EU Social Chapter (Hansard, 12 June 1997)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)
My Lords, by accepting the social chapter we will ensure that the United Kingdom can take part in negotiations and influence the outcome. We will argue strongly for competitiveness. Under the last Government's so-called "opt-out", legislation such as the European Works Council Directive, which affects many British companies, could be adopted without any United Kingdom involvement.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, which I find a little optimistic in view of the fact that the draft social chapter legislation at present includes provision to impose works councils on companies with as few as 50 employees, with legal rights within those companies, affecting perhaps 11.5 million people in this country, and also gives to part-time workers all the rights which are at present enjoyed by full-time workers. Does not the noble Lord agree that the new Government could pass into British legislation any Act it wished in this field without having possibly to assume legislation from Brussels which it does not like? In short, is not signing the social chapter rather like going for a walk in a tropical country in the rainy season and forgoing the offer of an umbrella?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I find the analogy rather bizarre, but then I would expect that from the noble Lord. The fact of the matter is that, as regards the Works Council Directive, a large number of companies in this country have voluntarily undertaken the obligations which are enshrined in the social chapter in this regard. But we had no influence on that whatsoever because of the opt-out. Indeed, there can be no influence if one seeks to entertain the idea of an opt-out. For the sake of its business and its own interests, we believe that it is important that Britain should participate in the debates. We were precluded from doing that because of the strange notions of the party opposite.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that at present there is discussion between Mr. Flynn and the European Parliament about the possibility of a further 87 items being brought in under the social chapter? If so, can the Minister refer back to the Question and say whether it would be possible for Britain to choose not to implement items which will not do this country's economy any good and with which the Government disagree?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, my noble friend inadvertently draws attention to the need for us to be present at those discussions. I do not know precisely what discussions Commissioner Padraig Flynn is having with the European Parliament, but we need to have a voice in the discussions and the sooner we can achieve that the better. I do not accept all my noble friend's conclusions on this. The reality is that in the discussions we shall maximise flexibility and competitiveness while at the same time ensuring that the social justice which is enjoyed by others comes to people in this country also.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether qualified majority voting will overrule British objections?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, qualified majority voting could theoretically—

Noble Lords
Ah!

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
—overcome objections from any member state, not only from Britain. Why does my noble friend consider that we are incapable of influencing a decision so that it is in favour of Britain? That was not possible under the government of the party opposite because of the extraordinary stance that they took. We have a much better chance of being able to ensure that the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy, which is stated explicitly in the social chapter, is indeed maintained if we have a proper voice.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is the Minister aware that interventionist employment legislation, such as unduly onerous terms of hiring and firing and such as a minimum wage of over £5 per hour, can but inhibit employment? Is the Minister also aware that the European Court of Justice, as part of the process of advancing integration, would give effect to such subsidiary legislation?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, we had quite a lengthy exchange yesterday on the minimum wage—

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
We did not get a reply.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, a reply which satisfies some will never satisfy the noble Lord, but I am quite used to that because I have heard the noble Lord, and have been much entertained by him, over many years now. A Low Pay Commission has now been established. It will look at the level of the minimum 981 wage. I reiterate what I said yesterday to the noble Lord: this matter was placed clearly before the electorate in our manifesto—there was no equivocation about it—and it was endorsed by the electorate. That is something that the other side will have to get used to.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that not all of the proposals that are put forward by the Commission emerge unchanged as Community legislation? The noble Lord may have experience of that himself. Will he also confirm that the British attitude to social policy is shared by a number of other governments, in particular by the Swedish, Finnish, Danish and Dutch Governments, and that we are therefore unlikely to be isolated or on our own?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second point is definitively yes. On his first point, as a former European Commissioner, perhaps I may say that not one of my proposals (or for that matter any proposal by a colleague) was ever passed without qualification by the Council of Ministers or even by the CoReper before that.

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
My Lords, in view of the fact that in answer to his noble friend the Minister said that majority voting could mean technically that we would have to put up with something which we voted against, will the Minister now confirm that it would be much better to do our negotiating now, to get something that is in Britain's interests and only then to sign the social chapter?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a rather strange question. I thought that the party opposite was against the social chapter, but the noble Lord is now urging us to legislate nationally for the items that are in the social chapter—

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
No!

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I find that an extraordinary proposition, coming as it does from that source. The fact of the matter is that it was the noble Lord's government who extended qualified majority voting in the Single European Act—and who did so extensively. Why does the noble Lord omit to recall that salient fact?

§ Lord Moynihan
My Lords, can the Minister give the House one example of how the signing of the social chapter will create jobs in the United Kingdom or enhance our international competitiveness?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I believe that introducing greater fairness at work is an important element of ensuring greater job creation—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
You see, my Lords, I think that the parental leave directive is important in encouraging people to be able to take up work, yet it is something 982 which the noble Lord's government vigorously opposed. I thought that that was morally offensive. Indeed, I also thought that it ran contrary to the interests of British industry. If the works council directive is so offensive, why have 39 British plcs adopted it voluntarily?

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that some of the exchanges this afternoon have been strange, given the fact that the British people declared their view of the matter at the last general election?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, but noble Lords opposite are not at home with that decision. They are not prepared to live with it—but they will have to do so.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the welfare of the workforce in this country and creating decent social conditions for them are matters of importance which have been totally neglected by those who have criticised him today?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, when the Minister listens to these exchanges, does he understand better why it has been said that the English have the attitude to sovereignty of a confirmed bachelor nation?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I suppose so.