European Standing Committee B
Wednesday 3 December 1997
[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]
Employment Law
10.30 am
The Chairman: It has been brought to my attention that the analogue clock on the rear wall of the Committee Room is somewhat slow. For the benefit of everyone's understanding, I must alert members of the Committee that we shall be proceeding strictly by the digital display on the annunciator and that I shall help as best as I can those who have difficulty seeing it.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): On a point of order, Mr. Cook. First, thank you for telling us that the clock is slow. Secondly, on two of my previous appearances before the Committee papers were not in order or were delivered late. I noticed from the papers of today's sitting that a meeting of the Social Affairs Council was due to take place on 2 December before the Committee has been able to scrutinise the documents. Will you advise me on whether that is correct and on whether the papers are accurate? What is the status of the Social Affairs Council meeting?
The Chairman: That is not a matter for me. One would expect the relevant documents to be fully available and I shall ensure that inquiries are conducted later.
Mr. Gillan: Thank you, Mr. Cook, for that ruling. Are we to take it that the Committee is sitting after the Social Affairs Council meeting in Europe? If so, scrutiny of the documentation is entirely unnecessary because decisions will have been taken yesterday. I would, therefore, call for the Committee to be adjourned.
The Chairman: That is not a matter for me, and I have no information on it. The Minister is, however, anxious to comment on it.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I may be able to help the hon. Lady. The meeting to which she refers was postponed from 2 December to 15 December. In fairness, however, the hon. Lady raised a legitimate point of order. Had the meeting taken place yesterday, the Government would have put a reserve on the matter to ensure that the Committee's debate was not undermined by anything that happened then. I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order.
Mrs. Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I thank the Minister for that extremely civil reply. I should, however, draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has once again failed to provide the Committee with accurate papers. I was not informed that the meeting of the Social Affairs Council was cancelled and nor, I think, were any of the permanent members of the Committee, or, indeed, you, Mr. Cook. Is that not grossly rude to you and to permanent members of the Committee?
The Chairman: I have explained that that is not a point of order for me. I must advise the hon. Lady that she has got her points on record. She has done very well.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): On a different point of order, Mr. Cook. It is important for the Committee and others to note that the Select Committee recommended that three papers could conveniently be taken together today. I wonder, however, whether the Committee or the Government should be slavishly bound to the recommendations of the Select Committee. The three papers under consideration today are immensely important and each deserves separate consideration. It is not good enough for the Government to deal with them in one sitting. When the Standing Committees on European legislation were set up, it was recommended that there could be five such Committees. The Government cannot say that we do not have enough Committees to deal with the legislation. They have ample Members of Parliament and could set up more Committees on European legislation. Important matters such as those before us could then be dealt with separately.
The Chairman: I must advise the Committee that, once again, that is not a point of order for the Chair. In fact, the business under consideration is a direct result of the application of Standing Orders.
Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. This is a separate point. I should like your guidance. From discussions with Directorate-General V, I understand that today's meeting of European ambassadors on mainland Europe will discuss two of the directives that the Committee is scrutinising. D-G V officials told my office that agreement would be reached easily today. Has not there been an apparent flouting of the scrutiny procedure? Once again, I ask for an adjournment of the Committee until we can sort out what timetables we are dealing with. I should like an explanation from the Department of Trade and Industry. Its preparation for Committees, particularly the outlining of timetables, is chaotic.
The Chairman: Once again, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I must ask hon. Members to be careful of raising further points of order that may be out of order. The Minister gave an explanation which dealt largely with the issue that has just been raised; indeed, the hon. Lady accepted that explanation. Does the Minister want to comment?
Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were Ministers in the previous Administration. They know that we are following precisely what the previous Administration did to manage business between this Committee, the Scrutiny Committee and Europe. The parliamentary scrutiny reserve on the Council will[Mr. Ian McCartney]
remain until the House of Commons has completed its consideration. We are simply complying with the Standing Orders, which set down the process for debate and respond to the request for the debate to take place this morning no more and no less than that.
The Chairman: I am most grateful. That is most helpful of the Minister.
10.36 am
Mr. McCartney: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken from the Government side of the Committee and the first time that I have had the pleasure of your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I hope that over the coming years you remain a Chairman and I remain a Minister and that we can have reasonable discussions.
I am grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for selecting for debate the proposal to extend the European works councils and parental leave directives to the United Kingdom and the draft part-time work directive. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these measures.
The election of the Government marked a fresh start to our relationship with our partners in Europe. One of our first actions was to accept the social chapter, ending the disastrous empty-chair policy of our predecessors, which left the United Kingdom sitting on the sidelines of European discussions and debate. The Government are not prepared to sit on the sidelines. We wish to play a full, constructive part in the development of the European Union and we are playing a leading role in defining a new agenda in Europe in social affairs and employment.
Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?
The Chairman: Order. Interventions are not permitted in the opening statement.
Mr. McCartney: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Cook.
The new agenda is based on the recognition that Europe's labour markets need to become more flexible in adapting to ever-more rapid change. With global competition intensifying, we need the flexibility that allows businesses to respond effectively to economic change and which equips people to do a range of jobs as demands vary. To be truly effective and of benefit to all, that flexibility must be underpinned by decent minimum standards which balance the needs of business with those of employees.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was instrumental in ensuring that the new employment chapter agreed at Amsterdam explicitly recognised the importance of labour market flexibility. More recently, at the November jobs summit, all of the member states committed themselves to a new approach based on competitiveness, employability and labour market reform.
Our acceptance of the social chapter is a crucial part of that agenda. We see the social chapter as an opportunity to implement certain minimum standards to which all employees should be entitled. Minimum standards which, provided they are framed correctly, will bring benefits to employees and will help to promote the flexibility that businesses need to compete effectively.
The three proposals that the Committee has before it are good examples of that. It is nonsensical to suggest that any of these measures will place excessive burdens on business or damage its competitiveness. They are all flexible and balanced measures that set fair and sensible standards and represent no more than good business practice. For example, the parental leave directive will be crucial in helping people to reconcile their working lives and family responsibilities. The directive will give parents the right to limited unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. It will also give a right to time off for urgent family reasons such as a sudden death or a child being taken seriously ill and having to be hospitalised.
That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, seem excessive, particularly when one considers that the estimated cost of the directive to business is only £5 a year for each employee. On the contrary, the measures will bring benefits to parents and their children and, through them, to society and the economy as a whole. By helping individuals to balance work and family, the measures will help to remove barriers to employment and improve the functioning of the labour market.
Giving employees decent terms and conditions of employment makes good economic sense. A business that respects its employees and treats them as partners will have a more committed and productive work force. The availability of family-friendly working arrangements such as parental leave can make an important contribution to the achievement of that aim. However, it is equally important to foster a culture of partnership in the workplace itself. Employees who feel involved in their organisation are much more likely to share its goals. The vast majority of leading British companies recognise the need to inform and consult employees about matters that concern them.
The European works council directive sets down a sensible framework for informing and consulting employees in large multinational companies at a European level. Again, that represents good business practice that will help employees better to understand the context in which they work and help management better to understand the needs and interests of the work force. Of course, the effectiveness of a European works council will depend on a commitment from all those involved, but that commitment will pay dividends.
The arrangements set up under the directive will contribute to a culture of trust and co-operation between the companies involved and the people who work for them. That can only be good for business. That is not only our view. Many United Kingdom companies already recognise the benefits that the directive can bring and have decided to include their United Kingdom employees in their arrangements. A report published in November by Income Data Services stated that of about 400 companies across Europe which had set up European works councils, only two had not included their United Kingdom employees so much for the previous Government's opt-out.
The Government are keen for both the parental leave directive and the European works council directive to be extended to cover the United Kingdom as quickly as is practicable. The two article 100 directives before the Committee represent the most straightforward and legally certain means of achieving that.
That brings me to the third measure that we are debating today the draft directive on part-time work. The intention is that that measure, too, once adopted, will be extended to the United Kingdom by means of article 100. The directive has two aims: to ensure that part-timers do not receive less favourable terms and conditions than their full-time counterparts and to remove obstacles to part-time work. The directive, as with the other measures under discussion, will have important benefits for employers and employees across Europe. It will make it easier for employers to organise their workplace to suit the requirements of their business and it will make it easier for employees to find work patterns that suit their needs and those of their families.
The Government welcome all these measures. They will help to improve working conditions and living standards and to promote the flexibility of our labour markets and the competitiveness of our business. I hope that I have made clear the context of the three directives and the Government's broad position on the main issues. I shall be happy to answer the Committee's questions.
| 
