European Parliament votes to get rid of opt-out -

This could represent another nail in the coffin of the “deal” although it is important to emphasise that the position is not yet finalised and the Directive will now have to go to a conciliation procedure to decide its future.

 Let’s recap. The parties to the “deal” which was announced on 20^th May 2008 we are told were the CBI, for employers, and the TUC, for workers. The deal authorised the UK to change its opposition to the AWD, a position that it had long held. The UK wanted to change its position apparently for no driving need other than to keep the unions happy, and it clearly put pressure on the CBI by pointing out that the right for workers to opt out of the 48 hour maximum week could be lost if no deal was reached.

 Given the current circumstances it is not clear how determined the UK actually was to retain the opt out since it now looks as if the opt out may not be retained. The writer finds a number of things hard to stomach about this. A deal is an agreement which is meant to be binding on both parties. One part of such an arrangement should not be allowed to be concluded unless the other part, the consideration, is also concluded. This is basic stuff. Yet what we all now know is that the AWD has been concluded, but the opt out retention has not. It’s a bit like handing over the keys to the house without receiving the money.

 So what was the CBI doing in not ensuring that included in the deal was the very simple condition that its concession was dependent on the opt out being retained and approved and concluded at EU level? The CBI clearly did not like having to concede to AWD, which it described as “the least worst option”. What was the worst option we ask? The very position that we now appear to be facing? If the CBI relied on assurances from the government, what was the government doing giving those assurances unless they could be delivered upon? Who is meant to be protecting our interests?

It is true that for the opt out to be lost the WTD must be amended. No amendment and the opt out remains.

Who is for and against? The EU Parliament, by an absolute majority, and the EU Commission are both for the amendment, getting rid of the opt out. The EU Council and the UK is against the amendment, allowing the opt out to remain.

It is a sorry state of affairs that our right to opt out remains only because of conflict, particularly as the conflict must be resolved. How can it be resolved? By further negotiation perhaps? In which event what further concessions will have to be made for the opt out to be retained, or is it possible that the Council will concede to the majority vote and the opt out be lost? Current indications are that the Conciliation Committee could consider retaining the opt out, but for only 3 years. Hooray, another victory for us in the UK! Is this what the CBI had in mind?

Is anyone making a fuss about this or are we alone in voicing these concerns?

In the meantime the AWD was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 5th December, effectively making it law. The UK therefore has until 5^th December 2011 to implement it.

We have now been told by BERR that the UK consultation is not likely to commence until February or March 2009. This delay potentially indicates that other factors are at play, either lack of Government time to prepare the consultation, or a slow realisation that the issues are far more complex than the Government previously recognised, or a combination of both.

What we suspect will become clear, if not already obvious, is that AWD will be difficult to implement in the UK whilst still providing the level of protection that some have campaigned for.

Let’s not forget that the benefit of the opt out is to help workers improve their income by working longer hours. The AWD in contrast appears to provide little meaningful benefit but is set to heap bureaucracy on us all.

Conclusion. There must be a significant change of tack if the horse, already bolted, is to be reined in.

 
19^th December 2008