Mr. Martin Territt, director of the European Commission's Representation in Ireland, will now address the very important issue of the Commission's White Paper on a European communications policy. There is an acknowledged communications gap in dealing with EU affairs. We have a responsibility to the people to bridge that gap and hope to do so with the assistance of the European Commission. Following Mr. Territt's presentation, we will open the discussion to members.
European Communications Policy: Presentation.
Mr. Martin Territt
I am delighted to have been invited to address the Joint Committee on European Affairs on the theme of communication, with particular reference to the European Commission's White Paper on a European communication policy. The title of my presentation is, Communications — Bridging the Gap.
Let me put the issue in context. The European Union has gone through a difficult period. We all remember the referenda in the Netherlands and France in which the proposed new constitution was rejected. Members will have followed the discussions on why it was rejected, thought about how it could be salvaged and what it would mean for the future of the Union. It certainly was a shock to the system. In the circumstances the European Council agreed last year to a "period of reflection". It seemed right to take time to reflect on the future and meaning of the European Union.
The period of reflection has not been one of introspection. On the contrary, we in the Commission and many others have taken advantage of the pause to see how we can reconnect with EU citizens. To move forward, a number of things need to be done; it is not a matter of conducting a single information campaign. In the opinion of the Commission, two steps were absolutely necessary: delivering tangible results in areas important to European citizens and making the European Union a more democratic framework ready to take communication with its citizens seriously. We are getting there.
A positive step was an informal summit of EU leaders in November 2005 at which the Commission's call for economic reform and social modernisation was fully endorsed. In December last year the Heads of State agreed the EU's budget, the financial perspectives, for the period to 2013; no small feat for a union of 25 countries, all with their own interests and priorities. The positive momentum was reinforced this year at the European summit in March at which the European Union's commitment to growth and jobs was affirmed. The Lisbon Agenda has not been implemented as quickly as hoped. We have, therefore, renewed the focus of attention on the goals related to growth and jobs.
At the recent summit, the Heads of State took decisions on three important areas, namely, business, knowledge and energy. They decided to reduce red tape for new businesses, particularly the small and medium sized enterprises that comprise the engine of growth in the European economy. They agreed to the creation of a European institute of technology as a flagship for European excellence in education, research and innovation. The Commission will come forward with proposals on that in the near future.
The Heads of State also agreed on a focus on an energy policy for Europe, aiming at the triple goals of sustainable, competitive and secure energy and building on the Commission's recent Green Paper in this area. The summit confirmed, very importantly, that we want an open Europe as a response to globalisation. In this regard, we have an ambitious and realistic programme for the future. Therefore, despite the obvious difficulties of last year, it is clear that the Union's institutions are working. Proposals and results are being produced, but there are still limits on how much we can move forward. We certainly cannot proceed and leave our citizens behind.
That leads me to my next point which relates to the lack of communication and democracy, which are very much interlinked. During the period of reflection, it is essential to listen to citizens, social partners, political parties and national and local parliaments without in any way prejudging the results of this widespread dialogue and debate. For these reasons, the Commission has decided to adopt a new approach to communication. We have had the issue of communication at the forefront of our agenda since the college took office. For the first time, a vice-president with special responsibility for communication was appointed. I refer here to Vice-President Margot Walström, my immediate boss.
We have taken three initiatives in the past year. First, we drew up an action plan to put our own house in order in the short term. Second, we adopted Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate for the medium to long term. Third, we published the White Paper on a European Communication Policy. I would like to speak a little on each of these topics.
The action plan involves moving from theory to practice, from words to deeds. We set out from the Commission's perspective — in-house, by and large — 50 practical steps aimed at improving its capacity and skills to communicate European policies. For example, public consultations on particular issues will be better publicised. Policy proposals will be drafted in clearer language. A lay person's summary will be produced in respect of major proposals. We are taking steps to improve our Europa website and we are in the process of producing clearer and more easily comprehensible publications that have more of a local focus. This is particularly important, not necessarily in Ireland but in those countries that do not have English or French as their main languages. English and French, with some German, are the main languages in which texts are produced.
The Commission has taken steps to reinforce its representation in the member states in order to communicate to citizens on those policies and initiatives that concern them. In this context, my representation in Dublin has been strengthened by additional staffing and financial resources. We have taken a number of initiatives. We launched a new website and initiated a major local radio advertising campaign to make people aware of their rights under EU law, how to access more information from our new website, www.euireland.ie, from our freephone number or from the variety of regional Europe Direct centres we have established in Blanchardstown, Longford, Letterkenny, Carraroe, Ballinasloe, Dooradoyle in Limerick, Dungarvan and Macroom. With the increased resources at our disposal, we are endeavouring to listen to and communicate with groups such as the national and local media, national and local politicians, civil society groups, businesses, schools, trade unions and third level students in order to achieve a deeper understanding of citizens’ concerns about the Union.
We organised a seminar on migrant workers in the Union in early March. I note that this committee recently released a report on migration issues. The objective of our seminar was to allow an open exchange of views on the benefits of and concerns about migration. Participants included representatives of the relevant Departments and agencies, Irish political parties, embassies of the 25 member states, candidate and accession countries, civil society and the media.
The Commission's second communication initiative is its Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate. This puts in place a framework, through national governments, for a 25-country debate on Europe's future. This is the Commission's unique contribution to the period of reflection. It concerns a long-term commitment to improving the democratic legitimacy of the European Union and ensuring a real public debate on serious questions such as the sort of Union citizens want, how citizens can be more involved in setting the EU agenda and how to improve relations between the EU institutions and citizens. Plan D seeks to provide a common framework for the 25-country debates, providing potential models and structures for national governments. The Irish experience of the National Forum on Europe helped the Commission suggest this type of initiative to other member states.
The Commission's role is to assist rather than replace member states. The debate must happen at member state level. We will prepare a synthesis report of the national debates in time for the June 2006 European Council under the Austrian Presidency. Ultimately, this process should result in a roadmap for the future of Europe.
The third communication initiative is the White Paper, which is a call for action on how we can bridge the gap between the Union and its citizens. The White Paper proposes five areas where joint action should be taken: defining common principles to guide communication activities on European issues; empowering citizens; working with the media and new technologies; better understanding European public opinion; and doing the job together.
We are seeking the views of the broad body politic, including, individuals, governments, local authorities, national parliaments and NGOs on these matters. The consultation process will run for six months until August, although, given that the European Parliament is not likely to offer its views until November, we will not disregard any later submissions.
I invite the committee to make a submission on the White Paper, if it so desires. I am pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated that the Government is considering whether to make a submission. At the end of this process, the Commission will summarise the replies and draw conclusions with a view to proposing plans of action for each working area.
The White Paper has a more limited scope than Plan D. It does not ask for people's views on the European Union but on the question of how we can set up better communication between citizens and the EU policy-makers. This is a long-term question. Anyone who thinks that the European Union can solve its confidence deficit solely through advertising campaigns has not understood where the problem lies.
This is a fundamental problem but is not unique to European institutions. The director general of the Institute of European Affairs in Ireland recently stated that the deficit lies not only in European institutions but also in their national equivalents and in local authorities.
Long-term vision, democracy and participation are essential. In recent years we have witnessed the growth and power of the Internal Market. In the same way, we must now construct a common, democratic public arena for discussion and debate on the Europe we want to see.
Essentially, the White Paper proposal aims to place citizens and democracy at the heart of how we discuss and present the European Union as a political project. From the Commission's perspective, it is a presentation of what the basis for this could be. We aim to create a special EU charter of common principles on the right of citizens to receive information, debate issues and influence political decision-making processes at all levels. We hope for consensus between institutions, governments and society. We also hope to improve citizens' democratic knowledge and skills, as well as their ability to communicate by focusing on adult education, networking and discussion forums and by making better use of modern media such as digital libraries to improve and supplement the democratic possibilities open to citizens to access information. This will allow them to participate in political debate.
We aim to develop a wide partnership between member states and citizens on these issues. Democratising European politics will need not only time but also commitment and leadership at all levels of the European Union. Local, regional and national politicians, parties and NGOs must take greater responsibility for encouraging more democratic and wider debate about the Union.
The role of this committee is very important in fostering parliamentary and public debate in Ireland on European issues. On behalf of the European Commission, I congratulate the committee on its work, not just its work on policy areas but also its diligent work in the scrutiny of EU proposals. I acknowledge its work which I have been happy to support in promoting 10 May as Europe day in the Dáil. I have worked with its members, the Ceann Comhairle and the Whips on this important development in Irish parliamentary democracy. For the first time a European Commissioner will take part in a debate in the Chamber. I am pleased that Commissioner Fischer Boel will attend.
I hope I can provide answers for any questions members may have. I will listen to their concerns which I will convey to the authorities in Brussels.
I thank Mr. Territt for his presentation. This debate has been sparked by dissatisfaction in France and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands regarding local issues which are beyond the control of the Commission and other member states. They should be dealt with by national democracies rather than the European Union. Nevertheless, we must consider them and bring the Union closer to the citizen. For many years it was a point of last resort in a legal context rather than a facilitator in everyday life in the way one sees a local authority.
Advertising has moved from public announcements on radio and is now more subtle. One does not realise one wants something until the advertising industry has impressed upon one the need for a particular product. It also advertises by association with people who are respected. That is how the major corporations prepare us to desire what they want us to desire. If we are going to deal with advertising, we must be somewhat more constructive. I will now take questions from members.
I wish to make a comment rather than ask a question. I thank Mr. Territt for providing us with a great opportunity to start contemplating the communication gap that exists. His contribution is timely, particularly as this is European week. Through the initiative of this committee, we have arranged a European day for next week, which is very important. This is a period of reflection and pause during which we might consider our future direction. None of us — we are all guilty in this regard — anticipated the shock relating to the rejection of the draft constitution by the Netherlands and France.
The paper is very much tied in to the question of how we empower and involve the citizen. Mr. Territt dealt in detail with the action plan, Plan D and the White Paper. We endeavour to reach out to all Irish institutions at national, regional and local level. However, the nitrates directive came through that communication gap and I could not understand why local authorities were not involved because it was an environmental and agricultural issue. People did not know what was happening and I had great difficulty in understanding the directive. That sums matters up.
How do we empower citizens so that they will know that a decision is being made in Brussels and that it is being discussed at local, regional and national level? Brussels should only be involved thereafter. That is how it should work, rather than a decision being made by Brussels, after which we must proceed in line with what it says. We are reaching out to Brussels and it should not be so because that is why there is rejection and no link between Brussels and Members of the Houses or between the Oireachtas and citizens. This is a matter of concern.
Mr. Territt stated that it must be done through education, which I feel is one of the best means. We are attempting to do it through the National Forum on Europe, chaired by Senator Maurice Hayes, which is an excellent idea. However, it will be difficult to give the EU a human face, since the attitude is still very much one of "them and us".
While the White Paper contains great ideas, their implementation will decide how we get involved — something that I ask everyone to do. We are attempting it here, but will this debate have an impact outside this setting by the end of this evening?
I should begin by saying that I do not have the answers either. I had anticipated that the White Paper might be somewhat more exciting and that someone might have produced a solution. Like Senator Ormonde, I have been saying all along that we have been losing the citizens. It is an international trend that people are turned off by politics. I do not know how we will win them back, but I cannot see the White Paper doing it.
We have returned to the business of its being in the interests of the national political parties — not merely the Government — to keep citizens engaged with Europe. However, we are losing that battle and I cannot see the White Paper addressing the problem. Younger people coming through the education system are certainly grasping the notion of Europe much better than we, including the benefits and merits of being a member state of the EU, which I need not enumerate here, since we all know them. However, we do not seem able to get that across to citizens and the White Paper will not do so either. Its proposals seem to be coming through national, regional and local government. There does not seem to be any engagement with the man in the street, the guy who has to come out to vote and must be convinced that the European constitution is the way forward. Something more than advertising is required if it is to be done on time and avoid losing momentum. The European Parliament elections still produce good turnouts but this will change. The turnout is decreasing for national and local elections. I do not know if the White Paper has the answer — I do not — and more action is required. It is unfortunate that the headlines and frenzy created by the media are what sells. We are all so institutionalised that we are not grasping the matter. We need someone to tell us how to do it because we are losing the battle. We are too constrained in a straitjacket in the way we look at things. We know the benefits which we want to impart to Joe Citizen but we are not getting the message across; neither is the White Paper. This is not intended as a criticism because I do not have the answer but we must remove the straitjacket or find somebody who can remove it from us in order that we can communicate.
These are comments rather than questions. Does Mr. Territ wish to reply now or hear from other members first?
Mr. Territ
I will respond briefly now. I agree with the Acting Chairman's remarks that we need to disentangle genuine European issues from national ones. This is part of the exercise in which we are engaged. Whether it is called the action plan, plan D or the White Paper, it does not really matter to the ordinary citizen. I agree with the Acting Chairman that there advertising in all its forms, both direct and indirect. This morning I heard on radio an advertisement by the Oireachtas advertising Europe Day next week. It also advertised the Oireachtas website and the fact that citizens could present questions for debate on that day.
To answer Deputy Sexton's point, this is a novel approach. We need to break outside the box. That is the reason I have engaged in advertising about citizens' rights under European law in order to empower them to use the sources of those rights. I have already carried out a preliminary evaluation of the first part of that campaign and noted that there has been a substantial increase in the number of hits on our website with regard to the freefone number and the telephone number of the representation. I see postive, tangible results. One of my colleagues informed me one morning that we had received a number of telephone calls from a certain county, which I will not name from a number of citizens who wanted to know how they could enforce their rights to safe water under the EU directives. This is a powerful empowerment of individuals. It may be a small step but we know what can happen from such steps. We must reinvent the European Union to make it more open, democratic and tangible.
I fully agree with Senator Ormonde in citing the nitrates directive as an example of something that appeared to pop out from nowhere, even though it had been agreed many years ago. The new approach to which I referred in my opening statement will be to have much more open and early consultations on issues to enable people to give their views and to ensure we can understand their concerns about real life issues. In that respect, national parliaments would have a much stronger role under the provisions of the proposed constitution when it comes to scrutiny. That is an issue that can be revisited in time when we can see the way forward more clearly in the context of ratification or otherwise of the constitution.
Clearly, the issue of education is important. We are working closely with the Department of Education and Science on various issues. We are producing materials for the CSPE course, for transition year students, among others. I appreciate the work being done on the issue by the Forum on Europe.
I welcome Mr. Territt and thank him for his comments on the events to be held next week and the good work done by the staff here regarding the advertisements. The problem is that we have been too successful as politicians. If we were to re-enact all the anti-liberal laws that were in the Statute Book and screw up the economy the way Fianna Fáil did in 1977, matters might be different. Part of the difficulty is the culture of contentment that prevails, not just in this country but also in others. We have moved as a political group. The stones in their sandals and shoes that used to really irritate people are gone. They do not, therefore, feel the need in many cases to participate politically because much progress has been made but that is not to say they are not interested in politics. Many young adults whom I encounter are passionately interested in global issues and many other matters. However, they now have a personal freedom and personal lifestyle that does not cause them to rail against the political system as was the case 15, 20 or 30 years ago.
On the White Paper, it seems that, irrespective of the constitutional impasse and what will happen at the end of the period of reflection, there is no legal impediment to prevent the Commission acting here, whatever about anywhere else, as if the provisions of early consultation and scrutiny and notification had come into effect. Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. Through modern communications systems, it would be possible to notify every public representative at national and local level of another proposed nitrates directive. If, in the bundle of communications that comes from, say, Cork County Council, there was a communication from the Commission informing it that this month the Commission had initiated something, the Council had considered something or the Parliament had debated something — it does not have to more than one page — it would act as an alarm and one would ask what the directive was about. That is one matter I suggest Mr. Territt might consider.
From an Irish perspective, when we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1916 uprising, a series of documents, including the famous iconic Proclamation and photographs, was produced and circulated to all our national schools. They are still in the classrooms of many such schools, of which there are approximately 3,500. Would it be possible for the Commission to initiate an information board suitably designed for children between the ages of six and 12 years outlining in some shape or form the organic nature of the European Union and how it functions? I do not know whether Mr. Territt was in the country at the time, but the celebrations and fireworks in honour of the day of enlargement two years ago were spectacular and attracted much attention. Those ideas are ones upon which we could reflect.
As part of the Europe Day celebrations, this committee intends to prepare a comprehensive report of how the day's events went and to communicate it, through the Ceann Comhairle, to the chairpersons of the national assemblies — COSAC is the relevant committee. Subject to the decision of the committee, we could separately communicate it directly from this committee as a response to the White Paper.
Mr. Territt stated in his paper that the Seville Council agreed that where the Council and the Parliament meet together to legislate, they would do so in public. Has that ever happened and, if so, what was the media response?
I note also the provision for the publication of Eurobarometer twice a year at the fairly low cost of €600,000, which, by the standards of the Custom House, is a pittance. It generates a great deal of information and, in turn, generates stories. It would be useful for it to be published more frequently and for its spread of questions to be enlarged to give journalists hooks upon which to write stories and report.
If there is to be a national TV channel dedicated to the proceedings of our public assemblies, such as the Oireachtas and local authorities, it might be capable of incorporating the proceedings of European institutions. Using modern technology, it would be possible to have the proceedings of every local authority and the proceedings of the Oireachtas broadcast in such a way that people could access them if they wished to do so. Some of the activities of the European institutions, subject to their suitability, could be included in that process.
I apologise to Mr. Territt because I was obliged to leave the meeting for 30 minutes. I read his presentation, however, for which I thank him.
Anybody under 35 or 40 years of age on this island forgets that one reason for the establishment of the European Union was to bring nations together to eliminate the possibility of further war in Europe. That principle is repeating itself as we consider the accession applications of Macedonia, Croatia and other Balkan states. We need to reconnect citizens with the spirit of nations working together for their own good.
I disagree with the Acting Chairman's analysis of the situation in France and the Netherlands. One of our problems is that during this so-called period of reflection, there is no effective connection with citizens here. There is a tendency to lecture people to the effect that the European Union is good for them. However, little attempt is being made to listen to people's concerns regarding what is happening in the Union. For example, Senator Ormonde referred to the impact of the nitrates directive on agriculture. There is concern among people to whom I speak about the erosion of jobs, the drift of industry from west to east, the undermining of agriculture. They also doubt the capacity of the Union to accommodate the enlargement to 25 members, and possibly further, with the inclusion of Macedonia and Croatia, to 27 and eventually, with Turkey's possible accession, to 28. People here fear an influx of immigrants who will undercut them in the job market. The message is not getting across that immigration is good for our economy and that we need people to come into the country to keep developing our industrial base.
The message is too often simplistic in nature. For example, even the increase in road deaths is being attributed to the influx of people from the accession states and there are calls for them to sit driving tests. This ignores the fact that we cannot even test our own people. There is that anti-European attitude because we fail to listen to people and address their fears.
Mr. Territt recommended listening to citizens during the reflection period, without prejudging the results of the dialogue and debate. I see little evidence of us listening to citizens. European day will provide an opportunity to listen to citizens and address their concerns. I do not wish to be critical of the National Forum for Europe but what happens at Dublin Castle on a fortnightly and monthly basis has little relevance to ordinary citizens. The forum has made an attempt to travel to provinces and cities but there is still no connection with citizens. Unless we address the concerns that exist, it is unlikely that any proposal put to the citizens will be passed in a referendum.
Some of these fears are groundless.
If fears of immigration are irrational, how should we respond to them?
I stated that most of the fears are groundless and they will continue to obtain until explanations are provided.
Deputy Allen stated that we are failing to listen to these fears. He is stating, on one hand, that we should not lecture people and, on the other, that we should provide explanations.
No, we should listen and allow people to air their concerns and then address the latter, not by lecturing but through dialogue.
Is there any proposal to communicate directly with every household in the EU? As the Acting Chairman stated, the fears are irrational but we need to know the nature of such fears. If we do not communicate directly with citizens, the same submissions will be made by the bodies in the straitjacket to which I referred earlier. We must speak directly to the man on the street and he must feel that the Commission, not Irish politicians, is asking him about his fears. That would be a mammoth task but it might work.
Mr. Territt
Concerning the points raised by Deputy Quinn on early notification of proposals, the Commission is clear that it will not cherry-pick from the EU constitution because it must respect the decisions of the people in France and the Netherlands, as well as the decisions of the people in the 14 member states that ratified the constitution. Estonia is about to ratify and Finland may ratify soon. Therefore, it is a delicate issue.
The importance of this period of reflection is to listen to various strands of opinion. At this stage, there is no consensus on the way forward. Different member states hold different views on how the process should be advanced. Chancellor Merkel suggested that a social protocol be added to the constitutional treaty as a potential way forward. There is disagreement between the President and the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. The Netherlands' Foreign Minister, Bernard Bott, along with the opposition parties, has outlined the difficulties posed by putting the same question again. President Chirac and, to a certain extent, Prime Minister Verhofstadt propose a hard-core approach.
This gives members some flavour at a macro level of the major differences on some of those issues. That said, I will give very favourable consideration to the question of how, from the Commission's perspective, we might achieve earlier notification of proposals from the Commission to this committee, the Houses of the Oireachtas as a whole, and local authorities. Over the coming year, we will be working with local authorities and regional assemblies to see what greater service we might render.
That is also an important aspect of bridging the gap and while I can agree in principle with Deputy Sexton regarding trying to reach 457 million citizens individually, the task of doing so, as I am sure she would acknowledge, would present fairly obvious logistical issues and problems. That is why we are trying, through my appearance today and otherwise, to promote the direct involvement of citizens in order that they can, for example, give their views to us directly regarding Plan D and the White Paper via the Plan D web forum and the public consultation on the White Paper.
We received many submissions from individuals, parliaments and governments, three of which have already given their views. Without labouring the point, we are pursuing an advertising campaign in Ireland so that people know where our website is and how to make their views known. During that advertising campaign, we intend to reach at least 66% of the population directly, which is quite a good initiative.
Schools are certainly extremely important, and almost everyone has touched on that point. We are working quite closely with schools in developing initiatives and on 9 May, Europe Day, we will be producing several newspaper supplements in association with the three main broadsheets, and 25 copies of one will go to every secondary school in the country. It is being designed to be as user-friendly as possible for the younger population and is an important initiative. I agree that obtaining information at a young age is important. I had fairly lengthy discussions with the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science about how best to advance the process.
Opinion polls, particularly Eurobarometer in the context of the Commission, are extremely important. We wish to increase the frequency and depth of Eurobarometer and we conducted a special survey in February and March on the period of reflection and the draft constitution. We will present the results, which will make for some interesting reading, this Friday. My briefing suggests that among the issues being picked up is the need for reinforced political leadership across the Union. I take from this meeting the need for leadership at all levels, including in Brussels.
Regarding Deputy Sexton's comments, Brussels is not simply the Commission; it is the European Parliament and the 25 national governments. We have devised a very complex Community mechanism that is simultaneously supranational, national and local.
Regarding television, much work can be done in the area and the issue is touched on in the White Paper. I acknowledge the innovative work done by the European Parliament in web-streaming some of its committee work. A lot of important, detailed work — like the work done in this committee — is done to bring it into the public domain. I have heard Deputy Quinn speak about the need for transparency in the Council and, on behalf of the Commission, I share his views in this respect. We refer to that in the White Paper. Perhaps we do not fully understand what happens on the Council, however. They do legislate in public, but often it is somewhat pro forma. For example, the President of the Council may declare that the Council will legislate in public on particular points within directives. They may be agreed and formally adopted. However, the detailed work is done prior to this point either in the Council itself or more particularly in COREPER, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, and the working groups that it empowers to bring forward legislation. The work of this committee on scrutiny also feeds into that process. If this work can somehow get a better public airing then so too will the work of the Council.
Deputy Allen has referred to the question of listening and there are many aspects to this. The obvious one is Deputies, Senators and local representatives listening to their constituents. There is also the work of the Dáil, this joint committee and the National Forum. Our work, representing the Commission here in Ireland, includes promoting debates in universities and other fora. My colleague Niamh Carmody has led that work. We have conducted a number of debates already, listening to young people throughout Ireland, and we will continue this work in the colleges' post-exam season. Commissioner McCreevy has been very supportive by engaging with city and county councils in a number of regions including Limerick, Waterford and Galway where he received much feedback on his own portfolio and generally.
The question of migration abounds. That is why I referred to it in my introductory remarks. It is clearly one of the reasons this committee conducted work in this area and produced a related report. The Commission's formal report on the application of the transitional arrangements concluded that the experience in Ireland was hugely positive. I would like to emphasise that today and put it on the record of this committee. Vladimír Spidla, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, will visit Ireland on Thursday and Friday of this week. I expect that he too will emphasise the positives in this respect. I was struck recently by a very positive article he wrote in a Czech newspaper on the good things he had seen, as Commissioner, in an Irish context. I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible and if there is anything I have left out I will be happy to come back.
Who will be here on Thursday and Friday?
Mr. Territt
Vladimír Spidla, Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs. He will have a range of meetings at Government level and will also address the National Pensions Forum in Dublin Castle on Friday morning. He will address some of the issues around the long-term sustainability of pension provision in the European Union. This is one of the issues identified by the Government and it has been debated by the House in the Lisbon reform programme. It is regarded as one of the issues that must be addressed in terms of the competitiveness of Ireland in the longer term.
I thank Mr. Territ for his attendance. The committee, in consultation with the Chairman, will consider making a submission on the White Paper in due course.
The joint committee went into private session at 2.05 p.m. and adjourned at 2.10 p.m. sine die.