JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1998

Presentation by the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed.

Mr. Allen

I thank the committee for meeting us at this late stage. Listening to the presentations made by Mr. Coughlan and IBEC, I realise many of the positions legitimately held 20 years ago are being rehearsed now on all sides, particularly by the employers. The organisations for the unemployed are adopting a position to which everyone must listen with new ears because we are struggling with issues such as the globalisation of the economy and the fact that the European Union is an inadequate response to that.

I am not only the general secretary of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, I am also the secretary of the European Network of the Unemployed which met last weekend in Glasgow. We have circulated a position paper which we sent to local partnerships. It is a fairly neutral analysis of the treaty and of the position of the European Network of the Unemployed on the treaty.

The INOU and ENU believe the Maastricht Treaty did little in terms of unemployment except to make it worse. The types of economic policies which were included increased unemployment in every country other than Ireland and led to a decline in social standards in many countries. The situation was made worse as governments cut back on expenditure. We argued that this treaty needed to be one which did not just step a little bit further forward but which reversed the anti-employment and anti-unemployed trend in the Maastricht Treaty. Many people who argued for the Maastricht Treaty at the time are now quite open about recognising the faults we pointed out at the time and for which we were marginalised.

The five things we are looking for in the revision of Maastricht are a commitment to full, not high, employment, which is an ILO idea to which Ireland signed up in 1967; an opportunity to link this commitment to other economic goals so that inflation is not considered more important than decent jobs; a change in the convergence criteria to include unemployment so that low Government expenditure and inflation, which are important, are not considered more important than decent jobs; the introduction of a social audit; and the inclusion of the voluntary sector as a social partner.

The most significant achievement is the employment chapter. Even the EU's documentation, "Citizens' Guide to a New Treaty", states that one of the great achievements is the promotion of a high level of employment, which is now one of the major objectives of the Union. However, it was always an objective of the Treaty of Rome. It is unclear why that is considered progress. While that section includes a number of positive things, it writes in stone that employment policy is a matter for each member state and not for the European Union.

There are two choices in building the European Union. We can take the view adopted by the National Platform that none of this should be moved to a European level or the view that employment and the interests of the Single Market and business people are moved to a European level along with social policy and the interests of the unemployed. However, we are only getting half the deal at present. The things which open up the Single Market weaken the position of workers and, therefore, lead to more insecure jobs, low pay and unemployment. While these are moved to a European level, the type of measures required to counterbalance them are not being moved to that level. We recognise that progress has been made on some of our issues, but the Maastricht Treaty was such an extraordinary setback in terms of unemployed people throughout Europe that this Amsterdam Treaty does not necessarily counterbalance that.

The political response throughout Europe has been the mobilisation of unemployed people on an unprecedented level since the 1930s when it manifested itself as fascism. At present, it is manifesting itself in progressive demands for a better European Union. However, the Amsterdam Treaty fails to meet that demand. Unless it is clearly marked by politicians at regional, national and international level and unless they recognise that more needs to be done, there are substantial dangers that the high levels of unemployment across Europe will stop being progressive forces and might become forces of reaction in terms of racism and fascism.

Senator Connor

I am a little disappointed with the employment chapter in the Amsterdam Treaty, but it is the first time such a chapter has been included in a European treaty to which we have signed up. There are requirements which provide that each member state nominates two people to a special committee to look at employment. They instructed to have goals and to report on an annual basis on their success or failure in achieving them. Does Mr. Allen not think that is a fairly significant step forward?

Ms Malone (MEP)

I agree with Mr. Allen that it is a pity progress was not made in recognising voluntary bodies as proper partners. The Amsterdam Treaty is an interim measure. Because none of the institutional questions were dealt with, another intergovernmental conference will need to be held before any enlargement deal is concluded. I will have that issue high on my agenda just as I and the European socialists had employment at the top of the agenda when discussing the Amsterdam Treaty.

I disagree that there has been no change since the last treaty. I know we lost the battle to get full employment, but progress has been made in the sense that some of the mechanisms for keeping a high level of employment have already been implemented at the Luxembourg summit on employment. Further progress could be made at the forthcoming summit in Cardiff. Member states must set up committees and audits must be done on employment in each member state. That is great progress, apart from the fact that Great Britain is now on board. I am not as pessimistic as Mr. Allen, although more work needs to be done.

Deputy U. Burke

What is the situation regarding the varying interpretations of social exclusion in member countries? The variations make it difficult to put a scheme in place to deal with it.

Mr. Allen

I am not saying there is no progress as our analysis shows there is. The political question is whether one applauds that progress or decides it is not enough. The political forces which were behind that progress — the Irish Government fought for it — are more encouraged when it is decided there is not enough progress and more is needed.

The committee to which you referred is a subsidiary of the monetary committee and the fact that it exists is good. However, that monetary policy is more important than employment policy is written into the treaty. IBEC welcomes the fact that competitiveness as a goal is written into the treaty. The IBEC representative said that goal is more important than social policy. Social policy, therefore, can be defeated on the basis that it challenges competitiveness. I doubt that Irish people hold that view in terms of how we should proceed. Both goals need to be balanced and that is how Ireland's current prosperity has come about.

The annual reports for the Luxembourg summit are important and our consultation on them in the Irish context as a social partner is extremely important. However, they are also essentially politically driven. They come about largely because of the current strength of unemployment organisations in France and Germany arising from mass unemployment. That leads to the existence of social democratic governments and so forth. As that falls away, as we have seen in Ireland where unemployment has fallen slightly, everybody claims the unemployment problem is solved. What we need are commitments written into treaties that unemployment will continue to be looked at with the same priority, even if it begins to decrease. We are committed to the process of the Luxembourg summit and are engaged on it at Irish and European levels. It is one of the most progressive elements in the treaty.

The position taken by the INOU is not taken by me or our executive. It comes from a delegate conference we held when both positions were discussed amid extensive consultation. I am more pessimistic about the treaty and about what people think about it after talking to the unemployed members of the organisation. At a political level one can see the slow, hard fought progress but it matters little to somebody who has spent the last ten years on the dole and who does not see any benefit from the millions of pounds which have come into the country. If we say "yes" to the treaty, that viewpoint simply would not be heard in the debate and it must remain central to Irish politics.

Everybody takes a different view of social exclusion. I wrote a paper on it for the European Network of the Unemployed and I will be happy to forward it to the Committee.

Chairman

We would be grateful to receive it. We thank you for your submission and I am sorry the time factor caught up on the debate. There was a long agenda for today's meeting.

The delegation withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m.