As there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to Fifth Stage.
Bill received for final consideration.
International Development Association (Amendment) Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I welcome the Minister of State at the commencement of the Final Stages. I am sure he will note the irony in that and note that once again I am here to participate. Like the other Opposition Deputies I support the passage of this Bill but I want to put on record a number of points relevant to its passage.
On this Stage, debate is confined solely to the contents of the Bill.
That is what I am here to discuss. If there was anything which was not here at this point we would have amendments on Report Stage. Given the co-operation of Deputies on all sides of the House, which I am sure the Minister of State will acknowledge, the Government is duty bound to take seriously the points raised.
We have made the point regarding the sum of money involved, which at €50 million is relatively small in real terms. We also recognised, however, that the International Development Association is an arm of the World Bank and consequently we need to recognise the key issues relating to it. They are reform of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These bodies have been used to pile debt on already heavily burdened countries and economies, with very damaging consequences. There can be no disagreement on that. The Minister of State should note that aid and development should not be vehicles for privatisation in exploitation by multinationals. They have to be driven by a very different set of intents, mores and approach.
I recommend an outworking of the legislation, which is not contrary but complementary to it, namely to take on board the appeal of the South African Minister for Finance, Trevor Manuel. The Minister of State responded to me regarding that matter on Committee Stage but it is important that we see the establishment of an independent expert committee to study the issue and propose reforms.
The Deputy has gone well outside the Bill. The Bill has one paragraph regarding an increase in the amount of funding. This has nothing to do with what that funding might be used for. That is a matter for Second Stage. We are now on Final Stage.
With respect, it is an arm of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
We cannot have a Second Stage speech at this time. As I pointed out to the Deputy the Final Stage is confined to what is in the Bill. There are many opportunities to consider the principles of a Bill on Second Stage.
I have been dealing with this Bill from its arrival on Second Stage and the points I make are quite relevant at each stage.
The Chair has ruled on the matter. The Final Stage is exclusively confined to the contents of the Bill. We cannot have a Second Stage contribution on Final Stage.
I know what the Chair has ruled. Taking on board the Ceann Comhairle's repeated concerns about my contributions, I conclude by emphasising again the opportunities presented by the Bill. What matters is not only its implementation to the letter but also to the spirit, which is equally important to the letter which the Ceann Comhairle wishes me to confine myself to.
The Ceann Comhairle is merely implementing a Standing Order.
With respect, the Ceann Comhairle is continually interrupting the Deputy.
The Ceann Comhairle never interrupts. The Ceann Comhairle intervenes.
With respect, it is not a pattern that others occupying the chair employ. I will make one last effort. In addressing development issues — and the Ceann Comhairle will knock me back on this as well — I want to note the need for positive neutrality in action.
I ask the Deputy to obey the Standing Orders of this House. He cannot implement special Standing Orders for himself. We cannot have a Second Stage speech at this point. I ask him to resume his seat if he is not going obey the Standing Orders.
Knocked out in the first round.
I am knocked out by the bell. The Ceann Comhairle has a conspirator in the House who has decided to turn off my microphone, which is not how this House should conduct itself. That conspirator is behind me.
The Deputy may not refer to the Chair or to any other Member of the House as a conspirator.
The Ceann Comhairle will have his way no matter what.
I welcome the Bill. During Second Stage and Committee Stage we had the opportunity to debate the context within which this money is being made available. I am disappointed that we have not been able to secure from the Minister a commitment that this money which we are providing to the World Bank will be made available from a much expanded provision by the State which will meet the 0.7% of GNP obligation we have undertaken regarding the UN. The €50 million we are providing here must be seen in a context where, if we are to achieve that target over the next three years, we must provide €375 million. This is only a small element of that overall commitment that we need to honour.
I am bitterly disappointed that in this year the increased allocation was just €26 million. It did not even meet the obligations which the Minister must have anticipated were to be made by this Bill. The extra provision made in 2004 did not meet the commitment that we already entered into.
It begs the question as to how serious the Government is regarding its commitment to overseas aid. I know that the Government entered this commitment in good faith but it seems that, for whatever reason, events have overtaken it and it has decided to push down the list of priorities its provision for development aid. That is disappointing.
The World Bank approach to development issues is one that causes concern. It is, however, reforming its approach and it has been learning from the errors of the past. I hope that the Minister, in committing this money to the World Bank, will also seek to ensure that a very broadbased approach to development issues that looks at the overall context in which development is occurring informs World Bank policy.
I am in fear of the Ceann Comhairle's ire. He is looking at me over the top of his glasses which is a bad sign.
Danger.
I will conclude because I am now in injury time.
My script options have been limited by the previous speakers. It must be acknowledged that this Bill has been very uncontentious and has not been challenged by the Opposition Members of the House. The only amendment moved had as much to do with grammar as anything else. This shows that there is for once a consensus in this House on the need to support the principles behind a Bill like this, despite reservations that many of us would have about the past conduct and need for reform of the World Bank, to which the money is being given by this House and the Government.
It is also useful to note that another piece of legislation will soon come before us regarding the Council of Europe which operates under similar principles. It is somewhat ironic that despite the passage of the Bill and the general agreement on it, there is no guarantee even with large international organisations like the World Bank that development aid will be given at the time it is needed. A live example of this is the Darfur region of Sudan where, despite thousands of refugees being in need of immediate assistance and the visit of the UN Secretary General and even the Secretary of State of the United States, the barrier on receiving aid which is undoubtedly available and would be given-——
The Bill purely deals with the International Development Association.
I am dealing with the World Bank.
It is not appropriate on Final Stage.
I point it out as a particular irony in the sense that this is money that is now-——
That is Second Stage.
I am moving beyond principles to discuss the practical effect of the Bill when passed and the hope of the House that the money which will be provided from our resources can be given as and when needed. I am talking about the practical effect of the Bill, not about principle. I am pointing to a particular example of how and when a particular need is expressed in a specific region of the world.
Like Deputy Richard Bruton, I want the legislation to send a clearer signal of the Government's intention in regard to overseas development aid. Hopefully, in future debates, we will have that opportunity because I, like Deputy Richard Bruton and others on this side of the House, am not convinced that the commitment exists. I find it strange that on this Bill and the Council of Europe Development Bank Bill, which will soon come before the House, being presented by the Minister for Finance and his Department, the House discusses the general principle of overseas development aid, yet Opposition Members and spokespersons on finance are not able to question the Minister about his general policy on this area. This is something we need-——
It does not arise in regard to this Bill.
It is something with which we need to deal in future debates.
I thank all of the parties in the House for the debate on the Bill over the past month and for their support for the International Development Association. This agency does good work in the developing world. It is the largest single source of concessional financial assistance to the poorest of the poor countries.
The mission of the International Development Association is to support efficient and effective programmes to reduce poverty and to improve the quality of life in these countries. Today, nearly 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day and over 1 billion live on less than $1 per day. I welcome Ireland's contribution to this work.
Question put and agreed to.
This Bill, which is certified a money Bill in accordance with Article 22.2.1° of the Constitution, will be sent to the Seanad.