JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 2004

Lisbon Strategy: Presentation.

Chairman

The next item on the agenda is the presentation by Mr. Robin Hanan, representing the European Anti-Poverty Network Ireland, on strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy. He and his colleagues are very welcome to the committee. The Lisbon strategy is of great interest to the committee. We are interested to hear the representatives' views in the context of the publication in November of the report of the high-level group chaired by Wim Kok.

Perhaps Mr. Hanan will introduce his colleagues and make his presentation. I will then open up the debate to members. We are extremely busy today with competing demands on our time. Unfortunately, the Fianna Fáil group lunch is taking place at the moment. Otherwise there would be more members present. However, I welcome Mr. Hanan and ask him to make his presentation.

Mr. Robin Hanan

I thank the Chair and the committee for agreeing to hear our presentation. We appreciate members have a busy agenda but we believe that, while the issues we will raise might not be as newsworthy as the Turkish accession, they are probably as important in the long term for the future of the European Union. My name is Robin Hanan, co-ordinator of the Anti-Poverty Network Ireland, which is a network of local community anti-poverty organisations who work to try to influence European policy. My colleague, Ms Orla O'Connor, represents the National Women's Council of Ireland and Mr. Eric Conroy represents the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. Between us we will make three very short points on our concerns about the direction of the Lisbon strategy and some of the implications of the Kok report and the mid-term review.

We support the original concept of the Lisbon strategy. The original challenge laid out in the Lisbon conclusions talks about putting together a strategy which combines competitiveness with social cohesion. It laid out precisely the direction in which the European Union needs to go to become more competitive in a way which preserves the strengths of the European social model and does not go down the line of cutting jobs, social spending and so on to follow largely the American model of low-quality competitiveness, but tries to build on some of the strengths of the European social model in terms of social cohesion and a strong commitment to rights and a level of equality as being the springboard for Europe's economic and social development.

In practical terms, we also welcome the Lisbon Agenda because it provides practical links between the fight against poverty and the economic and employment strategies of the European Union. The European social inclusion strategy, which includes the national action plans against poverty, was launched from the Lisbon Agenda, with the original objective to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty in the European Union by 2010. For community organisations fighting poverty on the ground, for people working in Departments in this area and for other social partners, this has been the key goal and the key process which brings together the work being done at local and national level across the European Union.

Our main concern is that over the last couple of years, particularly during the build-up to the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, the original objective of social cohesion and social inclusion has appeared to be dropping off the agenda. The Kok report is just one symptom of this. The report of the high-level group chaired by Wim Kok last month talks positively about how to strengthen the Lisbon strategy in terms of new accounting mechanisms, new targets, new reporting mechanisms and so on. However, when it talks about the areas that need to be planned and reported on, it concentrates almost entirely on the business side of the equation and omits the social side of the equation. Our main concern is that this will change the way in which the European Union and its member governments deal with employment and economic strategy and undermine the inclusion strategy. We would like Ireland to take a strong initiative in this area to put the fight against poverty back at the centre of the agenda, as it was at Lisbon. Various Irish Governments over the years have taken important initiatives, from the poverty one programme in the 1970s right up to the amendments to the European Constitution, to put poverty and social exclusion back into the equation. We believe the time has come for the Irish Government to take a strong initiative in this area.

There are two things the European Anti-Poverty Network would like to see happening. First, if the Kok committee proposal to set up a system of annual national reports on the implementation of the Lisbon strategy is adopted, we would like to see a new point added to the six points outlined in the Kok document to ensure that the social inclusion strategy and the fight against social inclusion are added as an area to be monitored. Second, when it talks about setting targets for completing the Lisbon strategy, we would like to see very specific poverty reduction targets to reflect the original Lisbon objective of making a decisive impact on poverty and social inclusion by 2010.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Conroy, to say a few words from the point of view of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, followed by Ms O'Connor from the point of view of the National Women's Council.

Mr. Eric Conroy

I am pleased to be here. I will not go into too much detail on social inclusion which Mr. Hanan has covered. I will refer to the Government's response to the mid-term review, which I understand is in the public domain.

There is very little detail on employment issues in terms of the specific Lisbon goals, using the various monitoring indicators, of which there are 14 or 15. The mid-term review, which will take place next March, must chart progress, or lack of it, to date on the work that needs to be carried out to achieve the ambitious targets set out for 2010. The paper is top heavy on words but not on numbers. It needs to provide more detail on how we intend to achieve the challenging objectives set for 2010. Without this, we will not be able fully to determine corrective measures to get us back on track as we face the second half-decade of the Lisbon Agenda.

There was no reference to the 2003 Kok report on jobs. This was disappointing in terms of trying to achieve the challenging employment targets for women and older workers by 2010. We agree with the comments in the draft about the open method of co-ordination and we encourage the current debate on its effectiveness. It lacks teeth and relies on peer pressure, about which we are concerned. There needs to be a greater political will among the member states to operate it to the maximum effect to further the diverse aims of the Lisbon Agenda.

The proposal to appoint a Lisbon strategy commissioner to push and co-ordinate the process at the highest level is worthy of consideration. The call from the EU spring summit for national governments to operate national reform partnerships should also be taken on board. This is an extension of the social partnership model operated in Ireland, which should be replicated in full throughout Europe, and not just in respect of the social partnership aspect which comprises employers and trade unions. This will extend the scope of enlarged social partnership throughout Europe to oversee the implementation of the objectives of the process.

As the Lisbon Agenda touches on all aspects of society and the economy, all actors must be involved to ensure success. We are not convinced that the OMC has been as effective with social inclusion compared with employment and pensions. There has been little cross-fertilisation under this heading across Europe. The process would be helped if there were more synchronisation between the European action plans on employment and social inclusion given that they have different time dimensions. Nonetheless, I understand a rationalisation will take place in 2007, which process we encourage because of its interlinking.

The enterprise strategy developed under the Tánaiste has been referred to as an engine for growth in the Irish economy. We welcome the high-level jobs which will arise from it but are concerned that it will lead to a two-tier economy, with many people distant from the high-tech labour market. We must have job creation at all levels of the economy in all social groups and in all geographical regions.

In regard to the major evaluation of NAPS due in 2005, we welcome the paper's reference to the social special initiatives in Sustaining Progress. Some eight of the ten provisions have a social dimension. However, we need to see much more significant implementation of the key tasks under the various special initiatives as we enter the last year of Sustaining Progress.

There has also been a great deal of discussion about lifelong learning, but actual impacts on the population are hard to fathom. We need to act on accumulated research and proceed with some action on the ground. We would like to encourage further progress on lifelong learning, especially the educational disadvantage initiative to which I referred earlier.

Under the heading of employment and social infrastructure, there is no mention of active labour market programmes, ALMPs, which are a vital part of progressing long-term unemployed people and other disadvantaged people to the open labour market. The Kok report and the EU response to NAPS both recommended increased expenditure on these programmes. However, up to now, we have actually been reducing our expenditure. Nonetheless, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, made a statement which has been very helpful in terms of establishing that 25,000 places will remain and that there will be no further reduction.

It is disappointing that the Government response, which is a key part of the views from the EU, was not mentioned. We would also like to see some clarification on jobs initiative in the social economy. There has been a great deal of talk about community employment but we must not forget about jobs initiatives, which seems to have been in a downward spiral according to the detail of the Minister's statement, about which we need further clarification.

We are concerned at the dearth of investment under various headings in western regions, including rail, road, electricity and broadband, which puts the west at a serious economic and social disadvantage compared with the rest of the country. As Mr. Hanan stated, the most recent Kok report focuses narrowly on a competitiveness agenda, with which we are not totally happy. One cannot have a whole range of targets to achieve but it seems many of the social inclusion targets have been dropped in the process, about which we are unhappy. We also agree that there should be deliverability. There are many plans and targets but let us have deliverability. In other words, this means translating the Lisbon Agenda inspirations into practice.

The proposal for more rigorous reporting on the implementation of the agenda and an annual league table for the spring European Council on the progress by member states towards achieving the 14 key indicators and targets could be useful in increasing public debate and parliamentary scrutiny, which is a crucial aspect which involves the committee. We would like to see far more parliamentary scrutiny as part of the Lisbon process, as referred to by the Kok report and the Government document.

We welcome the clear recommendations for more involvement by all the players on the European stage in taking the Lisbon Agenda seriously in regard to parliamentary scrutiny, social partnership and the European Council at the highest level. The Kok report refers to the ideal of the European economic and social model in regard to which most comment has been on the former leg — the fact that we need to move to an economic level on a par with the United States. However, we would like to see more aspiration to the European social model, with its emphasis on social protection and inclusion. These can go hand in hand with economic well-being. We must not follow the US route of economic growth with the level of poverty and inequality in that society. This is a debate about the choice between Boston and Berlin, in respect of which we favour of Berlin.

There has been some comment about changing the name of the Lisbon Agenda. The term "Lisbon Agenda" does not mean much to many people, even among my own community in the INOU. Perhaps it should have a more user-friendly name which explains more about what it means in 2010. The second part of the Lisbon Agenda is about economic growth, more and better jobs and social inclusion, to which the issue of the environment was introduced in Gothenburg the following year.

In regard to the issue of more and better jobs, a good number have been created in Ireland and other countries but it is their quality about which we are concerned. In this context, we are conscious about the working poor. Many people who have a job are at greater risk of poverty than unemployed people throughout Europe. In this regard, it is important to have more and better jobs. We must ensure that the jobs we create over the next five years are good and well-paid to enable the jobholders to put poverty behind.

We must make the EU employment strategy work for inclusion. The 2003 revision of the European employment strategy and national employment action plans added social inclusion as an objective. This should be made a centre of concern and its delivery carefully tracked. The employment strategy needs to work for people and not the other way around. In particular, the Lisbon Agenda's emphasis on job quality needs to be re-enforced, resisting the pressures towards a US-style model of low wages and poor benefits which keeps unemployment numbers low but creates a new class of the working poor.

Ms Orla O’Connor

Following Mr. Hanan's comments, despite limited progress, the implementation of gender equality mainstreaming in the Lisbon strategy is very weak. Gender equality principles and actions must be significantly strengthened in both economic and social policies so that we can sustain the Lisbon process. The implementation of the EU obligation of gender equality mainstreaming must also apply to the main economic policies which shape the overall Lisbon strategy. This concerns both broad economic policy guidelines and other economic policies which shape people's lives, such as public budget processes.

Key measures have been outlined in regard to gender equality to achieve sustainable growth in Europe, such as social protection systems which facilitate work-life balance and good quality, affordable and accessible child care and care for the elderly. We need to make part-time more attractive, reduce the gender pay gap and make work pay. Women experience significant barriers in Ireland which are preventing us meeting the goals and targets set in the NAPS inclusion processes and within our employment strategies. The gender pay gap in Ireland is between 15% and 17%, which has been highlighted by the CSO report which was published this week.

We know that the child care infrastructure in Ireland is very weak. We also know that the Government has signed up to child care targets from the Barcelona Council, whereby child care must be provided for 90% of children between three years and schoolgoing age and 33% of children under three years of age. To meet that target, we need a significant increase in investment in child care.

While the National Women's Council acknowledges that funding is available through the equal opportunities child care programme, we are starting from an extremely low base. Irish parents continue to spend a much larger proportion of their incomes on child care in comparison to their European counterparts. The other key issues concern increasing the accessibility of part-time work and increasing our range of paid family-friendly policies, which employers are obliged to provide.

We also need to meet the specific needs of migrant women and examine the issues for migrant workers, particularly in regard to migrant women in Ireland. These are women who are more likely to be in low-paid and low-skilled employment, more open to exploitation and far less protected. I have circulated to the committee a new report by the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland on migrant women working in Ireland.

Although the feminisation of poverty continues to be a Europe-wide reality, it is particularly significant in Ireland. The risk of poverty among women in Ireland increased to 23% in 2001 which, as the CSO reported this week, is the highest percentage of the 25 EU member states. In Ireland, this particularly relates to older women and lone parents. It points to the need to modernise our social protection systems and employment policies to recognise and value care work and to ensure a greater sharing of care responsibilities between men and women which makes it easier to combine work and family life. I have also circulated to the committee a report created by the National Women's Council of Ireland, in which we have suggested a model for what such reform would look like in terms of employment and social protection policies.

Chairman

I do not wish to place Ms O'Connor on the spot, but will she give me her definition of the term "gender equality"?

Ms O’Connor

We refer to equal opportunities — equality in terms of outcomes. It is not just about the opportunities to do things but that the actual outcomes are equal between men and women.

Chairman

Ireland has become a very wealthy country. Is it Mr. Conroy's opinion that we have created an underclass over the past ten years as we have moved forward?

Mr. Conroy

Yes, I think we have, especially since 1997 with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Many people with jobs have done well, but many have been left behind. Relative income poverty or the number of people at risk of poverty has increased. It is up to 21% and we are among the highest in Europe, even among the 25 EU states. I am conscious of that.

Also, from the enterprise strategy group report it appears we all want to go for high-tech jobs. This could emphasise the divide even further. It is important we bring all people, at all stages of life, forward and do not create or exacerbate the problem of the underclass. The €14 per week social welfare increase in the most recent budget has certainly helped in terms of social provision. That was good in terms of meeting the Government target of €150 by 2007 in 2002 terms. Removing those on the minimum wage from the tax net was also excellent. These were two key points.

There were other measures we were not so happy about, for example, child payments, the lack of movement on the secondary benefits and the threshold of €317 which exacerbates the making work pay agenda. If people earn any little extra income that takes them over that threshold, they will lose their benefits. People make logical decisions and this removes the incentive or encouragement to take up work. Generally, however, we were pleased with the budget.

Chairman

Mr. Conroy is basically saying that he is buying the argument of economic growth. This argument has been made many times in the past five years. A buoyant economy lifts all boats——

Mr. Conroy

It does not.

Chairman

At the same time he is saying growth should come with targeted approaches towards the most vulnerable in society. Is that the combination he would like?

Mr. Conroy

Yes, but it then depends on how wealth is distributed. We reckon that up to the most recent budget, the wealth was not distributed effectively in terms of income around the sectors of society.

Chairman

Has that improved?

Mr. Conroy

It improved in the last budget and with the new Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh

How can the committee help refocus on the priorities of the Lisbon Agenda, especially with regard to the mid-term review of the strategy in 2005? Should the committee have a role in this area, in particular in an examination of the social aspects of the agenda? Has the group seen the Government's draft submission of its mid-term review? Some of the social partners have seen it. It would be useful for the committee if we asked that it be circulated to us if we undertake to play a role in the submissions or discussions on the Lisbon Agenda review.

Does the group agree that the European Union has consistently failed, judging by some of its documentation, to address the social aspects of the Lisbon Agenda? When we did our report on it, we too failed to address that part. The committee needs to return to that issue, particularly with the approach of the review.

Am I correct that among the poverty strategy group's counterparts in other EU countries the view is that social inclusion and workers' rights are being undermined in favour of the EU's competitiveness and privatisation agenda? What can be done to focus more attention on the social aspect of the Lisbon Agenda and to undo some of the damage done in recent years, particularly in this country in terms of the gap between the rich and poor and the more unequal society developing here?

Mr. Hanan

I will touch on some of the points raised and my colleagues may respond to others. I will begin with the last question first. It is our view that the EU's governments, both the old 15 and the ten new member states, are giving much more emphasis to the competitiveness side of the Lisbon Agenda than to the social side. While there has been much good technical work done within Departments on bringing together a strategy on social inclusion, the political energy is not behind it in the sense that it is behind the streamlining of the internal market and the other aspects of EU policy.

Most of the areas about which we are concerned under the Lisbon strategy are areas where governments co-ordinate among themselves, rather than areas of EU competence as such. We are talking therefore about the political drive in the member states' governments rather than the legislative framework or the treaties and so on of the European Union. However, we definitely believe that the social inclusion strategy and the national action plans have become, to a certain extent, a formality because the drive behind them is not there. On the other hand, in many ways social inclusion is being undermined by a range of different measures, including budget cuts, and in some countries privatisation of and cutbacks in services. My colleague, Mr. Conroy, might like to talk about the Government's draft submission because he is a member of a social partnership committee which has been involved in that.

On the question of what this committee can do, that is a matter for the committee. We would be pleased to see a follow-up to the report which the committee produced last summer on one aspect of the Lisbon strategy, the competitiveness aspect. We would be pleased if the committee balanced that by examining the social inclusion and cohesion aspects of the strategy, particularly in terms of the mid-term review. There is a strong emphasis at European level, both in terms of discussion on the new constitution and of the Lisbon Agenda, on the importance of the role of national Parliaments. We believe a report would be appropriate. However, it is up to the committee to make its own input to the mid-term review.

Chairman

That is a fair suggestion and I would like to take it up. If the anti-poverty network wants to include the committee on social objectives, and if it has some suggestions on how we should do this next year, Mr. Hanan should make his suggestions to the secretariat. There is no problem with that.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh

I propose we deal with it in the manner we dealt with the competitiveness issue.

Mr. Hanan

That would be useful. The key target date is the spring Council next March when the governments will be trying to come to some conclusions on the mid-term reviews. The timetable will move quite fast. Anything that can be done should be done before then. Another area in which the committee would be useful would be to discuss with Ministers and the Taoiseach how they are going to handle the mid-term review and what the Irish position will be, including in respect of the document already mentioned, with which everybody is more familiar than I am.

Chairman

Is that the draft submission?

Mr. Conroy

It is the final document. There was a draft and following interplay with the social partners it became final. They were not asked for comments on it but it was shown as a courtesy in terms of social partnership. I gather it is before the Dáil, so I am surprised the committee has not seen it. I will make the point that it should be addressed ——

Deputy Ó Snodaigh

Sometimes documents are laid in the Oireachtas Library. It may be there.

Mr. Conroy

In terms of what we said about parliamentary scrutiny, the committee should be involved, particularly in terms of implementation and the joint employment report coming back from Europe, as to how the process is being run and what action will result from the European Council. Parliamentary scrutiny.

We have given our comments. We were unhappy about the emphasis on competitiveness. From the kind of language in the final document we have seen, one can sense that, like the Kok report, which is more clear-cut, there should be an emphasis that economic growth lifts all boats. We do not agree with that. We feel that social inclusion should be seen as a pillar of the Lisbon Agenda. In terms of the European economic social model, it should be addressed.

It is a win-win situation. If we take people out of poverty, the ghetto and the misery of their lives and move them into generational employment, they can be the Einsteins and can create economic wealth for the country. This is the obvious way to go. It would also reduce health and social deprivation costs in terms of people being part of the community. They work hand in hand. European social models should take that on board as opposed to the one-dimensional approach in the member states.

Chairman

We will take a look at our work plan and make a proposal to deal with this after Christmas. I will put that to the committee if people have no objection.

Senator Dardis

It would be useful for us to examine the issue in detail in the way we looked at the competitiveness aspect. There has been much discussion on the issue in the National Forum on Europe, as people are probably aware. On the matter of documents, we are felling rain forests at a rapid rate so we apologise if somebody's document does not come to the top of the pile. Sometimes it is a long way down. For that reason it is important that groups come in person to give us their message.

I do not disagree with the group's analysis about the competitiveness and social cohesion aspects of this. However, it must be accepted that competitiveness is an important element of the employment aspect. All the figures show that relative to the United States we are drifting in the wrong direction, which raises a fundamental question. Is there a sense that the entire Lisbon Agenda is disappearing from the political radar screen? While there has been a great deal of rhetoric about it, I am not sure there has been much practical progress. I am interested in a general view on that.

Mr. Conroy made a point about the disadvantage of the west. While I do not disagree with him, he will be aware that infrastructure is a double-edged sword. There is a perception that the improvement of infrastructure allows movement to the west, but it also makes it very easy to drag everything to Dublin. International experience suggests that if one improves infrastructure, one merely provides for more rapid movement towards the centre. I do not know how to overcome that phenomenon. It is a difficult question. Mr. Conroy referred to the social partnership model, on which I do not disagree with him either. He spoke about the enterprise strategy group and of how high technology can leave people out of the net. It is not a question of "either, or", but of providing for both.

A 23% poverty figure was cited for Ireland and described as high by international standards. Is it relative?

Ms O’Connor

Yes.

Senator Dardis

Is it a by-product of our wealth? The relative nature of poverty has become more extreme as wealth has increased.

Mr. Conroy

Mr. Barroso, the President of the Commission, wants the Lisbon Agenda to form a significant element of his Commission's work, which is very welcome. We have proposed a separate Commissioner on the agenda and the inclusion of plans, including the national employment action plan, which tend not to appear on the radar at all. While we had a conference on it, the phrase "national employment action plan" received no mention in the media. It does not mean much to a great many people and is like the Lisbon Agenda in that sense. We are in danger and must be careful as these are key issues in people's lives.

Senator Dardis

My sense is that apart from the anti-poverty network feeling neglected, the entire agenda is being overlooked.

Mr. Conroy

Focus is required at the highest levels in the Council, the Commission and among the Members of the Oireachtas and the social partners. We must all play a role in placing these key developments for European society by 2010 high on the agenda. The Lisbon strategy must be taken seriously, which is what the mid-term review is about.

While there is an issue in that the Kok report focused on competitiveness, its very useful recommendations on inclusiveness and deliverability should be implemented. If they were taken seriously, it would be a demonstration that we were making progress. While we must promote social inclusion, economic growth is certainly good for jobs. While a job is the best route out of poverty, we must not forget that social inclusion must be encouraged in tandem as set out in the original vision for the Lisbon Agenda.

Mr. Hanan

The European Union always measures poverty in relative terms and relates it to the number of people falling below 60% of average income. To an extent, the measurement fails to track the very positive changes we have seen in Ireland, but it does tell us how divided our society is becoming. Division is not simply a by-product of growth. We have always had very high relative poverty as a result of the way we structure welfare and other services. Ireland and Slovakia are competing for worst position on the relative poverty list. A report was published which contained mistaken statistics according to which Slovakia had the highest relative poverty in the EU, slightly ahead of Ireland, and it convulsed politics in that country. It was front-page news for a long while and the Government almost fell. In Ireland, we have become so used to a whole series of UN and EU reports which show we have the most divided society in Europe that we have almost forgotten to be shocked or angry. I was struck by the way Slovakian society was convulsed by the same information.

There is no doubt that the Lisbon strategy has not been given the attention and energy it needs. To an extent, the wind is blowing against the more inclusive society for which we are pushing in which social protection is strengthened. While other aspects of the Lisbon Agenda have fallen into place almost by mistake, if one does not name and act on social inclusion, it will simply not happen. In Ireland, which has grown dramatically over the last number of years, many people have been left out of society. If one lives in relative poverty, it means one cannot take part in society in the same way as one's child or adult peers, regardless, almost, of how rich or poor a country is. Other countries which have grown at slightly more modest rates have managed to maintain a level of social solidarity and cohesion which we have not necessarily seen here. Our worry is that in going in the direction it has, Ireland may have set a precedent for other European countries. While on the one hand, growth has been achieved, a divided, conflictual society has been created.

We take the Senator's point about documentation. We do not want to suggest large tomes should be produced to sit on the shelves of the Oireachtas Library. Rather, it is important to make a strong, sharp contribution in which the views of committee members are conveyed in the mid-term review process. I am sure that is the approach committee members would take themselves.

Chairman

While you bring up some general points, the three groups you represent may never agree on what is the priority. Is there anything you specifically want the committee to address? Perhaps that would be the most constructive approach to take. If the groups can agree a matter for the committee and, by extension, the Oireachtas to address, we will do so.

Mr. Conroy

We are all members of the social and community platform. We have a forum at which we can agree.

Chairman

You can communicate with the secretariat.

Senator Ormonde

I do not have much more to add. I welcome the suggestion that we should meet again as that would give me time to reflect to a greater extent. It is rather interesting that the CSO report on gender equality and the status of women in society was referred to on the Order of Business in the Seanad yesterday. I need time to think about the matter a little more. While a great deal of useful material has been included in the reports, I accept the points which have been made about gender equality, the glass ceiling and the place of women in society. There is a need to consider social inclusion in the context of the Lisbon Agenda. There is no doubt that the approach has been all over the place over the last couple of years. I welcome the review in March which will give us an opportunity to meet with the witnesses again after we have had time to discuss these matters and ascertain where are the deficiencies. We must have social inclusion. We do not have a society if we fail to embrace everyone.

I will not ask questions today as I must think more about the matters under discussion. I welcome the witnesses to create awareness for us and to take the golden opportunity to return to the committee to speak to us about the matter again.

Senator Bradford

I am sorry for disappearing briefly. The delegates are very welcome to this very interesting meeting. The committee has had a broadly based debate and report on the Lisbon Agenda. Is the social aspect of the agenda practical? One or two delegates referred to the great Boston-verus-Berlin debate. A certain form of politics and governance would have to be in place if the social provisions of the agenda were to be enacted in Europe. While there may not be a significant Boston-versus-Berlin debate in mainstream European politics, there has been ongoing debate over the last 15 years on the market versus the social model. No matter what one's political persuasion, one must concede that the market model has won all over Europe. Whether a government is labelled social-democratic, Christian democratic, liberal or, as in Ireland now, socialist, the economic approach is to favour the market model. Given the new market politics in Europe, which are not social politics in a narrow sense, is it possible to implement those aspects of the Lisbon Agenda which concern European Anti-Poverty Network Ireland? Today's debate is on real politics, which we in Ireland no longer have. These issues should be debated during general election campaigns. They should distinguish the political parties from one another, which has never been the case here and hardly applies in politics on the Continent.

While the presentation is impressive, it is also aspirational because Europe has already made its political choices and has no intention of going back on them. The citizen will not pay more tax. We have decided to take the route of lower taxation and this has a knock-on effect on spending. Is it possible to achieve the social objectives the delegation has outlined in the context of the new politics we now have?

Ms O’Connor

I do not necessarily share the Senator's view that the market has won in every country. There are different systems in Europe and social inclusion is incorporated in national agendas to different degrees. For example, social protection policies in the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland are much more modern than in Ireland. These countries take into account the issue of sharing work-life balances. Ireland, on the other hand, is bottom of the league on issues such as family-friendly policies. In at least six European countries one can avail of work sharing until a child reaches school-going age.

Senator Bradford

Ms O'Connor has referred to the Netherlands and some of the Scandinavian countries. They did not take the policy decisions which placed them in a different position from Ireland in the past ten years; rather they started at a different point. The new politics, for which the electorate all over Europe vote, do not allow great flexibility.

Ms O’Connor

I do not believe what we have said is aspirational because it is a reality in many other European countries and is the expectation of many European people. Unfortunately, expectations in Ireland are slightly lower, particularly among women, because public services in terms of what is provided for children and women have been so poor.

A further issue arises with regard to sustainability. It is not sustainable to continue on the path we have taken, maintain our relative poverty rates and exclude so many people, not only women but also other groups which are experiencing real inequality and disadvantage, from so many different areas of society. In terms of sustainability in the Lisbon process we must have a more holistic strategy in which social inclusion is as central as competitiveness.

Mr. Conroy

As regards a comparison between America and Europe, the former has large deficits of trillions of dollars and financial problems arising from trade and budget deficits. The Republican Party is in Government. In time, Americans may find that with large numbers of people living on the poverty line, their society is not good enough, is not working and cannot continue as currently. America is very one-dimensional.

In Europe, Sweden and the Nordic model show it is possible to have high taxes and low unemployment. For many years, these countries have had a good business environment and social protection. This is part of the aspirations of the European social model. One can have economic growth and social protection. It is unfair to compare it with the American model, which is one-dimensional and creates considerable poverty. Perhaps when the Democratic Party in the United States is elected, it will decide it wants a different society, one which is more like Europe. We should work on the European model taking the joint approach of promoting economic and social development as addressed in Lisbon. It can be done.

Senator Bradford

I do not disagree but my question relates to the new European model. As we have seen in the past eight or ten years, this model started next door in Prime Minister Blair's Britain. It is a different type of politics and economics based on a straightforward low-taxation, pro-business approach. Does this type of politics allow sufficient flexibility to introduce the type of schemes the delegation believes necessary?

Chairman

I agree with the Senator's point that these issues are no longer debated. If his purpose is to propose that the joint committee discuss such matters, as members have made clear, he will get an opportunity to do so. We spent the day agreeing with each other but the Senator will also have an opportunity to disagree. It is up to members to decide what they wish to discuss. We will not solve anything in a general discussion of this nature but it provided an introduction to the issue for members.

Senator Dardis

We are in danger of getting into a detailed political and philosophical argument which could go on for some time.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for coming before the joint committee.

Mr. Hanan

I thank members of the joint committee for inviting us. We are interested in the offer to follow up this meeting with more detailed discussions.