Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

From a democratic point of view, the amount of material before the committee is problematic. Like others, I urge that more resources be given to it and its members to address the range of issues and technical legislation with which it must deal. Most members can only give some of the topics a cursory glance, yet we are subsequently criticised if something slips through. While that is right in some ways, we cannot do everything.

In certain respects, the report is a box ticking exercise and does not genuinely analyse the full impact of EU legislation. Hopefully, that situation will change. While this is the first report under consideration by the House, we will analyse more bit by bit. The report does not outline a procedure for rejecting proposals. Once a proposal has been made, it seems inevitable that it will be adopted. It frustrates committee members that what we say and the points raised by many good delegations essentially constitute whistling in the wind, as decisions have already been made. The EU needs to strengthen itself in this regard so that, when the likes of our committee meets, we are confident that our deliberations and points will be taken on board. In one or two years time, perhaps the committee will examine whether our points concerning legislation have been taken on board in the final parliamentary process.

The EU was supposed to add to the well-being of citizens. Indeed, it has done so with legislation in the field of workers' rights, equal opportunities, the environment and so on. However, even where the EU has been progressive, it is now rowing back on such legislation. The question of workers' rights is one of the most worrying. Historically, the EU has had a positive impact in this field, but it now seems determined to drive down workers' pay and conditions because of the new regime. The new buzz word "flexicurity" underpins the new approach of the Commission and informs the decisions being made in the Council of Ministers. Theoretically, the approach provides flexibility for employers while providing security for employees. In reality, it is being used to provide ideological justification for the attack on pay and conditions.

A number of other issues must be tackled. The report praises the temporary workers directive. While it is positive that agency workers are, in principle, entitled to enjoy the same pay and conditions as permanent employees from the first day of employment, what is not stated is that the directive is riddled with exceptions and loopholes. Nor is it stated that member states no longer have the right to regulate or limit the use of agency workers in different sectors. On balance, it is better that the directive enter into force, but it would be better if the report was more honest about the directive's flaws. On this issue, it is up to the trade unions to insist on a correct and thorough implementation of the directive.

Also in the report is the throwaway remark about agreement being reached "to allow a working week of over 48 hours" in respect of the working time directive. This was the length of time called for by the International Labour Organisation in 1911. We have not come far, as the EU claims that 48 hours is not good enough.

Much work went into compiling the report. I welcome it and hope for other reports with deeper analyses and greater participation by Deputies.

See this speech in context