36 institutes of technology, universities and privately-run higher education colleges around the country will be offering 220 Springboard courses.

These courses will be in the expanding enterprise areas of ICT, medical devices, the green economy, pharmaceuticals, food and beverages, and international financial services. Programmes will also be available in cross-enterprise skills such as Six Sigma, lean and quality systems, international selling, languages, business start-up and entrepreneurship skills.

Courses are free, part-time, and are at certificate, degree and postgraduate level.

Commenting on the 6,000 new places today, Deputy White said: “The Government is committed, through the Action Plan for Jobs, to supporting business to create jobs and getting growth back into the economy. Springboard is contributing to the supply of graduates with the skills and qualifications needed by the expanding growth sectors of our economy. Not only do these graduates have up to date qualifications, they also have a wealth of experience and workforce skills to bring to an employer.”

The eligibility criteria have been expanded to include people who were previously self-employed and people in receipt of an extended number of social welfare payments such as the Disability Allowance and the Carer’s Allowance.

A Freephone Guidance line 1800 303523 is also being put in place to assist people with course choices and applications. The HEA-funded Freephone line is being hosted in the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed.

Over 3,500 people are due to graduate this month from the first round of Springboard programmes, which were put in place in 2011.

.
“These are the first steps – only the first steps – towards resolving the worst crisis in Europe since the Second World War. It may be said that these measures are as yet partial and incomplete. Also, that they concentrate too much on austerity, and not enough on growth. These are legitimate arguments to make. But they do not point to a ‘no’ vote; on the contrary.

“There are serious imbalances within the Eurozone. These have led to manifest injustices and understandable resentment in many countries, including Ireland, where the citizens have been saddled with the debts of a failed banking system. Ensuring that this is never repeated requires real and substantive change – change that entails a lot more than fiscal rules, necessary as they are.

“Voting ‘yes’ on 31 May will be a first step towards achieving the kind of change that’s needed. It will be an expression of solidarity with other countries in stabilising our common currency, and in preparing the ground for a genuine growth strategy. There can be no doubt that the election of Francois Hollande as President of France has changed the conversation about growth. We in Labour share the social democratic vision of President Hollande. He has already shifted the terms of the debate about Europe’s future. Ireland has much to gain from this development.

“Voting ‘yes’ on 31 May will ensure that we are part of the new emerging consensus on growth. And it will strengthen our negotiating position in the on-going effort to have our legacy debt re-structured.

“It will be a statement of solidarity with our partners, and of commitment to following basic fiscal rules – rules which are already in force, but which the Treaty now requires to be put into each country’s own law.

“At a time of uncertainty, a ‘yes’ vote is by far the less risky course. It offers a guarantee of cheap funding should we continue to require it, while the new rules will not even begin apply to us until after we exit from the programme of assistance.

“When you weigh up the ‘pros and cons’ it is abundantly clear that our best interests will be served by a ‘yes’ vote on 31 May.

“It won’t be the end of the crisis; but it can be the beginning of the end.”

I have found colleagues’ contributions to the debate this evening both interesting and informative. I was not aware, for example, that it was the view of Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan that we should leave the euro.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: I have expressed that view on previous occasions in the House.

Deputy Alex White: I respect his view although I disagree with it. I would be interested to hear Deputies Flanagan and Joan Collins say whether they would consider us to have a better chance of running our own affairs if the treaty is accepted or if it is rejected. Does Deputy Collins believe we will have more or less austerity if it is defeated? Many articles have been quoted from colleagues on that side of the House to support their case. Mr. Krugman’s ears must be very red. In an article of his on 11 March to which rather less reference was made, Mr. Krugman said: “You may ask what alternatives countries like Greece and Ireland had, and the answer is that they had and have no good alternatives”. In other words, while he has offered a major critique of the strategy in the eurozone, he has formed the view that Ireland, among others, has little choice in regard to where it finds itself. I do not accept that we are without choices, but I am strongly of the view that if this referendum is defeated, we will have more austerity, not less. We have a deficit of €15 billion and nobody willing to lend to us. Were we to decide, as Deputy Flanagan advocates, to just leave the currency, we would simply isolate ourselves from any prospect of recovery.

I acknowledge that the treaty is not perfect. In fact, I do not accept it is the solution to the problems in the eurozone. Moreover, I very much agree with some of the points made by Deputy Mick Wallace and others in regard to the huge economic imbalances that exist across the eurozone countries. That is a major issue that must be addressed. It may even be more at the heart of the collapse in Ireland than fiscal indiscipline ever was. I agree with Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn that if the rules set out in the stability treaty had been observed for the past ten years they would not, on their own, have addressed or solved the problems that have arisen. They would not have tracked the bubble which was, in fact, an indirect or perhaps even a direct result of the imbalances to which I referred. The explosion of credit that emerged in the core of Europe after 2000 and the introduction of the euro was bound to have a differential impact on different countries given their varying economic circumstances. Our economy simply was not in a position to withstand and should never have been exposed to that type of influx of credit in the uncontrolled manner in which it occurred. I absolutely agree that fiscal rules alone would not have prevented the crisis. However, that is not an argument against fiscal rules. Rather, it is an argument that fiscal rules are not enough, that the fiscal discipline that is advocated is necessary but not sufficient. It is certainly not a case for throwing out the rules as if they were not required at all.

It is not difficult to ascertain the impetus behind this treaty. The design of the euro currency in the early part of the last decade was incomplete and arguably flawed. Member states thought they could have monetary union without any type of fiscal co-ordination, but there is no currency in history that ever could survive in those types of circumstances. Rules were set out in the Stability and Growth Pact, but they were ignored by many countries, not so much those on the so-called periphery but by France and Germany, among others. What is now being proposed is, first, to take the rules from the shelf, dust them down and strengthen them, which is what was done last year. The provisions contained in the treaty are the strengthened rules that were reintroduced last year. Indeed, they are largely the same rules that have been in place since 1997, which have merely been dusted off and strengthened. In addition, a decision was made to introduce corrective mechanisms where the rules are not applied.

This is the main response the European Union has had to the crisis in the eurozone. To reiterate, while I am of the view that it is necessary, it is not sufficient because we have not yet addressed the macroeconomic imbalances that continue to exist. Europe made a start on addressing those imbalances in the six-pack last year and made additional progress in this new two-pack set of regulations, but it has not done enough to address the risk that the same type of explosion of asset price bubbles could recur in periphery countries. It is moving in the direction of addressing the issue, but it should be given just as much attention as is being given to fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, that is not being done. Nor is sufficient attention being given to the necessity for a growth strategy in Europe. It will probably never be possible, despite what colleagues have argued, for a Keynesian, stimulus-type approach to be taken in isolation in one country within the eurozone. It will however be possible for it to be done in the eurozone as a whole, and I support that, but given the configuration of a system where there is monetary union and fiscal co-ordination, no single country will be in a position to stimulate its own economy without the co-ordination and co-operation of other member states.

That is not to say that Keynes is dead, as some have claimed. Nor does it necessarily mean that neoliberalism has finally triumphed, as Deputy Clare Daly claimed, or that there is no room for any other politics. I strongly disagree with her on that. However, when we have 22 or 23 essentially right-wing or centre-right Governments out of 27 in the European Union, there is a large political job to do. One will not do that political job by cutting oneself loose from the currency or choosing not to engage in politics in Europe. One will not succeed by abandoning any interest in whether the elections in France at the weekend, for example, will change the Government in that country. We will not achieve our objectives by deciding not to make common cause with other Governments, whether on the left or centre-left, in other member states. Instead we should be in Europe arguing with people, co-operating with people and making common cause with people.

There are many people elsewhere in Europe who are interested in hearing the type of debate that is taking place in this Chamber. However, Deputy Flanagan and others are arguing that we should just look after ourselves. He claims that is not a nationalistic position to adopt but I would contend, with respect, that he is being the very essence of a little Irelander.

There is no future for this country on its own. I have made the point to Sinn Féin Deputies in the past that sinn féin as a concept – ourselves alone – is ludicrous in the modern world. We cannot solve all the major problems in the world, economic, financial and environmental, ourselves alone. Deputy Flanagan might believe it can be done but that does not make it so. What we must do is, for example, mutualise debt and deal with the necessity for restructuring it where countries have an overhang of debt. I am strongly of the view that the debt must be restructured in some considerable respect. That is a political fight in Europe. It is a political fight with countries and institutions that do not want to see it happen. If one believes in eurobonds and the mutualising of debt, let us go and argue for them. Let us go and fight for them, talk to other people who might agree with us and talk to other countries in similar positions. However, my colleagues across the House do not want that. Instead they say we should just forget about it all on the basis that it is neoliberalism, and that we should turn our backs and paddle our own canoe. That will not work. Let us be serious politicians, as I am sure my colleagues on that side of the House are. As I said, I accept that fiscal discipline is necessary but I do not agree it is sufficient. We must employ other economic instruments that promote growth. The European Union has not, despite some welcome initiatives recently, been anything like as forthcoming or robust on the growth side as it has been on the fiscal discipline side. Therefore, it is a considerable challenge to build a new strategy in Europe in that regard.

One could ask why the new rules are being introduced. The rules were strengthened and corrective mechanisms were put in place, but one might still ask what the treaty is about. Again, there is much misinformation about this and perhaps genuine misunderstanding. The treaty is about taking a different approach from simply having the Taoiseach go to Brussels to make an agreement, along with the leaders all of the other countries. It proposes an additional step, whereby countries would anchor these already agreed rules in their domestic laws. That is the difference because although the rules already are in place, the proposal is that they be agreed to in this House in the form of legislation. In other words, the Government does not simply agree to them when in Brussels, but rather at some point after the referendum is passed, the Oireachtas would put them into domestic law through legislation. The rules will not be inserted into the Constitution, although people thought that would be the case. They will be put into law in our Parliament and the people will be asked to agree this should be done at some point in the future.

There has been much misinformation and misunderstanding about the rules. For example, I refer to the notion that the corrective mechanism which would be invoked were the deficit rule, or debt brake, to be breached would be a deeply draconian regime that would be imposed on us without consultation and so on. Of course, it is completely untrue that the corrective mechanism is the draconian regime suggested. The obligation is that Ireland would support and implement proposals with which the Commission would come forward. Such proposals would be country-specific, based on the particular conditions in an individual country. Moreover, there would be a timeframe for the implementation of such proposals. The Commission does not operate in the manner characterised by Members on the other side of the House. There must be a high degree of consultation, as there always has been and as I believe there will be in the future. The treaty states specifically, “Such correction mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments”. Consequently, Members will also have a responsibility in this regard. Their role is set out clearly in the treaty and they must step up to the plate. One might ask what this Parliament is doing about budgetary discipline. Obviously, the Government brings forward the budget, but what responsibilities are Members, as parliamentarians, taking on? We all need to engage in self-criticism on how quickly, how carefully and in what detailed way we become involved in budgetary assessment as parliamentarians.

On the deficit target, I remind colleagues that Ireland is already committed in this regard. I acknowledge Members opposite disagree with this and I certainly disagreed strongly with the decision taken in 2008 to provide the guarantee that led inevitably and inexorably to what happened last year in respect of the bailout. However, the State has made a solemn commitment to reduce its deficit to 3% by 2015. Moreover, the treaty provisions will not kick in for Ireland until at least 2015 because the programme of assistance will be in place until then. It is true that Ireland would then be obliged to go further than the figure of 3%. Were it to get out of the programme by 2015, it would be obliged over time to reduce the deficit further to comply with the new rules. However, if one considers the proportionate reduction that would be needed beyond 3%, it pales somewhat when compared with what we have been asked to do and are obliged to do up to 2015.

On the reduction of the debt, Members should consider a country with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100% – I acknowledge that Ireland’s debt is somewhat higher. As one is obliged to reduce the debt by one twentieth of the amount above 60% of GDP, in the aforementioned case one would be obliged to reduce it by one twentieth of 40%, which is 2%. If such a country experiences growth of 2%, it is covering it. Historically, the manner in which countries have dealt with debt and the way in which one eats into it is through growth. One may argue that Ireland may not experience growth, but if that is the case, we will be back in the same position in 2015 in any event. Ireland will not get out of the programme of assistance without growth. Moreover, the European Union and the world economy will not get out of its problems without growth. Consequently, no matter how one approaches the future, it is a given that growth is a necessity.
On sanctions, there is a belief abroad that the treaty states the European Court of Justice can impose sanctions on countries that do not implement the rules. This is completely untrue. The involvement of the European Court of Justice is confined to a circumstance in which a country has failed to put the rules into law. A country cannot be brought to the European Court of Justice under the treaty for breaching the rules, it can only be brought before it for failing to put the rules into law. This point is not well understood. People are suggesting Ireland will be brought to the court and fined unless it does this, that and the other. However, the treaty does not provide for this. The sanction in this regard would only apply were the referendum to be passed and Ireland then to fail to bring forward the legislation in, say, June. That might occur, but it seems highly unlikely that were the treaty to be ratified by the people, the Government would not then proceed with the legislation.

The treaty is about more than stability. It is also about solidarity and trust between the peoples and governments of Europe. I state to Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan and other Members that just occasionally Deputies may need to think about the perspectives of other peoples in Europe apart from thinking, as we must, about our own. We represent our own people and have a duty to them principally before anyone else. While I accept this point, occasionally, we might think about how the world in which we live looks from the perspective of German, Finnish, Belgian or Dutch taxpayers and how they perceive what has happened. It might be worthwhile to consider how they perceive what they have been called upon to do and why they might require a certain amount of mutual trust. In this context, one might consider it to be not at all surprising that in response to further calls on their resources and requests on them to vote in parliament to fund bailouts, they would seek to have people take the rules seriously by incorporating them in their own laws. I repeat that this is all the treaty asks us to do. It does not bring in new rules, but it commits countries to putting the existing rules into domestic law.

As for the imbalances and all the other crucial issues that must be addressed, Deputy Mick Wallace referred to uneven development. He is absolutely right in this regard and has put his finger on the real problem in Europe. It is absolute necessary for the countries of the eurozone and the wider European Union to address now and in the future the question of how to deal with the fact that different countries have different levels of economic development and how to have in place a system and a strategy for growth that simply does not direct itself towards meeting the needs of the so-called core countries, but one that genuinely serves all the states of the European Union. I have mentioned that these are political questions of huge importance. The outcome of the French presidential election at the weekend and the subsequent second round is of massive importance also. These are big political questions and people are thinking about such issues in Europe. The way to approach this issue is not to walk away and suggest the people concerned will only bring trouble to us. I refer to the attitude that suggests it is all trouble, that we do not want it and, consequently, should vote “No”. It reminds me of the little boy holding back the flood with his finger in the dyke. It is as though we can walk away from it and that such things will not matter to us, which is ludicrous.

If people are not convinced, they will be by the following point. There is uncertainty almost everywhere one looks in the world, certainly in Europe. Consequently, one should apply a test of the “balance of risk”. One should ask oneself whether voting “Yes” or voting “No” is the riskier course of action. It appears the Irish people will not take a punt on the idea that we should simply cut ourselves loose, sail out into the ocean in choppy waters, in the expectation someone will turn up to save us.

That is the sort of proposition that is being put forward.

I am of the view that we should remain at the heart of both the European Union and the eurozone. We should also work hard – by means of the rules contained in the treaty and also through other instruments which need to be introduced – in order to strengthen the opportunities for growth in the European Union and those that exist for this country. We must fight alongside those in Europe whose views are the same as ours. We must argue in favour of our political beliefs and we must never give up. The strongest argument in respect of this matter is, quite literally, a comparative risk analysis. In other words, we must ask which course of action is more risky or uncertain. If people apply a basic, rational level of thought to this matter, then it is obvious that there is only one way to vote.

 Speaking after the Minister’s announcement at TUI Conference in Wexford last week, Deputy White said: “I am delighted with these new arrangements.”

 60 students from DEIS schools, and who hold medical cards, will receive a bursary of ?2,000 each this September. This number will rise over each of the next three years, with over 350 students a year benefiting by 2015. The awards will be awarded regionally on the basis of the leaving cert results achieved by students.

 The awards under the new scheme will be fixed at ?2,000 per student. The bursary will be an extra support and incentive to recognise high achievement for students who are from disadvantaged families and attending DEIS schools.

Those students to whom bursaries are awarded will also be entitled to apply for student grants towards the cost of maintenance and the student contribution or fees. 41% of all undergraduate students currently receive a student grant and have their fees or student contribution paid on their behalf.

 These bursaries will be augmented by a small number of bursaries focussed on students who undertake studies in the Science Technology Engineering and Maths (STEM) areas.

 ”These scholarships will be named the Walton Bursaries after Ernest Walton – Ireland’s only Nobel laureate in science, and the man who, with John Cockcroft, became the first person to split the atom,” said Deputy White.

 ”We hope that these bursaries will help ensure a new generation of Irish people strive to replicate his achievements.”

“This is the first round of Sports Capital Funding in four years, and it will crucially offer sports clubs throughout Dublin South access to vital funds. With €30 million available nationwide, the new focus of the sporting programme is to encourage more people to get involved in sporting activity”.

The Sports Capital Programme is the main channel of Government support for developing sports facilities and purchasing sports equipment.

Deputy White said “In line with the Programme for Government, this new Sports Capital scheme will have a stronger focus on projects which increase active participation in sport, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Under this scheme pitches will be drained, floodlights will be installed, sports halls will be improved and dressing rooms will be built”.

Thanks to these grants, people will have more opportunities than ever to get active and stay active in a wide range of sports. It will also have a positive impact on job creation in construction.

Application forms and information about how to apply is now available on the website: www.sportscapitalprogramme.ie.

Alex White, who is Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure & Reform, will join a panel of speakers (including Commissioner Neelie Kroes) at the afternoon session on Expenditure under the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework.

Speaking prior to the conference, Deputy White said: “Austerity alone will not solve the economic crisis in Europe. Without a credible strategy for jobs and growth, supported by adequate funding through the new budget, we cannot hope to meet the challenges we face. The task now is to ensure that the new budget matches the very laudable objectives and targets already identified. We in Ireland must participate fully in this task”.

Labour T.D., Alex White, welcomes the decision of the government to hold a referendum on the Fiscal Compact Treaty.

Speaking at the conclusion of an inter-parliamentary committee meeting in Brussels where he represented, as chairman, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy White said, “This is a truly decisive moment for Ireland in Europe: do we join others in addressing the flaws in the Euro currency or do we go our own uncertain way?  I say we opt for solidarity, while pressing for growth and investment.

“Those who say ‘no’ should level with the Irish people on where they want the country to go, and how.”

“The tone of the debate in recent months has been unfortunate. There has been overstatement on the part of the professions as to the implications of some of the Bill’s proposals….but there has also been overreaction to that overstatement… including references to cabals, and allegations of people trying to stay in the nineteenth century. A change of tone in the debate is required in the coming weeks and months when decisions will have to be made regarding the final content of the legislation. We need to lower the temperature of this tense debate….so that we come to the best possible outcome – not for any one interest group, but for the citizens we represent.

“As a practising lawyer and a member of the Bar, I have been disappointed by the slowness of reform and an unwillingness in the past on the part of the professions to embrace or promote change. This has led to a situation whereby people now feel they are victims of change, instead of themselves taking the opportunity, when it is there, to advance proposals for change to the way things are done.

“For example, there is a need to address the question of equity within the legal professions, and in particular the distribution of work at the Bar, to facilitate younger barristers coming into the profession – people who are willing and well able to work. That has not been done but it is an area that should have been addressed and still requires to be addressed. People have been slow to embrace that.

“The independence of the legal profession is critical in any democracy. It is actually a test of the strength of a democracy. All litigants – rich or poor – are entitled to be represented by absolutely fearless advocates, who are never threatened by any attempts to trample their independence. They must not have any concern about repercussions, either from the Government or elsewhere.

“This issue is also related to economic rights. Prospective foreign investors need to understand and appreciate that we have a fully independent legal profession that is beholden to no one, be it the Government or anyone else. It is therefore absolutely vital that that independence should be protected.

“It is not a formalistic matter. I have heard people saying that there is nothing in the Bill that undermines the independence of an individual practitioner. It is a bigger issue than that, however. One must consider carefully the proposed new Authority, for example. The method of appointing the Authority is essential to ensuring the independence of the profession and it is not an incidental question. Nor should the raising of this issue be taken as a criticism of the Minister or the Government. It has to do with the manner in which people perceive that Authority. They need to be sure that it is entirely at arm’s length from the Government, and that it is independent not just in the operation of its functions – which one would assume – but in every way. There should be no sense on the part of any Authority members that they are beholden to the Government, even where is no such intention on the part of the Government.

“The Minister is open to amendments on the means of appointment to the Authority. It is necessary to amend the provision. There are many ideas on how this can be achieved. Other professions, including the medical profession, have a good statutory regime for the appointment of the independent regulator in their cases. These are the parallels we should be looking at”.

Committee Chairman Alex White, TD: “The purpose of our visit tomorrow is to establish direct working relationships with parliamentary colleagues in the Bundestag, and to discuss areas of mutual interest, including the current treaty negotiations on the proposed fiscal compact. At a time of great uncertainty and concern about the future, it is essential that a line of contact and exchange should open up between elected parliamentarians across the European Union. We are looking forward to positive, frank and open discussion, and will also take the opportunity to reflect on the controversy about Irish budget details being revealed in the Bundestag, before they came before the Dáil last December. I hope this is only the beginning of a much-needed process of discussion, debate and mutual understanding.”

The official delegation will be led by Deputy White and includes Liam Twomey, TD; Michael McGrath, TD; Pearse Doherty, TD; and Richard Boyd-Barrett, TD. Four other Committee Members will accompany the delegation at their own expense.

The Delegation’s Programme includes:

Meeting with Berlin based Irish business community representatives

Working breakfast with members of the German-Irish Parliamentary Friendship Group of the Bundestag

Meeting with Petra Merkel MdB, Chair of the Budgetary Committee of the Bundestag and selected Committee Members

Working lunch with Budgetary Committee

Meeting with Chair, Gunther Krichbaum MdB, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and selected Committee Members

Briefing and exchange of views with the Organisation of German Taxpayers

Briefing and exchange of views with the German Institute for Economic Research

Meeting with Prof. Helmut Anheier, Dean of the Hertie School of Governance 

The new jobs will bring total employment in Sysnet in Ireland to 111 by 2014 and global employment to 135 by the same date.  

Established in 1989, Sysnet is a leading provider of information security and assurance services worldwide. With this new research and development programme, Sysnet will expand its software development operation in Dublin and invest in the development of the existing compliance management system to meet the changing needs of existing and future clients.  The company has continued to grow its international business over the past six years, and the new development will position Sysnet to build on its existing business and expand into new export markets.

Commenting on the announcement, Deputy White said:

“If we are to get out of this crisis and create the levels of employment we need, we must create an indigenous engine of economic growth. Indigenous companies provide proportionately three times more benefit to the Irish economy than multinational companies, and while FDI will remain a crucial part of our economic strategy, the Government are determined to support high growth indigenous companies in every way possible.

Sysnet is a dynamic Irish tech company operating at the cutting edge of its sector, engaging in R&D and innovating, and today’s announcement that it is investing and creating further jobs is great news. In the forthcoming Action Plan for Jobs the Government will be implementing further measures to support the indigenous companies of the future so that we can accelerate their expansion to create the jobs we so badly need”.