Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Sep 2017

Engagement on the Future of Europe: National Youth Council and IBEC

I welcome everyone back after the summer recess. There will be a busy programme of work over the next number of months, but everyone is ready for it. I acknowledge the dedication and time that members give to this committee. I appreciate it. We are all working together, which is the way I like it.

I advise members that we must adhere strictly to time today because another committee will be using this meeting room afterwards. Deputies must also attend the Dáil at 2 p.m. Apologies have been received from Deputies Brophy and Crowe. I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. This is important as it causes serious problems for the broadcasting, editorial and sound staff.

Today's meeting is an engagement on the future of Europe with youth representatives Ms Vanessa Mulhall and Mr. Robert Nesirky from the National Youth Council. On behalf of all members, I welcome Ms Mulhall and Mr. Nesirky to our meeting. As a committee, we started examining the European Commission's White Paper on the Future of Europe before the summer and we are eager to hear from representatives and citizens on how they see the future of Europe developing and where they see Ireland in that picture.

We are delighted that the witnesses can be with us today. Before they make their opening statements, though, I must remind everyone of the rules on parliamentary privilege. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses 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 Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I ask Ms Mulhall and Mr. Nesirky to make their opening statements, after which members will ask questions as they see fit.

Ms Vanessa Mulhall

We thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to respond to the White Paper on the future of Europe. I will make the introductions and then I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Nesirky, to outline our views on the White Paper's scenarios. I will then conclude with a few examples of where the European Union can work with member states on social policy to improve the lives of young people in Europe and beyond. We propose to discuss the various scenarios in the White Paper and offer an idea of how young people could review each of the five potential directions for Europe outlined within.

We are representing the National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, which is the representative body for the voluntary youth sector, comprising 49 organisations working in the community with up to 38,000 young people aged from ten to 24 years. On the European level, NYCI is a member of the European Youth Forum and, in partnership with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, implements the EU structured dialogue process. In Ireland we call it "Young Voices" because it is more appealing to young people. The EU structured dialogue process is an engagement between young people and policymakers in order to implement the priorities of European policy co-operation and to make young people’s voices heard in the European policy-shaping process. This gives young people a voice on the European stage and also on a national stage as we try to implement all recommendations on a national and local level. It gives the NYCI an opportunity to link into the perspective of young people across the EU member states.

We have attended many consultations at European level on the future of Europe, but also on a range of different issues. Mr. Nesirky and I have been speaking about the future of Europe and engaging in that. We have had consultations with young people from throughout Ireland on the topic. Mr. Nesirky and I have been involved in many consultations on a national and local level and today we will give feedback from the outcomes of these consultations. What we are saying is not just our view, it is the view of young people with whom we have been engaging.

Mr. Nesirky will now discuss each direction offered in this report and review it in the context of impact on young people.

Mr. Robert Nesirky

I will review the five scenarios in the context of the impact on and desirability for young people. The first scenario suggests carrying on. As young people, we feel this suggestion is not really a tenable choice. The concept of a static Europe is not an option for the future. Since the inception of the European project, we have seen its form, spheres of influence and reach exist in a continuous state of change. Change is one of the few constants in Europe and as young people we ask that we have the opportunity to be engaged in shaping this change. A simple way to do this would be to extend the voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds and, therefore, the ability to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections. In Ireland alone, this would facilitate 127,000 young people aged 16 and 17 to have a say in deciding who represents them in the European Parliament. It would give young people a sense of engagement and ownership in the future of Europe by bringing Europe down from Brussels and into their hands. While a referendum is required to allow young people aged 16 and 17 to vote in Dáil and presidential elections, this is not the case for local and European elections. The Oireachtas could extend voting rights to young people aged 16 and 17 by means of legislation. Giving young people the opportunity to democratically engage would counteract the feeling of disconnect from Europe.

The second scenario is to strip back on integration, bypassing more controversial areas of policy, and reduce the European Union to nothing but the Single Market. Obviously, the Single Market brings many benefits to the economy, trade, tourism, etc. Its four freedoms are vital for a country like Ireland with a small, open economy. However, stripping the EU back to an economic and trading block is not the answer to the current challenges facing Europe. Such a scenario would suggest that the EU will reduce its role on social issues, which, from our perspective, would be a negative development. Young people want the EU to be more active on social issues, not less active.

The third scenario is referred to as "Those who want to do more", creating what the report has dubbed a "coalition of the willing" - a cluster of 15 countries willing to embrace more integration in criminal jurisdiction, defence, and social and economic policy.

While we, as young people, welcome further integration because it will likely lead to further progression and harmonisation in social policy, our initial feedback on this suggestion is a retaliation against a two-speed, two-tier Europe in the context of the impact it may have on young people. In a Europe where member states differ when it comes to social policy, further division within the Union could amplify the sense of alienation towards Europe for the young people not within this internal union. However, we recognise the need to be conscious of the current trends within the European Union and to view this scenario within this context. We are currently seeing what could be described as an informal coalition of the unwilling, states which would rather face sanctions from the European Union rather than take in a quota of migrants. This begs the question of whether a two-speed Europe is inevitable and, if so, how do Ireland and Europe play a role in the continuation of engagement with young people on this second level? For these reasons, as young people, we hope this scenario does not come to fruition.

A consultation on Brexit organised by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs demonstrated that young people wish to remain in the EU and be part of its future and beyond that to embrace it. They do not want to see a divided Europe.

The next scenario is called "Doing less more efficiently", a scenario in which the EU focuses on key issues, such as those suggested in the White Paper: trade, counter-terrorism, security and migration. While efficiency is welcomed, we have concern over the selection of policy areas the EU proposes it would focus on and the lack of clarity on how these focal policy areas would be chosen. If we are doing much less, who chooses what the focus areas are? A Europe which focuses purely on trade, counter-terrorism, security, migration, the management of borders and defence could be perceived by young people as a step away from the idea of the European project we are working towards: a Europe where security is found through interdependence, rather than a Europe assisting in regulating borders to foster a sense of security. This scenario, based on our view that social policy needs to be valued as an integral part of the Union, offers a regressive path for young people and Europe as a whole. Europe needs to be a civic, social and cultural presence in the lives of young people as well as an economic one.

The final scenario is called "Doing much more together". Throughout this presentation Ms Mulhall and I have hopefully communicated young people's desire for a Europe which tackles social issues as well as economic ones. This final scenario is an opportunity for that. Doing much more together is an opportunity to see a Europe which acts as a cohesive unit. We believe a European approach to social policy will be beneficial to young people.

A Europe working together is a Europe which can be a decisive actor on the international stage. For example, Europe could weigh in heavily on the Sustainable Development Goals, a strategy to ensure a sustainable world and one with which young people are engaging worldwide. Europe has the responsibility to create the engagement mechanisms for civil society. We need to bring the sustainable development goals to the heart of policy-making at European and member state level. Working together on this strategy is the only opportunity for success.

The issue of climate, like that of human rights, has proved the need for engagement on a transnational level. Young people have a clear stake in the future of our climate. Europe could realise a response to the migration crisis by not only engaging with the migrants who need assistance, but also by tackling the causes at an international level. Europe could use its collective power to look outward and have a positive global influence. It is important not to be inward-looking but, instead, to be willing to help tackle issues such as poverty, inequality and social injustice on a global level. We are more powerful together.

Whenever a heavily integrated Europe is mentioned on a political stage, as young people, we feel it is essential to bring up the point that while we should value the benefits of integration, we should also be cautious to move at a speed that does not alienate those who feel disconnected from the direction in which Europe is moving. While an integrated Europe holds benefits for young people, forcing this integration upon those who feel disconnected may be detrimental. This ties into the need to break Europe out of the "Brussels bubble", making Europe accessible and present in young people's lives.

I will hand back to Ms Mulhall, who will give some concrete examples of policy failures and successes in Europe and outline our conclusion.

Ms Vanessa Mulhall

We see the benefit for young people in a Europe that does much more together, but economic and political decisions need to be placed in this context. Too often the EU over-promises and under-delivers. For example, we welcomed the decision of the EU institutions to allocate €6 billion to address youth unemployment and implement the EU Youth Guarantee. We heard a lot about how the Youth Guarantee would make a big difference in the lives of young people. While we welcome the fact that youth unemployment has declined from 31% in 2012 to 13% in 2017, we can see that there is still a high level of long-term unemployment, which is something we really need to work on. The implementation of the Youth Guarantee in Ireland has been disappointing. We are not the only ones saying this. We share this view with the European Court of Auditors, as shown by a recent report carried out by the court.

When the EU promises actions, it must do more to ensure implementation, and member states should work to implement what comes forth. As we envisage the future of Europe, we should look beyond the most popular or easy options to create the best outcomes for Europe and for those who will carry on this project, namely, young people. It should be a Europe where social policy and, in general, the idea of shared values at the heart of Europe are seen as important as policies on trade and economic development. The social and economic dimensions of the EU should be seen as different sides of the same coin: one cannot have one without the other. While Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union states that the EU will establish an internal market, it also states that the EU must aim at full employment and social progress, shall combat social exclusion and discrimination and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men and solidarity between generations. This also links back to the sustainable development goals and how we aim to reach them by 2030. We need to incorporate that into the future of Europe also. These elements are what we are asking for when we call for a European approach to social policy.

Nowhere better do we see this in action than through the Erasmus+ programme, which empowers young people across Europe to engage through mobility to active citizenship and focuses on youth work, education, training and sport. Youth work is also vital to the future of Europe as it shows that non-formal education for young people drives socio-economic progress and continues to invest in this highly successful programme. Young people should not be treated as tokens but as actors in playing out the future of Europe. We are seeing that happen today because we are here making a presentation, are part of the conversation on the future of Europe and are not taking this as a tokenistic meeting with politicians. When designing the future Europe, we want young people to be considered in the democratic processes of the Union. Europe needs to continue to fund initiatives that encourage young people's engagement in influencing policy, such as the EU structured dialogue process that I mentioned earlier and in which we have been involved with the NYCI.

The debate on the future of Europe is very important to young people. We have had many consultations with young people who say they want to be part of Europe, they like being part of Europe, they feel a connection, Europe is no longer over there, we are part of it and we can see things happening and can see the progress. I thank the committee for having invited us. There is a Youth Work Changes Lives event happening in the Mansion House next Wednesday. Everyone has been invited. It is an opportunity for young people to meet politicians from their own constituencies, for members to hear our views on what is happening on a social level and for them to engage with young people on a political level. I thank the committee for its time. Are there any questions?

I thank both witnesses sincerely for a great and focused presentation. We on this committee see young people as core to this issue, and this is demonstrated by the witnesses' presentation on the same day as that of IBEC. That is significant and important and shows them the importance we place on young people's beliefs, ideologies and views. I am very blunt about this. People such as us talk about the future of Europe, but the witnesses are the future of Ireland and of Europe. We will not be here. They will be the politicians in the future who will be dealing with whatever will be the result of Brexit. That is why we think it is so genuinely important to have them here. I just wanted to put that on record.

The first speaker is the Vice Chairman, Senator Leyden.

I welcome the Chairman back from his summer break. I am sure he was very busy down in his constituency all during the summer. I welcome back our staff as well. I welcome the National Youth Council of Ireland and I am delighted it is taking an interest in the White Paper on the Future of Europe because there seems to be little interest in it at present because of Brexit. In fact, people are kind of frozen in time regarding Brexit, and the White Paper on the Future of Europe, which has been published, circulated and discussed, is not really getting that much attention. I thank Mr. Nesirky and Ms Mulhall for their presentations. I welcome Ms Cullen as well to today's meeting. It is a wonderful opportunity for the National Youth Council of Ireland to appear before the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, and I know the witnesses appreciate that because while it takes a considerable number of votes to get into these Houses, they have the privilege of coming in today to make their case, which they did very well. I wish all three of them a future in politics. I hope they pursue political careers in whichever parties they wish or no party at all.

They have made some very important points. There was a very practical suggestion regarding the local and European elections. They made the point that there is no need for a referendum to allow 16 and 17 year olds a vote in those elections, and all parties and the Government should consider that suggestion very carefully. I believe young people would participate in local elections. The two elections would be held on the one day, I presume, in May. As a result, young people would be involved in having a say in Europe because it really is their future. This was not taken into consideration when Britain voted by 51.9% to leave the European Union. My knowledge of the situation, and the witnesses are probably more aware of this and might be able to respond to it, is that the majority of young people who did so voted to remain. Perhaps that is not correct.

Ms Mulhall mentioned the Erasmus+ programme. The British Government does not seem to be taking much interest in it. It is one of the very successful initiatives of the EU. My daughter participated in it in Italy and got married to a lovely young Italian. They are now living in Roscommon and have a daughter. There are many such families. One of the greatest integrations of Europe ever came through that one programme. Educationally and linguistically, it has brought many people together. I do not have the numbers offhand but I know there have been thousands of marriages and partnerships through that programme. However, there is no agreement yet as to whether young students in the United Kingdom will be able to participate in the Erasmus+ programme after the UK leaves the EU, and that is a very serious situation.

Without further ado, I will just say the witnesses delivered a very good presentation. They are highlighting the fact this White Paper exists. People are genuinely not engaged with it. I have received no representations or comments on it. I think the witnesses are the first to do so. Perhaps the Chairman or the secretariat will tell me about others who have appeared before the committee. We have not had much time to discuss it in detail either. The witnesses have kicked off this session by their participation in it, and I thank them for coming.

I thank Mr. Nesirky and Ms Mulhall for their presentation. The National Youth Council of Ireland is the first delegation to make a presentation as part of our work programme on this issue, and that is very appropriate. I note what they had to say about social issues and a social Europe. That was a central theme coming through in their remarks. They mentioned all the big issues of the day: youth unemployment, which is a big issue for Europe and, while not as big a problem in Ireland, one which obviously needs to be dealt with all the same, climate change, migration and so forth. When we were talking outside they said they would not mention Brexit, and in one way that is a good thing in that we are moving on, but it is a fact that young people in the United Kingdom wholeheartedly supported the Remain campaign.

We should be conscious that young people see the EU as central to their future. The European Union has brought about peace, prosperity and progress for many decades. Obviously, young people would not remember the wars but it is clear to them that the European Union brings peace, prosperity and progress.

There is a movement towards greater integration and more enhanced co-operation in respect of defence and corporate tax harmonisation. These signals are coming from the Franco-German alliance at the core of the European Union. Does the National Youth Council of Ireland have a policy on Irish neutrality? Certainly many people would be proud of the role we have played in foreign affairs in the United Nations, promoting peace and justice, basic human rights throughout the world and engaging in peacekeeping as part of a UN mandate. Do they have a view on that in the context of talks about a more militarised European Union in the future?

I thank Deputy Haughey. I call Deputy Durkan.

I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentation. It is very good to see young people thinking about the future of Europe because that is what everybody has to think about. The founding fathers of the European Community were specific in thinking about the future of Europe and Deputy Haughey referred to the impact of wars in the past. I think young people need to focus specifically on that issue and its implications. As we all know, regardless of age - I have no reason to believe that reducing the age of franchise is not a good thing and it may well be a good move - what is important is for whom one votes. It will be important who that age cohort will vote for in the future. Recent events tend to support that sufficient thought was not given to that in more than one instance, where the decisions of people who were elected had a very negative bearing on global events. We no longer live in a narrow community but in a global community. Modern communications has changed everything. Travel has changed that. The decisions taken today in one part of the globe may well affect all of us on the next day or very quickly afterwards and can have a very positive or negative effect, depending on the situation. I will make a comparison. Much focus has been made recently about tax equalisation throughout the EU and a case is pending before the European Court of Justice. Many people think the outcome will be of benefit to Ireland if the court finds against Ireland. That is not the case. It will seriously disadvantage us and require us to collect taxes on profits earned in other countries. That is something we should not do under any circumstances. It will obviously make Ireland a negative area for foreign direct investment, which creates many jobs. For example, 150,000 jobs in Ireland are funded directly through US foreign direct investment and we are grateful for that. What few recognise readily is that about 85,000 jobs have been created by Irish direct investment in the US. Let us remember that the population in the United States of America is 60 times the Irish population. When we talk about foreign direct investment, and Ireland is a beneficiary particularly, we should remember also that Irish investors have been investing abroad and have created jobs in many jurisdictions but we do not get any recognition for that. The pressure on Ireland to act collectively is not necessarily in the best interest of the country. I agree entirely in respect of a two-speed European Union. Smaller countries will come off worse except for those countries that are fostered in particular by one or two of the larger countries. We have to fight our own corner.

The voice of youth in the European Union is of major importance, as has been pointed out by other speakers. The younger generation are thinking of their lives ahead and how decisions will affect them. That is how it should be. I think the older generation should also be thinking about their lives ahead but that does not always follow. I think the concept of a social Europe has been on the back burner for a number of years, for the simple reason that the economic situation was not good. Economic turmoil prevailed. I have been a member of the Committee on European Union Affairs during all of that period and it was sad to see it happen. When the economic resources go out the door, thinking falls on to the back burner. I think as the economies throughout the European Union improve, social Europe will also improve. The European Union did not cover itself in glory in the way it dealt with refugees. I think that was appalling. Yet, if one conducts a vox pop of the so-called man or woman in the street, one will find a little reticence, people will say they are not anti-European or anti-immigrant but they need to protect their own society. It is correct to state we need to protect ourselves but we need to do so globally. We need to protect all of us and not to think as if we were looking in on something. We, the people of Europe, need to think European and take ownership of the European projects and do as these young people are doing, which is to take ownership of the future. If we isolate ourselves from that, we will be going the wrong way. Many people believe the answer is to have a directly-elected president of the European Union, but I am not so sure about that because one can always fire a person who has been appointed to a position, but one cannot readily fire the person who has been elected. That point is always in the back of my mind.

This generation has a role and responsibility in the formation of the European Union of the future. By virtue of its population mass the European Union will have a significant impact on global economies, the social economies and the way people coexist in the future. I think now is a good time to focus on this concept and to relay those particular objectives and goals to our European leaders and those whom we elect to represent us in the European Parliament.

I thank Deputy Durkan.

I thank the Chairman and welcome Ms Vanessa Mulhall and Mr. Robert Nesirky. I am very interested in their proposals on shaping policy and processes in the European Union.

As a teacher I often heard people complain about schools and colleges being locked up for the entire summer. I wonder what the representatives of the National Youth Council would think were we to open the Parliament on a Saturday and allow a youth parliament, elected representatives from all over the country, similar to the elected Members of the Dáil, to scrutinise legislation and to bring forward their views on legislation. Do they feel they could engage with that process? It might be a radical idea but if we want to hear the views of young voices, that is where we would hear them. Too many people of my age make decisions for people of their age. I think that is wrong. I would be interested to hear their views on a youth parliament that would function as a parliament? Perhaps we should extend that to the wider European movement. I am not asking the members of the youth parliament to introduce legislation but merely to comment and appraise legislation.

I am 100% behind the idea of extending the vote to those aged 16 years. I might have a selfish interest in it, in the not too distant future but I certainly believe that 16 and 17 year olds should have the vote. I always found during my time in teaching that initially the class clown would be elected as the class representative, until people realised they did not want a joker but a person who could achieve things. Very soon, after the first quarter, there would be a request to rerun the ballot and the astute and tough negotiators would be elected. Admittedly I worked in further and not second level education.

I support the views of the witnesses on extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. We already tried this with Senator Fintan Warfield's Bill in the Seanad which, sadly, got nowhere. Have the witnesses personally, their extended friends or the National Youth Council started a lobbying campaign to ensure that we extend the franchise in local government and presidential elections? I do not see any reason that we should not have people of 16 and 17 deciding on their local councillors.

I am particularly concerned about the focus in Europe on the economic aspect of the Single Market. The European project has a much wider brief. For many years, I have felt that the European project has been taken over by the bureaucrats to a certain degree. I also feel that governments go to Europe and negotiate particular things, and then come back and say Europe has imposed something on them and they have no choice. The politicians say it is not their fault and that they should not lose their seats as they are only doing what Europe told them. Do the witnesses feel the same way as I do? All politicians, local and national, should step up to the plate and say they have negotiated something and they agree with it. They should explain why they agree rather than trying to fob it off.

My colleagues mentioned the desire of Europe to integrate military issues, particularly in respect of defence. Why have we not integrated police forces in respect of drugs and human trafficking in particular? Would the witnesses prioritise the integration of police forces and the sharing of intelligence or would they go down the defence route?

Going back to the social issues, migration is a massive problem for Europe at the moment. I have been out to Sicily to see it first hand. I am deeply concerned that, of those who are taking these horrendous journeys across Africa particularly, and coming from Bangladesh as well and facing the perils of the Mediterranean, close to 95% are economic migrants. Mr. Nesirky referred to taking responsibility for this issue and doing something in the countries of origin. I have brought it up in Europe and here. The likes of the big sports companies, for example, a large company in Meath, relocated to China. We do not pay any less for the product that is now manufactured in China than we did when it was manufactured in Meath. Clearly, the company is making a super-normal profit on cheap labour. The same would be true of a company in Donegal that manufactured t-shirts and moved to Morocco to get labour at a fraction of the price. Would the witnesses use the tax system to harmonise pricing and restore some of the funding that, for the want of a better description, is being plundered out of these cheap economies back into those economies to educate and train the people?

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to engage with the committee. I would like to see them far more involved not just in youth affairs, but in everything. After all, the legislation we pass in these Houses will affect them in a very short time.

I thank Senator Craughwell. Last but by no means least is Deputy Frank O'Rourke.

I apologise for being late. I had another meeting. While I do not want to go back over ground that my colleagues have covered, I would like to get the witnesses' views on students and education in Europe. What are their views on education, going to college in other European countries and following on to relevant work experience, etc.? What positive or negative effects might play out with regard to the future of Europe? What can be done to assist this? As my colleague, Senator Leyden, suggested earlier, it is a very worthwhile and important process for the engagement of young people through different European connections at different levels. It is important for their own experience and progression. What do we need to do to ensure that it is continued or opened up further? What concerns do we need to focus on?

Mr. Robert Nesirky

There were a few references in the questions to education, Erasmus and, tangentially, Britain. The Erasmus+ programme was mentioned in terms of university education. I remind the committee that the programme is an amalgamation of three different key actions. It is a much broader church than members might think. It enables informal and non-formal education across the EU member states and outside the Union. Erasmus is a key part of the education aspect, which is the tide that raises all boats. There is currently a campaign at European level called "Erasmus times ten". Although that is a bit of a reach goal, it is asking the Commission to increase Erasmus funding in the upcoming budget.

The National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, does not have policies on Irish neutrality, tax or European defence. On a broader level, Ireland has a global responsibility to be an influencer when it comes to facing up to multinational corporations and addressing atrocities committed around the world, on the European borders and, depending on who one asks, within our borders. We are in Europe. This report was a vision that was laid out by Mr. Juncker. He is a leader and it is his job to present a vision. In the conversations that we are having here and that are happening across Europe, we can tailor it down to a form with which we are all happy. While there were some criticisms of tax and neutrality in this room, we also have to remember that we are part of these conversations. We are one of 28 parties, currently, that will be involved.

There was a question about voting at age 16, which I will touch on very briefly. It concerned young people and the weight of their vote, which could have a huge impact globally. It was portrayed in a slightly negative light. Young people are not a homogenous group. One cannot point at them and say they are all going to vote for this party or influence an election in a particular way. That is a key thing to remember. Who cares if it would have a massive effect? At least it would be democratic and at least it would be following those lines.

In Senator Craughwell's discussion of empowerment, he put forward a very interesting idea. We need to acknowledge the institutions that already contribute to this engagement, including the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government as well as Dáil na nÓg and Comhairle na nÓg. The scrutiny of policy to which the Senator referred sort of exists already under the NYCI Young Voices programme. Why do young people need to mirror the Parliament to scrutinise legislation? Why do we need to be a mock-up of the Parliament? Why do we not create an institution or facilitate this kind of scrutiny in a way that is youth-friendly? Maybe the parliamentary structure is not the best format for a young person to debate policy. I can also understand the symbolic level of engagement it would allow and it sounds pretty great. In the UK youth parliament elections last year, 1 million people voted. That is an incredible mandate for those young MYPs and for the members of the Scottish youth parliament and the youth senate. There are really good examples just on our doorstep and we also have some fantastic institutions in Ireland. It is a question of constantly evaluating what we are doing and asking how we can do it better. Perhaps Ms Mulhall would like to address the issue of the vote at age 16. She has quite a lot of experience with it.

Ms Vanessa Mulhall

I was one of the young people who attended the debate in the Seanad on voting at age 16. Even though I am not 16, I was left feeling really disappointed at the fact that it did not happen. The NYCI has set up a committee of young people from all around the country, both under and over 16, to lobby on the issue. I would stress the fact that anyone can vote for anybody. Young people can make their own decisions on who they are going to vote for. There is no wrong person to vote for. If they have their views, so be it. Older people can vote for who they want. Young people should be able to do the same.

The idea of having a youth parliament is an amazing one. We do have the comhairle and we have the structured dialogue, Young Voices, which has a reach of an awful lot of young people all around the country. They have great engagements, which is unbelievable because when a lot of people talk about young people they say they are not engaged but when we go to consultations, the empowerment and passion to deal with political issues is amazing in terms of the energy that comes out of the room. What young people want to do is engage with policy makers and decision makers on what is happening and what is affecting them. It is what we want to do.

The NYCI, through working with European partners, has developed a youth check, seic óg in Irish. Basically, that is an impact assessment tool for policy and legislation that is designed in the Parliament. We designed these from BOBF, Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures, from the five national outcomes. There is a list of questions that would be checked against policies. If the policy went against any of the questions that came out of BOBF, it would mean that the policy would have to be re-examined because it would have a negative effect on young people. The whole idea of having a parliament for young people to attend is an amazing one because it would show at first hand what young people have to say and why our views need to be heard. We are talking about the future of Europe. The future is tomorrow; it is not years ahead. Tomorrow, the next day and the day after that is the future. That is where we come from on that.

I thank both witnesses for taking time to be with us today and for sharing their analysis and thoughts and for engaging with us on what is a very important topic. They have given us a number of items to think about in the coming days and weeks. We very much appreciate the time they have given to us. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the next witnesses to come in.

Sitting suspended at 12.02 p.m. and resumed at 12.04 p.m.

We are having an engagement on the future of Europe with Dr. Pat Ivory, director of EU and international affairs with IBEC. I welcome him and his colleagues here today and thank them for joining with us. We have already heard from one group today about their thoughts on the future of Europe and we are interested in hearing what members of IBEC think, as representatives of employers and businesses in this country.

I am sorry that I have to do this but I must briefly remind everyone again about the rules on privilege in Parliament. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses 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 Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they 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. I invite Dr. Ivory to make his opening statement and after that we will take questions from members. I thank Dr. Ivory and Ms Kathryn O'Donovan for their attendance today.

Dr. Pat Ivory

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to address the Oireachtas joint committee on this important debate in European affairs, one which IBEC believes should be a priority in the agenda of the Government. The Brexit negotiations must also remain an important priority for Ireland but they must not overshadow or restrict our attention and contribution to the debate on the future of Europe.

It is important to acknowledge from the outset that Ireland has benefitted enormously from EU membership. We have grown from an inward-looking, protectionist economy to a highly competitive country with a strong business sector, providing good jobs and supporting high standards of living for our citizens. The development of the European Single Market and EU trade policy have been critical in the internationalisation of Irish business. These factors have helped diversify markets in and outside the EU, particularly for traditional sectors such as food and drink. For example, we are major exporters of butter to Germany, lamb to France and dairy ingredients and infant formula to a wide range of global markets, including Asia.

Membership of the EU and Single Market has also helped maximise the growth and employment opportunities for a broad range of services businesses from computer to international financial services, including aviation leasing.

Ireland has also contributed to the success of the European project. Our pro-business environment has attracted substantial foreign direct investment, FDI, to Ireland and to Europe. That has helped transform our own economy, with multinational employment increasing from 65,000 in 1985 to nearly 200,000 in 2017. It has also contributed to the building of an innovative ecosystem in Europe in areas such as technology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices - a fact that is all too often not understood or recognised by poorly informed commentators on the Irish economy.

Our continued ability to attract FDI and the success of the Irish business model is based on what the OECD terms "substance". Our 12.5% rate of corporation tax is part of Ireland's unique offering and it is vital that we remain committed to retaining it. However, it is not the only part of our attractiveness for investment. Other factors include our well educated and flexible labour supply, our commitment to world-class high-end manufacturing and our well-developed clusters and participation in global supply chains. Without those additional factors, Ireland could not attract the scale of investment to the EU that we do.

IBEC is committed to Ireland’s continued EU membership and active participation in an EU based on strong values, including openness to investment and trade. However, we recognise that the challenges facing Europe are more intense than ever – with Brexit, dealing with a migration crisis, populism challenging established political norms and an uncertain and more protectionist global environment. Europe's responses to these challenges will determine not only the future of the EU but also Europe's influence in a world badly in need of positive stimuli.

Now is the time to reflect upon what Ireland wants from the EU and how we can continue to both benefit from and contribute to the future of the Union. We are losing our traditional ally and closest neighbour so we need to build stronger alliances with others in the EU. The EU itself is facing numerous challenges, from the shift in its relationship with major global partners, threats of terrorism, the migration crisis and more. Ireland needs to think deeply about what it wants from the future of the EU. We need to be strategic in paving our way forward, taking time to reflect upon what the most important issues are for our businesses and our citizens ensuring that the best way forward for Europe is also the best way forward for Ireland.

This year, the European Commission published a White Paper and five reflection papers on the future of Europe. At his recent annual state of the Union address last Wednesday, the President of the Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, outlined his own views on the future of Europe. IBEC supports the positive outlook on the future of Europe and remains optimistic for what Europe can achieve for businesses and citizens alike with the right approach. The EU is well on the way to full economic recovery after the crisis. Ireland is a particularly good example of how well-targeted policies coupled with a well-developed business model have led to strong economic growth and decreased unemployment in the wake of financial collapse. Europe can become an engine for growth in the world.

We welcome the EU commitment to the trade agenda and further opening of markets across the world. IBEC has been a long-term supporter of trade deals that provide real opportunities for Irish business. We look forward to conclusion of the EU free trade agreement with Japan, our major trading partner in Asia. We also welcome opening negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. Of course, the negotiation of each trade deal must be based on what is to be gained and what is to be given away via access to our EU markets. In this context, negotiations can be complex and difficult. The ongoing negotiations with the bloc of South American countries known as Mercosur is one such example. However, it is essential that the right balance is achieved between gains and concessions, even if this takes longer than one might hope.

We also urge a sense of caution in respect of the investment screening proposed by the President Juncker and the Commission. We accept that there may be a limited role for screening of foreign investment in strategic EU infrastructure assets such as ports. However, we strongly believe that the Commission must not interfere with or delay normal foreign investment decisions by companies and member states.

Full completion of and competition in the Single Market has long been a key demand of IBEC of the European Commission. We were pleased to hear President Juncker reiterate his call for a stronger Single Market and economic and monetary union, EMU. These are the areas in which the EU can add real value, where it can be “big on the big, and small on the small”. We hope that the current Commission and its successor ensure that deepening of the Single Market, including the digital single market, banking union and capital markets, are on the top of future EU agendas.

We welcome President Juncker’s proposal of setting up a task force on subsidiarity and proportionality, ensuring that the EU works only on those areas which it can add real value, and leaves issues best dealt with at national levels for member states’ competencies. One such area is tax policy. Tax policy is, and should remain, fully within the competence of the member states. We are extremely concerned about President Juncker’s suggestion on moving towards qualified majority voting on taxation. Taxation is a sensitive area for member states, intrinsically linked with government spending, the nuanced requirements of member state social systems, infrastructure needs and business models. It is essential that member states maintain full sovereignty when it comes to decision making on all taxation matters. This is essential for Ireland to remain competitive in a post-Brexit world, given the fact that we are likely to be the member state most affected by Brexit.

A clear takeaway from the Commission agenda this year, which is clearly laid out in the White Paper, reflection papers and President Juncker’s recent address, is that Europe is moving towards increased spending on security and defence. This is an unavoidable reality. Cyber-threats are something with which the business community is particularly concerned. Indeed, in June of this year, some Irish companies confirmed that their computer systems had been compromised by a global cyber-attack. These are the types of new challenges that will continue to threaten the security of the business environment in coming years. It is an area of extreme sensitivity, particularly in Ireland, but as our reality in Europe changes, we must face these challenges with a united front and ensure that we continue to be the best place in the world to live and do business.

I would like to conclude by outlining some principles on IBEC’s vision for the future of Europe. It must be an EU that adds value. It should prioritise deepening of the Single Market, including completing the digital single market, capital markets union and banking union. These are the areas in which the EU can have real added value and make tangible improvements in the business environment which, in turn, has positive knock-on effects for citizens through job creation, innovation and better choice. It must be an EU that is more efficient. To prosper, the EU must focus on efficiency and avoid interfering in areas best left to member states. It must respect the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. Sensitive areas such as tax policy should be dealt with at member state level where they can be developed in a bespoke manner and tailored to the needs of a member state's citizens and business models. It must be an EU that is flexible and meets the needs of different member states. Member states' individual needs and nuances should also be considered at a European level. Ireland, for example, could benefit from having more flexibility in EU fiscal support and the Stability and Growth Pact rules, which would allow the Government to facilitate essential infrastructure developments, thereby allowing the country to harness growth opportunities and to provide quality housing, transport and health care for our citizens. It must be an EU that is open to trade and investment. The EU should continue prioritising ambitious trade deals with third countries, including with the UK post Brexit. It is essential that the relationship between the UK and Ireland, which goes far beyond the establishment of the European Economic Community, is in no way jeopardised in the future relationship between the UK and EU. This means ensuring that an ambitious trade deal, as similar to the current trading situation as possible, is reached as soon as possible.

I thank members for their attention and the opportunity to present IBEC's initial views on this important European debate. IBEC will further consult with its members in the coming weeks and will be developing a fuller position that we plan to share with the Taoiseach, relevant Ministers and their Departments ahead of the scheduled discussions at European Council meetings later this year. We would also be happy this share that position with the Chairman and committee. I look forward to members' questions and subsequent discussion.

I thank Dr. Ivory for his attention to detail. I call on Senator Leyden.

I welcome Dr. Ivory and Ms O'Donovan. IBEC will play a very important role. I read with great interest its report on the priorities of Irish business in the EU-UK negotiations. It is a comprehensive document and is worth reading for anyone in business. IBEC represents about 70% of the Irish private sector workforce and has a staff of over 200 in seven locations around Ireland and in Brussels. It had a seminar last week in Galway on its members' concerns. It is very important that IBEC exists and that it is strengthened to cope with the future.

As far as the White Paper is concerned, Europe should not be frozen in time at this stage. We must accept that there is going to be a British withdrawal; whether it is orderly or disorderly, they are not going to change it. That is the message we are getting back. I would recommend that the EU extend and continue membership negotiations with Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. We should not put off these new member states coming in. We should increase membership from 27 to 30.

We have many documents, which the Chairman and secretariat know, from the Brexit negotiations. We have documents on their aspirations for Northern Ireland and Ireland, position papers and future partnership papers; we are inundated with documentation. The negotiations are under way and we could have many views on the outcome. Everyone seems to be an expert but at the end of the day we really do not know the outcome. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, will make a very important speech on Friday in which she will set out her situation. We are meeting the European Parliament Brexit co-ordinator on Thursday morning in a joint session that will take place in the Dáil Chamber and he will present his views. We already met Michel Barnier. I am going with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly to Brussels this weekend to meet Mr. Barnier and others. The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly has a Brexit committee to deal with the effects of Brexit. In that case, we work alongside our British members, which is rather interesting.

IBEC will probably not comment on this but I do not think there is an awareness in the Government of how serious this situation is. There is plenty of talk about it. I am convinced there should be a dedicated Brexit Minister who deals exclusively with Brexit issues. It is fine tying it to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but it requires a dedicated Minister. We have a dedicated spokesperson on Brexit, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, and he is working very hard in that regard. I presume that when Fianna Fáil comes back into Government, we will have a Brexit Minister because the negotiation will still be going on at that stage.

There should also be an Ireland-Europe house - I will not call it a Brexit house - in the Department of Agriculture on Kildare Street dedicated to displaying the effects of Brexit and the future of Ireland post-Brexit. It should be a one-stop shop where people can go for information, whether the IFA or the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, and it should be absolutely dedicated to providing facts about Brexit and also the opportunities it presents. Perhaps the witnesses are not in a position to encourage that but I actively encourage British companies to relocate part of their production to the Republic of Ireland, particularly the west of Ireland and my constituency of Roscommon-Galway, which is in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock. It has the potential to provide an export hub for a similar airport in Europe such as Baden-Baden, which is in the centre of Europe. It would be ideal for sensitive exports flying over Britain.

My concern is if we rely on going through Britain with our exports there could be delays in the tunnel or at customs and excise and so on. We need to strengthen the roll-on, roll-off down in Rosslare. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport needs to be involved there. It seems to have no interest. The Minister has never visited Ireland West Airport Knock and he is obviously not interested in it. I do not know if he has visited Rosslare. That Department should be fully on top of the situation and should be seeking derogations and support from Europe for the development of the ports and airports in this country. They could make a case for a derogation from state aid rules to allow an increase from 75% to 90% for the development of our regional airports. There is plenty of work to do. I actively encourage companies to look at the Republic of Ireland to ensure we have a foothold in the large European market after Brexit and without tariffs. If they can link in with the availability of space in the regions, it would be a marvellous boost. Let us be positive. We will just have to take opportunities in what is presented to us in the future in an active way. I ask the Government to please do something. The republic of opportunities will not exist unless we solve Brexit.

I thank Senator Leyden and welcome his contribution. I ask for the co-operation of members in being more brief because we are on a tight schedule.

Clearly the Fianna Fáil Party had a think-in over the past few days. That was a marvellous party political broadcast.

There was a bit of a scud missile put in there whether people realised it or not.

I am primarily a member of this committee.

I thank Dr. Ivory and Ms O'Donovan for coming here today.

We are a very democratic party. I can tell the Senator that much. We are not controlled by a central body.

As a former trade unionist, I have not always been complimentary towards IBEC but I have to say that with respect to the European project, and particularly in respect to the threat of Brexit, IBEC has been exemplary in its approach. Its constant briefs and work in the area has been most impressive and I put on record my congratulations in that regard.

On the future of Europe, one of the greatest threats is that of migration as it is occurring across Europe in an uncontrolled way. It is a much bigger threat than Brexit. Having been to Sicily to look at the problem, I am aware the refugee crisis, as it was traditionally known, is now a migration crisis largely based on economic migration rather than on refugees. It is a problem for Europe. Some of IBEC's members left this country to go to the cheaper economies to manufacture yet their prices have not changed. Sports and t-shirt manufacturers, in particular, have gone to Morocco and China and other places. I am interested in IBEC's view on tax and how the tax system may be used to equalise investment in those Third World countries, in other words how to take the super-normal profits off them and reinvest them in those countries.

I agree with the point made on delaying foreign direct investment. No European unit should be able to control the FDI of any member state. Member states are out there competing for foreign direct investment and IBEC has a role in that. Without doubt, we have to look at Brexit as we look at the development of the European Union. It is my view the British Government will not impose a border of any sort in the North of Ireland. We will finish up with a situation like that on the frontier between Greece and Turkey where there is no frontier on the Turkish side but one on the Greek side. It will eventually mean the Irish will be the people who finish up having to manage the Border, not the British.

Last week, we met businesses in Cushendall and Rathlin Island in Northern Ireland. I met a very large transport company in Cushendall which was going to relocate to Dublin because it will lose its customers if it does not. The entire organisation of shell-fisheries will be wiped out on Rathlin Island. Kelp production on Rathlin island will be wiped out. Some of these are transferable to the Republic but some are not. If there is no border, what is to stop 40-ft trailers coming across the Border? If we have a divergence in standards, how will it impact the Irish market, for example, if British beef is coming through an open border? The British have no interest in putting a border in place. I am interested in the witnesses' view on that.

The area of cyber security was mentioned. It is an area in which I have a deep interest. We are totally unprepared for serious cyber security management. I am interested in IBEC's view on that. As far as I recall, we have three people at the top of the cyber security system. At times, some of them are not available because they are called away to other duties. That is absolutely frightening. On the weekend of the recent major attack, it is my understanding that nobody was on duty at all in the cyber security framework in Ireland, or at least nobody at a senior level. I have been calling for some time for a director of national intelligence to take over these roles. I am interested in the witnesses' view on that.

I disagree with my colleague on the expansion of Europe. I would be inclined to consolidate now rather than risk expanding to the point where we start diminishing marginal returns. I am interested in the witnesses' view on that. Those concerned with the Common Agricultural Policy, youth affairs and social affairs all want more money but there will be much less money when the British break with Europe.

I would be interested to hear how Dr. Ivory sees the change in income for the European project through its member states. Does he see Ireland, and the other countries, having to pony up, so to speak, more money? Do they have the money to pony up more?

I refer to the expansion of our ports. I will be looking for the view of IBEC on this but it is my view that we cannot be transporting across the United Kingdom if we are looking at the possibility of tariffs on the way in and on the way out. I would be interested in hearing Dr. Ivory's views on that. I am sorry for having so many questions, Chairman.

That is great, but I have to explain something. We are all in this together. We have to be out of this room in 15 minutes. I hate being that blunt, and I am not saying that in a disrespectful way, but I am under pressure from another committee, which is under pressure from witnesses due to come before it, so we have to speed up. I call Deputy Seán Haughey.

Chairman, in view of what you have said, I will forgo my right to speak on this occasion.

You know I would not do that to you in a million years. If you can-----

I think the various questions have been asked; that is fine. I am in broad agreement with the witnesses' presentation and I thank them for it, particularly with regard to Brexit. We value their input into that. I will leave my contribution for another day. There is no problem.

Thank you, Deputy Haughey. You are a gentleman, always.

I broadly welcome Dr. Ivory's presentation, which was very good. I will make two brief points regarding Brexit. The first, which has been touched on already, concerns exports to and via the United Kingdom and the massive impact on our economy, exports and business, particularly agriculture. What is Dr. Ivory's view on that?

I thank Deputy O'Rourke. I call Deputy Durkan.

I am sorry I was not here for the beginning of the presentation. I was attending another IBEC meeting across the road; bilocation is still difficult. I agree strongly with most of Dr. Ivory's views regarding the future of Europe and, in particular, the attempts by some personalities in Europe to control the investment in this country by one means or another but by circuitous means more particularly. The proposal to force this country to collect taxes on profits earned in other jurisdictions is out of order and completely beyond the realm in terms of what Europe is about. If that were to prevail, it would mean that this country as a location for foreign direct investment would become very unattractive. I spoke about that earlier this morning and I want to emphasise it again now.

I would point out that we all have a role to play in Europe and in the future of Europe and we should not be selective in that regard. There are areas that need to be changed and that can be changed by agreement. Some people believe that they should force the agreement but that is not what Europe is about.

We must recognise also that Brexit is likely go one way or the other. I do not accept that we have to acquiesce to anything imposed upon us by any member of the European Union which decides to exit the Union and that we have to comply with the regulation that will follow. They have to comply with what follows. They are the people who initiated it in the first place and they are the ones who have to provide for the outcome.

My last point relates to borders, customs and so on. It cannot nor should it ever be possible that a country leaving the European Union can benefit as a result at the expense of the remaining members. If that happens, the entire European project will close very quickly. My belief is that there is an attempt to try to challenge that concept and if there is a break-off by a group of countries which see a different type of Europe, it is all over as far as some countries are concerned. I would particularly emphasise the vulnerability of the smaller countries. A man in a very elevated position said that a good bilateral deal is when we win.

I thank Deputy Durkan. Can we have Dr. Ivory's response?

Dr. Pat Ivory

I thank all the members for their kind words about the kind of work IBEC has been doing around Brexit and our policy document in particular, which sets out the challenges and proposes real solutions. That has been very well received at Brussels level as well as in our meetings with the European Commission's task force, etc.

Regarding the Border issue, which a number of members raised, it is clear to us from a business perspective that regardless of the solution that is arrived at between the European Union and the UK on these matters, there will be customs procedures for business. That is the reason we place so much emphasis in our policy document on customs and trade and examining how we can ensure that trade continues to flow between Ireland and the UK and also between Ireland, in transit across the UK, and our partners across Europe.

I accept that we should be looking at innovative solutions, perhaps in terms of developing trade through airports and linking in to other airports in Europe. That is something that will be useful to explore, but the reality is that the vast majority of goods that move between Ireland and the UK and Ireland and the EU are through ports on roll on-roll off trucks through the UK into the other ports in Europe. We have to find a sensible solution and in that context, Senator Leyden raised the issue of our partners in the UK on the business side. We have agreement with our partners in the business community across Europe that the focus now should be on having a prolonged period of transition arrangements of a number of years to provide the space to work through all these complex issues and also to arrive at the best possible future trading relationship between the EU and the UK. That is where we believe the attention should be focused in the negotiations.

We believe we need to keep under constant review the resources we are putting into cyber security in Ireland. It is an increasing risk for business. As an organisation, we have been doing much more in terms of looking at cyber security risks and threats. We have established a digital economy policy committee, which is in constant dialogue with Departments, and cyber security would be one of the items dealt with in that regard. We should examine all options, including having a director of national intelligence, and we should be working in close collaboration with our EU partners in terms of tackling cyber security into the future.

Senator Craughwell raised the issue of whether the tax system could be used to support development. We have a very well developed Irish aid programme. We are committed to the strategic development goals. I will travel to Geneva in the coming weeks to speak at the World Trade Organization, WTO, on the strategic development goals and how they are achieved.

We have to maintain complete sovereignty over our tax system. I welcome the comments from the Deputies and Senators, and the committee, that this is a critical item. We hope that in the committee's report on the future of European tax policy, which is a critical item, it remains at member state level and a sovereignty issue for us. There should be no movement towards qualified majority voting. There should be no acceptance of a digital tax in Europe of an equalising nature, which is currently being discussed. We believe those taxation issues are best left at member state level and the European Commission should not interfere in this particular area of member state competence.

We believe the future of Europe is a very important topic. On migration, which the Senator raised also, we would say that Ireland has always had an open approach to accepting people here as much as possible.

We also have a flexible and educated labour force. Many people from across the EU and further afield have contributed to business in Ireland and have helped to develop our business model. We want that access to skilled and educated labour from across the EU to continue because it adds a great deal to our economy and our businesses avail of it. This set-up also provides the well-educated Irish workforce, including young people, with good employment opportunities.

I thank the witnesses for attending today. It has been beneficial, worthwhile and important to hear what IBEC has to say. We must take its views into serious consideration. As the witnesses can see from members' questions and contributions, we are interested in the work that they are doing on a daily and weekly basis and we appreciate them for that.

I apologise for the committee being under such time pressure today. It is just how these situations work sometimes, and I appreciate the witnesses' understanding. Since we must go into private session, we will suspend first.

Sitting suspended at 1.41 p.m. and resumed in private session at 1.43 p.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 October 2017.
Barr
Roinn