| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 570—continued
Mr. Forth: For the avoidance of doubt, is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if the matter is dealt with properly and responsibly, it is perfectly possible to get people voluntarily to work what are sometimes loosely called antisocial hours on a Sunday or even in the middle of the night? That is what suits some people in their individual and family circumstances, and it has been demonstrated to be possible if it is dealt with on a voluntary basis by a responsible employer.
David Hamilton: I accept that point. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman makes the very point that I made earlier. There are certain unscrupulous employers, however, and I believe that Argos went too far, as the voluntary code that he mentions was not adopted. That is why I believe very strongly that all employees should seek recognition.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned tribunals and said how complicated the circumstances could be. I may be the only person in the Chamber who has been to a tribunal. I recognise how important proper legislation is, as the guidance that is given at tribunals is based on trade union rights and other matters set out in legislation. That is why that aspect is very important. Part of the problem for Argos workers in seeking a result at tribunals is that they are
based on existing legislation and not what the legislation should be. That is why there should be a right for all. I was one of those very fortunate people who won their tribunal, but that was possible because the legislation was very clear and because the National Coal Board had breached it as it saw fit. That part of the proposals is extremely important.Mention has also been made of the Scotland Office and the work that it has done, for which I commend it. As I have pointed out previously, that shows what sort of work the Scotland Office can do in taking an issue and highlighting it on behalf of people in Scotland. I recommend not only that hon. Members take note and report back to the inquiry that is under way—I think that the closing date is 14 March—but that we should get word out to the various organisations, shops and employees and ensure that they make their views known.
We should recognise that where there is low unemployment, as in Midlothian, many companies are fighting for people to come in and conditions are improving. Indeed, in my area, the local authority, which is the biggest local employer, is struggling to try to bring people in to work because of the various competing interests and the flexible working that is allowed by major companies. Let us not attack all companies; we should recognise that there are many good organisations out there and reflect that better image.
11.42 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on procuring the Bill, on the excellent publicity that he has obtained for it and on a speech that was witty, lucid and comprehensive.
It was my intention to be brief, and if I understand the pressures that I think I am getting from the Procrustean bed of the usual channels, I think that that is still my intention. Furthermore, I have already spoken on the same subject in an Adjournment debate and in introducing my own ten-minute Bill, others have already covered the topics adequately and I am conscious that there are other Bills on the Order Paper. Indeed, I am especially conscious that that is the case because I am in that rather odd position of having introduced in previous Sessions two Bills that feature on today's Order Paper, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) is reintroducing the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill, which I know we may not reach today, but which I hope will reach the statute book. As my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde and for Scarborough and Whitby can both claim paternity of the Bills, I am not sure what relationship I can claim. Perhaps I should say that it is grandfatherhood, before somebody suggests something slightly less delicate.
That is a good example of what should often happen in politics, as a lot of significant things in politics are achieved through a co-operative effort by a large number of different people. We often end up in politics with people claiming or being given individual credit, but a lot of people are often involved in the greatest achievements. I should like to give credit to a number of the people in that regard. First, I join my hon. Friend the
Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) in paying credit to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scotland Office for the help that was given both in private and in public. I am grateful to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers for being ready to be persuaded of the importance of the issue with which the Bill deals, and also for the work that was done with Argos and the consultation, of which I am sure we will take full and proper account in Committee.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that one of the reasons why the Bill has an excellent chance of succeeding is that it is a classic private Member's Bill—it is modest in scope, identifies a real problem and sets out in a succinct and uncontroversial way to solve that problem? That is the basis on which most private Members' Bills tend to succeed.
Mr. Savidge: I am happy not only to agree, but to say that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed that point very succinctly and worthily.
I also give credit to the Bill's various supporters. USDAW has already been mentioned, as has the great support given by various churches and religious organisations. I give particular credit for the fact that some of those organisations, including some of the strictly Sabbatarian ones—I say this with particular regard to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—not only argued on religious grounds, but took into account the social concerns of people who did not necessarily share their beliefs. I was disappointed by some of the criticisms made of Archbishop Bruce Cameron, whom I thought wrote an absolutely excellent letter that recognised that while some in his Church would want a purely religious Sunday, others would want an only partly religious one. He also recognised that, in a pluralistic community, others would take a completely different view and have a right for their social concerns to be taken into account. I thought that the letters from Archbishop Cameron and many others were excellent in expressing support. At one stage, I began to wonder whether the hon. Member for New Forest, West was going to try to be Hampshire's answer to the Taliban. When he began to talk about the commandment and the death penalty, I began to worry that he might be reintroducing a situation in which people were getting stoned in a fashion that had nothing to do with alcoholic or intoxicating beverages.
I should like to pay special credit to the Argos workers, especially those who lost their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central referred to the workers in Aberdeen, whom I obviously know best, but my impression was that they all behaved with great courage and dignity. I found it particularly impressive that, after they had lost their jobs and found employment with other companies, they still wanted to continue campaigning because they believed that there was a principle to be established for other people. If the Bill reaches the statute book, as I hope it will, particular credit should be given to those Argos workers.
The extent to which the Bill has cross-party support was illustrated by the early-day motion on the same subject, which was supported by more than 200 hon. Members. Tremendous support has been given by hon. Members throughout the House. In particular, I want to
mention my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald)—but I shall not mention all the rest of them, as the Procrustean bed is acting.I rush on, therefore, to say that I do not wish to deal again with the whole Argos saga. The Bill brings to Scotland what the House introduced under a Conservative Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out. The idea is that it will give proper flexibility to everybody. It gives flexibility by allowing retailers to trade on Sundays and allowing shoppers to decide whether to buy on Sunday, but it also gives flexibility by allowing shop workers to decide whether to work on that day. I think that that is a proper way of proceeding, as it protects the rights of those who have religious beliefs, as well as the rights of couples and families who want to get together and people with caring responsibilities. As family and caring responsibilities fall on women in particular, it gives important protection for women. Indeed, it was noticeable that it was mostly women who suffered in respect of Argos. The Bill also extends to people who are resident in Scotland the same proper protections that are enjoyed in England and Wales.
On 5 November, in my concluding remarks when introducing my own Bill, I said:
- "Today, I hope that we can set down a marker for legislation in the next Session that would, I hope with the support of the whole House, extend to shopworkers in Scotland the protection that is currently enjoyed by those in the rest of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 145.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |