Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome. I would like to speak to the section. I have a number of questions for the Minister regarding the amending agreement. My colleague, Senator Higgins, engaged with the Minister on this legislation on Second Stage. She is at the Conference on the Future of Europe today and could not attend the Seanad but looks forward to engaging again with the Minister on these issues on Report Stage.

The amending agreement in the legislation allows that, as part of a memorandum of understanding relating to a financial assistance agreement, the sale of public assets can be attached as a conditionality. We know, for example, that the Greek Government is in the process of selling its stake in a number of the country's largest ports. This is part of a much larger process of privatisation of state assets that was a key condition of Greece's bailout from the International Monetary Fund, IMF, following the recession. The selling off of state assets should not form part of any financial assistance agreements. We know from areas such as housing and climate that the selling off of public assets and infrastructure often means countries cannot deliver key public services to their citizens. Does the Minister think it is appropriate for the selling off of public assets to be allowed within financial assistance agreements such as this when we have a large volume of evidence showing that such actions undermine social cohesion and the long-term public finances?

I have a number of questions on the eligibility criteria contained in the amending agreement. The amending agreement is purporting to change the precautionary conditional credit line because it did not work and only nine countries qualified, but it is making the same mistake again. When Senator Higgins engaged with the Minister, he pointed out that many of the fiscal criteria had been suspended in regard to the credit line and the credit that had to be provided during Covid. However, that too shows that the precautionary credit line and the tools we had were inadequate and that additional and different approaches needed to be taken in respect of the Covid crisis. This does not represent a different approach. We are facing more global crises such as the climate and biodiversity crisis and we will need functioning tools for financial assistance. Has there been any assessment of how the eligibility criteria for this agreement will be able to support countries in respect of climate or strategic social infrastructure, for example? Eligibility criteria and complying with the terms of any agreement should never be placed at odds with aspects of EU law, with human rights or with the environment. Has the Minister engaged with his EU counterparts on how complying with the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, might force countries into a situation where, in order to get financial assistance, they have to undermine themselves with regard to the extremely important issues I just mentioned?

The amending agreement grants extensive powers to the board of directors in respect of the eligibility criteria. The agreement provides that the board will notify the depository once ESM members have completed their applicable national procedures. Does this include engagement with national parliamentarians? We need to have the space to debate how changes to the eligibility criteria might affect our ability to access financial assistance and how that would intersect with the other public policy goals we have in our parliaments. We cannot have a situation where national parliaments of ESM members, some of which may be majorly disadvantaged by changes in the criteria, are not consulted. Will the Minister commit to a review, to be published, of the precautionary conditioned credit line mechanism and the eligibility criteria set out in annex III? That annex offers a modelling of risk scenarios, including risk regarding climate, and the readiness or appropriateness of the precautionary conditioned credit line, the relationship between the ESM eligibility criteria, or memorandums of understanding, MOUs, where applicable, and EU law and policy, including law and policy in respect of human rights, environment and social cohesion.

I would also add that the provisions of this section and this legislation seem premature as the Conference on the Future of Europe, where MEPs, national parliamentarians and citizens are debating and discussing our collective future in the EU, is ongoing and the output of that process may well result in changes to EU policy in respect of this area. Will the Minister and his counterparts be looking at how the conference's outputs intersect with things like the ESM? I look forward to the Minister's response and I may bring forward amendments relating to these issues on Report Stage.