§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give effect to the employment rights and relationships between the social partners as provided for in the European Social Chapter; and for connected purposes.The essence of my Bill is to amend the law so that the much vaunted and heralded so-called opt-outs obtained by the Prime Minister no longer form part of our law. The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and the earlier European social charter of 1989 are often confused. Of course, exaggerated and inflated claims are also made about them, especially by Conservative Members.There is one subject on which I agree with Conservative Members who have criticised the Prime Minister in relation to the Maastricht treaty. They have realised that his much-acclaimed triumph in obtaining opt-outs from the social chapter are not worth the paper they are written on—in the long term. They are a sham, because, inexorably, there will be improvements in place of work conditions and employment practices for workers right across Europe.
Those improvements will be obtained, first, through the normal collective bargaining process between employers and trade unions. Secondly, there are multinational employers who think big and who wish to extend good employment practices to all their workers right across Europe. They are confident about their management style, and they believe in motivating their work forces and treating them as mature, informed and committed. Such employers, such as United Biscuits, will have no hesitation in enacting and creating works councils.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister's opt-outs have been diminished in value by judicial decisions; not so much by the European Court of Justice, whose decisions are rare though they are given much publicity, as by our domestic court and tribunal structure. For instance, in an important judgment, the House of Lords pointed out that the Government were wrong, and that they did have obligations to part-time workers, thereby extending the rights of such workers.
Sooner or later, the Government will lose in the courts on the question of the working time directive, which, quite reasonably, seeks to limit the average working week to 48 hours and the average working day to 13 hours or eight hours for night work. Most importantly, it will for the first time, if enacted—I think it will be enacted through court decisions—give workers a legal entitlement to at least four weeks paid annual leave, something which other workers throughout the European Union have but which is denied to workers in the United Kingdom.
The good news is that a Labour Government are on the way. Of course, that Labour Government will have no hesitation in abrogating the opt-out provisions of the social chapter, and they will also seek to implement the. spirit of the social charter of 1989. The bad news is that there are still 14 or 15 months to go.
For many workers, time is not on their side. Between now and the advent of a Labour Government, hundreds—if not thousands—of workers will have been disadvantaged in relation to comparable workers with comparable skills in similar industries elsewhere in 1020 Europe. Most workers in the United Kingdom will not have the time or the resources to seek remedies through tribunals or courts.
I believe that, in the interests of everyone involved, and of the United Kingdom as a whole, we should now lift the constraints on so-called opt-outs, and begin to talk positively—here and in the Council of Ministers—about rights and opportunities relating to workplaces and careers. We should do all we can to demonstrate a change of attitudes to employment rights here in the United Kingdom.
In any event, much of the protocol in the Maastricht treaty requires unanimity—including the provisions relating to social security, protection of workers, including those whose employment is terminated, representation and collective defence of workers, and the conditions of third-country nationals residing in the European Union. In that regard, the opt-outs are demonstrably meaningless.
Important measures are currently being enacted elsewhere in the European Union, such as the directive on works councils, which provide for a civilised, democratic dialogue between employer and work force. Over the coming months or years, British workers will be excluded from the benefits and security that these provide, and from the provisions of other directives, such as the directive on part-time workers. That directive is still greatly needed, despite the House of Lords judgment, because so many people are being exploited by "zero hour" contracts and other disadvantages merely because they work part time.
One directive that is coming up is described, rather cumbersomely, as
the reconciliation of work and family".It is designed to promote equal opportunities and flexible working models to reflect the changes in society. It incorporates provisions relating to parental leave, job security and employment practices, along with an end to the "zero hour" contracts.The Government have made a shameful attempt to seek derogation until the year 2000, instead of implementing the directive providing protection for young people in June 1996 along with the rest of Europe. That directive would restrict the working hours of children under the age of 15 who are undergoing training or work experience, to eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. Employment would be restricted to two hours on school days, 12 hours a week in term time and 35 hours a week during school holidays.
In this day and age, we should embrace such provisions rather than resisting them. It does no credit to the United Kingdom that the Government still pretend that they can resist the inevitable, and it does nothing to help workers who are currently disadvantaged. It is time that we abandoned the sham nonsense of the opt-outs, and started playing our full part with our social partners in trying to build a fair and equitable Europe based on employment rights that allow people to develop their skills to the fullest extent and enjoy their lives to the full.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Kevin Macnamara, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Bill Olner.