Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Richelle for coming here today. It is very interesting that we are the first committee to host his group. Focusing on the social or societal element of monetary union is a back to basics issue. We would all have assumed that any actions in European that ultimately benefit society are being taken. If we compare the ECB with the Federal Reserve, the latter has a much stronger remit in areas such as unemployment figures. That is one of the great weaknesses of the ECB, as "The Fed" has to trigger certain actions when unemployment reaches a certain level in the United States.

We are having a debate in Ireland about labour mobility, which I think is very much misunderstood at the moment. Mr. Richelle spoke about a loss of skills and Ireland is a particularly strong example of where the European Union is losing skills to countries like Canada, the US and Australia. About ten years ago, we were a strong net recipient of skills from other parts of the world, but now we are exporting some of our exceptionally well skilled young people. We hope that in a few short years, we will be bringing people back to our country. When people feel they have to leave Ireland, the message is being sold badly in Europe when the suggestion is made that jobs may be available in another jurisdiction. Governments are being accused of exporting people, almost wilfully saying, "leave the country". If someone was to move from Cork to Dublin or Clare to Cork or whatever, that is not seen in the same way.

It is not much easier for an Irish person or someone from any European country to move to a country with a labour shortage. There are a few areas which must be addressed and have not been, such as how easy it is to move pensions, access to education and schools for children, housing and allowances and social welfare. It is not just about what somebody who moves from Ireland to Europe can maintain, as moving back must also be considered. At present those outside of the Republic of Ireland for a period lose their allowances. This must be made easier for people who want to go and come back. I am interested in hearing the witnesses' comments on this.

With regard to in-country reviews and macro economic imbalances, the witnesses spoke about growth. We are starting to hear a bit of noise about this at present with regard to the huge surpluses in some European countries. In economic terms it is difficult to argue a large surplus is as bad as a large deficit but it is certainly damaging for the eurozone in total or as a unit. Do the witnesses see the possibility of using the country-specific recommendations to say to countries moving above a 6% or 7% surplus they have a function in the growth of the eurozone in total to achieve many of the targets? Schemes such as the youth guarantee are unquestionably helpful with regard to labour activation, but what Europe needs is growth and it is the surplus countries which can drive growth. The deficit countries are not in the same position to do so.