Previous Section Home Page

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): I rise with the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) to take part in this short debate about a vital matter.

I wish to raise only one point. My involvement is as a result of a personal approach by Ms Laylle. I wish to draw attention to the fact that both Britain and Germany are signatories to the Hague convention, which in article 1(a) states that it exists

"to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State".

There seems to be no question that, under British law, the children were wrongfully detained. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can advise about why the German Government and judiciary are not adhering to the Hague convention to allow international law to take its proper course.

2.9 pm

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Lady may speak on the understanding that she has the permission of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the Minister.

Miss Hoey: I shall be brief. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on raising this important issue of human rights. I am speaking as someone who has also had some involvement with the case and as the Secretary of the all-party group on child abduction which has worked very hard with Reunite, the organisation that co-ordinates work to help mothers and fathers in similar positions.

In this case, we are dealing with a European country, one which, like us, is supposedly part of the great new European movement which is meant to bring people together. However, the way in which the German Government, the German courts and, indeed, individuals in the German provincial town in question have behaved makes me despair about any future co-operation within the European Union. What has happened is disgraceful.

The Hague convention has been blatantly broken by the German Government. One can imagine what would have happened if it had been the other way around. If the British Government or British courts had behaved in the same way, there would have been a great uproar and much lobbying by the German Government.

I want to ask the Minister exactly what has been done. What pressure has been brought to bear? How high up the political agenda is this case in the discussions about European unity and a single currency? If we cannot help someone like Catherine Laylle get her children back, the road to European union and co-operation with Germany might as well be abandoned now.

2.11 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman may speak with the same restrictions.

Mr. Cash: I speak with the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the

Column 358

Minister. I have known Catherine Laylle for many months now and I have been deeply disturbed about the case since the beginning. I agree with my right hon. Friend.

Justice is to be found, as they say, in the interstices of procedure. The procedures that have been followed and my knowledge of the way in which the case has been conducted in Germany has filled me with a sense of despair. I cannot believe that someone like Catherine Laylle could be so effectively abandoned by the process of justice in Germany. I have made representations to the German ambassador, to other representatives of the German Government in the United Kingdom and to other members of Chancellor Kohl's private office. I have begged them to consider the case.

In the interests of a coherent and sensible Europe, it cannot be right that such situations should prevail. There is no doubt that the matter can and should be resolved in the interests of the children and of Catherine Laylle. I plead with the Minister to consider every conceivable means that can be employed--be it through the Foreign Office or any other channel--to redress this absolutely unforgivable injustice.

2.12 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): I, too, am an officer of the all-party group on child abduction. Ms Laylle has been to see me and given me certain papers. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for allowing me to participate briefly in the debate.

I shall make just two points. First, Ms Laylle is partly of British citizenship; her two children are partly of British citizenship and are also wards of court in Britain. Against that nationality and wardship background, it is indefensible that so far it is the German courts which have reserved to themselves sole and exclusive rights of jurisdiction.

Under the terms of the Hague convention, it is the Lord Chancellor's Department that is the designated "Central Authority" through which the British Government discharges their duty under that convention. I draw the House's attention to the duty outlined in article 7(f), which states that it is incumbent on the "Central Authority"--the Lord Chancellor's Department--to

"take all appropriate measures . . . to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access".

I hope that the Minister will explain why the duty clearly placed on his Department under the Hague convention does not yet appear to have been discharged. I hope that he will assure me that it will be discharged in future.

Secondly, in a reply given to me on 26 June the Home Office said: "Where a child is successfully abducted to a country which is a signatory to the Hague convention, an extradition warrant may be issued."--[ Official Report , 26 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 494. ] It is evident in this case that Ms Laylle's two sons have been successfully abducted to Germany and Germany is a signatory to the Hague convention, so the issue for the Home Office is why extradition warrants have not so far been issued. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why no extradition procedures have so far been initiated and to tell us whether they will be in future.

Column 359

2.15 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for raising the issue and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his line of argument. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) for his contribution, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Towards the end of his comments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said that the French Government were giving Ms Laylle support. I must make it clear that, within the proper constitutional limits which define judicial and executive boundaries, the Government have also done and are doing as much as they can.

For the benefit of the House, I shall outline the role which the Lord Chancellor's Department and other Departments play in relation to child custody cases before foreign courts. I shall then deal with the specific case that my right hon. Friend has raised. It might be convenient for the House if I say that the case has thus far been dealt with entirely within the strictures of the Hague convention. However, the House should know that within the Hague convention there is a limited discretion not to return children in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when the children themselves have made their views known.

Questions relating to child abduction and custody are governed by the Hague and European conventions of 1980 on this subject. The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 enabled the United Kingdom to ratify both conventions. The purpose of the conventions is to prevent international child abduction and to promote the exercise of rights of contact with children.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): The Minister said that, under the Hague convention, if the children expressed a particular view, that view had to be taken into consideration. Is he saying that if children are kept with one parent for a period of time that does not have a bearing on their eventual view? Children are ultimately fairly malleable and therefore speed is of the essence. Something should have been done earlier. Does he agree that that fact should have a huge bearing on his comments?

Mr. Taylor: As one who practised as a family lawyer for many years, I have to tell my hon. Friend that hardly any two cases are the same. I have no reason to doubt that the German judicial authorities were able sensitively to seek the views of the boys whose ages-- [Interruption.] I hear comments from behind me, but I suspect that the House would like me to continue with my remarks.

I was referring to the purpose of the Hague convention in preventing international child abduction, and the promotion of the exercise of rights of contact with children. The Hague convention does that by requiring a contracting state to return children who have been wrongly removed from another contracting state in breach of rights of custody. The European convention does so by the mutual recognition and enforcement of orders made in contracting states. In each contracting state there is an administrative body known as the "Central Authority", which is responsible for administering the work of the conventions. In England

Column 360

and Wales, the "Central Authority" is the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the work is carried out by its child abduction unit, which is part of the official solicitor's office. The unit does all that it can to help in achieving the objects of the convention, which are, essentially, to safeguard and promote the interests of children on an international basis. In doing that, it sends and receives applications for the return of children, or the recognition and enforcement of custody orders. It communicates with parents, lawyers and other central authorities and instructs solicitors to act on behalf of applicants in other countries wanting to take proceedings in England and Wales.

It is not, however, the unit's role to intervene in private law custody disputes that are being contested in foreign courts. Those are matters to be resolved through the courts concerned.

I should at this point mention the part that is played by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In general terms, the consular department is responsible for the protection of British nationals overseas. In the area of child abduction, a variety of types of practical assistance can be offered, including providing details of local lawyers who correspond in English and who can provide background information on the family law system in the relevant country; approaching the local authorities for help in tracing the child, where appropriate; drawing the local authorities' attention to any English court orders that exist, and encouraging the speedy resolution of any legal proceedings; and providing informal help with matters such as the translation of documents and finding cheap accommodation.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for going into detail about the Government's responsibilities in such matters, but I consider that a clear understanding of the extent and limits of those responsibilities is vital in looking at the unfortunate situation that his constituent, Ms Laylle, is in.

As my right hon. Friend has explained, his constituent and her husband, who is of German nationality, separated in February 1992. Their sons, aged 8 and 10, have British, French and German nationality. Ms Laylle and her husband entered into a separation agreement with the assistance of a German lawyer, which included the provisions that "parental custody" of their two sons should be entrusted to Ms Laylle, that she and the children should live in London, and that the father should have generous contact with the children. That arrangement was a written agreement between the father and mother and not a judicial order giving custody to Ms Laylle. The children left England on 6 July 1994 to spend the summer holidays with their father.

On 22 August, the father wrote to Ms Laylle to say that both boys had said that they wanted to live and go to school in Germany rather than England, and that he had applied for the right to keep them. On 26 August, Ms Laylle applied to the child abduction unit for the return of the children under the Hague convention on the basis that they had been wrongfully retained away from their habitual residence in breach of her rights of custody. She also applied to the high court on an ex parte basis for a wardship order, and that was granted on 30 August. The application under the Hague convention and the wardship order were transmitted to the German central authority, and were referred to the family court at Verden, which considered the matter on

Column 361

20 September. The court ordered that the children be returned, but the father successfully appealed to the higher regional court. Ms Laylle engaged lawyers in Germany to represent her.

It is important at this point for me to emphasise that proceedings under the Hague convention do not determine custody issues but are intended to restore children to the jurisdiction of their habitual residence so that decisions about their future can be made there. This reflects a generally accepted principle of private international law that decisions about the future care and welfare of children are best made in the country with which they have the closest connection. However, the convention acknowledges that there may be circumstances in which children should not be returned, and therefore gives courts a limited discretion to refuse to make a return order.

One of the reasons for refusing a return order is that the child concerned objects to be returned and has reached an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views. It was on that ground, after talking to the children, that the higher regional court upheld the father's appeal against the return order made by the family court in Verden. Ms Laylle has complained that she was not allowed to give evidence or speak at that hearing or present her own psychological evidence in respect of the children. It is generally accepted that proceedings under the Hague convention are summary in nature, and oral evidence is discouraged. In this instance, the only grounds of the father's appeal were the wishes of the children, and for that reason the main concern was to discover the children's wishes.

The issue of custody then came before the family court at Verden on 23 February this year. The decision of the court, given on 30 March, was that the children should be placed in the "temporary" custody of their father, and that Ms Laylle should be allowed limited contact with them: specifically, there was to be no contact for a period of three months, following which supervised contact at the father's home was ordered, initially for three hours a month, and from October 1995 for one day a month. Ms Laylle was represented by her two German lawyers at the hearing on 23 February and received assistance from the British consulate in attending the hearing. I understand that the wardship proceedings in this country were discharged on Ms Laylle's application on 4 April.

During the period leading up to the hearing on 23 February, the child abduction unit provided Ms Laylle with as much assistance as it was able within the limitations of its statutory role. Following the court's decision on 30 March, a further meeting took place between the unit's solicitor and Ms Laylle, at which it was explained that there was no basis on which the Government could intervene on the general grounds that German proceedings relating to children are intrinsically unjust or improper.

Column 362

The procedure in such cases in Germany is substantially similar to our own. In family proceedings in Germany, both parents can be professionally represented, and the judge, who is independent of the Government, can call on the services of the local youth court to provide a report on the children and see them. In making a decision, he or she has, like a British judge, wide discretion in weighing up all the circumstances of the case. However, the unit's solicitor undertook to write to Ms Laylle's lawyers in this country and in Germany to ask whether in their view the order was unusual or represented the sort of order that a German court might make in a case such a this; whether there were any grounds for appeal on the basis that the judge was plainly wrong or wrongly exercised her discretion; and whether there was any material irregularity in the proceedings, which could form the foundation of a formal complaint or an application to set aside the judgment.

A separate point which had by this stage arisen was that divorce proceedings had been instituted both in this country by Ms Laylle and in Germany by her husband. It appears that the proceedings begun by Ms Laylle were first in time. However, I understand that Ms Laylle's husband has applied for a stay of the English proceedings, and that a jurisdictional dispute exists about the competence of the family court at Verden to entertain the divorce proceedings in Germany. This is a matter that must properly be resolved under German law; it would not be appropriate for the British Government to intervene in the process.

It is understood that there are grounds for appeals against the court's decisions on custody and contact, and that appeals have in fact already been lodged against both decisions. It is also understood that the decisions made about the children to date are of an essentially temporary nature pending the final resolution of the divorce proceedings, and that the appeals against those decisions will be based on evidential matters before the court and not on any fundamental defect of procedure or denial of process.

I also understand that Ms Laylle has a case against Germany pending before the European Commission of Human Rights in respect of her situation. Naturally I am unable to comment on these proceedings, and we must await the outcome.

Thus, while I sympathise with the difficulties in which Ms Laylle finds herself, I do not consider that there is any more substantive assistance that the British Government can provide. It is particularly important to recognise that the children have British, French and German nationality. The matters at issue are the subject of appeal under the German legal system, and the outcome of those appeals must be awaited. As I have said, there is no basis in procedural terms, in what is essentially a private law dispute, on which the British Government could properly intervene.

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order[19 December].

Column 361

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that, at a time when unemployment by the Government's figures is just under 2.5 million and, in reality, probably a million more, the Government are proposing to scrap the Department of Employment. Is it in order for any Government to take such a step without first consulting the House or at least having the courtesy to make a statement to the House? Have you received any request for such a statement?

Secondly, I have honour to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment. [Hon. Members:-- "Ah."] Hon. Members may say," Ah", but we all recognise why they propose to dispose of the Department; they do not like it. Does there not have to be a change in Standing Orders to achieve that? If so, Madam Speaker, have you had any notification of such a request? Is it not clear that the betrayal of unemployed people by removing the only Department of State that is concerned with jobs will not be forgiven by anyone who is unemployed or likely to become unemployed under this regime?

Madam Speaker: The matter that concerns me is the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about whether there needs to be a change in Standing Orders. If what the hon. Gentleman suspects is correct, there must be a change in Standing Orders.

To answer his other points, I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter. As the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House know, changes in departmental and ministerial affairs are not a matter for me. He might care to seek to catch my eye at a time when either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House is at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a new boy, may I ask whether you could explain whether there is any hope, if a Ministry is abolished, that the Select Committee covering it will be abolished, too?

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): There is a matter that concerns you, Madam Speaker, in that the existence of Departments results in questions being put to the responsible Ministers. As you know, Members of Parliament are required to table a fortnight beforehand oral questions to the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry or other Ministries that may be affected by the reshuffle. In view of that, I ask you to make further inquiries, so that the House and Back-Bench Members of Parliament who table questions know whether it is in order to table Employment questions. Finally, it is pretty clear that the new Deputy Prime Minister has shut the pits, shut most of the shipyards and is now shutting down the Government.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the past seven years, we have enjoyed a one-and-a-half hour Consolidated Fund debate in July on Britain's relations with Latin America. Under

Column 382

the new arrangements, a number of hon. Members of all parties applied for such a debate this July. We could do so only by applying for one of the Wednesday morning debates, for which, we have been advised by your office, we were unsuccessful. What steps can we take to ensure that, in July, the House debates this important part of the world as usual, because such debates are for the interest of the people of Latin America?

Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a matter for the Leader of the House at business questions tomorrow, if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Further to the reallocation of the responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown and the action that needs to be taken by the House in the form of a motion or resolution, is it not a fact that such a formal reallocation, which involves the responsibility for answering questions and presenting estimates, expenditure, votes and related matters, cannot take place unless and until a relevant resolution is carried in the House? Is it not also the case that, until that time, the Secretary of State named is responsible until the House decides otherwise?

Madam Speaker: Ministers and Government Departments make their own arrangements, but I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about this matter. I shall certainly make all inquiries to satisfy myself.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from the Leader of the Opposition to move a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence in the Government? Is the Leader of the Opposition capable of making a decision, or is he indecisive on this matter?

Madam Speaker: That would not be the procedure. Such a request would be made through the usual channels.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey): I note that we are scheduled to have Employment Questions next Tuesday. Indeed, a list has already been drawn up. Can you give any guidance, Madam Speaker, as to what will happen? The Department of Energy has already been subsumed into the Department of Trade and Industry, and if the Department of Employment is to be so subsumed, how are we to ask reasonable questions about the plight of many millions of people in this country?

Madam Speaker: As I attempted to explain in response to the original point of order on that matter, I am not responsible for departmental and ministerial changes. However, I understand the House's concern, and I shall attempt to find out what the position is as soon as I am able to do so.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having been for many years one of the elder statesmen, and not normally needing such a prop as this stick, I had hoped to catch your eye a little earlier. For many, many, many years now, your predecessors have always made a point of asking me to ask some small question during Foreign Affairs questions.

I was very eager this afternoon just to say--I was not going to be difficult--that those of us who have the greatest expectations of British Foreign Secretaries of whatever party have not too much to be dissatisfied with

Column 383

in the right hon. Gentleman, who has just disappeared for the last time from the Chamber as Foreign Secretary. We wish him well; we respect his manner of going, which is the honourable sort of thing that we would have expected him to do; and we much regret his departure.

Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, but, as Speaker, I have never prompted any hon. Member to ask questions on a particular day. Far be it from me to do so--I have sufficient competition at Question Time without prompting hon Members.

Column 384

Peace and Freedom Day

3.39 pm

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the discontinuation of the May day bank holiday and to establish a Peace and Freedom day bank holiday on the Monday nearest to Victory in Europe day, 8 May.

Eight weeks ago, the entire nation commemorated the final collapse of the Third Reich and celebrated the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe. The events that took place over that splendid weekend in May were astonishingly successful in bringing back the excitement and relief that was originally felt following six of the longest and toughest years in our country's history.

To those of us who were born too late to have played a part in the war, VE day gave us an opportunity to give thanks to those who offered their lives in defence of freedom. Younger generations, perhaps for the first time, became aware of the magnificent achievement of this country as Europe's last bastion against Nazidom, wholly alone for nearly two years after the fall of France, until Germany invaded Russia, and America joined us after Pearl harbour. Throughout all the events during the VE day celebrations, the portrayal of our royal family was for ever present, and rightly so, because of its tremendous inspiration to all our people throughout the entire war. Equally dominating was the portrayal of Winston Churchill as the one man above all others who symbolised as well as led our country's resistance, from our darkest days to our finest hours.

It was inevitable that, after the celebrations were over, it was said that VE day would never again be commemorated and remembered in such a way; that, as those who took part in the war depart, so will all memories of their achievements dim, and for future generations will be merely the stuff of history books.

The purpose of my Bill therefore is to ensure that the significance and achievements of VE day will never be forgotten. The establishment of a clearly designated bank holiday in our calendar to commemorate the triumph of peace and freedom over tyranny, and its importance to Europe and the world, will remind this country annually and permanently of the crucial part that Britain played.

Many hon. Members, including you yourself, Madam Speaker, will recall a previous attempt to introduce such a bank holiday eight years ago, on 24 March 1987, by our former colleague, Stefan Terlezki. He called it the Winston Churchill National day. The House voted for it by 160 to 80, and there was every reason to believe that it could have been passed into law but for the general election three months later.

To reintroduce Stefan's Bill was precisely what I had in mind today, inspired by the events of two months ago, when so many of us in the House came together in Westminster Hall with our families to participate in the historic, unique and, above all, British ceremony as both Houses presented their humble addresses to Her Majesty. But on further thought, I do not think that Winston Churchill would have wanted such a day solely to commemorate his name. As he himself so nobly and modestly said:

Column 385

"It fell to me in those days to express the sentiments and resolves of the British nation in that supreme crisis of its life. That was to me an honour far beyond any dreams or ambitions I had ever nursed, and it is one that cannot be taken away."

Churchill's personal reputation and his "walk with destiny", as he put it, first as the prophet and then as the leader against Hitler, will always be bound up with the general reputation of that war as the crusade against evil that it was, in which patriotism was not enough. Such a day to commemorate peace and freedom in Europe would always be associated with Winston Churchill, just as his portrayal and presence dominated the 50th anniversary events just two months ago.

My proposal for the actual date of the bank holiday to be the Monday closest to VE day, 8 May, is also symbolic in other appropriate ways: it is close to the day when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister, 10 May 1940, when the nation faced a very bleak future indeed; and it is close to the same day a year later when this very Chamber, the greatest symbol of freedom and democracy, was destroyed by German bombs.

It is also the day before Europe day, 9 May, which is celebrated throughout the European Union to mark the day in 1950 when Robert Schuman called on the people of Europe to rally together for a common cause, in which cultural diversity is respected and solidarity proclaimed.

Having, I hope, persuaded the House to support the establishment of such a bank holiday permanently to commemorate VE day, I should now explain why I propose that it should replace the May day bank holiday the previous week. I should stress to Opposition Members that I have no great prejudice against a bank holiday to commemorate Labour day. Indeed, as a Roman Catholic I am encouraged to celebrate it myself as St Joseph the Worker's day--the day of St Joseph the carpenter, the stepfather of Jesus. I consider it rather unfortunate, however, that in recent years May day has become too associated with the massive demonstration of the communist war machine in Red square, overlooked by Soviet leaders on the Kremlin wall.

Certainly the origin of May day is no part of British history--or European history, for that matter. As our former colleague Dave Nellist reminded the House when speaking against Stefan Terlezki's Bill, the original May day was 1 May 1886, when 350,000 workers downed tools in more than 11,000 establishments in America in a demand for an eight-hour day, which led to the first general strike in American history. Workers and police died in the violence that followed. Since then, 1 May has evolved into an international expression of workers' solidarity, and a bank holiday to commemorate it was introduced in 1978 by the Labour Government.

I suggest that a peace and freedom day bank holiday to replace the May day bank holiday would epitomise all the rights and freedoms, including the freedom of trade unions, that the liberation of Europe and the re- establishment of democracy and the rule of law in western Europe has guaranteed and protected--thanks largely to British leadership and British courage. Indeed, only recently the Council of Europe's social charter-- which, along with the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights, was a consequence of victory in Europe--has been extended to include new categories of rights for workers.

Column 386

Finally, there are good practical arguments in favour of a bank holiday a week later than May day. It would be welcomed by industry, especially the tourist industry, as being that much further away from the Easter bank holiday weekend. It would apply equally in Scotland: we know from early-day motion 871 of the problems that this year's VE day holiday--which was not a bank holiday in Scotland--imposed on that country.

For all those good reasons, I ask the leave of the House to bring in my Bill, as a permanent reminder to the people of this country--and generations to come--of the successful outcome of the finest chapter in our British history, and the part played by our royal family, Winston Churchill as leader of a coalition Government, all the people of Britain, our allies and the Commonwealth in the restoration of peace and freedom to Europe and the world 50 years ago.

3.42 pm

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central): I oppose the motion--which I have only just spotted on the Order Paper--not simply because May day happens to be the day on which I was born, but for much more serious reasons.

Despite the jingoism that we have heard from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), this is a vengeful and petty proposal, designed as a further attack on organised labour by Conservative Members. I am sure that no Opposition Member would oppose the establishment of a special holiday to commemorate VE day, and I am sure that a holiday to commemorate VJ day would be equally justified; but that is not the point of the proposal.

Over the past 15 or 16 years, Conservative Members have lost no opportunity to attack organised labour in any form. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) recently pointed out that, for some bizarre reasons that may eventually become clear, the Department of Employment is to be abolished.

The May day holiday, however, is a fine tradition. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East said, it resulted from an industrial dispute in, I believe, San Francisco in 1888, but it goes back far further than that. I understand that it goes back far further in English traditions, with which, for obvious reasons, I am not particularly familiar. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have washed his face more carefully in the morning dew on May day before thinking up this ill- considered proposal.

Not only Opposition Members oppose the idea. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, when the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), as Secretary of State for Employment, suggested abolishing May day, the CBI was against the proposal, because it saw no need for change. Apparently, employers' organisations believe that there is no need for any change. We know that some of this country's worst employers sit on the Conservative Benches. That may partly explain why such proposals continually come forward.

The May day tradition goes back hundreds of years. In this country, it goes back about 100 years as a proud labour movement tradition in many regions. I and many other hon. Members participate in May day rallies and parades, which are family and fun days. They recall the labour movement's history but, equally, they look forward as well. They are enjoyed by thousands of people. To suggest that that should be taken away is, at best, mean-minded and, at worst, insulting to the people who enjoy it.

Column 387

May day is a day of working-class tradition in many communities, even those where heavy industries that had developed in the past 100 years have virtually ceased to exist. On that day, people still proudly parade their banners and remember their forefathers and foremothers.

It is important to make the point that the Bill is not just about May day. Its proposal that we should have a specific peace and freedom day in place of May day is equally insulting to the millions of people who took part in world wars in this century. Who fought hardest of all to achieve peace and freedom in the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars? For obvious reasons, many people who fought in those wars have proud traditions in the labour movement and were happy to commemorate VE and VJ days as much as they commemorate May day. If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East really wishes us to have a VE day holiday, let us consider the possibility of creating an additional holiday. Before he falls off his seat by suggesting that that would cost industry millions of pounds and would be unworkable, let us compare the holidays in the UK with those in other European Union member countries. Let us start by comparing the holidays of the UK. The hon. Gentleman's constituents in Bournemouth have nine public holidays a year, My constituents in Scotland have 10, and the constituents of Northern Ireland Members have 11. Already, therefore, the public holidays position needs to be addressed.

Throughout the European Union, nine member countries have more public holidays than we do, and only two have fewer public holidays: the Netherlands and Denmark. Those are the only two European countries that do not have May day as a public holiday. Plenty of scope exists, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to introduce a VE day, and, as I said, a VJ day, holiday and still to remain in a position that is not out of line with the majority of European Union member countries by retaining the May day holiday. The Bill is a thinly veiled attack on this country's organised labour, and its proud traditions going back many years. Opposition Members will not tolerate it, and I suggest that, when the Bill goes to the vote, the House will not tolerate it either.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): --

The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 155.

Division No. 198] [3.52 pm

AYES

Next Section

  Home Page