Vol. 440 No. 3
7 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if, in view of the recent agreement by the EU in regard to social policy including the introduction of a maximum working week of 48 hours, a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours and a minimum of four weeks' holidays, any timetable has been set for the implementation of these reforms in this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Deputy's question relates to the European Council Directive 93/104 EC which was adopted on 23 November 1993 and which addresses certain aspects of the organisation of working time. Member states are required to ensure that the provisions of the directive, with certain exceptions, are implemented no later than 23 November 1996. However, the directive allows member states the option not to implement the four weeks minimum annual leave provision until 23 November 1999.
In accordance with the commitment set out in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work— P. 1. 125 — the provisions of the directive will be implemented in sufficient time to meet the relevant dates set out in the directive. It is intended to consult fully with all interested parties as regards the various issues which arise for consideration in formulating national legislation to implement the provisions of the directive. That consultative process has already been initiated and will continue and develop during 1994.
Will the Minister agree that she now has an opportunity to put her money where her mouth is and introduce the legislation before the date proposed? Will she take this initiative to encourage employers to spread the work around? Will IBEC determine the pace of the preparation of the legislation or is the Minister willing to adopt an approach which will ensure that the legislation is introduced as soon as possible? Will the Minister wait until employers and various groups make their case so that the legislation can be changed, watered down or slowed down as much as possible? Who will run the show?
I am not slow at running the show. I had hoped I would have more responsibility for running the show.
This is a trial run.
Is that a job application?
Work sharing.
I am more than eager to rise to any challenge put to me. The Department of Enterprise and Employment will run the show. The directive was the subject of endless debate at Council meetings before it was adopted on 23 November. All matters of social policy require much consultation. It is not simply a matter of deciding one morning to introduce a directive on work. That is not the way the system works. All legislation, regulations or directives require adequate debate before they are implemented. Regardless of whether or not one likes it, there has to be consensus. This is why I get alarmed when people seek to roll back social legislation which was introduced as a result of much consultation. One does not suddenly dream up such legislation and implement it in a rush. This consensus approach has been encapsulated in both the Programme for a Partnership Government and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I will play a strong role in this area and will work within a proper framework of consultation. I will run the show but will not be a dictator.
Most people are anxious to see these provisions implemented. Has the Minister assessed whether the extraordinary decision by Britain to opt out of the Social Charter will have any damaging competitive knock-on effects on Ireland? How can we best prevent any such damage to the Irish economy? As a small trading economy we have to be conscious of threats of this nature. Will the Minister outline how such threats, if any, can be minimised?
The Deputy raised a similar point during a recent debate. The British Prime Minister, John Major, told other EU member states that they could have social legislation while Britain would have the jobs. I do not believe this will be the case. The UK has decided to opt out of some sections of the Social Charter for domestic political reasons. This directive comes under the health and safety remit but the UK says that it should not come under this remit. While the UK has cited domestic political considerations as the reason for opting out of some areas of the Social Charter the reality is different.
A report in one of this morning's English newspapers states that the level of pay of UK workers is way below that of workers in southern Italy and that the productivity of UK workers is one of the lowest in Europe. Motivated employees, buttressed by proper social legislation which includes training, are much more likely to be productive and competitive than workers who are underpaid.
The UK has decided to opt out of certain sections of the Social Charter for its own reasons. I do not regard this as a threat as the level of productivity of Irish workers is much higher than that of their English counterparts. The level of productivity in the UK has been steadily decreasing in recent years.
In view of our high level of unemployment, will the Minister agree that we should implement this directive without delay? If the requirements of the directive were properly observed the level of overtime would be reduced substantially, which should automatically lead to the creation of very badly needed jobs. If those jobs are to be created we will have to consider all the options, including job sharing and a reduction in the amount of overtime.
All these matters come within the scope of the directive. Contrary to Deputy McManus's view, one cannot decide in the morning to reduce the level of overtime.
That is not what I said.
The Deputy asked me if I would take the lead on this.
That is what I asked.
I will take the lead but not in a confrontational way, which the Deputy seemed to imply. The level of overtime will have to be reduced through consensus. I hope this can be done within the parameters set in the directive.
Given the obvious need for job sharing, this directive needs to be implemented urgently. Can the Minister honestly say that the failure of EU member states to agree on the inclusion of a legally binding social charter in the Maastricht Treaty will not have any impact on the implementation of this directive? This weak link will slow down the reduction in the level of overtime.
Is the Deputy saying that the timescale set out in the directive is too long?
It is totally voluntary.
The Deputy is confusing two issues. The work sharing scheme which we hope to have in place by next January will be voluntary. Both issues impinge on one another but once we implement the directive it will be binding on us. This is why the lead-in time will be longer.
Will the Social Charter have any impact?
