Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute. When one looks at the substance of this legislation and its Title, the Bretton Woods Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2011, one cannot avoid asking the fundamental question as to what has happened to the spirit that informed the original Bretton Woods agreements. It has been one of the great moral failures of our time, although it began as a significant moment.

When people met to establish the first Bretton Woods agreement, it was in an atmosphere of concern for constructing the basis of international peace and of relieving intolerable burdens on different member countries within the community of world nations. In the short time available to me, I must be perhaps a bit more blunt than I would like to be. The philosophy that informed and the dialogue that created the Bretton Woods conference is entirely contradicted by most of the activities in recent decades of the institutions which it spawned. It has been perhaps at its atrocious worst in regard to the influence of the neoliberal model of economics that is associated with the Chicago school, and which contaminated the institutions of Bretton Woods in such a way that, instead of appearing to advance a shared concern for solidarity in economic and social terms, they became institutions that were merely the naked instruments of imposition of a single model of economic development.

Deputy Burton has perhaps spoken about her experience in Tanzania. I recall very well that the neighbouring country of Kenya was used as an example to destroy the social model of Ujamaa, which had been introduced by Julius Nyerere. The distinguished Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is well aware of this issue. He will be more aware than most of the fundamental contradiction of the Keynesian thinking that was brought to the conference by some of the people at the first conference. Lord Keynes, as he was later to be, spoke, for example, about political economy. However, what came as instruments through the International Monetary Fund took no account of the social and human impact of the policies that were prescribed, be it in regard to whether villages needed to establish small farms to raise chickens to feed their population or otherwise - that did not matter.

As this is one of the rare opportunities I have left to speak in the House, I will make the following point. I remember the debate in the 1970s when we used speak about food sufficiency in African countries. Many of the African leaders who were visiting Europe and the United States at the time would say "We want everything you have". Short cuts were taken in regard to the structure of what was demanded and food sufficiency became unfashionable, as was the case in regard to many other basic items. Into that consumer-driven model of economy and social development came the IMF with one thing after another. It never asked a question about the impact on villages, women or children of its policies in regard to medicines or, for example, the connection between the trade talks and its lending policies.

I could spend an hour suggesting that the IMF today is not what the IMF was yesterday. That is true, and I make no false claim. I simply state that the empirical evidence of the policies was one of not taking any account of what the impact was in regard to people's lives. It was one also of the imposition of a single development model and one of not listening to a jot of indigenous wisdom that might come from any of the receiving countries.

I wish I had time to say much more about this. Nonetheless, a number of specific questions arise. The Minister of State suggested he has attended two meetings so far. I put it to him it is a great pity that countries like Ireland are not driving the discourse about the connections between political and social development and economy. We have a difficulty in this House in that those of us who are spokespersons on foreign affairs are allowed to discuss overseas development aid but, when it comes to policies that might contradict everything we stand for on overseas development aid, for example, on the finance or trade side, they belong somewhere else. While there is an interdepartmental committee, there is no evidence there is clear convergence between what we are aiming at in regard to development aid, for example, and either trade or financial structures.

The Debt and Development Coalition, which will have circulated information to many Members of the House, has particular suggestions to make. For example, we cannot oppose this Bill because it takes a very tiny step. However, there are other questions we might ask. The Minister of State refers to those changes that were suggested, for example, in the discussions in 2010.

See this speech in context