Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I have a script, but I will not read it. Instead, I will discuss what we went through for a few minutes and then answer the Deputy's questions.

Approximately two months ago, I started what was effectively a road trip. In that time, I have been to 16 European countries. This was done to put boots on the ground, meet finance Ministers and try to put forward the best case that we could for the EBA. At the same time, the EMA was being pursued by officials from the Department of Health. Perhaps a month ago, we made the determination that we would not win the EMA. We had a choice between pursuing two bids or one. Had we pursued two, we were of the view that we would not get into the round of three on either. That calculation turned out to be correct. We put in place a strategy to try to win one of the bodies. A country could only win one; none could win two. If a country won one, it would be excluded from hosting the second.

We withdrew from the bid for the EMA because we had always believed that we had a greater chance of winning the banking authority. That is why we prioritised it. We put boots on the ground. I thank the officials from the Department of Finance and, in particular, the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, who put in a big shift, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, because the process was operated strongly for between four and six weeks. We did everything we could to win one of the authorities.

I will try to answer as many questions as I can. The EMA and the EBA comprised approximately 900 and 200 jobs, respectively. One of my first visits was to the banking authority in Canary Wharf. Deputy Donnelly spoke about the bid, but this effectively turned out to be a political decision. The Commission carried out different types of assessment in respect of the EMA and EBA. It used a traffic light system for the former but not the latter, where it said that everyone was qualified. I never encountered questions about our regulatory capabilities when visiting the 16 capitals. Similar to the assessments performed by the Commission, issues of housing and the cost of living were not raised. No city in Ireland other than Dublin was considered. Primarily, the cities presented were capitals - Warsaw, Vienna, Paris, Brussels, Luxembourg, etc.

As to what we have learned, I will not pretend. Along with officials, I spent a large amount of time travelling. I believed that we could get into the round of three and that, if we were up against Paris and Frankfurt, we could win. I turned out to be incorrect. We did not win, but we did not lose. It went to the toss of a coin. We have learned a major lesson. There has been reportage on it, some inappropriately negative. People have been saying that we have no friends. We went head to head against the Germans and the French. They are much larger countries than us. We beat the Germans and, when their votes were distributed, we were level with the French. The French did not beat us. It was a hell of an achievement. I thank the officials in the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

I will finish on one point. Our ambassadors and diplomatic corps on the ground have been superb. Their work probably goes unnoticed to some extent. They are professional and very capable. As such, I thank Deputy Donnelly for viewing this issue in a positive light. It is easy to take the Roy Keane view that, if we do not win, we lose. We were not beaten and we did not win. It went to the toss of a coin. I am disappointed that we did not win on the toss.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for putting his script down. I appreciate answers to questions.

Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I try.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go into some of the specifics on the banking authority. My understanding is that we were offering approximately €13.5 million in rental support and a further €1 million to help staff relocate. As such, some hard numbers were involved. Based on the scoring mechanism or the political considerations, might offering more money have tipped the balance?

Has there been any ask of France? Maybe I am being naive in even asking this question, but France has a larger economy than Ireland and it is much less exposed to Brexit than we are. Were there diplomatic or senior political efforts to tell the French that, although they had been pulled out of the bag, this would have been ten times more important to us in relative terms and, in the spirit of egalitéand fraternité, ask them to consider something else?

Regarding the process of Paris being pulled out of a bag, which was essentially a coin toss, my understanding is that we scored better than Paris when Frankfurt was knocked out. The Minister of State is saying that is not the case.

Was the Government okay with pulling it out of a bag? Should there have been more diplomatic efforts to make a case for Ireland, in particular in the context of Brexit?

I referred to potential earnings. I acknowledge that the Minister of State and diplomatic team did their best and raising this issue is not about having a go at them. We have lost the Rugby World Cup, the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority, despite having really good people on all of those teams trying to sell Ireland. There is a big sell we need to start winning on. Financial services, engineering and professional services jobs, as well as all manner of other jobs, are coming from the UK and, it is to be hoped, other places. We are under pressure in terms of FDI and the US. We need to learn from our losses and start winning. Does the Minister of State have any reflections on things which team Ireland can start to do in order to get more jobs into the country? We really need them.

Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not have a conversation about FDI. Perhaps we could have that conversation if the Deputy tabled another Topical Issue matter. I do not say this very often, but I am absolutely satisfied that there was nothing more we could have done. To be frank, we pulled out all the stops. Everybody who was asked to participate did so really well. Many people did not believe we were in the race for the European Banking Authority. Many were of the view that we had made an error withdrawing from the European Medicines Agency bid. However, we said this was the only pathway for Ireland to get into the race for the European Banking Authority third round. We said that if we got into that we would be very competitive, and we were.

We had 13 votes after the second round. The French had ten and the Germans had four. The Germans were subsequently eliminated and its four votes were to be distributed in the next round. One country chose to abstain by spoiling its vote and the French then got three votes. It was 13 all and it went to a hat. That was agreed beforehand. I am not sure whether Deputy Donnelly is aware that the European Medicines Agency also went to a hat. Milan and Amsterdam went into a hat before us at 13 all. They are the facts.

More money would not have made a difference. We had a really good offering in terms of property solutions and staff relocations. Money did not become the deciding factor. Rather, it involved politics and larger countries, whereby Germany and France combined to level with Ireland. All three German votes went the French. The core levelled with the periphery. That is the new dynamic and it is very interesting. Perhaps we will have a chance to have a coffee after this debate. That is the really big story in the European Banking Authority and European Medicines Agency because the Dutch, a smaller nation, also beat the Italians, a larger nation, and that vote was 13 all.