| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 567—continued
Mr. Savidge: The Bill became law in 1996. Before we take his point too seriously, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how often this extraordinary circumstance has occurred. How many instances of people suddenly being converted and refusing to work on Sundays have actually occurred in England and Wales?
Mr. Wilshire: I lament the fact that the Churches in England do not seem to convert many people these days, but perhaps there will be a religious revival and we will have that problem. We must think not only about the past but about what might happen in future. Along with a number of hon. Members, I would like to see a religious revival, but I suspect that you will not let me get very far with that argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is another general issue on which the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect for a moment or two. Some employers offer more money to staff who undertake to work on Sundays. It is not just extra payment for Sundays. Some employers are prepared to negotiate an arrangement where staff get more money in return for a guarantee that they are prepared to work on Sundays. Suppose that employees enter into such an agreement and take the extra pay for two or three years and then decide they are no longer prepared to work on Sundays. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about whether he wants to encourage that situation? I am concerned that the Bill as it stands would import that potentially difficult scenario into Scotland. It certainly arises here in England.
Another issue that the hon. Gentleman needs to contemplate involves the arrangements for bank holidays and Christmas day. The Bill protects staff against being made to work on Christmas day only if Christmas day falls on a Sunday. In my judgment, that is one of the Bill's shortcomings. I do not think that we should be able to force shop workers to work on Christmas day, but at the moment the legislation is such that the protection will apply only when Christmas day falls on a Sunday. When the Bill reaches Committee, the hon. Gentleman might give some thought as to whether or not it could be amended. I should also say that when he has achieved protection for Christmas day in Scotland, I shall demand that it is applied to England too.
Andrew Selous: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments about no one being forced to work on Christmas day, whichever day of the week it falls on, but I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that I learned only this morning that this Christmas there was a voluntary agreement between all the major
supermarkets that none of them would open on Christmas day and that agreement seemed to work satisfactorily.
Mr. Wilshire: I am delighted to hear that. In view of my strictures against the nanny state, if such a voluntary arrangement works, I am content with it.
Mr. Forth: Presumably that also gives a market opportunity to shops that are owned and run by people of other faiths or no faith to provide a service for people who want to obtain much-needed supplies even on Christmas day.
That brings me to the next issue that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde should consider carefully. The Bill offers protection in general terms to Christians because it applies to Sundays, and to people of the Jewish faith because there is the provision that if they respect their Sabbath they can work on a Sunday but decline to work on the Sabbath. I applaud that. That is right. I am a publicly confessed Christian, so I am glad that my faith is respected in that way.
Not all that long ago, there were debates in the House about making religious discrimination an offence, and I suspect that that issue will return. An Act that discriminates in favour of Sunday or the Jewish Sabbath but no other holy day in a week would fall foul of religious discrimination were it ever to become an offence. I can imagine how offended I would feel if I were not a Christian or a Jew that people of some faiths receive protection when those of my faith did not.
Andrew Selous: May I take my hon. Friend back to the points that I made about Mr. Copsey, whose barrister is arguing that whereas Muslims, Hindus and Jews are protected under the Race Relations Act, it would appear that Christians are not similarly protected with regard to not wanting to work on Sunday, and so it may be the Human Rights Act that finalises the matter in terms of British law.
Mr. Wilshire: I hope that it is not the Human Rights Act that settles the matter because that Act is responsible for all sorts of things that I do not support and I would rather settle things by having a debate on the issue.
Mr. Forth: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that there is a danger of our confusing race and religion, to which he made a passing reference. I hope that he will resist robustly any effort to entangle us yet further in the miasma that so-called race relations legislation has become—to the extent that it is now reaching out into other unnecessary parts of our lives.
Mr. Wilshire: I agree wholeheartedly, but I sense that there would be some restlessness were I to start debating racial or religious discrimination.
That brings me to the quote from the Most Reverend Bruce Cameron, to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) so eloquently drew the House's attention. When we debated the Act that this Bill seeks to extend to Scotland, I well remember a
large number of ministers of religion lobbying all of us, and I would always pause before responding to consider how curious it is that a minister of the Christian religion, whose contract of employment requires him to work on Sundays above all days, and who has an obligation to work on Sunday, should tell me why it is wrong for people to work on Sunday. That contradiction has always bothered me slightly.Like my hon. Friend, I was bothered by the view of Rev. Bruce Cameron of the Scottish Episcopal Church, that
- "Neither I nor the church I represent would want to preserve Sunday for religious purposes alone."
- "Many of us welcome the wider opportunities offered to people to spend their weekends in leisure and shopping."?
I have listed the matters that I believe to be relevant, which I sincerely hope the Committee will consider. It is right and sensible to want the same protection in Scotland as in England, but I flag those issues up because the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde should understand that while he is importing the benefits from England he is importing one or two problems as well. As long as when problems come back to haunt him in his surgery he can say that he is not surprised because although he knew about them he did not believe they were sufficient to undermine the Bill's principles, I will have done my job of helping him to consider these things. If he understands the difficulties and is content, he has my support.
11.36 am
David Hamilton (Midlothian): I want to take a moment to consider what we are debating, because we seem to have lost track of that during the past half an hour. We are here today to debate a simple issue—the need to afford the same rights to every worker throughout the United Kingdom irrespective of what part they come from. I shall spend only one or two minutes on that because one or two issues need to be reinforced.
We in Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and every hon. Member present—the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is not present—wants to maintain that United Kingdom. Irrespective of what
some might think, we have different cultures. There are different cultures throughout England, never mind between Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, and that will continue to be the case. But in saying that, employment rights are a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament and they should be afforded to all.The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), in his very good contribution, talked of the rights of the individual and the pressures that many shop workers are under. It is the pressures that one does not see that so often come through. I know many in my constituency who are under pressure for different reasons. That is why they should all join the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and make sure that the protection offered by a trade union is there for them. I would encourage every worker to do that.
Argos has been mentioned on several occasions because, as a major company, it did what some small companies do on a regular basis, but let us look at the other side of the coin. There are many good employers. My area was the first in Scotland in which IKEA opened and it gave workers the opportunity to work the hours that they chose. It was able to take on several hundred people within a short period at hours that were beneficial to the employee. That is extremely important. That was quickly followed by Tesco, which opened a 24-hour shop in Midlothian. It employs 450 people, many of them working hours that suit them. That means that single parents can work during the day while their children are at school, allowing them to earn sufficient money to keep their children in the way that they need to be kept. It allows mothers and grandmothers to care for the children at night and at the weekend.
There are many such examples. It is important to recognise that the major companies set a trend for all the small companies. That is why the Bill is an excellent way forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |