asked the Minister for Labour if it is the Government's policy that the proposed EC Social Charter to strengthen workers' rights should be binding on member states; if it is intended to take any steps to create an awareness among Irish workers of the proposals of the charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Social Charter.
10.
The proposed Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights which the European Council will be asked to adopt at their meeting next month is not legally binding. This was never the intention of the Commission.
One must draw a distinction between the charter, which will be a solemn political declaration, and the Commission's proposed Action Programme which will be based on the Treaty. That Action Programme will be available towards the end of November. It is at that point that the areas on which legally binding rights are proposed, will become more clear. In the meantime, I would like to inform this House that the Government support a charter incorporating political commitments subject to our obtaining satisfaction on certain details.
In light of the general awareness particularly on the part of trade unions and employers' organisations, about the proposals, it will not be necesary for me to take any special steps but I will keep the matter under review.
I welcome the Minister's clarification of the Government's thinking on the Social Charter of Fundamental Social Rights. Surely fundamental social rights have to be guaranteed in law; otherwise they are pointless. All other international social charters that deal with rights are obligatory on countries when they sign the charters. Such countries are then obliged to enforce those rights through laws. If we accept the Social Charter in whatever shape it emerges in December will we be obliged to implement the terms of that charter in law?
Yes. I should like to clarify once and for all what the position is. The Social Charter has passed from the Social Affairs Council with the positive support of this country. At all discussions since January I supported the Social Charter. The Action Programme will be produced a short time before the Strasbourg Summit and I hope all member states will agree to the charter at that Summit. That may not happen but it certainly will have the support of the Irish Government. Before that Summit for consideration will be the Action Programme and following that the programme will be presented to the Social Affairs Council, presumably during the Irish Presidency. As President of that Council I will not delay it. The various sections of the charter will then come before us to be introduced by resolution, regulation, directive or common position. We will be supporting that process. The intention of the Commission, as emerged during the course of discussions, is that the various sections of the charter should be agreed between now and 1992. The Deputy is familiar with the charter and I am sure he will accept that the flesh of the sections has not been worked out. However, that will follow in the resolutions and we will be supporting them.
The Minister is on record as stating that the Government do not support the concept of a mandatory minimum wage to be applied through the Social Charter. He has argued that the collective bargaining process which has existed here has been satisfactory, a point with which I disagree because many people who are employed are living below the poverty line. Apart from that aspect is it not the case that having agreed the Social Charter, countries will be free to pick and choose the bits and pieces they agree with for implementation while ignoring the sections they do not agree with? If that is the case we will reach the stage where there will be no Community advance in social rights, no levelling of rights or conditions for people at work, the unemployed, pensioners and so on because member states will be able to opt out, depending on the position of their national legislatures.
The contrary is the position. The reason I put down some markers was because it has always been the practice here, particularly in regard to ILO regulations, that when we sign any agreement we implement its terms in law. At the meetings last weekend there were four remaining points with which I was concerned. One of these would involve a fundamental difficulty for the social partners and the Government and I will put that forward very strongly. The others are not major sticking points but I want to see major clarification of what exactly we are committed to. One is the point the Deputy mentioned but I think we can get clarification on these four points. I am not too sure about the closed shop, which causes great difficulties for all our social partners. We have not yet got any undertaking on that. On the other points, which are not major issues, between now and Strasbourg we will get agreement.
Will the Minister agree that any right thinking, social democratic person would welcome the aspirations of the Social Charter? On that basis it has been welcomed throughout the Community except perhaps in Britain. Would he comment on the point made that the motivation for the Social Charter from the Central European countries has been not to enhance social rights but more to ensure that all Community countries have the same social costs so that any benefits that peripheral countries have in relation to creation of employment or the attraction of investment are vetoed?
Deputy Mitchell is correct to a point. That is the reason that in the discussions I was arguing a point that I think is now in the charter, that in regard to what happens, what is implemented, and in regard to equalisation — we mentioned this in the debate on the NESC report last week — you have to take account of the strategic economic and social cohesion and the regional imbalances of the countries, otherwise everyone is asked to go to the top overnight. They were the points of reservation I was arguing on Monday last, and we are more or less happy with them. As I said, there is still one outstanding point but I hope between now and 8 December we will be able to clear it up. We will be positively supporting the charter.
Are the Government at this time trying to weaken the charter in order to meet the needs as perceived by them of business and industry in Ireland as distinct from trying to improve the charter, in other words to upgrade the charter and the rights of the people to a relatively high level? The statement that worries me most is that if we apply social rights across the board to Ireland in particular this will in some way make us unattractive for industry and investment here. Is this not implying that workers' wages, rates, conditions of pay and conditions of work can and should be used as bargaining counters between countries to attract investment? If so, it is a defeat before we start.
That is not the intention. There are concerns. All member states have different aspects of charters. Perhaps one country last week just put in a reservation to the whole charter. My proper function is to ensure that what we agree to we can implement and that we are not doing what the Deputy said at the outset, agreeing to something and then having no intention of implementing it. The Irish Government for years ahead will do all they can to implement the charter. Sometimes people in other member states agree to very grandiose plans on safety and health and other regulations but then do not attempt to implement them. We have taken a different view. Wherever we have in principle or outline agreed on any proposals we have set about implementing them.
That is not quite true.
The one fundamental area of concern we have is the pre-entry closed shop which both our social partners want to maintain. We can convince no other government, including the socialist governments to see the benefits of our position. It is far harder to convince them of that than to try to equalise very high standards.