I welcome Mr. Jimmy Kelly of UNITE and invite him to make his address. He has ten minutes.
EU Social Policy: Discussion.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
I thank members of the sub-committee for the invitation to address them. It is great to be included in the agenda. Our union is new to Ireland and Britain and brings together our comrades in AMICUS and the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union. UNITE represents the new union in Ireland.
We were delighted the union did not take a position on how we should move forward in respect of the European Union during the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It was great from our point of view to see the members of two unions coming together quickly on the position to take on the referendum. We discussed issues such as neutrality, because it was felt there were examples where neutrality was being undermined. We felt that it was disgraceful that warplanes should be allowed to refuel at Shannon Airport on their way to Iraq. We felt that certain aspects of the discussion in the European Union were being diluted. The Republic of Ireland has a proud tradition of neutrality and would have been able to speak to other countries and may have been able to guide others through such difficult situations across the rest of the world. We felt that this was being undermined. We talked about this but did not dwell on it exclusively in our discussions on the future of Europe.
We considered what we saw as a move in the direction of privatisation in areas that would be held dear to members of the trade union movement, such as health and education. In discussions with our members, it was evident there was a fear about the move in the direction of privatising services which should be the right of citizens across Europe. Our members felt that health and education services should be available as of right rather than there being one door for people who can afford them and a different door for those who cannot afford services that are taken as normal. The Chairman correctly noted that we concentrated on workers' rights and employment rights.
May I interrupt? I should have stated at the beginning that I will alert Mr. Kelly when he has one minute remaining. In no way is this interruption a comment on the content of his testimony.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
The focus of our presentation is the area of workers' and employment rights. The feeling among Irish union members is that there has been a dilution of workers' rights across Europe. Employment and workers' rights in the European context must be addressed seriously. Platitudes such as "It will be all right on the night. We will look after you. We are not on the side of those attacking workers' rights", will not wash with the people we represent.
In our submission we state that the economic model is undermining the social advances and is not in the interests of working men and women. The demand that the Irish people should act like good Europeans and vote "Yes" in the referendum does not make sense when one considers the poor European policies that are being pursued by the Government. We highlighted the following areas: a comprehensive and free health care system; the failure to provide a free education system; and a failure to provide the social protection measures on a par with European neighbours.
The judgments of the European Court of Justice in the Laval, Viking and Rüffert cases are a setback for workers' rights. The fact that the judgments came out after the treaty was drawn up is a matter that should have been addressed by the Government. The language used did not give us any guarantees that the setbacks under the European Court of Justice judgments would do anything but set back our rights. Our union considers the attacks on those rights to be the biggest setbacks for labour rights ever handed down.
We suggested something should have been inserted in the Lisbon treaty to guarantee the rights we believed were being attacked by the European Court of Justice and that this was a matter the European Trade Union Confederation had highlighted. The Charter of Fundamental Rights sounds lovely and was put forward as something that would protect workers in the Republic of Ireland but we found that the fundamental right of workers in this country to trade union recognition had still not been addressed. This right has been denied for decades and the only attempt to move even one inch on the matter was set back by the Supreme Court judgment in Ryanair v. IMPACT. This is the only area that is being revisited by employers and the Government in the Republic of Ireland. This is unacceptable. There is no mystery about or complication attached to union recognition; workers have the right to choose whether to join a union. When we endeavour to convince workers in a particular area of employment to join a union, their right to do so should be recognised. I am speaking of statutory union recognition and keep mentioning the Republic of Ireland because when one drives up the road and crosses the Border into Newry, there is statutory union recognition. When one drives back across the Border, statutory union recognition ceases. That is how ridiculous the matter has become.
During the referendum campaign the Taoiseach said the issue of union recognition was not an appropriate one to be addressed at the time, that it could be addressed in talks in Government Buildings. It was a case of being fobbed off because the matter was not addressed in talks in Government Buildings and has not been addressed for 21 years. If the Government wishes to convince our members to consider moving forward and our future in the European Union, it must address the right to recognition of trade unions in the Republic of Ireland. The situation is no longer acceptable. We do not accept that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should draw up a document that has no place in legislation here. If the Government and employers wish to convince workers in the Republic of Ireland, they must move towards the precondition we have outlined. The Government must make a firm commitment that it will implement the rights contained in the charter — specifically the right to collective bargaining.
These are the areas that must be addressed to help workers in the Republic of Ireland buy into a future in the European Union. We are also concerned about the subject of democracy. It is no good having democracy merely when the right decision is made; democracy must be solid and something we all cherish. After the Lisbon treaty referendum there was too much concentration on something being wrong with Ireland and the Irish people. There is nothing wrong with the people we represent, the people who asked us to take the "No" position. The referendum decision on the future of the European Union outlined the position to the citizens of Europe. We hoped that rejecting the Lisbon treaty would be a move towards restoring democracy to the citizens of Europe who were denied the opportunity to vote in a referendum. Unfortunately, the emphasis seems to be on passing the treaty in another referendum in the Republic of Ireland. This is dangerous to democracy, the cornerstone of which is that we respect the decisions made. It is dangerous for the Government to move towards a second referendum. Employment and workers' rights would have to be addressed by the Government to encourage the people we represent to consider voting in favour of the treaty in a rerun of the referendum campaign.
I thank Mr. Kelly for his submission.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
I do not think the sub-committee received——
Mr. Kelly took the words out of my mouth. I thank him for preparing the submission. We would like a copy for the clerk which could be circulated to everyone.
I have a question before I hand over to Deputy Dooley. If UNITE was to seek one change in order to ensure the protection of workers' rights, what would that change be?
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
It would be a clear declaration from the Government that it will now put in place in the Republic of Ireland a statutory right to union recognition. That is absolutely linked to the rights of workers and subject to national agreements. Where workers come into a country where national agreements exist, they should not be denied the benefits of those agreements because of the Lisbon treaty. There should be statutory union recognition across Europe and where workers move between states within the European Union, they should be entitled to the rights negotiated by the recognised unions in the various countries.
Thank you, Mr. Kelly. As we agreed last week, we have set up an independent rota that allows everybody a turn to contribute first. I call Deputy Creighton.
Deputy Timmy Dooley took the Chair.
I thank Mr. Kelly for his presentation. I have one specific question which relates to something in his submission. He points to issues that jar with Irish citizens and his organisation and that impacted on its decision regarding the Lisbon treaty. There are three such issues in the first part of the submission, namely, the failure to introduce a comprehensive and free health care system, the failure to provide a free education system, and the failure to provide social protection measures on a par with those of our European neighbours.
To my mind all of those are issues for national governments and not matters for the European Union. Is it fair to say that a significant part of UNITE's decision was informed by difficulties with Government policy rather than by problems emanating from the European Union? These are two separate issues. We, along with all member states, must make difficult choices. On the one hand we want to retain sovereignty and to have independence in decision making while, on the other hand, we would like Europe to intervene in certain areas when it suits us. That applies across the board.
Many countries would have difficulty with ceding more power to the European Union in terms of the financial markets but when a crisis emerged they all looked to the European Commission for a solution. I suppose there is a conflict there. We need to decide where we stand in relation to the EU, where we want it to act and where we want it to butt out.
Many people pointed to health care during this campaign. The Socialist Party had posters all over the country warning about the privatisation of health care and education, as though this would be imposed on us by the EU. I heartily disagree with that contention. I do not believe the EU has any interest in forcing anybody to privatise particular vital public and social services, but that fear arose during the campaign.
We must be careful not to expect the European Union to impose a duty on national governments to act in regard to these areas and introduce free health care or free education if, at the same time, we are saying we do not want its values in terms of these services. That is a contradiction. I would like to hear Mr. Kelly's views on that because he has pointed to health care and education specifically. It is certainly my view that these are matters for national governments. They are competences of the member states and not of the European Union and, therefore, they have very little to do with the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps Mr. Kelly could comment a little further on that.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
We see ourselves as an internationalist organisation in the trade union movement. My own union is proud of this fact. We are also proud of the Republic and will fight to get the best conditions for workers here. We marched on the streets of Dublin to defend the health service. Traditional trade union practice is to carry union banners on the front line of a march. However, on that occasion, on the front line people were carrying pictures of members of their families who had died as a result of shortcomings in the health care system. The photographs were of young people whose parents and relatives were trade union members. This emphasised the fact that the marches were not just about speeches or statistics. On the front line were people whose loved ones had paid with their lives for deficiencies in the health service. We marched to demand a level playing field of which we could be proud for all families and to ensure such tragedies would not visit other families. Unfortunately, there is that difficulty within the health service.
We also highlighted the fact that certain areas of the Lisbon treaty moved towards privatised health and education services. These areas of the treaty would have an impact on the European Union. We do not claim that people elsewhere in Europe are banging us over the head in Ireland. There is absolute solidarity with the citizens of every European country. It is the leadership of the European Union which is moving in the direction of increased privatisation in health and education services. We suffer from this development in the Republic and would have made matters worse by agreeing to the Lisbon treaty. It is not that we love the European Union when it is doing something good and hate it when it is doing something bad. We do not see the Union in that context. Ireland is in the European Union as much as any other country. We want to link arms with workers in other parts of Europe who will have the same problems as we have and may have to march on their streets with photographs of people who have lost their lives in the health system.
That is how real things are and how we felt. When we highlighted these issues during the campaign, we did not receive satisfactory answers.
Will Mr. Kelly tell us which parts of the treaty would lead to privatisation? That question is crucial. Does he consider the decision making power of the Government is superseded by decision making on health and education issues at European level or does he believe bad decision making is occurring in this country? These are matters for the Government. As UNITE protested against the Lisbon treaty, will it also protest against the Government before the next general election which will have a much more direct effect on the health and education of the citizens of this country than the European Union?
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
We will, no doubt, be out protesting against the Government on many fronts. However, let me put what I am saying in context. It is not the case that we love the Government and ask to be protected from what the European Union might inflict upon us. The Government's hands are not clean with regard to free health and education services.
I will submit the clauses of the Lisbon treaty which would lead to privatisation. We quoted the relevant directives which are moving in that direction. The Lisbon treaty would worsen what is already a bad situation under the control of the Government.
I welcome Mr. Kelly and thank him for his presentation. I am sorry I arrived a little late and missed the earlier part of it.
Mr. Kelly mentioned that employees' rights were a grave concern for his union and, obviously, that theme arose repeatedly in the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign. There are a few questions I want to ask Mr. Kelly. First, would he accept that much of the positive Irish employment legislation has originated in the European Union? I would use equal pay as an example of where, traditionally, the European Union has been the source of positive employment legislation for this country.
Would he accept that there was an attempt made at a European Union level to introduce a directive on temporary agency workers but that there were a number of countries, including Ireland, that had a difficulty with implementing it which is why, even though a number of trade unions in this country were agitating for it, it did not happen straight away? Would he accept that there was an impetus from Europe to introduce legislation in that area?
Mr. Kelly referred to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Could he give his opinion on it, particularly the section on solidarity and workers' rights? Is it a positive outcome that the Lisbon treaty has made these rights much more visible and, therefore, will help workers organise and mobilise around them?
Mr. Kelly spoke of the need for statutory union recognition and noted that this was a big issue. Would he accept that the matter of whether or not unions are recognised at a statutory level in this country will very much depend on the Government, rather than on any intervention by the European Union?
He mentioned the areas of health and education, and the failure of the Government to provide a comprehensive, free health care system and a free education system. Deputy Creighton already mentioned that health and education are areas that are the exclusive competence of national governments or member states. In a sense I wonder why Mr. Kelly felt a vote against the Lisbon treaty would help progress the aim of a comprehensive and free health care system and a free education system.
The other issue Mr. Kelly mentioned related to the aeroplanes at Shannon and Irish neutrality. I wonder what Mr. Kelly felt was the European Union's role in that because the European Parliament and the European Council had looked into the issue and highlighted the concerns about extraordinary rendition, and particularly the use of Shannon Airport. That was an issue to which the European Parliament had looked to the Government to respond. Mr. Kelly is probably aware that in recent days a decision has been made to set up an inspection system at Shannon. Is it fair to say that is a matter for which the European Union was responsible? Is that a legitimate reason for somebody to argue against ratifying the Lisbon treaty? It seems that was also an issue in the competence of the Government and had little to do with the European Union whose institutions, in as far as they could, flagged the issue and raised concerns with the Government.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
I would accept that there have been advances in certain areas of rights through our membership of the EU. At times, unfortunately, there is an allowance for an opt-out on certain areas. There would be areas with which we were not happy where Ireland was allowed opt-out on certain issues. Right across Europe where the positives arise, it is unfortunate that at times we have seen that happen.
Many of the advances have been made through protest and struggle here in the Republic of Ireland. Obviously, a sensitive area on which we would have had experience was that of abortion rights and women's right to choose. We saw a period where young women from secondary schools had to come on the streets to say that they would not tolerate a person not being allowed leave the country. Therefore, it is a combination of rights being copperfastened in this country and we must have a role in securing those rights rather than allowing opt-outs.
I accept the general point that advances have been made in many areas such as women's rights and equal pay. At times there have also been setbacks. The directive on agency and temporary workers was mentioned. Some confuse this and think it involves a few cent below the average rate. Some agency workers are being treated disgracefully and their rights are being trampled on. Last December the Government linked up with the British Government and stopped the advances we could have made.
My union put this forward as an issue to be addressed in the national talks. It is now being addressed through an EU directive and the default position is to have rights from day one. We might be better off if the Government left it alone because tampering with it might lead to these rights being introduced later to suit Irish employers. I welcome the advances made under the EU directive.
We marched the streets on the Irish Ferries issue and rights were put in place to ensure similar cases would not arise in the future. Unfortunately, some of the rights and guarantees we won after the Irish Ferries protest were diluted and denied by employers using agency labour. This will be covered by the directive on agency labour. However, the findings of the European Court of Justice interfere with workers' rights in Ireland and dilute what we consider to be progressive agreements protecting workers nationally. Instead of workers having a fundamental right to withdraw their labour, it is now proportionate in the delivery of goods and services. What all this means is a dilution of the rights that might have been built in a national agreement and which would have protected workers and that workers coming from outside Ireland would not be allowed to avail of the standard in the national agreement. We did not hear loud and clear that we had made a valid point that these judgments would cause a problem for workers or that people were willing to negotiate in a way which recognised the rights built rather than smashing them open. What we heard was that only super-intelligent people understood the Lisbon treaty to start with and what would we know about it. Whether the people using this language realised it, it sounded to us as though they were saying that as we would not be intelligent enough to understand it, we should just go out and vote for it and that they would do the business for us.
This is what came across with regard to Shannon Airport. It was a question of not trusting the Government on neutrality, the dilution of which was moving in a direction with which we were not happy. I accept an improvement has been made but only in the past week. The workers we represent stated we needed to take a stand on the issue to show the Government that we had a concern which was not being addressed in what we had heard back. Many of the issues raised with regard to Shannon Airport and neutrality had to do with not trusting the people at the top in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe.
Statutory union recognition is a right on which we are not prepared to concede. We are entitled to it and it is granted in other countries. We support the language used in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which must be legislated for in the Republic.
I refer to the general culture and ethos of the union. Are its members internationalists in the tradition of James Connolly, seeking solidarity of workers worldwide, whereby national boundaries are not as important as solidarity between workers? Is UNITE pro-European Union or is it eurosceptic? Is it fully supportive of Ireland being involved in the European Union and full participation putting us at the heart of the Union?
The Labour Party looked on the Lisbon treaty as very beneficial in the restatement of principles and values and addressing the concern expressed at every turn regarding the rights of citizens and workers and human rights. This was further expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, instead of being a body of rights, is to become a statutory charter underpinning the European Union with all future legislation having to take cognisance of it before its passing, and in the social clause in which the European trade union movement was very much involved. The treaty moves the European Union and the Single Market away from the economic model to the social model more than previous treaties. Will Mr. Kelly comment on this?
I agree with much of what he said about the directives, the Laval judgment and the Irish Ferries issue which was dealt with by the trade union movement. Thousands marched on the issue which was covered by the services directive and perceived by all of us to promote a race to the bottom because of the country of origin principle governing pay and conditions. Quality of employment and hard won industrial relations rights would have been reduced. However, because of the work done, the European Parliament proposed an amendment to the directive to delete this clause. The directive was suitably amended. Therefore, the process of putting Commission legislation through the European Parliament addressed the issue. There should not be a repeat of the Irish Ferries issue.
The Laval judgment related to the posting of workers directive. Was the directive introduced in a number of member states in a way that meant it was not watertight enough? Loopholes emerged and, as a result, the intention of the directive was not fully implemented. How would UNITE address the issue raised in the Laval, Rüffert and Viking cases which gave rise to difficulties in the countries involved? Has the directive been transposed effectively in Ireland to ensure such a case could not happen here? With regard to agency workers, the Commission got it right but we did not domestically because we argued the opposite position.
I refer to the cutbacks in education and health services made in the recent budget, although Senator de Búrca might not fully agree. These services are within the competence of the Government, not the European Union. However, the Government often blames the Union for faults in its policy making and decision making. I ask Mr. Kelly to comment on this.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
I accept the manner in which the Deputy has characterised the union's international focus. The union is founded on solidarity across as much of the world as possible, where such solidarity can be delivered. Workers who do not have access to their rights depend on us to extend the hand of friendship and solidarity. The rich and powerful have their way of dealing with things. They can afford to have recourse to the courts, but many workers cannot. Problems arise when the meter starts to run on a legal matter. In such circumstances workers sometimes have to give up access to rights. The union is absolutely committed to a spirit of internationalism.
During the referendum campaign we spent €20,000 on three full-page advertisements, containing a pro-European Union slogan, in an Irish newspaper. That might equate to a small percentage of some organisations' budgets. While we did not agree with some parts of the Lisbon treaty, we tried to emphasise publicly that we were pro-European Union. Some of those who campaigned for a "Yes" vote tried to undermine people who were clearly trying to carve out a space on the "No" side for legitimate reasons. Many advocating a "No" vote were keen to ensure they were not labelled as anti-European Union for doing so.
I agree with Deputy Costello's comments on the nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter has been challenged in some respects in judgments of the European Court of Justice. The judgments in question undermine workers' agreements which have been reached throughout Europe. We were asked to take a chance by saying "Okay" to the Lisbon treaty, even though the evidence, including legal advice, available to us from across the European Union suggested we had to put a stop to it if we did not want certain rights to be eroded. I agree that some aspects of the charter need to be underpinned by Irish legislation. The Government needs to show it is prepared to introduce such legislation if it is to demonstrate clearly that it is listening to workers. It is no good to assure us that certain things will not happen. That is not the type of language that will convince workers to change their position on the treaty.
Some have suggested the rights included in the charter will work in a certain direction but not necessarily in another. I accept that Deputy Costello is not one of them. We are not prepared to bargain on the rights to which we are entitled. We are absolutely entitled to the rights outlined in the services and posted workers directives. We will not trade these rights for lesser rights in any other direction. We will insist on the full-blown rights contained in the various directives. We had a legitimate concern that our rights were not being addressed in all aspects of the Lisbon treaty. Therefore, the only way we could ensure we were listened to was to reject the treaty. The sub-committee and other interests are now taking the time to study how Ireland should proceed following the rejection of the treaty. I accept that all EU matters, not just the Lisbon treaty, are being examined. The treaty covers a big area in how we move forward within the European Union. It is only since our rejection of the treaty that we are being given a chance to be listened to.
I have a couple of questions. How many members does UNITE have in Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom? It seems from the responses Mr. Kelly has given to the various questions that the union saw the Lisbon treaty as something to be used as a bargaining chip in dealing with the Government on outstanding issues. Will he outline the potential impact of the "No" vote? Does he believe it will have an impact? A number of delegates at the sub-committee have elaborated on the negative impact of the result of the referendum for Ireland on the international stage. In particular, they have spoken about its effect on foreign direct investment. It is clear that such investment is of vital importance to the members of the union, as it is to the wider population. Has Mr. Kelly considered the impact of the "No" vote? It is obvious that he and his colleagues had the right to vote "No". Do they agree that the "No" vote has the potential to have a more negative impact on the union, if it makes it more difficult for Ireland to attract foreign direct investment? If there is rising unemployment in the long term as a result of this, it will be more difficult for UNITE to negotiate with the Government.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
Membership in Ireland is approximately 100,000. Across Ireland and Britain it is just under 2 million. We did not see it as just a bargaining chip, as the Acting Chairman described it. We felt it stood on its own merit. One cannot pull a fast one on the citizens of the Republic by presenting a picture for which everybody falls and votes "No". If anything, the "No" side had the biggest hurdle to climb over to convince anybody to vote "No". Only one party in Leinster House stood on the "No" side. Many organisations outside Leinster House tried to present what they considered was wrong with the Lisbon treaty. I put it in the context of perhaps getting our issues on the agenda, not as a bargaining chip, but because a "No" vote represented a clear message to the Irish and European Governments that when they asked the people to give their views on something, they should listen to those views. Had the treaty gone through 51% to 49% we would not be discussing it. The story would be over. This gives people an opportunity to be listened to. There is a responsibility on the Government and politicians to listen to what we are saying and see if there is a way forward within the European Union, taking on board what everybody said.
The Acting Chairman described a negative impact of the "No" vote on foreign direct investment. My experience during most of my working life dealing with employers and representing workers has been that employers base decisions on profitability. They have no heart strings pulling them towards investment in Ireland. For a long period of my life I worked for a company owned by people outside Ireland. Some 80% of the product was sold in America but it stood on its own merits and the investment was always on the basis of profitability rather than any attachment to Ireland. I do not see that the "No" vote will drain investment from Ireland, although people describe this as a possible negative impact.
Although we are not in touch with people across Europe, we have reflected how citizens across Europe would have viewed the referendum had they had the opportunity to do so. Some were promised a referendum but had that promise withdrawn, for example, in Britain where it was changed from a constitutional change to a treaty. One can pull a fast one such as that but somewhere down the line it comes back to hit those responsible. We are more in tune with the people we represent across Europe and it will not be possible to say we are cutting Ireland off to punish it for what was done. If it is about that, it is even worse than I thought.
The sub-committee heard from the president of the US Chamber of Commerce in Ireland who is the managing director of Microsoft Ireland and the heads of the two development agencies, the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. They painted a very clear picture of the concerns of multinationals. They argued that the factors all multinational investors sought were security, low risk and consistency. While they considered there was no immediate threat because there was a perception that Ireland would find some way to bridge the gap, they argued that if we failed to do this at some point, we would be seen as moving outside——
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
If we fail to do what?
If we fail to ratify the Lisbon treaty at some point or remain part of the central process that is the European project, we will be considered to be more of a risk. The security which multinationals thought was on offer would dissipate and that would impact on decision making. Mr. Kelly's point on profitability was correct but the key driver for profitability is the belief that what one has invested in is secure and subject to relatively low risk.
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
I accept that the various bodies to which the Acting Chairman referred said that but I do not accept their argument. People tell me that it is of no significance that a product is made in Waterford, or Ireland in general, and that it would sell wherever it was made. Unfortunately, they have been proved right, albeit on something on which they did not want to be proved right. They have started to destroy our brand name. I do not suggest they said those things in a threatening way but a body such as the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland needs to be careful it does not come across as threatening to pull investment out of the country if we do not do what we are told. The Acting Chairman does not mean it in that way either but that is the way it comes across.
The points made by Enterprise Ireland do not stack up. It is more important that we understand the reasons the people voted "No" and try to address these concerns. Whether there continues to be investment and whatever happens in the course of the economic and financial crisis, people must be listened to. Anybody who wants to govern in this country must listen to the people.
Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP
I thank Mr. Kelly for his presentation and apologise that I arrived a little late. I do not know if he agrees but my view is that future direct investment into Ireland is more likely to be adversely affected by the sabotaging of our education system which we have seen in the recent budgetary cuts rather than by any alarmist rhetoric around the Lisbon treaty.
Mr. Kelly hit the nail on the head on the Laval, Viking and other court judgments but they were made after the amended services directive came into force, meaning the amendment came to nothing. Does he agree that we need a change to the EU treaties? I suggest we look at the social progress clause, on which I am sure Mr. Kelly is aware the European Trade Union Confederation is lobbying very hard. This would provide a mechanism to rebalance matters in order that where the fundamental social rights of workers collide with market rights, workers' rights would prevail. That is the core point.
What is the position of UNITE on the social progress clause? It was looked at after the rejection in France and the Netherlands but the political leaderships in these countries failed to pursue the matter vigorously. Does Mr. Kelly believe the Government should pursue the social progress clause, not just on behalf of Irish workers but workers across the European Union? He also made a point about public services on which I share a very deep concern. Health and education are within the competence of the individual member states but competition law impacts on the provision of these services. Mr. Kelly will remember that we debated the protocol attached to the treaty. Advocates of the treaty said it was the answer to all our concerns but the Commission will state it is just a statement of the status quo and that services are open to the application of competition law. Does Mr. Kelly agree that European rules and agendas have been used domestically as cover for things governments would not dare to do unilaterally such as the privatisation of Aer Lingus?
Mr. Kelly represents the second largest union in the State and a considerable body of people across Britain. What has been the reaction of trade union colleagues across the Continent to Ireland's decision? What is Mr. Kelly's position on the assertion made in many places, including in this committee room, that workers' rights were abused in the course of the campaign as a sort of racist argument? On the charter of fundamental rights, I think all progressive people, certainly everybody on the left supports this charter but it is a question of legal enforceability and how many teeth the document actually has. Mr. Kelly's union, UNITE, made the right call in advocating for a "No" vote. It is the view of my political party that a big opportunity now exists for Ireland to spearhead a really significant advance in terms of workers' protection, particularly through that social progress clause. Will Mr. Kelly outline his general reaction to it?
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
Our sister union SIPTU is trying to battle for the rights that are under attack in Aer Lingus. Whatever way it pans out, we will give 100% support to the workers in Aer Lingus to try to defend what they have. This links back into a core argument we made on union recognition because it is the trade union movement's ability to unionise Ryanair which offers the best protection for the decent pay and conditions that exist in Aer Lingus. What has been described as the race to the bottom is exactly what is happening in Aer Lingus, that drive to bring wages back to the 90% agency workers' rates that are in Ryanair. There are areas that will be backed up by the rights that should be copperfastened in this post Lisbon treaty period.
The Irish trade unions have been congratulated by sister unions across the EU which were delighted with the result of the vote in Ireland and are exploring how we came to have a democracy. The unions in Europe would like to have a right to the same level of democracy. We have explained that it was a man, Mr. Raymond Crotty, who battled for the right to have a referendum. He was denigrated but yet battled on until it was eventually decided that we had the right to have a referendum.
The European trade unions support what we in Ireland need to do on workers' and employment rights. The European Trade Union Congress is on board for what Ms McDonald described as the social progress clause. The Government and other political parties must show they are serious about listening so that they begin to understand why the trade union movement voted against the Lisbon treaty. It would be helpful if they understood why we voted against it and began to address the reasons we voted against it. It was not an anti-Europe vote, it was a vote for the rights we should have.
My response is "Yes" to all the other questions asked by Ms McDonald.
We are now moving into the final round of questions, and each person who has already contributed has a minute.
I hope my note is correct that Mr. Kelly stated that rejecting the Lisbon treaty was the only way we — the union — could get listened to. I accept that is how UNITE felt and that it did not feel the Government listened to the views of union members. The key issue seems to be statutory union recognition. If it is the case that the UNITE union persuaded workers not to support the Lisbon treaty so that the Government would listen and move to give statutory recognition to unions, does Mr Kelly think that if the other member states are determined to proceed with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty and find some legal route to do that there is a danger that Ireland and Irish workers will suffer in the longer term and that employment prospects for workers will be badly damaged? Does he think that using the ratification of a European treaty as a bargaining chip in dealing with the difficulties that union movements have with the Government, is a high-risk strategy because the stakes are very high? If we find ourselves detached from Europe and not a core part of European Union decision making it will affect our economy and workers' opportunities for employment with good working conditions, such as pay and so on.
My next point will be brief because I know another speaker referred to the European Trade Union Confederation and the social progress clause it proposed. Is Mr. Kelly aware that the European Trade Union Confederation supported the Lisbon treaty? It argued for the introduction of the social progress clause in a further treaty because it recognised this would have to be done through a protocol to make it legally binding. Anything added to a treaty by means of protocol would mean member states would have to ratify that treaty again. Would Mr. Kelly be satisfied if an assurance was given that a social progress clause would be included in a future treaty? Would he be happier for workers to support the current provisions in the Lisbon treaty?
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
We asked for that during the referendum campaign as did the European Trade Union Confederation. Mr. John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, said this could be inserted after the Lisbon treaty was endorsed but we did not agree with that. The ETUC was correct in saying the insertion was needed before the referendum.
We do not feel we have added to a climate that will see job losses, as described. A person on the "Yes" side may in future blame everything that goes wrong on the "No" side but this is to misread what I am putting forward here. Perhaps I am exaggerating the point Senator de Búrca is making but such an approach from people on the "Yes" side will only copperfasten views on this matter. Those on the "Yes" side are suggesting that they were right, despite the fact that they lost, but we will not accept that and nor will the people we represent. I do not feel that we will cause a setback. I have lived through periods during which people had to emigrate to find work; parts of Europe do well and other parts do badly at different times. We did well in terms of full employment and our economy grew while other parts of Europe did badly. To suggest that we will be punished, that we were wrong and that things that go wrong from now on are our fault is to misread the future, which we must discuss in the fall-out from the treaty.
We have an opportunity to re-engage on several fronts across Europe. The Irish Government is not the only government that was out of touch with what is happening and misread what happened with the Lisbon treaty; many governments across Europe will have to take a lesson from this. I do not know whether they will or not. Things might get worse economically, in terms of the financial crisis and so on. All we can do is defend our members, whether against an employer, the Government or a treaty that will impact negatively on them.
It was suggested earlier that we did not want workers from outside and this is a horrible description of our argument; we reject this absolutely. We defend workers rights on the basis of skin colour, religion, sexuality, gender and disability because these are areas in which there should be equal rights. We are proud of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty.
I have just a couple of points to add to what has been said. This sub-committee is trying to determine Ireland's future role in the European Union and whether we can move forward. The Lisbon treaty would have given an enhanced role to the Oireachtas, as distinct from the Executive, the Government and Ministers. The Oireachtas would have been given a new role, particularly regarding subsidiarity. The powers given to the European Union would have been policed, effectively, by the Oireachtas — the parliamentary side of government as opposed to the Executive side. Does Mr. Kelly believe the Government takes a narrow view of many initiatives from the European Union, for example, the services directive and the posting of workers directive, in transposing them into legislation? Would a more enhanced role for the Oireachtas be of any value in dealing with some of the issues Mr. Kelly articulated? Is statutory union recognition a sine qua non, even though it can only be granted domestically by the Government? Will Mr. Kelly comment on how strongly that view is reflected among other unions?
Regarding the area about which Mr. Kelly has expressed concern, the European Court of Justice has authority to make judgments only in regard to European Community law. In other words, it can make judgments only in terms of powers we have handed over to the European Union, one of which relates to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If there is concern that the Government will disregard the rights included in the charter, one can appeal immediately to the European Court of Justice. Rather than being in any way a villain, this can be the sort of area in which rights can be enforced. Everybody would have the right to move in that direction. How can we move forward? What are the sticking points in that respect?
Mr. Jimmy Kelly
We could move forward if the Government was serious and stated clearly that it would legislate for the rights in the charter. It will not get the agreement of the people we represent if its approach is to say, "Here is the charter; people may traipse off to whatever court they like to try to up-end the ECJ judgments or get the rights to which they are entitled, but the Government intends to stand by Irish employers by not being prepared to legislate for union recognition". We have no difficulty with an enhanced role for the Oireachtas in dealing with legislation. We might have a problem with the fact that certain people who are in power are not of the same persuasion as ourselves, but as that is another part of democracy, we live with it. We would like to see a strengthening of politicians who support what the trade union movement stands for. We need a Government which states it has listened to what has been said, that it understands what has been said and is now addressing what has been said in a concrete fashion. People need to see that the Government is genuine in addressing the concern expressed. It is not enough for it to state it has had a look at the issues and knows that people did not understand them and will pick up on that poor understanding rather than addressing their genuine concerns.
I thank, Mr. Kelly. On behalf of the sub-committee, I recognise his presence here and wish him well in his endeavours.