| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Social Policy (Europe)
12.30 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the Front Bench today. This is the first time he will have had the pleasure of engaging in debate with me, so my welcome for him is even greater than it might have been for any other Minister who might have attempted to yawn his way through the debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not do that.
I make no apology for raising this subject again, the fifth time I have done so in the House since 1992. I promise my right hon. Friend that, if he accepts all my recommendations, I will never speak on this subject again. I suspect that that is a promise neither of us will be able to keep.
Our greatest problem in relation to European social policy has been our failure fully to understand how the treaty of Rome and its amendments work and have worked, and how the institutions of Europe have implemented the treaties. I refer to the Commission, the court and the Council of Ministers.
We have endlessly been told not to worry too much about the wording of the treaties; that they are vague, that they can be interpreted as we like, and that, after all, it is the nation states that will drive forward implementation of the treaties, so all will be well. In short, we are told that the vagueness of the wording will constitute our defence. I, on the other hand, have endlessly repeated that the language of the treaties, beginning with the preambles--even though they are officially ultra vires--is very important, because it allows the court to understand the precise direction in which the treaties lead.
Comments made by Advocates General and justices of the European Court have shown time and again how they see the vague treaty obligations being implemented. The problem of the 48-hour working week is a clear practical example of what I mean.
I should like to start by reading out some of these preambles. In wonderfully general language, one of them states:
It is important to understand that the justices believe that such language gives them a sense of Europe's direction, which is eventually to act as one on such matters.
Too often, I believe, my right hon. and hon. Friends fail to understand the language in which these documents are couched. Articles 117 to 122 all concern social policy and are written in wonderfully general language. For instance, article 117 says:
Especially I would ask my hon. Friends to read article 5, which stipulates that member states
The Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), assured me at the time of Maastricht that the court would not be a problem: that it was in the business of decentralising, and would rule in favour of nation states. Since then, there have been judgments against us on the transfer of undertakings and on fishing. Most recently, the Advocate General made his remarks about the 48-hour working week.
I was told after a previous speech that I was attacking the court. That is not my intention. It is only carrying out what it has always done--it sees itself as the architect of political union, just as it always has since 1954. Indeed, Judge David Edward told a Committee of the House exactly that. It is therefore quite wrong to think that I am attacking the court. What I am attacking is our failure to understand what we have signed up to. While we are contemplating the implementation of the social policy opt-out, Europe is already planning how the social chapter will work.
Back in 1960, Advocate General Roemer said:
Mr. Duncan Smith:
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am told that, if Labour gains power--God help us if it does--it will think the unthinkable, but I urge him not to think the unthinkable--that Labour will get into power. The resistance that the Government have put up has slowed the process, although it will not stop it. Labour will simply help to accelerate the process by acquiescing to everything laid down by Europe.
The latest and most important example of the process in action is the working time directive, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be only too well aware. Although limitations were set in the Council on the way the directive works, it will cost in practice up to £2 billion to implement, with a further £1 billion needed in the following two years.
The costs to industry will be severe and will be borne across the economy in lost employment, as the flexibility to employ under the previous conditions changes. The directive also breaks the historical way in which successive British Governments--ironically, even socialist Governments--have accepted the more laissez-faire and relaxed view on the way in which employers and employees negotiate contracts in this country.
Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough):
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate? If I may say so, he is an entirely worthy successor to his honourable predecessor, the noble Lord Tebbit. I wish to give an example of the effect that the social chapter and the 48-hour week will have in my constituency.
Cleveland Potash--based near Whitby in the northern end of my constituency--is by far the biggest employer in the area. I was told last week that, if the 48-hour week is imposed, the company will have to lay men off. It is the only potash mine in this country, and competes with mines in South America. The fact is that one works when the work is there, not when the Commission says so.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who has practical experience in these matters--something that too few hon. Members have. He has run a business, employed people, and, no doubt, laid people off at times.
If the working time directive is so successful, Spain--which has implemented all the measures--should be rocketing away in trade, and should have no unemployment. Everything in Spain should work according to what Labour believes and the proposal allows. Instead, Spain has more than 23 per cent. unemployment, more than 30 per cent. youth unemployment and a stagnating economy.
"The Community shall have as its task . . . a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States."
Article 3 further states that
"a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund"
shall be pursued, and that
"the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"
shall be the guiding principle.
"Such a development will ensue not only from the functioning of the common market, which will favour the harmonisation of social systems, but also from the procedures provided for in this Treaty and from the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action".
24 Jul 1996 : Column 306
Article 118 states:
Article 118a, which comes under qualified majority voting, is relevant, because, in the titanium dioxide case, the court has decided that such matters will be decided not by unanimity among the member states but by QMV. That is of course relevant to the 48-hour working week. It reads:
"the Commission shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to: employment; labour law and working conditions; basic and advanced vocational training; social security; prevention of occupational accidents and diseases; occupational hygiene; the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers".
"Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonisation of conditions in this area".
I do not intend to read out all the articles, but I do suggest that my hon. Friends read, re-read and re-re-read them.
"shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty."
That is critical, because our social chapter opt-out is in Europe's sights.
"The European treaties are nothing but a partial implementation of a grand general programme, dominated by the idea of a complete integration of the European States".
Lasok and Bridge, authors of one of the premier reference works on the subject, have this to say:
"references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties enable the Court to fill in the gaps in the system and so to 'update' the text. In doing so the Court has consciously acted not only as the Constitutional Court of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams):
Labour Members--[Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] None of them is here, and nor are the Liberals. Still, both parties make great play of the fact that, if they ever came to government, jointly or on their own, they would increase expenditure on a new range of social benefits. As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, however, what they say does not matter at all. This whole policy area has
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |