Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses and applaud their work. It was very interesting listening to their presentations. I find it interesting that there is a commonality in certain sections of the three contributions, for example, the need to increase involvement by civil society in the Europe 2020 programme. Someone - I think a representative of European Movement Ireland - suggested that one weakness is the lack of ownership of the project by member states. This brings me back to the contribution from the representative of Eurofound in which she stated that an increasing number of people are arguing that Europe is part of the problem and not part of the solution. There is a disconnect somewhere. I am delighted Councillor John Sheehan has highlighted many aspects pertinent to him and the regions and the role played by the regions. He makes a strong point that the Commission must address: the issue of regional disparities in all country-specific recommendations.

What catches my attention, and the issue on which I ask for a more detailed explanation from the presenters, is the report from the European Union which says there is an urgent need for more forward-looking European policies. What exactly would the witnesses define as a forward-looking European policy to meet the 2020 targets?

I found the presentation on jobs, job satisfaction and good versus poor quality jobs both fascinating and disturbing. Could someone make sense of the fact that 47% of those who emigrated during the depression were in good, well-paid employment and were essentially third level educated? I cannot get my head around this. I asked the IBEC representatives how this is the case, whether it is the romantic notion that the Irish are a wandering race and if it is the case that it is the aim of every graduate or qualified tradesperson - I have done it myself - or every nurse who qualifies to get out of the country. I do not believe that is quite it. There is a fundamental problem as to why so many people in employment in the middle of a recession would want to leave the country. Has it to do with the question of job quality? One might argue they seem to be going away to get greater opportunities, and one must compliment them on that, but I am not satisfied that we have the proper response from industry as to how we can generate good quality jobs.

How do we define a good quality job? I think the figure given was that one fifth of jobs are not of good quality and therefore we will not retain those people in employment. They will drop out of the labour market as soon as conditions change. How do we deal with this problem? A suggestion was made about a job quality framework in order that we can have defined for us what is good, bad and middling and set ourselves targets. I found this fascinating. We will hear industry representatives argue there is a 40% disparity between their requirements from the labour force and the training they receive and that third level institutions are not linking in with industry to the extent they should. Industry may be looking for too much from the university sector. Perhaps they should empower their companies to create the necessary climate or even internal mechanisms for promotion or upskilling their workforce. That is the only question I will ask about the skills gap. How would the witnesses see a job quality framework being structured and under what Department? How would one go about it?