Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I thank colleagues for their positive comments on the Bill. A lovely story was told by Dave Allen in the wonderful series he made in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which he described what it had been like to grow up in Waterford city. He said that if ever he was a bold boy his mother would say that if he did not go to sleep the "scissorman" will come and get him. He was a guy who allegedly went around Waterford and elsewhere at the time chopping off children's fingers and nails. Dave Allen used to ask the question: "Would you sleep too if this lunatic was out and about going to kill you?" A little like the "scissorman", the IMF had a bogeyman status for some years largely because of what occurred in the 1970s. During the course of the past decade or so, its world view has changed a little. It has seen itself as an organisation which helps countries grow and develop and there is a recognition that stimulus is needed and that fundamental reform does not always have to be on the austerity front in that it must also be about how an economy develops.

I first met Mr. Chopra and his colleagues with the then Deputies Noonan and Kenny and a few other colleagues on the finance team when we were not in government. He said in that wonderful Mombasa voice of his that: "We need to get to know you because it looks like you are going to be in government in a few months time". He asked the question: "What is Fine Gael?" I answered that by saying that: "Last night I was in University College Dublin addressing a Young Fine Gael meeting and a very smart 19 year old Young Fine Gael member said that "the IMF agenda is the Fine Gael agenda". I said: "Whatever that means, I am not sure, if it is about deregulation, public sector reform and reducing expenditure, I am not exactly certain."

I thank colleagues for their remarks. Senator Mooney's remarks were very constructive. He rightly pointed out the role that is now played by Christine Lagarde as head of the IMF. It is important for this country given her significance and from where she has come in terms of the European experience. She understands this country and has a familiarity with it. In terms of our relationship with her, to have someone like her at the top of that organisation is hugely beneficial to this country, as Senator Mooney rightly pointed out.

The IMF has always been clear that its interest rate is published in the shop window, as it were. It does not negotiate. It has a clear view that if one wants to get money from it, one can check its website and see its interest rate on a daily basis. It is not negotiable. It is there arguably as a lender of last resort but there is a transparency about its interest rate regime in a way that may not be as obvious about other organisations because of the fact that it alters on a daily basis based on what it can obtain from its own forces.

I thank Senator Mooney for his welcome remarks and comments concerning the Government's efforts to redesign the promissory notes. We continue to work with our colleagues. As other Senators said, the fact that the IMF, the Commission and the ECB, in their latest report, have agreed a joint position paper, which hopefully will come into agreement by the end of February following which it can then be transcended to the political level, is an advance, but we should not set a timeline or a time limit as to when we will obtain this, if we will obtain this. We are hopeful that we will succeed but those negotiations continue.

I agree with the Senator Mooney that we must concentrate in 2012 and beyond on the issue of how to stimulate the economy when we have no money. Senator Michael D'Arcy pointed out the welcome news from the Commission and the troika in terms of the proceeds of the sale of State assets. We can use some of that money for investment in jobs and in a stimulus. That is very good news. That is something on which the Government has been painstakingly working during the past year to make sure that we got over the line. When the troika first came to town, its view was straightforward. It is the lender of last resort and its view was that if we have assets, we should sell them and pay off the debt. However, we have been making the point that this would not be a sensible approach, that selling the assets in a firesale would not be sensible in terms of maximising the sale of the asset. There is no point in doing that unless we can use part of the sale of those assets for the purposes of investment in a stimulus and in jobs. We very much take on that task now given the announcement from the Commission today.

I agree with Senator Michael D'Arcy that the BRIC countries are crucial to the future formation of the IMF. That was one of the reasons in the most recent Finance Bill the Government took the view that it was right to support our exporters who will export to the BRIC economies as a means of helping our companies at home. Very significant tax benefits will be yielded for Irish companies selling products to Brazil, Russia and breaking into new markets in China and the like. What we are trying to do in that respect is significant.

I also agree with Senator Michael D'Arcy that we have a relationship with the IMF. We have come into a close relationship with it during the past 14 or 15 months and it is developing. It recognises the significant progress that has been in this economy during the past year and a half in terms of dealing with our problems in an up-front and honest way. I agree with the Senator's remarks in that regard.

I thank Senator Barrett for his remarks. He made a crucial point, namely, that significant numbers of Irish economists and public officials have played very senior roles in the IMF during the past 30 or 40 years and have helped other countries and helped our reputation as a small country. We have always done well as a country in punching above our weight in having very significant players in these international organisations. We are a neutral country and we come with clean hands, as it were. The Senator pointed out the role of colleagues of his in Trinity College and elsewhere who have played a significant role in the IMF, and I want to recognise that.

I fully agree with Senator Barrett that this and the other House and the committees of both these Houses need to be fully engaged in the appraisal of capital projects. The questions need to be asked before the money is spent rather than afterwards. If we have learned anything from the fiasco from some winner-takes-all projects that were selected by purely political means during the past decade and beyond, we need to properly involve Parliament; it should have an oversight role. I refer to the comments made by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, in his budget speech. We see there being a huge role for the committees of both Houses as we get close to adopting the budget at the later end of this year. We need to stress test proposals and examine options in a realistic way. I fully agree with the Senator that oversight of and parliamentary engagement in capital and current expenditure is something that this Government wants to put in place with the co-operation of all parties and Independents. We very much agree with that.

The IMF's involvement in this State is a matter for this House, but I very much hope that if colleagues want to meet the IMF and the troika, they will have an opportunity to do that and engage with them in a private way and if the troika chooses to do that in a public way, that would be a matter for it.

Senator Sheahan rightly spoke about good advice and keeping our powder dry when it comes to the promissory notes, on which I agree with him. We should not set some arbitrary deadline as to when this matter will be concluded.

Senator Reilly spoke about conditionality. She is right about that, but as Shakespeare said: "neither a lender nor the borrower be". If one draws down funds, one does it on the terms of the people who are lending to one.