House of Commons
Friday 7 February 2003
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), Sir Michael Lord, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker.
Orders of the Day
Sunday Trading (Scotland) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.34 am
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is simple with one substantive purpose: to extend to shop workers in Scotland the rights that those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland already enjoy. I thank those who have come to support the measure, especially colleagues from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who are here to try to give my constituents some basic rights that theirs already enjoy. Colleagues who have been involved in the campaign far longer than me will wish to speak, and I shall therefore try to keep my opening remarks as brief as possible, while outlining the Bill's key principles.
It is against the law for employers to force shop workers to work on Sunday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland, where no such legal protection exists. The Bill will give shop workers in Scotland the rights that they deserve. However, it is important to stress what the Bill does not do. It does not accord workers in Scotland preferential or additional rights. It does not extend rights to those who work on Sundays in other sectors. That would be beyond the scope of a private Member's Bill. It does not trespass on the Scottish Parliament's rights to determine the hours of Sunday trading in Scotland.
The law in Scotland does not differ from that in the rest of the United Kingdom because of devolution. The House of Commons decided that employment law would continue to be determined here on a UK-wide basis. That makes the discrepancy in the law all the more anomalous and unacceptable.
The reason for the discrepancy originates in the gradual, some might say tortuous, evolution of the laws on Sunday trading. It would take the entire time allotted for debate to do justice to the history of Sunday trading in this country, even if we started only from the days of Stanley Baldwin. I shall therefore not outline its history.
Neither shall I try to make the case that Sunday is a special day that should be treated specially. The House has enshrined that assertion in law. The law also provides that shop workers occupy a distinct place in Sunday working. It is for those who dispute that to explain why the law is wrong. Those who oppose the measure must either oppose the law in the rest of the UK or explain why Sunday is special in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland.Although I said that I would not retell the epic account of Sunday trading, it is necessary to sketch a thumbprint account to locate this morning's debate. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 liberalised Sunday trading in England and Wales. It did not apply in Scotland because there was no statutory ban on Sunday trading north of the border. The controversial nature of the reform led the Government to allow the Commons a free vote on a series of options. Cabinet Ministers had the freedom to support or reject different options. It has been said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.
The debates on the 1994 Act were deeply felt and prolonged. I do not wish to encroach on the impartiality of the Chair, but you feature prominently in them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Party allegiances did not matter. Some hon. Members wanted no liberalisation and some supported partial regulation, while others wanted complete deregulation.
However, one thing united every speaker. Irrespective of their views on how liberal the law should be on Sunday trading, all speakers made it clear that any move to deregulate Sunday trading hours must be accompanied by new rights for Sunday shop workers. Not one speaker suggested that no additional protection was required to allow shop workers the choice not to work on Sunday. Although the Government granted a free vote on Sunday trading and the options on the extent of its deregulation, there was no choice about whether to give workers additional rights. The then Government whipped that vote, such was their determination to ensure that Sunday shop workers received additional rights.
The then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on Second Reading of the Sunday Trading Bill in 1993, said:
- "There is a distinction between the issue of which shops can open on Sundays, which cuts across party lines, and employee rights. There will be a free vote on the choice between the options, but the Government have a clear employment policy and we shall defend that policy vigorously . . . The rights will apply whichever of the options for reform is chosen by Parliament.
When the Act comes into force, existing shopworkers will have the right not to be dismissed or suffer detriment through refusing to work on Sunday, and can surrender those rights only by agreeing in writing to work on Sunday."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 818–19.]
Indeed, so commendably and forcefully adamant were the Government on this point that I went on to read the response of the then Labour Opposition with some trepidation. They were, however, equally unwavering that safeguards for shop workers be built into the law. I am delighted to report to the House that I support every single word that the then Opposition
spokesperson said in that debate. The fact that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is utterly irrelevant to my total support for his wise position. The shadow Home Secretary—as the Prime Minister then was—said:
- "we should fully protect the rights of those who work on Sundays in order that we may shop then. For me and for many of my colleagues, employee protection must go hand in hand with the freedom to shop. The two issues are not distinct". —[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 822.]
But just as the Sunday Trading Act did not apply in Scotland, neither did the additional rights. It could be argued that, as Sunday trading had never been illegal north of the border, there was no need for extra legal protection. Indeed, this was a commonly held view among many who spoke in the debates, but the argument was flawed on two counts. First, it overstated the level of Sunday trading that then took place in Scotland. Secondly, and crucially, it ignored the effect that liberalising the market in England would have in Scotland.
Some particularly prescient hon. Members quickly realised the implications of such a move. It will come as no surprise to the House that the first to notice the danger was my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who raised the matter with the then Home Secretary on Second Reading, when he said:
- "If the House agrees to total deregulation, that will mean that we will get universal opening in Scotland, which we do not have at the moment, contrary to what was said earlier . . . There are multiples that do not open in Scotland because they do not open south of the border.
Surely the protection in the Bill, . . . the right to refuse to work on Sundays, should apply also to Scotland. Will it be possible to amend the Bill in Committee to enable that section to apply to Scotland?"—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 821.]
That brings me to what the excellent House of Commons Library briefing on my Bill refers to as the "Argos saga". I do not propose to dwell on this matter, for two reasons. First, others who were far more involved than I was are better placed to recount the episode. I am especially pleased to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who, more than any others, have brought this issue to light and shone a torch on the need for reform.
Far more importantly, I entirely refute the suggestion that this law is being introduced to punish a particular company. It is not. I believe that Argos has acted poorly, to say the least, but the case has served simply to highlight starkly the inadequacy of the current law. Now that this anomaly has been so publicly exposed, it would be wrong—a dereliction of duty on our part as lawmakers—to cross our fingers and hope that no one
else loses their job for refusing to work on a Sunday. It is the lack of legal protection for shop workers in Scotland that motivates me, not a desire to punish one particular company.I turn now to the specific measures in the Bill. When we were drawing up the Bill, I told the parliamentary draftsman that all I wanted to do was amend the relevant section of the relevant Act, effectively adding the words "and Scotland" where applicable—nothing more and nothing less. That is essentially all that the Bill seeks to do. The protection first contained in the Sunday Trading Act is now found in the consolidated Employment Rights Act 1996, and it is that Act that I am seeking to amend.
Clause 1 deletes the words "in England and Wales" where appropriate, and arranges for the current law to be extended to Scotland. Eagle-eyed Members will spot that subsection (3) highlights the difference between English and Scottish law over the legal term for alcohol. In England, it is referred to as "intoxicating liquor", whereas in Scotland it is referred to as "alcoholic liquor". Even the magnificent efforts of the House of Commons Library have been unable to establish the origins of this distinction. I am considering running a competition for the most ingenious suggestion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has already suggested that, although the drink may be alcoholic, Scots are never intoxicated. Answers on a postcard, please.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |