Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State's opening statement, which was very detailed, technical and useful. I also welcome the Bill, which was supposed to have been pushed through some 15 years ago. Unfortunately, tragic events overtook us at the time.

The initialism "IMF" is, for good reason, quite an emotive one for people in this country. It is synonymous with our economic crash and the terrible national humiliation that led to the bailout, the troika and the years of austerity, the tail end of which are still with us even to this day. To be fair to the IMF, of the three components of the troika, it was the least bullish and the least hawkish on those austerity measures. Unfortunately, it was our own people, namely, the ECB and the European Commission, that were the most zealous in inflicting austerity on us. That said, the IMF did not help but it was, at least, the lesser evil of the three. I am glad to see that over the past number of years, the ECB, the European Commission and the IMF have changed and improved slightly, although there is plenty more to do. In particular, the IMF's performance during the pandemic in providing low-cost finance to resource poor countries has made a difference. I only wish that we had applied the same response to the financial pandemic back in 2007 and 2008 as was applied to the Covid pandemic, in which case we would not be in this terrible situation now, particularly in this country.

I am reassured by the Minister of State's comments on the refinancing of IMF loans. It is welcome that all the IMF loans that were provided to this country have been repaid or at least refinanced in full. I am encouraged by the vast majority of comments made by colleagues in this debate. Most people in the Chamber recognise the need for the IMF as a lender of last resort that is available to countries that are going through periods of particular tragedy.

It is important that low-cost concessional loans be available. I am particularly interested in the debt relief aspect. I do not believe we spend enough time debating debt relief in this Chamber. We have suffered from the effects of large debts ourselves. Many of us have travelled in and lived in resource-poor countries across the global south and will be aware that debt relief is an area on which we should be focusing more.

I have a couple of small points. I welcome the Bill but have some concerns, which I will outline. Could the Minister of State confirm in his closing remarks or a briefing thereafter that if we contribute to the NAB, the money will not come from the Exchequer but from special drawing rights, SDRs, in the Central Bank, effectively putting it off-balance-sheet? I accept the money going into the trusts will be Exchequer funding. However, could it be confirmed that the NAB does not involve Exchequer funding but Central Bank money?

On the low-interest loans — the concessional loans — how does Ireland influence the rate the IMF charges resource-poor countries? Can we influence the associated conditionality? Is it through the Minister for Finance or do we have technocrats and individuals sitting on the IMF board who can have an influence and push Ireland's values from that perspective? How can Ireland, particularly with its seat on the Security Council and as a country that is not afraid to express its values across the world, effect a greater amount of debt relief across the world?

I am not sure when the Central Bank last briefed Deputies. The Minister of State might consider arranging for it to brief finance spokespeople from the various parties and Independents, or at least giving it the opportunity to brief us on the activities of the IMF, particularly in respect of debt relief, concessional loans and any associated conditionality.

I welcome the Bill and am happy to support it. I would be grateful to have the clarifications, either in the Minister of State's closing remarks or a briefing thereafter.

See this speech in context