asked the Minister for Labour if he will give details of the reservations he has expressed towards aspects of the EC Social Charter; the reasons for such reservations; and in particular, the reason he is opposed to the concept of a minimum wage.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Social Charter.
13.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline the policy of the Government towards the inclusion of a commitment to a minimum wage in the proposed EC Social Charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement regarding the progress of the EC Social Charter; the representations which he has made to the European Commission regarding same; and whether he supports the implementation of the Charter by means of a directive from the Commission.
25.
asked the Minister for Labour if he recently met with an aide of President Mitterrand of France to discuss the proposed EC Social Charter; if he will outline the purpose and outcome of the meeting; if, as a result of the meeting, he consented to the deletion of any matters from the Charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
46.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the present state of the draft Social Charter regarding minimum wage provisions; the representations or attempts he has made or intends to make to secure amendments in such provisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
56.
asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the position adopted by the FIE (FUE) in relation to the European Social Charter; and if this position is at variance with the position adopted by the Government.
57.
asked the Minister for Labour if he intends to have a meeting with the ICTU to discuss the implementation of the European Social Charter.
77.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline and clarify his position regarding the dilution of the EC Social Charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 17, 24, 25, 46, 56, 57 and 77 together.
Why are they being taken together?
They are all related. Taken together, the questions cover three topics. First, the discussions on the Commission's draft, in relation to which we took account of the views of the social partners. In describing these discussions, I will deal also with the legal nature of the Charter. Secondly, the matter of an equitable wage and, thirdly, the implementation of the Charter and the role of the Irish Presidency.
On a point of order——
A point of order in precious Priority Time.
——we do not know what questions the Minister is taking together.
He is taking Questions Nos. 13, 17 and 24 together.
I believe he is taking others as well.
He is also taking Questions Nos. 25, 46, 56, 57 and 77.
Ireland participated actively in the discussions on the draft Charter proposed by the Commission. Those discussions took place on a multilateral basis, in a group of representatives of Ministers from all members states, and on a bilateral basis at ministerial and at official level between individual member states and the Presidency.
Ireland's approach to the Charter took account of the views of ICTU and the FIE. From the very outset the Government's approach to the Charter has been positive and constructive. We recognised that there was a need for a strong political commitment on fundamental rights and objectives as the first step in a process of balanced economic and social development which would be carried out progressively and at a reasonable pace.
We made it clear that, for us, the most important social dimension was the creation of sufficient jobs to meet the needs of our people but that the pursuit of this objective did not exclude our supporting a Community policy in which conditions of work and employment would be further improved.
We made it clear — and the European Council at Madrid endorsed this — that only those tasks that can be better achieved at Community level should be subject to Community regulation, with other tasks left to national legislation and collective bargaining; and we wished the Charter to have regard to possible effects on cost competitiveness and, therefore, on employment prospects, particularly for small and medium sized enterprises.
We are satisfied that what has now emerged reflects a reasonable balance between our employment concerns and the need for basic protection for those at work. The Charter will, most likely, be agreed by the great majority of the member states, including Ireland, at European level this week. The Charter is a political commitment which reflects the objective of reducing the disparities between the various regions. It is not a legally binding instrument.
It will be implemented by an action programme over the next three years on such diverse areas as free movement, freedom of association, equitable pay, working time, contracts of employment, training, information, consultation and participation, social security and social protection, employment equality, safety and health at work, vocational training, protection of young persons and protection of the elderly and the disabled.
These items, taken together, represent an impressive package of some 45 items, many of them legally binding instruments, covering many areas of social reform. To implement that package while at the same time maintaining efficient, competitive undertakings and a healthy economic environment for business is a challenge which Government, employers — whether large or small — and workers will have to face together.
One element of this package has been singled out for special mention: a requirement that workers should be assured of an equitable wage, sufficient to enable them to have a decent standard of living. I have no quarrel with that concept. Where I do part company with some commentators on this matter is in relation to whether this implies a statutory national minimum wage. This is not the intention of the Charter, nor is it mine. The Commission, wisely in my opinion, is limiting proposals in this area, taking the view that this topic is the affair of the member state or, as appropriate, the two sides of industry.
Government policy in regard to a statutory minimum wage is clear. Statutory minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment are already provided for certain sectors of the economy covered by joint labour committees. It is open to any trade union, or any organisation which claims to represent a class or category or group of workers to apply to the Labour Court for the establishment of a new joint labour committee. I have looked long and hard at this question of how to deal with low pay and I am convinced that the joint labour committee system is the most effective way in our circumstances. For that reason in my proposals for industrial relations reform I am making changes in the law designed to improve the operations of those committees. Moreover, I am setting up machinery — a new labour relations commission — which will have statutory responsibility for reviewing whether new joint labour committees should be established.
Finally, there is the matter of the implementation of the Charter and the programme of the Irish Presidency. The action programme, it must be emphasised, is the programme of the Commission and not of the Council. The President of the Commission will notify the 1990 Work Programme to the European Parliament early in 1990. In consultation with the Commission and the Troika of Ministers, I will do my utmost to advance discussion on the priority dossiers during my Presidency.
Will the Minister agree that while he has talked as if he was in favour of the Social Charter, in fact the consequence of his several reservations is that he opposes the substance of the Charter? Will the Minister agree that he is merely hiding behind the skirt of Mrs. Thatcher in Britain and he has slapped the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the face?
I am totally opposed to everything the Deputy has said. I should like to ask the Deputy to consider a number of points. Unfortunately, many people have not read or studied the Charter and that is not my fault because at every opportunity I have explained that the Charter is the most major document on workers' rights ever produced. It is a conterbalance to what is in the Single European Act. I have raised three questions in the entire debate because I was not happy about certain issues. If we reach the stage that a Minister of the Social Affairs Council must sit and accept every document put forward by the Presidency, the Commission or other Ministers, it will be a sad day. I hold strongly on minimum wages because in this country we have a free collective bargaining system, we do not follow legal statute in the area of negotiations. We would be better dealing with this matter through a voluntary approach, through joint labour committees which have employers and workers representatives. That is a better system than having legally binding rates.
The Charter does not have any statutory basis.
The action programme has.
The time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted and I must now proceed to deal with ordinary questions.
I must protest that Priority Questions have taken 22 minutes. I should like to ask the Chair to be more consistent.
The Chair does his best, he seeks the co-operation of Deputies in disposing of Questions but cannot dispose of them.
Yesterday the Chair cut me off in mid-stream.
I had a Priority Question tabled but as a result of the Minister taking six questions with Deputy Mitchell's Priority Question I have been deprived of the right to express my views or to ask supplementary questions on my Priority Question. That is most unfair. My question should be treated now as an ordinary question.
Standing Orders prescribe that there shall be 15 minutes to deal with Priority Questions. The Chair consistently brings this to the notice of Members when we are dealing with Priority Questions. We have exceeded the time available under Standing Orders by more than five minutes.
I welcome the points of view of the Labour Party and Fine Gael who may now sympathise with The Workers' Party who have been excluded from Priority Questions virtually every second day.
By virtue of the number of Members they have.
If it is found that the time available for Priority Questions is insufficient or inadequate the House is supreme in such matters and may decide to extend the time. The Chair is obliged to adhere to Standing Orders.
To allot 22 minutes to Priority Questions is not being fair.
The Chair has shown great latitude and when he gives latitude he is castigated by other Members.
We want equal treatment.
My request is that my Priority Question should be treated as a normal question and is not to provide a flag of convenience for Deputy Rabbitte.
The position of the Chair should be very clear to the Deputy. Let us proceed with ordinary questions and No. 15 in the name of Deputy Moynihan.
May I raise a point of order?
The Deputy should permit us to proceed with the questions. Has not the Chair explained the position clearly?
I appreciate the pressures the Chair is under and I also appreciate the pressures the Minister is under. He has successfully avoided the last Priority Question.
I would be glad to reply to it. I did not prepare Standing Orders.
When will that question be answered?
The Deputy may obtain a written reply to that question.