Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

The Green group in the European Parliament with their socialist colleagues have led the opposition to the services directive. During a meeting on 22 November of the committee in the Parliament that examines it, we opposed the votes by the conservative groups, the liberals, on the amendments they proposed. We must be careful in this debate to ascertain what people are doing rather than what they are saying. It is easy in these directives, complex as they are, to take a line in public but the outcome in terms of one's voting pattern in the European Parliament may lead to something completely different. This will be difficult to ascertain but I am confident about it. We are collectively supporters of our Green colleagues in Europe who have voted consistently and raised this issue. We as a party raised some of the issues involved when it was not fashionable or favourable to do so during the middle of the Nice treaty referendums when other parties questioned our European credentials and motives for doing so. It is welcome to hear the arguments we raised then, for which we got such stick, being raised again.

The issues in the services directive are complex and, to a certain extent, my colleagues have gone through them. I refer to concerns about the country of origin principle, as mentioned by Deputy Harkin, and the concern that services relating to our general economic interest will be included. These are the real issues and the meat of the discussion on which the debate will have to focus in the European Parliament. The debate here should focus on what our parties are doing and how they are voting in the European Parliament as that is where the real issue will be concluded.

In particular, there is an issue around the policing of labour standards in Europe under the guise of such a common European services directive. The Greens' campaign in Europe has been based on a strong argument for introducing a services directive and opening up services but stresses the need to protect the European social model. This is an issue on which we will take a stand. Proper policing of standards is required where transnational commerce is taking place.

I attended the SIPTU conference on the services directive last week, which was well organised and massively attended. One of the concerns that emerged from it was that the pay and conditions of workers would deteriorate under a further opening up of the European market. The response that we have minimum wage legislation is not an answer to people with that concern. While our minimum wage legislation is welcome it cannot become a standard wage. Furthermore, it should not be the case that the minimum wage applied is that which applies in the European member state with the lowest level of pay. That is a concern and is the detail that must be worked out in the negotiation of the services directive, namely, that the opening up of services does not lead to such a phenomenon occurring.

I wish to open up this debate which I welcome. Deputy Finian McGrath opened up the debate with his contribution. A debate commenced recently on the issue of workers from the east already here. It is appropriate for the Dáil to take a lead and show our nation the way forward in how we should treat foreign workers. The Green Party does not believe the lead we should show is to restrict access to this country by workers from fellow European member countries which joined recently. That is not the proper way to lead this country or the European Union. It is remarkable that some parties or we as a country appear to be considering such an approach when other countries in the European Union are opening up in the way that we did three years ago. How would the message be received in the European Union that a country with full employment and that supposedly is the embodiment of all the success of this neo-liberal economic model wants to restrict workers when other countries with higher unemployment rates want to open up to receiving them?

How would that be a sensible move for this country given that such a strategy could apply for only a limited time under the treaties we have signed? We would be able to negotiate the measure only for a period but those provisions would come to an end. How could we assure that such opening up to a permit system would eradicate the disadvantage and discrimination that is occurring? My understanding of the permit system was that it gave less control to people coming here. It put the control in the hands of the employer. I am uncertain as to how a proposal to return to such a permit system for people from the accession states would address the issue of discrimination, where it occurs, of European workers coming here.

The experience on a European level to date has been positive, even in a country, namely Sweden, that has gone further than us, although there is a need for concern about the cases taken there. Having examined the position in Sweden last week, we noticed that while that state has opened up not only to labour access but also to social welfare provisions, its experience was that a minimum number of people had travelled there and availed of the social welfare circumstances. To a certain extent the experience in this country has been similarly positive. We should not view it, as Fianna Fáil does, as yet another great cog in the engine of construction growth, which seems to be its sole arbiter of success or otherwise in an economy. We should not seek people to come here for the Progressive Democrats' purpose which is for nothing other than to ensure economic growth indicators grow in order that people at the top of society can accumulate massive wealth. In general, the experience has been a positive one for this country.

In terms of anecdotal evidence as to what is happening, separate from the debate that has commenced, our party carried out anecdotal research by questioning 500 business people in small businesses in my constituency on the south side of Dublin. Some 400 of these business people responded. We asked them what were the major concerns of their businesses and set out a number of possible issues, including transport problems, of which no doubt there are enough, building costs and difficulty in obtaining suitable employees. Of the 400 employers who responded, their number one difficulty and main concern was obtaining suitable employees. While this research is anecdotal it highlights a major concern. That is a remarkable finding in my constituency of the reality facing business people.

There are issues of discrimination. We have a shameful record in our lack of a proper labour inspectorate and proper implementation of working conditions. I welcome this debate if it brings about greater control and enforcement of existing legislation. However, we also need to examine the broader context of what is happening.

Like many other people, I am a former economic migrant. I worked illegally in the United States and Australia. I worked in London as a "Paddy" in the bars and elsewhere. My experience in those countries was that never once did I have a sense that I was not welcome. I was displacing another worker no doubt, I was taking a displacing job, so to speak, but never once was I made feel unwelcome or required to have a permit to work. In terms of the approach we should take, I argue that the experience in this context in Australia, with which we identify and connect, although there are certain bad aspects to it, is what we should repeat here. One of the attractive strategies that has worked in America is the way it has opened up its economy. We possibly need to follow that example, while ensuring it leads to the implementation of the highest social model here. We should take what is best from the European Union, while recognising that we can afford to open up.

Our identity is being brought into question. We have come out of a long period when we could identify ourselves only as green or as orange, or in terms of how we related to the neighbouring island. We are starting to stand on our own two feet as a country and to consider ourselves as part of the EU and the wider world. We are succeeding in that regard. This is a crucial debate, to a certain extent. I welcome it because we need to define ourselves in the broader context of how we see ourselves and how we see workers from other parts of the EU. If we approach this issue in a positive and constructive manner, it will lead to a more positive, constructive and creative economy. We need to ensure that we provide for the highest and best labour standards as part of that process. We will oppose the services directive at EU level because it does not do that. We propose and support the development of the EU on an equal and open basis.

See this speech in context