Health and Safety

HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc771-811 4.45 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a matter arising from a document produced by the European Commission entitled, "Developing an active company approach to the European Market—Europe in 1992." I have already raised this matter with Mr. Speaker through the Clerk of the House.

The Government and the whole House are familiar with the whole question of 1992, and are generally supportive. However, a very important question of order arises in relation to this particular document published by the European Commission. The document contains advice which suggests that no regard is being taken of the role of this Parliament in the making, scrutinising and passing of legislation affecting people in this country. Fifty thousand copies of that document have been distributed by the European Commission. It appears from page 23 of the document that the United Kingdom Parliament has no role in the passage of such legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he has drawn the matter to the attention of the Clerk and of Mr. Speaker. I understand his point and I am well aware of his concern, but this is not a matter for the Chair. The only advice that I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that he should seek the services and offices of his own Member of the European Parliament.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Everyone knows that the Common Market does not oblige the Council of Ministers to pay the slightest attention to the House of Commons. Anyone who voted for the treaty of Rome and for the Single European Act knows that. Surely they also accept that the European Parliament can express views which can he completely ignored by the Council of Ministers. I hope that before we start a long debate on important vital constitutional issues, we will not be misled by the view that the House of Commons influences the Council of Ministers or that the views of the so-called European Parliament have any effect whatsoever. Surely we should be clear about the constitutional points before we go one step further.

Mr. Cash

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is less in regard to the European Parliament, for which many of us have a great deal of respect. "Erskine May", chapter 34, clearly states that many aspects of draft Community legislation require implementation in this House. It is wholly inappropriate for the European Commission to publish a document on this scale, filtering through the whole of the United Kingdom, from which it appears that there is no role for the United Kingdom Parliament in the passage of this legislation. Therefore, I wish to register a protest on behalf of my constituents, and the electorate as a whole, at the way in which this document has been promulgated.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will make things clear. On Thursday night we had a perfect example of the point that I am making. For an hour and a half we debated an order on origin marking. It was a long debate but it was made clear by Ministers that it would make no difference whether we voted for or against the order as there had not been a prosecution for two years because of a decision by the EEC. Surely we accept—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I made earlier. These are not matters for the Chair. That is the position.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but, although tiny, this is an important point. I hope that before hon. Members begin a long debate they will appreciate that, once an EEC decision has been made, it is effectively the law of the land, whether Parliament approves or not. There are ample test cases to prove that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Those are matters for debate, not for the Chair.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the document, "Europe in 1992", brings the House into contempt when the Commission, which has not been elected, makes it clear that the House has no role in controlling affairs at the heart of our way of life. Surely it is a matter that the Chair has to take into consideration. I am a Member of the European Parliament and I know that Members of that Parliament are helpless in matters such as this. We need the help of the House and of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a matter of such gravity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that hon. Members will not seek to draw the Chair into matters of political controversy. These are matters that the House has debated and, doubtless, will debate again in the future. The points that have been raised are appropriate matters for debate, rather than for a ruling from the Chair.

4.51 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope)

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5211/88 on the safety and health of workers at the workplace and 5762/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 7th July 1988 on personal protective equipment; supports the proposals in principle as steps towards the establishment of comparable high standards of health and safety throughout the Community and the removal of technical barriers to trade; and endorses the Government's endeavours to secure modifications in negotiations. The Government believe that the House has a role to play because it influences the stand taken by the Government and Ministers in the Council of Ministers. That is the purpose of the debate. In fact, it has a greater role than that, which I shall seek to show.

The European Commission proposals are part of the move towards completing the single European market by 1992—a move to which the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community are committed. The steadily increasing European Community activity in health and safety at work reflects the impetus that moves towards economic integration have given to a whole range of other European developments. Those moves have been given clearer direction and purpose since 1985 when the European Community decided to undertake a full programme of activity to complete the single market. Part of that programme stems from a recognition that it is important that competition is not distorted by differences in basic health and safety standards with which employers in member states are required to comply.

There are differences in standards and of approach between member states, and no doubt there are lessons that we can learn from each other. As regards fatal accidents, only the Netherlands has a better record than the United Kingdom. Rates among leading competitors are significantly worse. We must not be complacent and the figures tell only part of the story. However, they show that the United Kingdom already has fairly high standards. That must not put us at a disadvantage to our competitors: the objective must be to bring them up to our standards, not the other way round.

The proposed directives are based on provisions in the Single European Act which, as the House will be aware, introduced a number of reforms to the treaty of Rome. The Act was intended to improve the workings of the Community, to extend its scope in areas such as this and to speed up progress towards agreed objectives. For example, the Act enables the Council of Ministers to take decisions on many issues by a system of qualified majority voting. The removal of the effective power of veto is aimed at speeding up the European law-making process on matters such as health and safety at work and product standards. It makes it more important than ever for the United Kingdom to win the support of other member states through reason and argument and also for us to be sufficiently flexible to accept reasonable compromise when necessary.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Is the Minister saying that if we want to retain the absolute provisions of section 14 of the Factories Act 1961 regarding dangerous machinery, but, for example, Spain proposes that standards should be lowered, we will not be able to protect those provisions?

Mr. Cope

I cannot recall the precise provisions of that section, but the European proposals are for minimum standards. We are free to have higher standards if we wish.

The workplace proposals introduced earlier this year—they are covered by the first of the explanatory memoranda referred to in document 5211/88—consist of a framework directive specifying measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers and five subsidiary, or daughter, directives. Those subsidiary directives set the minimum—I stress "minimum"—requirements for workplaces on the use of machines, personal protective equipment, visual display units and the handling of heavy loads which are likely to cause back injury.

The new treaty provisions on which the proposals are founded—article 118A—for the first time, provide for Community measures on health and safety at work. That reflects a growing belief in the Community that a truly common market needs to ensure comparable high health and safety standards for all its workers. The Government support the aim of ensuring that decent comparable standards of health and safety apply throughout the European Community.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

Will the directive apply to the construction industry?

Mr. Cope

Yes.

Therefore, we accept the main thrust of the proposals. However, there are problems with the proposals as they stand, and the United Kingdom is playing a full part in the negotiations in Brussels in order to improve them. Many of the changes that we want to see are by way of clarification and the removal of excessive detail.

We are conscious of the importance of not imposing unnecessary burdens on industry and of the fact that new requirements can sometimes bear particularly hard on smaller businesses. The United Kingdom was instrumental in securing the inclusion of a requirement in article 118A that health and safety directives should not constrain the creation and development of small and medium-sized companies. We will do our utmost to ensure that that requirement is fully respected. We do not seek special exemptions for the employees of smaller businesses, but we are looking for provisions that are flexible and sensible enough to be applied to all workplaces.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

What is the Government's attitude to the proposal that tight new rules for lighting, heating, ventilation, stairways, and so on, should apply to new buildings but not immediately to old buildings? Will that not discriminate against countries with lots of new factories rather than countries with old ones? If it were approved in that form, would the Government apply it in United Kingdom law and exempt old buildings from those tight rules?

Mr. Cope

I shall respond to my hon. Friend's detailed point at the end of the debate, if he will permit me.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The Minister has always been good about writing detailed letters, and I thank him for his courtesy in Committee and on the Floor of the House. There is, however, a special problem in some areas. I am thinking particularly of what has happened at the Golden Wonder factory at Broxburn in relation to asbestos and new discoveries regarding its dangers. Will the Minister and the Department be raising this problem in the European Community? I do not ask for an answer off the top of his head, but it is an important matter.

Mr. Cope

I shall make some comments about that as soon as I usefully can.

It is important that the same provisions apply to all workplaces, even small ones. Flexibility is not reducing standards but avoiding a legal straitjacket that removes useful options and obscures real objectives. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and our approach to the proposing and passing of regulations under it embody that flexible approach. Where possible, regulations are expressed as objectives to be met, leaving employers to decide on the precise means of achieving them. On occasion, requirements need to be precisely drawn, but, where possible, there should be sufficient flexibility to allow different solutions to problems. Our national legislation offers some useful ideas for solving problems with the Commission's proposals.

Mr. Cryer

If the Commission's recommendations and directives are for lower standards than in United Kingdom legislation, would an employer who is challenged to maintain United Kingdom standards and who says, "I prefer the EC recommended levels because I support a flexible approach" have a right to challenge the application of different United Kingdom standards in the European Court?

Mr. Cope

No, not in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The flexible approach is embodied in regulations proposed to and accepted by the House under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. In relying on the flexibility of such regulations, an employer would be complying with United Kingdom legislation, which would be satisfactory. If it was held that United Kingdom regulations were lower than the minimum suggested in a directive, the employer might be able to argue in the European Court that standards in the United Kingdom were not high enough. That is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

There are six proposals before us, but only the framework directive is at an advanced stage of negotiation. It has been discussed a number of times in the Council of Ministers and the social questions working group. It sets out the employer's basic responsibilities to assess risks and introduce the necessary measures. Much of the directive is consistent with requirements in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the subsidiary legislation.

We are still working hard on one important problem. We need to ensure that the directive encompasses the concept of "so far as is reasonably practical." This concept runs all the way through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the subsidiary legislation and the guidance under the Act. The problem with these documents is essentially legal, stemming from the absence in United Kingdom law of the continental concept of proportionality. Our courts must apply the law exactly as it is enacted by Parliament. Continental courts apply the law only as far as it is proportionate to the circumstances. Proportionality therefore allows continental member states to couch their health and safety laws in absolute terms. They enforce them to a standard equivalent to "so far as is reasonably practicable", but it is crucial that we find an acceptable way for the United Kingdom to implement the directive using "so far as is reasonably practicable," where appropriate, and in line with our tradition of enforcing the letter of the law. We shall continue to try to persuade the Commission and other member states of the importance of this issue and gain their co-operation in reaching a solution.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are serious problems because some member states do not have the administrative machinery for the enforcement of provisions in many of these directives? Therefore, the consequence could and probably will be that, although we are engaged on an entirely constructive and helpful harmonisation programme, the fact that some member states may not want or be prepared to enforce the legislation will produce inequities and reduce the level of the playing field that we all want. As this is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses, we must ensure that other member states honour their obligations. What can the Minister do about it?

Mr. Cope

We are conscious of the enforcement problem, as is the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The problem has already been raised and I have no doubt that it will be again. The enforcement machinery differs considerably between member states. Much work is being done to ensure that we are all aware of other countries' enforcement procedures. Indeed, there has been much exchange between our factoray inspectorte and its equivalent in other countries. Much thought is being given to methods of evening out the procedures. The Commission is concerned about the central role that it must play.

The five subsidiary directives referred to in the motion are at a much earlier stage of negotiation. Four have been discussed to some extent in the Council machinery, but much negotiation lies ahead. The fifth directive, on visual display units, has not been discussed. We believe that VDU work is sufficiently and appropriately covered by the general health and safety legislation and the framework directive. We do not believe that a specific directive on VDUs is appropriate.

The other two proposals on the use of machines and personal protective equipment are complementary to proposals for trading directives under article 100A of the treaty, which is central to the removal of technical barriers to trade in the Community. Directives under article 100A embody a new approach to the harmonisation of product standards and are limited to setting broadly drawn essential safety requirements. If those requirements are met, products will be free to be traded throughout the Community. Technical standards are left to the Eurpoean standards bodies to define, and if a product complies with the appropriate standards it is presumed to comply with the directive.

As European standards take time to prepare, most of the directives lay down a procedure whereby suitable national standards can be used during the interim. British Standards Institution standards will apply in the United Kingdom. Each directive will specify the means of proving conformity with its requirements. This may involve some form of independent third-party assessment of varying degrees of rigour. Generally speaking, the greater the safety implications, the more stringent the procedures are likely to be, as one would expect.

The proposed trading directive on personal protective equipment follows this pattern. The Government welcome the aim of ensuring Community-wide high standards in this important area. In the negotiations we intend to ensure that present safety levels enjoyed in the United Kingdom are not reduced, while minimising additional burdens on manufacturers.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Employers throughout the country are anxious to know the Government's view and the likely outcome of the statements on obligations in respect of worker representatives. The Minister will be aware that article 10 clearly states that workers' representatives will be entitled to time off without loss of pay to fulfil their obligations under this directive. On page 5 of the letter from Brussels dated 17 March, we find that they should be protected against dismissal or any other adverse treatment related to their activities as worker representatives. That is a fundamental change in the British law governing trade union worker representatives and their entitlements.

What is the Government's view of this, and what is likely to happen? What is a worker's representative in a non-unionised factory?

Mr. Cope

The directive should not undermine the employer's primary responsibility. The employer must be responsible primarily for health and safety on his premises and in the working environment. We have the support of other member states on this.

As regards the articles to which my hon. Friend referred, which relates to employers consulting their employees, we are optimistic that the final text will be broadly in line with the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, which already apply in this country. I appreciate that the regulations differ when applied to unionised and non-unionised workplaces, but we still believe that the 1977 regulations will cover the matter.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

What precisely is the basis for my hon. Friend's optimism that the final text will reflect the line of thought he has just outlined? The draft of the European statutes and the texts of some of Monsieur Delors' most recent speeches and pronouncements make it clear that the direction in which the Commission wishes to lead Europe is one of massive worker participation—worker membership of boards and elected committees. The whole thrust of European legislation is to give workers far more say and rights than they have under the legislation that my hon. Friend optimistically believes will be included in the final text.

Mr. Cope

My hon. Friend knows some of the Government's views about these matters. They do not arise in the context of these proposals, however. The reason for my optimism is the way in which the discussions have gone so far in the Council of Ministers and the working groups. Allied to that is the way in which the United Kingdom arguments have been received so far in the Community.

Mr. Cash

I do not want to press too many points on the Minister at this stage as there will be opportunities for speeches. However, article 7 of the directive states: The employer is required to involve the workers". The problem is that that imposes a strict obligation to involve workers and/or their representatives in drawing up a list of things with which I shall not weary the Minister at this stage. They are clearly set out in article 7.

There is a problem with the wording—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Briefly.

Mr. Cash

As for the standards to which my hon. Friend referred, the explanatory memorandum signed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, which was issued recently, says this about financial implications:

The financial effects for business are unclear at present as it is not known what attestation procedures will be required for each item of protective equipment. In a nutshell, the problem is whether these attestation procedures will have financial implications that cannot be costed at present.

Mr. Cope

On the second point, we are pressing for greater detail about the financial effects. That is one of the matters that we have raised in the negotiations.

The proposed trading directive on personal protective equipment follows the pattern that I was outlining. The Government welcome the aim of ensuring Community-wide standards in this important area. We want to increase the safety levels that are enjoyed here. Of course, the proposal in some respects requires more comprehensive safeguards than current United Kingdom legislation provides and, if it is adopted in its present form, new regulations may be required. I hasten to add, especially for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), that such new regulations will come to this House for decision. We shall also consult interested bodies in the usual way on any legislative changes that appear to be necessary.

Mr. Cryer

Presumably the regulations will be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which is the empowering primary legislation. Will the Minister confirm that that Act requires all regulations made under it at least to maintain and improve the standards of existing health and safety at work legislation? Is it true that it would be impossible for the Minister to lower standards under United Kingdom legislation if the Government maintain this way of producing statutory instruments?

Mr. Cope

Yes, it would be impossible under the Act for us to lower standards because of section 2(1), which I think has that effect. Any new regulations would most likely be introduced under that section, although we are speaking hypothetically now.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Minister said that if there was a change it would come before the House. Will that be done by means of an Order in Council, negative or positive orders, or what? The document states that most of the necessary changes could be effected by regulations under the enabling powers. The Minister knows full well that Ministers could use enabling powers that would not come before the House.

Mr. Cope

We are discussing hypothetical changes in regulations. I cannot lay down absolutely the precise terms in which they would come forward. The most likely form, as I told the hon. Member for Bradford, South, would be under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Mr. Heffer

I understand that this is a consultative document about which we are being asked for our views. It then returns to the Commission, which may or may not change the proposals in it. Ministers will discuss them and then decide. How will they return to the House? Will we have the right to talk about them or to vote on them? Will we simply be instructed about the outcome. People in this country want to know what our role in this legislation is, and we have a right to be told the position clearly.

Mr. Cope

I shall try to spell it out as clearly as possible, but I believe that it is well understood that the regulations and all the directives provide minimum standards. After this debate and discussion of the points made in it, discussion will continue in the Council of Ministers and in the expert committees. Expert opinion is sought on many of these detailed matters. A parallel discussion will continue in the European Parliament. Ultimately, the documents will come before the Council of Ministers for decision. In most cases, the decision will be made under article 118A, which means qualified voting.

If the Council of Ministers reaches a unanimous decision, the document will become a directive. If it does not, the European Parliament will play a larger role in producing amendments. Under the procedures of the Community, the document in its final form will become Community law. That would lay down minimum standards. It is then for each member Government to determine whether their legislation complies with the minimum standards—for example, whether the requirements include the wearing of a hard hat on a construction site or in a heavy workshop. We believe that most of our standards are higher than those applied elsewhere, but, if we reached the conclusion that our standards were not above the minimum laid down, we should have to return to the House, almost certainly under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, to propose a different regulation for decision by the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Am I right in believing that if the Danes and the Italians were to support us in voting against a regulation, that would not be a qualified majority?

Mr. Cope

I do not recall the figures on the qualified majority, but I shall answer my hon. Friend later when I have had an opportunity to do the arithmetic.

Because of the procedure that I described to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), it is too early to say precisely which form the directives will take. None will be adopted unless it is acceptable to a majority of member states. But the high standards set by our legislation or established in practice will stand us in good stead in the negotiations, as well as in the future when minimum standards are adopted. The instruments can only improve health and safety in the United Kingdom.

There is no easy sliding scale of bad, medium and good by which one can measure a company's health and safety standards. There are often valid alternative approaches to individual problems, and an entire regime is even more difficult to grade. In any case, this is not a static scene. Everyone is learning all the time, new hazards arise and new ways of dealing with old hazards arise all the time. The countries of Europe learn from each other. But health and safety standards in the United Kingdom are better than those in most of our European partner countries.

Nothing in the European documents could lower our standards. They propose only minimum standards, and we are free to continue the higher standards in our domestic legislation if we wish. If we believe that to be right, we shall do so. We are also free to introduce higher standards in the future.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I apologise for missing the first part of the Minister's statement. Does he agree that, although it is not mandatory to adopt the minimum standards, once the single market is in place the Government may receive representations from employers' organisations and others saying that our higher standards discriminate against them unfairly because they involve extra costs? Is that not a probability?

Mr. Cope

It is a possibility, but our standards are accepted by employers. In any case, we do not wish to lower our standards and certainly could not do so by regulation under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Of course, we could introduce primary legislation, but that would require full discussion in the House. In all cases, the regulations that apply here are and will continue to be those which are laid down by Parliament. All that the documents do is to lay down the minimum standards that we and our partners must maintain.

Our standards will not slip, but, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, employers could perceive problems at the other end of the scale. If the requirements are too bureaucratic or restrictive, they will weaken the competitiveness not just of Britain but of the entire Community. Everyone involved in health and safety measures knows that if they are overdone they can bring everything to a standstill and work can become impossible. Over-elaborate precautions are difficult to enforce or to maintain in the work force.

Europe must remain competitive. The idea of the European Community is not just to trade with each other—equal health and safety regulations across the Community would facilitate that—but to have a home market of 320 million people with which to trade with the rest of the world. It is no good erecting even hurdles across Europe if we cannot compete elsewhere. The health and safety regime must not be obstructive, but it must be effective. As every employer would recognise if he reflected on it, accidents are usually more expensive than safety precautions, and big accidents are very expensive for employers, in terms not only of money but of human suffering, anxiety and misery. No business can afford accidents.

All health and safety regimes must be a balance of those considerations. The European documents mentioned in the motion provide such a balance. We welcome the principles behind the proposals. I shall do my best to respond to questions asked by hon. Members during the debate. In the meantime, I commend the motion to the House.

5.28 pm

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of health and safety at work. One need only read the statistics on accidents and deaths to recognise the importance of the regulations and other provisions. Last year there were more than 700 deaths and 20,000 major accidents at work, and as many as 20,000 people died from occupational diseases. There can be no dispute about the significance of this legislation and the importance of ensuring that all practical measures are taken to reduce risks to workers.

Responsibility for enforcing pretty well all the regulations that will arise from these directives will rest with the Health and Safety Executive. The Opposition have been critical of the Government's failure to provide adequate resources to the Health and Safety Executive to allow it to carry out its important work. It was as a result of pressure from the Labour party, and during a debate initiated by the Opposition last December, that the Secretary of State announced that the money available to the executive would be increased by £6.7 million in the current year. He specifically undertook to ensure that there would be 40 more factory and agricultural inspectors, in place by the end of this financial year, in April. I draw his attention to the fact that, according to the latest figures that I received from the Government, at the end of last month there were 776.5 inspectors in place on 1 October.

I trust that the Government will reach their target of 40 more inspectors this year, because that is a modest target. It will still mean that the number of inspectors is very much lower than it was when the Government came to office in 1979. These inspectors have to enforce so many more additional regulations and have so many additional responsibilities that this increase, welcome as it is, falls a long way short of what is needed. I hope that, if not in this debate, then shortly, the Government will take the opportunity to make it clear that they intend substantially to increase the resources for, and the number of staff working in, the Health and Safety Executive. In 1979 there were 912 agricultural and general factory inspectors compared to the 776.5 that I mentioned earlier.

I was grateful to receive from the Department of Employment, on 27 October, some answers in response to written questions about what responsibilities the Health and Safety Executive had lost and gained since 1979. The losses were listed as the industrial air pollution inspectorate, which was transferred to the Department of the Environment, and the "inspection and enforcement responsibility" in zoos, which was transferred to local authorities. I was, however, given a long list of the responsibilities that the executive had acquired since 1979. These were:

1. "(i) carriage by road, classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;
2. (ii) notification of new and existing substances before they are placed on the market;
3. (iii) action under the European directive on the control of industrial major accident hazards;
4. (iv) mains gas safety;
5. (v) asbestos licensing;
6. (iv) the enforcement of part 3 of the Food and Environmental Protection Act and its related Control of Pesticides regulations."—[Official Report, 27 October 1988; Vol 139. c. 380.]

We must tell the Government, forcefully and firmly, that we believe that they have failed to provide the Health and Safety Executive with the resources that it needs to have the chance effectively to enforce these important regulations.

Naturally, attention has focused on health and safety and accidents generally, particularly in the past couple of years, in the light of the major tragedies of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the King's Cross fire and the Piper Alpha disaster. The Government have to rethink their aproach to these matters. Lives have been lost as a consequence of failure to provide adequate resources to enforce health and safety in various installations and at work generally.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend accept that as well as these startling, dramatic and tragic accidents, there has been a continuing erosion of standards, of which the Government are unaware because they no longer collect statistics of those who are off work for three or more days through injury? As a result, if there is a spate of industrial accidents resulting in back injuries, or of hands being chopped off by an imported machine, the Government are no longer aware of that, so they are not able to take remedial action. It is lamentable that the Government are denying information to the Health and Safety Executive, to the trade unions, to workers and to the employers, who may be just as concerned to take remedial action.

Mr. Strang

My hon. Friend is right. That change in the method of recording these accidents was a retrograde step. It is not just that the newer statistics that we are getting as a result of the new procedures are not comparable, but that less information about accidents is available.

We rightly focus a great deal of attention on major accidents and hope that the Government will respond fully to the King's Cross inquiry and report. However, if someone is killed in an accident involving 100 people, it is no more serious than if a person is killed in an accident involving a couple of people. Therefore, we have to recognise that just as important as the incidents that hit the headlines are all the other accidents which occur throughout the year and which we must do everything that we can to reduce.

The Minister said that Britain's safety standards are usually among the highest in Europe. However, he must accept that they are not necessarily the highest, and that Scandinavia, although it is not in the European Community, sometimes has higher standards than ours, as do the Germans. The fundamental question over the next couple of years is whether, in pursuit of universal standards, Britain equalises down or up.

I can give an example of where standards are higher in West Germany than they are here—an example quoted in an article in The Observer yesterday. The report is headed: Death probe into DIY best-seller and says: Deaths and illness among workers producing Britain's best-selling do-it-yourself timber treatment are being investigated by … the Health and Safety Executive. It lists the chemicals as lindane, tributyltin oxide and pentachlorophenol, or PCP. As the Minister may know, I have been in correspondence with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, about PCP, because of the concern about the use of this chemical. I have also been in correspondence with the German embassy, because this chemical is banned in West Germany. I mention that as an example of German standards being higher than ours. I trust that the Minister, particularly in the light of the report in The Observer, will be able to show the House that the Department is moving quickly in these matters, and will assure us that if it is necessary to ban that chemical, or all three chemicals, the Government will do so and will see that the regulations are effectively carried out. The chemical of particular concern is that which is still in use, PCP.

The directives have arisen as a result of article 118A of the Single European Act. This requires minimum harmonised standards on health and safety to be introduced throughout the European Community by qualified majority voting. Because the directives rely on the majority vote, and not the previous consensus, no individual Government will be able to drag their heels. The effect of article 118A will, nevertheless, be varied. The article is qualified by a section that will allow any Government to avoid stringent impositions. This states, quite simply: such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium sized undertakings. It is not clear what is understood by "medium sized", but with moves in the 1980s towards smaller companies, it is feasible that a large number of employers could be exempted from the article's provisions.

As I understood it, the Minister of State said that the directives were intended to be sufficiently flexible and would, in practice, apply to all undertakings, regardless of their size. It would be helpful if he would confirm that, as a substantial number of workplaces might not be covered by the directives and regulations that follow from them. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what he means by the phrase "medium size" in that context.

Even more important, a harmonised standard might be agreed below the British level which, in many cases, would be unfair. The Government will be afforded the opportunity of reducing British standards, while simultaneously claiming that they are complying with European regulations. Again, there has been some discussion about that and some helpful interventions were made in the Minister's speech. As I understand it, the Government intend standards to be harmonised upwards.

Two issues are involved here. First, there is the question of what the directive will say. We would welcome it if the Government would clarify their intention. Following these directives, a great deal of discussion will take place in a range of specialised committees. The Government must make it clear that they will argue for harmonisation upwards and for the highest and most stringent standards. The highest standards will often, but not always, be found in Britain.

Mr. Heffer

The memorandum states that in most European countries concerned the legislation does not apply to the self-employed. Self employment is growing considerably in the construction industry and is leading to death and injury on a scale that we have not known before. Will my hon. Friend obtain an assurance from the Government that the directive will apply to the self-employed in the construction industry? If it does not, the position will become even more dangerous.

Mr. Strang

My hon. Friend brings me to my second point. We hope that, in general directives, the Government will aim to achieve harmonisation upwards. However, in the case of a directive that would enable lower standards to prevail throughout Britain, we must ensure that the Government maintain the higher standards that the Minister has confirmed this afternoon. To their credit, many of the regulations apply just as much to the self-employed as they do to other employees in, for example, the construction industry. In agriculture, the pesticide regulations, enforced as a consequence of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, apply as much to self-employed farmers as they do to farm workers. The agriculture inspector is, rightly, just as concerned about the farmer as he is about the farm worker.

I hope that the Community will include the self-employed in the measure. However, regardless of what it decides, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that, if any directive provides health and safety standards only in respect of employees, there will be no question of the Government eliminating or loosening any regulations that apply to the self-employed in this country.

We should not distinguish between a self-employed person and an employee in respect of health and safety. We might distinguish between a large workplace, a medium-size workplace and a small workplace, but we should not be more concerned about an employee than about a self-employed person. However, we must recognise that, without regulations, some employers would be under commercial pressure to submit their workers to health and safety conditions which they would not accept themselves, in an attempt to maximise their profits. The regulations are designed to reduce that problem.

As the Minister has confirmed, the measure makes specific provision for a member state to maintain higher standards than those agreed. Britain would often be in that position. However, the parts of the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome covering the elimination of import-export restrictions will force Britain to import equipment and goods which conform to European safety standards, but fall well below our standards. The Health and Safety Commission can do nothing in the face of that loss of sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned that in his intervention. There is all the more reason for achieving harmonisation upwards, because we do not want equipment to be manufactured to a high standard for use in workplaces and, at the same time, more equipment and machinery to be imported into the country which does not conform to our safety regulations.

Even when the Government have increased the factory inspectorate staff to a more acceptable level, we must recognise that the responsibility for implementing the regulations lies with the management, often with the support and encouragement of trade unions and their health and safety representatives. I hope that the Government will reverse their approach to the provision of greater resources in respect of health and safety at work and, as a result of the parent directive, rethink their approach to the crucial role that trade union representatives can play in the workplace in maintaining and improving health and safety standards.

As the Minister said, the framework directive is accompanied by five daughter directives. The framework directive places general health and safety responsibilities on the employer, who would be required —to evaluate health and safety risks and introduce preventive measures … to designate competent personnel or to use outside agencies or individuals; to make arrangements for first-aid, fire precautions, and emergency procedures; to maintain certain records and to draw up reports on accidents and diseases; to provide information to workers; to consult workers or their representatives on health and safety measures; to provide health and safety training for workers, to allow workers' representatives with specific responsibilities for health and safety time off with pay to carry out their responsibilities and to allow them to receive appropriate training. I do not think that any Opposition Members would fault those objectives, and I should like to think that the House would be unanimous in its support of them. That is why we welcome the general framework directives.

The five daughter directives relate to workplaces, work equipment, personal protective equipment, work with VDUs and the handling of heavy loads. The Minister of State referred specifically to the daughter directive relating to VDUs. One might say that the reason why we shall not need to change our legislation to conform with the directive on VDUs is that Britain does not have regulations and legislation that govern their use. I was interested to hear the Minister imply that he doubted whether there was a case for such a directive. I hope that he will make some attempt to justify that.

There have been many reports that workers' health can be damaged by the use of VDUs. The directive refers to the need for workers to be given eye tests, and, of course, such eye tests must be carried out regularly to monitor any adverse affects. Another question about VDUs is the low-level radiation that they generate. There is a need to ensure that people do not work in close proximity to VDUs, particularly to the rear of them. The Government should think again if they are arguing against the principle of a directive to govern VDUs.

Mr. Cope

I apologise for perhaps not having made it clear enough that we believe that VDUs should be governed by general regulations, by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other legislation. We are arguing about whether specific regulations are needed to cover VDUs.

Three separate research projects on VDUs are being carried out, which have been commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive, and we shall, of course, study them carefully. At present, medical and scientific evidence suggests strongly that the use of VDUs is not a high-risk activity and that it can be covered by general health and safety at work regulations and by the equivalent European regulations.

Mr. Strang

I understand that position, but I think that we shall return to the subject in the years ahead. I must tell the Minister that I doubt whether his view will be sustained for many more years. The Minister referred to research that is being conducted, and we shall be interested to learn the results. A dialogue will no doubt ensue. I realise that we do not introduce regulations for the sake of it, but do so on the basis of hard evidence and the evidence on VDUs will need to be examined. There is no doubt that many employees and trade unions are worried about the effects of VDUs, and I doubt whether they are convinced that there is no need for directives and regulations such as those that apply to other equipment and machinery.

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the possibility that different standards might apply to new workplaces and existing workplaces. That question arises when one considers the daughter directive, and it is an important one. If a distinction is to be made between new and existing workplaces, that can be justified only if the new workplaces are subject to higher standards. I presume that we shall seek to make major improvements in standards and to impose more stringent conditions for new workplaces, so it will not be practical to expect all existing workplaces to change to new machinery or practices overnight. Provided that new workplaces have to meet higher standards, we shall be prepared to consider differing standards between new and existing workplaces.

My next point is equally valid. If it is believed to be necessary to make a distinction between the standards that apply to new and existing workplaces, the period during which that applies should be finite. I should take a considerable amount of persuading that the period should ever be more than five years. Existing workplaces should have five years in which to modify or replace equipment, alter buildings or make other changes to achieve the standards that will be enforced in new workplaces. As we are trying to achieve higher standards, the different standards should operate in parallel for a limited time. That approach would be acceptable. Of course, an ideal approach, when practical, would be to ensure that standards are universal.

I should like to reiterate a point that I believe to be important. I hope that the Minister will be forthright and give the House an undertaking that the Government are not prepared to accept any erosion in the standard of our regulations on health and safety at work as a result of harmonisation or European Community directives. In some limited instances, that may mean that our employers will have to meet standards that are significantly more stringent—even with the new directives—than those in certain European countries and that they may have higher costs.

We must take a clear stand on these matters, and I hope that the Government will make it clear that there will never come a time when, as a result of the directive and subsequent discussions, they will come to the House and argue that, on the grounds of competition, there must be a reduction in our standards. I hope that the Minister will give a clear undertaking on that and that the Government will insist on maintaining—or improving—standards year by year. That is the only way in which we can reduce the large number of deaths from occupational diseases. We do not know, for example, how many people who die from cancer have contracted it as a result of conditions at work. As industry becomes more complex and new substances are used, the minimum assurance that the Minister must give—if we are to improve standards—is that no European Community directive will lead to the British Government reducing standards through our domestic regulations.

5.57 pm

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

What happened before the debate started has proved that we are discussing a substantial topic tonight—the complete review of our health and safety legislation. The most disturbing constitutional aspect of that is that, to the best of my knowledge, although we are discussing fundamental changes in health and safety legislation, I doubt whether commerce and industry have the slightest idea of what we are doing. I doubt whether the trade unions have the slightest idea and I question whether any hon. Member has received representations from, for example, the Confederation of British Industry or the Trades Union Congress about the proposals, many of which are fundamentally important to them.

We are engaged in a discussion in a new kind of democracy in which, sadly, the views of the House of Commons are largely irrelevant, apart from having a minor advisory role. The views of the European Parliament are certainly irrelevant, apart from its having a minor advisory role. Laws are being made for Britain on the structure of the Council of Ministers, with advice from the Commission. This is only the beginning. I hope that industry, commerce and the people of this country are aware of what is happening.

Mr. Cope

I want to reassure my hon. Friend immediately that, to my certain knowledge, the TUC and the CBI are fully aware of the proposals. Only a few days ago, at its request, I went to a meeting of the CBI's safety committee. The CBI showed a deep knowledge of these proposals and I believe that the same deep knowledge exists in the TUC.

Mr. Taylor

I am sure that the CBI and the TUC have been in touch with the Minister, but that underlines my point. I am sure that neither body has the slightest idea of what we—the British Parliament—are doing tonight. Hon. Members are well aware that, when Parliament is to debate legislation over which we have some control, we receive representations from organisations such as the CBI and the TUC, as well as from individual trade unions and employers' associations. We are now working on a different basis—in a new kind of democracy in which the Houses of Parliament are largely irrelevant and have only a minor advisory role. The fact that the CBI and the TUC have been in touch with the Minister proves that the real decisions are made by the Council of Ministers and the Commission in its advisory capacity.

Perhaps even more worrying is the fact that the Government's view will not necessarily prevail. Whether the Government want it or not, expensive and costly legislation may be imposed on British employers, manufacturers and trade unions. Unfortunately, the process is just beginning. Only last Thursday we debated a provision abolishing a major Act of Parliament against the wishes of the United Kingdom Government and against the wishes, I am sure, of the average United Kingdom consumer. The sooner the people of Britian are aware that we are embarking on a new form of democracy so that they can take it into account, the better served they will be.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are debating the directives because the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended them for debate? I am sure that he would not wish to give the impression that that Committee—or indeed others who, like him, are vigilant in these matters—does not try to ensure that the British Parliament is fully involved.

Mr. Taylor

I should certainly like it if the British Parliament was involved in redrafting the safety legislation. I would in no way wish to discredit the Select Committee, which does an excellent job in recommending matters for debate. However, my hon. Friend, who makes an attempt to study the documents in detail, is fully aware that our views are largely irrelevant. I am sure that hon. Members who care about democracy—

Rev. Ian Paisley

rose—

Mr. Taylor

Just such an hon. Member wishes to intervene.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Is it not a fact that under the present arrangements it is impossible for the House to debate legislation in full, to make amendments or to have a real say in any changes?

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Tonight we are to debate the equivalent of four major Bills, each of which would normally have not only a Second Reading but a detailed Committee stage, during which hon. Members could try to make changes. Only a handful of hon. Members are here for the debate because they are aware not only that our decisions on the documents are irrelevant but that we could not in any case make any changes. We should be kidding ourselves if we suggested that our views were in any way relevant. That was the point that I sought to make. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) probably has a larger mail bag than most hon. Members and he will know that it is normal to receive recommendations, letters and requests for meetings. I suggest that no one outside the House has the slightest idea of what is going on tonight and that, even if he did, it would make very little difference.

We are not discussing a small matter. We are discussing major changes in legislation that could have a substantial effect—possibly frightening, possibly improving—on the organisation of industry and commerce. We know that the Council of Ministers rather than the Government will decide what happens. Nevertheless, it would help if we could have a broad outline of the view that the Government will take when they go to the Council of Ministers.

I am concerned about the VDU directive, which would add substantially to industry's costs. According to the Minister, There are … doubts about the usefulness of the proposal and I wonder whether the Government could give us some idea of the extent to which such a provision would add to costs and whether their view has any support among other member states. That is a most important point.

Secondly, I am concerned about what appears to be a new principle—the principle of different standards being applied to existing firms' old factories and new factories. That would inevitably result in an increase in rentals and an increase in the cost of old factories compared with new factories. We are about to embark on legislation that would permit firms operating in any Community country to apply different safety standards to old and to new buildings.

Probably more important than any other question is whether the Government would be willing to ask about policing. We know that they cannot promise us anything when it comes to the Common Market. They perpetually come forward with great ideas. They repeatedly say that they have pledges on the control of Common Market expenditure. That is just a joke. The EEC merely uses an accountancy device and changes the year from 12 to 10 months. We know what happens then. We have continually heard statements about the reform of the common agricultural policy. If we believe them, we are just kidding ourselves. Nothing happens. Expenditure continues to increase and, although we are promised reductions, they never happen.

I am reminded of the time when as the director of a business I went to Dublin to meet some bankers, who gave us a presentation on the prospects for the Republic of Ireland. A series of wonderful graphs on the wall showed a sharp decline followed by a sharp increase. That gave us the impression that things were improving in the Republic. However, we later discovered that all the upturns related to what they thought would happen in the future. We constantly find that happening with the EEC.

I appreciate that the Government have very limited powers. On the other hand, it would make a huge difference if we could know about policing. Will the new laws that we draw up be applied? Earlier today we heard a splendid statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about shipbuilding. We know that it is a joke, because, although the Government will obey the sixth directive in the amount that they give to industry, those involved know that if they are turned down in Britain, they can always get a better deal in France and in two other countries in the Community.

The poor old Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a real mess. He is having to change his policies because our trade has gone haywire. We all know that a former positive trade balance with the EEC has become a horrendous deficit, not because of inefficient British managers or lazy British workers but because things happen in other EEC countries that do not happen here. The main problem is with the Federal Republic of Germany and the inner German trade agreement. We all know that goods flow into East Germany and West Germany because of the inner German trade agreement. When they come here they are meant to have 20 per cent. added value but that does not happen because the policing is the responsibility of the Government of the Federal Republic.

I am worried that, whereas we shall apply the proposals, other countries will not. It is not good enough for the Government to say, "We shall do our best and write to the Commission." If the Minister has any doubts, he should ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport what happened to the Southend bus. The regulations were clear. There was an application for a bus service going to Frankfurt but, despite the fact that the law was clear and precise, we had four years of discussion involving the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, who took infraction proceedings at Brussels. It worries me sick that no matter how hard we try to apply the rules they will simply not be applied elsewhere.

How could we police the proposals? We are transferring responsibility for making at least 80 per cent. of our laws from the House to the EEC. M. Delors was quite right, although I deplore the fact that law-making powers are being switched from the House to the Council of Ministers. If that is to happen, we must ensure that laws are properly applied in different parts of the Community. That means having a mobile and effective police force. It means that there must be someone with authority who can tell a member state on behalf of the Commission that it is breaking the rules, and that action has to be taken. That form of Euro-constitutional policing may be regarded as having frightening implications by some but it would not be nearly as frightening as what is happening at present. We apply 99 per cent. of the rules—although perhaps not all in agriculture—but we know that that is not happening in other countries.

The Minister will have to go along with a proposal that will have the effect of rewriting our health and safety rules. We know that he will not win if he takes issue with it. We know that he will have to tell the House, "We must apply legislation that we do not want. It will damage our industry by adding to its costs." That is not my hon. Friend's fault. He is the most charming and kindly member of the Government, but he cannot overturn the treaty of Rome. He may well have to return to the House and say, "I am sorry, but we must apply these foolish, nasty and irrelevant rules because we lost in the Council of Ministers." I feel sorry for my hon. Friend. He is a kindly and agreeable Minister and entitled to our sympathy.

Before my hon. Friend agrees to the proposal, I ask him to try hard to secure effective policing. It is not good enough to say that the Government will appeal to the Commission or take the matter to the European Court, because my hon. Friend will be aware from the papers that have been placed in the Library that, effectively, the court does not have jurisdiction. The issue rests with individual member states. As I have said, something more will have to be done.

Will the Minister return to tell us that our health and safety rules will have to be changed and that we shall have to have new divisions between old factories and new factories? Will he have to tell us that regulations on the use of VDUs will have to be introduced? There are one or two Labour Members who still do not like the Common Market, but they will be cheering like mad once they learn what is in the documents. They provide that employees' representatives are entitled to time away from work, without reductions in pay, to consider their responsibilities under the directive. An employer will not be able to sack or get rid of an employee, or suspend him, if he is involved in work which comes within the terms of the directive. That is basically rewriting the Government's employment legislation. There are some people, including perhaps Mr. Arthur Scargill, who will cheer like mad when they become aware of the nature of some of the proposals.

The Minister may have to tell us, "I am sorry, but we must apply this legislation." I appreciate, of course, that in these circumstances the House is pretty irrelevant. It will certainly be irrelevant when about 80 per cent. of our legislation stems from Brussels. It remains vital, however, that we secure proper policing if we take the step—it would have horrified Oliver Cromwell, and probably Charles I as well—of transferring our sovereignty and the responsibility for the making of laws to another legislative body. We must ensure that there is proper policing and implementation in Brussels, which has always been the position here.

Mr. Dalyell

I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not have the necessary resources to make exact calculations, but he has obviously thought about these matters. What would be the general costs of the policing that he advocates?

Mr. Taylor

The costs would be minimal in comparison with the costs of having unequal laws applied. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. The House will remember the Southend bus episode and the claim by the Frankfurt lander that there was no suitable place to park a bus. It is necessary to have someone who is in a position to say, "If 800,000 vehicles can be parked in Frankfurt, room can be found for one more bus." There must be someone with authority to say to a member Government, to a länder or a local authority that what it was doing was contrary to the provisions of the treaty and counter to the regulations. A small implementing force would have real effect. There is no point in transferring sovereignty unless we have proper policing.

The Government have no right to determine whether these proposals are enacted. We shall have to try to persuade Denmark, Italy, Greece or Portugal to add their weight to our submissions. The Government cannot say what the law will be because they have no control over what will become law. We cannot say what the law will be because we are in the same position as the Government. Whatever law is applied by the Council of Ministers, it would be nice if it were properly policed and fairly applied.

6.15 pm

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) painted an improbable picture of Arthur Scargill and Oliver Cromwell facing each other on opposite Benches. If that were to be the position, I would not like to predict who would come out on top.

The Minister has shown concern about the dilution of the sovereign rights of the House vis-a-vis the European Community and the European Parliament. Concern has been expressed about British employers having to face stricter regulations and health and safety standards than employers in competitor countries. Concern has been expressed also that harmonisation might lead to an increase in the rights of workers to participate in the management of their companies. We heard no concern expressed about the establishment of acceptable minimum standards of health and safety at work across the European Community and in Britain especially. That is a sad reflection on the priorities of Conservative Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, last year there were 700 deaths as a result of major accidents at work. There have been tens of thousands of deaths as a result of occupational diseases as well as tens of thousands of major accidents.

When the Minister opened the debate, he said that the documents reflect the move towards the single European market in 1992 and increased European activity in improving health and safety at work. It seems that the Minister does not consider that Britain will lag behind other EEC countries. He believes that we shall have to face the task of raising the standards of other European countries so that they match our already high standards. The motion asks the House to support the proposals in principle as a step towards the establishment of comparable high standards of health and safety throughout the Community. The Government are telling us, in effect, that Britain should take the lead in imposing health and safety standards across the EEC. Those are fine words, and it is good to hear the Government profess that they are concerned about the standards of health and safety that apply to workers throughout Europe.

The Government's protestations are hardly convincing. We must consider their record since they took office in 1979. The Minister has said that British standards will not be diluted, but some Conservative Members have said that the key is the administrative machinery in any individual member country and not standards of health and safety that are set out in legislation. There must be effective machinery to enable individual member countries to enforce the standards that are laid down in law to meet the health and safety standards for workplaces. Our administrative machinery leaves much to be desired, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that comment when he replies.

Since 1979–80 the Government have relentlessly pursued expenditure cuts. That has led, directly or indirectly, to a freeze on recruitment to the Health and Safety Executive and a reduction in the strength of the factory inspectorate from 764 in 1979 to fewer than 550 today. There are only 49 factory inspectors for the whole of Scotland. No Government can be proud of such a record. It is all very well for the Minister to profess concern about standards and to talk about raising European standards to the already high British standards, but actions must speak louder than words. The actions of the Government have shown that they lack any commitment to the enforcing of health and safety standards in Britain. They should direct their efforts to enforcement here before they start preaching to other European countries.

Symptomatic of the Government's lack of action in encouraging the enforcement of health and safety standards is the closure of the Health and Safety Executive's office in Dundee in April. It was closed despite the presentation to the House of a petition bearing 4,000 signatures. I presented the petition, which was organised by one of my constituents, Margaret Malcolm. It united almost all public opinion in the city in support of retaining the office. The petition was ignored by the Minister and the Government generally. The office was closed despite the fact that in the week preceding closure a blitz by out-of-town inspectors on the construction industry in Dundee led to more than 250 prohibition notices. That highlights the fact that much is left to be desired in terms of health and safety standards in workplaces.

To give some idea of the significance of the issuing of 250 prohibition orders in Dundee, we can compare that with a similar blitz in London which even I, as a representative of Dundee, would admit is a bigger city than mine. In London 350 prohibition notices were issued, yet 250 were issued in Dundee. The Government's answer was to close the Health and Safety Executive office in Dundee and to tell the people there that they will be covered by the offices in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Because of understaffing, those offices are already overstretched and they will be even further stretched by the closure of the Dundee office.

All that is a far cry from the all-party agreement in 1974 about target staffing of 4,000, including more than 1,050 factory inspectors, for the Health and Safety Executive. Those targets have not been achieved by the Government. The Government have fallen far short of the figures, and there has been a reduction in staff from 764 to fewer than 550 since 1979.

The Minister also boasted that the British figures for fatal accidents were among the best in Europe. What about the figures for major accidents? They have risen 30 per cent. since 1980, during which time staffing levels of the factory inspectorate have fallen by 28 per cent. If the Minister cannot see a connection between those two facts, he is the only one who cannot.

We live in times when the demands on the factory inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive are increasing. More workers than ever before are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. For example, the Health Service has lost Crown immunity against prosecution. That means that there are many more workplaces for factory inspectors and other inspectors to cover. New European directives require inspectors to accommodate more detailed and complex standards and to investigate more workplaces more closely.

We live in times when the workplace is becoming ever more dangerous—and the King's Cross and Piper Alpha disasters testify to that. In Dundee last Friday more than 200 16 and 17-year-olds ran out of entitlement to bridging allowance and were forcibly conscripted into training places under the youth training scheme. No one knows what standards of health and safety will apply to those training places because the Government have abolished the area manpower boards which used to have local authority and trade union input to monitor and defend standards for YTS places. Those boards have been swept aside and 16 and 17-year-old youngsters are being forced into jobs in which no one can guarantee that the health and safety standards will be acceptable. It is strange for the Government to boast about their record on health and safety in the light of that.

The Government's commitment to health and safety is entirely a paper one. They do not really mean it. Far from telling us that we should support the directives in principle—which I hope all my colleagues will do tonight—they should tell us what they are going to do to enforce the principles and standards of health and safety which will reach the statute book.

When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell us what the Government intend to do about proper funding and staffing for the Health and Safety Executive and for the factory inspectorate. I hope that he will also tell us whether it will ever be in the Government's remit to reopen the office in Dundee, which the people in Dundee demand should be reopened in the light of increasing dangers to youngsters and many other workers in the city as a result of the lack of application of health and safety standards which the Government should be defending.

6.23 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

Like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), we are all in favour of good health and safety at work legislation. It is one of those "motherhood and apple pie" political issues which no elected Member of Parliament can possibly oppose. The vast generalities of principle that we have heard enunciated tonight are in many cases so broad and vague that naturally we are all in favour of them. However, when we get down to the small print in the directives, a new and rather more disturbing picture emerges.

I begin with a strong word of protest which is general to our proceedings this afternoon and specific to this motion. My protest is that it is a physical and parliamentary impossibility for the House to scrutinise EEC directives and documents on the basis requested by the Government today. We are being asked to scrutinise more than 450 pages of highly technical draft legislation, which may have very profound effects and which are of considerable legal complexity, all in the course of half a day's business. That asks us to take part in a charade, a sham and a fraud on our constituents. The health and safety directives will affect every employer, employee, worker and workplace in this country, and they run to more than 175 pages. That is equivalent to three or four major Bills by British domestic legislation standards.

I heartily endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that, if we were dealing with the directives as British domestic legislation, Committees of this House would examine them for weeks and the Chamber would debate them for days to get the legislation right. However, we are now going to devote no more than an hour or two of debate to 175 highly technical pages and then throw them to the mercy of the Brussels wolves for majority voting. They will never return to this House in a form in which we can influence or change them. The children's fairy story of the emperor who had no clothes has been replaced by the parliamentary story of the House of Commons that has no time and no power.

Even if we do not have legislative power, at least some of us have the will power to warn the House and the country that some of the EEC directives contain unacceptable material of a kind which is in danger of making 1992 a 1066 for Britain and British industry. In saying that, I am doing no more than voicing the great concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Bruges on 20 September when she voiced some anxieties about what Mr. Jacques Delors calls the social dimension of the EEC's legislative programme. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said: We certainly do not need new regulations which raise the cost of employment and make Europe's labour market less flexible and less competitive with overseas suppliers. Later in her speech in Bruges she said: Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre. I am surprised to see the directives and the motion appearing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said one thing in Bruges while her colleagues appear to break her Bruges commandments with the introduction of the directives.

The general principles of the draft directives may be found in the explanatory memorandum on page 2 of the 175-page bundle under discussion. Paragraph 2 states: The main aims of the proposal are: to improve the safety and health at the workplace"— and we all agree with that— to provide a 'social element' to complement the economic objectives of completion of the internal market. Paragraph 4.1.2.1. of the financial record sheet, headed Characteristics of the proposed Directive", states that the proposal may be adapted and supplemented … to add a 'social element' to the directives of the 'technical harmonisation—internal market' type which relate to the safety and health of workers … without having to draw up a complete new directive on social aspects in each case. That reads suspiciously like a complete political blank cheque to add new paragraphs and principles to the draft directives in order to encompass social dimension objectives. I worry not about the health and safety elements of the proposals, but about the social market and social engineering dimension.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal before the House significantly pre-dates the Bruges speech? My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the recitals refer to a social element introduced under the directive. Only the other day, during Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend stressed the importance of scrutiny. We are engaged in doing precisely that. Obviously we need to get further back in the decision-making process, so that we may deal with such matters at an earlier stage.

Mr. Aitken

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a profound and important point. Of course we should be getting further back in the decision-making process. This is just an empty ritual, in which our words will not be heeded or have any influence. Even the Prime Minister's Bruges speech is not being heeded. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say, rightly, that that speech post-dated the directives, but I should like to see a thundering good row at the Rhodes summit.

Mr. Cash

We will probably get one.

Mr. Aitken

I think that that is a good bet. At least we are giving more power to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, if that is necessary—which I doubt.

The directive's social engineering content will in the 1990s do for small workplaces and factories what the Fire Precautions Act 1971 did for small seaside landladies and keepers of boarding houses—drive a good many of them out of business in the name of highly theoretical preventive safety standards. If we ever reach the stage where a statue of Mr. Delors is erected in every town where the regulations destroy a business, he will become one of the most famous anti-heroes since Guy Fawkes.

I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider for a moment the mass of social engineering detail contained in the proposals, which will undoubtedly push up the costs incurred by small factories. I think of the struggling small factory units in my own constituency and what they will have to cope with if the directives are enforced, and I worry profoundly about them. I read, in the 175-page bundle, nuggets such as that to be found in paragraph 2.7.1: The floors of workplaces shall be level, with no unevenness. In paragraph 2.7.3:

All-glass partitions … shall be made of safety material. Paragraph 2.9.4: Sliding doors shall be fitted with a mechanism to secure them from being lifted off their mountings and falling out. Paragraph 2.14.3: Appropriate measures for the protection of non-smokers shall be taken in staff rest rooms. That is a good health and safety at work directive—or what I shall call an example of social engineering. Paragraph 2.16.1: A first-aid room shall be provided", not just a first-aid box, in factories over a certain size. Paragraph 2.5.3: Climate control installations shall not blow or radiate on to work stations. Paragraph 2.18.1 states that outdoor workers shall be protected against inclement weather conditions. I can imagine shepherds in the Scottish highlands or North sea trawler deckhands calling in the Euro inspector and saying, "Paragraph 2.18.1 says that we should be protected against inclement weather conditions."

Apart from those Utopian ideals, there are pages and pages more of detailed technicalities and regulations covering machines and protective equipment. There are 56 pages of proposals—for example, that personal protective equipment shall take account of ergonomic requirements and of workers' health. It will be a barrack-room lawyer's charter—a lawyer's gravy train. Claims by employees against their employers will surge.

I ask the same basic question that was asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer): will any of the proposed EC legislation raise standards over and above those that already prevail, thanks to our basic legislation, such as the admirable Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974?

Will harmonisation and standardisation of the EEC type mean anything more than higher costs and fewer jobs for British factories? I doubt it. I believe that we are going down a dangerous slippery slope of agreeing willy-nilly to any European proposal. The principles may sound good, but when one does one's homework and studies the documentation—and it took me 11 hours to study the 450 pages of bumf that accompanies these regulations to discover a few salient points—the more one comes to the conclusion that such half-baked, ill-thought-out Euro legislation, when compared to the much sounder legislation on our own statute book, is leading us, in a most un-British way, to adopting legislation that will do our country no good whatsoever and perhaps a great deal of harm.

6.35 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I do not share the views somewhat scathingly expressed by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). However, it is an important subject. Each year we lose more working days from industrial injury than from strike action.—usually two or three times more, if one excludes exceptional years such as 1979.

Where I differ from the hon. Member for Thanet, South is in my belief that workers should be provided with level floors. If they are carrying heavy loads, or are manoeuvring delicate items, it is important that floors are level and that workers can move about unimpeded. There should be no difference between us in that regard. Not all workshops have the same thickness of carpeting that we have in the House, or the kind of flooring that is scrupulously maintained. We should try to apply the fairly lush standards to which we are accustomed and bear in mind workers' difficulties.

Where I take issue with the massive documents is that they are a recipe for lowering the standards that we already have from United Kingdom legislation. Those in the Labour party and in the trade union movement who are looking to the Common Market as a way of getting around the British Government in attempting to improve standards are looking for moonshine. Our experience is that the Common Market has never provided any improvements in workers' standards. It has devised several high-sounding phrases, and one may consider, for example, the Vredeling directive, which claimed that workers should have rights to information.

What has happened to that proposal? It has been under review for five years, and will continue being under review because it represents a radical change in existing practice. I support any improvement in workers' rights, as I supported the recommendations of the Bullock committee, but that task is one for the Labour and trade union movement to tackle in the United Kingdom, rather than attempt to do so by a back door method that may or may not work. Our experience is that such attempts do not work.

I share the views that have been expressed about the unsatisfactory nature of this debate. To be required to scrutinise this number of documents and pages in this way is less than satisfactory. It really is outrageous. The point has been made that it is the equivalent of a major item of legislation, such as the Housing Bill, where there would normally be 200 or 300 Lords amendments and hundreds in Committee upstairs. We would usually spend 100 or 150 hours in Committee before the Government subjected the measure to their usual guillotine. Instead, we are here dealing with highly technical and complicated matters in the course of three or four hours in one evening. That is less than satisfactory.

It may be argued that we can scrutinise these matters as a member of the EEC Assembly. Incidentally, I understand that it is now called a Parliament, but I never give it that grandiose and mistaken description. In case right hon. and hon. Members do not know, so-called debate in the Assembly is in reality a stitch-up by party leaders, whereby time is allocated down to the last minute, and a major contribution may last only three or four minutes if the speaker is lucky. No real debate takes place. Provisions can be altered only by amendments which are tabled and voted on. Most of the Assembly's time is devoted to voting.

The Assembly might vote on these proposals without debate or with hardly a comment. Voting on the electronic machines, which keep breaking down, might take three, four or five hours. It is an illusion that there will be a little democracy in Strasbourg this week when these documents are debated. Hon. Members do not always know that that happens. If they are like me, it is not until they witness this anachronistic charade in the Common Market that they realise it.

Mr. Cash

Did the hon. Gentleman see an article this weekend in The Economist, entitled "Silly Parliament", which illustrates his point? The article referred to a motion which apparently was based on rumours and nothing else, but was passed by a significant majority.

Mr. Cryer

That happens frequently. I do not want to seem like a 19th century constitutionalist. Although there are many points on which one can criticise this place—I am willing to air them—because the system has developed over the years, there are a large number of loopholes allowing Back Benchers like me to raise issues and put forward views. Unsatisfactory though this debate is, compared with the European Assembly we shall have two or three hours of an exchange of views. Because my views do not often accord with the tenets of the Socialist group, the opportunities for the "dissident voice" to be heard in the EEC Assembly are limited. I hate to sound as though I am a 19th century proponent of Parliament, but it is a richness of this place that the dissident voice can be raised frequently.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

If the hon. Gentleman were able to make the excellent speeches in the European Assembly that he can make here, would he at least agree with the basic point that, irrespective of what the European Assembly or the House says, the Council of Ministers can do whatever it likes and ignore the views of the Assembly and the House?

Mr. Cryer

That is true. Commissioner Marin, who is responsible for the production of some of these documents, told the Assembly last month that he was prepared to disagree with its views. He bluntly said that the conciliation machinery of the Single European Act must be invoked and that he did not accept what had been done, so even the Commission appointees, who, as we know, are subject to patronage, can turn round and tell the Assembly where to go, and they frequently do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Is it not a fact that, when matters concerning Ministers of the Council are discussed, sometimes their Bench is empty and the Parliament is talking to itself?

Mr. Cryer

There are frequent complaints about that.

Because it is difficult in a short speech to encompass the complexity of these proposals, I shall pick out page 15 in annex I in the pile of documents which starts with a translation of a letter from Mr. Marin and is numbered SOC 43. It is difficult to pick out the relevant quotation. On the minimum requirements referred to in article 4, paragraph 1, in annex 1 on "The definition of 'machinery' in the Directive concerning the design, manufacture and placing in the market of machinery", the document says:

The moving parts of a machine shall be protected, if the work allows, by a guard to prevent contact with the workers. Section 14 of the Factories Act 1961 is much more comprehensive. It states: Every dangerous part of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or such construction as to be as safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced. The Act imposes an absolute obligation, which compares with the rubbery, qualified statement in the document:

The moving parts of a machine shall be protected, if the work allows, by a guard to prevent contact with the workers. How does that affect the workers? Because section 14 of the Factories Act 1961 provides an absolute standard, it is much easier for an injured worker to demonstrate to a court—the Act provides for a criminal penalty, but real compensation for a serious injury is obtained through the civil courts—that there has been a breach of the Act. The worker can say, "The employer was negligent and, therefore, my claim will be successful." That is important for a person who will not work again because he has injured his back, lost the use of a limb, or whatever. Many thousands of serious accidents occur every year. The 1961 Act is an important guide to provide some compensation for people who are not likely to work again in their former job or who are likely to have only a light job. I raised that matter during the Minister's speech, but he was not able to give me a clear assurance that the Factories Act 1961 would be retained and given priority over the Common Market proposals.

Any regulations to implement these directives will presumably—the Minister agreed—be introduced under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Section 1(2)—

Mr. Cope

I think that I inadvertently referred to section 2(1). The correct provision to which I intended to refer was section 1(2).

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that I am correct. Section 1(2) states that regulations must be designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare". That is a clear statutory obligation on the Minister. No directive to be implemented through regulations could lower standards. The Minister must therefore give a clear assurance to the House that he will not introduce regulations that will breach section 1(2) of the 1974 Act.

It would be useful to be given an assurance that there will be no attempt to repeal the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. People may say, "It is a well-established Act. We all agree on it." We were all agreed on the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, yet last week an order was passed repealing that legislation because the Commission was challenging it in the European Court.

The Minister may argue that the treaty of Rome provides that member states shall have the right to allow an improved standard if they wish. These directives are being considered under article 118A of the treaty of Rome. The treaty provides an opportunity for both the proponents and the opponents of the directives to go to the European Court. The treaty is not a safeguard. Article 118A says: Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. An employer could go to the European Court and say that his business was being inhibited by the regulations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and that he challenged them. Our legislation is, by and large, tried, trusted and well-respected, but it could be open to challenge.

Paragraph 3 of article 118A says: The provisions adopted pursuant to this Article shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent measures for the protection of working conditions compatible with this Treaty. That provides the Minister with a safeguard, but it is, as is usual with the Common Market, a highly qualified safeguard.

It is unsatisfactory that further legislation should be enacted by means of statutory instruments. Under the affirmative or the negative procedure it is either all or nowt. We cannot amend statutory instruments, although they can be as complicated and comprehensive as primary legislation. It is most unsatisfactory that great chunks of legislation that are being spewed out by the EEC bureaucrats should be debated here so briefly. They will come before the House later in the form of regulations that will be either adopted in their entirety or rejected. The Whips will get to work. They will talk to Conservative Members and get virtually anything that they want through the House, because only a few of them realise how serious it is to erode the powers of the House.

We cannot even enforce uniform standards in this country. I have in my hand a report from the West Yorkshire low pay unit, dated Wednesday 27 April 1988. It points out that accidents in West Yorkshire are increasing. On page 2 the report says:

In the year 1986–87, the rate of local authority inspections per 100 premises covered was Bradford: 49"— I imagine that under Bradford's new Tory control that number will plummet—

Calderdale: 38; Kirklees: 68; Leeds: 9; and Wakefield: 53. It does not depend on whether the Conservatives or Labour are in control. Inspections vary, per 100 premises, from nine on the low side to 68 on the high side. How can we except uniformity of inspection in the Common Market by the application of measures that are designed to implement the Single European Act, which is expected to create a single European market in 1992?

There is no inspection of small firms in some EEC states. In other EEC states there is no definition of small firms. Small firms in this country are defined, following the Bolton committee recommendations, as employing up to 200 people, but in other EEC member states small firms are commonly defined as employing fewer than 500 employees. There is a yawning gap. I hope that the Government will fill that yawning gap, or chasm, by creating uniform standards. It is virtually impossible, however, for 12 member states to create uniform standards. In Spain there are virtually no inspections. We can ensure that action is taken in this country, but how can we ensure that action will be taken in Spain, Holland or Belgium? We cannot require their inspectors to prosecute those who flagrantly breach the safety regulations.

United Kingdom inspectors are not too keen on prosecuting offenders. The record of the mines and quarries inspectorate is lamentable. Two workers died because of a fault on a Scotch derrick crane in a Cornish quarry owned by Amey Roadstone. The inspectorate did not intend to prosecute. It was only after I had asked a number of questions in the House that it eventually decided to prosecute. I was able to bring about that prosecution by exerting pressure in this place, but we do not have a cat in hell's chance of exerting similar pressure in the legislatures of other member states. Inspection and subsequent prosecution where breaches of the regulations have been proved will, to say the least, be patchy.

The Minister has not said what will happen if an employer argues that he is being undercut by, say, Belgian employers because their standard of scrutiny is not so rigorous as ours. How can we prevent an employer from going to the European Court and claiming that the competition is unfair and that under the section of the treaty of Rome that I have quoted United Kingdom standards should be lowered, not raised? The Minister may recall that, in a Committee upstairs that considers merit, regulations are being prepared that will lay down general minimum standards, many of which will be implemented by codes of practice instead of by primary legislation. I suggest to him that the draft regulations ought to be put before the House, not for debate, but so that the House could be consulted about them.

It is a matter of criticism that consultation documents are sent to all sorts of bodies but they are never placed in the Vote Office so that Members can consult them. I refer, not to White Papers or Green Papers, but to routine consultation documents, often of a technical nature, that should be provided for Members of Parliament, but they are not even placed in the House of Commons Library.

Are these regulations in draft form, known as the COSHH—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health—regulations, to supplant primary legislation? Will they depend more on codes of practice and less on primary legislation? Will they be provided to Members of Parliament for their consideration?

The removal of frontiers means that there will be no scrutiny of the importation of dangerous machinery. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 importers of dangerous machinery are obliged to provide a guarantee that their machines are safe for use by workers, but in practice that does not happen. Dangerous machinery is imported, unbeknown to anybody, and is put into use. Somebody is injured, there is then a hue and cry and the machinery is withdrawn, or guards are put on it or repairs are made. Polish light bulbs were not tested, and they exploded in people's homes. Dressings were imported from India, but they were found to be infected with tetanus, so they were not very useful as first-aid dressings.

That will happen again and again if there is no scrutiny of such imports. If we continue in this lacklustre, haphazard fashion and do not employ a single health and safety at work inspector at any of our ports, imported machinery is likely to be dangerous and to injure people. The French and the Germans will carry on their inspections, not at frontiers, but at exhibitions. They inspect installations as well. We should scrutinise machinery before it is installed.

These regulations, letters and minutes are unsatisfactory and I have strong reservations about them, although not for the reasons that Conservative Members have given. I believe that they will lead to a lowering of safety standards. Defending our people in factories, offices, shops and railway premises is vital, and to do that we must improve our standards by maintaining our legislation and ensuring that we have enough inspectors to enforce it.

7.2 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

It is appropriate that an hon. Member from Northern Ireland should take part in this debate because we have experienced what is now happening to the House.

Our legislation is done by Order in Council. We get a very limited time for debate—it is sometimes one and a half hours. Although I am able to table and move amendments to legislation that affects Scotland, England and Wales, I cannot table or move amendments to legislation that affects the area that I represent. The House passes detailed legislation affecting Northern Ireland but Northern Ireland Members are unable to amend it.

In the European context, the House will experience the same difficulty. As today, matters will come before the House but hon. Members will be unable to amend proposals or discuss them thoroughly. Out attention has been drawn to an important document, copies of which have been issued to many thousands of workers and managers in the United Kingdom. It is worthy of study by every hon. Member. The Minister made it clear that whatever was decided about the regulations would be decided by majority vote. The document, issued by the European Commission, says the very opposite. It says: items relating to taxation, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employees are excluded and will therefore still require unanimity under the Treaty. Who is right? Is the Minister right when he says that a decision will be made by majority vote, or is the document sent out by the Commission of the European Communities, which has the authority of Delors himself, correct?

The document makes tremendous claims about what will happen in Britain when that wonderful date of 1992 is reached. We are told that we shall have economic gains of £140 billion or more and that millions of new jobs will be created. I remember the pro-Marketeers busily telling us that joining the Common Market would be a panacea for all our ills. We were told that a vast number of jobs would be created and that the challenge would be for people to step in and claim them. We are all deeply concerned about unemployment in our constituencies, so such promises, which are easily made and heralded in glossy documents, deserve our close attention.

How decisions are made is significant. There are three places where they are made. The European Commission is the initiator and the executive. The Council of Ministers is the decision maker. The European Parliament has a consultative supervisory role. It debates proposed European legislation and produces amendments. I have served with the European Assembly for almost two Sessions now, but one has only to go there to see how these issues are debated and settled.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also attends the European Assembly. He spoke about the electric machines that are used for voting there. Most of the voting, however, is done simply by the raising of hands for the simple reason that the President tells us that there is not enough time to use the machines. It is quicker to vote by the raising of hands. People raise their hands for hours on end.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the document raises serious constitutional issues? This is not some vague constitutional theology but a practical issue. Some 50,000 of these documents have been distributed at every level. Every trade association and every company has received one. That process totally—and apparently deliberately—ignores the existence of the United Kingdom Parliament. Ministers are responsible for carrying out Community legislation which is imposed on us as a result of the European Communities Act 1972.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I agree, but the House took the decision to join the Common Market. We agreed the Single European Act. We shall continue to go down this road. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has said, we have been left with a policing role. It is beyond us now to change what is happening. The House can talk and talk and even vote, but its votes will have no effect because the Council of Ministers will make the decisions. Its decisions will be the law irrespective of whether we like it.

I have a large agricultural sector in my constituency, and we have a processing factory. I was invited, as a Member of the European Assembly, to look around the factory. I spent a day there, and noticed that there were two, three and sometimes four men in each room. I asked who they were and was told that they were EEC inspectors. I was told how many there were. I asked how many I would find if I went that day to a similar factory in France. They said, "You would be fortunate if you saw one." How can any factory compete on those terms? That factory has to pay those inspectors and to police the situation. In those circumstances, it will be impossible for us to compete in the glorious, unlimited market in which millions and billions of pounds can be made.

I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East that it is a matter of policing and that the House must say to the Common Market, "If these are your rules, they should be the same rules for Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the Benelux countries and Denmark, and you must keep them." But that is not happening. The same thing happened with fishing when the fisheries Minister of the Republic of Ireland turned a blind eye to the quotas for herring and could not see any ships flying his flag taking herrings above the quota that had been arranged. I went to see the Secretary of State who at the time was a former member of the Royal Navy. I asked him to turn a blind eye, as Nelson did, and do the same for us. He said, "No. If anybody breaks the law, my men will seize their nets and they will pay the price." That is exactly what happened.

We keep the police and EEC rules so well that we are putting our people at a disadvantage. The Common Market goes on breaking its own regulations. In a previous debate today we heard about the directive on shipbuilding. One wonders why they can compete so well, with all the hidden subsidies that they receive.

I am also concerned about the way in which the regulations will be made. I believe that there should be the best possible health and safety for workers and that we should have the highest possible standard. A great deal of good work has been done in the past by workers and by management to bring that about and there is a good heritage in the workplaces of the United Kingdom which should not in any way be surrendered. It worries me that the memorandum states: Most of the necessary changes could be effected by Regulations made under the enabling powers of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974". I should like to ask the Minister—I asked him this before but he did not have time to dwell on the matter—in what way the regulations will be brought before the House. If, for instance, the regulations were rejected by the House, would not the sovereign power of the EEC supersede even the House and would not the laws be brought to bear upon the whole Community? We need some explanation from the Minister on that. He spoke about cases in which powers under the European Communities Act 1972 could be used. Is he proposing an Order in Council system? Will they be affirmative resolutions? Can they be prayed against? What method will be used if any changes are made? It is important that the British people should know what is happening.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has put the document to the Clerk and to the Speaker. I consider that the document challenges the authority of the House. It says that the United Kingdom Parliament has no say in regard to laws. It is not even mentioned that the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are supreme and that through those channels alone shall the laws of this country be made and applied. That is a most serious constitutional point. The House needs to take cognisance of it and it should be pressed home at every opportunity to the Government, to the Speaker and to the House.

7.14 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

We have had a very interesting argument and some strange alliances have been formed between the two sides of the House on some of the issues of concern. However, the arguments about the loss of sovereignty and involvement of the House are somewhat academic now that we are part of the Common Market. I campaigned against joining the Common Market. Nevertheless, now that we are part of it, we have to accept its rules. The speeches by the Prime Minister, such as the one at Bruges, are empty rhetoric and meaningless in terms of how the procedures will operate, as are her speeches against the common agricultural policy because Britain is only part of the European process. However, it is not all negative and there are advantages in the directives because they apply to all countries.

An argument that has been put to me, and echoed tonight, is that small companies do not object to health and safety legislation so long as that legislation applies fairly across the board and they know that they are not being put at a disadvantage in this country when other countries may be ignoring that legislation. That is relevant to the enforcement of legislation in this country and abroad.

It is likely that the European Parliament will try to impose minimum standards and allow individual countries to decide whether to have higher standards. That is why it is important that the legislation should be seen not as imposing the existing standards for health and safety but the minimum standards.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am concerned that the directives do not apply to temporary or mobile work sites. Therefore, they will not apply to building sites. I believe that one of the major weaknesses of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is its lack of enforcement in places such as building sites and mobile firms such as contractors.

Accidents on building sites have more than doubled in recent years. Only in the past few weeks one of my constituents who was working on a building site in the south of England was tragically killed. I cannot say much about that because there will be an inquest. In another case in my constituency contractors working for the British Oxygen Company were concerned when one of the workers contracted legionnaire's disease. I understand that even though they were concerned about that issue, and even though the Health and Safety Executive was called in—I am not criticising the company which went through all the proper channels for dealing with the case—the workers were ordered to go back to work or face the sack. It concerns me that people should be put in that invidious position before they had been reassured that the risks to their health and safety had been cleared and that the correct procedures had been followed to their satisfaction.

With only just over 500 health and safety inspectors in Britain, how can we be sure that we can enforce the legislation in this country, let alone in Europe? I suspect that when the directives go to other European Paliaments, people there will say, "Look at the United Kingdom. Have we any confidence that it can enforce the regulations?".

The same arguments that we have heard tonight about unfair competition and other countries not applying the letter of the law as closely as we do will be applied against us. We should put our own house in order. Unless we have the correct enforcement procedures and the correct number of inspectors, and unless we keep an eye on building sites, construction sites and contractors' firms, which by their very nature are difficult to watch, the directives and our present laws will simply be a paper tiger with no teeth. They will not be able to protect the work force, which is what they are intended to do. That is the key issue to which we should attend. If we adopt these draft directives, they should be seen to work not only in Europe but in Britain.

7.20 pm

Mr. James Cran (Beverley)

I cannot pretend that all the arguments have not been rehearsed ad nauseam—and quite rightly. I associate myself with the remarks made on both sides of the Chamber on the importance of the issues before us. I also add my voice to the condemnation of the fact that we have no time to deal with these major changes.

I am somewhat mollified by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I shall look carefully at Hansard tomorrow. I think that he will agree with me that the representative bodies are worried by the draft directives. They feel that if they are allowed to go through unamended, the competitiveness of individual companies may be adversely affected. I know that that point has been made to my right hon. Friend and that the industrial sector in Britain hopes that the draft directives will be heavily amended.

I agree with those who have said that the ball is in the Government's court. As a Member of Parliament, I shall be able to say a great deal about the directives, but I shall have no influence on the matter.

The approach and concept of the draft directives are defective. We have talked about high standards and, in the United Kingdom, high standards are not a problem. I think that it is accepted on both sides of the House that standards in the United Kingdom are very high. The problem—and I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with it—is that these are very detailed directives and they are a departure from what we have been used to in the United Kingdom in terms of health and safety legislation. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, in as polite but strong terms as I can, that the directives will not help employers in any way. Those involved know from experience that the more detailed the health and safety legislation, the lower the standard at which companies tend to implement it.

I agree heartily with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not now in the Chamber. I thought that I might feel uncomfortable agreeing with him but I do not, because he was correct. There is a danger that, if the directives go through unamended, there will be a drop in standards in the United Kingdom, and I would be against that. As has been said, that will apply particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises. Is that not ironic when one looks at paragraph 4 of article 118A of the Single European Act, which says that the directives should impose as few constraints as possible on small and medium-sized businesses? The draft directives will do the opposite. That is said not only by me but by the representatives of British firms and companies.

I have looked at many regulations affecting industry over the years, and I can say that these draft directives bear all the hallmarks of excessive haste in drafting. I have found no one who deals with issues such as this who disagrees with that proposition. There has been inadequate consultation by the European Commission, but not by the Government. The Government have been trying to rectify the inadequate consultation. It is regrettable that the little representation sought by the EEC has been largely ignored. Ultimately we will have a terrible muddle, the resolution of which will involve the Council of Ministers in endless, protracted discussions.

Absolute safety at work is impossible. Anyone who has anything to do with safety at work is aware of that. However, that does not mean that we are not unified in wanting to attain the highest standards possible. The draft directives try to achieve perfection, but the Confederation of British Industry, in this regard, said:

Requirements in the directives for absolute safety have the potential to force employers to lay off their employees and bring industry to a halt. No employee would ever be allowed to climb a ladder again. I would be the first to admit that that is a strong statement and may be something of an exaggeration. However, it gives the House the flavour of what the industrial community feels about the draft directives—that in their present form they are unacceptable. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister, as has the industrial community, that the EEC Commission could do no better than to look at what we have achieved under successive Governments of both political persuasions. In Britain we have sought to provide protection so far as is reasonably practicable. That is not what is being enshrined in the draft directives.

We must remember that employers in the United Kingdom cannot get away with blatant breaches, because they are subject to scrutiny by the Health and Safety Commission and the courts. On those principles we have achieved some of the highest standards of health and safety in Europe.

A great deal rests on the Government in the negotiations and parleying that has to be done. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister because I know what he has achieved in other areas. However, what he has to achieve here is critical. If the draft directives go through unamended, we will have lower standards of health and safety in Britain than any of us want.

7.28 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

We have to say, "I told you so." Many hon. Members who have spoken today said that joining the EEC was the wrong move and that people would rue the day that that decision was made. It is obvious that we were misled by the Minister today about what is in the documents on health and safety at work.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is not in his place. He made a typical bosses' contribution. I do not want to make a typical trade union contribution. Safety is the responsibility of management, workers and trade unions, and I stand four square on that. That was my experience throughout many years in the mining industry.

I like some of the suggestions made in the documents, but the Commission has gone over the top. Hon. Members mentioned the Prime Minister's speech in Bruges, and I recalled what we were saying when the application to join the EEC was being made. I did not hear the Prime Minister saying that we should not join; the Government made us join and we must accept it. I hate to think what will happen in 1992. I honestly lose sleep over it because I can visualise many of the rights that we have had for hundreds of years being thrown away. We will be controlled from the other side of the channel; we will lose our sovereignty. I remember the contributions made by the former right hon. Member for South Down, and what he said has come true.

The Minister talked about costs, but what about industry? The prominent industry in my constituency is coal mining. It is a heavy, dangerous industry and it has experienced problems with safety. The management and men work together. Management inspections are made underground and on the surface and workmen's pit inspectors make inspections on the surface and underground, but there is another body that has overall responsibility—Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectorate, which was set up under the mines and quarries legislation. I do not know how often I have had to ask the Minister when we will have the appropriate number of inspectors. We have nowhere near enough mine inspectors.

Alf Robens was chairman of the National Coal Board. He cut back on this, that and the other, as the Government are doing. He also cut back on spare parts and safety. I worked in the pits, so I knew exactly what was going on. The result was that the number of accidents and fatalities rocketed. If the Minister looks at the figures for fatalities and accidents for that period he will see that I am right. The system worked all right, but not enough was done to prevent accidents.

Lifting is mentioned in the documents. That is an important part of working in mining or heavy industry. People should be taught how to lift because there is a proper way to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) has experience of the mining industry and knows exactly what I am talking about. There is a way of lifting heavy materials, but there was not enough time to teach miners how to do it. The men would have had to learn in their own time. They were not told that they should have their body in a certain position when lifting heavy things. Back problems were one of the main causes of people being off work.

Compensation has been mentioned. A complete change has taken place in the mining industry. It is no longer the National Coal Board but British Coal, and we have a different kind of management. The amount of compensation won in the courts every year because of negligence by management rockets. The industry has not the right set-up for the prevention of accidents. Somebody does something about a problem only after the horse has bolted.

During the Robens period there were not enough spare parts. There might be a heavy fall on a coal face, but if there were not materials to shore it up the men had to work beneath it. Management was adamant that the machines and supports, which cost millions of pounds, should pay for themselves. I am afraid that with the Government's privatisation policy for the industry we will go back to the bad old days that I worked in many years ago. Nationalisation improved the coal industry; safety was the top priority. Before nationalisation, profit was the top priority, men's earnings were second and safety was third. Safety was almost ignored.

It would seem that we will not have any opportunity to veto these directives. The Minister has not convinced me about the documents; I have been convinced by what his hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said. I well remember some of the remarks that were made when my hon. Friend and I served on the Committee dealing with the Employment Act 1988. It came out loud and clear what was happening to health and safety throughout Britain. We are not what we should be and I do not think that we will be what we should be under these directives. I think that the Commission has gone over the top, but it is correct in some of the suggestions that it has made. Europe will tell us what we should do.

In the mining industry—I am sorry to harp on about it, but I have a lot of experience of it—we have what we call workmen's pit inspections and the trade union pays for them. If the directives are passed, who will pay for those underground inspections? The trade unions have to pay for inspections done on behalf of the work force. Such inspections are part of the process of making pits safe for people to work in. Having worked under private ownership in years gone by, I fear what may happen if the Government bring in the sort of legislation they have promised. I am afraid we shall return to the pitfalls of those times.

If European legislation on safety for the workers will do any good, I welcome it with open arms; if not, I do not want to know about it. Some of the proposals are good, but I, like every other citizen in the country, want to retain the right for us to make our own decisions. I do not want to give Europe the right to tell us what to do.

7.41 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am by no means pessimistic about our being able to continue to exercise the necessary influence over legislation emanating from the Community, given good will and determination. I have written a number of articles in The Times over the past year or two on this subject, and I can fairly say that I am by no means anti-European: I am very pro-European. However, I am also in favour of the reality, as compared with what some might call the theology, of democracy. I believe in the importance of this place and its scrutiny processes, as does the Prime Minister, who made that clear in an answer at Question Time recently.

Matters of this sort cannot be shoved under the carpet. We cannot allow legislation that is vital to our constituents to wash over us as if nothing has happened. We must not suppose that the great democratic institution in which we sit has no relevance for, or influence on, such legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, gave us to understand that these matters are still under review, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), with his great experience of the Confederation of British Industry, made it clear that they require review. The problem is that if the die has already been cast, how can we ensure that the influence of Ministers of the Crown who want change will be felt in the Council of Ministers? The directives with which we are dealing tonight are subject to majority voting under articles 118A and 100A of the Single European Act.

Many members of other national Parliaments in Europe may adopt a view that is similar to ours. I derive some confidence from that, but these matters will require a great deal of intensive consideration by the working groups and the United Kingdom permanent representatives, who must help Ministers to sort out the matter before the Council decision is ultimately adopted. I exhort them to do that.

These proposals are the kind of practical measures to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred at Bruges. The preamble to the directive refers to the introduction of a social element. I am by no means against many of the proposals in these directives. It is easy for people who want to stifle comment to suppose that we who raise problems that go to the heart of democracy do so because we do not want health and safety at work for workers. I do. Furthermore, I believe in the European Community. It has much to offer, but I will not be an uncritical lap dog of machinery which, as I have tried to point out in my recent articles, is by all accounts becoming increasingly autocratic. I have no intention of ceasing to refer to these important issues.

Turning to matters of detail, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) rightly said that the six directives amount to what could be regarded as a series of Government Bills on which we could be detained for a long time. I have no intention of going through the directives in detail, but I shall deal with one or two points in them which were brought to my attention by the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents 5,000 member companies in this country. I have no interest to declare in connection with the federation, except to say that I welcome its interest, which partly arose because its members noticed one of my articles and said that they, too, were concerned.

Document COM 88/76 Final, relating to personal protective equipment, states: Article 118A of the Treaty provides that the Council shall adopt, by means of Directives, minimum requirements for encouraging improvements". The idea is to encourage, not to oblige. I shall not dwell on the legal niceties of that, but the point needs consideration.

Standards are directly connected with liability and negligence in law. Have the views of insurance companies on these matters been ascertained? When standards are not complied with, and when liability, negligence or failure to perform a function in a reasonable way arises, the bottom line is that someone will have to foot the bill when things go wrong. In the case of Piper Alpha, a massive six-month legal case is already starting to investigate the very health and safety matters that might arise under a directive of this sort.

Have the added costs that might be incurred by small and medium-sized businesses been assessed, and what will the impact of all this be on insurance costs? Have the companies been contacted? Lloyd's and all our other great insurance companies will be directly affected by these proposals. Insurance companies provide a service for which people pay, but the real question is how these provisions will affect people. Where is the level playing field, as I asked in an earlier intervention? If there is no effective system of enforcement in other countries and they do not have to comply with these directives, there will be a strange inversion in the so-called harmonisation process. To be sure, the object of that process is to create a bigger market of 320 million people, all of whom will benefit from the advantages of mutual and free trade in one way or another. But reciprocity is tied up in all this, and if insurance, added costs and enforceability have not been considered sufficiently, I hope that the Minister will do so before the Council decision is adopted.

On item 20 of the explanatory memorandum, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said: The proposal raises no direct public expenditure implications for the Government. The financial effects for business are unclear at present as it is not known what attestation procedures will be required for each item of ppe"— that is personal protective equipment. I have great respect for my hon. Friend and I am sure that he included that provision to put us on notice that the House should consider this important matter. If the attestation procedures—the standards procedures—have not been calculated, and the financial effects on business remain unclear, we shall have to get that right before the matter is decided in the Council of Ministers.

I would have wished to mention other matters, but time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak in subsequent debates. I shall write to my right hon. Friend setting out the remarks that have been made to me by the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents a huge number of employers and has considered the matter carefully. I hope that he will give those matters his careful attention and that answers to those questions will be reflected in the final decision of the Council of Ministers.

7.52 pm

Mr. Cope

This has been a useful debate, and I and my officials will reflect on what has been said. I reassure the House that my immediate response and reflections are not the end of the process. The points that have been made will influence the Government's stance in the continuing negotiations. I shall respond to as many of them as possible from the notes that I made during the debate.

I have not seen the document relating to 1992 which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) produced and on which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) commented, but I assure them that I shall study it carefully.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked about the COSHH regulations. They have been laid before the House and will come before us in the normal way. The proposed regulations apply to building sites, as do our present regulations.

Several hon. Members asked me whether other bodies have been consulted. The Health and Safety Commission, which is a tripartite body, has consulted widely. That has been confirmed by hon. Members—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—who have quoted representations that were made to them.

Sometimes it is difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of regulations simply because it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the cost of accidents that have been avoided. If the adoption of a safety measure avoids an accident, one does not know whether the accident would have happened and it is difficult to assess the cost on that side of the equation. It is much easier to assess the cost to employers of putting regulations into effect, and nothing that I have said has belied the fact that cost assessments must be as good as we can make them.

The main point that has emerged today is hon. Members' anxiety that the regulations represent the equivalent of a major Bill or several Bills. Many of the directives are already covered by United Kingdom law, and in many cases our law goes further than the provisions in the directives. The minimum standards provided for in the directives are exceeded in many cases by British law, and there will be no need to legislate to bring the vast majority of the directives into British law; they already exist.

I reassure hon. Members that, if any of the directives give rise to proposed changes in United Kingdom law, that law will have to be changed in Parliament. Many of those changes will be made under section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, which provides for improvements to be introduced by resolution.

Mr. Cash

If legislation is introduced into Parliament following the adoption of the decision, the fact that the decision has been taken, irrespective of whether it overlaps with United Kingdom legislation and the 1974 Act, is determinable by the European Court of Justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not matter, at any rate in theory, whether we pass subsequent legislation? If it were inconsistent with Community legislation, it would automatically be voidable by the Court of Justice. To that extent, what he said was true, but we must be sure that we get the legislation right as it goes through so that it suits the requirements of our electorate, rather than rely on the fact that it will be interpreted by the Court of Justice.

Mr. Cope

We must be careful to ensure that the legislation suits us. I hesitate to cross legal swords with my hon. Friend, but, as I understand it, thef Court of Justice would come into it only if someone believed that our law did not comply with the minimum standards laid down. We shall do our best to avoid that.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned unanimity. Article 100A provides for qualified majority voting on measures to establish the internal market. The rights and interests of workers are excluded from qualified majority voting save where otherwise provided in this Treaty. Article 118A is one of those "otherwise" provisions as regards the health and safety of workers, and that is why it requires qualified majority voting. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that the United Kingdom, the Italians and the Danes together form a blocking minority.

Interestingly, it appears from the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is keen on uniform standards throughout the Community. I share his desire. That is the purpose behind the regulations.

He seemed at one stage—I may have misunderstood him—to want more inspectors from the European Commission, but it is better for national inspectorates to enforce the regulations. Both we and the European Community need to do our best to ensure that national enforcement is sound throughout the Community.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

What on earth can my right hon. Friend do if the law is ignored in, say, Germany? Can he give us a straight example?

Mr. Cope

Yes. We can take that country to the European Court.

I realise that some of those who have spoken this afternoon, although by no means all, dislike the European Community, or at least British membership of it. As one of those who sometimes has to sit in the Council of Ministers for hours on end, with headphones on, I fleetingly share that sentiment as the hours go by and we discuss matters of this detail in our various languages. However, yesterday, standing by our village war memorial reinforced my belief that it is right for the European nations to work together not only from the economic point of view but from a much deeper point of view.

We have an interest, as many hon. Members have said, in fair competition and equality of health and safety standards throughout Europe, and we would have that interest whether we were in or out of the Community. I believe that these proposals will improve health and safety in Europe. There is much discussion still to go and the documents still need amending, and that is why I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5211/88 on the safety and health of workers at the workplace and 5762/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 7th July 1988 on personal protective equipment; supports the proposals in principle as steps towards the establishment of comparable high standards of health and safety throughout the Community and the removal of technical barriers to trade; and endorses the Government's endeavours to secure modifications in negotiations.