I wish to share time with a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies.
Private Members’ Business.
EU Services Directive: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Harkin, on Wednesday, 25 January 2006:
That Dáil Éireann,
notes:
—that services within the European Union account for 56% of GDP and 70% of employment and are therefore crucial to growth and employment levels;
—the grave concern among citizens and trade union organisations within the European Union about the implications of the directive on services in the internal market, issued on behalf of the European Commission on 13 January 2004 by Commissioner Bolkestein;
—the analysis by the European Trade Union Confederation stating that the directive would allow companies registered in EU countries with minimal labour standards to operate their standards throughout the EU — the so-called "country of origin" principle;
—the well founded fears that the services directive would be used by some employers to undermine established rates of pay and safe and reasonable working conditions negotiated by workers through their trade unions, and also undermine the ability of other employers to compete in the future;
—that, if implemented, the services directive could legitimise exploitation such as that of the migrant Turkish workers by the multinational company, Gama, exposed during 2005, and the recent revelations concerning mushroom pickers in Kilnaleck, County Cavan;
—the attempt by Irish Ferries to replace permanent crews on trade union negotiated rates of pay and conditions with low waged eastern European labour;
and further notes:
—the need to promote social solidarity as a core value between EU citizens;
—the need to prevent any undermining of employment standards and health and safety standards in the services industry and to prevent the practice of social dumping;
—the desirability of developing a social model that has the trust and confidence of EU citizens and which promotes high quality public services, consumer protection and democratic accountability and workers' rights;
deplores the fact that the Government has supported the proposed services directive which would have damaging economic and social implications and, aware that the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, has stated in the context of this directive that the concerns of the different sectors must be taken on board and also that the Austrian economic Minister, Mr. Martin Bartenstein, said in his statement that a precondition for the success of the services directive would be that it convincingly excludes wage and social dumping, calls on the Government to state that in the context of the next partnership negotiations, it will reject the proposed services directive and, in particular, the "country of origin" principle.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes:
—the importance of services as a component of GDP and employment in the European Union;
—that Ireland is now the 14th largestper capita exporter of services in the world, that our total share of world services has increased markedly from 0.38% in 1993 to 2.2% in 2004; and that both our employment and export growth in high value added internationally traded services activities has offset reductions in manufacturing;
—that it is very much in Ireland's interest that there should be an open single market in services in Europe in terms of employment prospects, trade opportunities, consumer choice and welfare enhancement;
—the analysis of various European economic institutes and the Forfás impact assessment of the benefits of opening the European services market, to the effect that there would be a welfare enhancement in Europe of the order of €40 billion and over 500,000 jobs and in the case of Ireland of some €400 million;
—the technical progress that has been made on aspects of the draft directive to date aimed at ensuring standards generally, and especially employment conditions, are protected while at the same time seeking to ensure that the benefits of opening the services market in Europe will be attainable;
—that the European Commission is expected, over the coming months, to introduce amendments to the draft directive and that these will be considered with an open mind, and in full consultation with stakeholders, with the objective of securing the optimum outcome for Ireland's and Europe's economic and welfare interests including the protection of employment standards."
(Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment).
What are the names of the Members with whom Deputy Ardagh wishes to share time?
I do not have their names with me.
That is agreed. The Deputy may continue.
Watching television recently I saw Kim Jong II visit China, Beijing in particular, and listening to and reading what Deputy Rabbitte has had to say recently, I could not help wonder if Deputy Rabbitte were to get his hands on power in this country, would Ireland become the North Korea of Europe?
That is rubbish.
This appalling vista would negative all the hard work and effort put in by this and previous Governments over the past 20 years.
Who wrote that speech for the Deputy?
Throughout Ireland there is much discussion of work permits and labour migration. By limiting the numbers of available workers we would be putting barriers to enterprise creation in Ireland in the future. To do so would put our economy into slowdown mode, moving irreversibly into inflation, higher wages, higher costs, lack of competitiveness, recession, loss of jobs and emigration. It would mean a cut-back in all the advances that we have made in health, education and social welfare.
It is because the number of people in paying jobs in Ireland has increased from 1 million to 2 million that this country has prospered over the past ten years. To continue that growth in the economy we will need 50,000 to 60,000 new workers each year, and that is accepted by every sane person in this country. With this economy being close to full employment, those workers can only come from abroad.
We who agree that immigration is essential to future prosperity and a good thing in itself need to convince our voters that it is not a threat. The Labour Party has obviously done some polling on issues that might affect voting patterns. According to the latest The Irish Times TNS MRBI poll, and I particularly want to compliment Mark Brannock, the chief political correspondent for his excellent commentary, most voters see the presence of foreign workers here as good for the Irish economy and Irish society. At the same time the majority believe there are already enough or too many foreign workers here. Those two views do not hold together, so to speak.
Deputy Rabbitte has decided for purely party political gain to react to voter perceptions no matter how much they could affect the economy and be bad for the country. I agree that it is not unrealistic to believe that if tens of thousands of skilled workers used to working in their home countries for far less than the Irish rates come here to work that increased supply has the potential to push down wages but it has not worked out that way. Deputy Rabbitte has been scaremongering on this issue. There is no empirical evidence to show that wages and working conditions will be worsened. In fact the figures point in the exact opposite direction.
The unions in this case have taken a very responsible attitude to the situation. They have not gone along with the ramblings of Deputy Rabbitte on work permits. They have asked for better inspection and enforcement of work standards. I agree with that, as I believe everybody does. I encourage workers, particularly those in low paid jobs, to join the unions because the current leadership is fabulous. By doing so they would be well represented in respect of their long-term interest, as opposed to short-term political expediency, as put out by the Labour Party. Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion that workers from accession countries are displacing Irish workers by putting them out of jobs does not have any credibility, given that we almost have full employment in our economy. Ireland's unemployment rate is the lowest in Europe. I accept that we need to be wary, not in the services sector but in the exposed trade and manufacturing sector where the pain is being felt. Deputies on the Labour Party benches argued last night that too few inspectors are charged with enforcing work standards.
Yes.
One would wonder whether they are members of a Hare Krishna group or of the Labour Party.
Should we laugh now?
This matter is being addressed by the Minister and the unions and it will continue to be addressed and developed over the coming months as part of the social partnership process.
There are just 21 inspectors.
The grunting echoes from the Labour Party benches are worse than the noises made by Maria Sharapova.
Do we laugh now?
The issue of work standards is being addressed by the Minister.
There are 21 inspectors for 2 million workers.
He has increased the number of inspectors by 50%. It goes without saying that Deputies from all parties want an effective labour inspectorate.
The Government should put such an inspectorate in place rather than attacking the Opposition.
The services directive will bring some benefits to the well educated and well trained workforce in Ireland. This country's services exports have increased by 167% over the past six years. Although Ireland is a very small country, it is the source of 2.2% of the world's total services exports, which is a fabulous feat. We are punching well above our weight in the services sector. When the services directive, which needs to be amended, is put in place, it will be of great benefit to Ireland. An independent analysis that was conducted on behalf of Forfás has estimated that the services directive will be worth approximately €450 million to Ireland. As politicians, we need to bring about a better Ireland rather than pandering to immediate political expediency, as has been seen to be done in recent times.
I propose to share the rest of my time with Deputies Fiona O'Malley, Andrews, O'Connor and Curran.
In the few minutes available to me, I would like to respond directly to the Technical Group's motion and to discuss the wider issue of work permits, which was raised recently by the Labour Party. I agree with the section of the Opposition motion which states that services are crucial to the European Internal Market because they account for between 60% and 70% of economic activity in the European Union of 25 member states. I support the proposition that we need to promote social solidarity as a core value among EU citizens. For that reason, the Labour Party's call for the Government to roll back on its decision to give all the citizens of the EU of 25 member states equality of status as Europeans is thoroughly offensive.
There was no such call.
The services directive aims to facilitate opportunity and to ease the manner in which business is conducted throughout the European market. Bureaucracy and red tape have impeded and hampered the ease of access to a market of 450 million people. Just as Ireland has thrived under the EU principle of the free movement of goods and people, the free movement of services will offer enormous opportunities to this island. As the Minister pointed out, Ireland depends on trade because it is an island nation that exports 85% of what it produces. Last night's contributions failed to address the problems that the services directive is designed to solve. The directive is good for Irish businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. As it is pro-consumer, it will increase consumer confidence in cross-border services.
I hope Opposition Deputies support these efforts. If they do, they should have highlighted that support in their motion. The original motion refers to trade union fears about labour standards and the country of origin principle, but it neglects to mention that such concerns are shared and have been expressed by the Government. Ireland broadly supports the country of origin principle, but the support of the Progressive Democrats and the Government is subject to further detailed technical work on its application. Much more work needs to be done on all aspects of the directive before it is ready for adoption.
A lot done, more to do.
That has not been acknowledged by the Opposition, however, deliberately or otherwise.
When the Minister challenged the House last night to demonstrate that the services directive, if implemented, would legitimise the treatment of the Gama Construction workers, he was met with hushed silence. He pointed out that the problems in question arose in the absence of the proposed directive. It seems that a welcome but modest level of honesty is finally creeping into the debate on this issue. An article in last weekend's The Sunday Business Post referred to the acknowledgment by trade unions that the proposed directive, which incorporates the country of origin principle, expressly does not allow, for example, Latvians to be paid Latvian wages for working in Ireland. It has been clearly stated that such practice is already prohibited by European law in the form of the posting of workers directive and by Irish law in the form of the Protection of Employees Acts.
Opposition Deputies have referred to well-founded fears that the services directive will be used by some employers to undermine established rates of pay, as well as safe and reasonable working conditions. However, no consideration has been given to Ireland's comprehensive body of employment rights legislation which protects employees against arbitrary behaviour by employers, for example, in the area of health and safety.
Members of the Opposition, especially Labour Party Deputies, have shown their brass neck by lecturing people — I refer especially to Progressive Democrats Members — on issues such as the minimum wage. I am sure they will not like to be reminded that the former Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, and his Minister of State colleague in the rainbow Government, Deputy Rabbitte, sat idly by whereas the next Minister to have responsibility in that sector, the current Tánaiste, introduced this country's first national minimum wage. The Members opposite are not in a position to lecture anyone on the issue of workers' rights.
Fears have been expressed about downward pressure on wages as a result of the proposed directive. Such fears are based on the approximately twofold difference between the average industrial wage in Ireland, which is approximately €30,000, and the annualised minimum wage rate. The Opposition's lack of understanding is again evident in this instance. If the directive is not put in place, it will continue to be the case that anyone can establish a business in Ireland and offer to pay workers the national minimum wage. Reports indicate that very few people are prepared to work under such conditions for any significant length of time. The reality is that employers in Ireland find themselves having to pay higher, rather than lower, wages. The general thrust of the Technical Group's motion is that the proposed directive will lead to exploitation or social dumping. If that were the case, the directive would not be supported by the Government. It is as simple as that.
There has been an unfortunate use of language during the recent wider debate on this issue. I have noted the emergence of a viewpoint that favours looking after the so-called natives. When Irish people looked for work abroad in the past, they were confronted with signs saying "Irish need not apply". I hope people are not suggesting that signs saying "Only Irish need apply" should be displayed in Ireland today.
The Labour Party has suggested the imposition of work permits for EU workers as a solution to fears about lower pay and conditions. As my party colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has pointed out, such a suggestion illustrates "questionable political judgement, little or no grasp of economics and wilful ignorance of European law". I accept that the general concern about pay and conditions was reflected in a recent opinion poll. The root of that concern is the idea that foreign workers are willing to work for lesser pay and conditions than Irish workers, thereby replacing or displacing them. The Labour Party must explain how the imposition of work permits on migrant workers will address this issue in an effective manner.
As we consider whether a problem exists to the extent suggested by the Labour Party, we should bear in mind that we are at full employment. That party's recent proposals cement the view that its overall policy framework could threaten Ireland's economic prosperity. The economy needs migrant workers to allow it to continue to thrive. Research indicates that we will have to meet a skills shortage of 30,000 workers per year. If the Labour Party advocates putting a cap on the job opportunities of migrant workers by stopping many of them from working here, many more people will start to believe the Labour Party is a danger to this country's economic prosperity.
The Deputy is not blaming Deputy Howlin.
It is like the Comedy Store in here.
Deputy Howlin is exempt from Deputy O'Malley's allegations.
I thank Deputy O'Connor for that.
I would like to start by describing the dangerous position that exists in Ireland in terms of our attitude to the European Union. We are on the brink of becoming a net contributor and people are beginning to get anxious about the implications and question reflectively anything coming from the European Union. We are as wedded to it as we used to be because by 2013, the next round of financial perspectives, we know we will be in the position of having to contribute to the European Union for the first time.
The other issue relates to agricultural subsidies and support for Irish farmers and is beginning to cause the crystallisation of people's views. If there was a referendum on any issue in respect of the European Union, for example, on the constitution, we would not have the same core support as we had for the European Union. There is also the great bogey man that people raise all the time, the issue of immigration from the accession states and the future accession states of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. These are the reasons we are at a cross-roads in regard to our relationship with the European Union.
As politicians and leaders it is our responsibility to take a stand on where we think we should be in regard to the European Union and to try to encourage people to think along those lines and not to appeal to their more baser instincts. The phrase "race to the bottom" has become misunderstood. It means nothing to many. It is the kind of jargon that is used to feed into people's fears. Frequently it is stated that people are prisoners in their own homes in respect of crime. Anybody who uses that kind of jargon does not know what they are talking about. It is clear they are appealing to base instincts. Similarly, anybody who uses the phrase "race to the bottom" in respect of these issues is equally using jargon and does not know what he or she is talking about.
European trade union federation.
If "race to the bottom" means anything in the context of the current debate it means political parties flying kites that appeal to the baser instincts of ordinary people, excluding people from the Irish workforce and rolling back on the basic rights contained in the Treaty of Rome, not to mention the more recent directives on workers' freedom of movement. That is what is wrong about the debate the Labour Party has initiated.
I agree with Deputy Ardagh, although I have no evidence, and I have a suspicion that the Labour Party has had focus groups looking at these issues. I wonder about not just those brave activists in the Labour Party who wrote to The Irish Times describing the policy as disgraceful and not in the least wedded to traditional Labour Party policies but there are more within the left wing movement, never mind the Labour Party, who are not pleased about this. What does Deputy Quinn, head of the European movement, think of all this? I wonder whether the Labour Party is fully behind this issue and it is a question it will have to answer.
On the matter of the services directives we are questioning the basic provisions at the core of the entire European principle because we are at this cross-roads and people are seeking ways to improve their political position and to draw some electoral dividend. It is evident they have lost the argument on the economy and every other argument and are looking for some other hook on which to hang their debates in the future. There is no doubt that Ireland will be at the front of the queue in the liberalisation of services. We have the most open economy and rely almost entirely on services for our GNP. While there are vested interests who will lose out and suffer there is a much greater body, who are unknown at this time and may still be in school or college and cannot form themselves into an angry protest outside Leinster House, who will not thank us in ten or 20 years' time when we take short-term decisions for short-term gain, rather than looking to the long term and realising it is future Irish workers who will benefit from our braver decision making at this time.
My colleague from Clondalkin and I are sharing time. I thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this motion. I compliment the Independent group on its initiative in this regard because it gives us an opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a good start to the business. I am glad nothing has changed and everybody is calm and we are going about our business. I said on another occasion that there is no need to be too frenetic because there are at least 500 days to the next general election. Therefore, let us be calm about this business and deal with the issues of concern to people.
It is interesting to listen to the debate from all sides because there is no doubt it is generating much interest and concern. Already this morning the Labour Party and my good friend, Deputy Rabbitte, have got enough mention so I will not mention them. Like other colleagues I was interested in the correspondence to The Irish Times. It is interesting to note — I do not say this in a flippant way — that in other parties there is much debate and even friction on some issues. Perhaps that is a healthy sign of democracy and politics. There is no doubt that people have diverse views on this subject. This morning we received correspondence from groups expressing concerns about the issue. Sometimes I say I was not born a Deputy and used to be quite normal and have a trade union background which may not compare to that of some illustrious colleagues in the House.
I know from trade union contacts and those who have stopped me on the streets in Tallaght and elsewhere that people are talking about this issue. There is much in this directive which could have consequences and we should be mindful of the different views. I had the opportunity on a number of occasions in recent weeks, including yesterday, to speak with my party colleague, Deputy Eoin Ryan, MEP, who has received much correspondence on this issue. In the build up to the debate on St. Valentine's Day in February there is still much to be said. I remind the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, who has impressed us by his work in the Department since assuming office, there are differing views on this issue. I am open to listening to what people have to say. Trade unionists say there are good things in this directive but there are also issues about which we should be careful. Other colleagues have made the point about racing to the bottom. In all our constituencies there are challenges in that regard and we should be careful about how we deal with them as well as the issues that could cause problems and issues that verge on racism. There is a responsibility on those of us in parliament to listen to the views from all sides and to represent them.
A rational debate is something everyone would welcome. As we proceed I hope that will be the case. It is important to state that the Government strongly favours a single market in services. We understand it would be in Ireland's interests in terms of employment prospects, trade opportunities, consumer choice and welfare enhancement. The draft directive is due to be discussed at the European Parliament. I hope colleagues from all sides liaise, as I have done in recent weeks, with our MEPs. In my case I have spoken with our Dublin representative, Deputy Eoin Ryan, MEP, who is taking a particular interest in the matter and has attended the SIPTU conference which dealt with the matter. He is due in Dublin to attend the ICTU conference this weekend. I expect he will take the same opportunity of listening to what people have to say and try to progress the issues.
I will digress for a moment to mention that in my recent encounters with trade unionists, in addition to this issue, they referred to the forthcoming production of the film on Connolly, in which they are taking a particular interest, as I am sure are all colleagues. I hope the Minister of State will note our particular support in that regard. Trade unionists throughout the country have asked that this endeavour would be brought to the attention of the Government. It is a most worthwhile project that should be supported.
I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate on this Private Members' motion. It is important that we are rational about it. There are points of view to be made on all sides. However, we should acknowledge that concerns exist and these should be addressed.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. The EU services directive is most important from an Irish perspective. I have listened to Opposition Members raise queries and fears, but we should view the directive positively as it will provide Ireland with increased opportunities to trade in services across the EU. I regret that much of the debate got side-tracked over Labour Party policy and the work permits issue. The debate on work permits is in many ways a red herring. Even if they were to be introduced, the time is limited. We had a work permit system a number of years ago but it did not address the issues about which people have genuine concerns in terms of labour welfare and so forth. The issue of work permits is irrelevant in this debate.
Ireland is the 14th largest per capita exporter of services in the world. Its share of services has increased significantly in the past decade, from under 0.4% in 1993-94 to 2.2% in 2004. That is a very significant figure for a small economy such as Ireland’s. It is because of the export of services that this directive is of particular importance to this country. It is worth bearing in mind that at this stage the directive is only in draft form. It is not finalised and there is a substantial number of amendments to be made.
In most member states, services account for up to 70% of GNP and employment. They also account for the majority of new jobs created in Ireland in recent years and they are likely to account for the majority of new jobs created in the years to come. Studies have shown that the creation of a genuine single market for services would result in significant export opportunities for Irish service providers and would give Irish consumers access to a wider variety of services at more competitive prices. The overall effect would be to enhance Ireland's competitiveness and hence increase the potential market and employment levels of Irish service providers. It is worth noting that this is a two-way street. People are concerned about service providers coming to Ireland but this would also increase competition in the market here. The arrival of Bank of Scotland to the Irish market is a good example of this.
We should bear in mind that in 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, the level of Irish service exports was 2.2%. This is a significant figure for a small economy. Economic analysis undertaken by Forfás suggests that the implementation of this directive would result in potential gains to Ireland in the order of €450 million. The reason the directive is important is that many small and medium sized companies are burdened with red tape, bureaucracy and so forth, which makes it very difficult to trade abroad.
When debating the services directive, the issue that most frequently comes to light is the country of origin principle. With a number of Fianna Fáil colleagues I had detailed discussions on this issue before Christmas with the trade union leadership. It had genuine concerns on specific points, especially the country of origin principle, but was not opposed to the directive. It gave examples of countries such as Latvia and elsewhere that have considerably different wages and conditions and the negative impact this could have if that system were transferred to Ireland. We listened carefully to what was said and made these views known to our Members of the European Parliament.
We are concerned to ensure that employment conditions and standards in this country are maintained with the passing of the directive. That is absolutely crucial and we are committed to it. We want the directive to be implemented because it will enhance our export of services but we will maintain standards of employment and conditions in this country. We currently have a specific derogation from the country of origin principle in the posting of workers directive. I would like to see the draft directive changed so that instead of having a derogation, the country of origin principle would be changed in such a way as to ensure that our domestic arrangements would always have precedence.
I would like to see the amendment reflect this specifically, rather than having to rely on the derogation from the country of origin principle for the posting of workers directive. This derogation is currently in effect and any employee sent here to deliver a service would have to work under Irish labour conditions, including the minimum wage, annual leave, working time and any other agreement. It is important that our standards are maintained. Admittedly, at present this is by means of derogation. The amendments must reflect where we are coming from in regard to this point. We do not want to depend on derogation. We must maintain standards for workers but we must equally recognise that the passing of this directive offers significant opportunities for Irish workers and employers.
I am very pleased to have an opportunity to deal with this most important issue. I begin by genuinely and heartily commending the members of the Technical Group for placing the services directive on the agenda of this House. Too often, European directives in particular are not debated here in advance of their completion and the view of this national Parliament is not taken into account before we are presented with the final product. It is difficult for committees in this House to follow all of the European agenda but it is an important job of work and one we must do.
I welcome the previous two contributions from the Government benches that were not only reasoned but reasonable, unlike the two contributions prior to that from the Government benches from Deputies Ardagh and Fiona O'Malley who sought to be political and mischievous in misrepresenting a point of view. That is not helpful because, by and large, it would be possible to build consensus around these issues in this House. There is not a huge divergence of view at the core of what we want although there are philosophical differences. Perhaps the Progressive Democrats agenda is such that it might——
We do not believe in bringing in permits. Everybody should be equal.
Deputy Howlin should be allowed to speak without interruption.
——be different from that of the rest of the House. The services directive is one of the urgent issues raised by the Labour Party in recent weeks, whose focus was the simple one of protecting quality jobs in a prosperous economy. I have not the slightest doubt that most people who made adverse comments about the Labour Party document, including the Deputies today, I suspect, have never read it.
I did.
I am very glad the Minister of State did. I would not doubt for a second that that is the case. I suspect that it contains very little from which he would resile, other than, perhaps, some of the tone. Despite the statement of Deputy Ardagh, it does not advocate that we would resile from the position that I supported at the point of the enlargement of the European Union that we would introduce a work permit system for the new member states. It does not say that. It states that in order to avoid that we need to take measures to regulate our own economy.
I will outline the measures we want to take and see who would reject them; the development and extension of the registered employment agreements model, which gives binding status to agreements reached at sectoral and employment level to prevent the undermining of agreed wage levels in sectoral employments; better resourcing of the labour inspectorate and more effective enforcement and prosecution of offences. There is a consensus that the enforcement of our regime is wholly inadequate. I suggest to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, that the health and safety inspectorate of more than 100 people be merged with the 21 people we now have inspecting labour law, instead of building up a parallel system. They could be trained in so that we can immediately have a force which might be up to the job of looking after a workforce of 2 million and thousands of workplaces, so we can keep the standards we want. I do not think we will have a division on these matters.
As for the targeted enforcement and revenue inspections of sub-contractor and agency worker issues in the construction sector, who would object to that — or to the insistence that contractors working for local authorities and public bodies meet minimum labour standards in order to prevent a repeat of the Gama situation?
Reform of the existing work permit system so that it becomes a green card system, which was promised by the leader of the Progressive Democrats when she was the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which does not bind workers to particular employers, would hardly create huge differences between us. Perhaps it might, because the Employment Permits Bill before us creates a two-tier system, which is wrong. At the meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business this morning we heard the view of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, which said the two-tier system is wrong.
As for confirmation of the rights of self-employed persons who enter into contracts personally to execute any work of labour to join a trade union and to engage in collective bargaining, people are in favour of that, to judge from what I heard this morning. Deputy Ardagh thinks the trade unions are "magnificent", so I am sure he would not object. We also seem to have a consensus on advocating significant change in the services directive. The final proposal is that we should sign the international convention on the rights of migrant workers and enshrine its protection in our domestic laws.
These comprise the significant proposals in the Labour Party document, before people lose the run of themselves and get carried away. These are important issues which must be put in place to protect the working environment, rates of pay and working conditions for people in our economy, and to have regard for a changing set of economic circumstances in Ireland.
The services directive has at last got the focus and attention it merits. As outlined in the Technical Group motion, and by many Deputies, this directive, if unamended, poses a substantial threat not only to our economy but to the standards enjoyed by Irish workers in it. That is an inescapable fact. It is not some pie in the sky analysis but the analysis of the social democratic and progressive parties across Europe, and of the European trade union movement.
Although the originator of the directive, former Commissioner Bolkestein, has left the stage, his successor, Commissioner McCreevy, has proven more determined and more right-wing in pursuing this proposal. The European Trade Union Confederation has said it is gravely concerned with some of the main provisions of this directive. It warns that if implemented, the directive "could seriously erode workers' rights and protection and damage the supply of essential services like health care to European citizens". The confederation rightly argues that removing unjustified barriers, which is the stated reason for having a directive — a principle on which we could have consensus — should not mean that justified barriers also have to be abolished. The confederation says there is a need to lay down minimum or common standards for the principal issues in order to safeguard the public interest, workers' rights and protection.
The principle should be that we have a set of common standards operating across the European Union, but they should not be the minimum standards. If that were the basis for instituting international law across the European Union, we would have no environmental standards, or the environmental standards of the worst environmental performer in the European Union, and accept that as being all right. That is not the basis on which European law is developed. We have set high standards which must be applied throughout the European Union, and not drag everyone down to the lowest level, which seems to be implicit in what is proposed in this directive. It is quite unacceptable that we would take that route. In any other issue we have looked at, it seems to boil down to saying that if it is good enough from where one comes from, it is good enough for this country too. If that were accepted, we would have no common protection for consumers or consumer goods, no common entitlement to equal pay for men and women and no environmental protection laws at all.
The Labour Party has no difficulty with the idea that there should be freedom to provide services across European frontiers. However, that must be in accordance with common and agreed future standards rather than tolerating that the current worst standard becomes the acceptable norm throughout the European Union. That is the principle at the core of this matter.
Of most concern is the country of origin principle. Under this principle, service provided in any member state would be subject only to the law of the company's country of origin and not subject to the potentially stricter national legislation where the service is delivered. Various regimes could co-exist. One would not have a common high standard. In effect, the law governing terms and conditions could vary from person to person or from place to place. That would be a difficult and unacceptable situation and very difficult to enforce.
The Minister said last night, and other Deputies have reiterated today, that this was always taken care of by means of the posting of a workers directive. We have been assured that such posting will prevent the services directive from undermining terms and conditions of employment in this jurisdiction. That is a security on which the Minister has relied, and he has said we should not get ourselves "worked up" about it.
I will make three points about the posting of workers directive. First, significant weaknesses, both in its provisions and its overall implementation, have emerged, and I ask the Minister of State to address this issue honestly. Over the past two years, the European Parliament has twice called on the Commission to come forward with proposals to revise the posting of workers directive to address these very weaknesses. Second, member states do not have a general right under the posting of workers directive to insist that all statutory employment conditions and collective agreements negotiated by the social partners in any particular country must be respected. In July 2003, in a report on the implementation of the posting of workers directive at national level, the Commission said:
It should be pointed out that the directive in no way permits member states to extend all their legislative provisions and/or collective agreements governing terms and conditions of employment to workers posted on their territory.
That quote comes from page 11 of COM 2003, 458, final. Accordingly, this is not the "get out of jail" card which Members in this House have presented it to be. We must be alert to such issues and not give assurances unless we are certain they are watertight regarding such a fundamental issue.
Finally, despite the assurances of Commissioner McCreevy, the draft services directive undermines a number of important provisions of the posting of workers directive which are essential to ensure that national labour provisions are respected. It would abolish the current requirements for the service provider to obtain prior authorisation from and to make formal declaration to the host country before providing any service in this country or in any host country. It would abolish the need to send all labour documentation normally held in its head office to the place of posting. It would abolish the requirement to designate a representative with whom the host country can liaise. I am informed this is of crucial importance in countries like Sweden and Denmark. In October 2004, the European Court of Justice ruled that the effective protection of workers in the construction industry can require the holding of documents on site. This would also be undermined by the services directive should it proceed in its current form. I make those points before people say in a blasé manner that all is well. I hope that the Minister of State will mention this in his contribution.
I wish to deal with the public services dimension of the proposed services directive. It is unacceptable for social services to be treated as purely commercial services. By definition they are a critical part of the social protection and welfare systems of each member state. I am aware that the European Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, said in the European Parliament last March that the Commission "endorsed the suggestion that health and social services of general interest be excluded from the proposal." This is positive and indicates movement; I hope it will come to pass. I am confident that the socialist group in the European Parliament, the PES, together with other progressive forces will bring about substantial changes when the draft is considered in coming weeks. I understand more than 1,000 amendments have been tabled for discussion on 14 February. For once this House is considering such a proposal in good time and perhaps its views can be taken into account.
Let me return to the principle. There seem to be two views in the general debate about how our employment market should develop. One view, with which some on the Government benches have associated themselves, is that employers should have free access to an unlimited supply of cheap labour. I heard the same argument when I was arguing from this side of the House for the protection of community employment, instituted by Deputy Quinn when he was Minister for Enterprise and Employment. A mindset exists that those involved in community employment, particularly when we had strong growth in the economy and good employment rates, should be doing menial jobs in the workforce and that whatever social good they were doing in community employment was a matter of indifference to them. They were regarded as cheap workers who should be doing work in the economy.
The other view is that we must defend what has taken 20, 30 or 40 years to build up, which is the European social model and social protection. I know words like "protection" grate with some on the Government benches. Protecting a model of quality is appropriate. Perhaps if I regauge it in the context protecting the quality of the environment, those on the Government benches might be more attuned to it. Quality is good when it comes to protection. Protection of wage rates and decent standards must be carefully addressed by this House, not in a headlong rush almost on an ideological basis to say that, because free movement of goods and services is an underlying principle of the European Union, standards are of a secondary or even an indifferent nature.
It is not the future model for Ireland to base our next generation of jobs on the minimum wage. I commend the Tánaiste for introducing the minimum wage when she was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It was a new, good and positive development. While I wish we had done it, I commend her for it. There is a danger that what was put in as a floor could become a ceiling.
That is not the evidence given——
Deputy Howlin should be allowed to continue without interruption.
Some employers now believe the minimum wage is a decent rate of pay and it is acceptable. I deal with individual cases in which migrant workers in particular are employed on the minimum wage, which is regarded as acceptable. I frequently hear the justification that people are being paid the minimum wage, that we have social protection even in terms of this services directive because employers must pay the minimum rate. Deputy Fiona O'Malley is right that we have not got there yet. However, if we embark on a future in which the minimum wage is no longer the floor but the ceiling or is regarded as a decent and acceptable wage to be paid across the economy, we have no good future for workers, either migrant or national.
I welcome migrant workers to this country. I have spent most of the past 20 years dealing with them. I have defended every category of them. I have defended the notion of asylum seekers when Government Deputies in my constituency and others had different views on these matters. I put my record up for anybody to examine in this regard. We will need migrants not only to build our economy, but also to enrich our society as they have done in the past decade. This is the way we should go forward.
We have much more to do. We need to provide for integration and we need to understand and respect cultural difference. We must do this on a consensual basis. While it is possible to point fingers in many directions, I hope that the debate that has now ignited will not degenerate into some political slanging match, but will be constructed on how to create a society and economy that will respect all its workers, where all will be treated equally and well, and where our future is at the highest level of scale of payment and conditions, not dragging ourselves down to the lowest. I believe that, unamended, this directive would seriously damage that vision for a proper, healthy, prosperous and integrated future for our country.
Tá mé ag roinnt ama leis na Teachtaí Sargent agus Boyle.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sinn Féin supports the motion tabled by the Independent Deputies in the Technical Group. As the Government clearly did not intend allowing time for this matter, we welcome the opportunity to debate this important EU services directive. We join the Independent Deputies in urging Members of this House to mandate the Government to reject the directive at the Council of Ministers. If passed the directive would have profound impact on the lives of workers and service users across Ireland and the EU. It would also have potentially grave implications for the environment. The directive is symptomatic of the general shift to the right and the adoption of the neo-liberal agenda of privatisation and deregulation.
Sinn Féin belongs to the Confederal Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, GUE-NGL, in the European Parliament. Our group has been the most united on the services directive and has strongly opposed it from the beginning. In doing so we have worked alongside many organisations that have called for it to be withdrawn. Sinn Féin members who attended a major conference of political parties, trade unions and NGOs in Brussels were accompanied by representatives of trade unions from Ireland, SIPTU, UNISON and the Independent Workers Union among them.
As Deputy Morgan said last night, in common with the European Trade Union Confederation, Sinn Féin believes that neither the current text nor the report from the Internal Market Committee secures high level quality of services and social progress in the EU. We recognise that the Internal Market Committee has proposed some important improvements to the Commission's draft, for example, stating that the objective of the directive is not to deal with labour law, collective agreements and industrial action. It is accepted that some public services, health in particular, should be excluded from the scope of the directive.
We will strive to uphold those improvements but the Internal Market Committee, IMC, has left the Commission's proposal largely intact. The original proposal has not been withdrawn or significantly changed. We remain opposed to the directive and will vote to reject it in the European Parliament in February. We encourage others to do so. However, we will support any amendments that address our key concerns, among them that the country of origin principle remains.
Some who have recognised that there is strong opposition to this principle are now calling it something else, such as the freedom to provide services. The groups that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael belong to have changed the wording, which does not alter the threat posed any more than changing the name of Windscale to Sellafield. The country of origin principle will lead to social dumping or the encouragement of downward regulatory competition between member states. The removal of the principle in its entirety is a prerequisite for support for any proposal in respect of the services directive.
In response to a parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in December 2005 regarding the Government's position on the country of origin principle, the Minister made it crystal clear that the Government supports it. He went so far as to argue that the introduction of the principle is necessary to give legislative effect to the treaty right of free movement of services. I contest this. The county of origin principle has no treaty basis. The Government's chosen interpretation of the right to free movement of services as implying that member states cannot introduce their own democratically determined laws and regulations governing the provision of services is a massive and disproportionate leap.
The country of origin principle is in direct conflict with other articles of the treaty relating to subsidiarity, workers' rights and the freedom to provide services. For example, Article 39 of the consolidated version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community states: "To stay in a member state for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that state laid down by law, regulation or administrative action". Article 50 states: "Without prejudice to the provisions of the chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the state where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that state on its own nationals."
The main thrust of the services directive is still one of deregulation, including the elimination of authorisation schemes, monitoring procedures and the provisions aimed at ensuring quality and access. In all sectors, the host member state must be enabled to monitor and supervise all service providers operating in its jurisdiction. The ability to regulate service provision in the public interest is an essential tool that elected authorities must be allowed to keep.
The deregulatory nature of this directive in areas other than employment conditions is an aspect that has been unfortunately absent from the debate. The directive severely limits the ability of elected authorities to use laws, regulations and administrative requirements to ensure that the services are accessible, continuous and of high quality. This will have detrimental consequences for society and, in particular, vulnerable groups. For example, Greece has no equivalent to Ireland's Equal Status Act 2000. That is, Greece has no anti-discrimination laws governing the provision of services. Therefore, under the country of origin principle, Greek service providers can operate discriminatory practices in the course of their business in this country, which would have a negative impact on the social and economic interests of, for example, people with disabilities.
The EU and this Government must not be allowed to enforce a single market in services without harmonising social and environmental guarantees upwards across all member states. In areas where harmonisation exists, this directive prohibits member states from demanding standards above the bare minimum. It is important to note that this constitutes a break from the manner in which harmonisation usually operates in the EU. Normally, harmonisation relates to the minimum acceptable standard to which members states are free and encouraged to approve. Under the current draft of this directive, the opposite is the case.
Sinn Féin believes that all services of general interest — EU-speak for public services, economic or non-economic — should be excluded from the scope of the directive. While the simple exclusion of services of general economic interest alone, as proposed by some, would constitute an improvement, it would be inadequate protection given the absence of a clear and sufficient definition of such services.
As Deputy Morgan explained, language relating to labour law, collective bargaining and industrial relations is ambiguous in the Internal Market Committee's report. Stronger and unambiguous language ensuring that the directive in no way interferes with labour law, collective bargaining and industrial relations in member states and explicitly refers to the right to take industrial action is needed.
If this Government truly wishes to protect workers, service users and the environment, it will reject this directive. I urge the Government at this stage to take the opportunity to do so.
Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil leis na Teachtaí Neamhspleácha as ucht seans a thabhairt dúinn an ábhar tábhachtach seo a phlé agus cúpla tuaraimí a nochtú. It is regrettable that, when one examines the coverage of this debate to date, it has been very lame in that it has covered the Government position to a significant extent. Even the commentaries do not seem to give adequate opportunity for critical analysis of what the services directive is proposing, whether it is amended or otherwise.
The issue will come back to haunt the House unless we consider in advance the effects it will have and the conditions in which it will operate. Freedom of movement of goods is a well established principle but it is one that has grown out of a profound taking for granted, I could say, of the way in which those goods are to be transported. In some quarters it is selectively seen that, if one is free to move goods, one is free, as it were, to prevent people moving around as they follow the opportunities for labour and employment, try to improve their lot or escape exploitation if it affects them. The debate must focus there. One cannot have free movement of goods if one does not have free movement of people. If one will be restrictive about how people move around, it is valid that one should be conditional about how the goods move.
In addition, account must be taken of the fact that it is not feasible — perhaps it is on paper — to strip away all barriers. For example, an RTE programme last night was hosted by Mr. Vincent Browne. He listened to views from people who had been or lived in India. In that country, while it appeared that people were working in decent jobs, their conditions were appalling. They were effectively living in tents. Rent was so high that they could not afford to have a roof over their heads. The only reason they did not die in those conditions was that the weather was sufficiently warm to survive outdoors and still have a so-called decent job. That is a symptom of the type of challenges we are facing. As many homeless people will testify, we do not have the climate where one could have a decent job and sleep in a tent. If one is to take away barriers we will have conditions that obtain in India. We must consider what we are asking people to accept.
If globalisation is the agenda, we must realise this trend was built on mass transportation. We have grown so accustomed to transportation that it is now seen as a commodity. In turn, this raises the question of how we will cope without fossil fuels as it is recognised that peak oil production has been reached.
Climate change will affect food production as well as weather. World grain yields have been falling over the past four years and we have the lowest grain reserves in 30 years. Every 1% rise in temperature creates a 10% drop in world grain yield. This is an issue that must be taken in the context of this directive, which does not simply deal with accounting or the rules on how work is carried out. If one reads Lester R. Brown's book Outgrowing the Earth: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures, one realises that if water is essential for life and we are taking oil for granted, we must seriously consider localisation rather than globalisation as our objective. If we do not do this we are sentencing many more people to poverty, including ourselves.
Listening to the debate last night and the contribution of Government speakers today I, like Deputy Hogan, find it difficult to understand why the Government has submitted an amendment to the Independents' motion. The Government's argument is that this draft services directive will not be the same as the final directive. I do not accept that argument. This Government is philosophically inclined towards the intent behind the services directive. Any changes it will seek to make, as a member of the European Council of Ministers, will be cosmetic. The Minister outlined 300 observations on the draft directive but would not specify how many had come from Ireland. The Minister of State referred to six areas where the Government sought further information on the directive, rather than raising objections, reservations or concerns.
One of the areas where the Government sought only further information was the country of origin principle. If the Minister and the Government seek to be taken seriously on this subject they must listen to what Members have stated. The country of origin principle needs to be removed from the services directive. Engaging in some minuet with Commission officials and Commissioner McCreevy will not address the concerns this directive raises because the country of origin principle is not acceptable to Irish people.
Though there are real concerns about employment, displacement of jobs and undercutting wages, not enough emphasis has been placed on services that would be made more freely available to private interests if this directive was passed in its current form. The directive in its draft state is similar to what it will be if Commissioner McCreevy and the Commission succeed. Employment risks, as a consequence of importing workers from another country to provide services, are not the only concern. We must consider the type of services that can or might be provided under this directive, such as health and education services. I refer to these because of the previous ministerial experience of the Minster for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
We must also consider the provision of services of important natural resources, such as water. If it takes a carte blanche approach to the provision of important social services, as well as the employment implications of this directive, the Government is flying in the face of reality, and applying the philosophical intent of Commissioner McCreevy.
Health services are not included in this directive.
I refer to the direction the EU is taking on services and competition. This must be seen as an indication of how the EU is thinking on this matter and how Commissioner McCreevy is thinking. This Government is ad idem with that philosophy. If the Minister is not prepared to address the concerns, we do not have a Government that will ensure the draft services directive is not passed in its current state and we must depend on other governments and other social movements within Europe to ensure the directive does not come into effect and that the necessary changes are made.
The Opposition, and my party in particular, is not confident these changes will be sought by this Government. As the Government structures its policies, it takes an approach of damning the workers. The underlying message is that profit must be sought to justify the structure of the Government's economic policies. We will not support this approach and will continue to question and harry the Government until it reflects the sentiment that exists on this side of the House and in the country in general.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on this very important subject. The Government recognises that recent events, such as the Irish Ferries dispute, have caused concern that there might be some link between that dispute and the attempt by the European Union to create a single market in services. I wish to emphasise on behalf of the Government that there is not. The services directive would not permit social dumping or the exploitation of workers and it would not be supported by the Government if it did.
The broader debate on migrant workers and the growing numbers of these workers in modern Ireland overshadows our debate. There are two important aspects to this wider debate on migrant workers: fears among some people that Ireland is being swamped by non-national workers and the possibility of these workers displacing their Irish counterparts; and the need to protect the rights, pay and conditions of these workers.
The recent opinion poll has confirmed what many of us know, namely, that the public has concerns about this issue. I welcome the contribution of Deputy Howlin to this debate and I have listened carefully to Deputy Rabbitte of the Labour Party. In a reckless and opportunistic way, Deputy Rabbitte had tapped into those concerns, fuelling them to the exclusion of explaining or contextualising them. Rather than providing leadership on this issue he is, by his utterances, inciting fears of the perceived threat of EU migrant workers among some sections of our population.
In a reference to Polish workers who are making a substantial contribution to our economic development he reminds us that "[t]here are 40 million or so Poles after all". The clear message is that these Poles could come here and take our jobs. His comments run counter to the notion of a social Europe, a Union of openness and equality that his party has supported since we joined the European Union.
It is most unfortunate that the leader of a Labour Party, for the first time in the history of the Labour Party in Ireland, would pursue such a conservative, anti-European and unenlightened policy on immigration. Deputy Rabbitte bases his arguments regarding the displacement of Irish workers on anecdotal evidence. It is a well established fact that sound public policy can never be based on foundations as flimsy as anecdotal evidence. Comments on the issue of migrant workers and in particular on the issue of the possible displacement of Irish workers must be measured and accurate. As I said, there is understandable anxiety among the public concerning the potential impact of migrant workers on Irish jobs and wages. However, such concerns do not appear to be substantially grounded or to have a concrete basis in fact. On the contrary, there appears to be little evidence to warrant widespread concern. The facts are that since our employment market was opened up to migrant workers from the accession states in 2004, our unemployment rate has actually fallen.
All economic forecasts appear to agree that Ireland's economy is strong and continues to grow. Our employment rates still grow at a phenomenal rate and look likely to do so for the foreseeable future. There is growth in all areas of employment, including women returning to the workplace and the employment of older people. The evidence available suggests that the migratory pattern of workers is directly related to work available. The numbers of migrant workers travelling to Sweden, which has a similar open policy to ours, has dramatically fallen in line with the slow down in its economic growth.
There are issues we need to address in this debate: the need for the Government to engage with the social partners on the rights, pay and conditions of all workers, Irish and non-Irish, employed in this country; the need to continue to enforce our employment law in a growing labour market and the need to continue a policy of upskilling our workforce.
I welcome Archbishop Martin's thoughtful contribution to this wider debate, which I know will continue for some time. I acknowledge the important data compiled by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, on the numbers of migrant workers here in Ireland. Their work on the forthcoming census will be helpful in clarifying the make-up of the population of modern Ireland.
There is much confusion surrounding this debate and it is interesting to note Commissioner Vladimir Spidla's comments in The Irish Times today that the states which imposed restrictions on the ten new EU states when they joined the EU in May 2004 had seen “an increase in undeclared work, bogus self-employed work, dishonest sub-contracting and other such undesirable consequences”, according to preliminary conclusions of studies undertaken by the Commission.
I say to Deputy Rabbitte, let us conduct this debate in a measured, constructive and honest way rather than in a divisive, disingenuous and destructive manner. Returning to the services directive, it is clear from the contributions that there are concerns about this proposal, which are shared by the Government. As the Minister made clear in his remarks, Ireland has sought improvements to the original proposal published by the Commission and, indeed, we still have a great many concerns that we want to see examined before we can give our support to the proposal.
I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Gregory and Joe Higgins.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this debate. I congratulate Deputies Harkin and Higgins on the hard work they did on this directive. The services directive is a misguided attempt to facilitate trade within the European Union. While its creators claim to have economic interests in mind, they failed to fully explore and evaluate the potential risks, such as the removal of safeguards against exploitation of workers. I believe the essential point to be made is that we must put the interests of people before the interests of money and preserving an economic boom that frankly carries no guarantees of continuing and has the potential of putting the poorest members of our society such as migrant workers in an ever-increasing state of vulnerability. We must not think like that. We must think of people foremost.
The services directive puts at risk the workers on which our economic success depends. We must not allow unprincipled employers the opportunity to relocate their businesses or workers into poorer EU states to take advantage of lower standards of employee rights and access to quality social services or to come here to take advantage of workers in Ireland whether they are local or migrant.
Concerns have been raised across the EU on the dangerous impacts of including social services in this directive. Dr. Beverley Malone, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, the largest professional union of nursing in the world, stated:
Nurses are extremely concerned about the potential consequences of including healthcare in this directive. The systems of regulation and monitoring of quality standards in this country are designed to ensure that patients receive well administered and high quality care. There is a real danger that there could be a race to the bottom in terms of standards, with unscrupulous companies setting up in countries with the least rigorous regulation in order to then maximise profits elsewhere. We urge the Government to exclude health and social care from the directive.
She also stated that the directive should be thrown out. The services directive not only threatens the preservation of migrant interests, it also threatens the security of Irish workers whose interests are put at risk by allowing low standards of safety and inequitable minimum wages such as those that would be allowed under the country of origin principle of the services directive.
I wish to inform the Deputy 11 minutes remain.
I thank the Acting Chairman and will conclude by asking that the directive be withdrawn.
If the Lisbon Agenda is the origin of the services directive, it is impossible to reconcile aspects of that directive with Lisbon. When launching the review of the Lisbon Agenda, the European Commission stated: "By modernising labour markets and social protection systems, it will help people seize the opportunities created by international competition, technological advances and changing population patterns while protecting the most vulnerable in society." Commissioner McCreevy has responsibility for this directive and in a BBC interview he stated, "If you consider that the EU has been growing at a snail's pace over the past number of years, then it's obvious that we must do something pretty dramatic to create economic activity". He went on to state: "Seventy per cent of all the EUs GDP is from services, therefore it doesn't take a great mathematician to say we should concentrate [on that]."
The problem is that the Lisbon strategy was never exclusively an economic agenda. The Commission stated it was underpinned by a set of principles based on three mutually dependent pillars, which each supplement one another, namely, the economic, social and environmental pillars. The stated aim is to develop the most competitive knowledge economy, a society with a high rate of employment and social protection and a healthy environment. The project is described as creating a Europe of excellence.
The services directive has components that may see more people at work but at the cost of lower wages and regulatory standards. There is a real fear that the minimum wage will end up being the maximum wage. The Irish Ferries dispute opened the eyes of the public to that possibility. Criticism of the directive by environmental groups, anti-poverty groups, European health care organisations and trade unions show the diverse range of concerns. The environmental network draws attention to the fact that the 25 member states have different laws and policies and highlights the complications the country of origin principle creates for the environmental authorities, which will be required to operate in 25 or more countries to control the activities of their service providers.
The trade union movements seem to favour an internal market for services, but have serious concerns about the country of origin principle. They argue the directive would lead to legal chaos among member states and would make control of monitoring impossible. One aspect they drew attention to is the need for clear definitions of a worker and a self-employed person. The present approach opens the door to fictional self-employment, which in most cases amounts to social dumping. The anti-poverty networks, which represent those most vulnerable, state the services directive, even as amended by the internal committee, would create damaging fractions within national regulatory social service systems.
The aim is not to place barriers in the way of cross-border provision of services but to protect the users of social services, which is essential to contributing to social cohesion. It appears Commissioner McCreevy draws his vision for this directive not from the EU social model but from the United States of America. The question is whether that is from where the Government draws its vision.
This motion, calling for the rejection of the services directive as currently proposed and in particular the country of origin principle, is one of the most timely and vital motions to have come before this Dáil. There is no doubt that no matter what the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, stated this morning, there is widespread public concern among Irish workers and trade unions that if this draft of the services directive or anything approximating to it were introduced, it would pose the single gravest threat to established and hard-won rates of pay and labour standards in this country in recent times. There is no point in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, fooling the House or attempting to mislead it as he did last night by referring to the posting of workers directive. What he stated is simply not true. The posting of workers directive will only allow for a minimum wage and it will not allow this Government or any Irish Government to insist on implementing collective agreements. It will not deal with issues such as training of service providers or educational qualifications. The posting of workers directive is not the panacea for all ills and it will not and cannot deal adequately with the country of origin principle. Hence, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, should not mislead the workers of this country or the House.
The Independent Members join with the European Trade Union Confederation to demand an end to ambiguity in this directive. We are not prepared to accept anything less than a clear commitment, in unambiguous and much stronger language, that labour law, collective bargaining and the right to take industrial action will be fully protected. In addition, this State must be entitled to impose supervisory measures on all services provided within it, regardless of their country of origin, because without such an entitlement, the end result would be unfair competition and lowering of standards. Moreover, services of general needs, such as water supply and social services must be excluded from any future directive. These are basic demands, as is the demand that the minimum wage must not become the norm or the means to undermine trade union rates of pay for a range of services.
I reject the Government's amendment. It is as ambiguous as the directive which it defends, and nowhere does it mention rates of pay in Ireland. They are to be sacrificed to enable employers and business interests to exploit the services market in Europe.
I warmly commend my colleagues in the Independent section of the Technical Group on this timely motion. The principles which it lays down are crystal clear, namely, that no directive should be tolerated which would in any way undermine the principles of a decent wage for workers, decent conditions and trade union rights in the workplace.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment came into the House yesterday and stated that "unfortunately, much confusion surrounds this directive because of its complexity", implying that its opponents are a bunch of dul amús, too stupid to understand its crucial implications because of its complexity. Time and again the Minister has criticised the directive's opponents without dealing in any way with the nub of their reservations, which have been outlined clearly and excellently in the debate by both Members and outside groups.
However, the Minister undermined the directive in his speech. He was forced to so do because he knows the concern that exists among workers throughout Europe. He stated:
We [the Government] are as concerned as anyone else is in this House ... with issues of standards, especially employment standards. This is why, for anyone who cares to look at the latest draft of the directive, one will see more than 300 footnotes of reservations, many of them from Ireland.
Why would there be 300 reservations, many dealing with the erosion of workers' standards, if this document was not a massive attack on those standards to begin with? In this instance, the Minister has admitted the case. Furthermore, he stated:
We can have a very agitated debate about the country of origin principle, although this would amount to a great deal of wasted energy and hot air. All the indications are ... that the Commission intends to amend significantly that aspect of the directive.
In other words, the Minister concedes the point.
No.
He does. Why should it be grievously and seriously amended if it already protected workers' rights?
Hear, hear.
While the Minister has come out with much political bluff, he has been forced to concede that the directive must be fundamentally changed if it is to be acceptable to European workers. A short time ago, Deputy Fiona O'Malley stated that "a welcome but modest level of honesty is finally creeping into the debate on this issue". While her comment was aimed at the Opposition, perhaps she should have directed her remarks towards her Minister.
The European Commission is pushing a right wing neo-liberal agenda and wishes to drive down wages and conditions. The proof can be seen in Commissioner McCreevy's attitude towards the Vaxholm Laval case in Sweden where he clearly stands with the exploiter against the Swedish trade unions who are trying to protect wages and conditions of migrant workers operating in Sweden. Workers in the European Union cannot rely on the Government to protect their rights. They must rely on their own power and organisation to fight a relentless drive by the major corporations to drive down wages and conditions to maximise profits. In recent years, we have seen many struggles by working people in Europe in this respect.
As far as Irish workers are concerned, I vehemently disagree with the idea floated by the leader of the Labour Party, namely, that a new regime of work permits is the way to protect workers' rights.
Hear, hear.
I remind Members that the biggest scandal of exploitation of migrant labour in the history of the State — the Gama case — was carried out under the regime of work permits. Members have also witnessed many other examples during that time. Naturally, the Government's attack on the Labour Party leader has been completely hypocritical.
While we need a strengthening of inspectors and laws protecting workers' rights, we especially need the wider labour movement and the trade union movement to launch a militant campaign to expose and isolate bosses who would exploit either migrant or Irish workers. We have a swathe of low-paid Irish workers who are being hugely exploited in our society. An energetic and imaginative campaign of organising the unorganised workers, be they migrants or Irish-born, is how we will build a strong united movement of the working class in this country. That is the only real answer to the attempts now being made by the European Commission and by governments throughout Europe which are supported by the Government.
Therefore, molaim an rún seo agus an grúpa a chuir os comhair na Dála é. Tháinig pointí an-tábhachtacha trasna sa díospoireacht, go háirithe faoi chearta an lucht oibre sa tír seo, ina measc cearta oibrithe a thagann ón dtaobh amuigh — imircigh. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad, agus molaim an rún mar a bhí sé i dtosach don Dáil.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Harkin and Catherine Murphy.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Harkin and Catherine Murphy.
Question declared carried.