Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 May 2000

Vol. 163 No. 12

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Amendment) Bill, 1999 [ Certified Money Bill ] : Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Minister for Finance to subscribe to the 1998 capital increase of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency – MIGA.

The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is part of the World Bank Group. It shares a president and board or directors with the bank. It was created in April 1988 to encourage the flow of investments for productive purposes among member countries and, in particular, to developing member countries, in many of which the perception of political risk remains a significant barrier to investment. The need for such an agency had become apparent from the experience gained by the World Bank group in working with developing countries.

Earlier, in 1956, the International Finance Corporation, or the private sector arm of the bank, was established when it became clear that there was a need for a specific agency to encourage private foreign investment as opposed to the bank's own role in the public sector. Equally, when it became clear that poorer countries could not afford to borrow on the bank's commercial terms, the International Development Association, or the bank's "soft" window, was set up in 1960, to make concessional financing available for development. MIGA is the latest of the institutions to be set up aimed to fill another gap where political uncertaintly was acting as a deterrent to foreign private investment.

MIGA improves the investment climate by issuing guarantees against political risk and engaging in other investment promotion activities. Its primary role, to facilitate foreign private direct investment, complements other investment agencies such as the International Finance Corporation and national insurance and promotional bodies.

Prospective projects for MIGA coverage must be financially, economically and environmentally sound. The first two of these are normal considerations in any commercial insurance operation. The question of environmental sustainability, however, is a more recent consideration. It arises from fears that multinational corporations may bring investment to developing countries only at the cost of the degradation of their environment. MIGA is conscious of this danger and has recently taken steps to address such concerns.

In June 1999, an environmental and social compliance adviser/ombudsman – CAO – was appointed to review any complaints that MIGA or the IFC might have violated their own environmental, social and/or disclosure policies. This was the result of efforts by IFC and MIGA, their shareholders, NGOs and members of the business community to find a workable and constructive approach to dealing with environmental and social concerns. The ombudsman's role will include an infomal advisory function as well as that of reviewing complaints.

MIGA operates by issuing guarantees against non-commercial or political risks for foreign direct investments – FDI – in its developing member countries and by providing technical assitance to governments of such countries to improve their ability to attract foreign direct investment. MIGA covers private investments but may cover State projects where these are being privatised or run on a commercial basis.

MIGA provides political risk insurance to private investors for specific projects in developing countries. Its objective is to facilitate foreign direct investment by alleviating negative investor sentiment regarding political stability in the host country. MIGA does not provide export credit insurance nor does it provide insurance against normal commercial risk.

MIGA has accomplished a great deal in its ten years of operation and has implemented several initiatives. It has become a significant agency in the world of international risk capital. On the guarantee side, the agency is now one of the largest political risk insurers in the world. Through reinsurance and co-insurance agreements, and through syndication of political risk insurance, MIGA now occupies a unique and central position as a standard setter for political risk insurers. It can now proceed with confidence to assume more risk in more complicated and larger projects. On the technical assistance side, MIGA's institution building activities for investment promotion agencies are highly appreciated by many host countries. These activities are drawing the attention of many senior executives and MIGA's contribution on the legal side is highly valued by many governments.

In this context it can be asked whether we need a multilateral agency such as MIGA, and whether the service it provides might not be equally well provided either by the private sector or by national governments. It is true that about 20 countries have national political risk investment insurance programmes. MIGA was created in recognition of the fact that various eligibility criteria of these national programmes rendered them unable to offer meaningful coverage to a considerable number of investors. Moreover, most developing countries do not have such programmes, leaving any of their national investors undertaking foreign direct investment no potential source of long-term coverage.

Private insurers were writing political risk investment insurance when MIGA was created in 1988 and operate successfully now in a growing market. Thanks in part to MIGA's reinsurance activities, the private market has stretched the tenor of its coverage. Currently, the private market is flourishing in a very complementary fashion to the operations of the agency and the national insurers. Not only have private insurers not been crowded out, they have been crowded in by MIGA's operations. They have willingly joined MIGA in its co-operative underwriting programme which combines the agency and private sector coverage in a single policy for the insured investor.

Senators do not need to be reminded of the importance of foreign direct investment. Over the past decades capital inflows have laid the basis for the current success of our economy. Our pioneering approach to the attraction of foreign investment has attracted considerable international attention, and many countries are now seeking to emulate our success in utilising such capital inflows to best advantage.

In many of these countries perceptions among investors of political risk or instability can deter them from making large or long-term investments. This in turn retards the industrialisation of these countries and compounds existing social problems, such as endemic poverty. MIGA was created as a contribution to solving some of these problems.

MIGA works very closely with other agencies and its convention specifically requires it to supplement the activities of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and other international development finance institutions. It is also required to complement the activities of existing national and regional investment insurance entities. It does this through co-insurance and reinsurance with these institutions, bilateral exchanges of information, and its membership of the Berne Union.

The MIGA guarantee is designed to promote new investments and new contributions to expand, privatise, or financially restructure existing projects in developing member countries. MIGA's long-term, that is 15 to 20-year, non-can celable guarantee serves to mitigate investors' concerns about political risks and facilitates investments that otherwise might not be made.

What does political or non-commercial risk insurance cover? Very broadly, MIGA offers guarantees to cover the following risks: currency transfer restrictions that prevent investors or lenders from converting local currency into foreign exchange and transferring the proceeds abroad; expropriation by a host government that affects the insured investment; war and civil disturbance, including politically motivated acts of sabotage or terrorism; and breach of contract by a host government in certain circumstances. These are all essentially actions by a host government which would jeopardise the return on the investment and if not insured against would deter much needed foreign direct investment.

MIGA covers several forms of investment including equity, commercial bank loans, loans made or guaranteed by foreign equity holders and technical assistance and management contracts. This flexibility is designed to encourage private foreign investors to expand their activities in the developing world.

MIGA is mandated to assist investments that contribute to the host country's development. The equity related direct investments that it facilitates are more stable than portfolio investments and are a necessary element of long-term sustainable development.

MIGA assesses its success in terms of the number of jobs created, foreign exchange earnings and savings produced, tax and other revenues generated for the host government, and advanced technology and management practices introduced.

All MIGA insured projects must be environmentally and financially sound. They must also be technically sound. MIGA's technical assistance work is designed to promote the flow of investment to its developing member countries and economies in transition. These activities focus primarily on sectoral ministries and national and local investment promotion agencies. It assists the agencies in capacity building and dissemination of information on investment opportunities in their countries. It also supports the investment marketing efforts of agencies by organising multi-country single sector conferences that bring together potential investors, local partners and host country investment promotion officers.

The fulfilment of MIGA's objectives contributes to the development of the private sector in host countries and increases the ability of these countries to achieve economic and social development in an environmentally sustainable way. The agency's success in promoting foreign direct investment in its developing member countries and economies in transition makes an important contribution to the attainment of the overall development objectives of the World Bank group.

Global private flows to developing countries increased from $42 billion in 1990 to $256 billion in 1997, although we witnessed a slight slowdown in 1997 which was due largely to the crisis in East Asia. Growth has resulted from a combination of factors: the liberalisation and private sector growth in developing economies, particularly in the infrastructure sector; strong macroeconomic growth; an increase in trade; and a more integrated global investment and production regime overall. Against this background foreign direct investment continued to form the largest portion of net private flows and rose fivefold from $24 billion to $120 billion in the same period.

The growth of foreign direct investment in developing countries acted as a catalyst for and benefited from the expansion of the investment insurance market. Concerns of project sponsors about restrictions on transfer of remittances, expropriation or nationalisation, and war and civil disturbance have inhibited the flow of foreign investments in the past. The increasing availability and use of political risk insurance as a risk mitigation mechanism have boosted investors' confidence to invest in developing countries.

The Berne Union, which comprises 25 investment insurers including MIGA, reports that the use of political risk insurance has more than doubled since 1990 when it was $17 billion and reached $38.9 billion in 1997. In response to global trends private investment insurers are increasing the capacity and scope of their coverage and providing longer periods of insurance

MIGA's role in relation to Africa may be of interest to Senators. It wants to respond to the growing needs of African countries. Several African countries have undertaken rigorous structural reform and adjustment efforts and these measures have begun to show rewards in the form of steady economic growth. Though these efforts have unfortunately been undermined by the spread of the AIDS epidemic and the resurgence of conflict in many parts of the continent, the economic potential of Africa remains enormous.

I am aware that many Senators are closely concerned with the resolution of the debt burden which constrains the development of many African countries. Even after this burden is alleviated for the countries affected, they will still badly need foreign direct investment. Many of these are still shaky economies and they are not immune either from economic crises such as that which hit East Asia or from renewed political instability. MIGA's technical assistance and guarantee activities will be crucial to such African countries. The difference MIGA makes for them will be a key test by which the agency will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in diversifying foreign direct investment to poorer countries. Since its inception, the agency has underwritten 62 contracts of guarantee in Africa, facilitating an estimated $3.7 billion in foreign direct investment. The activities of the agency in providing technical assistance to promote foreign direct investment by strengthening the capacity of investment intermediaries to attract and retain foreign direct investment are of particular relevance to Africa.

MIGA obtains its resources from the capital subscriptions of its members. MIGA's initial authorised capital was SDR 1 billion. The current authorised capital is SDR 1.86 billion. The increase is accounted for by an increase of SDR 77 million in the initial capital to accommodate an increase in membership over that initially provided for and the current capital increase of SDR 786 million.

As of 30 September 1999, full membership requirements in the agency have been completed by 150 countries. The current amount of the capital subscribed by full members is SDR 1.04 billion or $1.124 billion. On 29 March 1999 the Council of Governors of MIGA adopted a resolution for a general capital increase. Under this the authorised capital stock of the agency will be increased by SDR 786 million - $850 million.

The proposed capital increase will help to underpin an underwriting strategy which envisages between $15 billion and $24 billion of new guarantees being issued up to the year 2006. After allowing for existing guarantees, cancellations, reductions, expiries and losses, MIGA's outstanding contingent liabilities would be about $15.7 billion gross by the end of that period. Based on historic ratios, new guarantees of between $15 billion and $24 billion could facilitate an estimated $105 billion to $168 billion of new foreign direct investment to developing and transition countries.

Ireland has been a member of MIGA since its establishment in 1988 having ratified the convention establishing MIGA on 5 July 1989. The cost of the shares allocated to Ireland was about $4 million, of which 10% – $400,000 or £280,000 – was paid in cash. Under the proposed capital increase Ireland will receive additional shares involving an additional subscription of $3 million. This will consist of a cash payment of $537,000 – £396,000 – and callable capital of $2.5 million. Cash payment will be made in two equal instalments in the first two years of the capital increase. The first payment fell due before 29 March 2000; the second is to be made before 29 March 2001. Each payment will amount to £198,000.

Ireland's contributions to MIGA are accountable as part of our official development assistance programme and count towards Ireland's UN GNP percentage target for overseas development assistance. Contributions to MIGA are payable from the Central Fund.

Section 1 amends section 3 of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act, 1988, to allow the Minister to subscribe to the 1998 capital increase of the agency as set out under resolution 57, adopted by the Council of Governors of the MIGA on 29 March 1999. Section 2 contains the short title.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

I welcome the Minister of State. I have no difficulty in supporting the Bill without amendment. This is technical legislation and I thank the Minister of State for the explanatory memorandum which accompanies it. It explains in great detail the functions and objectives of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, known as MIGA. It was created in 1988 as part of the World Bank, and Ireland has been a member since the agency was established. The main objective of the agency is to encourage the flow of investment for productive purposes among member countries and especially to developing member countries. To serve this objective, MIGA issues guarantees against non-commercial risks to foreign direct investment in developing member countries and also provides technical assistance to the governments of such countries to improve their ability to attract foreign direct investment.

We in this country can understand the objectives of the agency because, for many years, we have been the beneficiary of inward investment. It has played a major role in the economic growth we have experienced in recent years. In our case, there was no need to issue guarantees against non-commercial or political risks because one of the main factors in our success in encouraging inward investment was the fact that, since the foundation of the State, we have always enjoyed political stability. Entrepreneurs who intend investing in the Third World often do so in countries where there is a lack of political stability. In such cases, MIGA plays a major part in offering guarantees to cover risks. These are outlined in the explanatory memorandum and include currency, transfer of restrictions, expropriation, war and civil disobedience, including politically motivated acts of sabotage or terrorism, and breach of contract by a host government, provided the investor obtains an arbitration award or judicial settlement for damages and is unable to enforce it after a specific period or, in certain cases, where the investor is unable to obtain an award or settlement.

As well as providing guarantees against non-commercial or political risks for foreign direct investment, the agency also has the function of providing technical assistance to governments of developing countries to improve their ability to attract foreign investment. In Ireland, we have our own agency, the IDA, which has never lost an opportunity to attract foreign investment to Ireland. However, many countries in the Third World would not have this facility and depend on the agency to assist them in attracting investment.

One aspect of Third World countries which frightens me is that, in many of them where the standard of living is very low, there is serious conflict between different parties which results in civil war. It is often the case that, at the same time, these countries experience prolonged periods of famine. A good example is the ongoing war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We are all appalled by the conditions in Ethiopia, yet war continues. Perhaps the Minister of State, in his reply, could explain how MIGA deals with such a situation.

I pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations for their work in overseas development. I am always deeply impressed by the generosity of young men and women who dedicate part of their lives to help the less well-off. With the economic growth we are experiencing at present we should be more generous in our contribution to this development and I am glad to see that the Minister of State with responsibility for this matter has outlined her intention to achieve the target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid within the next few years.

Those of us who are concerned about the plight of poorer countries know that one of the best ways they can be assisted is helping them to write off their foreign debt. I support the comments of the Jubilee 2000 committee on the writing off of such debt and I understand that its petition was signed by almost 1 million people in Ireland and will be presented to the G8 leaders. I hope that, at their next meeting, those leaders will consider writing off the debts of developing countries.

The Bill is not controversial. It increases our contribution to the fund by using the same mechanism of acquiring shares which was provided when MIGA was established in 1988. As well as being a financial measure to assist Third World countries, it is also a vote of confidence in our young people involved with NGOs throughout the international community. We salute them for their generosity and encourage them to continue with their valiant work to help bring an end to the poverty, hardship, starvation and destruction we have witnessed in many parts of the developing world. For that reason, I am happy to support the legislation.

I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome the introduction of the Bill. Its passing will enable the Minister for Finance to adhere to the 1998 capital increase of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. The Bill has only two sections and, consequently, not much can be said except to review the original establishment of the agency and its success or failure to date. I hope we are not too repetitive. The explanatory memorandum is very detailed and most of us operate from it.

MIGA was created in April 1988 as the newest element of the World Bank. Originally it had 42 member countries and now has 149, 22 of which are industrial and 127 of which are developing nations. I understand there is a possibility of an increase up to 165 as 16 others satisfy the criteria. The agency began operation in 1990 and encourages the flow of investment for productive purposes among member countries, especially developing countries where investment can be restricted due to the perception, and in many cases the reality, of political risks. Investment is only covered where projects are economically, financially and environmentally sound. MIGA offers guarantees for foreign direct investment against non-commercial or political risks. It offers long-term insurance against political risks to eligible investors, which include commercial banks, for qualifying investments in developing member countries. Such insurance cannot be cancelled. It also provides technical assistance to Governments to improve their ability to attract foreign direct investment. MIGA can insure new investments originating in any member country and destined for any developing member country, investment contributions associated with the expansion, modernisation or financial restructuring of existing projects. Unconsidered new investments are therefore, also eligible as are acquisitions that involve the privatisation of State enterprises. MIGA provides coverage for investments in various industry sectors, including agri-business, energy, financial, manufacturing, natural resources, services and tourism.

An eligible investor is typically a national of a MIGA member country other than the host country in which the investment is to be made. A corporation as well as a commercial bank or other financial institution is also eligible for coverage if it is either incorporated or has its principal place of business in a member country or if it is majority owned by nationals of member countries. While MIGA usually limits support to private sector investors, State-owned corporations or financial institutions may be eligible if they can demonstrate that they operate on a commercial basis.

With the capital increase provided in this Bill the agency assumes more risk and more complicated and larger projects. Its technical assistance is highly valued by many countries. The success of our own economy has been built by many sources of direct foreign investment over the past ten to 15 years. Many countries are now trying to emulate our success. However, many Third World countries have great difficulty attracting such foreign capital. This is caused by the perception and, in many cases, the actual political risks attached to those countries. This can lead to a lack of industrialisation and only increases the poverty trap in these countries and enlarges the many existing social problems.

MIGA works closely with many other international development and financial agencies such as the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. MIGA guarantees and helps to promote new investment to expand, privatise or financially reconstruct existing projects in developing member countries. Its long-term guarantees of 15 to 20 years help to eliminate investors' concerns about political risks and encourage investments that might not be made without these guarantees.

The main objectives, as the Minister set out, are political but non-commercial risks insurance cover to cover currency transfer restrictions, expropriation, war and civil disturbance and breach of contract by the host countries. All actions of host countries which would jeopardise the return on investment need insurance risk cover to attract foreign direct investment. MIGA covers several forms of investment including equity commercial bank loans, loans made or guaranteed by foreign equity holders and technical assistance on management contracts. Its structure is flexible to enable encouragement of foreign investors to expand their activities into the developing world. MIGA assesses its success in terms of the number of jobs created and many other factors.

MIGA assesses local investment promotion agencies in capacity building, identifying investment opportunities in their countries. It also supports investment/marketing efforts of these agencies by promoting multi-country, single sector conferences which bring together potential investors and local partners. The agency contributes to the development of the private sector in the host country and helps them to activate economic and social development in an environmentally sustainable way.

In March 1999, as the Minister said, the council of governors of MIGA adopted the resolution for a general capital increase. The increase is to the tune of US $850 million. We have been members of MIGA since its establishment in 1988. The cost of the original shares allocated was US$4 million with Ireland holding 369 shares and up to 20% call-up cash at that time, which amounted to approximately £280,000, more than half our call-up could have been. We have suffered no further call-ups other than this. The proposed capital increase will give us additional capital in the agency of US$3 million with cash payments from transferred funds of up to £400,000 approximately in two instalments this year and next year. Our shareholding will increase to 281 shares out of a total new increase of 78,000 approximately. Our contribution is regarded as part of our overseas development assistance.

The Minister mentioned export credit insurance and the difference between it and what is involved here. Export credit insurance insures sales in risky economies, effectively insuring commercial activity. This scheme is different as it insures investment in risky economies due to political turmoil and instability. Where political or exchange control risks and also exchange rate risks are high due to the political climate, investors will be reluctant to invest in this type of underdeveloped country. This fund and its expansion now proposed, will underpin the risks with which investors are faced. The alternative to this worthwhile scheme is that no investment will take place and developing countries will remain poor with many social problems. The cost to Ireland is in our capital investment. We have, however, a contingent liability, as in all insurance, on the guarantee we give should investments go wrong. The present increase will give us a potential call-up of approximately £2.5 million.

Third World debt is a major problem. The colossal debt has been a huge drain on poor countries who need to allocate enormous portions of their national income towards paying interest on their debts without a reduction of the actual national debt. The initial loans from the World Bank and IMF were intended to develop these countries but the debt burden has caused these countries to become poorer and even increased the social problems among the population. The developing nations pay the West seven or eight times more in debt repayments than they actually received from the western countries in aid. Many people have called for the debts to be cancelled. I am of a similar view. A balance must be struck between direct cash investment and the guarantees provided by this Bill. Even a partial cancellation of debts would be of great assistance to some of these countries.

MIGA is playing an important role in many African countries which are ravaged by political uncertainty and many natural catastrophes. Several countries have shown steady economic growth due to political reform. Some need direct foreign investment urgently as they have benefited from debt reduction. Many others still have unstable economies which are not immune to world economic crises. The technical assistance and guarantees of MIGA are very important to these countries and the agency's effectiveness will be judged on the success and the amount of foreign investment directed to those African countries. The agency has underwritten 62 contracts of guarantees in the African continent. This has resulted in up to US$4 billion foreign direct investment.

The Bill and the work of the agency do not insure commercial risk but insure against political risks and instability. It allows us to consider issues relating to economic growth and development in the countries the agency attempts to assist. Private sector financial agencies and insurance companies have an important role to play in the economic growth of the developing countries. The fund is a good one and it would appear to be making progress and achieving results. In the past ten years MIGA has achieved much success with several successful, innovative initiatives. The Bill will allow us to play our part in the increased capital and guarantees of the multilateral investment guarantee agencies.

Mr. Ryan

As I indicated to the Minister, I could not resist speaking because there is so much in this Bill. While I am sure the intent is most admirable and that the bona fides of the proponents are above reproach, so much in this Bill presumes much. I give a few examples. The MIGA guarantees against currency transfer restrictions, against expropriation by a host Government, against war and civil disturbance and against breach of contract by a host government in certain circumstances, all of which sounds very admirable but if the assembled currency speculators of the world take a view about the currency of a developing country, as they often do, and it collapses on the foreign exchanges, we take that as the natural function of the market. There is no reference there concerning currency fluctuations brought on by the marketplace.

That has nothing to do with this Bill. There is no guarantee against that.

Mr. Ryan

That is what I am saying. The marketplace is regarded as natural but all these matters are regarded as risks.

The fundamental problem the world has and which many economists have addressed – this is where issues like the Tobin tax come in – is that global financial transactions are utterly decoupled from trade. We are attempting to deal with this without facing up to the fact that globalisation of financial transactions has been a disaster for the world and has left a history of instability and uncertainly. The rationality, for instance, of the decline in the value of the euro against the yen at a time when Europe is prospering economically, politically and every other way and Japan is currently an economic and political basket case with serious economic structural problems and even more fundamental political problems is evidence of what I am talking about. If, as it should, the world wants to sort the problems of developing countries and to encourage investment in them, the first thing which needs to be sorted out is the irrationality, which is the direct opposite of theory, of the world capital flow system and the fact it is unregulated, untaxed and unrelated, incidentally, to reality.

There is a presumption that growth is a good thing. I realise the World Bank discovered the environment about 20 years after everybody else and it has been, until quite recently, quite an unmitigated disaster. In a book called Lords of Poverty whose author I cannot remember, it is asserted that 65% of World Bank projects fail and that a considerable part of the World Bank's operating costs are devoted to the exorbitant salaries of the people who run the bank. The question which ought to be raised is the appropriateness of that institution to foster or deal with development in any shape or form because that institution has a record of failure which is perhaps unparalleled.

I find the idea that we would classify our willingness to subscribe here as part of our ODA as a slight presumption. The overwhelming evidence from this country's experience is that bilateral aid works and that multilateral aid gets lost in a quagmire of bureaucracy, self-interest and, incidentally, the overwhelming priority of the World Bank and the IMF, which is the USA's view of the world. Both those institutions are dominated by the US view of the world which is valid but is not necessarily universally correct. Those two institutions have been dominated by the United States since their foundation.

I refer to the issue of global flows which the Minister mentioned. The global private flows to developing countries increased from US$42 billion to US$256 billion in 1997. Why would they not when the last big flow of private money to the developing countries was the wave of private sector lending to such countries which culminated ultimately in the international debt crisis, at which point the governments of the western world underwrote and took on the quite extravagant and irresponsible debts which the private sector in the United States and Europe had taken on, and turned what was private debt into public debt? It is still being repaid and is the greatest obstacle to development in most of the developing world. The burden of debt is their greatest problem. No matter what the scale of private direct investment, which is welcome in so far as it goes, it will not make a difference until the fundamental issue of debt development is dealt with. The IMF, in particular – the World Bank tends to talk a little more humanely – is determined to exact an enormous and quite disproportionate human price for any debt relief.

I would like to go through the four questions here. The Minister said growth resulted from a combination of factors, liberalisation and private sector growth. Let us not get carried away with liberalisation. The fundamental problem of many developing countries, particularly those which were part of the market economy, was that they were corrupt and it was tolerated because, up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were at least corrupt on our side. Much of what they did was tolerated as long as they did not take the wrong side on many international issues. We are still reluctant to make democracy a fundamental condition of development aid. One of my favourite countries, Cuba, is not a democracy but since it is in receipt of virtually no multilateral aid and small amounts of bilateral aid from countries in a position to talk to it fairly bluntly about its failings, this is not an issue.

The 1998 Nobel prize winner for economics, whose name I will not mention because I cannot remember it precisely – and if I could, I could not spell it and would only cause the reporters great confusion – is an Indian. He spoke about the assumption that growth and development are the same thing as one of the most fundamental myths of all. I do not have to look much beyond this country over the last five or six years to realise that growth and development are not the same thing – ask those who are outside the spread of the affluence of the past five or six years. Even more is this true internationally and the tragedy is that projects such as this, which are necessary to make a difference, are not sufficient because growth and development are not the same thing.

If we have strong macro economic growth and an increase in trade and a more integrated global investment and production regime but do not have the institutions, the services and the type of political structures which guarantee the people of developing countries that the consequences of growth will be development, it will not happen. It does not happen automatically and, notwithstanding what is said here, global inequality is getting worse. The difference in income per capita between the very rich and the very poor is increasing. The absence of the provision of fundamental services, such as basic health care, clean water and sewage treatment, is not being dealt with. Indeed, the IMF's appalling structural adjustment policies have made that worse. There is an absence of any moral position on the part of the western world, which is quite prepared to tolerate arms exports to countries which cannot afford to feed and clothe their people and to suck away further resources in arms exports. Things such as this, as part of an ethically and socially conscious and human focused development regime, would make a difference. They are not a substitute for a proper development philosophy and that is what is missing from this – the understanding that development is more than economic growth.

I am being positive but I could be sceptical about the idea because I spent my life listening to the almost universal and unanimous hymn being sung that we had to reward risk taking. Funnily enough, I have no problem with rewarding risk taking but I always find with most of our risk takers that when one scratches a little below the surface, the only risk is whether their revenues will be 5% or 25% up. One will find somewhere not too far from the surface a guarantee by a state or multilateral agency that if things go too far wrong, they will be all right because the state will bail them out. It happened, as I said, with the international debt crisis in which the private banking sector was bailed out by states. It is happening again. They will be encouraged to invest in countries where they will get cheap labour, poor labour regulation and perhaps even child labour. The chorus of disapproval relating to child labour has not been matched by unequivocal and unambiguous action on it. Limited environmental regulations and the notion of the World Bank policing international environmental accountability are a little difficult to stomach given some of its activities in the past.

I am not inclined to oppose the legislation but when multilateral agencies and officials of the Department of Finance sing the praises of such an agency it is my duty to add a word a caution. Growth and development are not synonymous in Ireland or abroad and the World Bank ought to examine the issue of development and what it means.

I thank Members for their contributions on this short but important Bill. They understood the gist of the Bill and Senator Ryan widened the debate as is his right and wont. However, it is important to clarify that the legislation relates to political risk insurance. The formation of MIGA and its interaction with state insurers and those involved in the private sector has been a fundamental step forward. The entire area has been driven by the formation of MIGA to create a substantial arena for political risk assurance. It is not involved in commercial insurance or export credit insurance, for example, which is a completely different concept and has no bearing on this and that was recognised by Members.

Many mistakes have been made by the World Bank and the IMF in the past but in recent years, albeit late in the thinking process, there has been a fundamental shift in all policies, whether they are core policies of the IMF or World Bank or some of the peripheral policies which examine the social consequences of investment in many Third World countries. It is right that there must be a relationship between investment and its impact on the ground and the policy from which it derives. The possible social consequences of any investment cannot be isolated.

Ireland and the Houses of the Oireachtas have played a significant role in this regard. While Ireland does not have the financial clout of many other countries, it has the moral authority which is well thought of when we speak on these matters. We have played a significant role as a people in driving that agenda home at many different international fora and ensuring the thinking behind many issues has changed for the better in recent years. We hope when we look back on the next decade that the impact of these substantial changes in policy will have borne fruit for the people at whom they were aimed.

I do not accept Senator Ryan's remarks in the context of separating growth and development. While there may be some differences between them I do not accept that they are somehow divorced nor do I accept in the context of Ireland that growth has not resulted in development. I have first hand practical experience and I have no doubt that every man, woman and child in Ireland has benefited from what has happened in the economy over the past number of years. I defy anybody to point out an individual who, other than by choice, does not want to partake in this economy. I do not accept that analysis and to suggest that Ireland is an example of the separation of growth and development where they are two completely mutually exclusive concepts is seriously incorrect.

Senator Ryan referred to investment in foreign currency and the euro. I was frustrated trying to understand why people invested in the yen, for instance, as opposed to the dollar or why the yen appeared stronger than the euro until I examined the underlying figures and discovered the startling fact that the greatest investment on the world stage in terms of currency in the medium to long term is in the euro. The euro is going through the roof while the dollar and yen are going through the floor. The heaviest investment by the money men and women of the world is in the euro.

All fund managers are moving that way.

It is quite extraordinary.

Mr. Ryan

Countries which do not believe that expect growth and development in the short term.

Exactly, there is a short-term view regarding the euro, which is the opposite to what all our economists predicted would happen to Ireland.

Mr. Ryan

Is the Minister of State surprised?

No, I have not been surprised by many of their predictions over the years, which have failed to materialise.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister of State should not listen to them.

However, it was reasonable to consider what might have happened vis-à-vis sterling and it went in the opposite direction.

Most Members, and Senator Ryan in his heart, must accept Ireland has a role in multilateral investment.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister of State should not look into my heart.

I agree to an extent that Ireland has been extraordinarily successful in bilateral investment but we must examine our history in this area, particularly in Africa, where we have had a long gestation period for different reasons beginning with the missions in the context of our relationship with these countries. Ireland is a shining example of how to obtain real value from small resources as opposed to the waste of grandiose resources by institutions, such as the World Bank, and it has obtained a real return, particularly for the people it is trying to help. It is important that such experience is brought to the multilateral forum and is used to change the direction of policy, which Ireland has done. Collectively we can, through greater resources if they are utilised properly, make an even bigger impact in many Third World countries. It is wrong to suggest that one can be played off the other. We carefully involve ourselves and monitor investment. Ireland is at the top of the human resources tree. We have the people, understanding, culture, outlook and experience to make things happens, more so than many other countries. I believe that we have a greater role to play in the wider sense of what is happening in regard to multilateral relationships throughout the world.

I have lived abroad. I emigrated to Africa and have seen it in good and bad times. I believe good governance is at the root of so much. It is not the exclusive basis but governance is a factor in what is wrong with so many countries. Despotic leaders took over African countries and destroyed their people to achieve personal aggrandisement in their homelands and on the world stage.

Mr. Ryan

It happened in Zimbabwe recently.

Yes, I lived there for three years and was there when Robert Mugabe took over. The principle of good governance and the removal of corruption are fundamental if there is to be a way forward. I do not care what resources are invested in a country, whether it is foreign direct investment because if it has a stable political system based on good governance and which is not corrupt, it has a chance.

Senator Ryan referred to globalisation, the liberal economy and the market. He should examine what is happening in eastern Europe. I attended a meeting of the EBRD recently – I have done so for the past few years. The countries in eastern Europe that have good governance and a lack of corruption, both in the economic and political systems, are making the greatest progress. They have not necessarily received more money, aid or people telling them how to proceed. Given this fairly equal playing pitch, why have some of these countries made progress in leaps and bounds while others have not? It is because they have in their system a basic tenet, an unmoveable principle of good governance. In today's world they are proof of what emerging countries can do. Africa must take the same route. The world must take account of this in a much more direct way than in the past where it becomes directly involved, whether bilaterally or multilaterally.

The tragedy is that the majority of the peoples in these countries have nobody to speak for them. Their own so-called leadership could not care less about them. They have wasted enormous resources given to them.

I did not intend to reply at such length, but I considered it important to respond to all the Senators who contributed. I thank everybody for their contribution. This is an important step from an Irish point of view.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Only Second Stage was ordered for today, but if there is agreement we will take the remaining Stages now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Barr
Roinn