Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

notes:

—that services within the European Union account for 56% of GDP and 70% of employment and are therefore crucial to growth and employment levels;

—the grave concern among citizens and trade union organisations within the European Union about the implications of the directive on services in the internal market, issued on behalf of the European Commission on 13 January 2004 by Commissioner Bolkestein;

—the analysis by the European Trade Union Confederation stating that the directive would allow companies registered in EU countries with minimal labour standards to operate their standards throughout the EU — the so-called "country of origin" principle;

—the well founded fears that the services directive would be used by some employers to undermine established rates of pay and safe and reasonable working conditions negotiated by workers through their trade unions, and also undermine the ability of other employers to compete in the future;

—that, if implemented, the services directive could legitimise exploitation such as that of the migrant Turkish workers by the multinational company, Gama, exposed during 2005, and the recent revelations concerning mushroom pickers in Kilnaleck, County Cavan;

—the attempt by Irish Ferries to replace permanent crews on trade union negotiated rates of pay and conditions with low waged eastern European labour;

and further notes:

—the need to promote social solidarity as a core value between EU citizens;

—the need to prevent any undermining of employment standards and health and safety standards in the services industry and to prevent the practice of social dumping;

—the desirability of developing a social model that has the trust and confidence of EU citizens and which promotes high quality public services, consumer protection and democratic accountability and workers' rights;

deplores the fact that the Government has supported the proposed services directive which would have damaging economic and social implications and, aware that the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, has stated in the context of this directive that the concerns of the different sectors must be taken on board and also that the Austrian economic Minister, Mr. Martin Bartenstein, said in his statement that a precondition for the success of the services directive would be that it convincingly excludes wage and social dumping, calls on the Government to state that in the context of the next partnership negotiations, it will reject the proposed services directive and, in particular, the "country of origin" principle.

I am pleased to propose this motion on my behalf, on behalf of my Independent colleagues, Deputies James Breen, Connolly, Cowley, Gregory, Healy, Finian McGrath, McHugh and Catherine Murphy, and on behalf of Deputy Joe Higgins. The proposed directive on services is wide ranging and deals with everything from child care to car care, from mobile telephone contracts to mobile chip vans, from baby-sitters to dog-sitters, from the installation of a new kitchen to the fitting of dental crowns. This short list gives some idea of the scope of what we are discussing. We must also take into account that there are 25 — and soon will be 27 — countries with different regulatory regimes, legislation, standards, costs, incomes, cultures, expectations and languages. When we further consider that there is no harmonisation and no accepted and agreed overall standards for the provision of services across the EU, we get a fuller picture of the situation.

I do not contend that there should be no liberalisation of services. It is impossible, however, that one directive — a single piece of legislation — should be adequate to deal with all the different and complex issues, particularly when that legislation is firmly based on the country of origin principle. To quote a phrase circulating in Brussels, it is "Commission Impossible". A directive on services is required but not the directive as currently proposed. Commissioner McCreevy now accepts this. He has said he would not bet on the country of origin principle getting through as it stands.

The Government and our Commissioner have consistently backed the services directive as proposed. They are, however, becoming increasingly isolated in their stance. The President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, has spoken of the need for a revised proposal and emphasised the need for balance, something blatantly missing from this directive. The President of the Council, Chancellor Schussel, has announced he will bring the social partners into the process so they may be part of the solution. The Austrian economic Minister, meanwhile, has said Austria will fight for a wholesale rewriting of the draft directive. His assertion that the directive should be seen as a driver's licence that allows companies to take their services across European borders while obliging them to abide by local speed limits and driving rules is the most sensible and reasonable suggestion I have heard.

I have no doubt we will hear during this debate that the posting of workers directive will deal with the various issues. This directive is not being implemented in this State, however, as seen in the inadequate resources and woefully inadequate number of labour inspectors. This directive will guarantee the minimum wage but that wage is approximately half the average industrial wage. Is this what we want? If there is a downturn in the economy, will we see a situation where those on the average industrial wage will be let go and those on the minimum wage, protected by the posting of workers directive, will be kept on? Furthermore, the latter directive will not deal with issues such as educational qualifications and training of service providers. The term "posted worker" refers to a worker who, for a limited period, carries out work in another member state. The posting of workers directive, therefore, provides no long-term solution.

Information about the services directive on the website of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment tells us that Irish consumers will benefit from increased competition in different sectors of the economy. This sounds good but will the practice adhere to the theory? How will an Irish consumer make an accurate assessment of the quality and standard of a particular service? Will he or she be required to look up the relevant legislation in country A, consult the training requirements in country B, check the safety record in country C and compare the costs with countries, D, E, F, G and so on? When Bulgaria and Romania join the Union, probably next January, there will be 27 members and insufficient letters in the alphabet to deal with all this.

Liberalisation of services will benefit the EU economically but not as proposed in the current directive. Legislation must deliver for the ordinary person, for families and communities. It is not enough that it delivers merely for the economy. The Taoiseach should demonstrate his socialist credentials by joining with those calling for a balanced and equitable services directive that opens up the market while ensuring the rights of citizens, workers and consumers are fully protected.

See this speech in context