| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 545—continued
9.59 am
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): It is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to speak in this important debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on introducing this Bill. I can assure him of my support, and that I will enter the Lobby with him to ensure that this Bill is passed today.
Probably the great majority of us in this House would agree that for the sake of the institution of marriage, and of couples, families and children, it should be a priority
that such people have one shared day a week when they can be together to do as they please—be it going to church or whatever else they may choose to do. That is especially important in the United Kingdom, which has the highest divorce rate in the European Union, and by far the largest number of dependent children in single-parent households. I mention that because, given that 34 per cent. of lone parents with dependent children usually or sometimes work on a Sunday, many children are left with no parent at all on that day. In fact, the situation is even worse, because many of those parents have to work on Saturdays as well, so thousands of children effectively have parentless weekends. Moreover, given that some of those children may be of school age, very large numbers are in effect not seeing a parent at any time at all during the day. As someone who will continue to argue that family breakdown and its various causes is perhaps one of the most significant problems facing the UK today, I consider this an issue of great concern that needs to be brought to hon. Members' attention.We have heard that this debate is about giving people choice as to whether they work on Sunday—the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has mentioned this point—and I agree that they should have that choice. However, he should be aware that according to the evidence in a publication produced jointly last year by the National Centre for Social Research and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, some 70 per cent. of lone parents who work at weekends would prefer not to. That is significant, because it shows that there is little in the way of choice. Indeed, I shall argue that, good as this Bill is, we need to go further. The rights provided to shop and betting office workers are not strong enough; nor do I see a reason why this measure should be confined to just those workers.
Although I welcome the Bill, I would argue that the protection given to shop and betting office workers in England and Wales is in fact more imagined than real. The powers that exist in England and Wales are not working particularly well. Since the introduction of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, there has been only one such case in which a worker has won a claim for unfair dismissal against his employer. Mr. Paul Charnetski had worked for Safeway for some time before 1994, so he was in fact a protected worker, albeit with the statutory opt-out right, which is not particularly relevant in this regard. He did not want to work on Sundays, and Safeway dismissed him in 1999 for refusing to do so. Only in August 2002 did he finally win his industrial tribunal case against Safeway, and I shall quote briefly from his barrister's comments at that time. She said that the evidence given by Safeway suggested that it has
- "ridden roughshod over the statutory rights of hundreds if not thousands of their low-paid staff."
It is also true that, for those who want to get such a job in the first place, if they show any hesitation during the interview about working on a Sunday, they will
probably not get it. Employers no doubt cite other reasons, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that, if people show such hesitation, they are less likely to get the job. If they suggest, once in a job, that they would prefer not to work on Sundays, a lot of pressure could be brought to bear, and their chances of promotion could be severely reduced as a result. There is pressure and coercion, and a lot of employees do not necessarily have another job to go to; indeed, a shop worker will probably find exactly the same set of circumstances in the next supermarket or shop with which they try to get a job.As I have said, why are we considering legislation just in respect of shop and betting office workers? Existing legislation has not worked particularly well, as the evidence shows. Only one case has been brought to an industrial tribunal in the past eight years. Some 9 million of our fellow citizens work on Sundays, and I do not believe that all of them are happy in doing so. Nor is it not just shop and betting office workers who are affected. Do we realise that the delivery people—the drivers of vans and big lorries who bring the goods to shops—are not covered by this legislation?
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might clarify his argument. As I understand it, according to current legislation shop workers should have the absolute right to refuse to work on a Sunday without fear of dismissal, redundancy or any kind of detriment. The legislation also states that they should have the right to opt out of Sunday working, and should be able to do so again within three months with exactly the same safeguards. Does that principle not operate?
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does indeed give them that right, and the provisions of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 are incorporated in it. However, although that statutory right is given, the reality is that the onus is entirely on the employee to complain, and to be the brave person who stands up to the employer. The management, and perhaps those of their colleagues who are happy to work on Sundays, apply great pressure on them not to sign up to that right. The fact that only one such case in eight years has successfully been taken to industrial tribunal supports my argument. Some 9 million of our fellow citizens work on Sundays. As I have said, a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the National Centre for Social Research shows that 70 per cent. of lone parents would rather not work at weekends—
Andrew Selous: I will take interventions in moment, but I just want to finish this point. I want the requirement to be placed not on the employee but on the employer. It is not employees who should have to fight for their rights, be brave, battle on their own and perhaps not win a tribunal.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he has to understand that for many people, a job is job. It is important, and it keeps life going for them, and
sometimes people are very reluctant to speak out. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can make a small contribution, and in doing so I hope to give the hon. Gentleman some idea of certain practices that make people afraid of taking on their employer.
Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He seems to be reinforcing the arguments that I have just made, so I thank him very much and look forward to his contribution on this very point.
As I have said, why are we concerned only about the rights of shop and betting office workers? If we as a nation believe—as most of our constituents do—that a shared day off a week is important, why is this principle important only for people who work in betting shops and retail outlets?
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are debating this Bill today because of an anomaly in the way the law works? Other workers do have certain protections under the law, but shop and betting office workers do not. That is why we are addressing this particular issue.
Andrew Selous: As I said, I am delighted to support the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. His Bill is clear and simple; it represents an advance and it has Government support. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject and his rationale for proposing the measure is not limited to one group of his constituents. He has, rightly, introduced the Bill to address a specific anomaly, but I am sure that his concern—like mine—is for all his constituents. The hon. Lady said that other workers have rights in such cases; her intervention came just as I was about to argue that they did not.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's contribution; he makes some excellent points. May I suggest that he become a member of the Standing Committee so that he can also make them at that stage?
Andrew Selous: I shall certainly express an interest in serving on the Committee and I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
I realise that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not detain the House longer than necessary, but I want to draw its attention to the case of Mr. Stephen Copsey, which came to light only last month. Mr. Copsey was a team manager at a quarry, where he had worked for 14 years. He had worked for the company ever since he left school, had an exemplary work record and, until recently, was a highly valued employee. However, in April 2002, the company introduced full seven-day working and refused to make any exception for Mr. Copsey. He was given the choice of either working on Sundays or losing his job—which is exactly what happened. He tried to negotiate, but his employer refused to consider either alternative employment or the introduction of a flexible shift system. On 31 July 2002, Mr. Copsey was dismissed without even the minimum statutory redundancy pay, although I realise that that is a separate matter.
- "It was difficult to describe the pressure and hostility that I was shown."
- "I have been treated despicably after 14 years of service."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |