| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 579—continued
Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend mentions the commercial considerations, and under normal circumstances such considerations might have been appropriate. However, the commercial considerations of Argos at that time were no different from those that other businesses had to take into account.
Mrs. McGuire: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but the reality is that Argos identified a gap in the law. It
took a decision for its own best reasons, and although I do not accept them, it was Argos's decision and it had the right to take it. In that sense, we need to be at least halfway generous towards Argos.I should say that I have no axe to grind so far as Argos is concerned. I have a couple of sofas from Argos that are really quite comfortable, and other Members probably do as well; then again, perhaps not. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) that, in addition to being able to book online with it, Argos delivers to the Western Isles via the fish lorries. I have had sofas delivered to the Western Isles, for which Argos charges a very modest additional sum. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) wishes to comment on Argos's trading agreements with Orkney and Shetland, I should be delighted. [Interruption.] When a Minister offers to give way—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has done sufficient advertising for the time being.
Mrs. McGuire: [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is the Minister with responsibility for aviation, has arrived.
I want to deal with a couple of specific issues that were raised about the consultation, particularly by the hon. Member for Beckenham. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland launched the consultation on 19 December last year. It was designed to seek views on the case for extending the relevant legal provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 to afford shop and betting office workers in Scotland the same legal rights as those in the rest of the country. She also offered a number of key stakeholders among employers and employee representative organisations a chance to meet Ministers in the Scotland Office to discuss the proposals. As the hon. Member for Beckenham rightly said, the consultation exercise invites responses by 14 March, and we have already had a number of requests for meetings with groups and organisations to discuss the consultation paper.
I want to take this opportunity to reassure the House that we will be able to feed in the results of that consultation before our debates in Committee. As I understand it, the first meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 4 April, and we shall certainly make the results of the consultation available.
Mrs. Lait: I am delighted for those who have sent in responses to the consultation that the date is 4 April, but if I were the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) I would be most upset, because the chances of his Bill's getting through are very limited if the Lords take a dislike to it.
Mrs. McGuire: That is the current scheduling as I understand it, but as a former Whip the hon. Lady will recognise that sometimes such dates are moveable feasts. To reassure her, what I am trying to explain to the House is that we are confident that the results will be in the hands of Members before the Bill goes through its various processes in this House.
I welcome this opportunity to inform the House that I am arranging to have published today a regulatory impact assessment, setting out the estimated costs and
benefits of a measure to change the law in Scotland on Sunday working. As is often the case, we have had to make certain assumptions and calculations about the precise impact on financial and human resources, and it is in some ways difficult to predict just exactly how many workers may choose, at the end of the day, to exercise their right to opt out of Sunday working. Where Sunday working cannot be covered by other employees, however, it will be largely a matter of transfer costs for employers as they will not be obliged in law to find a weekday alternative for anyone who decides to opt out of Sunday working.I am arranging for a copy of the RIA to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today. Copies will also be issued to everyone who received the direct consultation paper in December. A copy will also be placed on the Scotland Office website.
I am delighted for various reasons—some of which I have briefly highlighted—that the Government fully support the principles embodied in the Bill. As well as thanking individual Members, especially on the Labour Benches, for their vigour, energy and dedication in sponsoring the measure, I also congratulate Members who promoted the consultation exercise in communities in Scotland. As a result, many organisations contributed views and comments both to Members and to the Scotland Office. The consultation has provided a good model to show how MPs can discuss with their local communities matters of direct and specific interest to them.
We shall work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde to ensure that responses to the Government's consultation exercise on Sunday working are carefully considered. In the course of the remaining stages of the Bill's progress, we undertake to table amendments where we consider that they will improve the arrangements set out in the measure.
I am sure that other hon. Members will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for giving priority to this important measure from his advantageous position in the ballot. In a modest but important way, his measure would change for the better the working lives of many employees in Scotland who want to opt out of Sunday working without the risk of losing their jobs. The
Government and the trade union movement, especially USDAW, have accepted that basic tenet in relation to workers in the retail industry. The Bill will have a place in the raft of measures being pursued by the Government to help to improve the work-life balance more generally, and I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wish it a fair wind.12.22 pm
David Cairns: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief. I understand that on these occasions it is the custom for Members in my position not to respond in detail to every point that has been made but to restrict themselves to a few general remarks.
I reiterate my earlier comments in thanking the hon. Members who have come to the House today to support the measure, especially those whose constituencies are outwith—a fine Scottish word—Scotland. I am extremely grateful for their support. Mention has been made of the excellent campaigning work undertaken by the shop workers union USDAW. I am more than happy to join in those tributes. The union has been a credit to its members and has fought the campaign all the way. I am grateful for its support, too.
Like other speakers, I pay tribute to the tenacity and courage of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. She is a doughty champion of the rights of Scottish workers and it is no coincidence that even today she is in her constituency fighting to protect 1,000 jobs that are under threat. We all wish her every success in that difficult fight.
Some hon. Members, especially those on the Opposition Benches, have urged me to go further and make the Bill much wider. The other day, someone said that in life one either ends up as a good example or a horrible warning. It is my desire to be a good example to future winners of the ballot for private Members' Bills by introducing a Bill that is narrow and focused and that addresses a particular, pressing injustice. That is what the Bill does and, once again, I commend it to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Aviation (Offences) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
12.24 pm
Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I thank hon. Members for being present today on what is obviously a very busy constituency Friday for all of us.
Antisocial behaviour by passengers on aircraft, commonly known as air rage, has become an increasingly common problem for people who fly and in the media in the past few years. Incidents have been reported in the media and the travelling public—our constituents—are now well aware of the possible danger that air rage incidents can cause while flying.
For many people, flying is already a stressful enough experience without having to worry about the behaviour of someone sitting in the next seat. We all know people who are terrified when they go on planes—they are terrified on take-off, when they are up in the air and, of course, when they land—but being confronted by a drunken and disruptive passenger sitting beside us is terrifying, too. It is terrifying to meet someone like that in the street as we go about our normal business or in pubs and clubs, or even family restaurants and fast-food stores on street corners.
Many of us naturally tend to step away from disruptive behaviour to find a safety zone because we are frightened for ourselves, our families and the people with us. We do not want confrontation—there is also an element of embarrassment about taking on such hoodlums—but when we are in a steel tube, flying at 500 mph, 30,000 ft in the air, it is a totally different problem. Where do we go on an aircraft? The disruptive behaviour is right next to us; we are aware how far off the ground we are and how fast we are travelling, but we have nowhere to go. Unfortunately, air rage has become more prominent in the past few years. Incidents of air rage can, if they get out of hand, have serious consequences for life, whether on a small aircraft or a 747.
Figures show that there has been a 400 per cent. increase in air rage incidents worldwide since 1995. More than 10 per cent. of those incidents have led to violent confrontations. In the United Kingdom, a total of 1,055 incidents were reported in the year up to March 2002. The Civil Aviation Authority categorised 50 per cent. of them as significant and a further 5 per cent. as serious. I repeat that 55 per cent. are significant or serious.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |