We were discussing Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Deputy Michael Higgins was in possession.
Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
May I make a point of order before we proceed further? I take it the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is taking the debate on behalf of the Government?
It seems strange that when Deputy McCreevy dealt with all previous Stages of the Bill we do not even have a Minister from the Department this morning.
We must proceed.
I presume the House is fully aware that Deputy McCreevy is with the Taoiseach in important negotiations on behalf of Ireland.
Why the urgency about finalising Report Stage today? We postponed another debate this morning on the basis that the Minister was not available and it would have been reasonable to take the same approach to Report Stage of this Bill. We are in the process of discussing a particular amendment—
The Order of Business has been agreed by the House and we must now proceed with the order as laid down by the House.
I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Deputy would not be in order in continuing to defy the order of the House.
I just want to register a protest about that point.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 34 to 37.
–(Deputy Noonan).
Mr. M. Higgins: The effect of the amendment, which deals with ESAF, would be that the Bretton Woods legislation, as proposed, would proceed without these explicit references to ESAF. I have used the time since the debate adjourned to check again with a number of agencies and institutes on what has been claimed on behalf of the restructured facility being suggested. To put it bluntly, the evidence is not there that the facility being proposed to be assisted in this legislation has acceptability in a reasonable range of countries affected. There is a clear message in the evidence from NGOs, aid agencies and experts – the cost of accepting a facility like this is paid in terms of reduction in health care, education, nutrition and other vital needs.
The feedback from the people upon whom the new facility will be foisted is that it simply is not working. Curiously, the people working with communities and groups at risk in the states for which success is being claimed, in both the African and Latin American continents, have said that while our Government sometimes has been forced to accede to the delivery of this instrument by an agency that found it necessary to review its own procedures in relation to developing the facility, it has not been welcomed by the people.
I will return to the point I originally made without rehearsing the general arguments again. This is our last chance to take on an inappropriate instrument about which questions were raised even by those advancing it – they had an internal and external review which were both critical – one which is usually negotiated on an inter-agency basis between governments, which has been almost universally criticised in terms of its impact on the communities involved. It is entirely out of character with the instruments being used by the other more appropriate international agencies, yet we are being asked to leave this wording in the Bill at the same time as there are proportionate cuts on forms of bilateral and emergency aid. What is the basis for this disgraceful enthusiasm for a suspect measure that is rejected by those towards whom it is directed? The NGOs and all those involved in the debt and aid coalition have been unanimous about this as were backbench Deputies on previous Stages of the Bill. Deputy Roche made an eloquent speech to the effect that he could find nothing wrong with what was being said from this side of the House. An enormous loss of face is not required. The suggestion that we include this measure came from a Government Department, was opposed politically by another Government Department and was dropped. It should be dropped again.
I speak from experience. Trócaire held a conference recently which brought together international experts from the different countries involved who evaluated different measures that might deliver aid to various countries. The recommendation from that conference is unanimous. The reason I oppose this tooth and nail is the uncompromising attitude we are experiencing in this case. There is a suggestion that those interested in the economics of development or aid are somehow softer than real economists who are able to talk about inter-bank and inter-finance department relationships. That is the reason we have had so many bad experiences in the southern hemisphere and unemployment in the northern hemisphere. There is an inability to make an integration between the life needs of people, expressed through the minimum amount of gross domestic product that can ever be used in relation to the other big issue, debt repayment or whatever.
Let us be honest about this matter. Are we telling people who need clean water, food and education that they must first restructure their economies on the Chicago model before they can feed, educate or clothe their people? This is not just a disintegrated and miserable view of an economic relationship, it is close to being immoral.
I am not making the argument on moral grounds only or on the basis of the evidence that has been provided by the practitioners on the ground. I am making the case in the absence of a more thorough debate which we need on the integration of the aid, debt and development questions and on all the evidence from one international source after another. We cannot nod the Bill through the House because it is flawed on all the bases I mentioned. The widespread support for deleting these sections from the legislation, not only from this side of the House, has been encouraging. Many Members on the Government benches do not have a single argument to put forward against what we are saying. The Independents, who claim to be so precious that they cannot contaminate themselves by joining a political party, have heard the arguments also. I wonder what Deputy Healy-Rae, Deputy Fox and others would do if they had to make a choice which involved the development of Wicklow, Kerry or Donegal. If they support the Government on this occasion they are doing so in the full knowledge that a case has been made for which they have no answer.
We oppose the persistent, obdurate inclusion of these sections against which such a powerful case has been made and we will vote against it.
We oppose the policy which underpins the sections. We do not want the ESAF programmes included or that section to go through. In that context, when it is the policy and politics of the Bill which we oppose, it is deplorable that there is no political representative of the Department of Finance in the House to take this debate. This is the second time in recent weeks that the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State at that Department have been guilty of dereliction of duty. They failed to turn up for the reply to Second Stage of the Finance Bill and have failed to turn up today. I know where the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is, and he should be here. We do not know where the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, is, but if the Opposition goes to the trouble to which we have gone in opposing the politics which underpins these sections, then we should be informed that the Ministers are not available on a specific day and should be given the option of taking Report Stage when they are available.
This is not a criticism of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Treacy, who has been asked to do a job as part of an Administration. It is, however, unfair to us because we are arguing the politics and policy of a situation but the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will not report back to the Department and Cabinet on this legislation. My party will refuse to co-operate with the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance in future unless it gets assurances that the Ministers responsible for policy will contribute to and take part in debates, take responsibility and take the legislation for which they are responsible.
I sincerely regret that my colleagues cannot be here but as two of the three Deputies in the House have served in Cabinet, they will understand the pressures on Ministers. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is at a very important meeting with the Taoiseach where the future of the country is at stake vis-à-vis additionality of resources required over the next few years. The Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, is out of the country on other Government business.
We could take Report Stage next week. What is the rush? This Bill has been hanging around for years.
All I know is that I was asked to take this legislation as I have been many times in the past. The House has ordered the legislation and I am here to discharge the collective responsibility of the Government. I regret my colleagues are not here and I am sure the House understands. I fully appreciate the sincerity of the contributions made on Second and Committee Stages and today on Report Stage. Sincere contributions have been made on a very compassionate basis, which I understand.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have as their objective the deletion of all references to the ESAF trust. Similar amendments were put down on Committee Stage and were rejected. Their resubmission allows me the opportunity to place on the record a number of key points in relation to the enhanced structural adjustment facility. On Committee Stage, Deputy McDowell rightly asked what progress had been made since the publication of the international and external evaluations of ESAF. Progress has been made under a number of headings specifically identified as areas of concern. On programme of ownership, IMF staff are, in individual programme cases, giving greater consideration to alternative policy measures which could attain the desired economic objectives. IMF staff are also continuing and intensifying their efforts when requested by the national authorities to help build up a consensus for reform.
On collaboration with the World Bank, work is on the way in six pilot cases in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Tajikistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe in which the staffs of the World Bank and the IMF are experimenting with new modes of collaboration.
That is what it is – collaboration.
On the social impact of adjustment, work is now under way to develop ex ante social assessments of specific adjustment policies and integrate the findings into programme design, including the design of well targeted social safety nets. The IMF is now demonstrating that it is willing to listen and examine its own actions and policies. I refer to its response to the evaluation of the ESAF programmes in its own review of its policies in relation to the Asian crisis and its support for the review of the highly indebted poorer countries initiative.
Deputy McDowell welcomed Chancellor Schröder's debt initiative which is virtually the same as what we propose. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it calls for adequate funding for both the ESAF and the HIPC initiative, particularly in relation to bilateral contributions. I also remind the House that we are instituting, through this Bill, accountability, openness and transparency provisions relating to Ireland's participation in the Bretton Woods institutions. I hope we can work together to improve the position of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries.
A couple of points arise from the Minister of State's contribution. The external evaluation of the ESAF structural adjustment fund was only produced last year. It is clearly far too early to judge whether we should take it seriously or, more to the point, whether we should take seriously the stated intention of the IMF to take on board the recommendations made. With many others, I am deeply sceptical of the ability or the willingness of the IMF to do that. As an institution, it has a way of doing things, an ethos, which seems to run quite contrary to many of the recommendations made in the external review. I would be pleasantly but very surprised if in two or three years' time we could look at the implementation of that review and the recommendations and say they have been largely implemented.
I am amazed the Minister of State feels comfortable coming in here today a matter of months after those recommendations were made to say that he is satisfied they are being put in place. There is a particular responsibility on the Government and the Minister in looking at what has happened over the past three or four years, at Ireland's history in relation to this matter and at our specific policy decisions several years ago as regards ESAF to say one of several things but, ideally, all of them. If the Minister could come in here and say this is the best possible way to give assistance in terms of debt relief to the Third World, it would be fine but it clearly is not. Part of the Government's initiative which I fully applaud is direct bilateral assistance or a direct grant to Mozambique. That is fine, and we all support that. It is clearly the most effective way and the way over which we have most control to do this. Why back that up with a contribution to a fund about which we all have doubts and over which we have effectively no control? I do not see the logic behind that and the Minister has failed utterly to justify it.
Since this is the primary point of Report Stage, I hope the Acting Chairman will indulge me. This is one of those occasions – thankfully, there are few but it is by no means unprecedented – where this House will pass a Bill which clearly does not have its support. It is clear the majority of those on the Government side who take an interest in these matters do not support this important element of the Bill. There is an onus on the Minister in those circumstances to stand it up and, I respectfully submit, he has not done that.
I regret very much that the Minister for Finance is not present, and I am not being churlish about the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, or the absence of the Finance Ministers. It is quite clear a majority of the House has serious doubts about the ESAF programmes. If there was a free vote this morning, I have no doubt that references to ESAF would be removed from the Bill. We are being denied the opportunity to convince the political head of the Department of Finance of the rightness of our case and that of the majority of the House. While the Minister of State is always welcome, all he can do, in effect, is read out briefing notes prepared by his officials. In effect, he will neither now nor later have a policy input into this decision. We are going through an empty formula and wasting our sweetness on the desert air because there is no way the Minister of State has been authorised by the Minister for Finance to concede to any of the Report Stage amendments.
In a normal good Report Stage, a Minister for Finance would stand up and take into account what we have said and would be prepared to make concessions, but that is not happening this morning.
Our problem with the ESAF programmes is simple and the criticism is very profound. We believe that the IMF imposes macroeconomics recipes that are too rigorous on countries with difficulties. The prescriptions of the IMF push rigour to the point where the basic human rights of the ordinary population are denied. In circumstances where, as a result of the rigour of the medicine, infant mortality is rising, life expectancy is falling and basic education is denied, the programmes are not only ineffective but morally wrong and no self-respecting parliament should waltz them through simply on the authorisation of Government Whips. That is the key issue.
The Minister for Finance informed us on previous Stages that we were lagging behind. He told us other members states have signed up to this and we were out of step. There was some merit in his arguments two or three years ago, but there is little or no merit in them now. An Irish Government, through its tardiness of action, is moving to take up policy positions that have been abandoned elsewhere. It is not the case that we are out of step, but rather that if we sign up to this we will be out of step once more. The positions advocated by the Minister of State and by the people he represents have been abandoned by the great and powerful countries, which make far more serious contributions than we do to overseas development aid and debt reduction.
I wish to refer to the remarks made by President Clinton last Tuesday in Washington to the Conference on US-Africa Partnership for the 21st Century. His remarks highlight the current policy of the United States. After his preliminary remarks about the importance of Africa in the world of American-Afro relationships, he went on to say:
There's another crucial way the United States can hasten Africa's integration. One of the most serious issues we must deal with together, and one of truly global importance is debt relief. Today, I ask the international community to take actions which could result in forgiving $70 billion in global debt relief – global debt. Our goal is to ensure that no country committed to fundamental reform is left with a debt burden that keeps it from meeting its people's basic human needs and spurring growth.
That is now the American position. What we are legislating for here is contrary to the policy enunciated by the United States.
President Clinton went on to say that we should provide extraordinary relief for countries making extraordinary efforts to build working economies. His remarks were greeted with a standing ovation by the representatives of the 46 African nations present.
He also stated:
To achieve this goal, in consultation with our Congress and within the framework of our balanced budget, I proposed that we make significant improvements to the heavily-indebted Poor Countries Initiative at the Cologne Summit of the G-7 in June. First, a new focus on early relief by international financial institutions, which now reduce debt only at the end of the HPIC program.
That is in line with what I said. There must be early relief that is not dependent on the implementation of the macroeconomic recipe. President Clinton advocated relief before the HIPC programme is implemented, not at the end of it.
He also said:
Combined with ongoing forgiveness of cash flows by the Paris Club, this will substantially accelerate relief from debt payment burden.
Second, the complete forgiveness of all bilateral concessional loans to the poorest countries.
Third, deeper and broader reduction of other bilateral debts, raising the amount to 90 per cent. Fourth, to avoid recurring debt problems, donor countries should commit to provide at least 90 per cent of new development assistance on a grant basis to countries eligible for debt reduction.
Fifth, new approaches to help countries emerging from conflicts that have not had the chance to establish reform records, and need immediate relief and concessional finance. And, sixth, support for gold sales by the IMF to do its part .
All the briefing we got from the NGOs advocated that the IMF would do more, that it would sell some of its gold reserves for debt relief, but the Minister's response to that was merely to sneer at us. He compared me to the editor of the Skibbereen Eagle , as if our debates here are irrelevant. His response was to the effect that we should keep an eye on the Tzar of Russia, know our place in Opposition, sit down and be good and listen to the dictates of the people in the Department of Finance who know better.
The President of the United States told the IMF to sell its gold reserves to enable it to make additional contributions. He also said funds and additional contributions by us and other countries to the World Bank's trust fund were needed to help meet the cost of this initiative.
He said:
Finally, we should be prepared to provide even greater relief in exceptional cases where it could make a real difference.
What I am proposing is debt reduction that is deeper and faster. It is demanding, but to put it simply, the more debtor nations take responsibility for pursuing sound economic policies, the more creditor nations must be willing to provide debt relief.
He put the case more succinctly than the Oppo sition that the rigorous prescriptions in ESAF programmes are preventing democratic African countries, in particular, from fulfilling their humanitarian obligations to their people. That is wrong and President Clinton agrees with that.
HIPC programmes should provide for relief upfront where it is clear that a reform process will be undertaken. There is no point applying another rigorous macroecnomic prescription to a country ravaged by war where the infrastructure has been devastated and the means of production are not longer operating. In those circumstances relief must be given before restructuring recipes are put in place. In many cases grants rather than loans should be paid and the IMF should fund more from its resources and, in particular, it should use its gold reserves.
We did not get a reasonable response from the Minister for Finance to the arguments we put forward and neither have we got a reasonable response from the briefing notes supplied to the Minister of State. Opinion elsewhere during the past few months has moved to the position taken by the Opposition. It is not the Opposition but the Minister and the Administration who are out of line. The Opposition is not lagging behind international policy positions. The Government is lagging behind them and that is clear from President Clinton's speech to which I referred. If we have to stay here and vote on this Bill on several occasions, we will do that. What the Minister of State is doing is shabby. It is ill-considered, unfair and undemocratic and we will oppose him every inch of way.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris. |
Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donoghue, John. O'Flynn, Noel. |
Tá–continued
|
O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan. |
Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip. |
Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related to amendment No. 3 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 37, to delete "a payment or payments" and substitute "such payment or payments as the Government decides".
These amendments deal with financial control and approved mechanisms. With respect to amendment No. 3, the Minister promised Deputy Noonan that he would table an amendment to make payments made by the Minister to the HIPC trust under section 4(2) subject to Government approval. The amendment will bring the subsection into line with the provisions of other subsections in section 4. This is essentially a tidying up amendment and we are grateful to the Deputy for bringing this to our attention.
With respect to amendment No. 7, the Minister promised Deputies Noonan and McDowell that he would table an amendment of this nature. Both Deputies were anxious that further provisions with regard to accountability to the Dáil would be inserted in the Bill in respect of further Irish contributions for debt relief purposes. Both Deputies suggested a formula which would necessitate the Minister for Finance informing the Dáil of his intention to make full repayments under sections 4 and 6. The Minister indicated his willingness to accommodate the concerns of the Deputies and the House by tabling an amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 6 is a similar amendment, which was already discussed on Committee Stage. The Minister's amendments deal with the issues of control, accountability and aggregation in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner. I hope, therefore, the Deputies will be reassured and agree to our amendments.
I thank the Minister for Finance for tabling amendments along the lines he promised on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 3 addresses one issue I raised while amendment No. 7 goes some distance towards addressing another issue I raised.
We should welcome the fact that the Minister has gone some distance towards meeting our concerns but I wish he had gone further. The purpose of my original amendment was to restrict the capacity of Government to contribute willy nilly incrementally to a fund and given that Government said it wants to see progress in a particular direction and set out a policy statement last September with the NGOs, it was felt appropriate that the Government should provide a progress report and justify every continuing contribution when it wanted to make additional contributions. However, I acknowledge that the Minister has gone some distance to meet that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 3 to 5.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, to delete lines 9 to 11.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
7.–Where the Minister proposes to make or authorise the making or a payment under section 4 or 6 of this Act, other than the payment of $7,000,000 in respect of the ESAF Trust, £11,000,000 in respect of the HIPC Debt Initiative Trust Fund and £4,000,000 in respect of the HIPC Trust, the proposal shall be laid before Dáil Éireann as soon as may be and, if a resolution annulling such a proposal is passed by Dáil Éireann within the next 21 days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after the proposal is laid before it, the proposal shall be annulled accordingly and the Minister shall not make or authorise the making of such a payment.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 8 arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 9 is related and both may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, lines 4 and 5, to delete "As soon as may be after the end of each year, the Minister shall" and substitute "The Minister shall, within 3 months after the end of each year beginning with the year ending 31 December, 1999,".
This amendment puts a time limit of 31 March on the submission of the proposed annual report in respect of Ireland's participation in both the bank and the fund. Deputies Noonan and McDowell have stressed the importance of the timely submission of the annual report to the Oireachtas. The amendment is designed to meet the Deputies' concerns in this respect. We hope it is to the satisfaction of the House.
I welcome this amendment. We argued for a more definite form of words than "as soon as may be after the end of each year" for the reporting mechanisms to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister has agreed to that by making it a matter of law that the reports will be presented to the House within three months after the end of the year, beginning after the end of this year.
It is a good precedent to pin down the period of time within which the annual report should be submitted. I refer to the debate on Committee Stage when the Minister agreed that the previous Irish representative would make a presentation to the Committee on Finance and the Public Service and share his experiences and thoughts with it. It would be useful it he would do so in the near future. It is remarkable but hardly surprising that it is more than 20 years since Ireland's participation in the IMF and that what we do there and how we participate is debated in the House at all. That is hardly likely to change with the presentation of a simple report or by laying it in the Library. It would be useful if we were to hear from Mr. O'Loughlin, the previous representative at the IMF, at the earliest opportunity.
It is agreed that such a presentation will be made as soon as a request is received from the chairman of the committee.
Amendment No. 9 could be regarded as consequential on amendment No. 8 and seeks to bring the statement which the Minister for Finance is required to bring before each House of the Oireachtas under section 8 guaranteeing by the Minister the participation by the Central Bank in the substitution agreement within the time limit of 31 March each year. This is essentially a tidying up exercise and will allow Members of the Oireachtas to have a timely and up to date report on all aspects and activities under this Bill, which will subsequently become law.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, line 16, to delete "1999." and substitute the following:
"1999;
(d)the statement referred to in section 8(10).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I regret that the ESAF sections of this Bill are being forced through under the whipping system in the House. It is quite clear from the debate that the majority of Members are opposed to these sections. It is a travesty of parliamentary democracy that this should happen. I regret that the Minister for Finance has not taken a stronger interest in this Bill. He dealt with it as minor legislation scarcely worthy of his attention and concern. That is not good enough when we are dealing with matters of such import. The normal compliments that would be passed on Fifth Stage are being withheld as I am very unhappy with the way the Bill was handled. A bad day's work has been done.
This is a bad day's work. Unfortunately the inclusion of a contribution towards ESAF sullies what is otherwise a good Bill. We are now developing a further element to our development aid strategy and involving ourselves in debt relief. That is good but unfortunately we are taking away from it by choosing to use the ESAF structure as one of the means of contributing. I agree with Deputy Noonan that the way in which this debate has occurred and the decision that has been taken reflects very badly on our democracy. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has a particular ideological bent which inclines him to support ESAF or whether he just did not care and allowed the decision to be taken by his officials. Either way we have ended up with a decision and legislation that this House does not support.
This is an important Bill and it would be unfair of any Member to generalise. While Deputies have views on particular aspects of it, this is a positive decision by the Government for the first time to transfer huge amounts of money to third world countries that need it. Members can be certain the Minister for Finance is a strong personality. He has represented Ireland with distinction at the IMF. He fought a very strong case on behalf of third world developing countries and laid down the clear parameters Ireland expects for participation therein. The compassion, humanity and commitment of Ireland is reflected by him. While there are certain aspects people may have difficulties with, at the end of the day it is a positive decision by Ireland to help those in need.
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary. |
Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin. Smith, Brendan. |
Tá–continued
|
Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie. |
Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip. |
Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Sheehan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.