Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals
Chairman:   We have separate packages of proposals for decision. Both packages arise under the new EU framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020. COM (2013) 495, COM (2013) 496, COM (2013) 501, COM (2013) 505 and COM (2013) 506 lay the legal framework for setting up joint undertakings through public private partnership with industry, for the implementation of strategic joint technology innovations under Horizon 2020. The purpose of the second package of proposals, COM (2013) 493, COM (2013) 497, COM (2013) 498 and COM (2013) 500, is to lay down the rules on the participation of the EU in the second research and development programme, to be jointly undertaken with several member states. These, which are aimed at supporting research and development in sectors not fully catered for by the market, such as in areas of active and assisted living, clinical trials in African countries, meteorology and research performing SMEs. As the joint committee has already had an opportunity to discuss these proposals directly with the Minister of State with responsibility for research and innovation, Deputy Sean Sherlock, in advance of the EU Competitiveness Council, and given that Ireland supports the proposals, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Time to Go Report: Discussion with NYCI
Chairman: We move to a discussion on the report, Time To Go, by the National Youth Council of Ireland, NCYI, which was launched in May. I welcome the delegates, Ms Marie-Claire McAleer, senior research and policy officer, NYCI, who is joined by her colleagues, Mr. James Doorley and Ms Mary Cunningham, and I thank them for attending. This annual report is very timely as there has been much discussion in recent weeks on this topic. In private session the committee discussed how we might take on this topic in general and read other related reports, so it is good to have this discussion.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and you continue to do so you are entitled thereafter to only a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter is to be given and are asked to respect parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible you should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I ask Ms McAleer to make her presentation.
Ms Marie-Claire McAleer: Do we still have ten minutes?
Chairman: Yes.
Ms Marie-Claire McAleer: I thank the committee for the invitation to make a presentation on youth emigration. I will base my input on research we published last May, published under the title Time To Go, and will also draw on research published by UCC last Friday. Time To Go is a qualitative research study exploring the experience and impact of emigration on young emigrants who left the country in the past two years, bound for to Canada and the UK, and looks at their experience and the impact that experience has had on them as individuals. For details of the background to the study, the research methodology, the findings and recommendations, I refer members to the report, which has been circulated in advance.
Given the time limitations today and the remit of this committee, I will focus on the most salient and relevant aspects of the research - the economic policy implications of large-scale emigration of young people from Ireland. I will frame the presentation in the context of the impact of emigration on the economy and the consequent skills losses, looking at two main issues, namely, the economic costs and the impact of demographic changes on the labour market arising from emigration.
To begin, I will give a brief overview of some of the data currently available on the numbers leaving. It is estimated that in the past five years 177,000 young people in the age cohort 15-24 years have left Ireland, and a further 209,000 aged between 25 and 44 years have also left. The number leaving continues to rise, with 89,000 having left the State up to April 2013. The numbers emigrating are concentrated mainly in the youth population. At the start of the recession the outward migration was mainly accounted for by workers from new EU member states. However, since 2010 the number of Irish nationals emigrating has increased significantly and now accounts for more than half of those leaving.
Our own research and quantitative data reveal that emigration affects a quarter of all families throughout the country and that half of 18 to 24 year-olds have considered emigration as an option. Dr. Mary Gilmartin published material on immigration last year, explaining the reasons for the fact that we are receiving significant numbers immigrating into the country. She attributed this to a shortage of workers with appropriate skills in some areas. Another interesting finding to consider is that emigrants are now going much further. We used to export people to the UK but now some 16% are going to Australia while Canada is receiving approximately 6% and the UK is taking about a quarter of the emigrating population.
The UCC EMIGRE study provides rich data on the profile of those leaving. It is of particular relevance to the work of this committee in respect of the skills losses that arise from emigration. A total of 62% of recent Irish emigrating graduates hold a tertiary degree of education. Some 17% of Irish emigrants worked in construction or construction-related industry. A figure of 47% had left full-time jobs while just under 40 of these emigrants left because they wanted to travel and experience new cultures. These were often people with qualifications other countries coveted, such as valuable IT skills or were health professionals. A significant proportion left to find another job or to attain job experience that was not available to them at home. That combined figure was 46%. Underemployment was a major driving factor with 13% of those working in part-time jobs before departure. Some 23% of those leaving were unemployed before departure. To reiterate, 76% left to find a job abroad who were unemployed before they left. More than 70% were in their 20s, with a significant number in their 30s, mainly the early 30s.
In Time To Go, we recommended that profiling such as that done in the study done by the EMIGRE study be continued on an ongoing basis. The reason for this is to inform a strategy that will incentivise return migration in the future, a point I will return later in my presentation. I refer to the economic costs, without ignoring the significant social costs. Although emigration costs the State money in the long term it may help temporarily to alleviate the problem of unemployment. When one considers the prevalence of large-scale emigration of highly qualified and highly skilled young people, however, it represents a significant brain drain. Any future upturn in the economy requires a pool of well-educated young people to attract investment and to stimulate and sustain economic growth. Many emigrants felt that Ireland was losing a vital part of its youth population at a crucial time when such vitality and innovation were required.
|
Page of 8
