Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not really sure how amendment No. 10 is related but I am happy to have these amendments grouped for the purposes of expediency.I am not really sure how amendment No. 10 is related, but I am happy to have them grouped for the purpose of expediency. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are certainly related.

The Minister provided clarity on the ESM's engagement with the European Commission in his reply on Committee Stage. While I am very interested in those clarities, in amendment No. 7, I have proposed that it would be useful if we had procedures or agreements between the ESM and the European Commission, for example, if there are memorandums of understanding, MOUs, and if there are clearly demarcated areas of responsibility. The Minister gave some information on that but if there are any formal instruments or agreements that emerge on that, it would be very useful for those to be made public. Perhaps they will be made public. The Minister might be able to give me assurance on that, in which case the amendment would not be necessary. Certainly, we need clarity on exactly what the roles the ESM and the European Commission are when they are co-operating on policy. I very much appreciate the Minister's outlining of it. If there are any formal mechanisms, it would be also be useful to have those. It is always better to see procedures in writing.

On amendment No. 8 the focus is not the ESM's engagement with the European Commission regarding any member. Where the ESM is engaging with the European Commission on a member and the ESM is engaging, as is provided for under the amended legislation, with a private investor to a member, the ESM may have these two different roles. On the one hand, it may be engaging access to funding for a member with the European Commission, with the Stability and Growth Pact and so forth. The Minister has indicated in his speech that this is voluntary and on request, but nonetheless there is concern over working with private investors on the one hand and working with one of the instruments or bodies of the European Union on the other hand while ensuring each interest is very clearly specified.

I have suggested that the Minister might publish a report outlining what procedures, safeguards, firewalls and internal confidentiality protocols are in place. I know there is an indication in the legislation that there would be confidentiality - I believe the Minister also indicated it in his speech - on the ESM's engagement with the private investor to a member and that it would all be happening at the request of the member. Sometimes confidentiality can be a bit of a concern as much as a protection. If we do not know what conversation the ESM is having with the private investor, we should at least be absolutely sure it is not influencing in any sense the discussions the ESM may be having with the European Commission about a member.

Particularly regarding internal confidentiality protocols, will there be the same kinds of firewalls we expect in companies? Will there be different staff? Will there be clear confidentiality on what can come out of the conversation with a private investor and go into a conversation with the EU Commission and vice versa? I am concerned about these two functions happening in-house and how we can have best practice.

Amendment No. 10 is probably slightly different, but maybe it is not different, which in itself is a concern. The proposed new legislation provides that there may be ad hocattendance at a meeting of the board of directors. This legislation outlines the very significant power the board of directors of the ESM will have. The Minister has indicated he is the chair of the board of directors of the ESM. It would always be good practice to have transparency on any ad hocattendees so that we know who is in the room at least. I realise I cannot change the formal structures or standing orders of the board of directors, but this amendment seeks to encourage the Minister to advocate for publication of a list of all persons who attend meetings of the board of directors for the purposes of transparency and accountability.