Just a few weeks ago the prime minister told his European rebels that even though they would not get a referendum he would ensure there was a serious repatriation of powers from the EU to the UK.
This week we found out what David Cameron meant. Yesterday The Guardian and the FT carried a story saying that in return for agreeing the treaty changes Germany wants, Cameron’s grand negotiating gambit is to keep the UK opt-out on the working time directive.
I was the UK minister who led the negotiations on the working time directive in the last parliament and it is important people know the facts.
The working time directive guarantees workers four weeks’ paid leave and gives them a number of other rights. The Labour government was enthusiastic about the four weeks’ paid leave and in one of the biggest extensions of employment rights in our period in government extended this to 28 days’ paid leave so that, in effect, bank holidays were additional to the four weeks. Call this gold plating if you wish but Labour believed in a decent balance between work and family life.
One key part of the directive, though, where Labour sought to maintain flexibility was the opt-out where individuals could choose to work more than 48 hours per week if they wanted to (but could not be compelled). Although trade unions and some MPs and MEPs opposed the Labour government’s stance on this, the Labour government backed the freedom of choice for workers on this point as long as it was a genuinely voluntary decision and as long as there was an overall cap on workers hours over the course of the year. When the directive first came in the UK was among the few countries to use the opt-out. But gradually, more and more countries came to share the UK government’s view, particularly in relation to sectors with a lot of shift working such as healthcare.
By the time negotiations on a revised working time directive were taking place in the last parliament, a number of member states were determined to keep the individual opt-out. Germany was a key ally and supported the UK position throughout.
There was an additional problem of the Simap and Jaeger judgements which had classified on call time as working time. Again these judgements had caused a lot of difficulty, especially for smaller EU member states trying to staff 24-hour healthcare systems. The revised directive agreed to deal with that issue, classifying this time as neither working nor rest time but neutral time.
Therefore the Labour government had already agreed with member states during the last parliament the two key issues identified as being the great victories the prime minister hopes to secure from Chancellor Merkel (and we did so with German support).
The problem in the last parliament was not getting agreement from member states on this issue. It was securing the agreement of the European parliament. Negotiations on this point broke down which meant that the existing directive, with the individual opt-out stayed. From the UK government’s point of view this was not a bad outcome given that keeping the individual opt-out was a key part of our negotiating strategy.
Against this background it is not surprising that people on all sides of the debate read the stories yesterday and asked, ‘is that it? Is that really what “repatriation” is? Keeping what you’ve already got?’ No wonder Bill Cash and co were last night saying they wouldn’t be fooled by this.
The truth is this is a mess of the prime minister’s making. He has played to his party’s gallery on Europe rather than telling them the truth about what it means for the UK to be a member of the EU. Having flirted with a referendum over treaty change and then shied away from it he was left with this repatriation promise. And having seen how uninterested other EU member states are in that he has been left trying to wrap up a deal Labour negotiated in the last parliament as some great concession from Chancellor Merkel. All Chancellor Merkel has done, if the stories are true, is to maintain the stance on these issues that the German government took when Labour were in power.
This whole thing has been a failure of leadership by David Cameron. It was sensible for the Labour government to maintain some choice and flexibility over working hours and we did so successfully. For the prime minister to try to sell this as some great repatriation of powers from the EU is pathetic. It won’t fool anyone and it shows just what a ludicrous position he has been left in by his position on Europe.
—————————————————————————————
Pat McFadden is MP for Wolverhampton South-East and former shadow secretary of state for business. He writes a regular column for Progress Pat’s Politics
—————————————————————————————
hear,hear