Prime minister repeatedly attacked Labour for signing up to EU social chapter that includes part-time workers’ directive
In a column for ConservativeHome in 2007, May cited Labour’s decision to sign up to the EU’s social chapter as a sign it had capitulated to trade union pressure. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA
Theresa May’s commitment to protect workers’ rights after Brexit has come into question before a House of Commons debate on the impact leaving the EU will have on employment laws.
The prime minister made a pledge to stick to EU protections such as guarantees of paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights and time off in between shifts. But an examination of her past statements on workers’ rights reveals that she repeatedly attacked the then Labour government’s decision to sign up to the EU’s social chapter when the Conservatives were in opposition.
Proposals arising out of the social chapter included rights for pregnant women to get 14 weeks’ statutory leave at sick pay rates, the 48-hour maximum working week and equal employment rights for part-time temporary staff who work at least eight hours a week.
In a column for ConservativeHome in 2007, May suggested Labour’s decision to sign up to the EU’s social chapter and domestic laws was a sign of their weakness in caving in to trade unions.
“Unbelievably, for the government that gave the unions the social chapter, several employment relations acts, new union rights, a cop-out on public sector pensions, the Warwick agreement, and the union modernisation fund, some journalists are still prepared to say that, these days, Labour stands up to the unions,” she wrote.
Several times in the House of Commons, May also spoke out against aspects of the EU’s social chapter, such as the part-time workers’ directive, saying it was a burden to business and cost jobs.
In 1999, as shadow leader of the Commons, May claimed women’s jobs were “under threat from the government’s adherence to the social chapter and handling of the economy”.
May promised at the Conservative party conference that all workers’ rights enshrined in EU law would be transferred into British law, with a “great repeal bill” that would simply duplicate all protections.
However, Labour has suspicions that the government may try to wriggle out of some aspects, such as the working time directive which is particularly disliked by many Conservative MPs.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, stressed that preserving workers’ rights would be a “bottom line” for May to get his party’s support for triggering article 50, which now looks likely to have to be approved by parliament after a landmark legal judgment.
However, it is still possible that the Conservatives could try to unpick some workers’ rights after they have been enshrined in the great repeal bill at a later date.
Some Conservative MPs, including former party chairman Grant Shapps, have raised the idea of a “sunset clause” in the great repeal bill, meaning all EU law would expire unless it has been specifically endorsed anew by the government.
In answers to parliamentary questions submitted by Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, the government already appears to have watered down its commitment to replicate EU employment protections, only promising to do so “wherever practical”.
Labour is expected to raise May’s past statements on workers’ rights at the parliamentary debate on the EU and employment law on Monday. It is the first in a series of Commons debates on elements of Brexit after the government bowed to the demands from MPs for greater scrutiny of the negotiations.
Pennycook said: “Despite the prime minister’s warm words, British workers will struggle to shake the suspicion that her stated commitment to preserving their rights at work is merely cosmetic.
“Amidst the government’s Brexit chaos, the prime minister owes it to the working people of Britain to set out precisely how existing workers’ legal rights will be guaranteed in law once we have left the EU.”
Melanie Onn, the Labour MP for Grimsby who has tried to introduce a private members’ bill to protect workers rights post-Brexit, also raised concerns that the government may try to chip away at employment protections after the UK has left the EU.
“I suspect there will be an incremental loss over a period of time. A lot of rights are currently covered by EU law. The things I think will be particularly vulnerable are around situations in redundancies, protection against discrimination, health and safety regulation and working-time rights,” she said.
Onn also highlighted May’s position when the government under David Cameron introduced fees for employment tribunals, which has led to a dramatic decline in the number of claims of discrimination by employees against businesses.
There are also questions over whether employment case law from the European courts will be taken into account by British courts after the UK leaves the EU.
The official leave campaign attacked a variety of employment laws emanating from the EU before the referendum. Priti Patel, then part of the Vote Leave campaign and now one of May’s cabinet ministers, attacked the cost of EU social and employment law for businesses.
“If we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3bn boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs,” she claimed in May.
A government spokesman dismissed the concerns as “desperate scaremongering”.
“This government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone means we will maintain and enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU,” he said.
“The process is straightforward: at the point of exit we will transfer the body of EU law into domestic legislation including all the protection provided for workers. The prime minister and secretary of state for leaving the EU have been absolutely clear about that.
“The fact that Labour is spending its time trying to pretend something different shows it is just trying to find excuses to undermine and thwart the referendum result. Only the Conservatives can be trusted to respect the result and work to make a success of it for workers and businesses.”
