Working Time Directive (Hansard, 4 December 1996)

§ 1. Mr. Norman Hogg
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he intends to bring forward to implement the working time directive. [5779]

§ 6. Mrs. Fyfe
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5785]

§ 10. Mr. Benton
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5789]

§ The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang)
I shall issue a consultation document on the working time directive shortly. We will do all we can to prevent damage to British businesses and jobs from the implementation of this directive.

§ Mr. Hogg
Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that Britain and Italy are the only European Union countries where workers have no legal right to paid holidays? Is he further aware that 2.5 million British employees have no paid holidays, and no legal entitlement to paid holidays? Will those people have a feel-good factor this Christmas? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing all this to placate the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches?

§ Mr. Lang
The directive is, of course, about much more than holidays. I welcome the fact that working conditions and holidays—their length and quality—have improved out of all recognition as a result of the successful growth and expansion of the British economy in recent years. The Government consider that these matters should be negotiated by employers and employees at the workplace, taking account of the circumstances of the company and its ability to enter negotiations with its employees.

§ Mrs. Fyfe
Does the Secretary of State accept that long working hours harm family life? If so, why is the Tory party—which calls itself the party of the family—doing so much to harm family life?

§ Mr. Lang
Working hours in this country have been getting shorter, and that may well continue to happen. Working hours and conditions should be negotiated by the employer and the employee at the company or workplace, and not by bureaucrats in Brussels.

§ Mr. Benton
Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many men and women in my Bootle constituency work excessively long hours, often for a low wage? Does he agree that that is in no way conducive to family life? Will he look again at the directive and make 1022 an effort to eliminate the activities of unscrupulous employers who thrive on offering low wages and long working hours? That would give an added inducement to family life. If the right hon. Gentleman looks again at the directive, he will find that he has a great opportunity to do just that.

§ Mr. Lang
Family life is best enhanced by an expanding economy creating additional jobs. In those countries with social conditions that are rigid and burdensome on companies, the consequence is that the number of jobs reduces. That is one of the reasons why unemployment in this country has been falling for several years and now stands at just over 7 per cent., whereas the EU average is more than 11 per cent.

§ Mr. Batiste
Is the real issue not what the directive says but the fact that issues of this kind must be determined in this country rather than in Brussels? If subsidiarity and our opt-out of the social chapter mean anything, all these issues have to be determined in our country. That is why people are so upset by the directive.

§ Mr. Lang
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of the social chapter opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, that has been clearly understood in the past. That the matter should be decided in this country by employers and employees at the workplace is central to the Government's determination that the issue will be resolved in our favour at the intergovernmental conference.

§ Mr. Congdon
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's intention widely to consult business and industry to try to minimise the cost of that crazy directive for companies in this country. Will he assure me that the Government will redouble their efforts to prevent our European partners from imposing social costs on us by the back door?

§ Mr. Lang
I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is not insignificant that the additional burdens on business in this country represent 18 per cent. of the wage roll, whereas in Germany the figure is 32 per cent. and in France 41 per cent. That may help to explain why unemployment in Germany is more than 10 per cent. and in France more than 12 per cent.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
Mr. Bryan Cassidy, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament representing my area, suggested that implementation of the directive might not require Her Majesty's Government to impose any penalties on British business. Could we implement the directive and impose no penalties on any business that was in breach of it?

§ Mr. Lang
It is precisely such points that I hope will become clear in the consultation period, and I envisage that we will consult for a period of three months to enable all such submissions to be put to the Government for further consideration.

§ Mr. Barry Jones
Can the right hon. Gentleman help my constituents at Shotton steelworks, who work a 12-hour shift rota and want to continue to do so? Is he 1023 aware that it is the only steelworks in the industry that works that rota? The workers would be grateful if he would confirm that they will be allowed to continue such work.

§ Mr. Lang
Indeed they will. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench heard him. I also welcome the fact that Shotton is doing so well as a result of privatisation and of the improved efficiencies that have flowed from it.

§ Mr. Stephen
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working time directive has nothing to do with shorter working weeks and that it is simply a European manifestation of the socialist and corporatist nonsense that we had in this country in the 1960s and 1970s? It is an attempt to get more money for the same or less work; such practice is making continental Europe uncompetitive and Britain competitive in world markets.

§ Mr. Lang
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's central point. It is precisely to maintain the competitiveness in our economy that, during the consultation period, we are seeking to identify ways to minimise the cost of implementing the directive and to avoid unnecessary burdens, and to decide how best to exercise the derogations and flexibilities that have been negotiated as a result of the efforts of previous British Ministers.

§ Mrs. Beckett
Surely the Secretary of State has not forgotten that the Government's case against the directive is supposed to be that it is not a health and safety matter and that he claimed that that was supported by Professor Harrington's report. Although Professor Harrington was critical of some of the studies on which the directive was based, because they related mostly to shift work, he went on to draw attention to the risks to health and safety of inadequate rest periods and pointed out that a review of the evidence showed that working 48 to 56 hours was probably detrimental to health and safety—the opposite of what the Secretary of State claimed.
As the directive was negotiated before the opt-out on the social chapter and could not conceivably be a sneaky way around it, does that not show that, yet again, the Government are being incompetent and dishonest and acting in bad faith, which is why people can no longer trust the Tories?

§ Mr. Lang
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should take that line. She misrepresented Professor Harrington's report the last time we had an exchange on the matter and she seems to be trying to do the same again today. The study states that the scientific basis for establishing optimal hours of work is in doubt. The last time she stood at the Dispatch Box on this subject, she suggested that the Government were suppressing a report by the Department of Health on stress at the workplace, and it transpired that the report had been published six months earlier, so I think that she has quite a lot to apologise for.