I welcome, from Debt and Development Coalition Ireland, Ms Jean Sommers and Sr. Maureen O'Connell. The delegation has been invited to discuss the debt crisis in the Third World. There have been significant developments in debt cancellation in recent months with the issue of 100% debt cancellation for the poorest countries being discussed at the G8 summit in June. Ireland supports the policy of 100% debt cancellation. The delegation will also discuss the need to strengthen the role of parliaments in the context of the work of the IMF and the World Bank because concerns have been expressed in many quarters that their programmes undermine the role of parliamentarians in deciding a country's economic policy. There will be a question and answer session following the presentation. While members are covered by privilege, witnesses appearing before the sub-committee are not.
Debt and Development Coalition Ireland: Presentation.
Ms Jean Sommers
I thank the sub-committee for giving us an opportunity to address it. My colleague, Sr. Maureen O'Connell, will speak about the debt issue. I will then refer to the issue of parliamentary oversight of the IMF and the World Bank.
Sr. Maureen O’Connell
The Debt and Development Coalition has been addressing the sub-committee on the issue of debt for many years. Progress has been made in reducing the debt of a number of countries but not enough to make a significant difference to the lives of the poorest people living in them. The debt owed to rich country creditors has been largely cancelled but what is now in question is the debt owed to the IMF and the World Bank. There was serious discussion of further cancellation at meetings last week of the G7, the IMF and the World Bank in Washington. Ms Sommers and I attended NGO sessions run to coincide with the annual general meetings of the IMF and the World Bank. We had the opportunity to attend briefing sessions of the IMF and the World Bank.
One might ask why countries need 100% debt cancellation. Access to clean water, adequate housing and basic health care is denied to the majority in poor countries which are servicing debt to wealthy financial institutions. The UNDP estimated in 2003 that 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases. Debt cancellation could free resources to reverse this devastating reality. Currently, decisions on the debt reduction a country needs are not based on the level of finance needed for the provision of basic services, even though many nations, including Ireland, have accepted the debt reduction needed by a country should be assessed on poverty needs rather than the current method of assessment or the level of debt to export ratios. The United Nations, African governments, heavily indebted countries' finance Ministers and our Government in its 2002 debt policy all support a definition of debt sustainability linked to poverty needs and to financing the gaps a country is facing in reaching the millennium development goals set by the United Nations in 2002 which are intended to be achieved by 2015.
The good news is there has been progress on debt reduction. Under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, 27 countries are getting some reduction and using it well to tackle poverty. Reports from Jubilee Research UK and the World Bank show that social expenditure, in general, has increased. Expenditure on poverty reduction programmes in African HIPC has increased by 6% on average and by as much as 14% in some countries. Education spending has increased in Tanzania. Eliminating school fees has enabled a further 1.6 million children to attend school. In Benin 43% of HIPC debt relief went to education allowing the recruitment of teachers for vacant posts in rural areas while 54% went to health, of which 20% was used to recruit staff for rural clinics. The remainder was allocated to implementing HIV-AIDS and anti-malarial programmes, improving access to safe water and increasing immunisation levels. A special programme on rural education, health, food, security and water systems has been fully financed from HIPC resources in Niger.
There are, however, criticisms of the HIPC initiative. It is run by the creditors who act as both judge and plaintiff. It covers only 42 countries. Many other severely indebted countries are not included, for example, Nigeria and Indonesia. The initiative does not provide enough in terms of debt cancellation. On average, debt servicing has been reduced by only one third. The bad news is that the countries concerned are not getting enough. The IMF and the World Bank both acknowledge the initiative is failing to resolve the debt crisis.
African countries that have received debt reduction relief are still spending, on average, 15% of their revenue on servicing debt. Resources needed for education and health are not available. While schools in Zambia are in desperate need of another 9,000 teachers, between 8,000 and 9,000 teachers remain unemployed because the budget ceiling on spending imposed by the IMF means the government is not able to employ the teachers and health workers it desperately needs. Members of my congregation, the Presentation Sisters, have been working in the education system in Zambia for many years and can testify to the ongoing deprivation in the system. I have visited and seen at first hand this reality of life for Zambia's children.
UNCTAD released a report at the end of September entitled Debt Sustainability: Oasis or Mirage? We attended the launch in Washington. UNCTAD holds that debt servicing at any level is incompatible with attaining the UN millennium development goals in many African countries. Two thirds of the countries facing major obstacles in reaching their goals are heavily indebted poor countries. Between 1970 and 2000, sub-Saharan Africa received $294 billion in loans and paid $268 billion in debt servicing, yet it remains straddled with a debt stock of $210 billion. The example of Niger alone demonstrates the reality of crippling and unsustainable debt. The country borrowed $5 billion, has paid $16 billion to date and still owes $32 billion. UNCTAD concludes this amounts to be a reverse transfer of resources from the world's poorest countries.
Ours was the first government to present its position and call for 100% debt cancellation for the poorest countries. Ireland is no longer alone in this call because the United States and the United Kingdom have put similar proposals on the table in recent weeks which were discussed at the G7 finance Ministers meeting in Washington last week. We had hoped the G7 would announce its support for 100% of cancellation of debt owed to the IMF and the World Bank at the AGM but we were disappointed. However, we still live in hope as discussions on debt cancellation are continuing at the G7.
One of the major concerns is how cancellation will be financed. We, the NGOs, together with colleagues in civil society groups in other countries, believe cancellation must be financed from new money, otherwise it would amount to taking money out of the pockets of poor countries. One source of new money is gold reserves held by the IMF which are not being used. The Debt and Development Coalition has commissioned a valuable report on the IMF gold reserves which has examined ways in which they can be sold and the proceeds used for debt cancellation. This report was circulated widely to government representatives from developed and developing countries at the recent IMF and World Bank AGMs. While the Government's debt policy supports 100% cancellation of the debt of heavily indebted low income countries, it does not call for the use of IMF gold reserves.
The reason the debt of low income countries is on the table is largely that the United States wants a deal on Iraq's debt. While we agree Iraq's debt is odious, having been accrued under a dictator and needs to be on the table, there is also a need for a fair and independent process to deal with unpayable debt in the long term.
In the interests of fairness, debtors must have an equal say and creditors' interests must not be allowed to dominate proceedings. In determining debt cancellation, the issues of the human development needs of the people of indebted countries, poverty reduction and whether debt is illegitimate should be included in calculations. I ask the sub-committee to call on the Government to support the use of IMF gold reserves to cancel the debt owed to the IMF and the World Bank by the poorest countries and to encourage the Government to highlight the need for a fair and transparent process to deal with unpayable debt at the IMF and the World Bank.
Ms Sommers
Parliamentary oversight at the IMF and the World Bank is becoming quite an issue among parliamentarians as well as civil society groups in southern countries. I will examine it from two perspectives, first, the role of parliaments in developing countries which borrow from the IMF and the World Bank and must, therefore, follow their policies and, second, the role of parliaments in developed countries such as Ireland which are non-borrowing members of the IMF and the World Bank.
In examining the role of developing countries' parliaments, most countries now operate under some form of democratic government. As some of these democracies are fairly new and frail, it is important they are not undermined by inappropriate demands from outside. Even though parliamentary oversight is a key element of democracy, parliaments in the developing world are frequently sidelined. They are often unaware of the conditions attached to IMF and World Bank loans. Loans from the World Bank are very long term. These can be carried by a country for up to 40 years and may mount as unpayable debt, therefore, it is important that parliaments have a say in the countries taking on the loans. In addition, decisions taken by sovereign parliaments can and are sometimes overridden by the IMF and the World Bank. An example is Ghana, where IMF pressure led the government to suspend tariff increases on rice and poultry that had been agreed by parliament and were fully consistent with World Trade Organisation rules.
Obviously the IMF and the World Bank were aware of the criticisms and the fact that their programmes were not having the impact they hoped. In light of this criticism, in 1999, the IMF and the World Bank introduced a new approach to how they would operate in developing countries. Rather than the international financial institutions designing programmes in Washington and bringing them out to the low income countries, their programmes would now be based on poverty reduction strategies designed by the borrowing countries with widespread participation. This was meant to ensure the programmes being run by countries were developed within the country itself. However, there is a real sting in the tail because, unless the IMF and the World Bank accept a country's poverty reduction strategy, which is a sort of national development plan not examining just poverty but the whole area of development for the country, the country will not be eligible for debt reduction, cheap loans or some forms of aid. It is perhaps not surprising evaluations by academics, NGOs, the IMF and the World Bank find that poverty reduction strategies indicate a great deal of continuity with past programmes.
In examining the role of parliaments in the poverty reduction strategy process, the German government recently carried out a study of the role of parliaments in Sub-Saharan Africa in implementing these strategies. The study found that they played only a marginal role and pointed out that this contradicts democratic principles. Members of this committee are members of the parliamentary network on the World Bank, which was set up to promote an exchange of views between elected representatives and the World Bank. Last year, the network's African group wrote to the heads of these two institutions expressing its concerns, despite the emphasis of the IMF and the World Bank on consultations. The letter stated:
We still find that parliamentary participation in discussing and monitoring of IMF-World Bank programmes is limited.
The head of the IMF agreed with the parliamentarians that they should be involved. The IMF's definition of "country ownership" raises some concerns. It stated in one of its publications that ownership does not require that an IMF supported programme be a government's first choice. As a general proposition, what is essential is that the responsible and controlling officials be committed and that opposition can be overcome.
Members may be aware that one initiative is under way at present, namely, the international parliamentarians' petition for democratic oversight of IMF and World Bank policies. This petition has been officially endorsed by the parliamentary network on the World Bank. A significant response from parliamentarians around the world would give a strong message to the IMF and the World Bank that their operations in developing countries must not undermine the role of local parliaments. Some members may be promoting the petition in the Oireachtas.
I would like to move on to the second area, which is examining the role of the Oireachtas in overseeing Ireland's role within the IMF and the World Bank. Even though the policies of these bodies may not impact on us, the Government is participating in them and accepting policies that have a huge impact on people across the developing world. Ireland is part of a constituency with Canada and ten Caribbean states within these bodies, with Canada taking the lead. It is important that the Oireachtas take a central role in scrutinising positions taken by Ireland at the two institutions.
It would be useful to explore mechanisms which could be used by the Oireachtas to ensure greater openness and accountability from the Government. At present there are the annual reports which the Government has produced each year since 1999 in response to an amendment made to a Bill that was going through Parliament at the time. These reports give a useful overview of the main issues examined at the IMF and World Bank over the year. However, they do not give much insight into the position Ireland has been taking on these issues. The recent report refers to conditionality, which is a hugely controversial issue. It outlines the discussion but it does not say where Ireland stands or what it contributed.
Another issue relates to decision making. Votes are rarely taken at the IMF or World Bank. Decisions are made by consensus, which can sound like a positive and constructive way of operating in this world of conflict in which we live. However, if one thinks about a body which runs from the richest to the poorest countries in the world, where every decision is made by consensus, it is very difficult to imagine how such a process can take place without someone's arm being twisted some of the time at least. It makes it difficult for elected representatives across the world, both in Ireland and in developing countries, to know what position our representatives within these bodies have taken on issues.
I will make some tentative recommendations because members are the experts in terms of parliamentary oversight. It would be useful if the committee could clarify with the Minister for Finance what action Ireland can take on parliaments' role in scrutinising economic policies within their own country. To be fair to the Government, the annual report raises this issue. It states that the role of parliament needs to be strengthened but we do not know what is happening and what action Ireland plans to take. It would also be useful if the annual report focused more on informing us about the positions taken by Ireland within the institutions. It could recommend that next year's annual report should give an outline on the key issues of Ireland's position.
It would also be useful to consider establishing a process whereby annual reports on Ireland's participation in the IMF and the World Bank are debated by the Oireachtas. They are available currently and Deputies ask questions on them from time to time. It would be useful to consider whether there might be a more structured way in which the reports can be examined.
The Chairman, Deputy O'Donnell and I attended a meeting in Greece of the parliamentary assembly of the World Bank. One of the most interesting suggestions, which appeared to have huge support, was that we should change the system. The suggestion was that we should not be a parliamentary assembly attached to the World Bank but a parliamentary assembly that was committed to the millennium development goals. This had many advantages. The millennium goals targeted at 2015 are clearly set out. They go beyond a rather narrower agenda. There appears to be an agreement on the part of both donor countries and recipient countries, but it has not got very far. I favour this as a better position than the petition, even though I am also sympathetic to the petition. The meeting was very interesting because there was a predictable speech from a representative from the World Bank, which was full of empathy and was positive towards the progress made.
We then heard one of the most regressive, unhelpful and arrogant speeches I have ever heard at any forum from the former president of the IMF, Mr. Kruger. It was an intemperate contribution in which he more or less said the Washington consensus model — the neo-liberal model — of transition and change in the countries concerned was their only path to development; that they should straighten out questions of corruption by native elites and strengthen civil society, by which he meant having a business sector that would lead to social development. This intemperate, backward and narrow lecture irritated everybody on both sides but there was no opportunity to come back to it, given the nature of the discussion and the fact that we had run out of time.
Having visited the workshops we returned to the general assembly and heard first from the benign, benevolent and concerned Mr. Wolfensohn which was followed towards the end by the above mentioned diatribe. That was part of the reason there was such momentum to have a different kind of parliamentary accountability. I found it all very distressing.
Afterwards I looked in detail at some of the issues raised. A particular issue which we attempted to resolve was the shift to the parliamentary agenda at home. I do not remember any statements being made before the meeting in Cancun to the effect that issues such as aid, trade and debt would be combined, yet in everything we had heard in terms of the World Bank they had been combined.
There is hostility in the Department of Finance to many of the progressive views held on the development side. This is clear — this issue is not addressed in the presentation but is an idea I favour — if one is discussing the Tobin tax. I tabled four or five parliamentary questions to the former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who with enthusiasm told me that he was totally opposed to the tax — a miniscule charge on daily transactions to include hot money. One would have thought one of its side effects would be that it would act as an instrument against terrorism. The money could be recycled and used in one's approach to the issue of debt.
The IMF view at the meeting in Greece was that parliamentarians should shake themselves and support uncritically a new global facility. If one goes down this road, one is recycling from within the current volume of debt and setting up a contest among the poor. We need to discuss this issue in more detail.
The United Kingdom will hold the Presidency of the European Union next year and also head the G8. It is unclear what precisely is being proposed by Mr. Gordon Brown. Perhaps I am slow and cannot clearly understand what was proposed in the presentation. We should make matters simpler. We should take a bedrock approach. It is all very fine if one puts in one category health, education and the provision of clean water and a particular country's calculation does not come into effect until such expenditure has been discounted and that this, in turn, results in progress on the side of the millennium development goals. However, to some extent this requires an approach towards ringfencing, against which many of the recipient countries will produce a sovereignty argument. This can be easily overcome and should not delay our moving to that thinking.
I totally support the idea of a 100% debt write-off. One would have thought that by now huge tranches of odious debt would have been wiped out. However, such debt remains to be paid in the accounts of some countries. The example given by Ghana regarding rice and poultry is outrageous. It was a blind demand under a WTO condition, cut across local development initiatives and could have created another difficulty in terms of dependency. It is a different crop from what has been suggested and would have enabled people's capacity to feed themselves.
We have a problem. The reports mentioned have not been debated and there is now no time to do so. Matters relating to the IMF and the World Bank come within the remit of the Department of Finance. It is regarded as a major breakthrough if officials from the three Departments involved attend meetings here. However, the results are not evident. If one meets every four or five years and discusses issues such as aid, trade and debt together, there will be no results to suggest we have made a significant difference. However, one could say we should be positive.
The Irish position on a 100% write-off in appropriate cases is a good one. However, it is necessary in that regard that we campaign on the matter. I apologise for going on but there is a certain circularity to the manner in which we hear about such issues. There is a suggestion that there are two parties to this discussion, Governments and NGOs, and that in between we have the parliamentarians. I do not find this acceptable. One of the approaches of the IMF was to work on the establishment of a division between parliamentarians and NGOs. I have seen it in action. The suggestion was made at the meeting in Greece that we should try to get some of the NGOs out of the way in order that we, as parliamentarians, could speak directly with Mr. Kruger, not that any of us did. That is where I stand on these issues.
I thank the members of the delegation for their presentation. I have not read the paper on the selling of the gold reserves held by the IMF. Perhaps the delegation could provide members with a copy.
I, too, thank the members of the delegation for their presentation. As I am a newly elected Deputy, I am not as familiar as my colleagues with the matter. When people speak of world debt, they appear to be talking about something that was created five or ten years ago. I am not sure about this. I have often heard Bono and others speak about the matter. Is Third World debt still being created? If so, is it being created by the IMF, the World Bank or more unsavory sources? What control do we have, as parliamentarians, over who gives money by way of loan to the Third World? Are sources other than the IMF and the World Bank involved? It appears people are borrowing to buy arms to kill each other. If that is the case, we are wasting our time. If we cannot stop this happening, we are wasting our time even discussing the issue.
I welcome Ms Sommers and Sr. O'Connell as it is important that the sub-committee hear the views and opinions of the NGOs. While our aims may be the same, how we achieve them may be slightly different. It is important to recognise that the Government was the first to present its position in calling for 100% debt cancellation. Reference was made to what Ireland had to say in this regard at the meetings in question. We should acknowledge the role the Taoiseach played this year during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in putting our views clearly to the G8 and in expressing our concerns about the implications of IMF and World Bank decisions for poorer countries.
Deputies Higgins and Noonan are former Ministers. Like them, when I was a Minister of State, I visited some of the countries concerned and saw the deprivation in Ethiopia, Botswana and parts of South Africa. Unfortunately, many of those involved in the IMF and the World Bank are totally removed from reality. This is a small nation which has made a major contribution and will continue to do so. It is good to get the views and opinions of groups such as Debt and Development Coalition Ireland. As Deputy Higgins said, as a committee, we might not be as involved as NGOs. Perhaps we should be more proactive.
I welcome the presentation made this morning. While the submission mentions governments, it makes no reference to the efforts of individuals. At times it is nice to give recognition. I was delighted that the Taoiseach, as President of Europe, made the point that this was our policy and that this was the first nation in Europe to do it. Others are not coming on board. The United Kingdom and United States may have their own reasons. The initiative of Debt and Development Coalition Ireland has helped us and progress is being made but we have much more to do. I congratulate the members of the delegation on their presentation and we look forward to working with them in the future.
I also thank the members of the delegation. People in my part of County Galway have a great interest in Zambia. Some of the Presentation Sisters visited us and one of them gave the sermon in my local church. I am interested in the point that, on the one hand, the country desperately needs another 9,000 teachers while, on the other, 9,000 qualified teachers are unemployed because of a budget ceiling on government spending imposed by the IMF. We should press for change on this matter.
Deputy Dempsey spoke about how funding was used in the countries concerned. Some NGOs have talked about corruption in governments. The members of the delegation have presented some frightening figures for Nigeria and other countries that borrowed and still owe so much money. I would like to hear their comments on alleged corruption.
Ms Sommers
I will examine Deputy Dempsey's question about what parliamentarians such as the members present can do about borrowing in low-income countries. As part of the parliamentary oversight civil society groups seek in low-income countries, loans should be ratified by their parliaments in order that they are not taken out without being vetted. This may be the case in both Uganda and Zambia. Sometimes parliamentarians feel such matters are rushed through and that metaphorically a gun is put to their heads in that if they do not agree to a particular loan, the country will lose the money. I know the Ugandan Parliament has turned down loans, not on the basis that they were corrupt but on the basis that given the state of the Ugandan economy, its priorities were elsewhere. One of its priorities was to send civil servants abroad for more training, which is not bad in itself.
Parliamentary oversight is important as it allows parliamentarians to consider loans. Even though they may be concessionary, World Bank programmes still amount to loans. For a while the World Bank used to resist the argument that its programmes should pass through parliaments on the ground that it would delay the process. It was as if democracy was a restrictive practice. Obviously, there has now been a shift. I do not believe that we in Ireland can sort out all the problems; we should support the people in the countries concerned who are trying to resolve them.
On the more general issue of corruption, we are in contact with groups in countries benefiting from debt reduction and they are even more worried about corruption than any of us because it is out of their pockets and those of poverty stricken people in their countries that the money comes. They are not looking to us to come in and sort it out but they want systems in their countries monitoring how the money, as well as aid, is spent. A major task of the Uganda Debt Network is to train people in local villages and districts to monitor what is happening with the money coming in. A public notice must be displayed showing the money coming into a district. When walking into a school, it should be possible to see the amount it is getting. Someone who sees no schoolbooks or desks can ask where the money is going.
As a Dáil division has been called, we will suspend the sitting for ten minutes.
Sr. O’Connell
The debt crisis has been ongoing since the 1980s and at this stage the main lenders to low-income countries are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. While I am sure they have a strong monitoring system to trace where their money goes, strong parliamentary oversight and civil society involvement are also required. Members of civil society are very concerned about corruption. At meetings that took place during the IMF and World Bank annual general meeting, non-governmental organisations had a chance to speak to officials. We saw people from developing countries asking for help to deal with corruption and to recover money that had been siphoned off by certain leaders, that now lies in Swiss and London banks. Attempts are being made from the civil society side to deal with corruption and the support of western NGOs has been sought. While low-income countries are also obtaining bi-lateral loans, Ireland never provides them. Mainly we provide grant aid, which is as it should be.
I visited Zambia some time ago and was advised of a case of corruption where money had gone astray. To put it at its simplest, will people still be discussing in ten years the awful Third World debt created in 2004? What impositions are in place to prevent the recurrence of this scandal? There is no point in talking about curing the problem, if one does not take steps to prevent it.
While concern about corruption is valid, it should be put in perspective. There is not a single administration in Africa that has had a level of corruption on the scale of that seen in Enron in the United States of America. While people do not like to name countries, it is deeply distressing when one looks at the Nigerian relationship to debt and corruption and development. A country that has massively increased its exports of oil has actually sunk on the UNDP index of criteria for development. When one examines the matter, one finds there are two sides to the corruption, one of which involves multinational companies that are deeply embedded in conflict in several countries on the basis of them giving bribes to native elites and so on. One of the problems is that the concentration of comment is coming on curbing native-elite corruption and projecting on to that almost cultural terroristics of inherently corruption-prone countries, which is very dangerous without addressing to some extent, the multinationals. I do not intend to labour it, but that relates to another point in relation to the presentation we had.
The natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa are probably between the fifth and sixth most extensive globally. Imposed on that statistic are the world's worst poverty indicators, which raises the issue of global governance and reform. One must deal with that component. I have a positive suggestion to make by way of moving on. I thank very much the Debt and Co-operation Coalition and the Jubilee campaign, whose material I have used for many years. It is very impressive to see people like Geraldine McDermott in my own area continually out on the street to distribute literature. I appreciate such activity. When I consider the interest in Paul O'Neill and Bono, I wonder if a map could be prepared. I am not up to date with the work of the Jubilee debt campaign. Such a map could, for example, indicate, using different colours, the various categories of debt such as odious debt or debt incurred in the period prior to 1999. It could be an atlas on debt, on which one could superimpose the background to the millennium development goals, poverty levels and so forth.
When I spoke in schools about this issue, people were particularly interested to learn of the proportion of GDP spent on debt relief compared to combined spending on education, health, clean water, sanitation and so forth. A map providing such information would be a powerful learning tool. It is the type of document parliamentarians seek. It would involve bringing together the different elements in one easily understood point.
It is good to note that we have made considerable progress on the argument about providing for 100% debt relief. When I last looked at the position of some of the 47 most indebted countries about a year ago, I found that new debt levels in these countries in proportion to what they were spending on basic social security were almost as bad as when they qualified for relief. The countries concerned are sinking for the second time, probably with fewer prospects.
A clear public admission that the imposed reduction strategies are off the table and a new approach is being taken is required. All energy should focus on shifting the line of calculation; in other words, a country's sustainability should be measured in a clear manner across the board once it meets certain criteria, perhaps entirely derived from the millennium development goals. I would like an education drive to be carried out on this matter. Perhaps that is a task for Higher Education for Development Co-operation as I do not wish to place on NGOs a burden the State should carry. These measures would facilitate progress.
Ms Sommers
Deputy Higgins is correct that the information to which he referred is the type people are requesting. We have information of this nature for some countries. We should also consider what has happened since debt reduction was introduced. The overall question is not so much related to debt as to the resources countries need to meet the millennium development goals and how they should be provided.
Our colleagues in Tanzania made the point that part of the reason the country incurred very bad debt was its under-development prior to independence. A huge leap was needed in health and education. Donors such as rich countries and the World Bank provided money, in the form of loans, in the belief that education was necessary to get countries off the ground, which is true. However, it takes a long time until one has the money to repay the loans. It should not have been provided in the form of loans but as grants. This issue needs to be factored into considerations.
Zambia had approximately 100 graduates and one trained doctor at the time of independence. It needed significant investment in basic primary education, much of which came in the form of loans. The other issue as regards that part of Africa was the damage caused by apartheid and incursions from South Africa which had undermined the infrastructure of the region. Debt accrued for other reasons besides corruption.
I thank the representatives of Debt and Development Coalition Ireland for appearing before us and answering our questions. The joint committee will bring the issues raised to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
The sub-committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m. sine die.