Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for the issues he has raised on behalf of Senator Higgins. I look forward to debating these matters with her directly on Report Stage. I will go through the different issues the Senator raised. The first relates to the eligibility criteria and whether it is appropriate that any government be in the position of selling off its share in an asset it currently publicly owns. That did not happen here in Ireland. Our ports, airports and infrastructure went into the global financial crisis publicly owned and they exited publicly owned. Our important semi-State bodies continued to be in a position where they were either entirely or mostly publicly owned. It can be the case for some governments that that is a decision they decide to make, in conjunction with the engagement they have with the ESM. It is a decision that we mostly avoided having to make here in Ireland but I respect the fact that other governments may decide that it is an appropriate decision for them, as opposed to other decisions that they would otherwise take.

My broad point on what the Senator has said, which goes back to an issue I touched on during our debate last week, is that the issue of conditionality must be seen in light of the fact that other taxpayers are ultimately paying into this fund. As Ireland becomes a bigger and bigger net contributor in the years to come, this Parliament will be asking the Government of the day if these funds are used and under what criteria they are accessed. That is a question taxpayers who are contributing into these funds ask of their governments and it will increasingly be asked of an Irish Government too. That is why I believe that while conditionality is a difficult question and one that raises difficult matters, the principle is nonetheless one that should be preserved. If funds are being accessed, whether through lending or even grants, as is the case now with EU recovery fund, they should be accessed on the basis of clear criteria.

As to whether this is in any way at odds with the law of the European Union, the answer to that question is that it is not. One of the reasons this legislation is so complex is that it has to be consistent with the law of the European Union on all matters, whether that be the preservation of the Single Market or the balance that is in the law of the EU between the roles of European central institutions and national governments.The answer to the question of whether we will consider the output of the Conference on the Future of Europe in relation to these and other matters in the future is "Yes". We will do so because the process that is under way is a good one. It will be helpful in making the decisions we need to make on the future of the EU to have a forum within which the views of a wide range of parliamentarians throughout Europe can be considered.

I am not committing to the publishing of a review on this because it is ultimately something that will be about a potential relationship between another national government and the ESM, which I hope never happens. It is not appropriate for me to commit to a review of a relationship that could be taking place elsewhere between an EU institution and another national government. Of course, I will always be available for debates and discussions on these issues, both in this House and the Dáil, because it is an issue that will be important to parliaments.

This leads on to the question raised on the role of national parliaments. Again, while I disagree with the Senator, I acknowledge his point. The relationship is fundamentally one between the ESM and the governments of the EU, which in turn are accountable to their parliaments, as opposed to the ESM operating directly to national parliaments. The appropriate area of accountability should be between the ESM and national governments, while governments are accountable to their parliaments. If we were to give a further role to national parliaments, first, it would undermine that important balance of accountability and, second, it is very conceivable that the ESM could operate in an atmosphere in which time and a display of urgency really matters. With that in mind, practically, the best and most appropriate relationship to preserve is that between governments and the ESM, given all the further issues that could be involved if we were to elongate or change the process to directly involve the role of national parliaments as well.

On the final set of questions about whether it is premature to move ahead with something like this, Senator Higgins is probably referring to the work that is under way on the future of the Stability and Growth Pact. If any discussion or change takes place regarding the criteria for the pact or how it operates, we will need to consider the implications of that for other parts of the architecture of the EU. That being said, it is very much up to the ESM, within which countries are represented, to reach an agreement with countries on how funds should be made available to them. It will always be mindful of where the view of the EU is, in the round, on these issues. We need to accept that the ESM needs to have the capacity and ability to do that work itself, especially if we are in a situation where a matter is urgent or where we could even be in a crisis-like atmosphere in which time matters when responding to these issues.

On whether issues of social cohesion are taken into account, again, this a matter that national governments tend to be highly aware of when they are trying to reach agreement with the ESM on funding issues. These issues are recognised. To be truthful about the matter, in a crisis situation there are differing views on how that social cohesion can be recognised and maintained in a process like this. From my experience of how these issues evolve, this is an issue the national government that is engaging with the ESM is always highly aware of.