Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my late arrival. I misjudged the traffic and was delayed as a result. I have been able to interpret the thrust of Mr. Kitching's presentation from the questions which have been posed by members and the replies he has provided.

If the Chairman will indulge me, I wish to offer my warm congratulations to our colleague, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who has been promoted to the position of Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. The Minister of State is a person of outstanding ability and integrity. He certainly has the capacity to do the job he has been given. Commitment will not be an issue for him. I also wish to pay tribute to and thank the former Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, for her absolute commitment and dedication to this committee. I also thank her for the thoroughness of her presentations to us and the painstaking lengths she went to when providing replies to our questions. Deputy Creighton performed outstandingly well before this committee and her work with us merits commendation. We trust that what she has done will set the template for Deputy Donohoe in his new Ministry.

Does Mr. Kitching see his foundation having an involvement, either in terms of carrying out research or from the point of view of direct intervention, in dealing with the threat relating to the United Kingdom leaving the EU? If the United Kingdom leaves, it would have grave implications for the European project in the context of its various social and political objectives. Such an eventuality would also have grave implications for this country on foot of its special relationship with the United Kingdom in the context of trade, culture, etc. The United Kingdom leaving would be bad news for Ireland and the EU. It would also be bad news for the United Kingdom itself. Can FEPS produce any useful research which might inform the debate on this matter and tilt it against withdrawal? Is it in a position to have a more active involvement and how does it read the situation as it currently stands? Has the foundation carried out any initial research on the matter?

I agree with all of the points made in respect of the EIB, particularly that which states that up to now we have been concentrating on stabilisation, recovery and regaining ground that was lost. It was quite reasonable that this should have been the position for a number of years but it is vital that we should now move to the job creation and stimulus phase of the EIB's work. In that context, the youth guarantee is important. In the future, the way the EU will be evaluated by the UK, which is currently contemplating withdrawal, and by its citizenry will be how it deals with the horrific problem of unemployment across all member states. There is no greater indictment of the European project than the level of unemployment which obtains at present. This matter must be addressed and the youth guarantee and the various job initiatives are extremely important in that context.

Ms Emer Costello, MEP, made a point with regard to the social pillar and care of the elderly. I am of the view that there is tremendous potential to create employment in this sphere. It is clear that the population in this country is ageing and that there is a need to make provision for elder care. One would not need to carry out market research or any other form of analysis to discover that older people prefer to be treated, live in and access services from their own homes. We also know that they want to live in their homes either with their families or independently. Carers can play an enormous role in this regard. If steps were taken across Europe to make the job of carers more attractive and have it classified as a valued and respected profession, this would assist us in achieving a number of objectives. As a result of such a move, older people could remain in their homes, the pressure on care institutions and the cost for states would be reduced and unemployment could be tackled. I am aware of many people who are in low-paid jobs who would love to stay at home and care for their relatives. If they were allowed to do this, it would give rise to vacancies in various areas of low-paid employment. The people to whom I have spoken about this matter are not all in low-paid employment but invariably that is the case. There is massive potential for allowing people who want to care for their elderly relatives to remain at home, thereby creating vacancies in the labour market. This is the type of project the EIB could reasonably pursue or support.

Will Mr. Kitching comment on the concept of a banking union? I am aware that he considers this matter from a socialist perspective - which is not a difficulty and which gives matters an extra dimension - whereas we tend to see it from a slightly different one. Is he of the view that banking union is achievable and would it offer a panacea for many of our ills?