 Thanks very much for a very interesting speech. Paul Sweeney from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, you said rightly at the beginning that the European social model has greatly mitigated the deep recession that we faced. But I would put it to you that it's under threat and it's been put on the back burner by your colleagues in the commission who are pushing this competitiveness agenda using the crisis, which is a financial crisis, to they're spending more time addressing labor market reform than dealing with the problems in the financial, you know, financial reform and so on. And this is to our cost. And I think it's reducing people's positive attitude towards Europe. I'm collecting our... Okay, well, it's difficult to tell what actually, what is actually on the agenda of the commission and what fills the headline, the front pages of the newspapers. There is a lot of talk and especially, for example, in the first quarter of this year, there was a lot of talk about competitiveness because of this attempted competitiveness fact, which was later transformed into a Euro Plus fact. But since the commission came to office, there has been a very strong agenda for rebuilding financial regulation, for example. It was something which I think the previous commission could have also done. It didn't happen in a way it could have in a way Michel Barnier took this very seriously and brought this forward in several steps to build up an all-European financial regulatory system with three centers in a very robust way. There is fundamentally, in terms of its origin and the consequences of financial crisis, but I think it also exposed much of the weaknesses of the European economy. And I think it cannot be doubted that in some countries, these weaknesses are related to competitiveness and the very low gross potential. So I don't think there are kind of uniform policies because there are some countries which don't have much competitiveness problem. So like, for example, Germany or the Netherlands, some countries are happily exporting and the commission is not applying a kind of straight jacket of policies while there is a great diversity of conditions and capacities. But where it is relevant, I think we shouldn't escape discussing the problems of competitiveness and improve it if possible. Who else? Yes. For your presentation, I would like to present the Bulgarian ambassador here in Dublin. And I would like to ask a question related to the implementation. You will not be surprised to the implementation of the principle of freedom of movement in the labor area. You are a very well aware commissioner that Bulgarian citizens, as also the Romanian citizens, continue to experience labor restrictions in accessing the labor markets of several European countries, especially the old member countries. So I wanted to hear your view now five years after the accession of Bulgarian and Romanian because the restrictions for the first 10 have been lifted happily. The restrictions for Bulgarian and Romanian are in their fifth year now. And they will be subject to review in this year. And they could be also extended for another two years. Now, do you believe there is a rationale in extending these restrictions for additional two years? And do you believe that lifting them this year will actually bring some distortion to the labor markets in the old European member states? Thank you. What I can say is that indeed the free movement of workers and related social security coordination was part of my discussion with the minister this morning. And indeed there are many aspects, many dimensions of this topic. In the recent period we had an important date, which was the first of May when the restrictions expired for the countries that joined the EU in 2004 in Austria and Germany. And these discussions, also the ones in Austria and Germany, showed that these countries may have had some kind of concern before him, but now the majority is looking at these opportunities very positively. And that's what was actually supported by the Commission's own analysis as well, that for the individuals involved, for the countries that are the countries of destination in this free movement, and also the countries of origin, in case these workers come back later with greater experience and having learned their work in culture, gaining experience in a more competitive economy, they can also benefit the home environment at a later stage. So the Commission has been very clearly without any ambiguity, stressing the benefits of free movement. And what I think is that countries that maintain restriction vis-à-vis Bulgaria and Romania may be able to reconsider the timetable if their experience is positive with the recent opening. I encourage, I have encouraged them to do so. Of course, it's their right to apply the rules, because I think it's important to note that the same rules apply for Romania and Bulgaria as the rules that had applied to the countries that joined in 2004. And the same rules will apply in the forthcoming periods to Croatia. Also, once Croatia is joining the European Union. Thank you. Dan O'Brien, the Irish Times newspaper. You seem to endorse the reversal of the reduction in the minimum wage in your speech. If that's the case, what was the Commission's position six months ago when the financial assistance package was being negotiated? It was understood at that time that the Commission advocated the lowering of the minimum wage. There seems to be a very big change over six months in the Commission's position. Could you elaborate on that? I'm sure it was not the Commission alone which approached Ireland. Ireland was in a situation when the government had to request external support for financial stabilization and avoid worse options. And the Commission, the IMF, the European Central Bank were partners in developing the crisis response and the package of measures that were implemented. And I think this is not the only example. I'm sure there are other ones. Look at, for example, the question of the interest rate in the case of Greece. When in subsequent periods, there can be a different approach and it's not the concept of the automatic pilot to drive through the financial turbulence. It's, I think, a process when the reason need to revisit, reconsider various factors and if there is a possibility, we also need to work for better standards and protecting the most vulnerable groups. In this case, the minimum wage is clearly an important element of the whole wage-setting mechanism. It protects many workers from falling into poverty and maintaining an effective minimum wage, in my view, is a very important instrument even if not every EU member state applies a minimum wage. But my approach is very positive, although you should also see that there is no European legislation on minimum wage. The Commission has an understanding and a view about the use of the minimum wage, but it's not something that the EU would set for the member states. You, yes, we're running short on time. Kevin, you take one, and this one I want to ask, but maybe you want to ask something more. Commissioner, thank you very much for your presentation. Another area which I don't think you touched on very much in your address is the pensions issue and the pensions problems across many, many member states, including here in Ireland. I know there was a green paper last year and the consultation process went on up until the end of November. And you're proposing, or the Commission is proposing, to issue a communique sometime later this year. And I was wondering, do you have any early thoughts on what might be in that communique and what role the Commission might play in the coordination of pensions policy? Yes, thank you much. I have some early thoughts, of course, some advanced thoughts as well, because this consultation on the basis of the green paper was really rich and brought a lot of comments. It confirms much of the preliminary views we had with Commissioners Rehn and Barnier, who were also partners in developing in this green paper and they remain partners in developing the white paper, which will come out later this year. Of course, I'm not in a position to tell you about the substance of the white paper, but since the consultation concluded with certain focus and statements, which I already presented to the EPSCO Council, there are a few initiatives which are forthcoming and they have a strong relevance in the Irish context as well. One of them is about the safety of pensions, especially if you want to encourage more savings for people for old age, and this is of course handled by the financial sector, which did not always turn out to be very resilient and stable in the recent period. I think it's very important to see, to look at what needs to be done for a higher level of financial stability in order to ensure that the investments in pension funds are safe and people at an old age will enjoy the benefits of their savings. So this is something Michel Barnier is working on and he will take the initiative at you, of course. And the other one I would like to mention, which is absolutely relevant because it's linked to labor mobility in the EU, that's the portability of the occupational pensions. We will have to come back to this following the white paper, but it's already crystal clear that there is enormous support and huge demand for the commission coming forward with the Legislative Initiative on Portability of Pension because this is one of the sometimes hidden, sometimes unhidden obstacles before labor mobility. And we are obviously not just researching the topic, but we have carried out some negotiations and continue to do so. And there will be probably next year an initiative about this. I'm going to abuse the privilege of the Chair, as I say, to ask you a question. You mentioned in your remarks a statistic that has been repeated again and again by the Commission that there are 80 million citizens in the European Union who were at risk or within poverty. Last year was the European year to combat poverty. Could you comment on what your initial conclusions from that year are and where you would place the priority in dealing with this huge social problem? I just might say that I personally was involved many, many years ago with the then Irish Minister for Social Welfare in the introduction of the first European poverty program back in the 70s when Patrick Hillery was your predecessor as Social Affairs Commissioner. So I have a personal feeling about this. But the statistic is a very stark one in the context of the Union with the social dimension that it has always underlined. So perhaps you might just comment on what came out of that year and where you see it guiding you in the future. Well, the European year helped to raise awareness of the problem because we know that Europe is one of the richest parts of the world. But we often forget that there are a lot of people at least at risk of poverty, but some in material deprivation and various forms of deep poverty. And it also helped this European campaign to mobilize civil society. There were plenty of programs really involving social workers and charities and various organizations which need to kind of revitalize their activities and re-energize themselves. And I think we have been helping that. And further than that, I think this European year helped delivering two important products, one of them, the poverty target in Europe 2020, which I think was very important. And the other one is as part of the 2020 strategy, the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, which will contribute to the annual European semester exercise and the monitoring of the progress with poverty reduction will form part of this exercise every year. The question is what indicators we follow. And we had enormous discussions one year ago about the right indicators about poverty or the risk of poverty. In the previous period, there was perhaps not a bias by the kind of convention that the at risk of poverty, relative poverty indicator should be there, which is the 60% of the median income. And these discussions actually resulted in a more pluralistic understanding of poverty, also because we needed to respond to the diversity of economic and social reality in the European Union. So now the national reform programs and the national poverty targets are based on a choice and a possible combination of at risk of poverty, material deprivation, and the jobless households. So the countries can design their own anti-poverty programs along their choice of these, whatever they find most relevant in that context. For example, where there are more developed social services, which also cover poor people. There's less relevance of the financial poverty index or the income-based poverty index. For example, in much of the so-called new member states, measuring material deprivation is absolutely relevant. Although these industries can also be kind of revised and further developed. So we are now working on that basis. And I can say the same that this morning, I also had an opportunity to discuss the Irish ambition concerning poverty reduction with the minister. Thank you for that.