JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Sep 2005

Hong Kong Parliamentary Delegation: Presentation.

Chairman

It gives me great pleasure on my own behalf and that of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs to welcome the Honourable Frederick Fung, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Combating Poverty of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, Honourable Lee Cheuk-yan, Honourable Dr. Femando Cheung and Honourable Leung Kwok-hung, members of the sub-committee. I also welcome Ms Betty Ma, secretary to the delegation, and Dr. Katherine Chan Mullen, interpreter. I hope the delegation is having a fruitful visit to our country and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to engage in this exchange.

Ireland has seen phenomenal economic growth in the past decade or so and official statistics may place it among the wealthiest countries in the world. The relatively new prosperity has been spread unevenly among the citizens of Ireland and it is no secret that the Celtic tiger has left some groups in society trailing behind. In addition, groups not classified as poor by previous evaluation criteria now find themselves unable to advance at a pace sufficient to maintain their former relative position. Therefore, apart from the enduring problem of those groups who have known poverty for generations, we have what we call the "new poor", many of whom, for whatever reasons, have not adjusted to the pace of change in this new technological age.

We may refer again to these matters later in our discussion. Committee members will identify themselves at the start of their contributions. The committee comprises all parties and deals with social and family affairs. I invite the leader of the Hong Kong delegation to introduce the members of his delegation and begin the discussion.

Mr. Frederick Fung

Our delegation thanks the committee for receiving us and giving us the opportunity to discuss Irish anti-poverty measures. The delegation comprises four members of our Legislative Council, Mr. Lee Cheuk-yan, Dr. Cheung and Mr. Leung and our secretary, Ms Betty Ma.

In Hong Kong there has been much debate about poverty for over ten years. At every debate we were outvoted in our motion that the government face up to poverty in Hong Kong. Last December, however, the council passed our motion. Following this we set up a sub-committee to examine the issues surrounding poverty in Hong Kong. The sub-committee pressed the government to set up a commission on poverty.

For the past six months our committee studied two topics related to poverty, first, the definition of poverty. As this is the first time we have confronted the problem, we need to study how other countries deal with these issues and what is meant by poverty. We attempted to study four countries, including Ireland, and how they define the concept of poverty and so on. The second topic we reviewed is pensions and how other countries used different types of pension systems to look after older people. We will consider two more topics, namely, poverty and work and poverty among women.

Dr. Fernando Cheung

We thank the committee for receiving us. We have learnt a great deal since our arrival yesterday. In a short trip we visited a couple of places including the Combat Poverty Agency, and this morning, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the National Economic and Social Forum.

We found the Irish Government takes a very high consensual approach, including various sectors of the community to contribute to examining social concerns and issues around poverty. This is a good model for us in terms of not excluding certain populations or vulnerable groups subject to poverty and social exclusion. The Irish Government is making a serious effort to research the problem. We were impressed by the Combat Poverty Agency which has conducted extensive research. We can learn from the Irish social partnership and agreement structure coupled with the National Economic and Social Forum augmenting this process. We congratulate the Irish Government on its successful economic growth and on achieving some success in combating poverty. We hope our government will develop some of the initiatives about which we have learnt here.

The committee may give us a better perspective on how the issue of combating poverty is considered politically within the two Houses of Parliament. We are also interested in how the Irish Government keeps the consensual process relatively smooth because it incorporates very diverse interests, including the Government and Opposition parties. How do the partners avoid negative efforts and energies in order to create positive and constructive energies to lead the country in its fight against poverty? We are very keen to hear about this.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegation to Ireland and our Parliament and hope that so far the visit has been good. I hope the visit is not all work and that the delegation is having some fun too because we are a fun-loving people who enjoy having a good time.

In recent years our economy has powered ahead for various reasons. Dr. Cheung mentioned social partnership which is very important but there are other issues involved. Education remains vitally important as a driver of economic growth. We had an investment in education in the 1960s which led to a huge expansion in free education. We now have free education at third level as well, which means those who want to go to third level can do so. We need to keep this going.

As the delegation is aware, traditional industries are closing in Ireland due to globalisation. We need to become a high value economy to create employment. That demands that we keep investing in education and that we ensure everyone has an equal chance. That investment must start at a very young age. There is currently a big debate on child care and how children are looked after from birth. Pre-school education is vitally important. Education is crucial and our universities are slightly worried about what they see as a lack of funding at third level. They want more money for the university sector to keep up the work they are doing. We also have other schemes, such as back to education schemes, whereby people who are long-term unemployed get financial support to return to school or college to upgrade their skills.

Not all boats were lifted together and there are people left behind. We have a national anti-poverty strategy and the Combat Poverty Agency. Research into poverty and the causes of poverty is very important. The NESF and the NESC are engaged in the task. We also need to decide on how poverty is measured and I am interested in how poverty is measured in Hong Kong. There is quite a number of different measurements. The United Nations has compiled a range of different measures. One of the measures we use here is that of consistent poverty. The other one, which is becoming more popular, is relative income poverty. There are still people in the country who are suffering consistent poverty and the Minister agreed with me that it is not acceptable that children suffer from consistent poverty. The challenge for us is to ensure we work to support families with children to ensure we bring them out of consistent poverty.

Our job in the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, but we do that in a way that generates debate. We question the Minister in the House and the Minister responds. By doing this, we raise issues. The Minister appears before the committee from time to time with his officials and he debates issues concerning poverty. The various agencies also appear before the committee and put their case to us. It is a matter of keeping the debate going and exploring and searching for new ways of tackling poverty.

I am very concerned about child poverty because if children experience poverty and deprivation, then it lasts for their lifetime. It is important that we get in as early as possible and break that cycle. We have a number of programmes in education for doing that, but we need to expand them. People with disabilities also suffer from poverty. We often find that they are inclined to be left behind. Households headed by people with disabilities often experience poverty. Older women often do not receive any pension and will be dependent on their spouses. That is another issue that needs to be tackled.

There is an election on the horizon, but we are not sure yet how far away it is. No doubt, these issues will receive more debate as we move closer to an election. We will all be getting more interested in such issues.

Poverty is an issue we cannot ignore and we must keep working towards eliminating it. The way to do that is through education. In the meantime, we must use the social welfare system to support people, to lift them out of consistent poverty and improve their life chances. I welcome the delegation and wish them well. I hope their visit will be a success.

Deputy Connolly

I welcome the delegation and hope its members have a nice time. When people look at Ireland from afar, they see we are one of the wealthy nations. If I was looking at other nations that were wealthy, I would have presumed that the wealth would be equally distributed amongst all people and that poverty would not even be on the agenda. The fact is there is poverty here in different guises. One of the big issues is that the gap between those who have money and those who do not is widening. Poverty becomes more relevant then, as people feel they are being left behind and they are not rising with the tide. Most households have two income earners in every house, which has a knock-on effect on whether the State is in a position to provide child care for everyone who is working.

We have an aging population and care of the elderly is one of the big issues. This committee has put quite a bit of work into that, by taking submissions from care groups. We have completed a report on care of the elderly and I understand the delegation will get a copy of it. It is worthwhile having a look through it because it raises many issues on how we care for our elderly. Another issue is housing, which has become very expensive. Not everyone can afford to get housing and we have areas where people are depending on the State for housing. Deputy Stanton mentioned the definition of poverty, on which I know the delegation is carrying out work. I hope it can provide us with information. I presume the Hong Kong poverty commission is similar to our Combat Poverty Agency. The delegates also mentioned that they were carrying out work on poverty among women and we find that women suffer more than most other groups, along with the disability groups.

Deputy Callanan

Ireland's success is very dependent on our education system. The high level of education brought several industries into this country and put many more people into employment. For those who do not work, we pay unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit is where the person contributes to it by paying a stamp every week.

If such people who have a certain amount of stamps become sick or unemployed, they are paid benefit for approximately 15 months. However, unemployment assistance is means tested and one's means must be fairly low to qualify. The same is true for the carer's allowance and for many other schemes.

The problem is that while everyone wants to see more money paid to people on lower levels of income, as one Minister has noted one must take in money in order to pay it out. If taxes are set at a reasonably low level, as they are here, the State does not receive a large amount of revenue to be paid out in social welfare, even though we pay approximately €6 billion, which is a large amount. Some other members have mentioned child care which has become a big issue in Ireland. When both partners work, it is important that the Government should try to do something in this area.

In this country, there is a form of welfare for the less well-off and unemployed known as social employment schemes. This is where the State gives the payment but the recipients are obliged to work for half a week in return. This is useful because they carry out environmental projects in villages, tidy up the towns and perform other similar work. It is probably better than paying people unemployment assistance for doing nothing. A certain proportion of people are unable to work and it is not possible for everybody to avail of the schemes, but it is a good system and has worked very well. It has cleaned up the countryside and much good work has been done.

I do not wish to say much else except to wish the delegation the best of luck. I want to ask a couple of questions on its own systems. In a country with such a high population, their unemployment problems are probably greater than ours. What type of benefit is paid to people who are unemployed? Is it paid only where people are very poor? Are the payments at a level where people can exist on them? How are the elderly cared for?

Deputy Carty

I also welcome the delegation from Hong Kong. I come from a rural constituency on the west coast in County Mayo where we have a different range of problems from those in the big urban areas. There is rural poverty and although the people affected by it might have plenty of money and property, they still live in a certain type of poverty for one reason or another. This is prevalent among the elderly in rural areas. We continually try to improve their lot and secure better services. We have many voluntary organisations that help and on an occasion like this we should pay tribute to them.

Overall, we have looked after the elderly in our country reasonably well during the years as far as pensions are concerned. We have had a unique situation for many years whereby the State provides elderly people with free travel, partially free electricity, free heating, telephone allowances and other assets to make their lot easier. Housing has improved greatly in rural areas in the past 40 years and continues to so do. This is very important because as a population we are living longer. The life expectancy rate has risen and continues to rise. All aspects of social inclusion and social welfare must be examined and maintained in a very progressive manner. If this is not done, we will fall behind. Questions have been put to the delegation and I am delighted that it has been presented with the joint committee's report on carers because that issue will be extremely important in the coming years.

Chairman

The delegation may discuss that issue. We have a significant number of systems designed to assist people with low incomes, bordering on poverty. In fairness, there have been a number of initiatives during the years by successive Governments to try to deal with the issue. Deputy Callanan referred to the social employment schemes which are important, particularly in rural areas, as well as various other schemes pertaining to a household benefits package for people of pensionable age. A number of policy initiatives have been taken by the Government to try to alleviate poverty.

We actually spend a sum of €12 billion per annum. The delegation will probably meet the Department of Social and Family Affairs, a senior official from which is present, and also the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan. He will tell the delegates that practically one third of our total budget goes into welfare provision. That is a significant amount of money.

This is a major problem because our population is ageing significantly. Our profile is lopsided. We have an enormous number of young people and a significant number of elderly people. I understand the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, made a speech today at an insurance federation conference. The delegation should acquire a copy from one of the senior civil servants. Currently, only half the workforce have pensions. As Deputy Callanan noted, by paying contributions one can earn the right to a State pension when one reaches the age of 65 or 66 years. Very often, however, one lands in a poverty trap, because up to that age one has earned a reasonably good income. Thereafter, one finds one's income cut down and all one has is a State pension.

Consequently, in recent years the Minister has tried to encourage people — young people in particular — to provide for their own contributory pension when they reach the end of their working life. He has made a statement to the effect that only half the workforce have provided for pensions. In general, membership of a pension scheme is voluntary in this country. The Government tries to encourage people to invest money in pensions. One receives tax relief, which can be significant, if one takes out a pension policy. A significant amount of money can be put into a pension scheme. However, due perhaps to our history or youth, people like to receive their full wage packet and spend it with the freedom of youth.

The Government is becoming worried because an enormous bill is mounting, due to the population profile. We already have a high dependancy rate. That will increase as the middle aged move into the elderly cohort. The Government has become concerned and has initiated a number of studies. The National Pensions Board and this joint committee are concerned as to how this dilemma will be resolved. Today, the Minister gave a hint that the Government may well have to do what would have been unthinkable previously, that is, to impose mandatory membership of pension schemes. In other words, if one enters employment, one will be obliged to make a contribution. The Minister — I hope I am not misquoting him — has initiated this policy debate in the past few hours. He will come before this joint committee to explain it to the members. This policy initiative has been taken because this is an enormous issue. It is probably a major issue in the delegates' country. Twenty years ago we were not overly concerned, but concern has grown over the last five or six. We will become deeply concerned about it in the next few. Actuaries are pointing out the amount of money that will be required and projections are being made. Some of us did not like it but this is a matter of opposition. The former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, put away some money to try to deal with this issue over a number of years. A certain amount of our GDP is put into a fund and kept secure to meet the demands of a rainy day, as we say in Ireland, or the day of reckoning.

This measure will only make a small dent in the problem. The Government is trying to provide for State pensions, which will be an enormous drain during the years. However, it is coming to the stage where young people who are taking up any form of employment will be required to take out pensions. They have been encouraged to take out pensions through tax relief but it has not worked. The Minister is now looking at an alternative proposition to ensure that this problem and dilemma, which will face Governments of whatever hue, is tackled in a positive way.

Perhaps the delegation would like to comment on the points made by various speakers. Could it tell us about its experience in Hong Kong because we have some people who might be glad to visit Hong Kong to discuss the issues?

Mr. Lee Cheuk-yan

I thank the committee for its attention and note the different issues of concern that have been raised around the table. I will comment on some of the issues raised about Hong Kong.

There are different political parties in Hong and Kong and Ireland. Is there less division in Ireland over the issue of poverty? I read a newspaper today and the only thing I learned about the election is the "Star Wars" presentation featured therein. Therefore, I do not know what the difference is between the political parties in Ireland. It appears there is more consensus on dealing with poverty in Irish society. I do not know if this is true. Perhaps members of the committee can tell me whether there is considerable ideological division between the different parties in Ireland.

A total of €12 billion, approximately one third of the Irish budget, was spent on social welfare, which is quite an impressive figure. However, the tax rate in Ireland is surprisingly low. We have a corporate tax rate of 16.5% and our personal tax rates are also very low, with the highest personal tax rate being 15%. The system is tapered. Our government always complains that it does not have enough money to fund the welfare proposals some of us put forward. How is this formula arrived at? How does Ireland fund its social welfare system when it has a very low tax rate? Is it due to the contributory system whereby the employer and employee contribute to the welfare system and, if so, how much do they contribute?

It is interesting to hear committee members talk about the pension problem. The situation is completely different in Hong Kong. We do not really have a state pension. We have what we call a fruit allowance, which is quite an accurate term as it is only enough for an elderly person to buy fruit. The fruit allowance is €70 per month, which is extremely low. A mandatory provident fund scheme was recently introduced. I do not know if the mandatory pension scheme the Chairman spoke about is the same as the scheme in Hong Kong. The scheme in Hong Kong is a kind of private account. Our problem with the scheme is that people on very low incomes will not be better off than they are now even after years of contributing to their own private accounts because contributions are so low. Contributions from employers and employees are 5%. Therefore, the money a person on a very low wage accumulates after 40 years is not very much. It might be good enough for a person to sustain a very low standard of living for possibly ten years but what happens after that? We currently have no state pension, apart from the fruit allowance about which I spoke, which is very low. We are coming from nothing and the government is trying to build up the mandatory provident fund scheme, which is criticised by some people as being better for the financial sector because it has the money to invest than for low-income workers when they grow old.

Committee members mentioned the definition of poverty, which is an ongoing debate in Hong Kong. Ireland has the relative income poverty definition and the consistent poverty definition, while we have no definition of poverty. If our government wishes to get away from a commitment to poverty, it does not define poverty. We find this very frustrating from an Opposition viewpoint because our government refuses to define poverty. Therefore, there can be no measurement of the result of any programme introduced to combat poverty. We have tried to use the relative income poverty definition and if one uses a 50% level, which I think is 60% in Ireland, approximately 17% to 18% of the household would be defined as experiencing relative poverty. However, our government does not recognise this percentage as the level and says that we should use a basket of indicators. It is now carrying out research using the basket of indicators without really coming up with results and the question remains whether the government will come up with a target after using all these baskets. I do not think it will.

We are also interested in finding out about Ireland's current debate on child care and how to support low-paid workers. We do not have a minimum wage in Hong Kong, although we are proposing its introduction, and we have no measures to help low-income families. What kind of benefits have been built into the system to help people who are working but are living in poverty? We have private or subsidised child care in Hong Kong. The government has means-tested support for some families on low incomes to fund their child care fee or pre-school education fee. Most people would get the grandparents to look after their babies instead of sending them to child care facilities. Once they are three years of age, they will go to pre-school. Low income groups may get some subsidies for the fee payments. This is a briefing of what we have but it would be interesting to know how Ireland proposes to solve the problem of child care as I have heard it is very expensive here. What sort of proposals are on the drawing board?

Chairman

This is an all-party committee that includes members of the Government and Opposition. I am the committee Chairman and a member of the Opposition. We have different perspectives on how to tackle issues. We tried to reach a consensus as to what is the best way forward. The report given to Mr. Lee was worked upon by all members of this committee. Many people have different views on how to tackle the area of elderly care, which is very important, on trying to keep them in their home environments and on supporting institutional care. Much debate took place over the space of six to eight months and we reached a consensus on the matter. While we might have different perspectives and propose different points, this is a national problem and it is important that we work together in the interests of the people. We all want to reach the same point but may travel different roads to get there.

We try to achieve consensus. We argue points here and on the floor of the Dáil with the Minister. Sometimes, as Deputy Stanton said, we raise issues with Ministers. They may view these as reasonably good ideas and take note of them in their budgets. The Opposition is there to hold the Government to account, to pursue it regarding issues and to articulate matters on behalf of the people Opposition Members represent. Government Members represent people too and are also aware of the issues. Everyone knows what is the problem. How to solve it and get positive resolutions on behalf of the people is the issue.

In Ireland, there is a social insurance fund into which employers and employees pay. It is approximately 12% for employers and 6% or 6.5% for employees. I do not know the exact figures but the delegates can get them from the Minister's officials. That money goes into the insurance fund, which helps to pay a significant amount of benefits. The fund has a large, positive balance. Our social welfare system was set up in the early 1950s and there have been changes and modifications but all Governments are very careful to ensure it is protected. We must be in a position to cater for people who get sick, disabled or whatever. Healthy people pay into the fund in anticipation that some of their elderly relatives will get pensions and so forth. The view is that we pay for the greater good and we someday will gain. We are paying for the future. The Government is happy that this is going ahead but it claims that in perhaps ten years time there will be such a drain on the fund that it now wishes to ensure people will pay into their own pensions in order that in 20 or 30 years time there will not be a dramatic collapse or, rather, deterioration of our position.

In this country, there are also supplementary welfare schemes, which are basic levels of income that people are not allowed to fall below. If a person does not have any insurance contribution or if the person comes from Mars, for example, we will ensure that he or she is not left destitute. One can consult one's health board. The money is paid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs but it moves from macro to micro level and is administered at local level. People can enter offices and discuss the matter with community welfare officers. The Government has set a base line. In renting situations, rent will not be so high as to drive a person below the minimum level. From that perspective, there is a fair degree of social protection and cohesion in this country, which is something that has been built up during the years by Governments of various parties. However, everyone always looks for more and better provisions for the people, whether it is the Government or Opposition.

People contribute in the way I outlined. There has been significant economic activity and much money comes in through stamp duties on sales and transactions, 20% capital gains tax, etc. Our rates of income tax are 20% and 42%. The delegates referred to rates of 15% or 16%. One of the problems with such a low tax base relates to the fact that some of the money we use as part of the €12 billion is derived from taxation. As an Opposition Member I do not know but from listening to Government spokespersons, this is the minimum. The Government cannot lower income tax rates any further. If it did, it would reduce the tax take and would not be in a position to disperse it. Hong Kong's tax rate seems particularly low and its level of social provision would be correspondingly low.

The fruit allowance was mentioned. It would not last more than a week. The fruit allowance is €70 per month. We would have a revolution here if we promoted it. We all come under pressure and some of our pensioners will look for an increase of €17 per week whereas the delegates have mentioned €17 per week or €70 per month. Our people will look for an increase of €17 per week and I wager we will hear such in a few weeks time. This is fair enough and we will try to facilitate the people as much as we can. The systems are totally different. As Deputy Stanton and others from both sides outlined, we still have problems. However, in this context, a low taxation threshold is good for everyone who is working in the economy. We also have a minimum wage of €7.70 or thereabouts per hour and people are seeking to increase this even more. Did our delegates mention low wages?

Mr. Lee

We do not have that. McDonalds only pays €1.50 per hour, which is a rich payment but is still very low.

Chairman

In this country the minimum wage is on a statutory footing. Legislation such as a social welfare Bill is drafted by the Minister and is debated here between the Minister, Opposition and Government spokespersons for hours. Following the Minister's announcement of his budget on 10 December, he will return here in January and we will seek amendments and so forth. He can make changes and rebalance the budget as long as it does not cost more money. If one contravenes the provisions in an Act of Parliament, one ends up in court. It has legislative backing and that is why it is so important. Our Constitution recognises certain rights and the Government must ensure it complies with the Constitution in respect of rights and protection of people. Any law passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas has statutory footing. If someone is not acting in the right way a Member of the Houses can report this behaviour to the relevant Minister and action will be taken. It is useless passing laws unless they are implemented and become effective. One of this committee's tasks over the coming months is to examine welfare systems in other countries.

Mr. Lee

The committee does not have to come to Hong Kong for that.

Chairman

We have some very good travellers here and some people have represented us well across the world. I am sure Hong Kong would be delighted to receive us. I invite my colleagues to ask questions. Are the Hong Kong parliamentarians meeting the Minister?

Mr. Lee

We are going to the Department of Social and Family Affairs tomorrow.

Chairman

Tomorrow there will be a briefing by officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs on schemes administered by the Department including pensions and supports for low income families and the role of social inclusion in implementing anti-poverty strategies. That is an important meeting as the officials can provide great detail on a plethora of schemes. The Hong Kong parliamentarians will leave the meeting imbued with many fresh ideas to bring back to their country. The delegation is leaving tomorrow. It is a very short visit — I do not think our parliamentarians would accept a three day visit if it were proposed for them.

Deputy Carty

If they were to implement all those schemes in Hong Kong, the country would go broke.

Chairman

I cannot see Hong Kong implementing all the schemes in tomorrow's briefing on the current tax rate of 15% to 16%. That is an internal matter for Hong Kong. The delegation will find out more on the exact amount we spend and in the report we prepared we seek more money for the carers sector. It is probably relevant to Hong Kong also.

Mr. Leung Kwok-hung

I am staying here for a day and a half and have learned a great deal from the members, the Government, the Department and various organisations in civic society. The achievements of the Irish Government are quite significant. In Hong Kong we have already suffered from the devastation of the economy for seven years. As my colleague pointed out, Hong Kong is a wealthy place and it is a shame that people suffer. I came here to learn but also to ask questions. Our trip is quite short but we are not short of ideas.

We have seen the beef but I wonder where is the ox. The Irish Government has cut taxation dramatically and I wonder if it will continue to launch reforms. Where will the beef come from if money from the European Union is exhausted? EU injection of funds was the driving force for the Irish Government to cut tax and launch reform. It benefited the business community and businesses came from all over the world to enjoy the infrastructure, cheap labour and exemptions available in Ireland.

The Hong Kong Government is trying to do something similar in that it is trying to cut taxation, but who is going to pay for the beef? If the rich pay less either the poor receive less or the poor will have to pay more. I thank the Irish Government for informing me of its reforms but I wonder if the Irish Government will follow the policies of those under the banner of the IMF and the WTO. Who will pay the bill?

I assure the committee that I like the Irish football team, including the two Keanes, and have many Irish friends. I hope the Irish people will find a way to counter globalisation. The golden era of Irish reform was in the late 1980s. The Northern Ireland peace process boosted overseas investor confidence. The European Union also played a role, as did the boom in the high-tech industry. Globalisation, which is US expansion, will benefit Ireland and I hope Ireland's experiences will inspire Hong Kong. I hope Irish reform will get under way. I believe the coalition between Opposition and the governing powers is based on the devastation of the Irish economy in the 1980s. The social consensus will only be challenged by changing the conditions of globalisation. Irish people must deal with this and the so-called grand coalition must take a new position. I do not know whether this is useful but I hope the Irish people will eventually find a way to face the forthcoming difficulties.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Leung. The economic miracle did not happen overnight. It was a long slow process after Ireland acceded to the European Economic Community in 1973 when it was a relatively poor country. As Deputy Stanton and others stated, emphasis was laid on education and creating a highly educated workforce from the late 1960s when a former Minister for Education, the late Mr. Donogh O'Malley, made a brave and worthwhile decision to ensure every child had the opportunity to receive second level education and progress to third level education including institutes of technology. It took a while to reap that whirlwind. An economic miracle did not happen overnight and we experienced some difficult times but now we have a competent, highly literate and skilled workforce.

Yesterday Axa, a major insurance company, announced it will create 300 jobs in my county. The chairman of the company stated it was because of the highly skilled and highly competent workforce, and the friendly and peaceful working environment that arises from social partnership. That is another competitive advantage. Few strikes occur as industrial problems are worked out in harmony, in which partnership plays a major role.

It is true we have become net contributors to the European Union in the past couple of years. However, a large amount of money is still required to be invested in infrastructure here, particularly in roads. Ireland still has a degree of dependency on agriculture and is still a rural economy. We have a competitive green agriculture industry, of which we are proud. We export and brand many products and are processing more. We have a long way to go and are not at the end point by any stretch of the imagination.

The Government continues to invest resources in technology and other competitiveness factors. We know some of the gravy trains we had have ceased or are about to cease. We have put ourselves in a position whereby despite being an island nation we can compete on the world stage. We are aware of globalisation threats and WTO rounds. Much industry came to this country and that did not happen by chance but because of our workforce and a good taxation environment. The general consensus is that we should not disturb that or change those factors because it is a winning formula.

The challenges are those we outlined with regard to pensions, welfare provision and caring, on which the delegation will receive more information tomorrow. It has been a useful exchange and we have learned from the delegation on the points made. Dr. Michael Woods, a former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, is in the Visitors' Gallery. He is Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. He has a great degree of expertise and is with a senior official from the Department of Social and Family Affairs who will meet the delegation tomorrow.

The points raised are interesting and we are aware of them. Various task forces such as the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the Competitiveness Council have been established for many years. Many teething difficulties occurred but they are all now in place and well established. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has early warning signs in place to ensure steps can be taken if an industry experiences difficulties.

Ireland is an island nation with a population of 4 million people. We feel we have advantages despite being removed from the major markets. We must have extremely good advantages to penetrate those major markets and for those people to come and do business in Ireland. We continually look out for opportunities from people from the delegation's country and elsewhere. We believe we have a good competitive business environment with regard to industry and workforce. The best route out of poverty is to get people working. That is our challenge and it is the motto and thesis of all our parliamentarians.

Mr. Fung

Although our stay here is short, we have had a good experience in learning how the Irish Government handles poverty. As my colleague stated, our government has not defined poverty. We heard many arguments which we can discuss with our government in Hong Kong.

Different countries and societies have their own culture and history and their own way of solving problems and facing issues. I respect the Irish Government's priorities and its way of dealing with issues. We compared different models from various countries and found the model of the Irish Government is one from which we can learn. That is why we are here.

To thank the members of the committee for sharing their experience and knowledge with us I will make a presentation on behalf of the delegation to the Chairman.

Chairman

This was a good meeting. The delegation has already been in contact with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and will meet with officials again tomorrow. I hope members of the delegation feel free to remain in contact with the committee and if there is further information with which we can furnish them we will be happy to do so. I understand this is the beginning of a series of contacts between Hong Kong and the Oireachtas between now and the end of the year. Our colleagues in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport plan to visit Hong Kong next month to examine aspects of the transport infrastructure. Other Members hope to attend the conference of the World Trade Organisation in December.

I understand the delegation is about to commence a tour of Leinster House. I would like to offer all our guests an information pack on the Oireachtas as a memento of this visit and offer the Chairman of the sub-committee, Mr. Fang, a sample of Irish linen to bring back to Hong Kong. I note from the circulated biographical information that he was born on St. Patrick's Day, our national day. He has, therefore, had an affinity with this country throughout his life.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.20 p.m. and adjourned at 3.25 p.m. sine die.