Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am very glad the Minister of State did. I would not doubt for a second that that is the case. I suspect that it contains very little from which he would resile, other than, perhaps, some of the tone. Despite the statement of Deputy Ardagh, it does not advocate that we would resile from the position that I supported at the point of the enlargement of the European Union that we would introduce a work permit system for the new member states. It does not say that. It states that in order to avoid that we need to take measures to regulate our own economy.

I will outline the measures we want to take and see who would reject them; the development and extension of the registered employment agreements model, which gives binding status to agreements reached at sectoral and employment level to prevent the undermining of agreed wage levels in sectoral employments; better resourcing of the labour inspectorate and more effective enforcement and prosecution of offences. There is a consensus that the enforcement of our regime is wholly inadequate. I suggest to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, that the health and safety inspectorate of more than 100 people be merged with the 21 people we now have inspecting labour law, instead of building up a parallel system. They could be trained in so that we can immediately have a force which might be up to the job of looking after a workforce of 2 million and thousands of workplaces, so we can keep the standards we want. I do not think we will have a division on these matters.

As for the targeted enforcement and revenue inspections of sub-contractor and agency worker issues in the construction sector, who would object to that — or to the insistence that contractors working for local authorities and public bodies meet minimum labour standards in order to prevent a repeat of the Gama situation?

Reform of the existing work permit system so that it becomes a green card system, which was promised by the leader of the Progressive Democrats when she was the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which does not bind workers to particular employers, would hardly create huge differences between us. Perhaps it might, because the Employment Permits Bill before us creates a two-tier system, which is wrong. At the meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business this morning we heard the view of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, which said the two-tier system is wrong.

As for confirmation of the rights of self-employed persons who enter into contracts personally to execute any work of labour to join a trade union and to engage in collective bargaining, people are in favour of that, to judge from what I heard this morning. Deputy Ardagh thinks the trade unions are "magnificent", so I am sure he would not object. We also seem to have a consensus on advocating significant change in the services directive. The final proposal is that we should sign the international convention on the rights of migrant workers and enshrine its protection in our domestic laws.

These comprise the significant proposals in the Labour Party document, before people lose the run of themselves and get carried away. These are important issues which must be put in place to protect the working environment, rates of pay and working conditions for people in our economy, and to have regard for a changing set of economic circumstances in Ireland.

The services directive has at last got the focus and attention it merits. As outlined in the Technical Group motion, and by many Deputies, this directive, if unamended, poses a substantial threat not only to our economy but to the standards enjoyed by Irish workers in it. That is an inescapable fact. It is not some pie in the sky analysis but the analysis of the social democratic and progressive parties across Europe, and of the European trade union movement.

Although the originator of the directive, former Commissioner Bolkestein, has left the stage, his successor, Commissioner McCreevy, has proven more determined and more right-wing in pursuing this proposal. The European Trade Union Confederation has said it is gravely concerned with some of the main provisions of this directive. It warns that if implemented, the directive "could seriously erode workers' rights and protection and damage the supply of essential services like health care to European citizens". The confederation rightly argues that removing unjustified barriers, which is the stated reason for having a directive — a principle on which we could have consensus — should not mean that justified barriers also have to be abolished. The confederation says there is a need to lay down minimum or common standards for the principal issues in order to safeguard the public interest, workers' rights and protection.

The principle should be that we have a set of common standards operating across the European Union, but they should not be the minimum standards. If that were the basis for instituting international law across the European Union, we would have no environmental standards, or the environmental standards of the worst environmental performer in the European Union, and accept that as being all right. That is not the basis on which European law is developed. We have set high standards which must be applied throughout the European Union, and not drag everyone down to the lowest level, which seems to be implicit in what is proposed in this directive. It is quite unacceptable that we would take that route. In any other issue we have looked at, it seems to boil down to saying that if it is good enough from where one comes from, it is good enough for this country too. If that were accepted, we would have no common protection for consumers or consumer goods, no common entitlement to equal pay for men and women and no environmental protection laws at all.

The Labour Party has no difficulty with the idea that there should be freedom to provide services across European frontiers. However, that must be in accordance with common and agreed future standards rather than tolerating that the current worst standard becomes the acceptable norm throughout the European Union. That is the principle at the core of this matter.

Of most concern is the country of origin principle. Under this principle, service provided in any member state would be subject only to the law of the company's country of origin and not subject to the potentially stricter national legislation where the service is delivered. Various regimes could co-exist. One would not have a common high standard. In effect, the law governing terms and conditions could vary from person to person or from place to place. That would be a difficult and unacceptable situation and very difficult to enforce.

The Minister said last night, and other Deputies have reiterated today, that this was always taken care of by means of the posting of a workers directive. We have been assured that such posting will prevent the services directive from undermining terms and conditions of employment in this jurisdiction. That is a security on which the Minister has relied, and he has said we should not get ourselves "worked up" about it.

I will make three points about the posting of workers directive. First, significant weaknesses, both in its provisions and its overall implementation, have emerged, and I ask the Minister of State to address this issue honestly. Over the past two years, the European Parliament has twice called on the Commission to come forward with proposals to revise the posting of workers directive to address these very weaknesses. Second, member states do not have a general right under the posting of workers directive to insist that all statutory employment conditions and collective agreements negotiated by the social partners in any particular country must be respected. In July 2003, in a report on the implementation of the posting of workers directive at national level, the Commission said:

It should be pointed out that the directive in no way permits member states to extend all their legislative provisions and/or collective agreements governing terms and conditions of employment to workers posted on their territory.

That quote comes from page 11 of COM 2003, 458, final. Accordingly, this is not the "get out of jail" card which Members in this House have presented it to be. We must be alert to such issues and not give assurances unless we are certain they are watertight regarding such a fundamental issue.

Finally, despite the assurances of Commissioner McCreevy, the draft services directive undermines a number of important provisions of the posting of workers directive which are essential to ensure that national labour provisions are respected. It would abolish the current requirements for the service provider to obtain prior authorisation from and to make formal declaration to the host country before providing any service in this country or in any host country. It would abolish the need to send all labour documentation normally held in its head office to the place of posting. It would abolish the requirement to designate a representative with whom the host country can liaise. I am informed this is of crucial importance in countries like Sweden and Denmark. In October 2004, the European Court of Justice ruled that the effective protection of workers in the construction industry can require the holding of documents on site. This would also be undermined by the services directive should it proceed in its current form. I make those points before people say in a blasé manner that all is well. I hope that the Minister of State will mention this in his contribution.

I wish to deal with the public services dimension of the proposed services directive. It is unacceptable for social services to be treated as purely commercial services. By definition they are a critical part of the social protection and welfare systems of each member state. I am aware that the European Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, said in the European Parliament last March that the Commission "endorsed the suggestion that health and social services of general interest be excluded from the proposal." This is positive and indicates movement; I hope it will come to pass. I am confident that the socialist group in the European Parliament, the PES, together with other progressive forces will bring about substantial changes when the draft is considered in coming weeks. I understand more than 1,000 amendments have been tabled for discussion on 14 February. For once this House is considering such a proposal in good time and perhaps its views can be taken into account.

Let me return to the principle. There seem to be two views in the general debate about how our employment market should develop. One view, with which some on the Government benches have associated themselves, is that employers should have free access to an unlimited supply of cheap labour. I heard the same argument when I was arguing from this side of the House for the protection of community employment, instituted by Deputy Quinn when he was Minister for Enterprise and Employment. A mindset exists that those involved in community employment, particularly when we had strong growth in the economy and good employment rates, should be doing menial jobs in the workforce and that whatever social good they were doing in community employment was a matter of indifference to them. They were regarded as cheap workers who should be doing work in the economy.

The other view is that we must defend what has taken 20, 30 or 40 years to build up, which is the European social model and social protection. I know words like "protection" grate with some on the Government benches. Protecting a model of quality is appropriate. Perhaps if I regauge it in the context protecting the quality of the environment, those on the Government benches might be more attuned to it. Quality is good when it comes to protection. Protection of wage rates and decent standards must be carefully addressed by this House, not in a headlong rush almost on an ideological basis to say that, because free movement of goods and services is an underlying principle of the European Union, standards are of a secondary or even an indifferent nature.

It is not the future model for Ireland to base our next generation of jobs on the minimum wage. I commend the Tánaiste for introducing the minimum wage when she was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It was a new, good and positive development. While I wish we had done it, I commend her for it. There is a danger that what was put in as a floor could become a ceiling.

See this speech in context