JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010

EU 2020 Strategy: Discussion with Minister of State.

Chairman

As this is the committee's first meeting of the new decade, I extend to members seasonal greetings and best wishes for the coming years.

No. 1 on today's agenda is the working document, Consultation on the Future EU 2020 Strategy. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, and extend our good wishes to him and his officials. I have received apologies from Deputies Pat Breen and Timmy Dooley and Senator Feargal Quinn. I invite the Minister of State to make his presentation.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche)

I wish a happy new year to the members of the committee and to the members of the press and the public at this meeting. While we all celebrate a new year we particularly celebrate the fact that 2009 is behind us. Please God the forthcoming year will be a little more prosperous for us all and for the country, and will be a year of more progress. I hope it and the decade will be rather better than the past decade.

There is another very busy year ahead of us. One of the interesting things we face is the new format for the Presidency of the European Council. A new trio of presidencies begins now for an 18 month period. For six months of that 18 month period Spain will be in office, followed by Belgium and Hungary. A new institutional framework is commencing. The Spanish Government has made an early start and I wish it well. I look forward to bringing reviews and reports back to the committee on how the new process is working.

I thank the committee for inviting me to the meeting to discuss the future EU 2020 strategy. It is one of the most important issues on the European Union agenda for the year ahead. This afternoon I will travel to a meeting of the European affairs Ministers at which we will discuss this issue in some detail. Before talking about our views on the new strategy, I will speak briefly about the process involved. The European Commission launched the consultation paper on the future EU 2020 strategy in November last year. Interested stakeholders — there can be no more interested stakeholders in these processes than the national parliaments, with this committee representing our Parliament — have been invited to contribute their ideas and views by 15 January.

The Government is in the process of finalising our position and I will ensure members are provided with a copy of the comments we will submit as soon as possible. The committee will work on that and I will ensure that the views of the committee, and of sister committees in other parliaments, are heard. Following the consultation process the Commission is expected to bring forward a set of formal proposals. These will be discussed by member governments first at an informal European Council meeting on 11 February and then at the spring European Council in March, with a view to heads of state and government adopting the final text of the new strategy at the June European Council. That is how the issue will proceed in the next few months.

As members will know, the EU launched the Lisbon strategy in March 2000 with the aim of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world. In 2005, the strategy was reviewed and refocused on jobs and growth and establishing a more streamlined process for delivering and seeing through the process. In 2008, the strategy was further refined, shifting the emphasis towards the environmental and climate change agenda, innovation and a more citizen-centred approach. Globalisation, climate change and an ageing population became key challenges for the future.

I am a little critical of that because the strategy should not be treated like a Christmas tree on which everyone hangs the next issue. We should have a coherent strategy and we should work towards its implementation. Above all, a strategy should be set out with quantifiable objectives in order that the stakeholders as they are called — that is, the citizens of Europe — can see coherently and objectively what has been achieved.

EU2020 will become the successor to the Lisbon strategy. I have a problem with the title EU2020 because it is meaningless except to the initiated and, therefore, excludes the people who count — that is, the public. It is Euro jargon which we could do without. I will suggest tonight that a more coherent and more focused title should be used for the strategy. Perhaps this committee will make its view known because I know the Chairman's view would be very similar to mine.

It is important that we learn from our experience with the Lisbon strategy and that the new strategy encapsulates its strengths and those of Europe. That is why we believe that the focus of the new strategy must be purely on jobs and growth. These two elements — jobs and growth — must remain central to our endeavours. The European Union can help to deliver on jobs and growth. If one asks the average citizen in any city or town across the Community, he or she will say jobs and growth must be at the top of the agenda.

One of the concerns about the current Lisbon strategy is that is has become too unwieldy — I mentioned a number of other agenda were added to it — and we must ensure that the new strategy does not lose its way in the years ahead. Therefore, the successor to the Lisbon strategy should maintain a tight focus on a relatively small number of key objectives.

One such focus should be the achievement of high quality sustainable employment and sustainable economic growth, based on a high level of competitiveness. The new strategy must be seen in the context of the economic crisis, including the sharp economic contraction we have seen and the rise in unemployment. In order to meet the new challenges that the downturn has posed, there must be greater policy emphasis on activation and training for the unemployed.

The new strategy must also foster an enterprise culture and work towards fostering the smart economy. Such a smart economy, built as it is on innovation, research and world class education and training, offers Europe a sustainable path for future growth. High levels of good quality employment, set in a high quality environment, which promotes social cohesion, will follow from such a strategy.

Better and more targeted regulation should also form an element of our approach over the medium term, thus enhancing competitiveness. We all agree that regulation, although well-intended, can accumulate and become a real blockage to innovation. The strategy should also address the competitive opportunities and challenges which the rapid development of our global partners present for Europe.

We believe that the new EU2020 strategy or whatever it is called must also be simpler and more clearly drafted with a monitoring and reporting system providing clear results. When a major corporation sets out its plans for the future, they are set out in coherent and objective terms so that one can measure achievement over a period of time. If Europe adopts that attitude, one can make the necessary adjustments as one moves forward but if there is more ambivalent language and less objectivity, one will not make the progress needed. We believe the strategy must be simple, set out in clearly defined terms, capable of objective monitoring and have reporting systems that will allow one to make the necessary adjustments.

One of the major innovations of the Lisbon treaty is the European citizens' initiative. This provides that "not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of member states may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties". We all strongly supported that and discussed it at some length during the recent referendum. We talked about it as being part of the process of returning democracy to the people.

I welcome the fact the Spanish Presidency has decided to place significant emphasis on the initiative. The citizens' initiative is high on the agenda of tomorrow's informal meeting of European Ministers in Segovia.

The citizens' initiative has the potential to increase participative democracy for European Union, which we all support. EU citizens are being brought centre stage by this initiative and are being given the right to call directly on the Commission to bring forward new policy initiatives. It could also reinforce citizens' and organised civil society's involvement in the shaping of EU policies.

The Commission has issued a Green Paper and is hoping that the regulation on the citizens' initiative to follow from this will be adopted and in force towards the end of this year. The Green Paper raises a number of procedural issues which member states will need to agree on as part of the framing of the regulation to bring about the citizens' initiative. Consultations are under way with other interested Departments to ensure a joined up approach by way of response to the Green Paper questions and, more important, to inform the Government position when this matter comes before the Council.

In forthcoming meetings of this committee, I would be delighted to discuss the specifics in this regard. I would be happy to set out our current thinking on any aspect of the Green Paper or on any other issue. I look forward to members' questions.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I thank the Chairman. I will be brief and I apologise for being slightly late to the meeting. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and thank him for the overview of where the strategy, whatever it may be called, is and to where it is going. I would like to hear a little more on our Government's perspective on the strategy, what the priorities for Ireland will be and how the Minister of State sees our national interest being advanced via the strategy.

I would have been very optimistic about the Lisbon strategy when it was first developed but, like many people, I was somewhat disappointed with the lack of progress. There is the perception that it did not achieve its full potential in terms of a coherent strategy for employment in the European Union and a coherent strategy for innovation. A kind of detached approach was taken by some member states which did not seem to become fully committed to its implementation. I hope things will be different on this occasion.

I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on how we can advance our obvious priorities, which clearly relate to employment and job creation, and how we can do that through the strategy and on meeting the targets set in the Lisbon strategy, for example, in regard to research and development and how he sees them being further advanced through the reinvigorated or the new strategy.

In regard to greater coherence in terms of financial regulation and so on in the European Union, under the previous strategies, we saw a lack of enthusiasm from member states to commit to the strict system of financial regulation. In many instances, that allowed member states to pursue individual self-centred agendas and it has not allowed the European Union to develop in the way it ought to. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on whether he believes a greater degree of financial regulation with harder rather than softer powers in terms of enforcement is the way forward. In my view it is the way forward but in many ways, it is quite a radical step to take because in many respects, it is an anathema to what member states see as priorities for themselves in terms of autonomy in regard to some of these issues.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I draw my questions from the paper circulated by the Commission on the EU2020 strategy. In the context of the future prospects of the European economy, the Commission makes an important point, namely, that to achieve future success Europe needs a strengthened and competitive industrial base, a modern service sector and a thriving agricultural economy and maritime sector. In that regard, the working document lays down strategies in respect of the smart economy, the digital economy, research and development and innovation. The new President of the European Council stated last week that we must address the major loss of manufacturing jobs that is occurring throughout Europe.

Is work being done in respect of assessing whether the creation of jobs through the smart economy and the strategies to which I refer will be sufficient in the context of replacing the jobs being lost through the erosion of the European manufacturing base? I was struck by the fact that the working document refers to manufacturing but that it has not been identified as worthy of future investigation and evaluation. Does the so-called smart economy offer scope in the context of dealing with the many millions of people throughout Europe who are now unemployed? In Spain, which currently holds the Presidency of the European Council, there are some 4 million people unemployed.

My second question relates to the Stability and Growth Pact. The working document states that this pact will play an important role in guiding budgetary policies in the future. Is there an option to review the operation of the Stability and Growth Pact? I previously made the point that the only option for a country such as Ireland — which has a small open economy and reasonable levels of debt as a percentage of income — is to deflate its way out of the crisis it currently faces. In addition to the mobility of labour, the free movement of capital was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of economic and monetary union. It appears we are now locked into a race to deflate. This is in contrast to what is occurring in the German economy, which is so competitive. Will there be an opportunity to review the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact during a period in which Europe will be obliged to deal with a major fiscal crisis? Consideration must be given to this matter and I would welcome the Minister of State's comments on it.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. It is clear that the EU's 2020 strategy represents the next step following the Lisbon Agenda, which has not really had an impact on the wider situation throughout Europe and the goals relating to which have not been realised. We have reached the dawn of a new decade. As a result of ratification of the Lisbon treaty, there is a new European Council and a new European Commission is about to be appointed. This is an important time for the Union which, in the context of current global financial pressures, must make a major statement and set down clear targets and goals to reassure its citizens.

The Union must look to the strength in its people, its markets and its traditional sectors. In addition, it must consider competition across the globe, whether that be in respect of the United States, China or Asia in general. In that context, we need innovation. Opportunities for innovation are critical and the Union must invest the necessary resources in the areas of research and technological development. Such opportunities were contemplated within the Lisbon Agenda but were not realised to any great extent.

There is much strength in different sectors and regions of the Union. It is critical that support be provided in the areas of food production, engineering, technology, and so on. However, we also need to consider the position in traditional areas of activity to ensure that existing jobs are sustained. In addition to creating new employment, the Union must ensure such jobs are sustained. Negotiations on the new strategy must focus on a commitment to sustaining existing jobs in the traditional sectors that are so vital to different countries and regions.

The tourism sector must be examined. One of the goals of the European Union is mobility of goods, people and services. We must make it easier for people to move within the Union so that there might be a constant transfer of capital among different sectors and regions.

We must take into account the quality of the graduates available in Ireland and other countries throughout the Union in the context of creating new jobs. Resources must be invested in research and development, innovation and science, which are important areas and in which many opportunities exist. The people already operating in these fields are extremely enthusiastic. Dublin is due to be science capital of Europe in 2012 and this provides us with an incentive to drive an agenda within the Union that will assist in realising opportunities and creating employment for current and future graduates.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome the Minister of State. I apologise for missing much of his presentation earlier but I had the opportunity to read it in the interim.

Deputy Treacy summed matters up when he complimented the Lisbon strategy but stated that it was not properly realised. The Lisbon strategy is already supposed to have been completed and the EU was supposed to be the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world at this point. However, that is not exactly the situation. We are rolling over into another ten-year cycle, the EU2020 strategy. In effect, this is a rejigged version of the Lisbon strategy.

When the original Lisbon strategy was devised prior to 2000, the position put forward by the Party of European Socialists was that the Union would not only be the most competitive and dynamic economy but that it would also be the most competitive and dynamic society in the world. The emphasis was placed on society so that the overall strategy would encompass more than just the economy. However, we took the narrow view of the economy and did not introduce proper regulation. It is societal values which lead to the introduction of such regulation. The difficulty is that we took a narrow and rigid economic view and as a result, we are left with the financial crisis.

The core elements of the Lisbon strategy — jobs, growth, activation, training and the smart economy — are the same as those in the new strategy. We have not realised our goals in respect of these elements. In effect, they are shibboleths which reflect nice aspirations. The question arises as to how we might take real action in the context of realising these goals and creating a sustainable society.

At the beginning of this process of planning for the coming decade, we must ensure that the Lisbon treaty is brought into play. That treaty is extremely strong in respect of full employment, education, sustainable development, climate change and various other worthy issues and states that developments in these areas should proceed in the context of the social agenda. It is also strong with regard to insisting that said agenda should inform all decisions made in the economic sphere. That which I have outlined should inform our first step in dealing with this matter.

The Minister of State referred to the citizens' initiative. We have sold the idea of this initiative as being very desirable in the context of participative democracy. Citizens can get involved at local or any level, have their say and get their agenda before the Commission and the institutions of the European Union. However, now that the Lisbon treaty is in place, what are we doing to realise that? What is the Department doing to make citizens here aware that we are currently formulating a process and structure whereby citizens can participate through a petition in getting issues of concern on to the agenda of the European Union? Has there been anything in the media or has there been advertising about it? Is there an awareness programme? This is part of what we have already said about the need to engage citizens. There are new strong structures under the Lisbon treaty, and the Minister expects to discuss them at the forthcoming meeting. However, they are not being discussed generally. The ordinary citizen does not have a clue that the citizens' initiative is about to be structured over the next few months, and will not have an input into it. There should be a more proactive approach. There should be newspaper advertisements and a media programme inviting citizens to participate in this process with regard to how it should be managed so it will be available and accessible to the citizen. I am not sure there is much new thinking on the matter.

The best thing we have going for us is that we have the Commissioner for Research and Innovation and we should be in a position to lead the way in that respect. I hope the Minister will invite her to appear before the committee to outline her ideas. We would like to discuss innovation, research and world-class education with her. If we are to develop in a sustainable fashion and make a success of the Lisbon strategy, we will have to look further at indigenous strengths rather than the broad statements of competition, growth, jobs and so forth. We are all in favour of those. As Deputy Treacy pointed out, tourism is a huge strength. The Chairman often speaks about how we threw away our sugar beet industry, which we need not have done. Our glass industry is also gone. Indigenous industries have not been supported. There have not been modern approaches to them. This is the year of sport and Dublin is the capital of sport. Sport is a major indigenous resource.

If we are to make the Lisbon strategy a success, we must think outside the box. Each member state will have to be innovative with their indigenous strengths. We have done well with foreign direct investment, but while it is holding up well in terms of exports it is not holding up as well in terms of jobs or growth. Until we secure more manufacturing or the expansion of the indigenous sector, there will not be an increase in jobs or growth.

Senator Terry Leyden

I wish the Minister of State and his officials well. The final date is 15 January so I presume the document is finalised at this stage. I hope the committee will have an opportunity to discuss the details of that document, as the Minister has already indicated. Also, tomorrow is a very significant day given that Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the Irish EU Commissioner-designate, will appear before the European Parliament. I wish her well because her appointment is very significant, not only for Europe but for Ireland. It fits in well with our smart economy strategy. The second Lisbon treaty referendum has been a great success given that each country has retained an EU Commissioner. We are fortunate to have someone of Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn's calibre available to serve in the Commission. I do not doubt that her appointment will be a fait accompli tomorrow. Given her background she will have no difficulty being passed by the European Parliament. I wish her well in that regard.

With regard to future initiatives, before Christmas this committee published a report, on which I was involved as rapporteur, on the position of minority groups in Europe and an examination of Roma policy in the European Union. Mr. Barroso has established the position of Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Civil Liberties within the EU Commission, to include citizens’ and minority rights. I received many e-mails from members of the public about the report. One would get the impression that I invented the Roma or had some connection with the community. I intend to forward a number of the e-mails to the secretariat. The report was adopted by the committee and I was just the conduit, as it were. I want the committee to share my pain.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

He was murdered.

Senator Terry Leyden

The e-mails were quite dramatic and graphic, although they did not upset my Christmas dinner. In fact, I received a telephone call as well.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We appreciate the Senator's diligence.

Senator Terry Leyden

The members will have to share my experience——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We do not wish to, thank you.

Senator Terry Leyden

——because they endorsed the report before Christmas. It is appropriate to forward the e-mails to the secretariat so they can be responded to with an exact indication of the situation regarding the report. However, some of the issues raised in the e-mails should be referred to the Garda Commissioner, Fachtna Murphy, for investigation. There is deep concern throughout the country that there are approximately 3,000 Roma here. In the e-mails they appear to be accused of and held responsible for every type of criminality. This should be investigated by the Garda Commissioner. There are some reports about the situation.

I have highlighted the position regarding the Roma. There are between 11 and 12 million of them in the European Union. They comprise the largest minority in the world but they are stateless. They do not come from a state but are a nomadic tribe that originated in India. The report elicited a very negative reaction and I wish to share that reaction with the members of the committee.

Deputy Seán Power

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution and wish him well with his meeting this afternoon. With regard to the two referenda on the Lisbon treaty, different views have been put forward as to why the treaty was rejected in the first referendum and passed in the second. However, it was obvious that with the serious downturn in the economy Irish people became far more aware of the value, benefits and importance of being a member of the European Union. This contributed greatly to the treaty being passed in the second referendum.

The Minister of State referred to the important and serious issues involved in developing the strategy. How does the Minister of State intend to involve the Irish people in a real and meaningful way in that process now, rather than have them react to an agreement further down the road?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I regret I was not present to hear the Minister of State but I have read his statement. I wish him well in his work. Could he tell us more about this trio of presidencies? What will they do? It sounds like a three tier cake. Why is it so important that they will now operate as a trio, rather than as one? It will take until June to adopt a strategy. That is a long time as it is now only January. Why will it be June before a strategy will be put together?

I refer to a comment by Deputy Treacy. Achievement of high quality, sustainable employment is all very well but we need a strategy for maintaining the jobs we have rather than chasing rainbows, which might never achieve anything. I would prefer to see a definite strategy aimed at keeping the jobs we have, rather than chasing smart jobs that may never materialise. Can the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, tell us anything about that?

I would like to speak about the European citizens initiative, which is a bugbear I have had since the beginning, even though I lauded it during the campaign. I do not think it would be possible for the ordinary citizen to go out and get 1 million signatures. I hope the Minister of State will raise this issue when he travels to Europe to discuss these matters. How can it be possible? The Minister of State suggested that a trade union or a similar body might take up a case, but I am talking about Mrs. O'Hara in 14 St. Anne's Terrace. If she wants to say something to Europe, or if she wants Europe to say something to her, how will she be able to collect 1 million signatures? The Minister of State should show some sense and tell us how this proposal will operate. It will not be possible for individual citizens to collect 1 million signatures. Nobody wants to face up to the fact that it is an absolute nonsense. I ask the Minister of State not to smile indulgently. I am speaking common sense. How can ordinary citizens collect 1 million signatures? It cannot be done. Mrs. O'Hara does not have a network that allows her to do it. She might not even have the Internet.

I note that the Minister of State and his EU colleagues will spend an entire meeting talking about the European citizen's charter. I suggest that the first thing they should do is pierce the ridiculous nature of it. Nobody will have any faith in an Internet strategy that involves getting 1,000 signatures before it is listened to by the big high trio of presidencies. I am keen for the Minister of State, in his answer, to tell me how the trio will operate; to outline how we can develop a strategy aimed at keeping the jobs we have, rather than chasing after rainbows; and to tell me how the citizens initiative will help an ordinary woman in a terraced house in County Westmeath to bring one of her agitations to Brussels. If such a woman does not know 1 million people, how will she be able to bring an issue to the attention of the EU? Who will listen to her? How will this proposal be interpreted? I know by the curl of the Minister of State's lip that he thinks I am being foolish. I am not — I am talking common sense.

Deputy Dick Roche

I will scowl at the Deputy from here on in.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Please do.

Deputy Dick Roche

She is obviously much happier with a visage which is unpleasant rather than one which is pleasant.

Chairman

It is obvious that she has been studying the Minister of State's visage.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I knew the members of the committee would not be happy with my remarks. I do not believe in the citizens initiative. I think it is an ass of a thing.

Deputy Dick Roche

I will have to disagree with my colleague.

Deputy Billy Timmins

The Minister of State normally does.

Deputy Dick Roche

I never do.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

How are we going to get so many signatures? It is impossible. It is not an initiative — it is a stupid thing.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank the Minister of State and his staff for coming to this meeting. I wish them well in the year ahead. I would like to make a few brief points about the citizens' initiative. When we were trying to sell the concept of the Lisbon treaty——

(Interruptions).

Deputy Billy Timmins

I realise that subsidiarity is one of the keystones of European policy, but it seems to be becoming one of the policies of this committee too, in the sense that a second Chairman is operating. I felt that the proposed citizens initiative was one of the weaknesses of the treaty. I did not like to be pinned down on it because I found it difficult to explain. The concept that underpins it is a good one. Perhaps we can come up with something innovative in this regard. We do not have an EU Joe Duffy, who takes every crib and gripe that everybody out there has. This proposal has to be treated in a serious manner. We do not want to be bombarded with more spam e-mails. We get enough of them at the moment. I cannot visualise how it will be done. It is something that will have to be worked on.

I would like to make some other points. I wish our new Commissioner well in her role. It has struck me over recent weeks that future Governments should consider appointing Commissioners with a lead-in period of six or 12 months. I know this was an unusual time, as there was some uncertainty about the future composition of the Commission during the vacuum before the Lisbon treaty was passed. Incoming Commissioners should have to wait for a certain period of time before the preceding Commissioner leaves. Given that many other countries had named their new Commissioners, it was unfair of us to come in at the last minute with our appointment. I suggest that the next Government should nominate our next Commissioner at least six months, if not a year, in advance. That would give individual in question a chance to get up to speed. The nominee in this case has a certain knowledge of how European affairs work. Previous Commissioners were on the back foot because they were appointed at very short notice. The policy I have advocated should be adopted by future Governments.

Documents like the Lisbon agenda and the smart economy sound nice in the theory. I would like the Government to bring a couple of little issues to the table. We could learn more about subsidiarity, which is a nice concept. I do not know whether we have taken it on board since we joined the EU. The Minister of State will be aware of the difficulties faced by local communities during the recent poor weather. Local communities have no power. They cannot be empowered. When we travel to meet some of our European colleagues, we find they have a local base of volunteers. They are much more empowered to do things. We try to centralise things in this county. The Minister for Transport's disgraceful decision last August to sign an instrument giving the National Roads Authority responsibility for roads funding was a classic example of that. No one knew anything about it. The concept of subsidiarity should involve giving power to local communities.

I am in favour of the concept of training the unemployed. I believe we have to look at that. The lack of self-esteem is one of the most difficult issues facing the unemployed, particularly those in long-term unemployment. The vast majority of people do not like having to queue up to get their unemployment assistance or benefit. With the best will in the world, people will be out of work and will have to receive social welfare funding from the State. We have to give such people an opportunity to work.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Billy Timmins

I hope the Chairman does not mind if I object to the fact that five or six conversations are taking place while I am addressing the committee. While I do not have any difficulty with members having conversations, I think they should have them outside. I do not generally meander or waffle.

Chairman

The Deputy is normally in good humour.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I am in bad form today.

Chairman

I see that.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I am tired.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Join the club.

Deputy Billy Timmins

The Deputy is always like that.

Chairman

This is the first day back.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I have lost my train of thought. We need to consider how we can help the unemployed. I am not advocating extreme right-wing policies when I say we should have workfare rather than welfare. The vast majority of unemployed people to whom I speak would be happy to go in and make a social contribution, through their own personal or human resources, in order to get their money. It would help their self-esteem and would help the system. That is something we have to tackle in this country. It does not seem to be politically correct to advocate something that the vast majority of people would privately agree is a good idea. Those who receive social welfare would love such a system. In the past few weeks, I have met unemployed architects who would love to work for three days a week in their local authorities, while continuing to collect unemployment assistance. They would be happy to make any contribution. That is something we have to consider. It is not a case of putting everybody out on the road with shovels. We need to be innovative. This would be a win-win situation for everybody.

I would also like the Government to focus on the concept of education. This country has always prided itself on having one of the best education systems in the world. I do not believe that is the case anymore. We have huge difficulties with literacy at primary level. I understand that between 20% and 25% of our students have difficulties. Most of our teachers are not skilled or trained in identifying people with reading difficulties and addressing those difficulties. We do not have a standard that applies across the system. The fruits of what we have are there in the results. There are difficulties in the system. I believe they can be addressed with a little innovation and thought. We need to reconsider how we teach children how to read and write. We have really gone away from this in recent years. We are aware that many of the children coming out of our schools cannot spell and have poor grammar. I realise that the curriculum at primary level is fairly full at the moment. It is difficult to fit in the many things teachers have to do. We have to encourage the learning of foreign languages, particularly French and German, at primary level, when kids are receptive to absorbing and learning. I would like to see the focus in education put on addressing literacy difficulties and on introducing foreign languages at primary level, particularly in the early years.

Chairman

Members have given a thorough response to the Minister of State. I propose that after he responds members examine the document provided by his policy advisers and the Commission's proposals and return in a few days with their suggestions so as to give a local imprimatur to the proposals from the institutions. The views expressed by members have been particularly helpful.

The issues of jobs, growth and competitiveness — referred to by the Minister of the State, in the Commission document and by committee members — are crucial issues that should always be kept in mind. We were led to believe, particularly in the past five or six years, that the digital or knowledge-based economy was the answer to everyone's prayers, but we now know it was not. Some of us have always held the view that if manufacturing and service industries do not remain competitive and capable of competing in national and international markets, there will be a serious gap in the economy. That is what has happened here, but it has not happened in all European countries. The points made by the various speakers here underline and demonstrate that the Houses of the Oireachtas have clearly recognised that there are issues in this regard with which we must deal .

The Commission and institutions now being set up are most important and will have a more fundamental impact on the development, growth, employment and livelihood of the European people than any other decision since the Second World War. Perhaps all the institutions do not recognise this, but it is the situation. From now on, all the institutions and European people, including us, must recognise the need for inclusiveness and sharing the one line of thought. We must recognise that one country cannot progress at the expense of another. We must realise that our institutions must be more alert and respond more quickly than in the past. The financial crisis was a classic example of a such a situation. It was obvious to all, shopkeepers, people waiting for buses or people anywhere that the boom was about to bust, and it happened. It was bound to happen because of the degree to which things got out of hand. Fortunately for manufacturing industries, we had a low interest climate which was hugely important for them. However, growth in speculation in commodities grew and commodities and property were used as a banking system. We all know where that went. There is a need for the European institutions, as an entity, regardless of what happens in the United States or anywhere else, to be able to recognise and plan and ensure they can respond.

Committee members have spoken about ten-year plans. A ten-year plan must be revised and checked annually. In the past, we have had a five-year review or health check of such plans, for example, for plans in the agricultural or fisheries area. This is far too late. The indications will have already been there that changes need to be made. If those changes are recognised in time we will not need such fire brigade actions as we have had in the past few years. Deputy O'Rourke raised an important point as did other members. A well organised group, such as a dotcom group, can organise something very effectively, to the extent they could distort the democratic system entirely. However, an individual citizen who may have a valid grievance or be unfairly treated cannot get the kind of access that such an organised group can get.

Europe must recognise there is a need for self-sufficiency in terms of supplies of energy, food, employment and competitiveness. If it does not recognise this need and make corrections to achieve it on an annual basis, there will be problems. It must do this instead of waiting around to see where the bubble will burst.

Deputy Dick Roche

I will pick up on the point the Chairman made about planning. There are two problems with regard to any type of planning. First, planning must be focused. All plans must be set out in quantifiable terms of achievement and must set out a specific period for review. The problem with the first Lisbon strategy was that it did not fulfil those basic criteria. Deputy Creighton touched on that in her opening question. It is critical that we focus on a small number of things we can achieve and put the resources into achieving those things, rather than add the latest fashion. The only way we can do this is by setting out a specific plan and reviewing it, as, incidentally, we did in the 1950s and 1960s when we introduced economic planning.

I will deal with the questions raised in the order they were put. Deputy Creighton asked what general key issues would be incorporated in EU 2020. Many of the key issues the Government will focus on are the issues raised by the members here, such as the critical importance of creating jobs and protecting existing jobs. There must be a tight focus on a small number of key areas if the plan is to work. If, as happened with the original Lisbon strategy, people surrender to the temptation to add new issues to it, the strategy will not succeed. The main focus must be on jobs and growth, as expressed by all members here, and the achievement of high levels of sustainable employment.

Deputy Treacy, the Chairman and a number of other contributors made the point that we should not just think in terms of the smart economy, which became the buzzword in the first Lisbon strategy. I agree with that. However, I disagree with the idea that the benefits of the smart economy have been illusory. We have done extraordinarily well with the smart economy and with things like financial services. Some 35,000 people, for example, are employed in financial services in this city. We did not have such numbers employed in this industry before we decided to focus on that area. However, I agree with members that we also need to concentrate on how to maintain existing employment, in particular traditional employment.

Deputy Treacy mentioned business. When one looks at the structure of European business, it is fascinating to see that one of the economies where European business is still built on small local indigenous production is that of Italy, where small and medium enterprises play a significant role. This type of arrangement must be recognised and protected. Deputy Treacy also mentioned the food industry. There is nothing more fundamental than the production of food. Man does not live on bread alone, until there is no bread. Europe must be conscious of this. We will take these points on board and give emphasis to them. They are key issues for Government and citizens. Sustainable economic growth must be firmly built on the protection of existing jobs and the development of long-term employment in other areas.

Senator Donohoe raised an important point. In his contribution, he differentiated between the industrial and manufacturing base, the service sector and the agricultural and marine areas and mentioned these are all included in the Green Paper document which has been circulated by the Union. We must ensure these get the necessary focus and that the focus is not just on some illusion that can be created by new high-tech industry. It is important to focus on what exists already. The Senator also mentioned concerns with regard to the haemorrhage in the manufacturing base. One of the interesting points in the European debate at the moment is that there is a growing realisation that Europe has haemorrhaged manufacturing jobs. Basic manufacturing is critical to the long-term economic prospects of the Union. I was asked whether work will be done to ensure that the manufacturing economy, like the smart economy, is maintained. I agree that this area needs to be emphasised.

I am not sure Senator Donohoe and I are ad idem on the issue of the Stability and Growth Pact, which is very important. The reality is that if we do not have a certain set of criteria, we will all dip out of line occasionally. The pact provides some of the objective regulation that is needed, as Deputy Timmins suggested. I agree that the pact will have to be reviewed. I am not sure it would be good if it were too flexible.

I agree with Deputy Treacy's view that the Lisbon strategy is not delivering all it promised. I agree with the Deputy and Senator Donohoe that the EU must set clear targets and goals and play to its strengths. Good quality jobs need to be maintained in a range of areas of traditional manufacturing, such as craft manufacturing. As we pursue a modern technological economy, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that good quality jobs can be provided in areas like food production and craft manufacturing. I agree that we need to sustain existing jobs.

I agree with Deputy Costello's suggestion that the aims of the Lisbon strategy have not really been realised. I made that point just before he came in. The Lisbon strategy lost sight of the tendency for new issues to be imported on to it. While such issues may have been important, the reality is that they distracted from the central focus that was needed. I agree with the Deputy's point that our modern society should be built on standards. It is not just about running an economy — it is about running a society that consists of people who are concerned about all sorts of different issues. Sustainability involves the construction of coherent societies. There is a propensity here to debate sustainability in a very peculiar way. It is somehow perversely interpreted in a manner that drives industry out of small towns and enterprise out of the rural countryside. We make planning regulations that make it hard to realise the potential that exists. I agree with Deputy Costello in this regard.

Deputies Costello and O'Rourke spoke about the citizens initiative, which has been discussed for ten years.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am fully in favour of it.

Deputy Dick Roche

So am I.

Deputy Joe Costello

I think it is a great idea.

Deputy Dick Roche

It is better to have something than absolutely nothing. If one is to have something, one has to have a structure. This was discussed in the context of the Convention on the Future of Europe. We need to consider how we can produce a citizens' initiative that does not involve an absolute plethora of demands and criteria that can never be achieved. The 1 million figure, which seems very high, was fixed because there was a general view that some threshold was necessary. The manner in which these things will be translated into reality is being discussed at the moment. We are considering setting a minimum number of states from which the 1 million citizens must come. It has been agreed that no single sector should be allowed to dominate the initiative, as that would skew the issues that will come up. When a decision was initially made on this issue, it was deliberately decided not to set a specific number of countries. An issue that is critically important to citizens in one part of the Union might not be important to citizens in the rest of the Union. We need to decide whether there should be a minimum number of signatures per member state. A married woman living in a terraced house in County Westmeath may have many friends. While people in Ireland tend to have long tails of friendship, it is clear that an Irish person would not have access to 1 million people. We may need to provide for a mechanism within the system, such as a minimum number of signatories from each individual country, to make sure the process is not dominated.

We need to reflect on who should be eligible to sign documents of this nature. We have all received petitions that have been signed by 16 people. A famous petition that was signed in County Wicklow not too long ago, which related to Greystones Harbour, was signed by a fascinating 6,000 signatories. It was signed by people from islands in Greece and people from Florida. I do not suggest that those who put the petition together were anything other than sincere, but certain rules have to apply to petitions. One of the big criteria that will have to be decided on is whether all the children in a house, including the six-month old child in the cradle, should be able to sign a petition. Should a minimum age be associated with the signing of petitions? The formal wording of the citizens initiative will be very important. It should be worded in a coherent manner so that everybody who signs a petition understands they are signing the same thing. Different wording should not be used in different places.

The manner in which this initiative is funded should also be transparent. The Chairman questioned how the bona fides of the originators of a petition can be established. It is very easy to see how this system could be abused. Over the Christmas period, people on the Facebook website organised what would be the number 1 in the hit parade in the United Kingdom. They manipulated public opinion in a clever way. That underlines the opinion expressed by Deputy O'Rourke. There is a capacity for this system to be manipulated and abused. We all know that the great majority of citizens tend to be silent on issues. Such people need to be protected from the very vocal minority who may have a interest in such issues. We need to consider practical matters, such as how these initiatives will be proposed, governed and controlled. I happen to be a fan of this measure, but there has to be a threshold. The debate on whether the threshold should be set at 1 million or 500,000 has taken place. If no threshold is provided for, the system will be wide open to abuse. If thousands of petitions are received, the entire process will be degraded and devalued. I agree with Deputy Costello that this process will operate as an extension of democracy, albeit an imperfect one.

Senator Leyden raised several issues. I am not familiar with the issues of the Roma people. I will leave that aside.

Chairman

The Senator is strongly engaged with that issue.

Deputy Dick Roche

That is grand.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We got terrible e-mails.

Deputy Dick Roche

An important point arises in that context. Europe is not a coherent or homogenous mass. It has diversities and minorities. We need to reflect on the issue of how we respect minorities. I do not have the detail sought by the Senator.

Like Deputy Timmins, the Chairman and other members, Senator Leyden also mentioned Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn's appearance before the European Parliament tomorrow. We all wish her well. It is very good that an Irish person will fill the research and innovation role, which will be one of the critical issues in the new 2020 programme. Deputy Timmins is right to suggest that new Commissioners need to be given a lead-in period in which they can read up on their new briefs. We are fortunate that Ms Geoghegan-Quinn has huge experience. She has served a long apprenticeship of more than 12 years, if one includes her period as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs.

Deputy Seán Power

Is that the ideal preparation for appointment as Commissioner?

Deputy Dick Roche

It is, yes. It is coming a little later for Deputy Treacy and me. We all wish Ms Geoghegan-Quinn well. Baroness Ashton got a very substantial grilling in the European Parliament yesterday. The tradition in the Parliament is that one person should be given a hard time. We wish Ms Geoghegan-Quinn well. I know she will do a good job.

Deputy Seán Power raised the important issue of how we can keep people's minds focused on the significance of the EU. I have argued for many years that the communication of the European project is an ongoing process. We have tried various initiatives here, some of which have worked and others of which have not. The work of the Union would be brought to the attention of our citizens if the proceedings of this committee, the Dáil and the European Parliament were broadcast in their entirety. While the debates might bore the pants off 90% of the population, at least people would have access to discussions and some public discussion might be engendered. I was a huge supporter of the work of the National Forum on Europe. Objectively, I would have to say it did not achieve what it should have achieved, sadly, in spite of the superior work done by its chairman, members and staff, one of whom is at today's meeting. That the forum's objectives were not achieved was no fault of the officials in question, who showed incredible and selfless dedication to their work. There is an unhealthy degree of cynicism here about public debate.

At best, the work done in this committee is covered for 30 seconds on the national broadcasting station, which has a responsibility in this regard. While I do not know the answer, I accept the point made by Deputy Seán Power. It is critical that Europe is kept at the forefront of people's minds. This is particularly the case because this country holds referenda. We should not do this, however, solely for the selfish political reason that we do not wish to have trouble in a referendum. We have a duty to keep citizens up to date. We need to evolve in this regard.

Deputy O'Rourke asked an interesting question about the triumvirate in the European Council. The logic of this step was informed by the belief that while the Presidency of six months was great for the country undertaking it, the system resulted in discontinuities. As a result, the idea emerged that we would have an 18-month rolling Presidency over three individual countries. This is one of the major innovations in the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy O'Rourke will recall that a troika operated during her time as a Minister. It consisted of the outgoing Presidency, the incoming Presidency and its successor. This troika, which would sit together to try to maintain continuity, worked only to a point. Under the Lisbon treaty there will be a much better and more coherent response.

This measure will have a further practical benefit. For many of the smaller countries, including Ireland but especially the newer member states, the Presidency is a significant challenge. This measure will help share the burden. Ireland's next Presidency will be shared with Lithuania and Greece. This is an interesting spread because each of the three countries has different strengths.

On Deputy O'Rourke's question as to why the 2020 strategy will not be complete until June, the reason is that a series of European Council meetings will be required to agree the arrangements and priorities.

The Chairman made an interesting point that the programme should be structured as a rolling programme. This point should be taken up and the joint committee may wish to reflect it in its submissions.

Deputy Timmins wished Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn well. He also referred to sustainability and competition in respect of the 2020 strategy. The Deputy also made an interesting and correct connection between education and the programme. It is the first time I heard the suggestion about common standards, particularly in terms of literacy and numeracy. Perhaps the European Union should consider having a common standard in these areas. There is merit in the proposal.

The Government shares the Chairman's view that jobs and growth are the most important focus. The Chairman also alluded to the offshoring of manufacturing, which is a tragedy. This returns me to a point raised by Deputy Treacy. One of the great tragedies of globalisation is that everything is moving offshore and becoming homogenous. As a result, regional and other differences in taste, styles and products are being killed. Perhaps this issue should be factored into the debate. Points were raised with regard to traditional manufacturing and craft manufacturing as well as aspects of the food industry. Consumers want variety but it is being squeezed out by the homogenising effect of globalisation.

I will return to the citizens' initiative in which the joint committee has shown a lively interest, as will society as a whole. We want to ensure the initiative works for citizens rather than for various crowds of self-interested citizens who have a bee in their bonnet about some issue. While such individuals sometimes do good things, the public interest, whether of a woman in a terraced house in Athlone or someone in Bray or Berlin, should inform how the initiative works. It could conceivably help to energise and focus opinion across the European Union to identify and prioritise concerns of citizens. It is clear that from time to time that these concerns and those of the agenda setters in Europe are not always identical. While I accept there is a practical difficulty in having a threshold of 1 million people, a threshold is necessary. Given that there has been a major debate in this committee, perhaps we could work together to produce what we believe would be a coherent Irish response to the petition system.

Deputy Joe Costello

Must we not do more than have the joint committee and Department work together on the matter? Is this not an opportunity to seek to engage members of the public?

Deputy Dick Roche

A meeting organised under the auspices of the European Commission office in Dublin will be held on 21 January. Its purpose is to start a debate on how the process will work and it has been publicised.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am aware of the meeting, which is a great idea. This is a committee, the Minister of State is a member of the Government and we are having a meeting. However, we want to engage large numbers of Irish citizens in the democratic process. The petition system is a particular instrument made available in the Lisbon treaty. We have always complained about the lack of communication between ordinary citizens and Europe. Is the petition system not an opportunity to consult citizens and ask them for their opinion as to how we should structure the initiative? Should the Minister of State and members not examine how we will get out the message that such an initiative is coming on stream? We have to put together a structure in 2010. Should we not elicit citizens' views as to the structure to enable maximum access for them to use this instrument? Should we convince citizens to engage in the process? This would indicate a level of community relevance to citizens' lives.

Deputy Dick Roche

The Deputy has made a good proposition. While the system could work for many reasons, it could also go wrong for a variety of reasons. One reason would be if members of the public do not become involved in the process. Ironically, the National Forum on Europe may have been the best place to discuss the issue. Rather than discussing the black and white of the two alternative views of Europe, it would have been much more interesting to have discussed this issue. I will ask the Department to give further thought to the matter.

I will speak at the Commission launch on 21 January to which members are invited. Deputy Costello's colleague, Mr. De Rossa MEP, who, like me, was a member of the convention when this issue was discussed, will discuss the practicality of the system at the meeting. I will report back to the joint committee specifically on the outcomes of the meetings to be held today and tomorrow and on what the Spanish Presidency proposes. Perhaps we will then discuss the matter at a further meeting.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Would it be a good idea for the Chairman to attend the hearing for the Irish Commissioner to provide support?

Chairman

While it would be a good idea, unfortunately we had not anticipated the weather conditions which have left us preoccupied with other matters in the meantime. Like everyone else, I wish the new Commissioner well and have no doubt she will excel at the hearing.

A key issue in the evolution of the European concept which I omitted to mention is the development of the euro. Over the next 25 years, it will not be possible for the currency to continue to almost compete with itself, as it were, in the European Union. I am aware that Senator Paschal Donohoe has views on that issue. For example, we have heard some commentators state that we would not have had a downturn in the economy had it not been for our membership of the European Union. This is absolute rubbish and the so-called experts in question do not know what they are talking about.

Deputy Dick Roche

I concur with the Chairman. I recently heard a really robust response to that nonsense by the Minister for Finance, to whom we all send our good wishes. He asked where in the name of goodness we would have been had we not made the courageous decision to join the euro.

The Chairman is touching on an issue we should discuss on another day. I have very strong views on the development of the euro and on damaging competition within Europe, as I am sure does the Minister for Finance. I refer in particular to effective competitive devaluation of currencies that are skewing the trend in the Union. That is what the Chairman has in mind.

Chairman

That is what I have in mind.

Deputy Dick Roche

It affects the people on this island particularly.

Chairman

Yes. With a view to benefiting our future discussions, it is no harm to remember that economies within Europe, which have the flexibility to cause devaluation at will, will have a considerably negative and debilitating impact on countries within the eurozone.

Deputy Dick Roche

That is a very well-made point. Beggaring our neighbour was never a good economic policy and never is. If we are all neighbours in the one family, we should work together. One positive point is that there are signs that countries that were seeking to join the eurozone are still anxious to do so. There may be slight glitches and delays because of the current economic hiatus but when that is over the countries will still be anxious to join. If the eurozone included all 27 member states, with a population of 500 million, it would be a very formidable weapon in creating a stable economy for citizens and would produce the kind of Europe about which Deputy Costello talked.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State. It is proposed, with the agreement of the committee, that we make submissions as quickly as possible within the next week or so. There is a deadline but there is provision for late submissions. As Deputy O'Rourke stated, it will be June before the final decisions are made on this plan.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.25 p.m. and adjourned at 12.40 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 January 2010.