| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Working Time Directive
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the working time directive.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has today given its judgment in the proceedings that we brought to have Council directive 93/104/EC--the "working time directive"--annulled. That directive derives its origins and impetus from the 1989 Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, to which the United Kingdom did not subscribe then, and does not now.
The directive was adopted by the Council at a meeting on 23 November 1993 and was forced on the United Kingdom through the use of the qualified majority voting procedure, by being adopted by the European Council under article 118A of the treaty establishing the European Community, which relates to the health and safety of workers. It is due to be implemented on 23 November.
A common position on the proposals for the directive had been reached by Social and Labour Affairs Ministers at a meeting on 1 June 1993. At that meeting, the United Kingdom announced its intention to challenge the directive's legal base. Our legal challenge was mounted in March 1994.
The directive's main provisions include limiting the working week to an average of 48 hours; putting various restrictions on the length of night work; and giving employees entitlements to minimum daily and weekly rest periods and to a period of paid annual leave. Our case before the court was essentially that those are matters relating to terms and conditions of employment, which should be settled by employers and employees, and not truly health and safety at work matters.
The court has now delivered its judgment and I am arranging for the text of the judgment to be placed in the Library.
The court has in essence confirmed the Advocate General's earlier opinion that the directive was properly adopted under article 118A of the treaty. That is not what was envisaged when we agreed to article 118A as a health and safety provision. We shall therefore insist that the intergovernmental conference addresses the issues that the European Court of Justice judgment raises. That means both ensuring that the working time directive no longer affects the United Kingdom, and securing measures to prevent any other "social engineering" directives being forced on the United Kingdom by similar manoeuvres.
The use of article 118A in that fashion wholly undermines the spirit of our opt-out from the social chapter, as agreed at Maastricht. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House, he has today written to President Jacques Santer making clear in the most unequivocal terms our proposals to correct the position. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
In his letter, my right hon. Friend makes clear the fact that the broad interpretation of article 118A implied by the judgment goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
12 Nov 1996 : Column 156
My right hon. Friend has therefore made it clear that at the IGC the Government will table amendments aimed at ensuring that article 118A cannot in future be used as it has been on this occasion, and at dealing with the specific problem of the working time directive. The Government have affirmed that, as my right hon. Friend also said in his letter, we attach the utmost importance to such amendments, and will insist that they form part of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference.
In the meantime, of course, we have no option but to obey the law until we secure the necessary treaty changes. But we shall legislate to implement the directive only after carrying out proper and necessary public consultation on the issues and options. In doing so, we shall aim to take advantage of the valuable derogations already secured during our negotiations on the directive. We are determined to preserve the flexibility in labour matters which has been such an important element in the revival of our economy over recent years. British industry would expect us to do no less.
Before the Maastricht negotiations, the use of qualified majority voting was agreed by member states for genuine matters concerning health and safety at work. Never for a moment was it envisaged that those arrangements could properly be applied to what we would always regard as social measures, including the general regulation of working time, rest periods and holidays.
We have always been fully committed to protections needed to ensure good health and safety standards for British and other European workers. But employers and employees should also be free to agree terms and conditions--including arrangements for working time, rest breaks and holidays--that meet their particular circumstances and needs. We reject the imposition on industry of unnecessary requirements that cannot but damage competitiveness and jobs, and we consider that the directive would be the thin end of a wedge that would lead to more such burdens.
Because the working time directive is incompatible with those principles, and because of what appeared to be the improper use of procedures to force it through, we had no option but to bring proceedings to have it annulled. Avoiding unnecessary burdens on British businesses remains at the top of the Government's agenda. So we firmly intend to close the loophole that allowed the working time directive through, and to restore the rights of British companies and their employees to reach on such matters agreements that reflect the requirements of their particular circumstances.
The competitiveness of our industry is the key to economic success, employment and prosperity. We are not prepared to have it unnecessarily trammelled, as it would be by the judgment.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South):
The Secretary of State said that the directive had been forced on the United Kingdom through the use of the qualified majority voting procedure. First, will he confirm that it was the present Government who accepted the introduction of qualified majority voting and diluted the British veto? So is it not a bit late to complain about that now? Secondly, will he acknowledge that the directive has been under debate since 1990, before the social chapter was even drafted, and that negotiations on it were completed before the Maastricht treaty was signed?
12 Nov 1996 : Column 157
If the Government genuinely believe that the directive cuts across their opt-out from the social chapter and raises issues that they thought that they had settled, why did the Prime Minister not raise the matter at the previous intergovernmental conference, where those matters were discussed, before the directive went on to the statute book? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government failed even to vote against it, that this procedure has been used similarly in respect of the protection of young workers and of maternity leave--legislation that has now been implemented--and that the Government's own negotiator said that the directive was toothless and that, as has been pointed out before, the Government had won in the negotiations?
Why have the Government wasted three years on a court case which, given the background, they were always likely to lose, when member states have a great deal of discretion in the way in which they implement the directive to allow for shift systems and other practical implications, and when the Government could have used that time to work with British industry on the handling of a measure that will now become law next week? How much taxpayers' money has been spent, as I understand that costs have been awarded against the Government?
Is this not simply another example of the Government's posturing on Europe, whereby--as they did in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy--they begin with neglect, proceed to posturing, and end up having to cave in, having lost friends, respect and the argument along the way? Given that what stands out a mile is that, if the Government mean it, they have made a mess of it, will not the President of the Board of Trade admit that what shines clearly through the wording of the Government's previous statements on this subject and their handling of the matter is their dislike of the substance of the directive?
Will the Secretary of State admit that the directive does not outlaw voluntary overtime and that it has a string of exemptions as long as one's arm to allow for any practical problems? Are the Government really saying that there should be no protection at all against being forced to work long hours and no provision for reasonable breaks? Is it not true that the Department of Health admitted last year that it had destroyed copies of a Government-financed study that found that working more than 48 hours a week doubles the risk of heart disease? Is it not true that Professor Harrington's report, which the Government used in their case, shows that this is a health and safety matter and that, contrary to Government claims, the proposed norm is not unreasonable--and that the Government refuse to release that report, too?
Last, but by no means least, are the Government really arguing that British citizens should, alone in Europe, have no legal right whatever to any paid holidays--something that would directly benefit 2.5 million members of the work force? Now that the Prime Minister has pledged that those holiday rights will be taken away if he is re-elected, is that not another powerful reason to vote against this Government at the next election?
Mr. Lang:
It is the Government's view that holidays are a matter that should be negotiated between employers and employees. The provisions affecting employment conditions contained in the directive--which cover many matters other than holidays, including the length of the working week, the range of shift patterns, daily and weekly breaks, and other issues--should be resolved at
12 Nov 1996 : Column 158
The right hon. Lady referred to qualified majority voting. The point is that article 118A was used precisely to achieve the directive through qualified majority voting, because we had secured an opt-out from the social chapter. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) proudly proclaimed to the Confederation of British Industry that Labour would not approve any more qualified majority voting, yet the Labour party wants to sign up to the social chapter and wants to accept the working time directive through qualified majority voting.
The right hon. Lady asked about abstention. At the negotiations, part of our purpose was to secure the best possible set of derogations and flexibilities for the benefit of the British people. That was secured, in the context of which an agreement to abstain took place. At the same time, we made it clear that we would challenge this case in the court, and that is what we subsequently did.
The right hon. Lady referred to overtime. Absolutely no effect on overtime arises from the directive--that is another typical Labour scare. The directive is about working hours and working conditions. The right hon. Lady suggests that we do not care about health and safety provisions. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, employers are required to take into account hazards such as fatigue when developing employment conditions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |