asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to comments recently by senior officials of the FUE suggesting that EC social harmonisation should be implemented in this country voluntarily rather than by directive or laws; if he will outline the Government's attitude to this suggestion; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Social Harmonisation.
9.
I am not aware of the particular comments referred to by the Deputy. However, I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Government's general approach to the question of development of a European social policy dimension.
The Government fully support the idea of a social dimension as part of the measures to implement the development of the single European market. They considered that such a dimension is appropriate and necessary so as to ensure that workers derive a fair share of the benefits of the single market. However, they believe that the social dimension should not include elements which would impede the promotion of employment, which is the main priority of Government policy in this area.
As regards the nature and scope of the proposed social dimension, I should stress that it does not imply total harmonisation throughout the Community of social standards or of the manner of their implementation. In some areas, detailed minimum requirements will be prescribed centrally by the Community. In many others, however, what will happen is that broad guidelines for objective standards will be set out at Community level, leaving the methods of their implementation to be determined by national governments, through domestic legislation or collective bargaining. Finally, there will be aspects in relation to which action by member states is recommended but not laid down in Community legislation, the voluntarist approach.
The need for Community legislation, the areas to be covered, the standards to be set and the method of implementation will, therefore, be determined on a case by case basis. Ireland supports this sort of pragmatic approach which proposes common objectives but takes account at the same time of the differing circumstances in the individual Community member states and of their traditional methods of implementing minimum standards in employment matters.
I am surprised to hear the Minister is unaware of the views of the senior members of the FUE as referred to in the question. In short, what was being suggested was that any introduction of social harmonisation of development of worker participation in industry should come by agreement or by arrangement between the workers and management and not by response to an EC Directive. Will the Minister agree or disagree in general terms with that approach? If there is agreement, do the Government anticipate making representations in response to these views to the European Parliament or the Commission to go easy on the directives in this field or to seek in any way a relief from directives for this country?
A discussion is going on about fundamental rights and how these should be achieved. The Spanish Presidency is working on a charter of rights. What is to be contained in that is a matter of considerable disagreement. We would go along with the concept of a character of rights except for items which would cause particular problems to small employers or create some major difficulty in the collective bargaining system. The German Presidency and the Greek Presidency were working on aspects of safety and health and minimum protective legislation. There is no disagreement on these matters and we strongly support their views. There still is considerable disagreement on a charter of rights, particularly by the UK Government.
Would the Minister not agree that the net question in relation to the Irish Government's response to the proposed charter of social rights relates to whether the Community, and particularly the Council of Social Affairs Ministers, is prepared to give effect to that charter by way of directive or by way of exhortation? Would he agree that the Irish Government have reneged on previous occasions and are now aligned with the conservative government of Mrs. Thatcher in saying that while the charter of social rights is a good thing it should be left to the voluntary practices of individual nations? Would the Minister further agree that his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy Brennan, has sold out entirely in relation to worker's rights, for which he has statutory responsibility?
Regarding the Deputy's claim that we are aligned with the Thatcher government, nothing could be further from the truth as far as the meetings of the social affairs Council are concerned. Practically all the time I am on the other side but so are the other ten. It is an 11 to 1 position on all issues. On some issues that changes slightly in that the line-up would be different. It is all very fine to have a legislative charter of rights, for which I have much support, but it is vital that we do not legislate away from the collective bargaining process and into a charter of rights which is all legislation and does not allow room for discussion. In the collective bargaining process employers and workers often move away from the norm because of particular circumstances. If it is all built into legislation it will mean that the biggest and the smallest employers will be tied in legislatively. When I talk about the voluntary approach I am referring to that matter, not matters of safety and health or minimum notice. For several years there have been other directives which would be quite difficult and dangerous to implement.
I will hear brief supplementaries from Deputy McCartan, Deputy Quinn and Deputy Jim Mitchell.
I welcome the Minister's support for the idea of directives in this area.
He said exactly the opposite.
I note his reservation with regard to small employers. Would he agree that it is often in the small company or enterprise that workers are most exploited and most in need of the protection envisaged in the charter of rights? Would he agree that this is at least as important a consideration as protecting the interests of employers who appear——
I did ask for brevity. The Deputy has made his point fulsomely.
The position of the employers appears to be one——
Deputy McCartan is ignoring the Chair. I asked for brevity. I have dwelt over long on this question.
A lot of our legislation, regulations, etc., is acceptable but there are other proposals which could make it more difficult and less attractive for employers to employ people. That must be looked at carefully. I take the point that we cannot allow people to be discriminated against but we have to be careful. There are some proposals that might operate well for a German multinational company but which would not be of benefit to a small Irish company. A balance must be struck and this has been creating much difficulty with these directives during the past ten years.
Would the Minister agree that if the Irish Government are prepared to endorse the Single European Act, which has the same standards for the movement of capital throughout the Community, there should be a basic floor in regard to a charter of workers' rights and that this charter will be nothing more than a piece of paper unless he is prepared to give effect to it by way of law? Can he affirm to the House that the Government of which he is a member will propose a directive to give legal effect to whatever emerges from the meeting on 12 June in Luxembourg?
The Deputy has long attended these meetings. Most of the proposals he was discussing five years ago have been taken off the agenda and never agreed. I will agree to bring in legislative proposals in respect of what is agreed following the conclusion of the social affairs Council. I will not give a carte blanche of things which will directly create more disincentives to Irish business people to create employment. I will support a bill of rights for workers in regard to matters which are fair, realistic and reasonable.
I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the Minister about not pressing our rights so far that they would jeopardise employment. That is something we must take into account. Would the Minister agree that we should be wholehearted supporters of the idea of a charter of rights for workers and that the charter should be balanced by a charter of responsibilities? Employment is less likely where there is no onus on workers and trade unionists to be responsible. There is a need for balance in this respect.
I am a wholehearted supporter of a charter of rights for workers and the recent Bill on health and safety agreed by this House covers many of the aspects which will eventually be included in a bill of rights. Our law is up to date in that respect. On the question of responsibilities, this is among the issues being discussed. I could not agree with the UK Government's position. They do not want to legislate for anything and their bill of rights will probably include nothing. There is a big difference between what we, the Germans and others want and what the UK Government are prepared to accept. I do not believe the next meeting will cover this issue. It is likely to go on for some time.