| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 559—continued
Jim Sheridan: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were no Scotland Office, which is what some hon. Members want, such a Bill would not have the same high profile, priority and effort afforded to it?
Mr. MacDonald: My hon. Friend is right. It is a tribute to the influence of the Scotland Office and the Secretary of State that their intervention brought about the change in attitude by senior Argos management.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned the attitudes of the far north and west of Scotland. Those hon. Members who have visited my constituency over the years will have noticed that in large parts of it on Sundays there are very few shops open and very few trading opportunities. The picture painted by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) of the Scotland of his childhood prevails in
large parts of the Western Isles. Even in the Outer Hebrides conditions are changing: in the past year Sunday flights have been introduced, and that will undoubtedly bring other changes in its wake. It may well be that as the years pass shops will begin to open on Sundays even in the Outer Hebrides. I do not imagine that Sunday opening will ever reach the level that it has in mainland Scotland, but the Bill will provide protection for that eventuality.I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in his excellent contribution, that the proposed change will not be foolproof, just as the system in England and Wales is not foolproof. However, it is an essential step forward to bring Scotland into line with the conditions south of the border. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for promoting the Bill.
11.2 am
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on getting a good place in the ballot and on his choice of a Bill, which in principle is very sensible. I hasten to assure him that I do not want to resist the Bill, although there are issues that we could usefully consider; they are relevant to this Bill just as they were relevant to the original debate on Sunday trading in 1993–94.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Our paths have crossed before, and this is our first encounter since she had to endure 39 sittings of the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, in which I spoke at considerable length. I hasten to reassure her that I shall not inflict another of those experiences on her.
Mr. Forth: That is disappointing.
Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend should not tempt me.
I am deeply conscious—in fact I am proud—of being an English MP and an Englishman. I am well aware that there are occasions when people from other parts of the United Kingdom object to Englishmen poking their noses into what those people consider to be their business.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): As one who has pursued a case like the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) in my own constituency, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that one of the most inspiring features of the support for the Bill is that USDAW in every part of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland, supports it?
Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but inviting me to wax eloquent about the activities of a trade union is possibly pushing me a little further than I want to be pushed on a Friday morning. I note
what USDAW says, and I agree with it, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that my enthusiasm may stop at that point.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of, "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"
Mr. Wilshire: I am in a charitable mood, so although I was tempted to say that, I chose not to. My right hon. Friend has said it for me. One always hears about vested interests, and we shall leave that matter be.
As I said, I am conscious of being an Englishman involving himself in Scottish business. I can only say in my own defence that, day after day, week after week, I notice Scottish MPs getting involved in issues that concern only England, or only Surrey or perhaps even only my constituency. On this occasion, I make no apology for my involvement because I am simply learning some of the tricks of the trade from the right hon. and hon. Members from Scotland.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): Will my hon. Friend please note that our Member from Scotland does not vote on English and Welsh legislation?
Mr. Wilshire: I am delighted to have that drawn to my attention. It is a fair point, and I can say only that it would be interesting if his principled and honourable stand were to be copied by others. I would welcome some people keeping their nose out of my business.
Mr. Tom Harris: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Scottish Bill but a United Kingdom Bill and every Member of the House, wherever in the United Kingdom they are elected, has the right to take part in the debate.
Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I am not disagreeing with that; the hon. Gentleman was trying to anticipate where my train of thought is going. This is indeed a House of Commons matter, and I find it almost amusing and certainly ironic that despite the much-vaunted arguments about devolution and the identity of the Scottish nation, every so often Scotland still has to return to the good old mother of Parliaments and acknowledge that, on occasion, we are a unitary state. Scottish Members come here, as necessary, to put things right in what they would argue is their country.This is not an important issue, but I touch on it for a moment to explain why the Bill comes before this House and why those in favour of it argue, "We need this in Scotland as well as in England".
The website of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde is quite interesting. In an argument that he repeated this morning his website says about the Bill:
- "It is quite simply wrong that shop-workers in Greenwich enjoy rights that those in Greenock do not."
- "They are discriminating, in particular, against people with family responsibilities or religious objections, but in general against people simply because they live in Scotland."
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has advanced an argument for a worthy Bill in which he says that in this unitary state it is entirely right that the shop workers of Scotland have the same rights as those of England. I accept the argument that what is right for England should be right for Scotland, but I sincerely hope that when my colleagues and I argue that we ought to have the same benefits as are enjoyed in another part of the unitary state, he will support our argument and make sure that the Government give us the same deal as they are giving Scotland.
Mr. Savidge: I find the hon. Gentleman's point rather difficult to follow. Surely this is a non-devolved issue, so it is proper for it to be dealt with in this Parliament. If this Parliament thinks that it would be good to apply in England a measure passed in Scotland, it would be proper for that to be discussed in this Parliament.
Mr. Wilshire: I accept that this is not a devolved matter, but that is part of my argument. The other part of the argument is simply that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde have advanced as a justification for the measure the proposal that the shop workers of Scotland should have the same benefits as those of England. That is a separate issue from which Parliament should consider the matter.
I shall try to get the hon. Gentlemen to understand: all I am saying is that if a Scottish Member argues that the justification for the measure is simply that the same rights should apply in Scotland as in England, the same argument applies in reverse—whether or not the matter is devolved. I hope that they accept that if some people in one part of this unitary state have benefits that my constituents do not, I will argue that the benefits that apply in Scotland, which is part of the same country as mine, should apply in my constituency as well.
David Cairns: I do not wish to detain the House, but the Scottish Parliament has powers only because this House devolved certain powers to it and decided to retain others. The Bill falls slap bang in the middle of the powers that the House decided to retain and we would not debate here any issue devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman should not say that we can discuss the matter irrespective of which Parliament is involved. The issue is for this Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, we seek not to pass a Scottish Bill, but to amend a UK Bill. That is the crux of the matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |