Mr. Koos Richelle:

I agree with the Deputy, but I do not know whose weakness it is. I do not want to engage in a game of ping pong about who is responsible, but the way we have built Europe means that there is little power at European level to promote growth and a lot depends on the position of individual member states. That is why we issued the Europe 2020 strategy document and asked member states to have that discussion about positioning themselves within the framework of globalisation and demographic change. Each country must define its factors for success in that regard. At a European level, there is too much divergence between the member states to allow for the drawing up of one solid list of growth factors. Through this European semester and macroeconomic governance, we have identified the minimum budgetary disequilibrium, for instance, which would be a cause for concern. Imbalances of an unsustainable nature are also being addressed in debt reviews. We try to get country-specific information and then to come up with recommendations to remedy the situation.

We do not rate the performance of individual countries, but there is a big appreciation for what Ireland has done. That has been expressed publicly and repeatedly. The fact that a country in difficulty has, by its own decisions, albeit with some help from the European Union, come out of a programme is commendable. Now we go back to the normal channels, but the Commission will continue to examine what is going on here and try in the framework of the European semester and on the basis of a thorough analysis to hold up a mirror to Ireland, as it does to all other member states, and ask if its policies are appropriate. The fact that the country has come out of a programme is a sign of real progress. We expect the financial markets to trust in Ireland again in order that it can take its own decisions on the course to be followed.

I agree that housing is a problematic issue. To a certain extent, the European Regional Development Fund could be of assistance in this area, depending on the specifics of a housing programme. We are trying in this new programming period not to disburse the funds separately. Instead of countries applying for funds from either the agricultural development fund, the maritime development fund, the Social Fund, the Cohesion fund or the Regional Development Fund, we are encouraging member states to come up with proposals for integrated territorial development, including infrastructure. That could include, under certain conditions, housing. Much depends on the willingness of each member state to do this. Each fund is normally registered and administered by a separate ministry and if they want to play the game with their own directorate general in the European Commission, this integrated territorial development will not happen automatically. It starts with an integrated approach in the member states which will receive an integrated answer from us. We are discussing these issues with each member state.

On the question of job creation, there is no easy answer. One thing is clear, however - governments do not create jobs. Job creation is a matter for the private sector and what governments are supposed to do is to create a conducive environment. There is a lot involved, including the quality of public administration. In fact, during the crisis we have looked more closely at the quality of public administration in member states and sometimes we have been appalled by the lack of savoir faire or knowledge about how to do things, the lack of speed in decision making, the lack of co-ordination in coming to conclusions on interrelated issues and so forth.

These issues are significant.

The provision of credit is very important. It is remarkable that providing credit is, apparently, not seen as a hobby of the banks. The banking system is not yet sound throughout Europe. It is more or less common knowledge - one reads it in academia and the newspapers - that the system went wrong in the first place because there was not enough supervision of the banks. While governments did not create the crisis, perhaps it is true that the supervision of the financial system was too lax and not detailed enough. Not everyone has learned from the crisis. Some banks still have big problems. If they do not solve their problems, it will be difficult for them to assist in correcting the credit position of the real economy. There is some hesitation. Apparently, the discussion about indebtedness has created a fear of providing credit.

Good and smart regulation is an issue. We should not come to conclusions too quickly. We have announced a refit programme of regulatory fitness. The Commission has introduced a list of things to abolish, withdraw and evaluate. We will continue to do this in the coming years. For instance, there is an inclination to say the whole area of occupational health and safety is too much for small enterprises. It is worth noting, however, that 60% of work-related accidents, including lethal accidents, occur in small and medium-sized enterprises. Such businesses cannot be excluded totally from the refit programme. Other things can be done. I refer to smart assessment, for example. Some years ago the Netherlands introduced a website that allowed new starters to fill in a form electronically and quickly see what parts of legislation were relevant to them. Unfortunately, this has not been copied in other countries where very cumbersome administrative procedures have to be followed. There are also possibilities in terms of gold-plating. Much of the legislation we consider is introduced by means of directives that have to be transposed into national legislation. We see a great deal of gold-plating in such cases. We are evaluating the entire body of occupational health and safety regulations and the report will become available in 2015. It may lead to simplification in this area. I have mentioned one of the areas under my direct responsibility. Reconsideration of legislation is also ongoing in other areas. This issue must be considered at national level, as well as at European level.