Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to raise the issue of Ireland losing out on Monday on both the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority. I have no doubt we are both disappointed. Obviously, Ireland pulled out of its application for the European Medicines Agency in order to focus on the European Banking Authority but it is very disappointing. The European Medicines Agency had some 900 staff working for it but, more than that, tens of thousands of people come to it every year for meetings, conferences and so forth. The European Banking Authority is smaller, with only 167 staff, but it would have been a very useful signal to the world in terms of Ireland as a centre for financial services and as a centre of strong regulation in financial services, which is something we need.

I was quite surprised to hear how it finally went. Dublin got down to the last three and then, in voting, actually did better than Frankfurt, which is a great testament to the diplomats and all of the effort involved.

In the last round of voting, Ireland got more votes than Paris, which is where the authority ultimately went. Despite this, agreement was somehow reached that the location for the European Banking Authority, EBA, would be pulled out of a hat. Essentially, a coin was tossed. I am sure that the Minister of State shares my disappointment that Ireland felt that it had to pull out of the European Medicines Agency, EMA, bid and lost to Paris on a coin toss on the banking authority.

For Ireland, Brexit is mainly bad news. We are in risk mitigation territory and the stakes are getting high in terms of Northern Ireland and border controls. As such, I acknowledge the diplomatic efforts that were made. The purpose of this debate is not to have a go politically, but it is a serious issue that we have lost out on this and it needs to be discussed by Parliament. I am most keen to try to understand what we can learn. I do not doubt that our diplomats did an excellent job, but we lost on both bodies. We should have won one, given that we have a decent centre for financial services and a considerable number of large pharma firms from across the world. There is a great deal of research and development and manufacturing taking place in Ireland. Our partners in Europe recognise that we are the most exposed to Brexit. While we withdrew our bid for the medicines agency, perhaps for good tactical reasons, we had a strong political and technical case for hosting it.

I want to try to understand what we can learn from this. Many businesses, organisations, jobs and economic activities will leave the UK or are in the process of doing so. We must ensure that Ireland is placed as well as possible. My understanding is that, while jobs in financial services are coming over, they are not at the level that was expected. When I speak to financial services professionals in London and Brussels, they are surprised that many of the big names did not come to Ireland. Professionals in London told me that Dublin had been at the top of the list for many of these names, yet they decided not to come here for various reasons.

Between the two agencies, how many jobs has Ireland lost out on? Will the Minister of State outline where we scored well and where we fell short in the evaluations? In terms of the banking authority, were Ireland's regulatory capabilities an issue? Was housing an issue, in that, if we had brought over 900 people from the medicines agency, would they have had somewhere to live? Was the cost of living an issue, specifically housing, rent and child care? Were locations in Ireland other than Dublin considered for these two bodies? What does the Government believe we can learn from having tried hard and failed in order that we can increase our chances of securing other economic activity as Brexit unfolds?

See this speech in context