Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Thursday, 16 Oct 2014

Mid-term Review of Europe 2020 Strategy: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

This is our last session on the Europe 2020 strategy, which is the EU strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth. In July, the committee invited submissions from the public on the strategy and today we have the opportunity to directly engage with stakeholders and hear their views as articulated in their submissions. On behalf of the committee I thank all of the organisations that provided us with written submissions. I would like to welcome Councillors John Sheehan and Maria Byrne who are both representing the Committee of the Regions, which has been in front of the committee in the past. I also welcome Councillor Neale Richmond and Mr. Joe Bishop from European Movement Ireland, and Ms Barbara Gerstenberger from the organisation Eurofound.

Before we hear from our guests, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, make charges or criticise a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the 2009 Defamation Act, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are about to give to the committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of today's proceedings is to be given. You are asked to respect parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible you should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

We will start with Councillor John Sheehan from the Committee of the Regions.

Councillor John Sheehan

I thank the Chairman. On behalf of the Irish Delegation to the Committee of the Regions, the CoR, may I thank the committee for inviting us to make this presentation which follows up on related appearances and submissions by our members earlier this year. We wish to record our appreciation for the interest that this committee has shown in our work. I would like to specifically thank the Chairman. This is about the fourth time he has met the Committee of the Regions in the past 12 months and it shows his level of interest in us. I would like to record the apologies of my colleagues unable to be present today. I am sharing this introduction with my colleague, Councillor Maria Byrne from Limerick.

We in the Irish CoR Delegation see this mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy as an opportunity to take a more coherent approach to its delivery, not just at EU and member state levels but also at local and regional levels. The Irish delegation considers that the Europe 2020 strategy has the potential to improve the policy-making process both in Ireland and across the EU as it provides a long-term policy framework to address weaknesses in economic performance and promote investment in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. In short, we welcome the process of target setting, co-ordination of policy and assessment, but we have concerns as to how this is implemented.

The assessment by the European Commission of progress in reaching the strategy objectives shows a very mixed picture, in terms of a growing gap between the best and least well performing member states and the widening gap between regions within member states. We suggest that the unsatisfactory rate of progress towards the Europe 2020 targets is not only due to the economic crisis but also to some shortcomings in the strategy itself. These shortcomings need to be addressed during the current mid-term assessment and that is why we are here today.

In our submission, we have included statistics which show some of the widening regional gaps in Ireland, which in our view prompt the need for a re-think as to whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is best. Therefore, we make two simple proposals. First, we suggest that Europe 2020 is a strategy in need of a territorial dimension, rather than it being a purely sectoral strategy. Second, the strategy needs a stronger partnership approach in the programming, implementation and assessment phases.

In calling for a territorial dimension to the Europe 2020 strategy, we in the CoR have been aware that pursuing a strategy that has a sectoral focus only, with little or no consideration of its impact other than the achievement of purely national targets, is something which is going to result in some regions doing well and others less so. This was also a fundamental weakness of the previous Lisbon strategy and the assessment by the European Commission of the current strategy supports this view.

Some member states have made attempts to give a spatial aspect to their sectoral targets under the Europe 2020 Strategy through their national reform programmes. Earlier this year, 16 of the country-specific recommendations from the European Commission also made explicit reference to the spatial dimension and, as appropriate, made recommendations to address regional disparities between and within member states. We would be very strong on regional disparities.

We are heartened that the European Commission now recognises that the growing regional inequalities require specific attention. However, we suggest that this territorial dimension needs to be specifically built into the Europe 2020 strategy to give it a compulsory aspect and we consider that the mid-term review provides an opportunity to do this.

While the country-specific recommendations for Ireland did not include any recommendation on regional disparities, the strong view of our delegation is that it should have, and we suggest that the European Commission must address the issue of regional disparities in all country specific recommendations after this mid-term review. We ask that the joint committee also give consideration to the regional disparity issue when it gets an opportunity to consider the draft country specific recommendations in the House.

As we indicated in previous submissions, both to this committee and to the Department of the Taoiseach, Ireland's national reform programme is spatially blind and the concept of balanced regional development, which seems to have disappeared as a national policy objective. The one-size-fits-all approach has reinforced the regional development gaps within the State and as the committee will see from the tables on pages 5 and 10 of the submission the statistics on regional GDP illustrate the different impacts that the regions have experienced, both before and as a result of the economic crisis. The BMW region was one of the EU regions with the highest levels of GDP decline and has a number of structural weaknesses, which require more tailored interventions. That said, the gap in GDP levels between NUTS III regions is even more pronounced, with the south east, midlands and Border lagging behind. Broadband penetration is one example in that regard.

To strengthen our case for a regional dimension, we have analysed the data that has been used by the European Commission in the production of its sixth cohesion report, which was published in July, and have included some of this in the appendix to our submission to demonstrate the clear regional differences that exist across the island of Ireland. When we call for a territorial dimension to the Europe 2020 strategy, what we are really saying is that there needs to be a clear recognition of the key regional challenges facing Ireland and member states across the EU, and the specific competitiveness challenges facing the weaker regions in meeting Europe 2020 targets; there needs to be a set of regional macroeconomic indicators to describe the differing territorial realities across the Irish region; and there needs to be some regional targets to help galvanise a coherent response and drive implementation.

This leads onto the second proposal, which is our call for a stronger partnership approach in all aspects of the Europe 2020 strategy. I will hand over to my colleague, Councillor Maria Byrne, to elaborate on this.

Councillor Maria Byrne

In essence, our message is that the lessons from the previous Lisbon strategy have not been learned and that Europe 2020 will fail to deliver, if it remains a purely top-down and non-inclusive process. We suggest that the mid-term review must result in a stronger commitment to the partnership principle and that the European Commission should take a firmer line in assessing the nature and extent of the involvement of stakeholders in national reform programmes of member states.

In an Irish context, the approach to Europe 2020 and the national reform programme process has plenty of room for improvement. As we see it, discussion on national targets is mainly confined within a number of Departments, with measures selected largely from existing national policy documents to achieve them. Ireland is not alone in this regard but the centralised and closed nature of the process is particularly acute.

Our call for a more open and collaborative approach comes at a time when many of the reforms of the local government system, at local and regional levels, are taking effect. As the committee will be aware, the 2014 Local Government Reform Act provides the legislative basis for an enhanced role for local authorities in economic development. In addition to the creation of the local enterprise offices, LEOs, since April, the Act requires that each local authority establish a dedicated strategic policy committee for economic development which is required to guide and support economic and enterprise development at county level, including through the preparation and delivery of the economic elements of the new local economic and community plans, LECPs. Furthermore, the establishment of the local community development committees, LCDCs, within the local authority structure and their role in preparing and overseeing implementation of the community elements of the LECPs and their management of the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, means that they will have a direct impact on the achievement of the national Europe 2020 targets.

At regional level, the establishment of three new regional assemblies on 1 January 2015 has been described recently by the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, as an "opportunity for Ireland to implement meaningful policies and to frame new governance institutions to counteract unbalanced development and promote regional recovery". The key function of these new regional assemblies will be to deliver regional planning and economic development through new regional spatial and economic strategies to be developed from 2016 onwards. These strategies will be underpinned to ensure that all relevant public sector bodies with responsibility for economic development and enterprise promotion follow through on implementation. The Minister of State indicated that all relevant agencies will be accountable to the regional assemblies as regards the progress being made towards the achievement of the objectives of the new regional strategies, with a further role for the national oversight and audit commission in this regard. The legislation on these new regional assemblies and their functions will issue shortly, as will a new national planning framework, which will require a whole-of-government view of the national development priorities.

This is what we are proposing when it comes to the Europe 2020 strategy and how its targets can be achieved effectively - a whole-of-government approach which includes national, regional and local government as well as other agencies and key stakeholders. The national reform programme must be compatible with and explicitly reflect, as well as inform, the priorities of the regional spatial and economic strategies, which, in turn, provide a framework for the local community and economic plans. There is now a clear role for local government generally in economic development and we consider that the setting of national Europe 2020 targets and, where necessary, regional targets and the delivery roles required to achieve them needs to reflect this. In this context, we would, therefore, like to see the Department of the Taoiseach provide a roadmap for a more structured, continuous and constructive engagement with stakeholders in this process after the mid-term review. I will leave it at that, but we are happy to respond to any questions and comments that committee may have.

Chairman

I thank Councillor Byrne. The next speaker is Councillor Neale Richmond.

Councillor Neale Richmond

I thank the committee for this opportunity to appear here once again. I am joined here today by my colleagues: Mr. Joseph Bishop and Ms Hayley O'Donnell. Unfortunately, our executive director, Ms Noelle O'Connell, is in Brussels today, but she has asked me to convey her apologies to the meeting.

As many of the members will be aware, European Movement Ireland is an independent not-for-profit membership-based organisation founded in 1954. We aim to provide a robust, fair and reasoned voice on European matters in Ireland through increasing awareness and understanding of European issues. We are also fortunate to be part of a wide network of over 40 organisations within the European Movement International family. Membership of this network has allowed us to broaden our analysis when it came to our submission on the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. We are grateful to our partners in European Movement International for providing us with their input.

The Europe 2020 strategy's aim of improving the EU's competitiveness while maintaining its social market economy model and improving its resource efficiency is vital for the future of the EU and for the future of Ireland. Now is an excellent time for civil society to reflect on the strategy and to see how successful its implementation has been. However, any reflection must take into account that this strategy was launched against the backdrop of an extremely volatile financial climate, a backdrop that has played no small part in limiting the initial impact of the strategy. In a paper about the strategy for policy review, Ms Heather Roy notes the development of economic and fiscal policy, such as the two pack, six pack, etc., has pushed the Europe 2020 strategy to the background and along with it, any real commitment to inclusive growth.

The European Commission report on stock-taking of the Europe 2020 strategy, published in March 2014, reveals that the EU 2020 goals will remain out of reach if EU member states do not strive beyond incremental improvements. Furthermore, the report shows that investment is slow, unemployment has reached unsustainable levels and, ultimately, there is an urgent need for more forward looking European policies.

According to the report, progress on reaching the key Europe 2020 strategy targets is mixed.

The EU is on course to meet or come close to its targets on education, climate and energy, but not employment, research and development or poverty reduction. European Movement Ireland believes that part of the difficulty in reaching the targets is the lack of a sense of ownership in member states of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is perhaps too top-down in its approach. By having more publicity and encouraging the sharing of responsibility for national reform plans, our approach is designed to raise the profile and, therefore, the importance of the strategy in the eyes of the national political and economic leaders. These have yet to be executed properly.

In the 2010 guidance for member states provided by the European Commission upon the adoption of Europe 2020, it was said that the strategy should be developed in close partnership with all national, regional and local authorities, and with continued interaction with stakeholders and interested parties. The Commission does not provide implementation plans on how to attain these objectives. That is the role of the member states. Although the flagship initiatives and the country-specific recommendations indicate the broad directions, they often remain very wide-ranging and do not specify concrete measures, leaving a lot of discretion to member states.

As regards the current progress on the Europe 2020 targets, the Council stated on the occasion of its spring European Council in March 2012 that efforts undertaken to date remain insufficient to meet most of these targets. The Commission stresses that there is not yet full ownership at national level of the radical changes which have been decided in terms of future economic governance and that, even at EU level, there is an implementation gap. We believe the solution to this problem lies in firmly establishing the nature and extent of the involvement of stakeholders and providing a clear and concise outline of what is expected of each national reform programme stakeholder.

Looking forward to the second half of the strategy, European Movement Ireland contends that the partnership approach envisaged is a priority. Europe 2020 will fail to deliver if it remains a purely top-down and non-inclusive process. More active consultation and integration within the national reform programme is required to achieve this. Another solution to the lack of engagement at this stage is to increase awareness of the programme. A greater effort needs to be made to reach out to potential stakeholders. Constructive and meaningful engagement with stakeholders is necessary for the strategy to flourish and for its ambitious targets to be met at national and EU level.

As an aside, ease of access for making submissions to the European Commission has been an issue highlighted by European Movement Ireland repeatedly in our annual accountability report. We look forward to presenting to the committee the findings of the 2013 report next month. Ultimately, the main challenge for the EU remains to increase the ownership of the Europe 2020 strategy by better involving the European public in the process. Given the absence of incentives to co-operate, it is up to national Governments to be seen as willing to act in compliance with the EU's agenda in an enthusiastic way.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the efforts of this committee, there are so far no major initiatives aimed at increasing participation and engagement at the citizen level. The period up to 2020 offers great opportunities for transformation, but only if the right steps are taken. European Movement Ireland believes that the mid-term review is an opportunity for a more ambitious policy since governance reforms are on track and economies are recovering. Indeed, it is a necessity since the ongoing review has revealed that without strategy change, the EU 2020 goals for employment, research, poverty reduction and energy efficiency will simply be missed.

The incoming College of Commissioners will need to consider the mid-term review results and we hope it will propose a way forward which involves clarity and strengthens engagement. Investment in inclusive growth in a smart and sustainable way must be prioritised in Europe 2020 for the well-being of the people and the new college. Related Commission services must ensure inclusive growth is reinstated as a key driver of EU policy over the next few years. I thank the committee and look forward to answering any questions.

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

I thank the Chairman and the joint committee for inviting us to share some of our thoughts and reflections on the Europe 2020 strategy in connection with the mid-term review. Eurofound is a tripartite European agency financed from the European budget. We provide knowledge to assist in the development of social and work related policies. We are not directly involved in policy-making. We provide evidence from comparative research to support better informed policies.

I will start with a general and political statement. European integration is under threat because many European citizens today see Europe as part of the problem and not the solution. Deteriorating living standards, growing inequalities within and between member states, which Councillor Sheehan mentioned, competition in a Single Market which is not always regarded as fair, and the mobility of workers which is seen as an attack on national welfare systems and not as a right to be cherished and exercised are just some of the key issues in the public debate. A strategy which ignores these facts cannot be successful.

I will comment on some elements of the Europe 2020 strategy, the current targets, adapting to a post-crisis strategy and the new challenges which need to be addressed. There seems to be consensus, and it is the view of Eurofound, that the targets are relevant for measuring progress towards the strategy's objectives of fostering growth and jobs. It is very important, however, to complement these rather numerical targets with additional indicators which have a more qualitative dimension. I will illustrate what I mean with the employment target.

To have at least 75% of people between the ages of 20 and 64 in employment requires good quality jobs. According to our research, 20% of jobs in Europe today are poor quality jobs which are badly paid, provide few prospects and score very low when it comes to physical and social work environment and quality of work intensity. These jobs are associated, therefore, with poor health outcomes and low levels of well-being of the jobholder. That is a clear indication for early exit from the labour market being quite probable. Not only is it difficult to keep those in poor quality jobs in employment longer, which is what we need to do if we want to reach the 75% target, low quality jobs are also unlikely to be suitable or attractive to many people who are unemployed or inactive.

Many of those who could participate, and who need to participate if we want to move from the current employment level of 68% to 75%, do not do so because the characteristics of the jobs which are available do not match their level of availability in terms of care responsibilities, qualifications, mobility and health issues. Improving job quality is, therefore, a prerequisite for reaching the EU 2020 employment target and ensuring employment levels stay at the envisaged high level. We need job quality indicators which could be introduced as part of the joint assessment framework or the social scoreboard to help monitor progress in that respect.

Increasing the sustainability of work over a lifetime is one of the key challenges that needs to be addressed in the post-crisis growth strategy. With low quality jobs not likely to disappear from one day to the next, we need to think about ways to compensate for the negative effects and think more about transitions between jobs making career paths towards higher quality jobs possible, between education and the labour market and between periods of inactivity or unemployment and participation.

Both parts of the education target are relevant. This is confirmed by data we have on shifts in employment from the European jobs monitor which clearly shows growth in jobs which need the highest level of education for the jobholder. The current target, however, can do little to monitor whether the skills obtained actually match the requirements of the labour market. Our European company survey points to a skills gap which is detrimental to growth and jobs and that may not necessarily be closed by increasing the number of people holding third level diplomas, which is the target. In a survey we conducted in 2013, almost 40% of European companies reported difficulties in finding employees with the required skills, in the face of high unemployment rates.

That points clearly to a qualitative assessment. Are the skills that young people acquire through third level education the skills the labour market needs?

The second part of the target is to reduce school drop-out rates to below 10%. That points to the most important strategic, long-term issue for Europe, that is, the welfare of children and ensuring their future productivity as adults. Europe's economic success depends on it. Achieving real social inclusion depends on it. Living up to the responsibility a society has vis-à-vis its children depends on it, and therefore we would argue that in the review and the post-crisis strategy, investment in early childhood education and care, and tackling educational disadvantage, is one of the key goals that must be pursued.

On the adequacy of the poverty target, it is an achievement in itself to have a poverty target in the strategy. However, the at risk of poverty and exclusion indicator is complex and multidimensional but it does not provide direct evidence of the experience of social exclusion. In the European quality of life survey, we ask about perceived social exclusion and how people feel integrated in society. In doing that we get important information on the reason people feel excluded, whether the situation has improved or worsened, and the groups that are particularly affected. We need a better understanding of the reasons for social exclusion in order to design better targeted, personalised approaches.

Targeting income and poverty, and inclusion through employment, is important but in our outlook on future challenges we suggest that we must also consider what we like to call a plan B, namely, inclusion through other means than employment, for example, through involvement in civil society and social engagement.

I think I have exhausted my time. The members have our input and I am happy to answer any questions they may want to ask.

Chairman

I thank Ms Gerstenberger. It is very interesting to hear her perspective. Eurofound representatives are due to come before the committee next month to speak about the work done by the organisation.

I will begin by raising an issue raised by most of our speakers, namely, the regional disparities that exist. In his submission, Councillor Sheehan provides figures on what that disparity means in Ireland. In terms of GDP across Ireland, in the southern and eastern region we are at 145% of the European average but in the Border, midlands and west, BMW, region it is 86%. The difference between the south and east region, therefore, and the BMW region is almost 60%. That is a huge difference in terms of GDP. Councillor Neale Richmond refers to that in the submission and that it could be because the one size fits all approach is not working.

As part of our submission on this work, it is important that we put forward suggestions as to how we can make improvements. Do the witnesses have any specific ideas that could be used to make sure we can address the huge regional disparity? Councillor Sheehan and Councillor Richmond might wish to contribute on that, following which we will have more questions.

Councillor John Sheehan

The seed of it is the fact that we take a national strategy. With all due respect to our Oireachtas Members present, everything comes from the Oireachtas down to us. We want to see that done on a regional basis and not on a sectoral basis as is done currently. To take agriculture, we take a one size fits all approach in that sector but micro-management and macro-management is part of that. People are being left behind because we get a European directive and seem to couch it into just one movement. When it gets back down to the people at grassroots level, they feel it is being imposed on them rather than Europe working with them. We want to do it the other way around on a regional basis to ensure we can have an input into the policy in terms of the variations at the micro level. We can then push it upstream, so to speak, to the national Parliament, and it will then come back to us in terms of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Councillor Neale Richmond

I am in agreement with everything Councillor Sheehan said but the obstacle we are meeting is the top-down approach. The EU institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg are telling the national Governments to implement it but the national Governments do not disseminate the information and the responsibility adequately through to local authorities and regional groups.

This is an inclusive approach. It is not just about the institutions and the State bodies but also the chambers of commerce, the various third level institutions and all the sectors this will affect. We would like to see a greater buy-in from civil society, but that will only come about if the institutions are allowed engage in it.

Deputy Joe O'Reilly

I join the Chairman in welcoming the delegation, many of whom have been personal friends and colleagues for a number of years. I thank them for their presentations. I subscribe to their objectives, which I will develop later, but I begin by asking about the reference to a territorial approach to the management and in terms of the Europe 2020 objectives. Councillor Richmond stated that the Border, midlands and west region, which my constituency is within, was one of the EU regions with the highest level of GDP decline and has a number of structural weaknesses which require more tailored interventions, and that gap is very clear. This was something the Chairman homed in on also. It is a serious gap in terms of the income levels of the area I represent, other parts of the country and other parts of Europe. That arises from a number of historical matters, which we do not need to repeat here, but they include the conflict in Northern Ireland and other in-built disadvantages. That is a very serious matter.

On a good note, and I have some questions for the witnesses, I was pleased to hear the announcement in the budget that €1.2 billion of Structural Funds are to be spent in Ireland in the period 2014 to 2020. That is a great achievement by the Government. I am also very happy, and I am interested to know if the witnesses see it as a positive move and whether it fits some of their objectives, that we have secured an allocation of an additional €100 million for the Border and midlands region, which is the area I represent.

I am very interested to hear the witnesses' analysis, having highlighted what I know about my own area which is that we suffer huge disadvantages that Government and Europe should be working to correct. I acknowledge the great success of our Government in achieving an additional €100 million in Structural Funds for the Border region.

I agree strongly with the witnesses on the need for a territorial dimension. Would they agree that an area such as the one I represent, and it is typical of the many areas that suffer disadvantage, needs special allocations and additional moneys for investment in high speed broadband? Do they agree that is crucial infrastructure to attract industry and inward investment and bring us to a level with the rest of the country, which we have a difficulty doing? Do they see that as a major territorial objective?

Would the witnesses accept that in the absence of a rail network in our area there should be positive discrimination towards us in terms of the road network?

Something like the east-west link connecting Dundalk to Sligo is crucial infrastructure. Do the witnesses consider that should be a priority in a territorial approach?

Do the witnesses accept, as I have experienced in my area, that a great many people were displaced from the construction industry during the recession? Very often they are young men who went into construction when it was booming, took up low-paid positions and were left unemployed when construction ceased. They need re-education and the Youth Guarantee scheme should focus on that group. In sum, do witnesses feel territorial initiatives are necessary for my region and regions like it and do they see that being delivered by their objectives?

The witnesses stated that they believe we should have a partnership approach at local level. I completely agree. I spent more than 25 years in local government myself and had the honour of chairing my local authority. I have a great affinity with local authorities. Do the witnesses consider that the role of local enterprise offices, LEOs, will widen? They are now under the control of the local authorities but should they have a wider remit?

We cannot possibly deliver the 2020 objectives without the approach suggested by the witnesses. The witnesses are correct to say it should have a spatial, territorial dimension. Areas like Cavan-Monaghan need positive discrimination which we cannot deliver without the involvement of all levels, which includes local authorities and, very specifically, the witnesses' organisation. I am interested specifically in the witnesses' response to my specific points and in their view on the role of LEOs. What most interests me - and I make no apology for it given that it is why I was elected - is that my area suffers hugely by comparison with other areas in terms of family income and opportunity. That must be corrected.

Senator Terry Leyden

I apologise that I was delayed coming down to the meeting. I welcome our friends who have come to give us very useful information. The involvement of Councillors John Sheehan and Maria Byrne is particularly important because they provide representation via their attendance at the regional assembly of the European Union. There is a real disconnection between Europe and Ireland particularly as evidenced in relation to special areas of conservation. There is no feeling that there is an appeal to Europe to say that something is not working and we must find a solution. It was very evident in our recent by-election in Roscommon where people were so genuinely affected by this issue that they took people power. I met a farmer from Leitrim whose farm is surrounded by bog. He feels he will be squeezed out of a livelihood if the European Union has its way. This is real life and he campaigned day and night - 17 hours a day - to elect a representative to the Houses. I congratulate that representative who will be able to articulate the problems that come to his attention.

I have another example of the disconnect. As a Member of the Seanad, I was debating with the last Government, particularly its Green element. People do not realise in regard to the former Green Party Minister, Eamon Ryan, that of the 28 countries in the EU, only Ireland has a 90-year ban on eel fishing. His Ministers of State were Conor Lenihan and Seán Power. We could not get this through to them. The North of Ireland allows eel fishing on Lough Neagh where it is a very good industry. On our side, eels are protected for a possible 99 years. I would like to see that appealed as it is outrageous. In our area, there are people making a livelihood in eel fishing and the ESB has an involvement in it down at Ardnacrusha. That is an example of how this affects ordinary people.

There is a feeling that there is a lack of power to do something about these issues. The Leader of the Seanad, Senator Maurice Cummins, called a small meeting recently and we decided at it that the Seanad will take on a scrutiny role in regard to European legislation to look at specific controversial areas where we can have a view and refer matters back to Europe where we are not satisfied with the Commission's proposals. It is a good initiative because the Seanad has that extra time. We used to have such a scrutiny role in here the joint committee and it was a very effective way to do things. I have not heard much about scrutiny since.

Chairman

Following mainstreaming, the respective committees undertake it.

Senator Terry Leyden

Possibly, but the Seanad will have a particularly important view.

I ask for the views of witnesses on the local community development committees. Do they consider it is a retrograde step to take away the Leader programme and put it into the committees and under local authorities? Many people objected to it. The Leader programme played a very good role in the development of local areas. I am interested in the view of witnesses as councillors on the ground.

The Chairman has made the point before that it is very important for the Committee of the Regions to have contact with the joint committee on a regular basis. The Committee of the Regions plays a very important role in making contact with Europe. We should work together to see what will happen in the development of Europe, particularly as to how it affects people on the ground.

Chairman

The Senator is right that it is important for the Committee of the Regions at the local level to join forces with us at the national level. We know exactly what are the issues.

Senator Terry Leyden

I ask that the submissions that were made here today be sent with the support of the joint committee to the European Commission.

Chairman

Very good.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I welcome our guests and compliment them on their submissions, which were soundly based as always. I have a number of questions to pose.

The Lisbon strategy was deemed to have missed its targets, but that was not disclosed or discovered, unfortunately, until almost the end of its period of operation. To what extent has the 2020 strategy been achieved in terms of interim targets thus far? In what areas are the most obvious defaults in that regard? To what extent have the European institutions, including the Commission and the Council, co-operated with member state Governments to address the issues that may have caused a slow-down or failure to meet targets? I have previously suggested an annual review. To what extent could it be done as an internal component of a mid-term review to alert the institutions to failures or delays in achieving specific targets on an annual basis? Instead of waiting until 2020 or 2019, why not have an annual review which becomes part of the final report? That should identify deficiencies at an earlier stage in order to remedy them.

To what extent have the witnesses in their capacity as members of the Committee of the Regions and Eurofound identified the deficiencies in infrastructure which might be contributing to delay or failure in the achievement of the targets? There are several deficiencies, including in relation to energy, telecommunications infrastructure and broadband. What have we achieved to provide adequate infrastructure in those areas to enable a relaunch of the European economies, individually and collectively within and outside the EU? Various commentators say from day to day what the ills of Europe are and I suggest strongly that infrastructural deficiency is a major one.

That is particularly relevant for member states on the periphery of Europe, because the geographical position suggests that in the natural order of things, the centre will obviously be the centre of power and authority. That is the way things work. All roads lead to Rome was once a particular phrase. People might now suggest that all roads lead to Brussels, or somewhere similar. The question that arises is to what extent there is co-operation between European governments and the Committee of the Regions on identifying and remedying those deficiencies. What is happening to co-ordinate efforts to remedy them? For instance, a debate is taking place on the issue of energy, something my colleague brought up at the previous meeting, and whether we should go nuclear or whether we should go for natural energy. We should choose natural, renewable energy. I am uneasy about nuclear energy and that is the feeling across Europe, or certainly in some major countries in Europe.

Deputy Joe O'Reilly

We need both.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We will see. My view on clean, renewable energy is that it will stand the test of time. To what extent is it recognised across Europe that we cannot depend indefinitely on energy supplies of an increasing volume, nature and variety? We cannot depend on that indefinitely. It will not happen. This is especially the case as climate change issues emerge, converge and impact on our European policy, because we will be expected to be self-sufficient in energy, or to get as near to that as possible. To what extent are the European institutions co-operating with national governments and with the regions to identify and support the concept of providing and addressing?

What have the witnesses seen as possible obstructions to achieving equal distribution of resources and investment across the Continent of Europe, within the European Union, eurozone and non-eurozone? Have they identified the deficiencies in their areas as they see them, for example, obstacles to youth employment, addressing long-term unemployment, and so forth? Have they come to a conclusion on why Ireland should recover more quickly than some other countries that have far greater resources in terms of economic recovery and achieving economic growth? What has been done to address those issues throughout Europe with a view to putting in place measures that will electrify European performance, which is certainly in need of that?

Ms Gerstenberger referred to the fact it is not always possible for European industry to obtain the required educational skills to fill positions. Is that true in its entirety? For example, is the possibility of relocating to China or south-east Asia in general, thereby availing of far lower wage costs, not an influencing factor? We have heard much in recent times about the double Irish, the double Dutch, and so on, which can be an unfair advantage for some European countries. It can also be an unfair advantage for major multinational corporations to relocate to low-wage economies, for example, China, to avail of all the benefits that can accrue from that, which are at least as significant as the so-called double Irish. It should also be borne in mind that such companies export their products to the 500 million population on the Continent of Europe.

Deputy Eric Byrne

I thank the witnesses and applaud their work. It was very interesting listening to their presentations. I find it interesting that there is a commonality in certain sections of the three contributions, for example, the need to increase involvement by civil society in the Europe 2020 programme. Someone - I think a representative of European Movement Ireland - suggested that one weakness is the lack of ownership of the project by member states. This brings me back to the contribution from the representative of Eurofound in which she stated that an increasing number of people are arguing that Europe is part of the problem and not part of the solution. There is a disconnect somewhere. I am delighted Councillor John Sheehan has highlighted many aspects pertinent to him and the regions and the role played by the regions. He makes a strong point that the Commission must address: the issue of regional disparities in all country-specific recommendations.

What catches my attention, and the issue on which I ask for a more detailed explanation from the presenters, is the report from the European Union which says there is an urgent need for more forward-looking European policies. What exactly would the witnesses define as a forward-looking European policy to meet the 2020 targets?

I found the presentation on jobs, job satisfaction and good versus poor quality jobs both fascinating and disturbing. Could someone make sense of the fact that 47% of those who emigrated during the depression were in good, well-paid employment and were essentially third level educated? I cannot get my head around this. I asked the IBEC representatives how this is the case, whether it is the romantic notion that the Irish are a wandering race and if it is the case that it is the aim of every graduate or qualified tradesperson - I have done it myself - or every nurse who qualifies to get out of the country. I do not believe that is quite it. There is a fundamental problem as to why so many people in employment in the middle of a recession would want to leave the country. Has it to do with the question of job quality? One might argue they seem to be going away to get greater opportunities, and one must compliment them on that, but I am not satisfied that we have the proper response from industry as to how we can generate good quality jobs.

How do we define a good quality job? I think the figure given was that one fifth of jobs are not of good quality and therefore we will not retain those people in employment. They will drop out of the labour market as soon as conditions change. How do we deal with this problem? A suggestion was made about a job quality framework in order that we can have defined for us what is good, bad and middling and set ourselves targets. I found this fascinating. We will hear industry representatives argue there is a 40% disparity between their requirements from the labour force and the training they receive and that third level institutions are not linking in with industry to the extent they should. Industry may be looking for too much from the university sector. Perhaps they should empower their companies to create the necessary climate or even internal mechanisms for promotion or upskilling their workforce. That is the only question I will ask about the skills gap. How would the witnesses see a job quality framework being structured and under what Department? How would one go about it?

Senator Colm Burke

I thank all of the witnesses for their comprehensive presentations and the work they are doing in this area. I have a question in regard to the presentation by Councillor Richmond on the lack of engagement. He said there needs to be a greater effort to reach out to potential stakeholders and to construct a municipal engagement with stakeholders in order for the strategy to flourish. What particular area would he prioritise and can we make major efforts over the next 12 to 18 months to get that engagement with those important stakeholders in this programme?

My second question relates to the presentation made by Ms. Gerstenberger on the area of educational disadvantage. Is there a particular area that should be prioritised? There are a number of educational programmes in place at the moment at local level in various areas around the country. In my constituency, there is a programme involving young people and their parents. We are doing this over 20 years. In 1996, we spoke of breaking the cycle and reducing the pupil-teacher ratio. In terms of educational disadvantage, what area in particular could be prioritised in the knowledge that doing so we would achieve an end result within the fastest possible time frame? Has that been identified? What is the best way of implementing the change that is required?

Chairman

I suggest we start on the left of the room and work our way across to get the responses from each of our guests. I ask them to limit comments to five minutes including any final comments they wish to make. Let us begin with Councillor Sheehan.

Councillor John Sheehan

I thank the members for their questions and opinions on what has been presented today. A lot has been said and trying to cover it all will not be easy. It comes down to two different things. The common theme is the disconnect and how we get a proper connection between what people hear on the ground about Europe and what they want to contribute to Europe. Sometimes, we have been guilty as a member state of using derogations and hiding behind Europe as the dictator of the bad policy that we have to implement at local level. In response to Senator Leyden, I come from an area that is in a Special Protection Area, SPA also. There are land restrictions. There is a man who canvassed for 17 hours a day for Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice and I congratulate the Deputy on his election to the Dáil. The man did that because he felt European directives were taking away his livelihood. We have that on our side of the world also; the area is protected because of a bird - the hen harrier. The lands cannot be reclaimed which is in total contradiction to the Food Harvest 2020 policy which one arm of the State, the Department of Agriculture, is trying to implement. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the National Parks and Wildlife Service dictate another policy. There is no interconnection. The one thing they will do is state that European policy on an agricultural basis globally is good but they will want to blame Europe for the designations of the restricted areas. That is where the disconnect occurs and causes angst about what Europe is doing. We have to turn the mirror on ourselves - as a member state - to identify how we get the message from Brussels to the people. That is a very important point.

Deputies O'Reilly and Durkan mentioned our network and our infrastructures. We did quite a lot when we had a few bob to do it. In fairness to all previous Governments, we nearly got there on the orbital routes of our motorways. There are currently some motorways going nowhere and we need to construct orbital routes - connecting Limerick to Cork and Dundalk to Sligo and then continuing on to Galway - when we have the money. When those are in place, the infrastructure will be there. It is all about lifestyle choice. That may refer back to what Deputy Byrne spoke on, some of our youth wanting to leave. They are highly educated but they decided - some by choice - to move. We are after going through a period of austerity and they possibly felt that this was not the place to be at the moment if they were to move up along the ladder and that there were better opportunities elsewhere. We need to create an Ireland to which they can return.

It is probably about lifestyle choice. Not everyone wants to live in the cauldron of the city, in particular the cauldron of Dublin given the expense and so forth involved. Even some of the companies bringing foreign direct investment, FDIs are looking at our regional cities to see if all their requirements - education and other matters - can be met to set up business. We have benefitted from that in Limerick city. If it can be brought to the regions and the regional cities, it would be possible to branch out into the services industry which could locate in some of our regional towns. Then we could start to pick up the jobs we do not seem to be able to hold. There is a cohort of people in jobs that might not want to reskill. The horse will not always drink the water. Some people do not want to participate in reskilling opportunities. We have to find a way to get those jobs nearer to these people in the regions because they are not able to come to the cauldrons of the bigger populations to get those jobs.

Deputy Durkan mentioned energy. It is one example of where we got it wrong in Ireland on competition law. We had a fine utility company, the Electricity Supply Board, ESB, which supplies us with power at a cost a lot less than for what it is being supplied to other people throughout Europe. We decided under competition law which was brought to us, that we had to raise the price of energy to make it competitive for somebody else to come in to the market. We now have a utility company called Irish Water. I hope we do not go down the road of having to raise the bar for somebody from Spain or somewhere else to come in and run our water for us. We did things that were not right. This is an opportunity to put it into the Europe 2020 strategy.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I wish to intervene. What you say is true but was there not an obvious deficiency in the infrastructure as it existed at the time? I have been tabling Dáil questions for at least 25 years asking when there would be a fundamental reappraisal of the water requirements in the country, as one piece of that infrastructure. When were we going to have adequate storage, adequate and reliable transmission and adequate supply? How could we utilise and harvest the water that is flooding the land in the Shannon basin and bring it to an area where it could be redistributed? That was never done. Whatever we may say about Irish Water, the system was in tatters. I am afraid that many of our infrastructural supply lines are in an equally vulnerable position. We must remember that in 15 years from now, almost all motor cars will be driven by electricity in this country. They will have to be if we are to meet the carbon targets.

Councillor John Sheehan

I am in favour of and agree with the setting up of the utility company, Irish Water, because a public private partnership model is needed to provide the infrastructure on which the Deputy has spoken. My comments were in regard to the provision of the price of it. That is what we did with the ESB. It is the aspect I was trying to hone in on, that we wouldn't lose the grasp of that again.

Someone else may wish to comment on the remainder.

Senator Burke raised the matter of education. Our universities are doing Trojan work for us. We have great graduates and so on but there is a cohort in society that has dropped out of school early and their parents dropped out of school early as well. We need to formulate a plan for people in socially deprived areas. We need to bring the parent and child back to school together. We should remember that the parent is probably only late teens or early 20s when the child is starting to go to school. We need to look at it in that shape to bring those people back into the system.

Councillor Maria Byrne

I thank everyone for their questions and comments. The first thing we need to do is recognise the fact that there are challenges. This was mentioned in many of the presentations. Certainly, we need to address them and examine them regionally and collectively. Recently we saw the appointment of a Minister of State with responsibility for a rural economic development and rural transport and that is positive because it is about creating balanced regional development. We need to examine that area. I come from what is predominantly an urban area but I have a small rural area in terms of my electorate as well and I can definitely see the difference between the two.

Reference was made to making a case to the Minister and his Department and what they will deliver. For each region it is important to have a city that is driving the entire area. If we can target some of our key cities and key areas then, in turn, they can target the region. It can be a big boost to a region to have a flourishing city. That is one thing I am keen to see realised.

Deputy O'Reilly raised the matter of broadband. Even within urban areas there are problems with broadband. I acknowledge it is not as bad as in rural areas but it is something in respect of which we need major investment.

My colleague referred to education. I have been a member of an education and training board for the past 15 years. We have a successful youth reach programme - it is in place in many areas - to address early dropouts. It is about encouraging people, especially if they have left school early, to go back to school. There should be more emphasis on encouraging adult education. It is great to see people going back to sit the junior certificate and leaving certificate regardless of their age. It is all about lifelong learning. We should keep that philosophy at the back of our minds.

The local enterprise offices were mentioned by several people. I was a member of what was the city enterprise board. Now we have local enterprise offices. There should be encouragement of private business influence to encourage people and we have started to do that in Limerick. We have started encouraging people from businesses to come in and make presentations on how they see things developing locally and in the region. We have had people in from the tourism industry, small businesses and SMEs. This is important and something that should be rolled out throughout the country. Many of the other issues have been covered so I will leave it at that.

Councillor Neale Richmond

A range of issues have been raised and I will not go through each issue but I will try to get them all together in a couple of collective points. If I do not get to them all committee members can always come back to me. Deputy Durkan raised the matter of targets, the failings in the Lisbon strategy and the matter of identifying targets that were missed. This feeds in to why this meeting and other recent meetings here are so important. This is a mid-term review and therefore it is a chance, halfway through the process, to pull up the Commission and, by default, member state Governments, to point out where the direction is off course. The review is important to identify this.

European Movement Ireland would welcome the opportunity to do that on an annual basis, but whether that is practical I am unsure. I will leave that the hands of the committee and the European Commission to decide.

Reference was made to the areas where the strategy is on-target and off-target. My colleague from Eurofound will go into more detail on the matter. The strategy is close to the targets on education, climate change and energy, but not in respect of employment, research and development and poverty reduction. These are the three areas where there needs to be an increased focus.

Senator Burke raised the question of where to prioritise. We need to prioritise the relationship between those in research and development and those looking to employ people who are coming out of research and development to try to get things aligned. I realise this is discussed as part of a range of issues. We need people to be doing certain courses at third level. Then they can go into the jobs that will provide the services that people need and that people will use to get the economy thriving. It is no different to this strategy. The type of outreach we strongly advocate involves going out to the chambers of commerce, large multinationals, SMEs working in Ireland and all member states as well as the third level and second level institutions to which Councillor Sheehan referred. They are often neglected but they are very much a part of this as well. The individuals involved are vital too. It is difficult to reach out to all 4.2 million people in Ireland, let alone 500 million in the European Union, but a representative aim would be ideal.

I am pleased that the one region-specific question came from Deputy O'Reilly. My late mother was from Cootehill and I have a little knowledge of Cavan. As Councillor Byrne said, the implementation of broadband is absolutely vital. I come from Dublin and the standard in Dublin is not up to scratch internationally, but outside Dublin it is completely sub-par. That should be at the forefront especially for small economies like Ireland that are reliant on the technology sector and light industries.

Reference was made to the path to recovery and why we need to be more forward-looking. Much of the first five years of the strategy has been set against the backdrop of the fiscal crisis or the years of austerity, as Councillor Sheehan put it. We need to move on from that. People have announced in various ways that Ireland has reached the end of the austerity road and that the country is in recovery mode. That is not necessarily true for the rest of the European Union or specific member states but that is the footing we need to be on. We need to look beyond that. We will not always be in a fiscal crisis or if we are going to be perpetually in a fiscal crisis then things are going to get far more difficult for everyone. We need to look beyond this and decide on the strategy we need regardless of the financial backdrop. We need to decide on the key building blocks for it.

We welcome the additional scrutiny role the Seanad is planning. Senator Leyden referred to this. One of the strong points in the programme for Government in 2011 was the onus on the various Oireachtas committees to examine all legislative measures emerging which are important to each committee. European Movement Ireland is a little concerned about the lack of discourse between various Oireachtas committees and Ministers when it comes to summits and Council meetings. We believe the amount of pre-summit and post-summit briefings are not necessarily up to scratch in other committees although they are very good in this committee.

Chairman

I think we are rather good in this committee. We are okay.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Yes, Chairman.

Councillor Neale Richmond

We understand that perhaps a Minister will only come in once every quarter or once every year to do a post-summit briefing. While that might make things is little easier for everyone involved we believe it is not ideal from the scrutiny aspect.

Deputy Durkan raised the question of energy. I have no intention of entering the debate on nuclear power here but one thing we strongly welcome is the announcement that there will be a European Commission vice president with responsibility for energy union. While the individual Commissioner-designate has changed in the past week we believe the fact that the portfolio is being maintained and prioritised as one of the five key areas by President-designate, Mr. Junker, is to be welcomed and we hope to see some movement in that area.

I will conclude on a general comment on disconnection. This has been raised by all speakers. European Movement Ireland commissioned a poll produced by RED C. I realise everyone in this room knows RED C well and often they live by its monthly analysis in certain newspapers. We know the abilities of RED C on polling data. We presented the results before this committee during the middle of the EU Presidency. Some 86% of people are still in favour of Ireland's continuing membership of the European Union and 83% of people are positively disposed towards Ireland's continuing role within the European Union and Ireland's relationship with the EU. We are fortunate to be in that position. It is right that European Movement Ireland would champion this but that does not mean there cannot be a level of disconnect and rigorous scrutiny of the European Union in a positive manner.

I think we need to underline that everything we - and by "we" I mean the people, and not just my organisation - are looking to feed into this process is to get the best result for Ireland and the European Union.

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

I thank members for their interesting questions. I will not be able to comment on all of them, given the time constraints, but in my response I will focus on job quality, the skills gap and the priorities for education.

We can certainly have a framework and indicator for job quality. We know perfectly well, and not just in Eurofound, what a good job is all about. Pay is an important element but prospects are important, and that may be the reason so many young Irish people who had a job left the country. The physical strains and risks associated with work are important as well as psychosocial risks associated with work which are becoming increasingly important. For example, nurses, teachers and so on are under a very different kind of stress from those who do more physical work. There is also the issue of the intensity of the work and the level of autonomy people have in the workplace. Lack of autonomy could be a reason young people leave what looks like a perfectly good job, because they do not feel they can develop in that job. Last but not least, working time is the fourth key aspect of a good quality job. The working time should not be too long. Length plays a role but the other important aspect is discretion over working time, the degree of flexibility in the working time and how the person can adapt the working day to his or her non-work commitments. Researchers will give slightly different weighting to the aspects of a job, but in principle we know what makes a good job and what makes it risky. An indicator can be developed and then we can measure whether we are moving towards better quality jobs or in the other direction.

Deputy Eric Byrne

Whose job is it to create the environment that is attractive to those well-educated workers who are unhappy at work and emigrate? Is that the role of Government, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the universities or the employers?

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

I would argue that the member states with good results and an improvement in job quality are usually the countries where there is a social dialogue that works well and has good involvement from Government - a tripartite setting that works. That is the recommendation I would make from our research.

What is it that companies want? What are the skills gaps? Should companies make it more clear what skills they need? If one compares the rates of youth unemployment in member states, one will find that the countries with the lowest rate of youth unemployment have a dual apprenticeship systems. What are they characterised by? The company is doing part of the education of the future worker and at the same time the young person goes to school. It is a dual system of school and work at the same time. An increasing number of universities in these countries adopt the same approach. Part of the time is spent in the lecture room and then weeks and months in one stretch are spent in a company that also educates future employees. A very close link between the company and the education system is important.

Denmark has a very different approach. They have sectoral skills councils and hold regular and intense meetings between the social partners to discuss what companies need and what kind of education can deliver that result.

My last point, and this relates to construction workers losing their jobs, is that a low level of skill is required for relatively well-paid work. This is often the reason these young people dropped out of education and went for the job in construction. A dual challenge is to address the needs of workers who have lost jobs that required low levels of education but paid a relatively high salary. Using the European Social Fund for retraining-----

Chairman

Is that outside the Youth Guarantee, because they would be over 26 years now, having lost their jobs in 2007 or 2008 at the age of 22 years, and would be in their late 20s?

Deputy Joe O'Reilly

It could be too late for an intervention for them. The social housing initiatives, however, will absorb some construction workers.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It is not true to say that all jobs in the construction sector are low skilled. The construction sector has been upgraded in the past ten years in particular and needs to upgrade more with a much higher skill requirement than what was previously needed. That should be acknowledged.

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

That is absolutely correct. If we chose to reskill those out of work, the question we must answer is for what kind of occupations do we retrain and reskill these people. It is quite interesting that in a major re-education scheme that Sweden had to implement in the late 1990s because of a recession, they chose not to take the route of education for specific new skills and specific occupations but for generic skills - in effect going back to school to complete the leaving certificate. Generic skills and upgrading general numeracy and literacy skills were deemed-----

Chairman

To allow them to move on to something else?

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

Exactly. Instead of trying to look into the crystal ball to determine the skills that will be needed in a year or two when they will have completed the scheme, which is terribly difficult to do, and there is nothing more disappointing than having retrained for a job that does not exist, they went back to school at the age of 27 and 28 and completed their education. That showed very good results with regard to future labour market prospects.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

To what extent have the European institutions sought to identify those areas most likely to provide jobs in the future, having regard to an economic assessment in the individual member states?

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

That is part of the task of a sister agency of ours that looks at education and training where there is a skills mapping and a skills forecasting exercise, with an attempt to look five to ten years ahead to the type of skills that will be required for the jobs that will be available. Everyone will appreciate that this is a notoriously difficult exercise.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It is a vital exercise.

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

Absolutely. I will respond to the point on the priorities for early childhood development and education. What we can see from the research we have reviewed is that the main point is that the earlier the education starts, the better. It starts with educating parents on how to educate children as well as giving them the opportunity to have their children cared for by skilled and well-trained carers and promoting and supporting development in that area. By the time a child is three or four years old and shows up in preschool, an enormous opportunity already has been lost. The main message is that one must start early if one wants to balance out the differences that exist in terms of knowledge and the finance available to develop and educate very young children.

I was asked about the obstructions to a more equal distribution of resources. It was interesting to hear how positive members were about €1.2 billion in Structural Funds money for Ireland for 2014 to 2020. That is important and I am sure it will be incredibly helpful, but the sum that can be redistributed within the EU for the moment is 1% of EU GDP. Compare that with what is redistributed in the United States, which is a much higher percentage. Whatever we do as long as we limit it to 1% of GDP-----

Chairman

Does Ms Gerstenberger mean that the multi-annual financial framework is only 1% of the GDP of the European Union?

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

Exactly. The whole EU budget is 1.32% of GDP.

The sum is far too small to really make a difference. There is not a whole lot of solidarity, which is another requirement, between member states. It is one thing to redistribute money. It is another to support and foster demand if one is doing well economically and see that other countries do not have room for manoeuvre. Members know to whom I am referring.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We all know.

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

Since I am from that member state, I feel I am entitled to make that comment. Lack of solidarity between member states is another major problem.

Chairman

We can all agree with that.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

One question was not answered. I heard the chief executive of a multinational European corporation state at a public gathering that he could not source executives in Europe and thought about relocating to China.

Chairman

Why was that? What was the big deficit?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

What was the big issue? Was it the more favourable wage and taxation structure in other countries or something else? Was it a genuine lack of adequate skills? I doubt it was.

Chairman

I will ask what may be a rhetorical question. We need to be conscious of the Dáil. A vote is expected any minute and we need to wrap up in order that we can vote. Can Ms Gerstenberger answer the question?

Ms Barbara Gerstenberger

Of course differences in wages play a significant role. However, I would argue that Europe does not stand a chance of keeping low to medium skilled jobs in many sectors. When it comes to highly skilled jobs which cannot be moved easily for other reasons such as person-to-person contact, etc., Europe has a chance. In our survey, executives stated that they have difficulties in finding people with the right skills, not necessarily because they are too expensive.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We have experience in this country of low to medium skilled jobs relocating to low wage economies, but also to other European jurisdictions. Such jobs have remained in those countries.

Deputy Eric Byrne

If good quality jobs are created in Europe, a problem for Ireland is that people will still want to go to the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia or the UK because English is spoken in those countries. We have a very poor education system in Ireland in terms of language skills. If we create jobs in Europe, can we ensure the Irish make a contribution within Europe instead of going the other English speaking countries?

Chairman

That is a good point. This has been a very useful meeting. I look forward to meeting a delegation from Eurofound in the coming weeks. We can discuss these policy issues. This meeting concludes the submissions we have received on Europe 2020. I thank the witnesses for their valuable contributions and written submissions. We will make a political contribution to the Commission and will make sure we append all the written submissions we have received. We will also make sure the witnesses receive a copy of that submission. I understand it will be made in early November.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 November 2014.