology.

Practical measures can be achieved regarding accountability. It was announced at the meetings of the Heads of State at the United Nations that an attempt will be made to reconcile the poverty development issues and the structure of the international financial institutions. Why can the House not be provided with details of the policy positions taken on behalf of the Government at the meetings? Why does the House not have advance notice of the policy positions that are likely to arise at forthcoming meetings? Why is there such minimal reporting in the innovative report? Why are so many of the worthy non-governmental organisations having such difficulty in extracting information under freedom of information? Is it not the case that there is a suggestion that matters financial take precedence over matters of development, poverty reduction and everything else? Is it not the case that it is a special kind of non-accountability?

I refer to the nomination of the representatives to these governing bodies. I could have spent the small amount of time available to me dealing with the merit of including the Asian Development Bank. It was an aspect of how little transparency attaches to these issues that when the meetings were taking place in Edinburgh and there was significant debt relief, the exclusion of the Asian Development Bank from the meetings was hardly noted. The countries that were heavily indebted were effectively ignored.

I am concerned about some terms used in this Bill. The Minister of State's contribution did not refer much to the founding principles of the Bretton Woods institutions. They are contained in page five of the Bill where reference is made to the bank agreement. If we have noted the previous shortfall in the legacy of non-accountability, we also have a difficulty about how the accountability from agreements can be constituted. I see the case that can be made for flexibility as one moves out from the founding statute and giving status to such agreements as may be brought before the Dáil. It should be noted that there is a serious shortfall on accountability.

I have a straightforward question about the lending policy. What evidence is there that the lending policy will take account of the wider goals expressed at the United Nations? This is not an abstract argument. I refer to countries such as Ghana and Zambia, for instance. The commercial banks are used by peasants to purchase seeds, some of which are retained for a further harvest. For a heavily indebted country, the price of obtaining debt relief in the previous round was the privatisation of the national commercial bank that provided seeds and implements and so forth. These are conditions that will frustrate any attempt to reconcile debt relief with increased aid to improve the lives of the people.

This Bill provides no guarantee on services. Such services are necessary for the instant development of a state that may be 40% reliant on aid to meet its annual budget. There must be a provision that such aid can be retained by these states.

An OECD report stated that education was to be the next big thing. This was included in an OECD report five years after the organisation stated that water was to be the next big thing by way of private, commercial investment. It is outrageous that institutions which take their sources from 1940s development institutions would be putting conditions in place which are not accountable back to this Parliament more than any other, that speak about the privatisation of water and education and the right of countries to put together their economies that may spring from an agriculture that is heavily labour intensive.

There is a need for accountability in lending policies. The Minister of State or his colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, should return to inform the House of the structure of the spending as it stands with regard to the forms of technology transfer. If loans are given for the high end of technology transfer, the deal is between multinationals and western governments and receiving elites. However, if it is crafted and takes its purpose from the development agenda, it may well be towards the lower cost of technology and may be of much more benefit to the 80% of the population in these countries that are reliant on simple agriculture. There are issues of sovereignty for these countries which they must negotiate all the time in terms of the conditions they will have to meet to bring in the flow of aid or debt relief or technology transfer.

It is wonderful that we are willing to give as much as we do. I question the reason that trade must be divided from development in this House. Why is it that the financial side of matters must be kept in such a hegemonic relationship to the development, trade and justice issues of international relations?

The answer is this. What proposals has the Minister of State for future representation at the meetings of these banks? How will the people who will represent Ireland be chosen and is he happy with the pool from which he draws? How many days will we be allowed in the Dáil and Seanad to debate the issues coming up on the agenda? Will we have an opportunity, and in which committee, to discuss the policy issues that will be decided? These are fundamental issues on which I would appreciate a reply. The questions are quite clear and I am sure the Minister of State will want to reply.

See this speech in context