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

I apologise to Members for keeping them waiting. I have just come from the Dáil, where I was taking Leaders' Questions, so I could not get here any quicker.

I thank Senator Higgins for the substantive amendments she has tabled and the important matters she is raising regarding this legislation and its future operation. I thank her also for her acknowledgement of the importance of the debates currently under way in the European Union. I am very much aware of, and understand, the issues she is raising. In addition to approaching these matters as Minister for Finance for our country, which is a tremendous privilege, I am also serving as chairman of the board of governors of the ESM. Therefore, I have regular engagement with the ESM and understand the issues the Senator is raising, in addition to those concerning the future architecture of the European Union in the sense of how it will deal with the future of economic and monetary union and, in particular, with countries or banks that experience great financial difficulty.

I genuinely thank Senator Higgins for displaying such interest in these matters because they are so important to the future of Ireland and Europe. In responding to the broad group of amendments that have been tabled by her, I can assure her regarding the spirit in which, and attitude with which, I would approach co-operation with the Oireachtas on the debate on the future of the Stability and Growth Pact. I assure her that in the context of any decisions the board of governors might need to make on the operation of the ESM, I and, I expect, future Ministers for Finance will engage with the Oireachtas and explain to the Seanad or relevant committee the Government's view on the debate on the future of the Stability and Growth Pact, the input Ireland has regarding the operation of the ESM, the actions taken, the view on how the ESM is operating and decisions it might make.

I will deal with the procedural questions before I move on to the policy issues the Senator raised. While I can assure the Senator on the spirit in which I will co-operate and on my expectation that future Ministers will co-operate, I cannot accept these amendments. I cannot do so for two reasons, the first of which is that I believe, as a matter of principle, that it is not appropriate to deal with issues concerning the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament by way of requiring reports to be furnished through legislation. I do not believe it is good use of legislation, nor do I believe it is appropriate that issues of accountability be dealt with in that specific way.

Second, regarding the role of Ireland as a member of the board of governors of the ESM, it is very conceivable that decisions will have to be made by the ESM and its board at speed. In those circumstances, we will have to respect the need for fast and efficient decision-making. We will have to respect the fact that it may at times be practically difficult for the board of governors to operate in really urgent circumstances. Overlaying the process with the kinds of procedures Senator Higgins is seeking, in the sense of requiring the Government to account for the view of its representative on the board, can be done, but it should be done in a way that respects the fact that the ESM deals with very sensitive matters. It has to deal with those matters in private, and sometimes in a really urgent way. It is possible that its board of governors might not be able to fulfil its duties as a board if some of the things Senator Higgins is calling on our representative on the board to do must be done.Those are the procedural reasons I am not in a position to accept the amendments - first, because of the relationship between the Oireachtas and the Government and, second, the particular way in which the ESM may have to operate, though I hope we it is never obliged to operate in that way.

To move to the policy matters raised by Senator Higgins, the first issue I understand her to be raising in that regard is her concern that this ESM legislation in some way predetermines the debate that is under way regarding what could be the future of the stability and growth pact. Let us park for a moment that debate and where it may end up. I fully respect the Senator's views on that issue and thank her for the role she is playing on the Conference on the Future of Europe. However, on a basic and fundamental level, a law or a treaty can only make reference to other laws or architectures that are in place at this time. This framework can only make reference to the stability and growth pact, SGP, because the only governance framework that is in place within the European Union is the SGP. She stated that it should not predetermine the political debate that is under way, and I understand that point. However, I make the point that a law or a treaty can only refer to other laws or treaties that are in existence and cannot be based on change that may happen in the future. If there were to be change in the stability and growth pact and the economic architecture of the European Union and the euro area, the board of governors of the ESM would be cognisant of that change in any decisions they may make in the future. However, on a fundamental level, if the Senator is arguing that this is predetermining any political debate, I do not believe it is doing so, but would argue that a law or a treaty can only make reference to other laws or treaties as they stand at this time.

Second, the Senator made the point that the safety net of the Covid precautionary credit line from the European stability mechanism was inadequate because only nine countries could have qualified for it.