---

Mr. Lang: The best way in which we can help labour, organised or disorganised, is to create more jobs. In the past three years, more than 150,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created in this country. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the view of the president of the BDI, the German industry federation, who said:

"We have too rigid labour laws"--

he was talking about Germany--

"We have too high social costs and taxes. We work the shortest week in Europe. The German Government spends 50 per cent. of GDP, as opposed to 42 per cent. in Britain. No wonder we have a problem."

Germany does have a problem, and we are keen not to have that problem here.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): My right hon. Friend has said that we must obey the law, but the law is quite clear. It is in article 18 of the Single European Act, which states that

"the rights and interests of employed persons"

should be decided by unanimity. The law has been fraudulently applied by institutions with a defined agenda--an agenda against the United Kingdom. Where is the consent for this law? If there is no consent, why should we obey it?

Mr. Lang: Because the European Court of Justice has delivered a judgment that we are treaty bound to accept. Therefore, we must seek to have that judgment reversed by negotiation with the other partners of the European Union. That is our firm intention.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Given that, for the Government, this is a matter of firm principle, what concessions were made by other nations to persuade us to abstain?

Mr. Lang: We are not in the territory of talking about concessions; we are in the territory of insisting on the principle of what was agreed in the social chapter opt-out being met in practice, and that is the message that we shall take to the IGC.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Is not this episode all the more tragic for having been predicted for so long--during Maastricht debates, and for many months, even years, thereafter? Can my right hon. Friend give the House any assurance whatever that we are not just going to talk tough and then have the directive imposed on us? In the public sector, will it not be applicable from 23 November?

Can my right hon. Friend list any sanctions that could bring about the unanimity that is required to change the treaty? Will we be, for example, exercising the right of the empty chair, like de Gaulle? Will we be cutting off contributions? What positive measures will be taken to concentrate these people's minds, and to bring about the changes that we require?

Mr. Lang: I contemplate neither of the measures that my hon. Friend has suggested. Let me make it clear to

12 Nov 1996 : Column 169

him, however, that many matters are being discussed at the IGC, on which our European partners are extremely keen to make progress. They will not make progress on any of them unless and until we have this matter dealt with.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley): Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise the Government's responsibility in regard to employees who are in a weak bargaining position and who work for bad employers? How can he justify his position against that background?

Mr. Lang: I believe that the best interest of employers and employees in this country is served by maintaining light burdens on companies and their work forces, and by ensuring that we retain the advantage of the competitive, flexible labour market that we have achieved. That is the best prospect for our national economic prosperity, and for the interests of employees.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by the law? If Parliament chose to pass an Act that empowered Ministers to defy the directive, would he seek to defy the will of Parliament? Does not that exemplify how the Government have the option to come to Parliament to seek powers to defy the directive, in the event of a stalemate at the intergovernmental conference in which case the directive would stand?

Mr. Lang: It is this Parliament that has accepted the European Court's jurisdiction in the matter. The court's judgment has gone against us and we must now seek to reverse it by persuading our European partners to agree that the spirit of our social chapter opt-out should be honoured.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I ask the Secretary of State a technical question? From the date when the directive is triggered, will not people have recourse to industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom, which will find in their favour in terms of entitlement to annual leave, for example? Whatever our views in the House, therefore, is not there an immediate problem that requires legislation, otherwise not only will legislation be handed down to us by European judges, but our own judges will have to interpret and make decisions in the absence of a decision by the House? Will not industrial tribunals have to find in favour of workers--and I welcome that--with almost immediate effect?

Mr. Lang: As from 23 November this year, public sector employees will be covered by the directive's terms. We shall be consulting the private sector on the implementation of the directive, until we are able to have the law changed. Once we have completed that consultation, we shall present legislation to Parliament.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): This is about not the demerits or merits of the 48-hour directive, but the principle that we had an opt-out from that directive and

12 Nov 1996 : Column 170

that, by double dealing, cheating and twisting, faceless bureaucrats and their friends in the courts are now foisting the directive on Britain. What faith can we have, therefore, in future and current negotiations with the European Community? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his consultations will be detailed and sufficiently lengthy to enable him to visit every business in my constituency? Thus he could ensure that, before the directive is imposed on Britain, he could listen to what my business people have to say about its imposition and the effect on their businesses.

Mr. Lang: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall have to ensure that the basis on which the position is dealt with is completely watertight and will ensure that our interests are fully protected for the future. I intend that the consultation should be long enough to ensure that we take on board all the concerns of industry, large and small, and react to it.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): Given that today's judgment was entirely predictable, will the President of the Board of Trade answer the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and tell us how much the judgment and the case have cost the British taxpayer?

Mr. Lang: The cost of the legal case at the court was, I believe, about £50,000.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does it not ill behove European economies--which are loser economies, where unemployment is going up--to dictate to us how we should run our own affairs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the United States of America, where unemployment is falling, as it is in the UK, on average, holidays are fewer and people work longer hours than in the UK? At the end of the very long day, is not the UK's future exemplified by the White Paper that he published yesterday, which talks about a global vision?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He recognises that we must compete with countries not just in Europe, but worldwide. There is clear evidence from the unemployment trend and from the growth of respective economies that the UK's solution of having flexible labour markets and of lightening the burden on employers is the best way to provide secure, lasting and prosperous jobs.

Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State quoted from Professor Harrington's report and said that it justified the Government's claim that this is not a health and safety matter. As Professor Harrington seems not to be aware of that, and as the report has not been published, will the Secretary of State undertake to publish it so that the House can come to its own conclusions?

Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the report, which was submitted as part of the case to the court, will now be available and I shall give careful consideration to the right hon. Lady's request.

12 Nov 1996 : Column 171

Point of Order

4.24 pm

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 7 November, I put to the Deputy Prime Minister a point concerning the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). It has been drawn to my attention that what I said implied that the hon. Gentleman had behaved in an improper manner in his relationship with Capital City Bus--in particular, that he had accepted a seat on the board of a company that he had been responsible for privatising. Unfortunately, I had been misinformed about the matter--[Interruption.] I now accept--[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the hon. Gentleman when he is speaking to the House.

Mr. Bayley: I now accept that the company had never been in the public sector and I therefore wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest and the House.

---