Dáil debates
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
Lisbon National Reform Programme: Statements (Resumed).
6:00 pm
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I commend the Government and the Minister of State for debating this document. It would be useful for us to reflect on how we got here and why we are examining this document at this time.
The first European-wide attempt to integrate, modernise and create the Single Market goes back to the 1980s. The Commission, under the Presidency of Jacques Delors, and a commissioner, Lord Caulfield, identified approximately 315 legislative instruments that needed to be implemented under the new system of qualified majority voting, provided for under the Single European Act, to create the foundation of the Single Market. It was driven by the Commission and it had a clear focus. Somebody was in charge and the Commission was ultimately responsible for its delivery thought the institutions of the EU, which was successful.
In marked contrast, the Lisbon process, which started life in 2000 during the Portuguese Presidency, relies on governments to drive the process, not the Commission. Within this lies our problem. No one is in charge of driving the Lisbon Agenda. In the scoresheet produced by Alistair Murray of the Centre for European Reform, he gave the overall process a rating of C plus. Ireland and Sweden were among the noted heroes, with Italy a noted villain. In three categories, Ireland and other member states were deemed to be of villain status, displaying poor performance, namely in the areas of modernising social protection, climate change and the natural environment. In one area, the business start-up environment, we were considered one of the winners, a position we shared with Slovenia.
In the refocus of the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, there was a necessary but reluctant focus on the poor performing economic indicators in most of the member states. This did not take place in all member states and Ireland is not the only one performing poorly. This focus is understandable in the effort to get our growth rate to the required 3%. There is a danger that our success in the private sector, for which the Government does not have responsibility, will allow a degree of complacency to waft over to the public sector, for which the Government has unique responsibility. I detect this tendency running through the tone of the Minister of State's speech. In his contribution, my colleague in the Green Party will refer to the danger of ignoring the environmental and sustainable development dimensions of the original Lisbon Agenda. This will have real costs for the economy of this country, not to mention the environment, the landscape and the health of our people. I refer to specific fines for non-compliance with Kyoto emissions standards. Other speakers will address this.
The focus on the agenda raises certain questions. Though this document includes the kitchen sink, what remains in the garage and the contents of the shed, it is most welcome. Who is in charge of implementing this programme? An indication is given on page six that the Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for co-ordinating this. The Department of the Taoiseach is also responsible for the co-ordination of the national development plan yet when I ask which civil servant is in charge of the team and driving the national development plan on a daily basis, I am told someone is doing it in addition to other duties. These aspirations, no more than the original Lisbon Agenda, cannot be taken seriously unless a senior civil servant has the criteria of the Lisbon Agenda and the Irish scoreboard as his or her sole focus. I invite the Minister of State to list how many people are doing the job in his response. How many people are helping him or her? What is the reporting relationship to the various line Departments? Two Departments are mentioned, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as the lead macro-economic Department, and the Department of the Taoiseach.
Today, the ICTU decided to postpone participation in social partnership. A key element of the Lisbon Agenda is on hold and may remain on hold for some time. We have slipped behind the Lisbon Agenda because, unlike the Cockfield and Delors experience, no one is driving it. This is at the heart of a contradiction in some parties in the House. Some of these wish increased national participation and sovereignty and less participation in Europe. At the same time they bemoan the fact we are not achieving the targets set in the Lisbon Agenda. We must find a democratically acceptable mechanism that recognises the responsibility of national governments to deliver and puts in place a system of constant peer reviewing of achievement at the level of national government and the Commission. The Minister of State can address these questions in his response.
I refer to the role of the European Union in this area. When these reform programmes are reviewed, the Commission should grant daily responsibility to someone for chart marking progress on all 25 member states. It is ridiculous to rely on an independent research unit based in the United Kingdom. This should be at the centre of our aims at national and European level. Unless someone drives this project in a coherent and consistent manner this document will remain aspirational.
The focus is primarily on economics and the focus on employment growth is very strong. It is anticipated our labour market needs will be met by natural population growth and immigration, if necessary. It ignores the fact that we still have long-term unemployment and that some available jobs could be done by some of the 27,000 unemployed people. There is no indication of outreach to these people other than contact by FÁS if they are out of a job for more than six months. There is no indication of how they might be returned to the system. We ignore at our peril an economic system that can attract outsiders of whatever nationality or colour into our labour market, bypassing those who cannot participate in the labour market, perhaps through no fault of their own. People live in communities, not markets, and the marketplace is part of that community.
Denmark and the Netherlands are of similar size and population to Ireland and we ignore at our peril the social disintegration occurring in parts of their societies and the turmoil generated. These countries pursued the same shortsighted policies we are facing. They would advise us to examine what they did with guest workers rather than new citizens, with additional workers rather than contributors to society. Their employment focus was on performance in the workplace rather than family integration into the community and how the children settled in schools. If the children do not settle in school and do not learn the English to a degree of proficiency that enables them to qualify through the educational system they will not be able to participate in the Irish labour market when they come of age.
Denmark has had a similar experience. It had a generous social welfare system, to which everyone contributed, and low unemployment as we have. The unemployment protection system was a safety net, not a bed on which to lie. The children of foreign workers who failed to learn Danish and participate in the education system could comfortably lie on such a social protection system. This was their entitlement as residents and, in some cases, citizens. This created great social tensions in the country. If lessons can be learned from the two referenda on the European constitution, for which the Minister of State has considerable responsibility, social dissatisfaction was identified by internal commentators as one of the factors that led to the defeat in two countries. This was partly due to the failure to integrate immigrants into the society rather than the workforce. It is a lesson we ignore at our peril.
Many Irish people would love to work but they are forced to remain at home to mind children. This is not voluntarily chosen.
Dr. John FitzGerald of the ESRI has said the problem of child care provision in Ireland under its current format will get worse rather than better in the immediate short term of the next five to ten years, and I will explain the reason for that. According to the research done by the ESRI, invariably people who mind children in an informal economy are women without leaving certificate qualifications. They are older or under-educated women who help their sister, aunt or whoever with child care. That cohort is declining in demographic terms as we speak and more women, as is evident from the statistics in the document produced, are entering the workforce at a child-bearing age. There will be a greater demand, therefore, from people within the paid workforce for child care and a drop in supply of those who would be available in whatever formal contractual arrangement that might arise to provide that child care. Those are the facts, unlike the fact Deputy O'Donnell attempted to put on the record making a prediction about something she had not even read.
We have identified, in our child care document published last week, the necessity to give parents choice. Unlike the Progressive Democrats, we say that a child care system must have at its centre the well-being of the child. We should enable parents to become parents. They should not be the servants of the marketplace but contributors to it. Those of us who have the privilege of being parents, and it is a privilege, must be able to use that time in as productive and careful a way as possible but this Government, with all the riches it has had over the past eight years, has blown it. The idea of giving somebody a grant to convert their garage into a play centre because it is in the private sector and there are no ongoing costs is short-term and failed policy because when that person decides they want to hang up their boots, the facility which we, the taxpayers, helped to create goes with them. Child care places should be centred on the primary school campus. There should be only one trip to school in the morning, with the pre-school provision and possibly space for the child care provision as well. All of that will cost a great deal of money and it will probably take about five years to implement. We should be honest with ourselves and the electorate in terms of what the roll-out is likely to be but if we do not do it, we will mislead them.
I want to highlight the complacency in this area, which is understandable given the spectacular figures for which some Members in this House can claim credit. In his contribution the Minister of State referred to the fact that 85% of the people in the 20 to 24 age group achieved upper secondary school level qualification and a majority of them achieved third level qualification also. Does the Minister or any of his colleagues in Government know what happened to the 15% who did not get past junior certificate level? Do we know where they are, what their prospects for getting a decent job are or if they can be contacted to invite them back into the work system so they can be educated? Until we can answer for 100% of children going through the system, we are not up to the task of what Lisbon is holding out for us. I will conclude with one final thought. The reality is that this Government and society has a greater and more accurate up to date record of the health of our beef and dairy herds than we have of our citizens.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to share time with Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the Lisbon national reform programme. Before I go into the details of this issue, I want to set down two markers regarding the Lisbon proposals. We are all wasting our time if we fail to tackle, first, the issue of low pay and, second, social and political disadvantage. These must be the two core issues in any programme dealing with radical change in Irish society and in other countries. Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs must look after the weaker sections of society and narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Poverty and low pay should not be a reality in a country like ours, which has the lowest unemployment level in the European Union, the second lowest national debt and the highest investment on infrastructure. Despite these positive aspects in our economy, it is a scandal there are people on trolleys in our accident and emergency departments, children cannot get speech or occupational therapy services and young couples cannot buy a house of their own. We must address those fundamental issues but the large political parties in power for the past ten years have failed miserably to do so. Successive Governments have failed also to address the needs of our people. I challenge the Government on this issue. Our people are crying out for reforms and more effective use of the resources and wealth we have created in this society.
In parts of the northside of Dublin, for example, there are estates where 52% of children under the age of four are not prepared or ready for primary school. The day they start school, the odds are stacked against them and hence the urgent need for quality pre-school and child care services. That is referred to on page 39, section 463 of the report. I welcome the Minister to the House but we need action on those issues.
There is also an urgent need for investment. I recommend that children from disadvantaged backgrounds be prioritised in the roll-out of any new child care initiatives. There is a need for additional funding for community early years services catering for disadvantaged communities to adequately cover both pay and non-pay costs. This requires either a unified funding scheme under one Department or an integrated scheme set up between a number of Departments but with a single unified application and appraisal system. A distinct stream of funding should be developed for the development and provision of all the school services, to include pay and costs. These are important issues in this debate.
In dealing with our priorities, I accept we must maintain a stable macro-economic environment, sustainable public finances and moderate inflation levels. I also accept we must remain alert to external risk factors, such as oil prices and exchange rate developments. We must also monitor the high dependency on construction sector activity which can provide a sharp shock to the system. We must also promote, protect and enhance competitiveness. I stress, however, we do not need a right wing economic agenda.
We also need to encourage greater innovation and entrepreneurship across the enterprise sector and continue to roll out reform. Above all, however, we must support social inclusion and sustainable developments. These are important factors and issues in this debate. We must also continue to achieve higher levels of employment, improved quality and productivity of work and social cohesion, which are important issues. We must focus on education and training, including lifelong learning to develop a high-skilled, innovative and adaptable workforce for the knowledge economy. We must also ensure an adequate labour supply to meet the economy's needs. I emphasise that we are talking about a society and not just an economy. These are the central issues of any strong economy and they are very important.
It is important also that when discussing the development of the country, particularly in regard to the EU, we must accept the reality that developing the peace process on the island of Ireland is an important strategy in terms of both the political implications but also the social and economic development of the island. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate but I urge the Ministers involved to target the resources to the most needy in our society.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In Lisbon five years ago, the Taoiseach and the other EU leaders pledged to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge driven economy in the world by 2010. They also pledged, by 2010, to make "a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty" in the EU. Midway in this project the EU, and certainly the Irish Government, has proven to be far off the mark. Despite the EU's wealth, 68 million people are living in poverty in the European Union. Despite Government claims that all is well and that we are the second richest state in the EU, Ireland has the worst rate of relative poverty in the EU 25. Some 250,000 children in Ireland are living in poverty, the highest rate in the EU 15. The gap between rich and poor in this so-called prosperous land of ours has widened since 2000, not narrowed. In the competitiveness rankings, we are no better. The neo-liberal economic policies advocated by the EU and enshrined in the failed EU constitution, favouring liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation, may be the policy path the PD-Fianna Fáil Government wishes to follow, but we should examine how these policies have attacked social cohesion. They have failed to achieve the Government's narrow-minded goal of raising Ireland in the competitiveness rankings. Ireland's international trade competitiveness has deteriorated since 2000.
The Government has an odd approach to countering this problem. When it is pointed out that Ireland has, once again, one of the lowest standings in the EU in infrastructure and social supports, the Government's argument is that our competitiveness would be harmed if such supports were given. A similar argument is made concerning environmental protection. When more stringent environmental measures are required for industry, the Government drags its feet in the name of competitiveness.
Last year, the enterprise strategy group told the Government that high environmental standards were a "competitive advantage", as well as being a "key factor in enhancing quality of life". Yet, we continue to be pulled into the dock by the EU for our failure to implement EU directives. While no pun is intended, I read in the newspapers that the EU has issued another warning over the failure to control pollution by ships. Five years ago the Government promised that legislation would be on the Statute Book to prevent such pollution, but no action has been taken.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has there been any maritime pollution since then?
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should not waste my time. I can give him chapter and verse about it afterwards.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Process, not substance.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government's failure to invest in social infrastructure must be challenged, not just on the basis of morality but also on the basis of logic. We should look at the example of Finland which has the most competitive economy in the world. I do not need to remind the Minister that the Greens have been elected and re-elected to government there. Finland also has one of the highest levels of social infrastructure. It has proven that it can support its workers and care for its poor, as well as providing decent health care and education to its citizens without jeopardising its economic health.
Ireland has one of the lowest rates of spending on social protection in the EU 15. It has also been shown that our pensions and social transfers have little impact on reducing our at-risk-of-poverty rate. There is a vital need for rethinking in this Government in order to understand that we can be both competitive and caring. We can be innovative in industry and business, together with being innovative in our social supports and infrastructure.
The Green Party has long advocated and promoted the concept of the Irish economy thriving on high-tech, new industries, particularly in areas such as renewable energy. However, the Government has back-pedalled from the renewable sector and the departure of companies such asAirtricity bears testimony to that. This is in line with the Government's low standing in innovation and technology indicators where we languish when it comes to investment in research and development. In this area, we are light-years behind countries like Finland and Sweden.
Ireland is not alone in the EU in failing in the area of research and development. A recent study showed that a key goal of the Lisbon Agenda, to devote 3% of GDP to R&D by 2010, is seriously under challenge in that European companies have not raised their R&D spending in the past few years. Meanwhile, US and Asian companies have made major increases in such spending.
The Green Party notes that the Lisbon goals at mid-term are not receiving a good report card. The Government should stop shying away from embracing such models as those presented by the Scandinavian countries, particularly the Finns, who have shown up the myths driving the mean-minded Fianna Fáil-PD approach to social supports. The Scandinavians have also shown up the Government's paucity of imagination. The Government refuses to embrace environmental sensor innovation. A government can be green, competitive and caring, as has been proven elsewhere. Mark my words, unless economic activity starts to reflect the real costs of goods and services — for example, the embodied energy, resulting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions — the Government is creating a distorted economy that is out of sync with the earth's eco-system. It is an economy that is destroying its natural support systems and job opportunities for many of its citizens in the future. The transition to an eco-economy is already under way in countries such as Denmark where there is a 50% wind energy target. Kyoto is no more than a promotion for the revolution which is underway in other countries. Those who anticipate and plan for the emerging eco-economy will be the winners. Those who cling to the past, like the Fianna Fáil-PD Government, will become a part of it.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is not in Kerry now.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not in Tuam anymore, unfortunately.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is fitting that we are debating the Lisbon programme the day after the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has decided to recommend that its constituent unions do not enter negotiations on a new social partnership agreement. This follows the recent decision by the SIPTU conference and a clear upswell of dissatisfaction among union members over the shortcomings of the current deal.
This is relevant to the Lisbon programme because we are witnessing in this State, under the guise of social partnership, the implementation of the very policies that are central to the Lisbon strategy. The key phrase in all of this is competitiveness, a word that can, all too sadly, mean various things. In recent months, however, Irish workers have been left in no doubt what it means for them. Put in its starkest terms, competitiveness means more companies like Gama Construction and Irish Ferries. There are many more like them. Only in the past week I have been advised that a County Cavan employer is replacing local workers with non-nationals. The reason for this is the race to the bottom in which union organisation is destroyed and wages regress to the minimum. Sometimes, as we have seen too often, not even that paltry minimum is being paid by unscrupulous employers.
While Lisbon is dressed up in fancy phrases about business-friendly environments, fully-open internal markets, social inclusion and inclusive labour markets, the bottom line is to improve profitability by reducing labour costs. We are witnessing the creation in this State of large areas of economic activity in which employers are paying people low wages, often in conditions of employment that would not be tolerated by trade unions. Indeed, in areas such as catering and bar work, trade union organisation has been reduced to a minimum, if not eliminated entirely.
One of the main reasons that this holding down of wages is possible is that Irish employers now have access to tens of thousands of non-national workers, mainly from the new EU accession countries of central and eastern Europe, who are paid minimum rates of pay. As we have seen in some publicised instances — no doubt there are many instances which have gone unnoticed — such people are paid even less than the statutory minimum.
Placed against a reluctance — to put it mildly — by member states to ensure the social inclusiveness aspects of Lisbon are implemented, the strategy amounts to little more than facilitating employers in driving down wage rates and undermining workers' organisations. Non-national workers are seen as mobile and dispensable factors of production who are assumed to be content to put up with wages, work conditions, accommodation and general social protections that are unacceptable to existing work forces.
The motivation clearly is not to bring non-national workers up to levels which are admittedly higher in this State than in the EU accession countries, but to bring Irish workers down to a lower level. That is the fear and the perception based on experience. I have just instanced a number of high profile examples. I am aware of similar cases in my constituency and elsewhere where unionised workers are setting their faces against any new social partnership deal that does not take those factors into consideration and which fails to incorporate measures that will guard against the type of abuses seen in Gama Construction, Irish Ferries and elsewhere.
The philosophy behind Lisbon is being used as an excuse to undermine hard-won working conditions and social protections of which we should all be proud. Sinn Féin believes in a Europe in which there is labour mobility, but a Europe in which all EU citizens are brought up to the highest possible standards, rather than one in which the interests of mobile capital are paramount. As currently framed, that is what the Lisbon strategy will mean. We oppose any moves towards privatisation, lower corporation taxes and lower wages in this State. We are certainly not going to lend our support to any strategy that will impose that drift over the entire EU and make it even more difficult for radical and progressive parties and Governments to follow a different course. In conjunction with the Nice treaty and the proposed new constitution, the Lisbon strategy represents another attempt to curtail national sovereignty in the interests of capital.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Lisbon Agenda, which was agreed at the Lisbon European Council in 2000, aspired to make the European economy the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. The recent mid-term review of the strategy concluded that performance in regard to the Lisbon objectives had been disappointing and that an important aspect had been poor implementation of economic and structural reforms by member states. The implementation of reforms has not been fast enough and has not been comprehensive, particularly in the larger member states.
The Lisbon review concluded that a strong focus on growth and employment is necessary to preserve and enhance living standards and to contribute to sustainable development and social cohesion. The revamped Lisbon strategy attempts to improve implementation by increasing national ownership of the reform process, better focusing the strategy and improving its governance.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister but is the text of his contribution available?
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Did Deputy Ó Caoláin make copies of his speech available while he was reading it?
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will happily give it to the Minister.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am happy to give a copy to Deputy Ó Caoláin when it is available.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understood it was the practice——
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Ó Caoláin has the same obligation to me as I have to him.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was not conscious of that but——
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Ó Caoláin is, actually.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——if that is the case, the practice here would have been-——
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is, actually.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The practice here has been that when a Minister makes a substantive statement——
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the Deputy listens to what I have to say in the way I listened to him, I will provide it for him.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no problem. I do not know why the Minister always adopts an argumentative position when I was only asking for a copy of his speech.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why does Deputy Ó Caoláin adopt an argumentative position?
Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should be allowed to conclude without interruption.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Settle down, it will be all right Brian.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am fine. It is Deputy Ó Caoláin who is always argumentative.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should mind his blood pressure.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no problem with my blood pressure.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wait for the Minister's civil response.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will arrange to have a copy of the script made available to Deputy Ó Caoláin, although he did not provide a copy of his speech for me. I do not see what is the big deal. I have something to say and I would like to say it. I am here 21 years.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It does show. I listened in silence to Deputy Ó Caoláin and I do not understand why I cannot be listened to with the same level of respect. I just do not understand it.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not respond any more. It is pointless.
Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thank you.
On foot of the review, the European Council agreed that in consultation with national parliaments and social partners, member states would prepare national reform programmes which would set out measures which are being taken or proposed in support of the priority objectives of jobs and growth. In particular, national programmes would address the need for increased investment in research and development in education, promote enterprise and innovation by reducing regulatory burdens, eliminating barriers to market entry and improving access to capital markets. It was agreed the national programmes would be geared to the needs of member states, allowing for the diversity of situations and policy priorities at national level. This would allow member states to take greater ownership of the process and secure increased support for government initiatives.
Ireland's national reform programme is in line with the Government's overall economic and social policies as set out in An Agreed Programme for Government and incorporated in the current social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress. The programme also reflects the underlying premise of the Lisbon strategy, that progress on economic and structural reforms and the maintenance of sound public finances are interdependent. This has consistently been our approach also. The President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, recently cited Ireland as a "magnificent performer" in regard to structural reform in the EU and eurozone economies. This is a significant endorsement of the Government's economic and budgetary policies from the President of the ECB.
The Government is committed to sustaining economic growth and maintaining full employment in the Irish economy in tandem with progressing necessary economic and structural reforms. The national reform programme reiterates the Government's commitment to the Stability and Growth Pact as the overall framework for budgetary policy. Ireland has consistently adhered to the close-to-balance requirements of the pact through prudent budgetary planning.
The programme responds to the Commission's integrated guidelines for growth and jobs. It brings together a broad range of policies and initiatives, the implementation of which aims to sustain Ireland's strong economic growth and employment performance, as its overall contribution to the relaunched Lisbon Agenda over the period to 2008. It sets out the strong position of the Irish economy and illustrates the existing broad alignment of budgetary and economic policies with the Lisbon objectives. The healthy condition of the public finances underpins projected GDP growth of the order of 5% over the programme period to 2008. Public expenditure should not exceed the sustainable growth in resources in the future. This will facilitate the maintenance of a low burden of taxation, protect competitiveness and maximise economic potential.
Income tax policy has been aimed at maintaining full employment and strengthening and maintaining the competitive position of the Irish economy through reducing the tax burden on labour. The standard and top rates of tax have been reduced by 6% each since 1997. The reductions in the rates of tax have been accompanied by major reform of the income tax code, the move to a fairer system of tax credits, an increase in the value of the credits and a widening of the standard rate band. Taken together, these developments have reduced average tax rates and have helped to remove more of the lower paid from the tax net and to reduce the tax burden on those on average pay.
OECD data show that Ireland has one of the lowest tax wedges of the 30 member OECD countries. This provides strong incentives both for employers to hire more workers and for people to join the workforce and is reflected in the strong employment performance of the economy in recent years. There are now more than 2 million people in the workforce, which is an increase of over 400,000 jobs since 1997.
Public capital investment will continue to be a key priority for public expenditure in the medium term. The five-year rolling multi-annual capital envelopes for public investment introduced in 2004 contain a commitment to maintain public investment at or close to 5% of GNP or around twice the EU average to further reduce Ireland's infrastructural deficit. A new national development plan for the period 2007-13 will set out a new strategy for economic and social public capital and human capital investment, including research and development, when the current plan expires at the end of 2006.
A key concern in the Commission's guidelines is the safeguarding of the economic sustainability of the public finances in view of the projected costs of aging populations. Member states and the EU institutions have been taking steps to respond to the aging challenge. At national level, important reforms of pension systems and of early retirement arrangements have been launched in several member states. At EU level, macroeconomic policies offer a path towards stability and sound public finances which should put member states in a better position to meet future spending increases. Ireland is in a relatively favourable position with regard to meeting the economic and budgetary challenges of an aging population. Our ratio of general Government debt at the end of 2005 is forecast to be just over 29% and is expected to remain below 30% in the medium term, among the lowest in the euro area.
The importance of sustainability has become ingrained in Ireland's policy making process. A wide range of policy initiatives have been implemented in this regard in recent years. These include timely anticipation of the costs of aging by the setting aside of 1% of GNP each year for the national pensions reserve fund with the aim of pre-funding in part the future budgetary cost of social welfare and public service pensions. The fund's value at the end of June 2005 was about 10% of GNP.
The programme also describes reform in the area of public service pension provision, the national pensions review, tax incentives for private pension provision and issues related to the financing of long-term care. It notes the Government's concern to ensure the adequacy of the old age pension rates as evidenced by increases since 1997 of over 80% in a period during which prices increased by 31% and industrial earnings by 51%. The Government is committed to increasing State social welfare pensions to €200 by 2007.
Our economic fundamentals remain strong. Ireland continues to enjoy low unemployment, high rates of job creation, rising incomes, budgetary stability, low inflation and buoyant economic growth. After increasing by 4.5% in 2004, GDP growth is projected to accelerate to 5.1% this year with domestic demand the main engine of growth. Higher oil prices are a risk, both for the international economy generally and for Ireland. Our best response to them is to maintain our competitiveness. That means we must keep our price and wage inflation in line with our international peers. Developments regarding competitiveness remain a cause for concern. Over the past number of years our competitive position has worsened due to increasing domestic costs and to the appreciation of the euro exchange rate. Regaining competitiveness is a key challenge for the Irish economy, particularly with the recent enlargement of the European Union and the emergence of other world economies.
The Government is committed to improving competitiveness and to enhancing the conditions for economic growth through further structural reform of product, capital and labour markets. As indicated in the programme, the overall strategy is focused on maintaining budgetary stability and competitiveness. In parallel, we will continue to address certain areas where significant improvement is still required, such as the acknowledged infrastructure deficit and the need for significant expansion of research and development capacity and investment. This overall strategy will also be shaped by other key policies, such as ensuring a sustainable environment and the pursuit of continued improvement in key areas of social inclusion.
The pursuit of competitiveness is not an end in itself. Our approach also emphasises the reciprocal relationship between competitiveness and social inclusion, whereby competitiveness helps to generate the resources to enhance social inclusion while increased social inclusion enhances competitiveness.
Globalisation is a major issue for Europe. Driven by lower communication costs, reduced barriers to trade and the emergence of China and India, this process is likely to intensify further. This will create many benefits for the European Union. However, it will also entail significant challenges and therefore the European Union must improve the flexibility of its markets and enhance the incentives for enterprise and innovation if it is to respond to globalisation and achieve its objectives regarding jobs and growth.
Europe can no longer afford to wait because what is different five years on is the added sense of urgency. On the policy responses for the European economy, ensuring macro-economic stability is a key requirement in reducing uncertainty and providing the basis for future prosperity. This includes putting public finances on a more stable, sustainable footing to meet the long-term demographic challenges facing our economies. I stress the need to press on with structural reforms needed to boost EU competitiveness. This is particularly important in the context of both volatile oil prices and exchange rate developments.
The national reform programme reiterates the Government's commitment to maintaining a strong performance on economic growth and full employment in the Irish economy as the basis of continued prosperity and enhanced living standards.
M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. At the spring European Council, held in March, the European Heads of Government agreed to refocus the Lisbon strategy on jobs and growth. Given Ireland's record regarding job creation and growth levels over the past ten years, there was not much need to point the finger at it in terms of bringing forward a reform programme therefor.
A central part of the new approach in achieving the Lisbon goals is the preparation of a national reform package by each member state. Although a deadline was set for the preparation and submission of these programmes — they were to be returned by 15 October — many member states, including Ireland, notified the Commission that they would not present theirs until 28 October. The preparation of Ireland's national reform programme has been co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach with the help and input of other major Departments. I am pleased to note the social partners have all been consulted on the text of the report.
The revamp of the Lisbon strategy was considered necessary for a number of reasons, as outlined by the Minister for Finance. Insufficient progress has been made in reaching the Lisbon objectives. Although EU productivity levels were growing faster than those in the United States for five decades, they have been lagging behind since 1996 and are now far inferior. Labour productivity in the United States is now growing twice as quickly as it is in Europe and consequently the relative levels of wealth have also started to slip.
I suppose the European Union is in competition with the United States and we have been slipping further behind in the past few years. Europe is not investing enough in a number of areas, particularly in research and development. The United States spent approximately €100 billion more than the European Union on research and development last year. This will have to be addressed. In the United States, 32% of the population has a university or third level degree whereas the corresponding figure in the European Union stands at only 19%. The percentage receiving third level education in Ireland is increasing significantly. However, given the Union has extended to include 25 countries, the average percentage will slip even further in comparison to the figure that obtains in the United States. These trends, if not addressed, will drag down the potential growth rate in the European Union to a figure slightly over 1%, which is one third of the Lisbon objective of 3%.
The recent report by the Central Bank, while not glowing in its outlook, is not negative. It states Irish growth for this year is projected to be 4.5%, which is well ahead of that of our European partners. However, given that our economy is so small compared to that of the European Union as a whole, a growth rate of 4.5% would be diluted significantly when compared to those of some of our EU partners.
The Central Bank has also highlighted weak export performance over recent months. Increased dependence on the construction industry has also been highlighted. In talking about the Lisbon Agenda, one must be mindful that the construction industry has been the driver of economic growth and increased employment in Ireland in recent years. This is outlined in the report.
The external environment looks reasonably positive, if somewhat uncertain. The significant increases in oil prices have certainly caused some wobbles in the international economy. The recent bad weather, which has hit the United States in particular, has also caused some problems but, all in all, the world's economy seems to be performing reasonably well. The picture seems to be less favourable in Europe. We have been told the UK economy is slowing down and that growth remains modest in some of the other European areas. These areas and the United Kingdom are significant trading partners for Ireland and therefore they will have an impact on its economy.
Ireland's national reform programme has been set out by the Government. The Government and the Taoiseach's office have outlined the need to secure economic stability, promote the effective and efficient allocation of resources and contribute to a dynamic and well-functioning monetary union. Also highlighted are the requirements to extend the Internal Market, ensure open and competitive markets and create a more attractive business environment. Improvements have taken place in respect of the latter requirement over the past five years, partly due to our low tax regime. I encourage this low tax regime and hope the Government will retain it in the upcoming budget.
We have become very cost-competitive, which has attracted much inward investment. The environment still remains attractive to foreign companies. While labour costs have increased somewhat and certain companies that have invested in Ireland in the past 15 years are relocating abroad, we still have almost full employment, for which the Government must take credit.
The Government has also recommended the promotion of a more entrepreneurial culture and a supportive environment for SMEs. We have a thriving SME group. The work of county enterprise boards in encouraging young entrepreneurs is welcome. Their establishment ten or 15 years ago, and the investment and support they receive from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment are positive developments. Long may they continue.
We have fallen behind in research and development and must increase and improve our investment in this area. This is true in general of the European Union. The Minister and Government must focus on contributing to strengthening our industrial base which has weakened in recent years.
The integrated guidelines proposed by the Department include implementing policies aimed at achieving full employment and improving quality and productivity at work. Our productivity, which industrialists study when looking for scope to set up an overseas base, lags behind that of the United States.
We also need to improve the matching of labour market needs to expand and improve investment in human capital. While that has improved recently we need significantly more. We must also adapt educational and training systems in response to new competence requirements.
The work of third level institutions in these areas is welcome. Many institutes of technology, in particular, are adapting their courses to suit the needs of industry through increased contact with industry and commerce. For far too long the system whereby the Department of Education and Science set down the courses and syllabi for the institutes was too rigid. Only in the past five or six years have we begun to tailor courses to suit the needs of industry which has improved job creation, particularly in rural areas. It has also improved the potential for graduates to find jobs locally.
I welcome this debate and commend the Government's guidelines.
7:00 pm
John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Prior to being elected to this House I was involved in business. At that time the economy was neither as advanced nor as developed as it is today. Then, businesses were put to the pin of their collar to repay bank loans at rates rising occasionally to 20%. Since being elected I have seen major improvements in the economy, due in no small way to the successive Ministers for Finance since 1997 who provided for the macromanagement of the economy and ensured the environment was right to develop business and jobs. As a result of that significant growth many people are returning to work here instead of young people, educated to the highest level here, being forced to leave.
The Lisbon Agenda and this debate are timely and significant. While Ireland leads other economies and exemplifies best practice in defining and developing an economy and ensuring all boats rise with the tide of development, it can in turn set the pace of change in the Lisbon Agenda.
Our national reform programme, due to be completed by 28 October, should highlight several issues. The businesses that increase jobs and provide the services required by an expanding economy are essential to social partnership. There is a lesson for us in this. For example, it is extremely difficult to get delivery of a connection for a new business or an electricity pole outside one's premises. The private sector must begin to deliver services as quickly as the economy requires.
The same applies to telecommunications and information and communication technologies. That sector drives almost every other aspect of job creation and change in education, yet problems such as unbundling of the local loop and the availability of broadband remain. Despite the sums invested by the Government in this area there is a significant deficit in the availability of broadband throughout rural Ireland, whether through fibre-optic cable or wireless. In some cases that service is unobtainable for business purposes as well as domestic use. That is not good enough for our leading economy in the context of the Lisbon Agenda and best practice for many types of jobs and educational courses. The private sector urgently needs to develop ways to deliver its services to the economy more efficiently than it does.
In the United States, Professor NicholasNegroponte made a significant difference to the changes effected by then President Clinton in the ICT area, even if it was only to set the pace or the trend. We can do much in this area because we are a leading exporter of software. Many innovative people here are anxious to develop ICT.
Private industry and Government need to co-operate on developments in science and technology. We must consider our educational structures to ensure they devote significant attention to science and technology and develop research and development as much as possible.
We must also examine how the concepts within the social economy are set out and managed. Trinity College devises programmes which are used by those involved in social economy programmes, community projects and homework clubs. We do not pay enough attention to ensuring that young people in marginalised areas, such as we have in all our constituencies, are enabled to complete second level education and have the opportunity of going on to third level.
In the context of this report and what is being said with regard to the Lisbon Agenda, reference is made to the fact that there are many more third level graduates elsewhere and that education to third level should be made available in Ireland on a much wider scale. NUI Maynooth offers courses which are available in Kilkenny from the lecture centres in Maynooth. Outreach courses are available through St. Kieran's College in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. However, every report I have seen, whether from a chamber of commerce or those interested in education, highlights the fact that there is no significant presence of third level colleges in the regions.
To correct that, Waterford Institute of Technology, for example, should be classified as a university. We have seen efforts made by the institutes of technology in Carlow and Waterford to have outreach centres in their nearest urban centres. In the south-east region the chamber of commerce continues to point to a third level education deficit. I would like to see that rectified as part of the micromanagement of the regions and their economic needs. It is no longer all about urban centres. If communication technology tells us anything, it is that even in the remotest parts of any country or society, the types of courses now available from universities through technology should be made available to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to avail of economic benefits, to get their education, to improve their skills and to move on. How the EU develops the third level education area needs to be dealt with in the context of Europe's attitude to its member states.
Third level education in the south-east region is essential in the context of the businesses which already exist there. We must consider how IDA Ireland looks at job creation and technology. We have moved significantly away from manufacturing. Most constituencies have had the experience of a manufacturing company siting itself elsewhere because of low costs. We need to replace those jobs with jobs which are higher up the food chain, so to speak, in the context of income. IDA Ireland should change its policy with regard to the sites it owns and ensure there is a wider remit in terms of how it attracts businesses. We now see financial services established throughout the regions, and they need to be supported.
I acknowledge the efforts being made by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment through the fund now available for companies to improve staff skills and ensure that the programme of ongoing education and training is available.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to share time with Deputy Boyle. I want to concentrate on the element of the document referring to fostering family-friendly workplaces. This focuses on women returning to the workforce, which they are doing in ever increasing numbers. Clearly, people power put this issue much higher on the agenda when it was raised last March in the by-election campaigns of Meath and Kildare North. I hope we will see a response to that in the budget, because such a response is urgently needed.
Another issue does not seem to attract the same level of attention. People, mostly women, who take perhaps two or three years out from work when their children are young face a major disadvantage on their return to work. It is almost as if they are required to start at the bottom of the ladder in that very little note is taken of the experience they had prior to taking time out to care for their children. Some consideration needs to be given to incentivising the return to work, particularly where people have not been documented as long-term unemployed, as many of these individuals have not been. I regularly hear that they are seen as some sort of economic entity which has disadvantaged itself because the people involved have stepped out of the workforce. They should be viewed as having added benefit because at the times of most pressure in their lives they took time out to care for their children when they were very young.
A section of the document speaks of an infrastructural capacity and planning policy overcome through an effective NDP that sharply diminishes the infrastructure deficits which add to economic and social costs. That was in regard to transport, and the word "sharply" struck me because I have seen nothing sharply done in the area of public transport over the past ten years. It is an issue with which we must get to grips. For example, the AA has estimated that congestion costs in Dublin alone were in the region of €600 million last year. The AA might have quite a lot in common with our Green Party colleagues on that point.
I was one of a number of people who campaigned to have the Maynooth train line service doubled. That line goes through a catchment area of 250,000 people. It is not insignificant and was funded when the proposed third Luas line fell off the tracks, so to speak. So successful is the Maynooth train line that we are now talking of getting the train personnel from Tokyo, wearing their white gloves, to squeeze people onto the train because it is so packed.
We must get to grips with this issue if we are not to ask people to spend many hours in their cars, which is clearly unsustainable for the future.
Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. The Lisbon Agenda, as first articulated at the original Lisbon summit, consisted of just two pillars, a knowledge-based economy and the need for social inclusion. The third pillar, added as an afterthought, possibly after the end of the Portuguese EU Presidency, was that of sustainable development. When we discuss that issue, it is usually thought of and talked of as an afterthought, but as far as the Green Party is concerned, the development of any society or economy which is not carried out in a sustainable manner is not worth considering.
The problem with the Lisbon Agenda is that it is predicated on a number of economic indicators which are themselves flawed. We know that the simplistic economic indicators of gross domestic product and gross national product can be made to rise under quite artificial circumstances. For instance, the number of road deaths is a contributing factor towards the growth of GDP in any economy and society. One of the real failures of the Lisbon Agenda has been its inability to come up with proper indicators as to how a society within the context of the European Union can be measured in terms of health, wealth and well-being. At the time of this mid-term review, it would be better for our Government, rather than engaging in self-congratulations, to engage in a real debate with its European Union partners to introduce these better types of measurements so that we can measure how well we are doing as a nation and how well the European Union is doing with its own goals.
The Lisbon Agenda puts forward a set of goals to be achieved by 2010. Unfortunately, in any EU-wide context, and even in an Irish context, many of these goals will not and cannot be reached, most importantly the need to increase research and development as a percentage of GDP. It is hoped to reach 3% at the European level by 2010. Currently, the Irish proportion, at 1.65%, is just over half that.
If in the next five years we reach the required level, that would put the types of increases some have us have been discussing with regard to overseas development aid into context. Overseas development aid is to increase from 0.4% to0.7%, a target which the Government says will be reached by 2012. That is only 0.3% of GDP, yet to achieve the necessary increases in research and development, we will have to increase our current investment by approximately 1.5% of GDP. That is a huge sum and one which I do not think this Government is prepared to bridge.
The unfortunate reality is that most of the research and development conducted in this country is carried out by companies which came here through foreign direct investment and not enough is being done by indigenous Irish companies. Unless we get the balance right, I fear that when 2010 comes, our real contribution to the Lisbon Agenda will be negligible.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt in ainneoin cé chomh gairid is atá an t-am agam sa díospóireacht seo ar chlár leasú náisiúnta Lisbon. Chuala an Teach cheana ó mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, a léirigh na torthaí diúltacha atá ann maidir le ceart agus le cosaint oibrithe de thairbhe an chláir seo, agus tá gnáth meon an Rialtais i leith tromlach ceisteanna soiléir sa chlár seo: go bhfuil brostú i gceist ar aon chostas ina dhiaidh competitiveness. Díreoidh mé isteach ar conas atá an clár seo ceangailte le hathrach don dul chun cinn ag leibhéal an Aontais Eorpaigh i leith chlár Lisbon.
The Lisbon strategy has been used to provide political justification for many anti-social measures across Europe, such as the privatisation of public services and utilities, cutbacks in unemployment and other social welfare provisions, punitive measures against social welfare recipients, the harassment of thousands into low paid and unsuitable work, pressure to reduce salaries and the weakening of regulations on business and industry on the grounds that they are anti-competitive.
With promises of partnership and lip service to social inclusion, many European trade unions and NGOs in the social field were brought on board the Lisbon strategy. However, with the re-launched agenda or new start for the Lisbon strategy in February, the mask has slipped. The pretence of a social dimension to the original Lisbon strategy was jettisoned and the entire focus of the new start, as reflected in the Government's Lisbon Agenda national reform programme is on growth and jobs. Environmental, employment and social legislation under the reformed Lisbon strategy is to be assessed to ensure it does not decrease the competitiveness of business and industry. Progress in Europe will be benchmarked against the US and emerging economies in Asia rather than against the achievement of greater equality and work life balance for all.
From the beginning, the Lisbon strategy has been fundamentally flawed and has had the effect of leading to greater inequality and job insecurity across Europe. Today in the European Parliament, the Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, Mr. McCreevy, effectively promoted social dumping and confirmed that the EU will oversee the undermining of social protections and workers' rights. It is no surprise that the national reform programme proposed by the Government is a carbon copy of its European equivalent.
Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It appears that, while nuances on this issue differ, most speakers share a broad consensus. We are bedevilled in terms of the Lisbon process because we unfortunately discuss only the mantra that Europe will become the most knowledge based and competitive economy in the world by 2010. That has not and will not be achieved.
The Barcelona process also has laudable objectives but the Lisbon process was cherry picked by, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh noted, those who look for the complete liberalisation of the social model we painstakingly built and who race to the bottom with regard to social protection. The Lisbon Agenda includes much more, if people take the trouble to read it. It is unfortunate that directives such as the services directive arose from the agenda but other aspects have not received attention.
The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, and other speakers outlined a comprehensive list of measures which, if we have the courage to implement them, will result in a more competitive and inclusive society. We could develop a system closer to the Scandinavian than the Mediterranean model that some would like us to have.
The European Union today is a model of political and economic co-operation unprecedented in world history. It is four times the size of its original membership, has competence in a broad range of domestic and international policies and clearly has not been a static institution. While it may be easy make use of 20-20 vision in hindsight, if we had the courage to allow the ten new accession countries to bed in and create a new dynamic in the enlarged Europe, I suspect we would now have a more balanced model of social and economic development than the one we are in danger of having.
European leaders faced a changing reality in March 2000, which came about from increasing economic competition from the US and Asia in tandem with an aging and declining European population. It was in this new reality that the European Council in Lisbon set out a ten-year strategy to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with higher employment, better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010. Despite the fact that the target date has slipped, the objectives remain laudable and should be realisable.
It is clear the Lisbon Agenda has begun to bring about tangible benefits in our daily lives. The strategy has strengthened the EU's economy and is driving job creation alongside social and environmental policies that ensure sustainable development and social inclusion. However, today's reality is that if we are to meet our goals in 2010, which I do not think is achievable, more needs to be done now. The challenge is to see further policy implementation and increased energy in delivering the policies that will increase competition and job creation in a more sustainable way. Risks exist in rushing headlong into the issue of increased employment, such as the issues which arose from the Irish Ferries debates. We do not need to put this on our agenda because we have a model which demonstrates we can have increased employment and better jobs without joining the race to the bottom.
The programme is significant and its thrust reflects the commitments already outlined in the programme for Government and agreed to under the social partnership agreement. Earlier today, Deputies Naughten, Upton, Mulcahy and I discussed with a group of Welsh students how Wales might achieve the success they perceive in Ireland. We noted the influence that our social partnership model had in terms of delivering substantial progress and developing our economy since the 1980s. That influence should not be forgotten. We correctly place a high value on social partnership and the idea that we can only revitalise our economies and increase employment if we involve all of the stakeholders, including Government, Oireachtas, social partners and civil society. The Government and social partners recognise that international competitiveness is a necessity for income increases and social protection. They have worked together to promote complementary strategies for change, which in turn are reflected in clear national policies and objectives. This programme is no different. On a day when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions paused to reflect on whether it would enter into the new round of talks about the next round of social partnership agreements, it is wise that it and others would consider the balance of advantage that has been achieved for this society by the social partnership model. There are ways it can be tweaked. Not two programmes for social partnership have been identical. There have been add-ons and refinements, all of which have greatly benefited Ireland and its people. Notwithstanding the unrest in An Post, the danger liberalisation and globalisation present to such entities and the issues around Irish Ferries, which are a cause for concern to those who work in those enterprises, the balance of advantage lies in our continuing with that social model.
I welcome that the programme aims to encourage greater innovation and entrepreneurship across the enterprise sector. I heard Deputy McGuinness refer to that sector. I welcome initiatives promoted by the universities, the institutes of technology and organisations such as FÁS. I also refer to initiatives such as the academy for entrepreneurship in Citywest Business Campus launched by the Taoiseach yesterday, which will be linked with Dublin City University, based in my constituency, which has a record for innovation and promoting entrepreneurship. Such initiatives need to be replicated across the island if we are to have sustainable development.
Social inclusion is an important area to consider. The Government must work harder and invest more in early childhood education and in child care provision. I do not say that because I want every person who can to go out to work but rather because I want a better and more cohesive society. I want more investment in education to ensure there are fewer early school leavers.
It is great to note that the level of participation in third level education has increased in my constituency from 14% to 27%, although Deputy McManus will probably point out to me that I objected to the abolition of third level fees at the time. While I did and still have reservations about that as a policy measure, I am prepared to admit that I am not always right. More investment in education, more diversity in education provision and encouraging people to participate in adult and continuing education sector is the way we will achieve a balance under the Lisbon agenda reform process.
Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I sincerely thank my colleagues for their contributions to this debate. While we may not see eye to eye on everything, I believe there is broad consensus among us on the overall goals of the Lisbon agenda and on the particular priorities for Ireland.
We are at an interesting time on the European journey. On the one hand, the results of the referenda in France and the Netherlands on the European constitution are evidence of the need to make Europe more meaningful to the man and woman on the street. At the same time the member states must work together to address globalisation. Failure to do so risks holding back or undermining economic and social progress in Europe.
I would like to respond to some of the issues raised by various speakers. Deputy Neville spoke about his experience in the food industry and about product development. The firm programme operated by the Department of Agriculture and Food has led to the development of third level centres of excellence in food research, the delivery of a highly qualified cadre of postgraduate and doctoral researchers and innovative research outputs with food safety and commercial outcomes. The model of competitive international co-operation, where excellence and collaboration are required to secure funding, the independent evaluation process and restriction of grant aid to high quality projects has yielded first class research and increased capacity and capability in food research at third level.
Deputy Neville also referred to broadband delivery. The Government has assumed a leading role in driving broadband delivery and has devised a programme of phased, targeted investment. It has put in place several initiatives to assist the private sector to address the existing gaps in communications infrastructure and services in urban and rural areas throughout Ireland. The Government is doing its part and telecoms providers need to do their part.
In response to Deputy Quinn's point, I agree that we must do more on research and development. The reform programme includes a detailed annex specifying a range of acts and initiatives to improve our research and development performance. This annex runs to some eight pages. The measures outlined will be further added to when the Government adopts an implementation plan on research and development which is currently being finalised.
Deputy Quinn asked a key question about who is in charge. The Department of the Taoiseach, through an excellent staff, is co-ordinating the national reform programme in line with the new approach of a single integrated document and drawing up the overall agenda but the bulk of the specific issues to be tackled fall under the remit of the Ministers for Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Many other Departments and agencies are responsible for specific elements and initiatives. It is critical that all those involved, including the relevant Ministers, understand the importance of the Lisbon goals and our national priorities. The Taoiseach has asked me, as the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, to lead to the overall co-ordination, which I am pleased and honoured to do. The European Commission has a task force based in the secretariat general and it is drawn from several services, all reporting directly to President Barroso.
In response to Deputy Finian McGrath's point on international comparisons of Ireland's expenditure on social protection, in recent newspaper reports comparisons are based on a percentage of GDP, but this does not allow accurate comparisons to be made with other EU member states because GDP is much higher than GNP in Ireland due to our open economy and higher number of multinational companies.
The relaunched Lisbon Agenda strikes a good balance between mapping out the overall goals and, at the same time, letting each member state decide on the policies and measures appropriate for its own particular circumstances. That is welcome, provided that each member state selects and implements policies which foster and underpin economic growth, create more jobs and, ultimately, contribute to a richer quality of life for all of the citizens of Europe.
This last point is important. The emphasis on jobs and growth is not, by any means, to the exclusion of sustainable development or social inclusion. These are two critical elements of overall policy not only at EU level but at national level. While they are specific programmes and fora in their own right, they also form an important backdrop to policy setting for both jobs and growth.
I would like to reiterate some of the key priorities Ireland will pursue over the next few years under the new Lisbon programme. We will continue to manage the public finances prudently and pay close attention to competitiveness generally across our economy. We will strive to provide an environment where enterprise can flourish and consumers are protected, building further on our recent progress in research and development, particularly by adopting and implementing a new strategy to underpin the Government's research and development action plan. We will work hard to support enterprises to become more innovative and knowledge-based. We will put in place a new national development plan for the period from 2007 to 2013 and will shortly announce details of a new ten year plan for transport to be implemented across the country. We will press ahead with our ambitious but necessary regulatory reform programme. We will encourage the sustainable use of resources and strengthen the synergies between environmental protection and growth. We will continue to provide a range of measures to support people seeking to enter the labour market and those already in it who wish to improve their skill levels while ensuring that labour market policy contributes to making our economy more knowledge-based and innovation-driven. We will codify work permit arrangements, improve protections for migrant workers and allow for a new green card system to contribute to overall labour supply in Ireland. We will continue with our programme of specific measures to combat long-term unemployment.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy will need a break after all that, as it is a very heavy schedule.
Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am delighted to see Deputy Rabbitte.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a very heavy schedule.
Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He could not be here at a more appropriate time. We will continue to invest in our education system, promote greater participation at all levels and implement the national framework for the development of lifelong learning. We will implement a national reform programme over the next three years——
Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State's time is exhausted.
Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——that builds on our strengths, improves on any remaining shortcomings——
Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And everybody will live happy ever after.
Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——and keeps Ireland at the forefront of building a competitive Europe with strong economic growth and employment for all in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe.