Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation. It is part of the broader debate on the role of the IMF, the urgent need for radical and progressive reforms and the future of this country. Although it is a technical proposal, its implications for Ireland deserve careful consideration. I would urge balanced and honest debate at all times on these international economic matters and their effects on this State. Our people are tired of game playing. All they seek is sensible solutions to get us all out of this economic mess. It is time for leadership and straight talk from all politicians. I say this as an Independent Deputy and a person who is open to any sensible proposals for relieving the crisis.

The purpose of the legislation is to implement an amendment to the articles of agreement of the IMF, which was approved by the board of governors in December 2010. The articles currently establish two categories of executive directors, namely, those who are appointed and those who are elected. The amendment eliminates the first category and requires that all executive directors be elected. This forms part of ongoing governance reforms at the IMF. It is important that we have accountability and a democratic character in all institutions.

In regard to the broader debate, we must take on board the views of the general public. A recent survey showed that almost 50% of respondents agree that Ireland should continue to comply with the terms and conditions of the EU-IMF programme. This finding comes exactly a year after the previous Government announced the €85 billion bailout. Asked if the Government should continue to comply with the terms and conditions of the bailout, 48% of respondents agreed, one in three disagreed while 22% had no opinion. These figures speak for themselves. Some 22% of people have an open mind and want to see a realistic solution being proposed. Asked if the Government had reneged on its election promises to demand a better deal for Ireland, 39% disagreed, 36% agreed while 25% had no opinion. It is touch and go as regards 25% of the population. This survey reveals a significant and continuing shift in public opinion as the paralysing fear which gripped people at the beginning of the crisis is replaced by considered criticisms informed by greater knowledge as to what has been perpetrated on us. It also provides an opportunity for an objective study of the issues and the role of the IMF.

The Bill provides that: "(b) Subject to (c) below, the Executive Board shall consist of twenty Executive Directors elected by the members, with the Managing Director as chairman.". This replaces the provision whereby five of the executive directors could be appointed by the five largest members and it provides for an all-elected board. It is crucial that these are elected positions to allow for a democratic body. I have concerns about the democratic issue but I think we are moving in a sensible and logical direction.

The debt issue has been the elephant in the room and is of concern to all political parties and to the Technical Group. Many of us are concerned that this debt issue is preventing us from fixing the major problems. I urge the Minister and the Government to keep pushing with regard to this issue. Parties in the House are in agreement in this regard and I also include the views of Government backbenchers. The situation is holding back the country from sorting out our own national finances. This issue of the banking debt will drag our country down. It is not acceptable to penalise the poor, those in disadvantaged schools or those with disabilities. It is also bad economics because it will cost more in the end if these issues are not dealt with. I warn the Minister that balance must be employed to deal with the issues so that job creation is the policy as well as austerity measures. I accept that we must deal with our national debt and the public finances but as part of the resolution strategies we must develop a jobs strategy in order to lift the economy and get people off welfare.

The role of the IMF is to look after the banks and the financial institutions and our job as politicians is to look after the citizens in our own country. Members of the Oireachtas should not be afraid to examine and question everything that comes out of Europe and the powers of certain sections of the European Union. We must examine objectively our relationship with the European Union. We joined the EEC in 1973. The Common Agricultural Policy gave Irish farmers €44 billion between 1973 and 2008 and €1.8 billion a year since then, making a total of €50 billion to date. Up to 2013, Ireland will receive a further €18 billion from the structural, regional and cohesion funds. The payments into the EU budgets must be subtracted from this sum which is a total of approximately €25 billion since 1973. This is a net gain in the region of €43 billion. At the time of the so-called bailout by the troika this time last year, eurozone banks held €214 billion in Irish debt. German banks alone accounted for €103 billion of that total. The purpose of the bailout and the entire policy of saturating failed Irish banks with public money is to ensure these debts are repaid. Otherwise the eurozone's banking system will be plunged into crisis. We must face up to these issues.

It is impossible to state precisely how much the Irish bailout of the eurozone is costing us taxpayers. We do not know how much NAMA will finally cost nor what the State's stake in the banks might ultimately be worth. One slice of the cost is the money gone into Anglo Irish Bank. This is definitely dead money. It is a massive blood transfusion into a corpse. It amounts to €30 billion up front and for at least €17 billion in punitive interest payments to the European Central Bank. This amounts to €47 billion, €4 billion more than all the money we have received from the EU through CAP and other funds since 1973. I am open to correction on some of the figures I have presented.

These figures are directly comparable, one being a transfer from relatively wealthy European and German taxpayers to the citizens of an economically hard-pressed Ireland. The other is a transfer from the citizens of an economically hard-pressed Ireland to the relatively wealthy European and in particular German taxpayers. Germany had trouble in the bond markets recently in a sign that the eurozone crisis has spread to the very heart of the European Union. The country, whose credit worthiness has until now been viewed as top class, can only sell two thirds of its ten-year bonds at auction, a development which has sent shock waves through the markets as investors wonder whether the fittest economy in Europe can remain immune to contagion from the eurozone.

In recent weeks, borrowing costs have moved steadily upwards in the case of France, Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands, countries holding the highest ratings. The climb in borrowing costs across the board is a sign that investors and banks are dropping their holdings of European debt, no longer confident in the ability of the euro to survive in its present form.

Japan's biggest mutual fund has sold off its portfolio of Italian Government bonds but there are reports that the French bank, BNP Paribas and the German bank, Commerzbank, are selling European sovereign debt at a loss. We must deal with these issues in our discussion of the Bill.

The Bill provides: "(c) For the purpose of each regular election of Executive Directors, the Board of Governors, by an eighty-five percent majority of the total voting power, may increase or decrease the number of Executive Directors..." The effect of this provision is the possibility that the provision that the size of the board may be adjusted will continue to be applied to the restructured board. The Bill also provides: "(d) Elections of Executive Directors shall be conducted at intervals of two years in accordance with regulations which shall be adopted by the Board of Governors. Such regulations shall include a limit on the total number of votes that more than one member may cast for the same candidate." The effect of this provision is that elections to all elected executive boards will continue to be at intervals of two years and in accordance with the regulations adopted by the board. Sections 4 to 15, inclusive, delete or amend the existing provisions which refer to the category of appointed executive directors and include transitional provisions to govern the period between the entry into force of an amendment and the first election following such entry into force. These sections do not provide for any changes to the existing provisions beyond those resulting from the elimination of the category of appointed executive directors. We should closely examine these matters in the debate on austerity and taxation.

The Ministers for Finance and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation must take a more proactive approach to job creation. I wonder if the Government is alert to ideas being proposed by people in broader society, for example, in the agrifood sector, and on the Opposition benches, including Deputies from the Technical Group. It is astonishing that no one has taken up the ball and run with a proposal which has the potential to create 5,000 jobs through the revival of the sugar beet industry. The agrifood industry is up for the proposal, as is the wider agricultural sector. The figure of 5,000 jobs has not been suggested by the Technical Group or any left-wing body but by the Irish sugar beet bio-refinery group which has carried out a feasibility study of reviving the sugar beet industry. The PricewaterhouseCoopers backed study calls for the establishment of a bio-refinery plant somewhere in the country which would produce sugar and ethanol from beet and grain. The plant, which could be publicly or privately run, would cost an estimated €350 million to construct. It is envisaged that 30% of the finance required would come from equity investment, with the remainder being made up by 15 year bank loans. According to the study, the plant would be profitable within its first year of operation. This is a serious plan.

See this speech in context