Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 17, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Report on conditionalities

22. The Minister shall, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the manner in which Ireland has ensured that European Union funding to Ukraine does not come with conditionalities which would undermine long-term social cohesion such as enforced austerity, privatisation or broader structural adjustment programmes.”.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to insert a new section in the Bill which would require that:

The Minister shall, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the manner in which Ireland has ensured that European Union funding to Ukraine does not come with conditionalities which would undermine long-term social cohesion [in Ukraine] such as enforced austerity, privatisation or broader structural adjustment programmes.

Amendment No. 7 seeks to insert a new section in the Bill, which would require that:

The Minister shall, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining any conditionalities or requirements placed on Ukraine as a requirement of access to funds specified under this Act and outlining such steps Ireland has taken in order to ensure such conditionalities do not include enforced austerity, privatisation or broader structural adjustment programmes which would undermine long-term social cohesion, environmental protection and human rights and create greater obstacles for Ukraine in the achievement of social, environmental and human rights standards required for European Union accession.

What these amendments seek to do is ensure that financial contributions are not tied to somewhat discredited policies in terms of austerity, which undermine social cohesion and would make it harder for Ukraine to accede to the European Union; something that is a stated shared goal.

We know that in many countries across the world, financial support and loans have too often been tied to structural adjustment programmes which serve to undermine public services, working standards, development, climate action, and human rights. That is the case in particular with requirements to reduce or minimise the public sector or to erode trade union and workers' rights.

The Action Aid 2021 report - The Public Versus Austerity - found that:

Despite IMF claims that wage bill containment is only ever temporary, all of the 15 countries studied were given a steer to cut and/or freeze the public sector wage bill for three or more years, and eight of them for up to six years.

It further found that in those 15 countries "the recommended IMF cuts add up to nearly US$ 10 billion – the equivalent of cutting over 3 million frontline public sector workers" and found:

There is no clear logic, rationale or evidence to justify when cuts are needed, or how much is enough. Zimbabwe, with a wage bill at 17.1% of GDP, was advised to cut, but so was Liberia which spends 10.1%, Ghana at 8.7%,...[or] Brazil at 4.6%, [and] Nepal at 3.7%".

The same recipe and what are very much ideological measures for structural adjustment were applied in different economic contexts. Imagine calling for the same cut in a country spending 3.7% on public sector wages as in a country paying almost 20%. It is because it is the same recipe book. We have two processes here. I say this because there have been concerns in relation to some of the other funds and loans that have been given to Ukraine. They are coming with conditionalities that make it harder for Ukraine to reach the level of social cohesion, to deliver public services, and to have those standards that are also going to be required for accession.