JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2008

EU Social Policy: Discussion.

Chairman

I thank both of our guests for attending at short notice. I also apologise for our late start but we have been in session since 9.30 a.m. and, despite our best efforts, the timetable has slipped slightly.

The sub-committee was set up in the context of the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty to examine Ireland's future in Europe. We have four terms of reference, each of which is the subject of a module of work, one of which concerns Ireland's future policy in various areas. This module examines social policy, with particular reference to workers' rights within European Union policy. We will use the contribution of the witnesses to inform a report which will be published by the end of November.

Each guest speaker will be given ten minutes. I will then open up the discussion to colleagues and there will be a speaker from each group, each of whom will have ten minutes to engage with the witnesses. Anyone who has not spoken will then have a brief opportunity to speak. Although our guests have been before parliamentary committees on many occasions, I must mention the issue of privilege. I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the sub-committee.

I will give each of our speakers ten minutes and will remind him when nine minutes have elapsed. As Mr. Begg is nearer to me, I ask him to begin. I will call on Mr. Horan afterwards.

Mr. David Begg

As the Chairman said, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made a presentation to the Joint Committee on European Affairs in January. In the course of the presentation, which we have included in today's submission to the sub-committee, we stressed the belief that the neoliberal orientation of the European Commission was seriously disaffecting many people who would otherwise have been natural supporters of the European ideal. That could hardly be otherwise, given that 20 of the 27 member states who appoint the Commission have centre-right governments. In our view, the result was a reaction to the Commission's preoccupation with Single Market integration policies without regard to their social consequences.

In terms of the Millward Brown IMS research, the manifestation of this can be found in an indicator which reveals that 40% of people who voted "Yes" and 52% of people who voted "No" saw workers' rights as an important issue. Workers' rights received one of the highest endorsements as an issue of importance. The Commission's earlier efforts to implement the original version of the services directive, even though it was frustrated by the Parliament, demonstrates that concern over workers' rights was not entirely misplaced. However, it is also true that since then the directive on agency workers is a positive initiative towards workers' rights which was blocked for a long time by our own Government in concert with the United Kingdom.

Taken over the longer term, the EU has been a source of positive social legislation for Ireland. The problem is that people do not generally separate the current political philosophy of Europe from the integrity of the European project itself and its possibilities for a better world. Congress tried to draw this distinction in our campaign in favour of ratification of the treaty. We argued that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and increased powers of the Parliament had the potential to move the balance more towards the social dimension of Europe. The specific endorsement of the social market economy and Article 28 relating to the legal right to collective bargaining are examples of how this might happen. This view is predicated on a legal evaluation, which was well known at the time, by Mr. Gerard Hogan SC, which held that the charter, although it would not have an immediate effect on domestic Irish law would, in time, have profound implications for Irish society. It was our hope that the charter would shore up many of the social rights which we felt were being challenged by the Internal Market.

In the absence of the charter being given legal effect by the treaty, the opposite pattern is emerging. Four European Court of Justice judgments relating to Laval, Viking, Luxembourg and Rüffert contain a common thread which privileges the four freedoms over the rights of workers. This is a major concern of the European Trade Union Confederation which we in Ireland share and I note that the general secretary, Mr. John Monks, has been in correspondence with the committee about this. He has asked me to say that he is sorry he was unable to attend at the notice available. However, I am familiar with his views on this and hope to be able to communicate them.

Specifically, what the ETUC was talking about is the need for a social progress protocol to guide the court in its deliberations. The problem is that the court does not seem to have much regard for the social implications of some of its judgments and unless that type of guidance is given the fear is that these judgments will continue in the same vein, so it is imperative that some clarity be brought to the situation. Otherwise it will continue to impair the prospects of positively revisiting the Lisbon decision. In our view this is a major point of substance, unlike some other issues which have come up since the referendum to do with the number of Commissioners and so on. We see those issues as being of lesser importance.

The world has changed since we last discussed this topic with the Joint Committee on European Affairs in January. The tide of political opinion is moving away from neoliberalism and towards Keynesianism, consequent upon the global financial crisis. Although there is some pushing back on this among the elite who embrace the former dogma, the recasting of his views by people such as Mr. Alan Greenspan has undermined that. It remains to be seen how the European Commission can accommodate itself to the European reality. We made the point in our submission to the European affairs committee that in our view this was a very ideologically focused Commission. However, I would also note that at a political level President Sarkozy seems to us to be playing a very positive role now in light of the global financial crisis in seeking to lead the way in terms of regulatory reform of the financial system.

There are a number of other developments which we think we should mention and which we believe have come into sharper relief since we discussed this before and which reinforce the case in favour of the Lisbon treaty. The first of these is the fact that if Ireland were not a member of the euro zone it would now be in the same boat as Iceland. We would not have access to the enormous amount of ECB liquidity to prop up our banking system and our currency would have been attacked.

Chairman

Excuse me, I must interrupt briefly to tell my colleagues there is a vote in the Dáil.

Mr. David Begg

The very least of our problems would be that interest rates would be the same as in Iceland, running at approximately 18%. It is clear that our economy would be destroyed in those circumstances.

The second issue is the mercantilist trade policy that uses energy as an instrument of foreign policy, which Russia is pursuing and which demands a more cohesive European Union response, which the Lisbon treaty would have facilitated. The tendency of individual countries to make bilateral energy agreements with Russia means we are in a relationship of asymmetrical interdependence, which is to our detriment. Given Ireland's high level of imported energy resources, it is important to our energy security that the European Union optimises its position as Russia's largest customer.

Congress remains overall pro-Lisbon treaty for the strategic reasons cited, notwithstanding our concerns and problems with the current status of the Commission, but it has been difficult to sustain this position in the face of an unwillingness on the part of the Commission to deal adequately with the social consequences of market integration. However, if this can be corrected, the possibilities for a strengthened European Union, in conjunction with the new US Democratic Administration, to shape a new and multipolar world order are much more promising than they have been for a long time.

Chairman

How long will Mr. Horan's contribution be?

Mr. Blair Horan

I am using notes and will take the ten minutes.

Chairman

Two colleagues must vote in the Dáil and I would not like them to miss Mr. Horan's contribution. I suggest the two Deputies go to the House to vote and, in the meantime, Senator Doherty and I will respond to Mr. Begg's contribution. When they return, Mr. Horan can make his contribution. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I welcome the representatives. Mr. Begg referred to the support of congress for the Lisbon treaty and the difficulty in sustaining it. Sinn Féin's view is a better deal was on offer. Does Mr. Begg believe a better deal than the treaty could be achieved, for example, if a social progress clause was attached? We proposed an amendment to Article 39 of the treaty that each member state should ensure the principle of equal pay, work and values applied. If a new treaty was negotiated, would congress argue for certain provisions to be included that would strengthen worker's rights?

Mr. David Begg

The judgment will be made at European level, where we have been trying to progress this issue which I mentioned to Mr. Sarkozy when he was in Ireland a number of months ago. It is probably not likely that the treaty will be amended to incorporate the social progress protocol, as we would wish. If we could obtain a commitment to do so at the next available opportunity, probably the accession of Croatia, that would suffice. At the time the decision was made we did not have the jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice. We had one judgment but the pattern that has emerged is disturbing in that it shows a particular line of thinking on how to interpret the legislation in place.

The problem is that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not have legal force. Therefore, there is an unknown factor regarding whether the European Court of Justice would interpret the law in a different way if the charter was in place. However, there is a risk factor involved and we would prefer guidance to be given. The conventional wisdom is that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reopen the Lisbon treaty to do this but our hope is, if we are dealing with Croatian accession in two years, it could be appended to that treaty and given legal force in that way. That would be okay because we are dealing with a long-term issue.

Senator Pearse Doherty

On the amendments to which I referred, I do not subscribe to the view that the Lisbon treaty cannot be renegotiated. I understand that in the current situation, given the way the Government is behaving, it will not be renegotiated because that demand is not being made by our political leaders. However, if there were to be a reopening of negotiations, congress would support, as would the European partners, a social partnership clause.

Some of the judgments of the European Court of Justice refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will Mr. Begg talk about this?

Mr. David Begg

The crucial question is the weight given to them. It is one thing to refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a guiding document, but a document with legal force will have a different status. We are trying to achieve a balance between the principle of free movement of capital, goods, labour and services and the principle of rights. The charter with legal force would weigh in on the rights side if it were passed into law and one would expect it would be given more weight as a fully legal document than it was in the judgments so far. I believe — it is the view of the ETUC — that that of itself would not be sufficient. It would be necessary to give much more precise guidance to the court as to how these matters should be interpreted and the weight to be given as between the freedom of establishment and people's rights.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I have two final questions regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member states can bring the charter under their own legislation. Does Mr. Begg believe it would be proper for the Government to immediately put into effect in the State what is contained in the charter?

Mr. David Begg

Undoubtedly, to be blunt about it, that would be our preference. Article 28 deals with the legal right to engage in collective bargaining, the most contentious matter. We made some progress in that direction in the recent social partnership negotiations which may, in time, have a similar effect. As a straightforward solution to the problem, giving legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Ireland would solve it. Obviously, the Government would have to legislate in line with the charter on a particular provision. The issue of collective bargaining is of major importance to us. The Senator's question gives me an opportunity to clarify one matter. It is being said in some elements of the media that one possible course of action would be for Ireland to examine some of these contentious matters and seek a derogation from the charter. If a derogation were ever to be sought, there would be no question of our supporting it.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I understand it is a very important point. However, it must also be understood that it must be brought into effect by the parliaments of member states. Unfortunately, it is not the situation that some of these issues could have been dealt with in the past. Mr. Begg referred to a number of rulings of the European Court of Justice in the Laval, Viking and Rüffert cases. Will he elaborate on the view of congress on the potential these rulings could have in terms of workers' rights in Ireland? We have heard at the sub-committee that they were specific to the member states concerned and could have no impact in Ireland. Is that the direction being taken by the European Court of Justice or could any of its rulings have a direct impact in Ireland?

Mr. David Begg

It is a little bit of both. It is correct to say the Laval judgment would not have had an immediate effect in Ireland. The reason for that is that it affected the construction industry, and pay and conditions of employment in the construction industry here are covered by what is known as a registered employment agreement which has legally binding force, so it must apply to anybody here who is working in the construction industry. That is unique to the construction industry. The situation in regard to some other industry might be different. It is, therefore, technically true that the Laval judgment would not, in that sense, have had an immediate effect here.

The trend of the judgments has been to take a minimalist viewpoint in that only the minimum employment standards which are legislated for in a country can be protected. In other words, standards of employment which are covered by collective agreements cannot be covered unless the collective agreement has the force of law as in, for example, the registered employment agreement that applies to the construction industry that I mentioned.

On the question of proportionality, the court recognised in the Viking judgment that industrial action in defence of workers' rights was entirely legitimate. In the Laval judgment it imposed a proportionality test concerning whether what was being done exceeded what was necessary to achieve the objective of the dispute in question. Unfortunately, the world is much more complicated than that. It is part of the problem that the justices of the European Court of Justice have very little real experience of what life is like on a building site or in a factory. Given the complications that can arise in such situations involving interstate transition of employers, the proportionality test would always leave workers exposed and vulnerable, not knowing what they might confront in the event of a dispute being challenged in the courts by somebody. With that leeway, there would almost certainly be a challenge.

The Rüffert case concerns another dimension which mainly affects contracting of services into the public service. The Rüffert judgment stated that unless the conditions it is sought to impose apply generally in the economy in the public and the private sector, they cannot be imposed. Very often they do not because one is talking about something which is unique. Usually in a public procurement case it is something the public service is uniquely doing and the Rüffert judgment would prevent one from putting that support net under the contracting of those services. That is a layman's interpretation of the difficulties but it is the general trend.

If this were just one judgment one could say this was unique to particular circumstances, but a pattern has emerged in four judgments which came relatively close to one another which gives cause for concern. In fairness I must say that had the Charter of Fundamental Rights been on the weighing scales we might have had a different judgment from the court. That, however, is speculation. I do not know.

Senator Pearse Doherty

None of us could have seen that the European Court of Justice would make these judgments. Obviously the interpretation of the treaties and the text within them has transferred powers within the European Union. While we welcome the Charter of Fundamental Rights and would like to see the social progress clause included in it, is it of concern to congress that in some of the text of the treaty, primacy is given to the market as opposed to the rights of workers?

Mr. David Begg

We took a somewhat contrary view. We took some consolation from the fact that the treaty was endorsing the social market model. This has assumed greater importance in recent times with the collapse of the global financial system with its roots in neoliberal dogma. To congress, writing into the treaty that the European Union is a social market economy was a positive thing.

We are all in a new situation now and the assurance with which all of the countries in the world addressed international trade and commerce in past times will have to be revisited. We have, effectively, come to the end of an epoch and we are going to have to find some new dispensation. To that extent the way the treaty is worded facilitates that in many respects. As we see it, it could be quite positive. Apart from that, the main reasons we identified for supporting the treaty were the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the transfer of additional powers to the Parliament and the need for Europe to act in a much more cohesive way in terms of some of its external relations, particularly in dealing with Russia on the energy front where there are strategic vulnerabilities. We had no major concern in regard to much of the rest of the debate.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Some of the unions in ICTU did not support the treaty and went public about that fact. Could Mr. Begg talk about the reasons they called for a "No" vote?

Mr. David Begg

The sub-committee has spoken to UNITE. I do not wish to put words in its mouth in terms of its reasons for opposing the treaty. SIPTU has not yet been here. It took a much more nuanced position. It did not support the treaty but it did not go against it either. Its view was that if the Charter of Fundamental Rights was part of the treaty, the Government should be willing to put its money where its mouth is and legislate to bring those provisions of the charter into law here. We have addressed that in the most recent negotiations on the social partnership agreement and we have made some progress on it. SIPTU is due to attend the committee so it can articulate its own view.

Chairman

I will allow Senator Doherty in again as soon as Mr. Horan has made his contribution. I wish to put two questions to you, Mr. Begg, regarding the comments you have made. You alluded to the contribution Mr. Monks made regarding the idea of a social progress protocol and you outlined how that could be incorporated in the near future. Would the incorporation of a protocol like that allay the fears of ICTU regarding the direction of the European Court of Justice and the European Commission?

Mr. David Begg

Yes.

Chairman

You briefly referred to finding a new dispensation in light of the huge difficulties we are facing at the moment. What do you see as being the main elements of that new dispensation, particularly in a European context?

Mr. David Begg

The essence of the problem is that there was a belief inherent in the liberal philosophy which has guided activity throughout the world over the past 25 years that markets themselves are capable of self-regulation. That is a point of view strongly advocated by Milton Friedman and, before him, by Friedrich Hayek. I have argued elsewhere that there is a contrary view that markets are not self-regulating, a view mostly associated with Karl Polanyi, the Hungarian socialist who wrote his book The Great Transformation in 1944, the same year that Hayek published The Road to Serfdom. I believe Polanyi’s viewpoint is the correct one.

Hayek was correct in saying one cannot have a command economy because of the complexity of modern economies but he was wrong to assume that the self-regulated market is safe in all respects because quite clearly it is not. The great value of Polanyi's work is that, in a historical context, he illuminates why that is so and there has never been such a thing as a free market, that wherever markets have been established, they have been established with state intervention. That point of view, supported by many writers during the years who have received less attention in relation to the relationship between states and markets, is coming to fruition.

These matters go in cycles, as can be seen if one traces history from the end of the Napoleonic era. There was a period after that when Britain was the global hegemon, when there were laissez-faire economics. In 1870 the gold standard was introduced. Between 1870 and 1914 there was a similar period of globalisation, as we have had for the past 25 or 30 years, albeit without the technology. It all collapsed into the chaos of the First World War, after which it was not possible to put together that globalised system, even though people wanted to do so. E. H. Carr has written a great deal about this and why it failed in The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Britain was no longer able to be the global hegemon and the United States was unwilling. It had retreated into isolationism, notwithstanding that Woodrow Wilson had taken such a prominent part in the peace settlement of 1919. There was a period of non-intervention in free markets, followed by the collapse in 1929 and the drift into fascism. After fascism, we had the Second World War and the post-war period which did not begin to end until the 1970s when people began to be concerned about the terms of the post-war settlement and its cost. The year 1989 saw the end of communism and the emergence of people like Francis Fukuyama who took the view that we were at the end of history and that there was only one universal set of values. Since that period we have been grappling with another great period of liberalism which was driven by a certain hubris.

My belief regarding the concept of the invisible hand of the market is that the classical economists, people like Adam Smith, believed in it as being part of providence, something driven by God, but that many of the neoliberals interpreted it as a secular science and they were wrong. It has not worked out that way. Ultimately, the fact that Alan Greenspan, the high priest of that point of view, has recanted means that period is now dead. We must, therefore, find another way of dealing with matters. The social market economy, a particularly European conception, has the potential to allow us to construct a fairer and more promising world. I sincerely hope the emergence of a new administration in the United States can re-establish the Atlanticist relationship between Europe and the United States which can help us to give leadership to the world, with a new financial system, a new type of Bretton Woods accord, a new effort to try to eliminate poverty throughout the world and not just be concerned with global finance.

I am sorry it was such a long-winded reply. If I had known the Chairman was going to ask me, I could have written a submission on the subject for the sub-committee.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Begg, and Mr. Horan for bearing with us.

Mr. Blair Horan

My union was responsible for the motion which committed the ICTU to supporting the Lisbon treaty based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights being a key part of it. I have also been the ICTU representative at the National Forum on Europe for a number of years. At that forum we range widely over all of the issues relating to the European project and have not confined ourselves to workers' rights per se.

I want to concentrate on three matters. First, I want to deal with the issues around European Court of Justice judgments. I then want to talk about communicating social policy and what I see as deficiencies in how we do this here. I also want to talk a little about Communicating Europe generally and what I see as some of the issues from my experience of the campaign and also as a member of the National Forum on Europe.

There is no doubt that a social progress clause is necessary, but it is not an expectation on our part that it should be a precondition for supporting the Lisbon treaty. No doubt issues around the Laval judgment were hyped to a large extent here by people arguing against the treaty and it was difficult to make the argument that they were particular to the Nordic model and not here. However, the Rüffert judgment and the Luxembourg judgment, in particular, certainly have given cause for concern that perhaps the European Court of Justice does see companies using a competitive advantage as a legitimate part of their approach to the free movement of persons and services, which contradicts the compromise reached on the services directive — the free movement of persons and services, with the country in which the service was being provided establishing the conditions. The concern is that the European Court of Justice in its thinking may have undermined this but I do not think that is because of an antipathy towards workers' rights. There is no evidence that the court holds that viewpoint. Its track record on gender equality and equality on disability issues, in particular, has been first class during the years. There is, however, evidence that it takes an integrationist or federalist approach. Given some of its judgments, such as in the famous Cassis de Dijon judgment in which it established the principle that if an item was legal for sale in one country, it must be legal for sale in all countries, perhaps it is taking a general integrationist approach.

Two actions are necessary. First, the European Commission stated specifically in May this year that the judgments, including that in the Rüffert case, did not undermine the social market model or even the Nordic model. It needs to provide clarity in that regard. It needs to communicate with the European Court of Justice which is not immune from changing its approach. It has done so previously. It took decisions on the issue of gender equality around positive discrimination which it has subsequently modified with a clearer explanation of the position coming from the Commission. We need clarity in the context of any future referendum. If we do not have it, the danger is that all of this will be presented in a certain way again.

We have taken a view that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is very important. It is part of the Lisbon treaty. Whatever the difficulties were, the position can only be helped by the charter. Apart from the social progress clause which will not come before the Lisbon treaty, we need clarity from the Commission. The sub-committee would be useful in pursuing this.

On communicating social policy, there is a unique provision in the treaty, Article 139, which is taken from the Maastrict treaty, which allows the trade union movement and the employer movement at European level to make agreements applicable across the European Union, which the Parliament and the Council effectively adopt as having been passed and agreed by the social partners, on issues such as parental leave, part-time and fixed-time workers. We are renegotiating the parental leave agreement to try to secure paid parental leave. I am a member of the negotiating team, representing not congress but the European Federation of Public Service Unions. We are meeting the employers' representatives in Brussels to renegotiate it. When the parental leave agreement was agreed in 1995 and communicated by the social partners to our members, we did not really make people understand that it was a European-wide agreement and that it arose from this unique provision in the treaty, Article 139. The circular that the Department of Finance issued on parental leave made no mention of the fact that it had come from the European Union, never mind the fact that it was an agreement with employers. We failed to communicate this and the issue needs to be addressed.

The agency workers directive was supposed to be an Article 139 agreement. However, there was a failure to agree between the employers and the trade unions, yet in this country the Government entirely adopted the employers' position. Whereas the Commission takes a middle-ground position between employers and unions in Article 138 and Article 139 negotiations, when the agency workers directive failed to gain agreement and the Commission took an initiative, the Government and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment took a view to support the employers' position when they should have taken a middle-ground position. We have a problem with how social policy is approached and communicated.

I have had great difficulty during the years in trying to get the Department of Finance to agree to enter social dialogue under Articles 138 and 139. This has been absolutely opposed by it for a number of years. I had battles with it in which I accused it, rightly, of fuelling euroscepticism by the adoption, with the United Kingdom, of a blocking mechanism in regard to these issues. Fortunately, that is changing. The Department of Foreign Affairs recently brought a High Court challenge to a Labour Court decision giving rights to fixed-term workers but we managed to settle that case without going into court. There is now the beginning of a realisation that some of the approach taken on social policy — this default position of opposing initiatives, even though they are Europe-wide agreements negotiated by the social partners, and taking too much of an employer approach — must change.

There is a broader problem. On page 12 of the Millward Brown IMS report on the Lisbon treaty referendum we are told that feedback suggests the amendment might have been passed if the referendum had been held earlier. I have doubts about this, having been active in the campaign. The initial 1972 referendum on accession was passed by a margin of 85% to 15%. Since then, however, the vote has tightened in successive referenda, the margin being 70% to 30% in both the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty referenda, and 60% to 40% in both the Amsterdam treaty referendum and the second referendum on the Nice treaty. The margin has been narrowing from the beginning.

A major element of our difficulty is that we have fundamentally failed to communicate the political dimension of the European project and sometimes failed to communicate the social dimension. Instead, it has been sold as an economic project. However, the political dimension was always clear, from as far back as the Schuman Declaration and the Davignon report in 1970, in which the political dimension of the European project was clearly set out. The annex to the Copenhagen Declaration of 1973, made 11 months after we had joined the European Union and which posited a European identity, is almost a blueprint for the Lisbon treaty, setting out the political dimension of the Union and, for the first time, the concept of fundamental rights for European citizens and the objectives of development aid. This declaration set out the identity of the European Union as quite different from that of the United States, offering a more just world order in international relations and more equitable shared values. However, we in Ireland failed to communicate this in any shape or form to the populace.

The European Union is the global leader in campaigning for human rights and against torture and the death penalty in all circumstances, including taking issue with the United States on its policy in this regard. Instead of communicating this role, the European project has been sold entirely on an economic basis. Perhaps we have been afraid to open the Pandora's box of the political dimension. However, as I said, the declaration of 1973, made 11 months after our accession, clearly set out the political nature of the project. The failure to communicate this message was evident in the debates at the National Forum on Europe. There is often discussion of the presentation of the European Union as a militarised project, to which the response is always a reference to our neutrality. What is rarely raised, although we have done so in our submission on the future of the European project, is the question of the European Union's response to what happened at Srebrenica, Milosevic, Mladic and so on.

In summary, on the issue of workers' rights, we need clarity from the Commission on how it sees the European Court of Justice judgments to which I referred. We need the social protocol to persuade the European Court of Justice that competitive advantage is not part of the integration approach that should be taken. We must do better in communicating social policy. My own assessment from the National Forum on Europe is that we must communicate the political dimension of the European project to a far greater extent than we have done thus far.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I thank Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan for their contributions. Their comments indicate that they are very pro-European Union and pro-Lisbon treaty.

I begin by pointing out that the Laval, Viking and Rüffert judgments are not related to the Lisbon treaty. The function of the sub-committee is to examine the failure to ratify the Lisbon treaty and consider our future course of action. I wish to make this clear and seek the delegates' agreement. They referred to the Rüffert judgment. There are probably questions to be answered there. Does Mr. Begg accept that the judgments relate specifically to the situations in Sweden, Finland and Germany? We have the second highest minimum wage in Europe at €8.65. We have also implemented the posted workers directive. In Ireland, because of the strong body of employment rights legislation we have, any judgment is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on Irish workers and industrial relations here. Will Mr. Begg also comment on the fact that most of the social and employment rights legislation we have comes from the EU? It has played an extremely positive role for Irish workers.

Mr. David Begg

I agree with the Deputy's final point and in our original submission to the Joint Committee on European Affairs we made the point that most social legislation in Ireland has its origins in the European Union. Our first engagement as congress with this issue was in 1974 when we made a formal complaint against the Government at the time for not implementing the equal pay legislation and it was upheld by the Commission. In recent months, we have overcome a problem with regard to the agency workers directive which was a long-standing bone of contention between us and the Government. I can say absolutely that this is true.

I would not take such a benign view of the legislation. Earlier, when Deputy Flynn was in the Dáil I had a discussion with Senator Doherty about the circumstances in which the Laval judgment would or would not apply here. The construction industry has unique circumstances by virtue of a registered employment agreement which would ensure it could not have happened here. The problem is that something could happen in an industry not covered by a registered employment agreement.

The difficulty with minimum conditions is what is minimum. I agree that the minimum wage in Ireland is next to Luxembourg and has increased in recent years. However, it is still only €8.65 an hour which is a hell of a lot less than the negotiated wage in most sectors. As a minimum wage it was meant to be a safety floor rather than a default wage which people would receive. I would not be sanguine about our situation in the event of similar conditions arising. The difficulty lies in how the European Court of Justice gives weight to the four freedoms on the one hand and fundamental rights on the other.

The significant point with regard to these judgments and the referendum on the Lisbon treaty is that the charter of fundamental rights was not in place. If the charter had been in place it would have gone on the scales of justice towards balancing the four freedoms and the rights and we might have obtained a different result. The view taken as a result of the emerging jurisprudence by the entire European Trade Union Confederation is that it cannot be left to chance. The European Union must discuss with the European Court of Justice what it understands to be the balance between the four freedoms and the fundamental rights of citizens.

Whether people agree with it or not it is felt the social progress protocol could be the means to achieve this clarity, and what is involved is clarity rather than fundamental change. A precedent for it is found in what was referred to as the "Monti clause" which was a clarification appended to a previous treaty on another subject of the same nature. Such a move would go a long way to allaying many of the concerns which exist.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Is Mr. Begg asking that the social protocol would apply to future treaties? If the Lisbon treaty referendum were re-run is he asking that——

Mr. David Begg

No, but we would ask for a commitment that it would happen in future treaties, if Deputy Flynn understands my point.

In practice, it is highly unlikely to the point that it would be counterproductive that we would seek to have it included in the Lisbon treaty. The treaty will not be opened up to accommodate that but the feeling is that, perhaps in two years, if Croatian accession goes ahead, a treaty will cover that and that could be the vehicle by which it could be introduced.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

However, it might well be the case if the Lisbon treaty is passed, the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted and a judgment made, that it may not be necessary because that balance might be reflected by the courts between now and then.

Mr. Blair Horan

I am clear that the European court judgments were never a basis for being opposed to the Lisbon treaty and they still are not. We argued that the Charter of Fundamental Rights made it even more essential that the treaty passed because there was some protection in it. However, following the Rüffert and Luxembourg judgments, in particular, the European Trade Union Confederation has identified the need for a social progress clause. We support that. That will happen in the future. The Commission was clear that even the Nordic model was not affected by the judgments. That may have been true in the Viking case but I have my doubts regarding the Laval judgment. The Commission has never outlined why it took that view and we need clarity, otherwise we run the risk that people opposed to the Lisbon treaty who want to use the judgment in a certain way will do so. I participated in many debates on the treaty and I found it was difficult to cut through the smokescreen around those issues, particularly in regard to the Laval judgment. I was clear it did not have implications for Ireland but it was hard to get that message across.

The European Parliament in the Andersson report accepts there is a need for a rebalancing. It is probably the case that the European Court of Justice has taken an integrationist view and has not thought about the wider context. It needs to do so, and the social progress clause will bring that home to court's members. However, that is not a reason to oppose the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Mr. Horan's point regarding communication of social policy during the course of the campaign was well made because it is one of the big success stories of Europe and it was one of the big factors in the Lisbon treaty. That message did not emerge during the campaign.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan for attending. Their remarks are important, especially, as Mr. Begg indicated, since the people took strong cognisance of worker's rights and related issues when they voted on the treaty. Is there a broader agenda in the Millward Brown survey's recognition of the role of worker's right in that it might have been more of an issue domestically because the economy was worsening at the time? The perception was that jobs were being taken by migrants while the trade union movement was campaigning on the Irish Ferries case and the agency workers case at the time. The issue had made it on to the public agenda at the time and, in the public mind, there were problems relating to Europe on this issue that significantly predated the Lisbon treaty and the Laval, Rüffert and Viking cases. How much of the result of the referendum was attributable to a vote against the Government over the economy and the perceived intrusion against domestic workers?

Mr. Begg spoke about the difficulty with what he sees as a neoliberal Commission. He pointed out that 20 member states have centre-right governments. To what extent is that an issue? Some 21 or 22 member states are members of NATO, but that does not really impinge on our neutrality. We are able to deal with that.

The function of the Commission is to initiate legislative proposals and to check that they are being implemented. The European Parliament, the member states and the Council of Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the proposals coming from the Commission are properly drafted and implemented. Much more co-decision-making takes place nowadays. It seems that we are looking for clarification from the Commission. I do not think it has a real role in this regard, unless it goes back to the drawing board again. Even if the Commission is neoliberal, am I right in saying that it is not in a position to mould the legislation that is coming through, in effect? Equally, the role of the Commission does not involve transposing legislation. It initiates legislation, but that is as far as it can go. Is there something wrong with the preparation of the Commission's work programme? There must be if individual Commissioners of a neoliberal hue are able to get an inordinate amount of material on to the Commission's work programme. What do the unions consider the role of the institutions to be? Do they, as stakeholders, and the national parliaments have a role in ensuring that the input is proper and right at an early stage?

I would like to speak about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan said that if the charter is enacted, it will have a bearing on the decisions taken in respect of workers' rights, and so on. One of the points that has been made, in another context, is that the charter of fundamental rights is an open document that can be interpreted in several ways. It has been suggested that a wide range of interpretations will be open to the European Court of Justice under the charter. That, in itself, could give rise to a number of issues.

I presume the social progress clause has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the unions. One way forward is for the clause to be attached to a future treaty. That sounds very positive. The possible privatisation of public services is an issue that has been raised strongly by some people. Did the unions agree with the interpretation of that issue by those campaigning for a "No" vote? Did they feel that the issue was misinterpreted during the referendum debate?

The need for statutory union recognition is another issue that was highlighted by some of the trade unions on the "No" side. How do Mr. Horan and Mr. Begg view that issue now? As Ireland has benefited from significant levels of foreign direct investment, many overseas companies here do not want their workers to be represented by trade unions.

Do the unions have any proposals for selling the European project to the public more successfully? How can we all sell the European Union better? It is almost impossible to communicate a sense of the project to the Irish citizenry in any meaningful way. We have failed to do that in the past, despite the extraordinary assistance that every sector of Irish society has got from Europe over the years. How can we make people interested in European affairs? Should we encourage bodies like the trade unions to give due credit to the benefits of the EU? Should that message be shouted from the pulpits and the rooftops?

Mr. Blair Horan

Perhaps I will allow Mr. Begg, as general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to deal with the issue of union recognition. I do not feel the privatisation of public services got much traction during the referendum campaign. A great deal of noise was made, but it had not as much traction as the judgments of the European courts, for example.

European Court judgments got traction and caused difficulties, despite what we said as congress or people on the "Yes" side. I was very active for the Alliance for Europe on the "Yes" side. The legal department of the Commission is independent in terms of its legal advice. However, the Commission took Luxembourg to court recently. We need some clarification from the Commission on the relationship between the European Court of Justice judgments, the postal workers directive and that area because it is not clear. Discussions on it are ongoing but it is not clear to me how the Commission can stand over the statement it made on it in May. I emphasise the point that we still need Lisbon because we need the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If there is no clarity here it will cause difficulty in a future campaign.

There is a job for all of us to do in terms of the social policy area to communicate Europe better, to identify and communicate the agreements we make on parental leave and all that as European agreements. This means employers and the Department of Finance must do the same. The Department of Finance must take a more pro-European view on workers' rights legislation coming from Europe. The Department should not automatically oppose legislation and seek loopholes but accept it as something positive it needs to work with. We must begin to communicate that Europe is, and always has been since the Schuman declaration, essentially a politically project, that the Maastricht treaty put flesh on it to a large extent but that the Lisbon treaty completes the project that has been set out from the beginning. In a way this is a unique balance between the federal and national state dimensions. I speak from my experience on the campaign. We must communicate that to people.

For three years the Department of Finance resisted the notion of a social dialogue for national administrations, which are European civil services, and was in the camp with all the eurosceptics such as the UK. I asked the Department why it took a line that would feed euroscepticism. I said it did not make sense. I found it very difficult to get that message through. The penny has dropped but we need to move on to seeing Europe as a positive economic and political project. We cannot do much about the endemic euroscepticism in our nearest neighbour, but at least we should try to counteract it in so far as it is within our remit and the issues we deal with in social policy and general areas.

Mr. David Begg

On Mr. Horan's point on the statutory union recognition, Article 28 of the charter would cover that with the codicil that if Ireland was legislating in this area it would have to have regard to that. Most of the multinational companies are American and will have the Employee Free Choice Act within the first 100 days of an Obama presidency. They will have trade union recognition by the bucketful, thank God. I have no sympathy for them. I find it extraordinary to have spent all my working life trying to deal with social partnership and to have a section of industry here that does not even recognise our right to exist. I have a blind spot on that.

On Deputy Costello's comments on the general mood of the population, immigration and the possible erosion of employment, it is undoubtedly true that this was there. It is associated with Europe because it would be seen as a by-product of the opening of labour markets in Ireland, Sweden and the UK. The Millward Brown survey was particularly interesting in that it identified such a high hit on workers' rights. Some 40% of the people who voted "Yes" and 52% of the people who voted "No" were concerned, so this was a major factor. The problem, from our point of view, was that much of the legislation we agreed with the Government on the regulation of the labour market was not enacted at that time. I am thinking in terms of the Employment Law Compliance Bill, the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority and so on. NERA is beginning to have an effect around the country and when these factors begin to bite there will be a dividend in this regard.

I was asked about the appointment of a neoliberal Commission but centre-right governments were responsible for appointing it so it is understandable that the Commission reflected their political point of view. The reason we supported the Lisbon treaty was that it would rebalance power in favour of Parliament; we believe that Parliament played a very positive role in the debate on the services directive, for example, because the Commission's views were not upheld. The tragedy of how the Commission has migrated to the current position must be seen in the context of people like Jacques Delors, who was regarded as a reforming President of the Commission, was concerned with the social market and was willing to strike a balance between the social market and economic integration. Even when Jean Monnet set up the committee for a united states of Europe he did not include employers because he took the view that they could not be trusted to have regard to anything but their own interests. However, Mr. Monnet did include the leaders of trade unions from France and Germany so there is a long tradition of trade union support for the European project. I feel that the orientation of the Commission has blown this support off course in recent years.

I was asked what we can do to help sell the idea of Europe. Things have become so difficult economically that one view says we could not have another referendum now because it would be a referendum on the budget and would, therefore, be rejected. At another level, things are so difficult that people must be encouraged to understand that if we were not part of Europe our economy would be ruined by now due to attacks from speculators; we would be in the same position as Iceland. These are powerful arguments.

Another powerful argument that is not in the public domain concerns our energy relationship with Russia. If Europe does not get its act together in this regard it will be creased by the Russians. The Irish people must be confronted with the huge economic reality of what we are dealing with. As Mr. Horan said earlier, many of the points we have made are not arguments against the Lisbon treaty, they are reasons to be attentive and they will exercise the minds of people, as was indicated in the Millward Brown findings on workers' rights. We should clear the pitch as best we can and when that is done I feel people should be asked about the treaty again, in the context of where the country now stands. We cannot afford not to be part of this and will pay a huge price if we stay out.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome both speakers. On the last point made by Mr. Begg, what will be the implications for Irish workers? This sub-committee is examining Ireland's future in the European Union and we must look at every scenario, including the possibility of the 26 other member states deciding they wish to proceed with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty while Ireland is not in a position to move with them. What will the implications for Irish workers be if Ireland finds itself in a position where the remaining member states proceed with a new treaty based on the Lisbon provisions that Ireland is not party to?

There often seems to be confusion regarding the respective responsibilities of the EU and national governments when people express concerns about workers' rights in the EU. Another union representative spoke here in recent days and suggested that statutory recognition of trade unions would make the Lisbon treaty more palatable to them. I feel this is an issue for national governments, though the Charter of Fundamental Rights touched on the matter. There seemed to be confusion between the role of the European Union and the role of national governments. Similarly, with agency workers, I am not sure how many workers would have been aware that the European Union tried to get the directive on agency workers passed for several years and the Irish Government was one of the governments that would not facilitate that. Is there anything the trade unions could do to educate their members about the differing roles and responsibilities of the European Union institutions and national level policies?

The next issue is the neoliberal Commission. I agree that Commissioners are political appointees and the choice of the Commissioner will really depend on the political complexion of a government. What kind of governments do our guests think will be elected within the European Union now that we have entered into difficult economic times? Is it likely there will be a further shift to the right or a shift back to the left?

Either way, it is the responsibility of governments to make the political appointment to the Commission. The public does not take that appointment as seriously as it might. It is often seen as a gift. It is good for any country to be able to nominate its own Commissioner, but not much attention is paid to the track record of that person and to his or her political, economic and other outlook. That is a matter we need to take more seriously. Where a national government appoints a Commissioner — I know the Commission as a body is scrutinised by the European Parliament to a certain extent — it would be ideal if we had a process of national scrutiny of that individual as well. What are their views on that?

I would welcome a protocol on services of general economic interest being attached to the Lisbon treaty, but there will be a real difficulty there. There seems to be guarantee of access to affordable and quality services of general economic interest for European citizens. Given the drive towards privatisation that some have seen happening within the European Union, will it be difficult to ring-fence and protect those services, and how might that be done? Do the unions have any views on that?

They mentioned that the social progress clause or protocol would be important in terms of reassuring workers, and that it could be attached to a future treaty, not necessarily the Lisbon treaty. Might a political declaration attached to the Lisbon treaty guaranteeing to introduce such a social progress protocol in the future be acceptable to ICTU and to trade unions generally here?

Mr. David Begg

On the last question first, the answer is in the affirmative. If a statement of intent was made politically, that would be acceptable.

On the services of general economic interest, the problem is that there is a sense that the Commission was thwarted on the services directive and has been doing its level best ever since to get the services directive adopted in its original form by the back door. That is the concern about the political free-market orientation of the Commission. It is a real and serious concern. Notwithstanding the balances between national governments and the European Parliament, they are the European elite. They have an extraordinary amount of power and one must have regard to that.

The national scrutiny of a Commissioner is a good idea. I had not thought of it but it sounds like a sensible idea.

Obviously, I do not know the kinds of government we might get in the period we are entering, which I hope will be a new epoch. It depends on who one reads about these matters. Mr. Martin Wolf, who writes in the Financial Times, is very depressed about this and fears that we could enter into a period where the manifestation of this problem would be in xenophobia and nationalism.

I sincerely hope serious attention is given to a redefinition of the social market economy. As I see it, that redefinition must incorporate economic efficiency, individual freedom and social justice. To put it another way, economic relations should be embedded in society rather than social relations embedded in the economy. It is a political economy question. The difficulty, reverting back to my long tirade which I will not repeat, is that we have had international relations conducted on the basis of economics rather than the political economy. There is a great difference between the two. Difficulties have arisen mainly because the basic tenets of economics were wrong in the circumstances. A political economy approach is needed, involving interventionism of the right order to ensure the market and society are well balanced. A person who did much work on the relationship between the market and society was the late Susan Strange who died in 1998. She was one of the foremost people in the British school of political economy, as it was called, and is well worth reading in this context. My hope is that we will have effective debate and movement towards the social market economy concept.

The Senator's point regarding the confusion between national governments and the European Union as to where responsibility lies is entirely valid. Significant social policy initiatives have come from the European Union but there is little recognition of this. Part of the problem is that governments tend to blame the Union for everything unpleasant, rather than taking any responsibility themselves. It is difficult to get away from the general atmosphere of how people perceive issues. We did our best in this campaign, as did everybody in this room. It is a hard, sobering fact for us in the trade union movement that only 28% of blue collar workers voted for the Lisbon treaty. That is the reality for us in terms of the influence we were able to bring to bear. The problem is that the issues we are discussing are so complex that they tend to be difficult to communicate. It is difficult to impose our view of such a complex proposal against a very simple and straightforward narrative which appeals to people's concerns and fears and reflects what they feel about society at a particular time.

In response to Senator de Búrca's point, the implications for Irish workers and the economy as a whole are very serious. The events of recent weeks make clear that this is no time for us to be in this position. Any of us who deal with the European Union in any capacity will have seen how we have tumbled from our former position as the favourite children of Europe to one where we are not regarded in a very favourable light. In the current economic circumstances it is not a good place for us to be.

Mr. Blair Horan

On the workers' rights issue, being at the heart of the European Union is central from our point of view. I cannot conceive of any significant item of worker's rights legislation in the last 35 years that has not emanated from the Union, starting with the equal pay legislation. We are engaged in discussions in Brussels on the introduction of paid parental leave. I do not know whether we will achieve this, as the discussions are due to continue for the next six months. However, I am certain it would not even be on the agenda with employers here; it would be impossible to have a serious discussion on the issue. Therefore, the European Union is absolutely central in terms of workers' rights.

I cannot conceive of a situation where the European Union would move on without us. I share Mr. Begg's view that it is essential that this issue be looked at again. History has shown that the European project is unstoppable, from the Danish rejection of the Maastricht treaty to the British opt-out of social policy and its attempt to have an intergovernmental approach to the various dimensions. It is inconceivable that the European project can be stopped. It is essential for us to find a way forward from the point of view of protecting workers' interests.

The point Mr. Begg made with regard to the comparison with Iceland is valid. It is essential. We need to do more on our side with regard to communicating the social policy and other dimensions of Europe. We can do so successfully only as part of a wider understanding within society and Government. We do not have a natural European identity. We are an island nation and it must be worked on. The rampant euroscepticism which is imported and over which we have no control must be counteracted. We have no alternative as a small nation.

I would argue that it may be necessary to have opt-outs to address the current question, but in a sense this dodges the central matter of us having a mature debate on Europe's political dimension. I meet colleagues at European level all of the time and I represent all of the public service unions at European level. When I meet my Norwegian colleagues I discuss with them why they are not part of the European Union. It does not make a great deal of sense because they must accept all of the decisions made in the economic and social policy spheres. They get the directives in crateloads and must implement them. They have no say in it. Arguably, with regard to taxation policy, if one is outside the European Union one has less influence. We need to communicate this.

It is and always has been a political project and trade unions, civil society groups, Government and political parties need to work on explaining that we are part of a political project that is in our interest, essential to the long-term development of the country and workers' living standards and rights. This message must be communicated and the issue revisited.

Deputy Joe Costello

I have two points to make.

Chairman

I wish to make two observations before Deputy Costello contributes. I am forcibly struck by the fact that Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan spoke about the necessity of Ireland being at the centre of Europe from an economic point of view. The large employers we spoke to at previous meetings made the same point. Their rationale for this might be different but at the beginning of the presentations made by Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan the need to be at the heart of Europe was emphasised.

Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan spoke about the need to spell out the consequences of our decision and at times made reference to what is happening in the global economy. I hope, with the consent of the committee, that one of the things our work will do will be to partially spell out the consequences of the decision we made and where we stand now. I found helpful the contributions made by Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan in terms of highlighting this from a workers' rights point of view.

Deputy Joe Costello

The final point Mr. Horan made with regard to the fact that virtually all workers' rights have emanated from Europe is a powerful message. We rely on Europe to provide our workers with the rights to which they are entitled. Mr. Begg stated he felt the Irish people should confront the issue with regard to the Lisbon treaty and by this I assume he means it should be put to the people again. Appended to this would be the social progress clause. To what extent is this to assert the pre-eminence of one pillar over another in terms of workers and the free movement of capital? What is the business community's perception of a social clause which would have this effect?

Has the ETUC or ICTU come up with any wording that might be appropriate? Are there any other appendages that might be required? Do other areas of concern require a protocol in the form of a political declaration that would come into effect with the next treaty?

My second point relates to the election of Mr. Barack Obama in the United States and his remarks about foreign direct investment. We were assured by speakers from the business community that it would be virtually impossible for a President of the United States to carry through on the threat to penalise American companies which operated abroad in the manner of foreign direct investors in Ireland. What is the trade union view on this matter? Could the new President of the United States bring his proposal to bear on the economy of this country?

Mr. Blair Horan

We argue for a social progress clause to bring about a necessary rebalancing. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction following the judgment of the European Court of Justice which tends to prioritise freedom of movement and freedom to provide service over workers' rights to minimum pay and conditions. The social progress clause would rebalance this. That is what we seek. The European Court of Justice will never accept any measure which would involve stopping workers from one country coming to another. We would not seek this. We merely want to get the balance right. We need clarity in order that the trade union movement, at national and European level, can be reassured. Most important, the issue cannot be used as a means to stop progress on the European project, which is absolutely essential for the future of the country.

Deputy Joe Costello

Commissioners Kovacs, McCreevy and others told members of the sub-committee that the Laval and Rüffert judgments were not the intended outcome of the directive, but that it had to do with national transposition. The neoliberal approach, as suggested by Mr. Horan, was never intended. The Commission provided for clarity in the run-up to the Lisbon treaty referendum.

Mr. Blair Horan

The issue raised by the Laval case was overstated in Ireland and completely misplaced. We counteracted it. Nevertheless, concerns have persisted. Thinking emerged in the Rüffert judgment that a competitive advantage for an employer may be legitimate. The European Court of Justice may be looking at this in an integrationist context. This is also true of the Luxembourg case. There are now doubts at European level about the statement the Commission made so clearly in May last year. If these doubts persist, we must reflect them, as members of the European Trade Union Confederation. We share the concerns the confederation has raised which need to be addressed. If not, we will face another difficulty when the issue is raised in the debate.

With regard to what the next President of the United States is likely to do, the reflation of the global economy and a restructuring of the financial system are essential for the future of this country. Mr. Begg has referred to Ms Susan Strange. She was single-minded in raising the issue of casino capitalism and the lack of regulation of the global financial system. Controls on the movement of capital were removed in 1978-79 under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, leaving an international financial system of which no one was in control. It then became a casino, in effect, when complex derivative products were made available.

I would have thought that the biggest contribution we need Barack Obama, as the new President of the United States, to make is to reorder the international financial system in line with the Bretton Woods settlement of 1944. The International Monetary Fund should have some regulatory function in terms of capital movements and the control of the international financial system. That is the most important thing Mr. Obama can do to safeguard the future of the Irish economy.

This morning, I heard the US ambassador talking about the difference between things that are said in a debate and things that happen in practice. It is a two-way street in any event — many companies from other countries, including Ireland, invest in the US. I am not sure that we need to be worried about that today. It is more important to reflect on what the new US President will do to save the global economy, in effect. When one considers what we have faced over recent weeks, it is as stark as that.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Horan. Does Mr. Begg want to add anything to that? Have his thoughts been captured by Mr. Horan?

Mr. David Begg

Very much so. I understand that Mr. John Monks wrote to the committee to outline the possible text of a protocol. He included his letter to President Sarkozy, which related to some discussions they had. I can leave the letters with the clerk to the sub-committee in case they are not available. They might be useful.

Chairman

We have them already.

Mr. David Begg

All right.

Chairman

They have been made available to us. We will ensure that all members of the sub-committee have been furnished with the correspondence in question. I thank everyone for coming in and making such helpful contributions. I do not doubt that issues like workers' rights and economic progress are central elements of Ireland's relationship with Europe. The comments made today by Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan will be included in the Official Report and will be considered when the sub-committee is drafting its report. I thank them again for their contributions to this meeting. I thank them for being patient with us at the end of the day.

The sub-committee went into private session at 5.23 p.m. and adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 November 2008.