Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Paul Ginnell, policy officer, European Anti-Poverty Network, and Dr. Seán Healy, chief executive officer, Social Justice Ireland. I am sure their contributions today will be helpful to the committee and add another dimension to our work. Before we start with their opening statements, I will give a quick reminder of the rules regarding privilege.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Before inviting Mr. Ginnell to speak, I wish to apologise that today some of the members have conflicting meetings which is the reason the attendance is low. However, they will receive the official report of everything that is said and the proceedings are recorded. What the witnesses say is important. We value it and we appreciate their time.

Mr. Paul Ginnell:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. The consultation on the future of Europe is an important part of an ongoing debate about the type of European Union we want to have. The current consultation takes place during a particularly long and difficult period in the EU, with many social and political challenges.

Currently, 118 million of the 510 million people living in the EU are at risk of poverty and social exclusion as of 2016. I welcome that this is a 1 million reduction in the 2015 number which was in our initial submission. It has been updated since then. However, there are still more people in poverty and social exclusion than in 2010, when a target was set to reduce it by 20 million. There are other clear challenges in the EU, including the rise of far right political parties in many member states, the failure to address migration positively and, of course, Brexit. It is crucial, therefore, that the members of the European Union reflect on how to move forward towards making Europe a more equitable and inclusive Union.

The values of the EU should guide decisions on its future. These values are clearly outlined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union which states that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail. These values show that the European Union is not just about economic goals, but about improving the quality of life for everybody living in the European Union, while playing a positive role in the wider world. The EU must now show that its values guide its decisions and create a more sustainable future for everyone. It is only if the EU can demonstrate that it is using its values to guide its decisions that it will have the confidence and support of its people.

There are a number of clear proposals which will support a sustainable future for the European Union. The first is implementing policies which are balanced and true to its values. There has always been a tension in Europe about what the EU is and what it is trying to achieve. Economic priorities have dominated the European Union to date with little regard sometimes for the social consequences, resulting in a high level of social damage and loss of support for the EU. This has become very clear in response to the economic crisis and demonstrates that the founding values have not been given equal weight in providing a compass for the EU. However, as the overall values and objectives of the EU are to improve the quality of life of all living within its borders, all policy must be balanced and work towards a goal of creating a sustainable future for the EU. That means the EU's social, economic and environmental policies should complement each other to achieve this end. This integrated approach has been outlined in the Lisbon and European strategies, but so far has not been carried through.

This balanced approach must now apply to the European semester process which is currently the main process for economic governance in the EU but which pits soft social targets against strong fiscal rules. The use of social or equality impact assessment is an important measure as it examines policies at design stage as a tool for ensuring that policies complement and support positive social outcomes and move us closer to our social goals. This involves assessing all relevant policies for the potential impact on poverty and inequality. Impact assessment is a process which exists at EU level and in Ireland. It has been largely ineffective and lacking in transparency. The current programme for Government in Ireland has a commitment to budget and policy proofing. It is an important commitment at national level and it is therefore important that the Government ensures it is implemented.

The second key area relates to the creation of a Europe of social rights. The European Union treaties include a horizontal social clause and charter of fundamental rights. There is now also a new pillar of social rights. These show that the EU has a role in progressing social rights, so there is a responsibility on the EU institutions and member states to make the realisation of social rights a reality. This can be done in a number of ways. First, the EU must put a strategy in place for co-ordinating integrated anti-poverty strategies across the EU based on agreed targets and objectives. This strategy must be ambitious. It must be rights based and address the provision of an adequate income for everybody and access to decent jobs and quality services. It must also address income inequality and other inequalities such as discrimination. It must ensure that economic and fiscal policies are aligned and ensure adequate resources are available for their implementation.

To ensure that everyone across the EU has access to an adequate income and income safety net, an EU framework directive on minimum income should be put in place. This would outline the standards and principles which all EU member states must have in place so everybody has access to a welfare safety net that is adequate to provide them with an income for a decent life. The European Anti-Poverty Network has demonstrated the existing treaty basis for this proposal. In addition, to ensure an integrated anti-poverty strategy it must ensure the real participation of the people who are directly impacted by policies.

Another area related to creating a Europe for social rights is the pillar of social rights I mentioned earlier. That was proclaimed by the European Commission, Parliament and Council on 17 November last. The EU and its member states must work to give effect to this and use the pillar of social rights as a roadmap to bring about effective measures to deliver on social rights across the European Union. This includes through the European semester process, which is to be the process for monitoring its implementation. However, that process requires ongoing reform to make it a balanced social, environmental and economic process.

In terms of the scenarios that are presented for the future of Europe, with which one is it important to proceed? The Commission's White Paper on the future of Europe presents five scenarios, but none of these will address the causes of poverty and create a sustainable future for all those living in the European Union. However, a sixth scenario, which has been developed and supported by a wide range of EU level civil society organisations, provides a vision for a more sustainable future for the EU and beyond. This sixth scenario has been developed in the context of the EU sustainable development goals.

These goals provide an integrated social, economic and environmental framework with targets that the EU itself and each member state has agreed to deliver on by 2030. It is only if the EU implements and supports policies that move the region towards a future outlined in the sixth scenario that it can have the confidence and support of its people and have a sustainable future.

What is a challenge for the Irish Government? In the past, it has shown leadership in putting the EU on a path towards a more inclusive future and specifically by showing it must address the reality of poverty. The Government has also played an instrumental role in achieving agreement on the UN global goals for sustainable development. The Government must now translate words into action and take the initiative to guide the EU towards a more sustainable future in which it stays true to its values and focuses on enhancing the quality of life for everyone living in it while also playing a positive role in the wider world. As a priority, this means addressing the causes of inequality and poverty.

Dr. Seán Healy:

Social Justice Ireland welcomes the opportunity to address the committee on the issue of the future of Europe. This is an issue we have sought to highlight in policy arenas in Ireland and across the EU for many years. Each year, we publish at least three studies focused on the EU. We produce annually a review of developments across the EU 28, with a special focus on poverty, unemployment, services and taxation. The 2017 review was entitled "Europe: The Excluded Suffer while Europe Stagnates". The second annual study is of a particular aspect of public policy in Ireland as part of an EU28 report on this issue. It changes each year. The studies are led by Caritas Europa. The 2017 topic studied was poverty and social exclusion among young people. It has been published and is available. The third publication we produce is an annual review of how Ireland is performing vis-à-visthe Europe 2020 strategy. It is a shadow report. We have produced one every year since the strategy was introduced. The 2017 editions of each of these studies have been published and copies were circulated to members of this committee in recent days. In each of the three studies, we set out proposals on the future of Europe.

What I have to say is in the context of these studies and I will pick out some key issues. For Social Justice Ireland, there is a key problem to be addressed at EU level if we are to be serious about the future. The EU has been moving into an ever-deepening crisis for quite a few years. The reason for this can best be described as its "democratic deficit". The main reason for this deficit is the breakdown in communication between the policy makers - civil servants and elected politicians - and the people called to follow their decisions without having been asked their opinion or offering their consent.

For 30 years after the Second World War, Europe saw the development of strong nation states that were very focused on improving the situation of all their citizens. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and social exclusion were to be addressed and eliminated. These years are sometimes referred to as the Thirty Glorious Years. In the 1970s the uninterrupted economic growth of previous decades disappeared. Unemployment grew and there was inflation. The consensus that had prevailed was vociferously challenged by those arguing that the future lay in prioritising the "invisible hand of the market", as they called it. People such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and their enthusiastic acolytes in economics and the media argued that deregulation and privatisation would ensure a better future for all. Zygmunt Bauman, the very famous sociologist, has characterised this period as the "opulent thirty" following the "glorious thirty", or what he describes as "the years of a consumerist orgy and continuous, seemingly unstoppable growth of GNP indices all over the place". A decade ago, however, this was exposed for the bubble it was. The bubble burst and a great many people who had seen themselves as being upwardly mobile found instead that they were part of the new precariat.

Europe today is at a major moment of change in human history. The nation state lacks the means and resources to control the excesses of markets. The power that states had in the past has dissipated as global forces have emerged that are beyond the control of nation states. These agencies are unregulated and unsupervised vis-à-visfinance, investment capital, labour markets, etc. They have power without political control. States have political control without the power to ensure their decisions are followed.

This is the context in which we are now discussing the future of Europe. The EU is trying to design ways to deal effectively with the current break in the relationship between power and politics. This is the context for the White Paper on the Future of Europe, to which Mr. Ginnell referred.

Central to all of this, and in many ways a consequence of what has been happening, is the erosion of confidence in the EU. Confidence in the Union is being eroded steadily because of its failures in a number of areas. Among these are the failure to address the ongoing vulnerability of many EU citizens and the failure of the European Commission to protect small countries against the larger, stronger members with which they are competing. Increasingly, the EU has become an economic project driven by an elite that has failed to address the facts. For example, as Mr. Ginnell pointed out, 118 million people are experiencing poverty or social exclusion. That is almost one in four of the whole population. Some 86 million people, or over 17% of the population of the Union, are experiencing income poverty. There are growing numbers in employment. We welcome this but, importantly, over 21 million people are still unemployed, of whom 11 million are unemployed for over a year. The number of working poor is rising, amounting to 9.6% of the total labour force. They have a job but their income is so low that they are still stuck in poverty. Youth unemployment is very high, affecting 4.6 million, which is almost one in five young people in the Union. Just one of the problems experienced by young people across the Union is that they were, metaphorically, thrown under a bus by EU policy makers after the crash of 2008. I could spend the next ten minutes talking about similar developments in health, education, taxation, etc.

If we reflect on these statistics - these realities - we will not be too surprised that so many people in Europe see the EU as a faceless machine, not in the control of its citizens, that keeps dismantling the protective fences that used to protect the vulnerable and that keeps disciplining the nation states when they try to protect their citizens. It should not be a surprise that many people see European rulers as a clique whose chief preoccupation is to preserve for themselves, and their like, the many privileges they enjoy.

Earlier this year, a UN expert group in New York, of which I must acknowledge I was a member, examined strategies for eradicating poverty to achieve sustainable development for all across the planet. It challenged the status quoquite profoundly. The group included in its conclusions the following paragraph, which sets out very succinctly the kinds of challenges that anybody dealing with the future of Europe should in fact be engaging with:

The social welfare systems in developed countries are no longer fit for purpose. There should be an adjustment of the paradigmincluding promotion, and openness to study new ideas around a new social contract that is more appropriate for the 21st century. This may entail moving towards a universal basic income system, supporting a living wage rather than a minimum wage, recognizing all work (not just paid employment) as meaningful, and ensuring that all government decisions are subjected to a poverty-proofing process. While the centrality of employment and decent jobs to eradicate poverty is well recognized, employment growth has not been sufficient to absorb the growing labour force, particularly in those countries and regions with large youth populations. Further, there has been a divergence between productivity and wages growth, as well as growing employment insecurity and casualization in all countries.

I agree with this analysis and the recommendations it contains. The EU consistently ignores many of these issues and the results are obvious. Reform of the EU requires that these issues be addressed.

None of the five options provided in the EU White Paper on the future of Europe fits these requirements. An alternative option is required that will protect the vulnerable and move towards a future that effectively addresses poverty, unemployment, inequality and exclusion. The EU needs to become, and be seen to become, a caring Union. That will not be achieved by multiplying directives and regulations that are seen as simply interfering with the autonomy of national governments and parliaments. I suggest that what it needs is a number of initiatives that would clearly show the Union's caring dimension. One such initiative would be to set up a scheme of transnational and interpersonal redistribution. Such a transfer union is needed for four reasons. We need it as a macroeconomic stabiliser, a demographic stabiliser, as a firm common floor to protect people who are in danger of becoming vulnerable and to make it crystal clear to the vulnerable that the EU cares for them too and not just for the wealthy and powerful.

This, of course, is radical, but this proposal is no more radical than Bismarck's proposals when, under the pressure of violent protests, he created the world’s first national social security scheme well over a century ago. A similar radical proposal is required today at European level. An alternative option for the future of the EU should also ensure that the European Commission protects small countries against their larger, stronger members. This was the way it used to be back in the day. It is not the case any longer and it needs to be put back the way it was previously.

Confidence in the EU will continue to be eroded unless the guiding vision of the future of Europe goes well beyond President Juncker’s five options. A new framework is required that recognises that the social dimension is of equal importance to the economic in the development of the EU. In fact, it needs to recognise that economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability are all intertwined and should be at the heart of any future vision of the EU. The 17 sustainable development goals, SDGs, agreed by the UN, drafted in a committee co-chaired by Ireland and signed off by Ireland and almost 200 other countries, provide a good guide to identifying the priorities and processes such an alternative should take.

On page 29 of the White Paper on the future of Europe, the five options set out in the White Paper are assessed in terms of what the Commission obviously sees as the six key policy challenges facing the EU. There is no reference to the social implications of these scenarios anywhere in this assessment. This identifies the priorities and concerns of the Commission. It is staggering that it completely ignores what are core issues for the Union’s citizens.

An alternative option already mentioned by Mr. Paul Ginnell, entitled scenario six, has been developed and proposed by a consortium of civil society organisation, CSOs, across the EU, including Social Justice Ireland. We were one of the originators and signatories of the option. It sets out a vision and a process in which the European Union becomes a driver for sustainability in Europe and beyond. It provides a much clearer vision of a viable future for the EU, and it moves forward the process of bridging the gap between power and politics, which we believe is a core challenge that must be addressed by the EU and across the planet today.

The future of Ireland and the future of the EU is a choice, not a chance. The Government should reject all five options in the White Paper and opt instead for scenario six.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. As I am involved in two other committees at the moment, it would be helpful if I was a magician. Dr. Healy laid bare the point about Europe not caring about the smaller countries and the ordinary people. I agree 100% with that. We are supposed to have equal status but perhaps he can elaborate on that a bit. When we had a crisis here the bigger countries literally shovelled money into Ireland, knowing that the banks were about to explode. The bailout was more of a clean-out. Since then those countries have shown no mercy. Perhaps Dr. Healy can elaborate further on that aspect of it.

Dr. Seán Healy:

I have very serious reservations about the approach used by the Commission and the rest of the troika. Different approaches would have produced the same outcome but would have protected many of the jobs that existed at the time. There was no necessity to be so harsh with the bailout agreement, which led to the loss of the level of employment which Ireland had at the time. I still believe there is plenty of evidence to show that what happened was not something that had been worked out on the basis of what was the best approach to try to rectify what had gone wrong in the crash and what had caused it in the first place. Moreover, it did not consider the social impact of what it was doing. It was never part of the discussion.

Social Justice Ireland met representatives of the troika on 12 occasions during the bailout period, when they came every quarter and we constantly raised this issue. We wanted some comment about the need to protect vulnerable people put into the memorandum of understanding. Had it been included in the memorandum of understanding, the impact would then have had to be measured but the troika constantly refused to put it in. The result of this was that it did not go into the memorandum of understanding and it was never measured as part of the process. As a result many things happened. Many people were damaged. Many vulnerable people suffered totally in excess of what was required to actually rectify the situation. At the core of that is the bullying of smaller countries by bigger countries in the context of the EU. The bullying was being done by large continental countries whose bankers and financial institutions had gambled in putting their money on a bet in Ireland. They lost the bet but then insisted they would get 100% of their money back and bullied their way to that position. It is like a person betting on a horse in Paddy Power. The horse comes in last and the person subsequently demands their money back with a gun. It is obviously crazy, yet that is what was happening in this case.

I acknowledge fully that many good things were done to rescue the financial situation in Ireland and save the banks but we were the only country in history to have paid 100% for bank crashes. We had to pay for everything. The whole thing was transferred onto the taxpayer and to the Irish citizen. I note every citizen in Ireland pays tax in one form or another. People may not be paying income tax if their income is very low but they certainly will be paying VAT on many other things. The bottom line is that the approach used was not fair to the smaller and less powerful countries and damaged the vulnerable dramatically more than what was required in the context and to achieve the outcome.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses have provided much food for thought. It is a very interesting discussion and I appreciate their attendance to give their opinions on it. We should recognise that the EU in many respects has been good for Ireland in terms of social legislation. The environmental people appeared before the committee earlier and we agreed that Europe was responsible for much of our environmental legislation. Europe also has been responsible for much of our social legislation which we would not have got around to without it. Dr. Healy in particular presents a very negative picture of the European Union, calling it an economic project.

He mentioned the words "deregulation", "privatisation" and all that went on there, "neoliberal policies", all that kind of thing. He seems to be suggesting that is why there is euroscepticism. He also went on to say there is a democratic deficit as well. Why do the witnesses think we are in the state we are in, why is Europe in the state it is in and what has to be done? The European Parliament is democratic. The Heads of State and Government who attend European Council meetings are elected in a democratic manner. Presumably, the problem is with the Commission. Are the witnesses suggesting reform of the institutions, particularly the European Commission and treaty change in that regard?

The other question I have is in on Ireland's membership of the European Union. Would they suggest that Ireland should leave the EU in any circumstance? The witnesses have indicated "No" to that. Therefore, they believe it is capable of reform and responding to the citizens and their wishes. That question is answered.

I am interested in this sixth scenario. The previous witnesses here also were promoting the sixth scenario. That is something we need to delve into and examine carefully as well. As they have answered the question on remaining in the European Union, my main question then is on why we are in the state we are in and whether there is a problem with our institutions. In particular, it seems that the European Commission probably needs some sort of reform.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the witnesses respond, I will contribute. Then they both can respond and we will be able to wrap up.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a brief question.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call Deputy McGrath again.

In common with my colleagues present and other Members going about their work, I meet people at clinics while dealing with constituents with medical issues, housing issues or payments they require. In recent years, as politicians, we have seen a period in people's lives that politicians representing people previously would never have seen. For example, on leaving a clinic one day, I rang my late father as I had a question for him. I was leaving a clinic in a certain town he had held for years before me. I asked him did he ever have anybody at a clinic who became so upset that they were crying hysterically. He answered me honestly by saying he had not. I told him that on that day, out of 15 people I had had four such people. The reason they were crying was not that they were making something up. It was because they were so troubled and so upset and there was financial hardship in each of those cases on that day. I will never forget it. On that day - we have a way of saying it at home - it would have been easy to make a shirt for me after it. In other words, one would be a very small person when one left somebody who had come to tell one their issue or story and who had become so upset. That is reflective of what people have gone through.

That is why I appreciate so much every word that both Mr. Ginnell and Dr. Healy have said today. It is nice to hear them say it because it is an acknowledgement of the situation on the ground. While we all know the economy is coming back and work is becoming more plentiful, the other day a person said to me, "God, Mike, 'tis great, the boom is back". To be honest, I was not too pleased with the person who said it and I let the person know what I thought of it. I thought if only that person knew. We have people living in houses who those on the outside driving by might think are doing fine. If one went into that house, however, and asked them to give one a €10 note or a €20 note, they could not do so. Some people do not appreciate it, but I definitely know my colleagues here do because they meet it with constituents. It is horrific what is going on today, in that people are in that situation and many do not realise it. Thanks be to God, the latter are fortunate. Life is going well for them and I am delighted with that. That is great. However, if one does not have a social conscience, one must remember to think of the people who are less well off and the hidden poverty in Ireland today. When I say, "hidden poverty", and I was delighted to hear it mentioned, it can be a person who has a job and who has an income. Such people might have children going to college but literally do not have money, as they lack disposable income because they are in deficit every week. It is a constant trip-up with borrowings between credit unions and the banks. Such people might have one or two considerably good salaries going into the house but they literally do not have money. That is a new development in Ireland today that I presume would not have been the case before my time in politics.

I started out buying diggers and other machinery in the 1980s, when times were hungry and tight and there was no spare cash around the place. I know what it is to run on a tight budget and just to survive but there is real hardship today. When I am here in Dublin and I see over 100 cranes in the sky, I am delighted as that is great. However, one should not forget the people we are there to represent. It is our job. We are paid to do that.

It is important for these organisations to be here today, to have this discussion and to put on record the existence of what I would call a forgotten Ireland. It should not be forgotten, however, as there is a level of poverty that many people might not see or realise. One cannot deal with an issue or a problem unless one talks about it in an open, honest and transparent way. One must not try to brush anything under the carpet or try to let on that we are in a type of an economic situation we are not. In other words, we must not try to let on that everything is great and rosy in the garden because it is not.

I apologise, as I merely wanted to share with Mr. Ginnell and Dr. Healy my thoughts and views on the importance of what they are doing here today. I will leave it to them both in their own time. I apologise, I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up briefly. I thank Mr. Ginnell and Dr. Healy and agree with everything they said.

Like them, I met the troika seven or eight times here in Ireland and I did not get any joy from it. I did not find any empathy about the situation. Even after Brexit, the tough talk heard from senior officials in the Commission was unwise on their part.

I have a question. Perhaps they got the answers from the troika or perhaps they found out. My understanding was that all those senior bondholders had their bonds insured. I am sure they had. They do not like having a flutter on a horse. That is up to the punter, whose €20 or whatever is gone if the horse came in last. I understand they all had their bonds insured. We are being penalised and they did not have to claim off their insurance policies.

Mr. Paul Ginnell:

I agree with what Deputy Haughey says on environmental policy. There are improvements, in the area of equal pay for equal work in social policy and in a number of other areas. There are good things the European Union has been doing. Our organisation also is not seeking to end the European Union. What we are looking to do is bring it back to its values. I stated earlier the EU held social values among its core objectives and we seek to make the EU live up to those in many ways.

When push came to shove and the crisis hit, it showed in a sense that the EU, the Commission and the European Central Bank in their dealings in particular, went back to what it seemed to know best. We also met those institutions. They were clear on their programmes and what they wanted to achieve. It was impossible to get them to look at the social implications and social impact of those policies. One could ask, "Who was responsible?" We had that debate as well as to whether these were Government policies or were being driven by the Commission and by the troika. We never fully got to the bottom of it.

The EU itself, when it came to the pillar of social rights and the background to it, accepted that in the past decade as the crisis was hitting, it forgot about its own social goals, social values and social policy and went back to solely focusing on fiscal and economic policy. It admitted this as being partially responsible for why inequality was growing and why poverty levels had reached one quarter of the total of the EU population. The EU, or at least the Commission, accepts that and the institutions accept that.

Now the question is what do we do to address that. Both of us mentioned this sixth scenario. Both of us mentioned the importance of impact assessment, not only at European level but at national level, because, of course, the member states play an important role in this. Therefore, there are elements in respect to the future. I acknowledge the pillar of social rights is in many ways a soft policy. That is what is visible now in respect of social policy at a European level.

It important that this links with economic policy and that they are consistent. It is also important, however, that all member states now push forward with making sure the pillar of social rights is a roadmap for a more social and equitable Europe. Otherwise, it will be seen as having failed again. We have had the Lisbon strategy, under which poverty levels at the end of the noughties were the same as they were at the outset. There was the Europe 2020 strategy to reduce poverty by 20 million, but we are still back where we were at the beginning of that commitment. Now we have a pillar of social rights. It is really important that we push forward in showing that the EU can be social. That is key to the belief people have in the European Union. Some member states are really up against it as regards fighting off those on the far right who are using the negative impact on people's lives to influence the type of politics they support. The EU is at a key moment in terms of trying to make that change.

When it comes to looking at the future of Europe and the different options available, we have to examine what that means and not just use it as a window dressing. President Juncker in his state of the Union address talked about the wind being in the sails as if everything has been resolved and we are sailing off to a new, bright future. The Chairman was talking about how the economy is growing. It is the same sort of language. We really need to look at the reality for people and to make sure that in moving forward, we are addressing the social issues as well as the other issues the EU faces.

Dr. Seán Healy:

I am grateful for the question. When we come here, we get five or ten minutes and can only say so much in that time. If I had a little extra time, I would certainly have stressed the importance of the European Union. Historically, it was set up in a Continent that had seen the outbreak of two world wars within its boundaries. When the beginnings of the Union and the Common Market were set up in 1957, it was very clear what the whole thing was to be about, which was building a better future for everybody on the Continent and interconnecting their economies and so on so that there would be no more war. That worked fine. When the growth went, however, there was a global push to make more money. We had to do other things. We saw the emergence of neoliberalism as a philosophy in economics, which was pushed more and more by various people, including some very prominent leaders, even within the European Union.

The core issue is that since the presidency of Jacques Delors in the Commission, we have not had a President of the Commission who was really serious about balancing the economic and the social. Jacques Delors was serious about it and, because of that, we had a very good decade under his presidency. Many social programmes were developed, some of which are still in place and some of which were very good. They were put in place because he was crystal clear about the need at a European level to balance the economic and the social.

My contention is that we have lost our compass and increasingly taken a view that we need to get the economy right and everything else will follow. When the economy was booming, the key to getting everybody having a good life was seen as having a bigger and bigger economy. There was a belief in growth at all costs no matter what. It was totally insufficient. What was the economic growth for? The economy is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. When we forget about that and focus only on growing the means without looking at why we are doing so, we are heading into trouble. That is what happened. When the crash came, people reverted.

My understanding is that those bank loans Deputy Mattie McGrath was talking about were not insured in that way. However, I do not have any inside knowledge of that. Overall, there was a very strong political drive to find solutions. We came up with the Stability and Growth Pact. We had a referendum on bringing all those controls into place. I would argue very strongly that this was a political solution to an economic problem and that there is no justification for it in economics. It certainly will not produce a fair and balanced future in the European Union. We in Ireland are going to see the difficulties in the next few years. Money will be available but we will face serious constraints in terms of being allowed to invest that money to deal with our infrastructure shortages and service provision problems.

The member's experience is not exactly the same as mine but I have had several similar ones. In the past decade, we have seen the emergence of what is now known as the precariat, people with zero-hour or part-time jobs who are in very insecure employment on a long-term basis. It is not just when they are students or for the first year or two of their employment life, but across their lives. As a result, we have to rethink at a European and national level how we can secure a good future for every citizen of the Union when the traditional approach is no longer viable. Although we have had huge growth in the economy, neither the average income nor the median income has grown. As a result, there has been a widening of the gap, which is a very serious problem. If we do not deal with it, it will come home to roost eventually in the kind of realities the Chairman is talking about.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their time. We really appreciate it. On behalf of the committee, I apologise again for the small number of members present. It is no slight against the witnesses or anything like that, it is just the commitment of work that has Members tied up in other committees. There are other very important issues going on with regard to the protection of the unborn and all that. Deputies and Senators are trying to balance their time. I thank the witnesses again.