I welcome Mr. Séamus Ó Moráin, assistant secretary, and Mr. Michael Clarke, assistant principal, from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I also welcome our consultant, Mr. John Kissane, who has been of enormous help to the committee. Before asking Mr. Ó Moráin to commence his opening statement, I draw everyone's attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
EU Directives: Presentation.
Mr. Séamus Ó Moráin
We welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee and engage in discussion on this important draft directive. In our view, this directive constitutes one of the most ambitious, demanding and progressive pieces of legislation to emerge from Brussels in recent years. Its broad thrust and objective is to create a single market in services, thereby replicating what it has done in the field of goods. The creation of the Single Market in goods is regarded as one of the great achievements of the EU. The Single Market is extremely valuable to Ireland as an open trading economy. We want to do the same with respect to services. It is very difficult to take issue with this objective and, to my knowledge, no member state has a problem with it. As is always the case with these initiatives from Brussels, the devil is in the detail and different member states have different elements of concern on the detail.
We have provided the committee with a briefing note on some of the elements that arise but I thought it might be helpful if I gave an overview of the totality of the directive. I will then say a few words about the considerations which influence the national approach to the directive. I will refer to some of the more sensitive issues that arise within the negotiations and I will refer to the level of progress that has been made at the European level on its consideration.
This directive is essentially a framework directive, which is trying to create the conditions in which services can move freely. As such, it contrasts with the way the goods Single Market was addressed where, since 1992, hundreds of individual directives were created to address particular sectors or standards relating to products and safety standards. In contrast, this directive aims to create the conditions necessary for a free market. It is taking this horizontal approach because most of the constraints and restrictions on service providers are more or less common across the different sectors. The directive does not prescribe how we are to implement it, although there are parameters in terms of what we have to do. To the extent that regulation or some constraints will be necessary, they would have to be proportional to the actual objective. The timeframe for achieving the Single Market in services is up towards 2010. There are two ways in which services can be provided in any member state. A firm can set up in a country with a view to providing a particular service or it can provide the service remotely. The directive seeks to address these two particular domains.
The scope of the directive is very broad. It addresses and seeks to create a single market in any economic service. There are, however, a number of exemptions. The excluded services include financial services, telecommunications and transport, and the reason these areas are excluded is because there are legislative provisions in operation that cover those sectors. The directive does not seek to address services for which a remuneration is not involved. In particular, it does not address or affect public services. The term used for public services in the European vernacular is services of general interest. There is a separate EU White Paper that addresses services of general interest. The directive will not impinge on how a member state will define its services of general interest. Therefore, it will not affect education services or health services, although there is a small aspect of health that I will mention later. Some of the general discourse about this directive, at the European level, for example, has touched upon privatisation and the effect on public services. This is a misunderstanding of the directive as it does not impinge upon those areas.
Taking the first pillar, the freedom of establishment in a member state, the directive aims to simplify the process and to make it easy for a company in one member state to set up in another. Where it is necessary to provide a certificate of any form in order to set up in its home state, this authorisation must be accepted in all of the other member states as recognition of the right of that business to conduct its affairs. The directive's objective is to enable the member states to facilitate companies and to be proactive in developing this trade in services.
One of the key elements required to support this is the establishment of single points of contact, whereby a company from another member state that seeks to establish itself in Ireland can clear the necessary formalities through one contact point. This does not mean that a single outlet will service them since it must still engage with the Revenue Commissioners and register with the company registration office if it is a company. It may well have to register with a professional body but it should be enabled to do so through a single point of contact or portal and hopefully by electronic means.
This is an extraordinary challenge for the member states but we are moving in that direction. I do not know if the committee is familiar with the Reach and BASIS website initiatives. They are Government portals that allow individuals and companies to conduct much of their affairs on the Internet, such as establishment and access to employment rights among others. It will be a demand on the Administration to provide these single points of contact.
The other elements of this first pillar deal with the grounds through which authorisation schemes are permissible. Invariably, some form of Revenue or professional authorisation is required. The directive specifies a set of prohibitions that cannot be used to prevent a company from another member state establishing here and likewise for Irish companies in other states. This is dealt with in article 14 and is referred to as the black list. Included are many expected provisions, such as the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. A requirement such as the necessity for shareholders to be resident in the country of delivery of service may not be imposed. There is a range of other requirements that operate more on the Continent than here. For instance, in certain situations a service delivery cannot be established unless it can be proven to the local mayoral system or local authority that there is an economic need. In other situations there is a requirement to consult incumbents before delivering a service. All of these constraints and restrictions are banned.
Article 15 puts forward other requirements regarding granting of authorisations. They may be retained if they can demonstrate that they are non-discriminatory and proportional to the objective. This includes quantitative or territorial restrictions on the right to establish a service. A pharmacy could not be established in Ireland within a certain distance of another pharmacy until recently, a restriction that is not with us any longer, but such restraints continue to operate in other countries. In Belgium, if the authorities insist on the retention of this restraint they must justify it at the European level.
This deals with the right of establishment, the key points of which are the prohibition of restrictions on grounds of nationality, discrimination and so forth, and states must seek to provide a single point of contact through which the establishment of service providers will be facilitated.
The other dimension of service provision is the remote or temporary provision. If a new logo is desired for a company, it can find and communicate with a company in Tallaght or Estonia over the Internet, give the details and get the logo without any personal contact. This is one way of delivering services. Another is through temporary provision. One can envisage a small company that desires to provide a particular employee training programme and decides that a German firm has an excellent course available. The company would pay that firm to send an instructor, an individual who would never establish here but would provide a service.
We wish to ensure that there is certainty concerning the legislative right to do this. Central to the ability to provide this kind of service is the so-called country of origin, or mutual recognition of standards, principle. It has existed for some time for goods, wherein goods that reach certain standards can be sold in any part of the Union without restriction. The same principle will apply to delivery of services on the adoption of this directive. If a service provider is authorised to operate in his or her own state it is sufficient recognition to enable him or her to provide that service in any other member state. This is important from the service deliverer's point of view in the sense that one of the elements that has prevented a free market in this area is the requirement to be familiar with the nuances of the rules and regulations that govern the provision of services. In this instance, the rules and regulations governing the provider are those that operate in his or her home state.
There is also the matter of the consumer and there are provisions in this draft directive that seek to secure and support the rights of consumers through what is termed administrative co-operation, such as co-operative arrangements between the Irish director of consumer affairs and that office's counterparts in other European states. There must be a commitment to the co-operative process as part of this package because it is believed this will enhance consumer confidence in buying transborder services more so than is currently the case.
The recognition that a service provided in one's own country is adequate is a fundamental principle within the operation of the free movement of services and a range of derogations are provided for in Article 17 in respect of the country of origin principle. These relate to areas in which it is felt there are insufficient standards of harmonisation or where particular pieces of dedicated legislation exist, including postal services, telecommunications services, water provision and other services of that nature. There are other dimensions in which the country of origin principle will not apply, one of the most important being the temporary posting of workers. That issue has a certain amount of currency now in the context of Polish workers etc. working on building sites throughout the country.
The temporary posting of workers legislation originated in Europe and has been adopted under Irish legislation. It provides that persons who come here to work on a temporary basis are entitled to the full protection and obligations of Irish employment law whether that is the minimum wage or registered wage agreements with respect to particular sectors. They have entitlements with respect to annual leave, hours of work etc. when they come here. The temporary posting of workers regime will prevail with respect to persons who are sent to this country to deliver a service. That is an important point.
My contribution so far has focused in the main on the service providers, whether they are delivering the service remotely or by means of temporary provision.
Mr. Ó Moráin, how much time do you require to conclude your contribution? The Order of Business is taken in the House at 10.30 a.m.
Mr. Ó Moráin
I can be brief.
It is fairly important legislation.
Mr. Ó Moráin
It is and it is very convoluted. We would be more than pleased to come back——
No, I am just being mindful of the time.
Mr. Ó Moráin
The directive also deals with recipients. One cannot discriminate against recipients. If I as an Irish person want to buy a particular service from France, I cannot be discriminated against or prevented from acquiring a French service.
As I mentioned, there are issues around protecting the quality of services. This in part derives from the arrangements for administrative co-operation. That is as much as I need to say about the broad parameters, although I might mention one area of controversy that has arisen.
There is a provision on health in Article 23. The Commission is recognising certain European Court of Justice findings that have been made, under which I, as an Irish person, may be entitled to have non-hospital care delivered elsewhere. If I need to see a doctor in another member state I am entitled to do that and pay for it. if I had a medical card I would be entitled to get that service free of charge here but the European Court of Justice has ruled that I should be entitled to be reimbursed if I choose to avail of the service in another member state, and no prior authorisation arises with respect to the health authority here. I do not need the health authority's permission to do that. On the other hand, if I am on a hospital waiting list for a hip replacement procedure and I decide it is unreasonable to expect me to wait six or 12 months for that procedure, under the European Court of Justice finding I am entitled to have it done in another member state. If I was a public health patient entitled to free provision I should be entitled to reimbursement but where hospital care is required, I would require the prior authorisation of the relevant health or social security authority. Because the court has ruled that those are legitimate provisions they have been enshrined in Article 23.
There is controversy around that provision, not because people are taking issue with the court findings, although some member states do not like it, but because it is felt this is not an appropriate directive in which to address this issue. The European Union Health Council in particular is anxious that any legislative redressing of that issue should be addressed within the framework of the Health Council work and legislation rather than in a commerce type directive. We suspect that element may come out but the Commission is not giving any direction at this time.
The court has found already in favour of this provision.
Mr. Ó Moráin
Yes.
Does that mean if I need a hip replacement and I cannot get the procedure done here I can get it done in Spain or does it only cover the aftercare?
Mr. Ó Moráin
No. You can have the procedure done if you were in the VHI but if you were a medial card holder and you expected the service to be provided by the health authority here you would need the health authority's approval before getting the procedure done and to be sure of being reimbursed.
In regard to people with VHI or BUPA insurance, which is the case with most people who are working because they are over the income limit for a medical card, if they wish to have the procedure done in another member state would they have to get permission from the VHI or BUPA?
Mr. Ó Moráin
I would expect so.
The courts have decided that this is now a right of every citizen of the member states. Is that right? It is a right of each EU citizen.
Mr. Ó Moráin
A prior authorisation is required. Whether one gets that authorisation is another question.
You are telling the committee that the courts have decided that this is a right in respect of a request that might be made by a customer of the VHI, BUPA or other insurers covering this service.
Mr. Ó Moráin
No. It relates to public authority and public reimbursement provision, the public health aspect of it.
It is concerned with medical card holders.
Mr. Ó Moráin
If they decide to get their medical treatment publicly in another member state rather than avail of the service here.
I apologise for interrupting you but it is an important matter.
Mr. Ó Moráin
It is, and it is complex but we are talking to the Department of Health and Children about it. We sat on the fence to some degree. It is a finding of the European Court of Justice. If there is a willingness on the part of the EU Health Council to address it, that would make sense to us, although some complications could arise with it.
Is it for us, on behalf of the Government, to address the difficulties that could arise in respect of certain treatments? Hospitals could find it difficult to catch up on their waiting lists if they wanted another member state to do it.
Mr. Ó Moráin
There are always two sides to the coin. The concern of countries like Germany, France and so on is that if this goes too far they could be inundated with demand from throughout Europe, bearing in mind that there are now 25 member states. They are not totally content with the finding of the court and they will seek to find ways to ensure their health services are protected and that they will not be inundated with demand for services. It is not a straightforward issue.
Other areas of potential difficulty for Ireland are signalled in the note distributed to members. There is a minor provision on taxation but Ireland takes a position of principle in the European Union that anything to do with taxation should be addressed within the framework of the ECOFIN Council involving unanimity of decision rather than in a directive such as this one where qualified majority applies.
Interestingly, gambling is a service that has been excluded. There is a derogation on that. That is as much to do with an excellent lobby that our friends in the lotteries throughout Europe have managed to generate. That is understandable because lotteries, by and large, finance public authorities.
The health care issue is another area of potential difficulty and for us there is an issue about a requirement to have indemnity insurance when delivering a service. We do not have mandatory indemnity insurance requirements here so we have a slight problem with that.
We have had a range of consultation and one of the more interesting conversations we had with stakeholders was with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has genuine concerns about the direction of this draft directive. One of its concerns is the privatisation issue that tends to be brought into the mix, which we believe is a smokescreen. That does not impinge upon member states' national position in terms of whether they wish to privatise a particular sector. It is neutral in that regard.
The other concern of congress is that, in some fashion or other, this could lead to some type of race to the bottom. It was particularly concerned about low-cost workers coming here and delivering services but as we sought to explain to congress, the temporary posting of workers provision operates here. In other words, where a person comes here to provide a service for more than four weeks — some are posted here for a longer period than that — the posting of workers legislation will apply.
This directive is still at a discursive stage at EU level and we are still working through it. Even though it has been on the stocks for almost a year, it is still very much about clarification of its parameters rather than negotiation although negotiations on non contentious issues are not getting underway. All those elements are being investigated, so to speak, in the dialogue taking place at European Union level. We hope we have given ICTU some clarification. ICTU's concerns remain genuine and we remain in contact with it with a view either to reassuring it that its concerns are not necessary or, to the extent that there might be legitimate concerns, we will see how they can be ameliorated through the negotiation process.
The negotiations continue apace. There is plenty of ambition on the part of the Luxembourg Presidency but we do not foresee this directive being adopted until 2006 at best. The European Parliament does not anticipate giving its opinion on it until the end of this year, if even then. It will be 2007 before it comes to fruition. There will be plenty of time for dialogue with legislators such as this committee, apart from our engagement with the stakeholders who have a vested interest in it. I apologise for taking so much time.
Does this come under Commissioner McCreevy's portfolio?
Mr. Ó Moráin
It does.
We will issue an invitation to him. The members and I are anxious to be briefed on this at the earliest opportunity. I have a few questions. Has Forfás completed its consideration of this matter? If it has, when will the report be ready? Will the report include an impact assessment of this directive on Irish services? Does it affect Ireland's groceries order, given that we are at an advanced stage of finalising a draft of our first interim report? Which services in Ireland are expected to benefit and which are expected to lose?
The general secretary of ICTU, an eminent person who has made a major contribution to Irish society, has said about this directive that it does not make sense to allow services in industries to base themselves in the low cost accession countries and from there outsource jobs to provide services in the EU 15 member states on pay rates and conditions of employment which apply in the base country. Does the Department agree with this assessment or does the posting of workers directive avoid this?
I have one brief question. The presentation was most informative. I accept the directive is at an early stage but could Mr. Ó Moráin explain the position relating to An Post?
Mr. Ó Moráin
The Forfás report is imminent, a matter of two to three weeks. It is drafted but it has to be put formally before the Forfás board before we can put it on the website. We anticipate it will be two or three weeks. It is an impact assessment. Its evaluation is that, broadly speaking, and these are econometric calculations, Ireland stands to gain something of the order of €400 million in its own right through the impact of this, the additional trade we will be able to generate and the additional markets we will be able to capture. The macro studies that have been done at European level suggest that European welfare generally will improve or be enhanced because of the additional activity by a value of approximately €47 billion over a period of time.
With regard to winners and losers, the areas that will win are those that were identified in the recent O'Driscoll report by the enterprise strategy group. These are areas such as private education, intellectual property, franchising, international sales and marketing, creative services and outsourcing business processes for supply chain management. The ESG identified a range of them where we believe Ireland will gain. There will be losers but it is impossible to predict them. They will, more than likely, be in the sheltered sectors where there will be more competition. However, that will reflect a net gain in terms of efficiencies and impact on consumer prices. Overall, however, the projection is a net gain.
I do not know how to answer the question about the ICTU perspective. We will continue our dialogue with ICTU. Does the same thing apply with respect to manufacturing? It is recognised that there is a shift eastwards in the lower end manufacturing. This is why we talk all the time about the need to move up the value chain. Ireland is no longer a low cost economy. I have indicated the type of areas that are likely to do well in this new era. These are the higher, added value services which we can capture in terms of our growth and development in the future.
With respect to An Post, there is a derogation from the country of origin principle. An Post is governed by its own legislation at European level. There is already a commitment at European level, which impacts on us, to liberalise elements of the post service. The parcel service is already a free market. By the end of this decade there are to be greater levels of competition but those decisions are taken separately, as part of national policy outside the scope of this directive.
It seems incredible that so encompassing a directive on services and their availability to the consumer does not include An Post.
Mr. Ó Moráin
It is not included because it is covered by its own dedicated legislation.
Can the legislation that covers the operation and liberalisation of the delivery of mail and services be decided on by the national government? Is it subject to the same type of limitations as the rest of the directives from Europe? Obviously, the country must comply with some directives but with the majority of them, such as those relating to taxation, the decision is a national issue. Does the same type of national requirement apply to An Post as opposed to it being an imposition from Europe?
Mr. Ó Moráin mentioned the country of origin. Was he saying it in the context of the food industry or all manufacturing industry? It is a contentious matter in this country at present. One can find garments in shops branded by country of origin, such as Taiwan, China, the UK, but others might not carry any brand.
Will the larger trade unions in the 15 member states be in favour or against this before the other ten states have come in? What you said earlier gave the impression that the larger trade unions might pose a difficulty for this proposal.
Mr. Ó Moráin
I am not an expert on An Post. Our friends in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources manage it. It has its own dedicated legislation. I cannot say that there is complete national autonomy. As with the electricity and telecommunications regimes, there has been a liberalising framework directive that impacts on An Post. I cannot say, therefore, that we have complete autonomy in what we do. However, the Government, by agreeing to that directive, has committed to whatever direction it is moving. I understand there has been some liberalising but I am not an expert on it so I cannot give any details.
With regard to country of origin, this has nothing to do with goods. There is already a single market in goods. The country of origin principle, in so far as it relates to this directive, is concerned with the supply of services on a remote basis where establishment is not involved. That is the context in which it arises. The country of origin principle is the same as mutual recognition. If one buys a piece of electrical equipment in any shop, one will invariably see a CE sign on it, demonstrating that it meets the technical requirements that Europe has agreed are appropriate to enable that equipment to be put on the European market. If China tries to sell equipment it, too, will have to be able to demonstrate, through type-approval regimes, that it meets those standards. It probably does and China can probably produce it a hell of a lot cheaper but that is the reality of the global economy.
Is it under the Single Market?
Mr. Ó Moráin
It is under the Single Market, yes. From an economic perspective, the Single Market in goods is regarded as the crowning jewel of the European Union.
With respect to your questions on the attitude of the trade union movement generally, Chairman, I would characterise it by saying there is a great deal of nervousness — partly our own. ICTU is part of ETUC, the European trade union movement. For example, I perceive a great deal of concern in Scandinavian countries, which is being articulated in the context of this "race for the bottom" issue. In some respects, I do not quite understand this because, if one takes the manufacturing sector, we recognise that mobile capital will frequently go to the lower cost economies. This is why we all have to move up to the so-called higher level. That already applies within the manufacture of goods regime.
Maybe that is what they are afraid of.
Mr. Ó Moráin
Maybe.
Maybe they do not want it to happen with services.
Mr. Ó Moráin
I am not sure that one can hold back the tide in the context of a global economy, unless one wants to take a completely protectionist route.
There is an average of 40% unemployment in the ten new member states and they have free access to the other 15 states, including Ireland. I suppose that is the major concern the main trade unions would have from the point of view of Irish workers.
I do not think that is the major concern. It is recognised in all industrial sectors that the influx is necessary. In many ways, there are not enough people coming because I hear people constantly seeking workers. They are being brought in and let us assume that they are being paid the minimum wage, even though from what I hear that is not so. Although workers may not yet be conscious of it, the trade union movement is conscious that they could end up having a low-wage economy of non-Irish nationals in which Irish nationals would lose out.
That is what we are saying.
Irish nationals will look for the rate for their trade, as opposed to the minimum wage. I can understand the Scandinavians being worried about that. One cannot hold back the tide as regards what people do with their money. In this instance, however, one can hold it back because national Governments can regulate how people are treated with regard to pay and conditions. One can hold back the tide if one has the will to do so.
How will the implementation and effectiveness of the directive be monitored?
On the face of it, the directive appears to be a good measure because it more or less implements the Single Market in free trade. It is said that since Ireland joined the EU the cost of cars has not fallen. Does Mr. Ó Moráin envisage people purchasing cars over the Internet? How would that effect levies here?
I am interested by the health questions to which Mr. Ó Moráin referred. One would have to obtain authorisation from the health authorities but would they be obliged to grant such authorisation as a result of the court case? They probably would not grant it if it was cheaper to do so here. However, are they obliged under the legislation to grant such authorisation?
Mr. Ó Moráin did not respond to the question about the Groceries Order.
Mr. Ó Moráin
On the Groceries Order, I mentioned that there are two Articles, 14 and 15 — a black list and a grey list concerning restrictions that may not be imposed on the right of establishment of an operation here. The black list comprises absolute "No's", such as nationality discrimination and residency requirements, which must be eliminated from legislation. The provisional grey list specifically mentions the fact that one may not have a restriction of the nature of a groceries order. The grey list requires us to examine particular provisions. If we wish to retain them we must justify them on grounds of necessity, proportionality or public policy.
You would have to justify it.
Mr. Ó Moráin
If we want to retain it we would have to justify it. We will have the right to retain it but it is not looked upon with great favour.
It is still up for discussion, obviously.
Mr. Ó Moráin
Yes.
Can you deal with the Deputies' other questions?
Mr. Ó Moráin
I am afraid I cannot help the committee with regard to the cost of cars. The taxman will always get one on that. It is a goods item, for a start, not a service. As the acquisition is subject to the existing Single Market regime, I am afraid they will be caught until the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, decides to change his mind about registration.
As I understand the health issue, although I am not an expert in that field, prior authorisation is warranted for hospital care so that the public authority can determine whether it is in a position to finance it.
I have some brief questions although I am not sure if they fall within the scope of Mr. Ó Moráin's presentation. Given the ease with which, under this directive, people could establish industries in other countries, will it have an effect on the availability of more competition in the insurance market here?
My second question relates to the movement of labour. I come from Wexford where seafaring is very important. Currently, there is the potential for a desperate dispute between Irish Ferries, SIPTU and some other unions because ships, operating under a flag of convenience, are employing crew from within the EU market and sometimes outside it. I would like to hear Mr. Ó Moráin's observations on those two points.
Mr. Ó Moráin
As I mentioned, there is a set of exclusions from this directive. The insurance market is one of those because it is governed by its own financial regime under the EU's financial action plan. It has its own set of rules and regulations governing the free flow of competition in the European market.
I cannot answer the question about the movement of labour in the maritime domain. I am not even sure if the issue comes within the parameters of this directive, as distinct from general maritime law, including registration requirements. The Deputy might be better putting that question to our friends in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, than to me. My colleague has drawn to my attention the fact that transport services are also excluded because they have their own dedicated legal regime. I suspect that relates to land transport issues, including tachometers.
How would the implementation and effectiveness of the directive be monitored? For instance, should the Commission consider it to be necessary, would the economic indicators necessary for monitoring purposes be put in place for each member state before the directive comes into effect?
Mr. Ó Moráin
It would be monitored in the way any European legislation is monitored, including that governing the Single Market in goods. Where individuals find themselves being precluded from delivery of services and where their legal rights are breached, they will raise the issue with the relevant authorities. If one looks at the Irish website, for example, there is a facility called "SOLVIT" which is specifically concerned with addressing problems that arise in the single market. That type of facility is available to ensure freedom to provide services.
I also stress that the Commission always has a surveillance process in respect of any legislation it implements. It has conventional evaluation review processes after a period to see whether it works because, invariably, with almost any legislation the EU enacts, one will find that one or two years down the road, there will be a need for adjustments and adaptations to it to ensure it works properly.
Article 43 of the directive provides that the Commission shall report every three years to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation and application of the directive. In any event, it is built into the directive that there will be a formal reporting structure on how it is functioning and on its operation.
My concerns relate to the economic indicators identified and on which the final data is not available for this proposal. It was with those 11 indicators in mind I asked the question on monitoring. France has an unemployment figure of 8.7% or 8.8% while Germany's unemployment figure is 12.2% — the highest since World War II. There are a few indictors that will probably have to be addressed before this becomes possible.
Mr. Ó Morain
With respect, Chairman, that is a slightly different issue. That is what is called part of the Lisbon Agenda. We have this wonderful ambition to be the most competitive, dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. The European Council, which the Taoiseach will attend on 22/23 March, is fundamentally about monitoring our levels of commitment and attainment of our Lisbon objectives. Those Lisbon objectives are concerned with the type of macro-economic indicators about which the Chairman spoke and the levels of growth and employment being attained in the European Union. They are monitored through that process.
The Commission has produced what is called a mid-term review of the Lisbon process which is actually the key subject for discussion at the European Council on 22/23 March. This directive is just one little pedestal, although an important one, as one looks forward to 2010. This will not be capable of implementation until 2010. We have much work to do between now and then on the broader agenda.
I thank Mr. Ó Morain and Mr. Clarke for assisting us this morning. This is the future and concerns jobs in the EU. Everyone will agree our membership of the EU since 1973 has been beneficial. I certainly look forward to working with you very closely, particularly in respect of matters pertaining to employment, which is within the remit of this committee, over the lifetime of this Government — the next two and a half years or so. I thank Mr. Ó Moráin and Mr. Clarke for coming to the committee to enlighten it on this new directive.
The joint committee adjourned at 10.40 a.m. sine die.