Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to deal with important legislation to reflect changing times and attitudes. It is one of a number of areas in which we are involved globally. No fair-minded person could argue against the objectives and what is proposed in this legislation. A fair-minded person might propose it should go further but the reality is that one must take steps slowly.

I am sure the Minister of State will agree it is important to recognise that were we sitting here 15 years ago having a debate on global economic affairs, the so-called BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China would not have rated as major markets and having an impact in monetary and currency terms. Looking at world stock markets over the past year and at the countries which made the greatest gains in terms of investment in their markets, I believe Brazil was the only one of the emerging markets which did not outperform the traditional western developed economies.

We should recognise that the IMF sets out to deal with global economic systems and create stability, which we completely support. It begs certain questions which we in this country are not courageous enough to answer, including the question of the euro. In the past six months we have seen the debate on the euro move from left to right across Europe and out to the peripheries. It began with problems in Greece, then a problem in Ireland and on to a possible problem in Portugal. It then appeared as if it might move on to Spain and possibly the huge economy of Italy. People are talking about problems in Belgium.

While I know the Minister will not be comfortable with this, we need to ask ourselves what is the logical economic argument in favour of having 29 different central banks looking after one currency which is effectively what we have in Europe; it is unsustainable. In the same way that Chancellor Merkel is wrong to argue against the concept of euro bonds, we are wrong to argue that we should all have our little central banks. We need to remember they are central banks and not just out-offices of the European Central Bank. They each have significant levels of authority, influence and decision making power within individual countries, as in our case. We need to review that. We need to have the structure of the Central Bank as it is at the moment based in its head office. However, we do not need the amount of power each of the central banks has. We can distinguish between that matter and taxation issues. The bridge between those is the budgetary matter.

One of the most positive steps in the four year plan is the step most people criticise, which is that people need to put their cards on the table and outline proposals for the budget. We can give people autonomy in doing that, but if people step out of line they need to be regulated. It is no different from the concept of a bank being regulated by the State. However, within all the benefits of a European currency we need to recognise that it does not give us complete freedom. It is like the freedoms we are given under our constitutional rights. We have perfect freedom as long as those freedoms do not interfere with the rights of other people and if they do a judgment call needs to be made. If, for instance, the right to free speech is in danger of libelling somebody or causing hatred or racism, there are ways to deal with it. All those rights need to be looked at.

What we are trying to achieve here is some form of democratic economy. Let us move away from the IMF for the moment and look at it in European terms. The Treaty of Rome was introduced to establish the free movement of labour, capital, goods and services in what we called then the Common Market. We have moved on from that and now have the European Community. The Common Market is supposed to have developed into a much more sophisticated animal in the meantime, but it has not. It is still not possible to bring a car from Belgium to Ireland without going through tonnes of red tape. I could give many other examples.

We started with the IMF in order to democratise the decision making process within it to reflect the influence of the emerging nations, which is a good thing. However, let us consider Chad in Central Africa which is usually considered the poorest country in the world. In all we have done with world trade agreements, the IMF, the European Union and all the trade barriers having been brought down, Chad is now worse off than it was 30 years ago. However, if Chad was allowed to sell into the US or Europe and its citizens were allowed to work here - I am not proposing we would do these things - it could increase the wealth of that country very quickly and see it come up to a more general standard. It is not to say that would be easy to do and I do not propose that we consider doing that, but I am proposing that we soften the protectionism that surrounds many of the markets on the globe. Ireland is more innocent than most in this regard. We have a more open economy than many of the so-called leaders even in European terms. The Minister of State has a great grá for the French nation, but one does not need to spend much time in France to see that despite them being great Europeans, they flout more European regulations than any other country. Whether in agriculture, market gardening or supporting its energy industry, they find ways to protect their industries.

We need more openness and the Bill moves in the correct direction in recognising the need to open up and give more influence to the emerging nations. While I may be going off the point somewhat the United Nations Security Council could do with more democratisation for the same reason. If that council were elected by a vote of all the UN member states and got its power in that way like a country's government, we would have a far more equitable and democratic decision-making process within the United Nations which would find more acceptance in many places where it does not today. Instead the United Nations, which is very positive, is where we now democratically fight what would have previously been wars, so we cannot complain about that, but it is not democratic. Nor was or is the IMF, but at least what we are proposing today brings the IMF forward into a more democratic place. In that regard it is to be welcomed and the Government is to be thanked for introducing the Bill. I have no problem in supporting it passing through the House efficiently and quickly today even though it has come to us at short notice.