JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Development Co-Operation) debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 2005

Debt and Development Coalition: Presentation.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputies Tony Dempsey and Michael D. Higgins. The minutes for the last meeting were circulated with the agenda for this meeting. Are the minutes in order? Agreed. There are no matters arising.

As part of its work programme for 2005, the sub-committee agreed to examine, with Department of Finance officials, debt relief in the context of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. The issue has been recently thrust to the fore of the international agenda, particularly after the tsunami disaster. There has been a great deal of public debate recently about whether debt relief is the best way forward. Some feel that the cancellation of debt might enrich the very few and ignore impoverished populations while others feel as part of a relief package, debt relief is the best way to kick-start impoverished economies.

At our last meeting we heard from officials of the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs. I welcome Ms Jean Somers and Mr. Michael O'Sullivan from the Debt and Development Coalition, who will address the committee on debt issues, including proposals on Ireland's role as well as its participation in the IMF and the World Bank.

Deputy Allen

I apologise to our visitors. I have just emerged from another sub-committee meeting and must leave shortly, but I will get a copy of the submission.

Mr. Michael O’Sullivan

I thank the committee for the invitation to address the members, and for their interest in and engagement with this issue over the years. We appreciate their support, particularly for the cancellation of unpayable debts of the poorest countries. I will talk about the current situation regarding debt cancellation, after which Ms Somers will address the issue of accountability.

This year is the first time for a long time in which a real chance exists for progress in debt cancellation, partly because, over the past year, the international community has shown that in certain circumstances it can act on the issue. Following the Iraqi debt and the tsunami catastrophe, the international community showed it could get its act together and make some movement on debt. That has set up a certain expectancy among people that the community can act on Third World debt in general. That expectancy is increased because of there being a particular set of political possibilities this year. The G8 meets in July under the chairmanship of the UK, which has shown itself to be a leading player in pushing debt cancellation, and it is expected that some decisions may be taken at that meeting. The review of the millennium development goals takes place later on in the year. This too sets up an expectation that countries which pledge to help halve world poverty by 2015 will put in place mechanisms to allow that happen. People need to live up to their responsibilities in that area.

All this has created some expectation of change. Some evidence of the possibility of change was given in the statement made by the G7 Finance Ministers last February when for the first time they admitted to the possibility of allowing 100% debt cancellation. They left open the question of which countries might be involved and how cancellation would occur. Since then, there has been a lively debate about the different mechanisms possible. Three years ago, the Irish Government was the first to break the taboo on talking about debt cancellation. It is an index of movement in this area that a number of countries now recognise it as a realistic possibility.

Various countries, in particular Britain and the US, have put forward proposals on how debt cancellation might take place. Since we submitted this paper, Norway, Canada and other countries have also put forward proposals. All the proposals have merits and demerits but at least there is engagement and a possibility of change.

Where is the voice of the Government? This Government was the first to make a public statement about the importance of 100% debt cancellation. In the debate about those countries which may get cancellation, and how much they may get, the Government has a policy which we would like to see promoted more vigorously. The Irish position is that the heavily indebted poor countries should get cancellation, as should those badly affected by the AIDS virus. We would like to see the Government move further, but it should at least make its voice heard in the debate. Our partners in the European NGOs tell us of an expectation that Ireland, which has led on this issue in the past, would have its voice heard.

There is another important issue to which we could contribute. At the February meeting of the Finance Ministers, one of the issues was the financing of debt cancellation. IMF gold reserves are greatly undervalued, with a book value of €8 million but a realistic value of €45 million, and there was a question of their sale being a viable possibility. The IMF was asked to bring a paper to the spring meetings to see if that was a possibility. The IMF is not greatly enthusiastic about the suggestion but it admitted that — in line with the paper we commissioned a couple of years ago — the suggestion for producing funds in that way for debt cancellation is viable.

In the light of that, we ask that the Government take a position on the sale of IMF gold. The Government is three years ahead of the G7 position on debt cancellation while this committee was 11 years ahead of the position of the IMF on the sale of the gold reserves and was the first parliamentary body in the world to take a position on their sale. We were told at the time, as was the committee, that the sale was not viable, but people now accept that it is. There is an expectation that the Government should now take an active position on the matter.

There is a real momentum for change and a possibility that change could happen this year through the mechanisms that exist. However, we are afraid that as has happened in the past, where there is agreement in principle that something needs to be done, arguments about procedures will stall the process. We were disappointed that there was no real movement at the spring meetings following the statement of the Finance Ministers in February. The Government could add its voice to the debate. We have a solid track record, so the debate is returning to us rather than moving away from us.

We want the Government to take an active role. We do not know how the committee can proceed but we urge it to use its offices, as it has done in the past, to help shape the Irish position. Members will know from their constituents about the "Make Poverty History" campaign taking place in Ireland and around the world. There is an Irish element to it and it is all part of a global call for action on poverty, on trade debt and on more and better aid. We are planning many events in that context.

People ask us about the position of the Government. We are happy to tell them that the Government has taken a position on debt cancellation and would like to be able to say that it is able to take a position on the sale of IMF gold reserves. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, was recently asked to respond to a Dáil question on the matter and said the Government was awaiting submissions. The Government should take a more active role. In the context of the debate being about the possibility of 100% debt cancellation, and who should benefit, the Government should take a position and vigorously pursue it. We ask the committee to help us convince the Government to take up that position.

Ms Jean Somers

I intend to consider the question of accountability of the Government to the Oireachtas and to the wider public on how it participates in the IMF and the World Bank. Members may or may not have seen the most recent Government report on Ireland's participation in the IMF and the World Bank. Following the Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Act 1999, the Government has produced these annual reports as a result of amendments put into the Act by Members of the Oireachtas. The legislation lays down what should be in the report and I have drawn attention to a number of the issues involved, including the need for information about payments made to the two bodies in question, but also the particulars of any policy taken by Ireland at the World Bank meetings. These reports are important as an accountability tool provided by the Government to the Oireachtas and the wider public. While we welcome the production of these reports we consider it is important to ask how well the practice is operating as an accountability mechanism. The current report details the finance that the Government has paid over to the IMF and the World Bank. It also has a useful outline of how Ireland operates with them and the focus of our representatives to the two bodies in Washington, as well as how they link into the Canadian-led constituencies.

It was particularly welcome in this report that Development Co-operation Ireland is using information that it is getting from the embassies in Ireland in programme countries such as Tanzania and Zambia. It is feeding that to our representatives in Washington to make them more effective in their input. We are represented in Washington by people from the Central Bank and the Department of Finance, and it is not reasonable to expect them to have expertise in development.

Those were the positive things that we found in this year's report. However, we asked to address the committee on it because there is not really any information to illustrate how the Government is making its voice heard and to what specific policies it contributed in 2004. We picked out two issues of significant importance to our organisation and the public, who support us. They are also issues at which this committee has looked over the years, one being the new approach to debt. It is not the debt cancellation issue but looking forward to the future and saying that the poorest countries will need a great deal of finance to achieve the millennium development goals. How will that money be made available? If they borrow a great deal of money to achieve the goals, they will end up highly indebted and will not be able to repay the loans. If one borrows a great deal to achieve universal primary education, it is a necessary condition for development, but it will not produce the money to repay the loan. It is very important to examine the mix of grants and loans that countries may need. However, there is no information in the report on where Ireland has positioned itself on that, what are its concerns and what it supports, even though the programme countries with which Ireland is involved are for the most part heavily indebted.

The committee has also shown great interest in the other issue, the role of the IMF in low-income countries. There was a review of that in 2004, the period covered in the report. It looks at all issues to do with the IMF and low-income countries. Particularly important is the question of what conditions it attaches to loan agreements. As members will all be aware, there is widespread and continuing concern at the role of the IMF in low-income countries. We considered the report from the body that the UN Secretary General has set up to support the UN in examining the millennium development goals in preparation for the review that Mr. O'Sullivan mentioned. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was in Dublin a few days ago — I do not know whether any members were able to attend his talk — has made the point that in the vast majority of countries supported by the IMF, there has been almost no discussion on whether the plans that the IMF is pressing on them are consistent with reaching the MDGs since they were adopted in 2000.

We are concerned that no information is given in the report on positions that Ireland has taken on this, given that, some years ago, the Government decided not to pay into the IMF's programme because of serious worries. We have raised the issue with the Government of how one can make more and more specific information available on its role in the IMF and World Bank. We always refer to the speech that the Minister gives at the annual meeting. However, that is very short, being approximately two and a half pages long. It must cover all the necessary courtesies and can address issues only in very general terms. That is why the annual report is important. It is an opportunity to spell out the positions in more detail. We are not asking for every position. The Government could focus on five issues of particular concern to Ireland over the previous year. The annual report does not adequately fulfil the requirements of the legislation to give particulars of the policy positions taken by Ireland at the World Bank and IMF.

We have several recommendations for the committee regarding how it might make an input. The report is for committee members and their colleagues in the Oireachtas. The Government's annual report should contain a summary of the positions taken by Ireland on key issues. They could be to do with policy, for example, debt or the role of the IMF, but also Ireland's programme countries. In the year covered in the report, Zambia's debt was a big issue. Both the Irish development programme and wider civil society have been very involved in that.

We also consider that it would be useful if the Minister for Finance could say what are Ireland's priorities in the IMF and World Bank, particularly before the two key meetings. Those bodies have such expansive agendas that it is hard for us to see where Ireland fits in as a small country. We ask the Minister for Finance to publish those before the spring and autumn meetings, the two key ones during the year. Even if the report is the best in the world, it is simply placed in the Oireachtas Library, and I am not sure how widely read or used it is. Given the big deficit whereby so much decision-making is done globally, without proper democratic procedures and a big gap between national governments and parliaments, there should be an opportunity for Members to engage with the Minister for Finance when this report comes out. If the committee so chooses, it could be before he attends the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank. The committee should consider inviting the Minister for Finance to engage with it on the report.

Chairman

I welcome what Ms Somers stated about outlining priorities for this year. I was a member of the committee in 1994 when we discussed this issue and supported debt cancellation. We discussed this at a Comhlámh meeting two weeks ago. There was a "Lotto lunch" in Buswell's Hotel, and we talked about having a debate in the Seanad, something for which I called last week, to discuss such issues as aid, including food aid, and trade. I hope that we will find some way to pursue that.

Senator Ryan

As the Chairman will be aware, I was in Nairobi recently at a conference of European parliamentarians and African colleagues from the Great Lakes region to discuss the peace process. I am concerned at the degree to which the IMF in particular is doing two things, the first being the ideological colour that it gives to its prescriptions. The second concerns its expectations regarding the quality and expertise of governance, especially in countries emerging from appalling civil wars, but in others too. I have almost come to the conclusion that the IMF does not really approve of expenditure on health and education. In very poor countries, it has a desire that in principle is correct, namely, that public finances should be in reasonable order. However, countries with plentiful public finances such as Venezuela, which is currently awash with money because of oil prices and using much of the revenue to develop literacy programmes and primary health care, are being reprimanded by the IMF. Does the IMF ever approve of expanding provision for primary health care and education? Do the witnesses know of any country where it has approved of such activities? If they do not it is an issue I would like to raise with our Government.

I have no problem with countries, rich or poor, being expected to be prudent and sensible. Spending more than one can reasonably be expected to pay off will not work, anywhere. A country such as Lesotho cannot spend on welfare in the way that Sweden can, for instance. The money is not there. However, that is different from saying that nothing should ever be done in those countries. I am concerned that the IMF takes that position and I want to hear more from the delegation on that.

I suggest that the report by the Department of Finance on the IMF and the World Bank should be circulated to all Members of the Oireachtas, perhaps with a note from Debt and Development Coalition Ireland, asking people to read it and raising a few questions that could be discussed in both Houses. I am not trying to pre-empt the committee's position, but it would be simple to append a summary of what has been said here in a letter from the committee, with a copy of the report.

I have a friend from Ireland who has been working for years with the World Bank. We engage in an ongoing debate on debt, mostly by e-mail and occasionally head to head. She is adamant that elimination of debt means depriving people of income. If it is decided to write off even unpayable debt, she argues, that reduces the sum of funding available for poor countries. It means, essentially, that moderately poor countries are being used to wipe out the debt of poorer countries. Her argument is that even if extra funding is provided, that effectively is money that would have been used elsewhere. I believe there is a logical non sequiter in this, but I have not yet figured it out. Perhaps Mr. O’Sullivan can help me because I do not know how influential is this friend. I have not spoken to her since the advent of the new president, so she may not be there any more.

Mr. O'Sullivan need not comment if he feels it is inappropriate, but will the new president affect the views of the World Bank, which, as a lay observer, I believe have tended to be a good deal more advanced than those of the IMF? Will there now be a not very hopeful coincidence of views between the World Bank and the IMF?

Mr. O’Sullivan

I shall take the Senator's last point first. I am not overly hopeful, but I trust the president will be consistent in his views on what may be termed "odious debt", which he was the first to advance, as regards Iraq, when he held a different position. He held that it was an odious debt, and as such, should be cancelled. If he takes the same position I shall be happy.

Senator Ryan

Will Mr. O'Sullivan say what mechanisms are being used to wipe out Iraqi debt? How is it being funded? One picks up information in the media, but it is never absolutely clear. This was an extraordinary decision, generally out of line with international policy. I have never figured out what mechanisms are in place.

Mr. O’Sullivan

I can give the Senator the details. In terms of the principles, the Americans argued that it was an odious debt and they wanted to act. There was disagreement with the French about how it would be done. Ms Somers has a better knowledge of the details, Perhaps we can come back to this in a moment.

As regards the issue of the IMF and social spending, it is not a body one readily suggests should have views on social spending. One of the key issues about the debt and the multilateral organisations in particular is that it gives them an inordinate influence on issues which they should not have. This ties in with the Senator's argument as to whether getting rid of debt takes money away from people. One of the arguments that is being strongly put by the southern countries is that even if this is the case, the actual debt is a mechanism which allows policies to be imposed on them, to their detriment. Almost separate from whether the flow of money is being affected, there is a structural power imbalance which is enforced by bodies such as the IMF. Regardless of whether they expect to get the debt repaid, they can use their leverage to impose policies, which do not work. Apart from ideological considerations or anything else, when they are found not to work, they just tear them up and write a new set of policies, which also do not work. There is a real concern that the reason why the focus is on the multilateral organisations is that if the debt may be lifted from people's backs, it allows them to have a freer debate about what types of policies they want implemented.

On the question of the mechanisms of debt — on which Ms Somers will have more details — and whether somebody will have to pay for it, the answer is someone will. The argument we have made in terms of the sale of gold is one that the institutions themselves have used. Such initiatives involve moneys which would not be used for extra spending on loans or grants. This is an opportunity. We have learned that if the gold had been invested at the proper rates 30 years ago, when it was not being used, there would now be a fund available of €30 billion. That is a way of putting money into the system, but ultimately it could mean that there is not sufficient money available. Countries such as Britain have come upfront and acknowledged that they are prepared to take a fair share of the burden that is related to the amount of money they put into these institutions, which is 10%. Ireland's burden is much less. It is difficult to get precise figures but we could be facing a single million euro figure every year to pay our burden of the debt.

The American proposal was something to the effect that they would take money out of the resources available, which we are not in favour of. We are in favour of additionality. However, some of the African countries are telling us that they need to deal with the debt issue because it swallows much of their institutional time, putting them in a weak position. There is an argument that the debt is an issue which needs to be dealt with. We say the two may be dealt with at once. The debt issue may be removed and the IMF debt substantially paid off together with a goodly portion of the World Bank debt without eating into other reserves.

Ms Somers

To come back to Iraq's debt, that country owes money to a whole series of creditors, mainly the rich countries, those organised within the Paris Club and OECD creditors. There is also a whole series of debt that Iraq owes to Saudi Arabia and countries not involved in the Paris Club. I cannot recall the figures, but perhaps €30 billion of debt was dealt with. We can send the committee a short briefing we did on it. They agreed to write off some more only when Iraq had signed off to an IMF programme. There is a whole series of "ifs and buts", as is usually the case.

The principle is as stated by Mr. O'Sullivan, in that they wrote off more debt in two days than had been written off for poor countries over many decades. The US was in the driving seat, having led by denouncing the debt as what it termed "odious debt", lent to a dictator in the first place. However, they were very keen to draw a line under it and to say, in effect, that this was not setting a precedent for Nigeria, the Philippines, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other countries with similar histories in terms of dictators being propped up for Cold War reasons. Broadly speaking, that is the situation on Iraq's debt. We can send the committee the short briefing on this that we did — it is only a sheet.

The IMF is not a development institution, as such, although when it goes into a country its role is that of a poverty reducing facility, with the main purpose of reducing poverty. The problem is that it has not rethought its approach. When the IMF goes into a country, it is concerned about keeping inflation down, getting prices right and whether aid that is coming in may cause inflation. Sometimes it puts a ceiling on the aid a country may receive.

Professor Sachs has just produced an enormous report with experts from all around the world to support the UN millennium development goals procedure. He gives examples of countries such as Ethiopia, a very poor country, where a ceiling was put on health spending of less than $2 a head. The IMF insists there must be a ceiling on that because Ethiopia cannot afford the money. Rather than the IMF putting it up to countries that Ethiopia needs this amount for health, while donors might not respond, it should at least be on the table, rather than covering up and pretending that it has to do with bad governance in Ethiopia, etc.

It was asked whether there was any place where the IMF had called for an increase in spending. I cannot think of any example, but there could easily be such a case. However, generally speaking, its role has to do with balancing the books. Our colleagues at the European Network on Debt and Development did a report on the IMF programme and they argued that the conditions being laid down by the IMF on the poorest countries are tighter than those being put on us by the Stability and Growth Pact. The poorest countries have very little infrastructure so they need to spend it. We have some infrastructure. We are not happy with our health service, but it still compares favourably with what they have in Zambia.

It is extraordinary that the IMF demands tighter controls on poorer countries. When France and Germany broke the Stability and Growth Pact in Europe the rules of the pact were changed. If a pact is broken with the IMF, the country does not get its aid. This is what happened in Zambia. The government finally got through the HIPIC procedure, but it took years to get there as it was off target with a number of IMF conditions.

There are great concerns about the role of the IMF. It has changed its language, but I am not sure it has changed its approach. Its programme was renamed as a poverty reduction programme and the IMF claimed that it would work in partnership with the countries involved. However, we met with a key official who told us that he does not expect to see major changes in the kind of programmes that were coming forward. According to this official, this was because he believed there were natural laws in macro-economics. It is not due to malice on behalf of the IMF that this is occurring.

Senator Ryan

That it what I was afraid of.

Ms Somers

The Senator spoke about additional resources for debt cancellation. A country must repay money owed to the World Bank, unlike debt owed to countries like Britain or Germany. In order to keep up with repayments, the World Bank keeps lending to debtor countries under structural adjustments. Defensive lending goes on where the money is constantly being recycled and everyone's time is wasted.

There are advantages to cancelling debt. The money involved is released into the national government budget. Otherwise, a foreign country comes in, funds the construction of a project which the government cannot sustain as it does not have the money. For example, a foreign country may build a school, but there might be no teachers in it. Cancelled debt can go into the government budget and as long as it is well managed, it can contribute. There are many more discussions that need to take place about the argument by the Senator's friend in the World Bank. However, the World Bank is not arguing that debt should not be cancelled.

Senator Ryan

I am aware of that. I was simply talking about the accountancy behind it that I discussed with my friend from the World Bank. I am glad that Ms Somers mentioned it. I have a concern that there is a belief in the IMF, which is not shared by most economists, that there are immutable laws of economics. It appears that the IMF has a standard prescription which is that any kinds of public services for which people do not pay something are a bad thing.

The IMF believes that there should be a charge for basic education, basic health care or clean water. I am not sure whether this is true, but it seems to come up in discussions with people and organisations that work in this field, such as Trócaire. They often talk about paying for school books or primary education, which suggests that there is a fee for them. There are things taken for granted as part of bringing about development, such as free primary education, a free basic health service and at least a low cost access to clean water. Yet the IMF seems to attempt to prevent these things from happening in many developing countries. Is there any sign of a standard package that the IMF expects from all developing countries?

Ms Somers

The World Bank would mainly deal with policies on health, education and water. The bank is looking for public private partnerships in these areas, particularly for water. It does not want to support water projects in Africa that do not have a private sector input. People have very different views on that. Those who can pay should pay and those who cannot can avail of some kind of safety net. There have been disastrous results in countries like Ghana, which tried to resist the privatisation of water for a while, as the price increased.

There is much talk that the Washington consensus is dead and the rhetoric has definitely softened up a bit. Free primary education is part of the universal declaration on human rights and is not negotiable. There has been something of a shift as free primary education is now accepted if we are to meet the millennium development goals. However, there are charges for health. It is often called participation, as the patient is participating by paying charges. On the other hand, the World Bank can ask us if Ireland is paying its share of aid to support developing countries.

Mr. O’Sullivan

There is a consensus view called the Washington consensus. However, it is the same for economists all over the world. Economists play a valid role in social and political life, but their wilder theories are moderated in their home countries through a political process, where people make decisions but cannot discount human costs as the IMF has done over decades. Sometimes when I talk to economists, it seems that nothing possible can ever be done. However, politicians must make decisions about what will be effected and what will be acceptable and so on.

Given the nature of the debate in the IMF and the World Bank, there is a role to be played by sovereign governments in influencing the decisions of these institutions. If the Senator's friend in the World Bank is arguing that the current situation is the best we can get, then that is a recipe for a complete abdication of political responsibility. There are potential political choices to be made. Economists might say that we should sit around for another 100 years and come up with better choices, but there is a set of choices to be made now and a possibility of movement.

The Irish Government has put together a package that is as good as any other. We can criticise it by saying that it does not go far enough, but the Government should be promulgating the view that the only way to deal with the HIPIC countries is 100% debt cancellation. For countries that have been ravaged by AIDS, it is a scandal to be taking money from them. That view should be pushed in the debate. There is a clear viability in using IMF gold to make a substantial start on funding.

The IMF can later ask if the Government is meeting its political responsibilities for aid. I have seen figures that suggest that Britain needs to contribute the equivalent of two cups of coffee per person per year to meet the aid target, while the figure for America is less. These are political decisions and it is an abdication of responsibility to suggest that until we can get it, everything is fine.

Senator Ryan

I was not saying that. I was just equipping my armoury.

Mr. O’Sullivan

I was not referring to the Senator, but that is what we have to confront.

Chairman

People have raised the issue of food security in Iraq. There are many problems there with civil society and law and order. I believe a politician was killed there yesterday. Let us take the example of how Iraq's debt was dealt with. There is still the question of getting aid to those in Iraq who need it most.

The Minister of State spoke to the committee on Tuesday about consultation with regard to reaching the Government's development aid target of 0.7% of GDP. Is there some other way in which people could be consulted with regard to such issues, particularly the selling off of IMF gold? Is there another way to highlight this debate? Can delegates tell us anything more about the issue of food in Iraq?

Ms Somers

We are not the best people to ask. One of the agencies working with Iraq would be better. We have such members but I could not name them off the top of my head. We focus more on debt and the poorest countries.

Mr. O’Sullivan

Senator Ryan said it was an issue of a country's capacity coming out of war. Iraq is still effectively in a situation of war and conflict. There is an issue of the building up of capacity as well as an issue of debt. In terms of food security, the new Iraqi Constitution allows for the patenting of foodstuffs as per the rules of the World Trade Organisation. This is potentially a huge issue in that they will not be able to later disavow the provision. It is built into the Constitution and they must go along with whatever the WTO states in terms of food security.

Ms Somers

There must be information in order to have a consultation process. At present, we do not consider there is anything to consult on because we have not heard from the Government. The policy has existed for three years and we have welcomed this. However, the Government must make clear its policy on debt cancellation in the context of the moves outlined by Mr. O'Sullivan, including the sale of gold. It is important to put such issues in the public arena. We must also be clear on the Government's priorities because we know nothing of them at this time. The Government has not made a public statement on debt for years.

Senator Ryan

One of the issues vigorously raised by a number of parliamentarians in Nairobi was Africa's money and the large amounts left behind by departed dictators in European banks. They suggest that it would have a huge impact if set off against their debts and could be used by their governments. Do we have any information about the scale of this money? The IMF recommended a ceiling of $2 per head on health care. Does it have similar restrictions with regard to armaments expenditure?

Ms Somers

The IMF and World Bank are opposed to armaments expenditure and have their own system to monitor whether the money they give governments is spent on arms. They are not soft on that issue.

The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, established the Commission for Africa which recently produced a report. It included strong statements regarding the amounts of money and the importance of it being returned. The campaign in Nigeria, where much money was stolen, is not for debt cancellation but for the return of stolen wealth. The government which took over after the fall of Sani Abacha has tried to get the money back and focused on British and Swiss banks. Some small amount has been released but they are finding it incredibly difficult. The banks cite issues such as confidentiality. The Commission for Africa argues that it is a lot of money and is being given safe haven in European banks.

Chairman

We have no other questions at this time. I thank Ms Somers and Mr. O'Sullivan for attending. What they said regarding the IMF and World Bank is very interesting. I hope we have a chance to debate the issue in the Seanad with regard to development aid and trade which the delegates also highlighted. Perhaps they could forward any further information that we could use.

The sub-committee adjourned at 12.56 p.m sine die.