The Chairman's first question was on the area of competitiveness, which is taken as a very broad issue in the European model. It is not narrow but taken conclusively to include all areas. It is not simply a business agenda. I wish to make that clear from the outset. The discussion is as much on issues of social inclusion as anything else.
The Chairman asked about three areas, the first being family-friendly policies. Family-friendly employment policies are central to the creation of high quality employment built around real lives and real people. In the European model, throughout the last 20 years - it has affected this country for 30 years now - it has been extremely good for us. Part-time working has meant people holding on to their holiday rates proportionately. There has been maternity and paternity leave. There have been increases in all that, and we have legislation before the Dáil to make further changes. Throughout Europe, that is how people think of doing things to make family-friendly policies work.
In the same way, employment must be made attractive to older people. In many member states the retirement age is far below the statutory age. Next year the special Council is to focus on the national employment policies. A key aim will be to encourage reform, making the employment market attractive to all sections of the workforce. That is mainly geared around older people and women.
While this country is now up to the EU average of women in employment, Deputy Quinn has raised the question of the cost of child care, which is obviously a factor, and if it were not so high, more people would work. Recent figures show that there are people who cannot afford the cost and do not want the hassle. Therefore, they do not work.
There are better European models than ours, and we should be working towards them. All that is in the Lisbon Agenda, and family-friendly policies are there to ensure that one does not lose any rights if one is working, to make it easier for one to work, to allow one to work to an older age if one so wishes, and to ensure facilities for difficulties along the way, whether it be health, maternity leave, or illnesses in the extended family.
Social dialogue is enormously important in the European context. As I outlined at some length in my speech, the number of groups, agencies and representatives of civil society with an input into Lisbon is enormous. Quite frankly, having had to meet all those groups this year and last, one wonders if there might be too many involved. However, since people wish to have their say, their involvement is worth it. They all play their part. Social dialogue is not focused exclusively on one area such as business. The cliché is that the Lisbon Agenda is about big business, but it is not. Anyone who reads the committee's own report knows that. The approach of our Presidency has been carefully balanced and includes action across all the three pillars.
If we succeed in achieving high rates of growth and generating more and better jobs for our citizens, that has a positive impact on social inclusion. The best route out of poverty, in the majority of cases, is a job, and I am therefore pleased that we secured colleagues' agreement that delivering more and better jobs should be regarded as the most urgent issue to be addressed over the coming period. Equally, I draw members' attention to the fact that our approach to employment seeks to improve the quality of jobs, which will, in particular, directly benefit those in low paid, insecure and vulnerable employment.
Similarly, priority will be attached to lifelong learning, which is equally beneficial to those experiencing disadvantage in any way. Literacy, numeracy, training and technologies are all built into it. We have agreed that national strategies on lifelong learning should be established in all member states by 2006. Every country has a basis. There is a very good document on that model, which is not unlike work that would have been done here over the years by such organisations as FÁS, previously AnCO. They developed those lifelong learning programmes, which have proved to be very beneficial. There are many other organisations doing that now. Since it is recognised that education and earning potential are directly linked, action to facilitate access to educational opportunities should help promote social cohesion, not only for those in their 20s or 30s but for far older people too.
Deputy Mulcahy raised the issue of red tape. I will come back to the question on demographics. With red tape, as with any other argument, there are two sides to the argument. In some cases, red tape is necessary since, if one does not have it, people do their own thing without regard to rules, health and safety legislation or health regulations. One must have red tape. However, why we need 1,500 regulations and directives on how to make a cardboard box I do not know. A cardboard box is a cardboard box. Some of it is totally essential, and some of it is in the realm of the zany. We must try to ensure that there is a reason to regulate.
A very good European conference was held here last week, with people from all walks of life involved in arguing regulation from different sides. Clearly, from the point of view of productivity and business, there is over-regulation and too great a burden of bureaucracy. Trade unions would argue as strongly as employers that it must be focused. However, the issue must be carefully examined so that we do not throw out regulations that are important from a working point of view. I agree that there is too much red tape and regulation and that this is one of the things that turns people off. On the other hand, Patricia McKenna, MEP, has raised the point about environmental areas in which it is very important that we have protection and regulation. The environment must be protected in a strong and coherent way.
When I talk about removing red tape and streamlining directives, I do not mean that in a careless manner. However, it should not be so bureaucratic in many areas of production that it places an added cost on the company, making it so unproductive and uncompetitive that we lose it and the investment goes to an entirely unregulated country, resulting in our losing jobs here. As that does not prove anything either, we must be careful with regulations. The White Paper that we published in January and the submissions received on that from this country are very useful. We are one of only three countries out of the 25 that really started applying minds to the issue of regulation. Trade unions, IBEC and the Chamber of Commerce are now actively engaged in that issue.
Deputy Haughey asked me about the political will to act. There are two issues. Much depends on the competencies of the member states. It cannot be driven entirely from the centre, which is in any case not the best way to do it. Wim Kok's report of last year and early work done by Antonio Gutiérrez, the former Portuguese Prime Minister who started the Lisbon strategy, was based on ensuring that it jogged people's minds to do things in their own countries that they should be doing anyway and benchmark them against what is happening elsewhere, getting people to focus on good things such as creating employment and making countries more competitive.
The reason the Lisbon Agenda has not moved so much is that there is better implementation when the competencies are in the European Union as against when they are not. Domestic competencies as such are not such a high priority. This year's report shows that clearly. Much greater success is achieved when there is collective effort. I am not referring to Ireland in particular, but in many ways the same argument may be applied to us.
This leads directly to the question as to whether it is a good idea to have someone in the Commission directly to liaise, co-ordinate and drive these matters forward. I believe I have answered the question: if it is not happening when it is outside the competencies, then somebody must focus in on it. The only proviso I would make - as I have before to the National Forum on Europe - is that the unions are somewhat worried about that because they fear it might become competition orientated. However, if it is holistic it has my support. That goes back to what I said at the outset, namely, that competition is inclusively linked in.
I would emphasise for the committee the concern that if it is a "competition" Commission, the aspects that have to do with "social affairs" will be dropped. There is a difficulty. I would say to Deputy Quinn that the important issue is how the job is framed. I agree with him that the capacity is there, within the Commission, to do the job. How it is framed will be important, however. I would not agree it should be competition exclusively. That would create a problem.
Senator Quinn asked about patents. I met the chief executive of Hewlett Packard again, yesterday, in Dallas. She is an impressive lady, to put it mildly, who runs an organisation of 144,000 people in 70 countries. She has been responsible for the rationalisation of Compac. She is highly supportive of what is happening in this country. She has proved that by moving several of Hewlett Packard's centres to Ireland. She is enormously conscious socially of her responsibilities as regards both environmental and labour issues. She speaks only of quality employment, proper training and education for workers. It is disappointing that the patents directive has not been sorted out.
On the services side of the Internal Market I believe much progress will be made. However, there is no agreement among many countries on patents for many reasons. As the Senator knows better than I do, to have a patent in the United States and one in Europe is enormously difficult. We are losing out and it is affecting business because it is so difficult here. I have heard all the arguments on the other side. To be honest I do not really accept them. I will not attempt to make a case for them. In this case the Germans are particularly difficult. I do not believe this matter will be comprehensively addressed during the Irish Presidency, except at the Competitiveness Council meeting in May. I am not sure what progress was made at yesterday's meeting Dromoland. I do not see us being able to get there. I have lobbied Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and others, but there is a divergence of views and opinions. The "blame game" is being played, somewhat, between the Commission and member states, as well as between large and small countries. I do not see this being resolved. On the services directive and the work of the Internal Market in this regard, major progress will be made, but not on patents.
