18 Jun 2004 : Column 973
House of Commons
Friday 18 June 2004
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]
9.33 am
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You probably saw the news late last night on the report by the National Audit Office, which shows that some clearly fraudulent and other meritless visa applications for people to enter Britain were approved on the instructions of the Home Office against the advice of officials. Have you received any indication that the Home Secretary will come here today to make a statement on that very serious matter? Perhaps more relevantly, have you heard whether the Home Secretary is about to make a personal statement, because many of us think that it is a resigning matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker : I am not aware that the Home Secretary or any other Minister has made a request to come before the House, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that we now have a procedure known as urgent questions, by which an application can be made to Mr. Speaker for a matter to be considered on a particular day. Will you confirm that were this matter to be submitted to Mr. Speaker on Monday, it could still legitimately be regarded as urgent because the Minister in question did not ask to come to the House today?
We often find ourselves in this odd position. Although there is no reason, as far as I know, why the urgent question procedure should not be used on a Friday—I wish it were used more often because this is, of course, a normal sitting day—surely it would still be appropriate for Mr. Speaker at least to consider an application for an urgent question even if a weekend intervenes and the matter was considered urgent today.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker to consider when he receives—if he should—the application.
18 Jun 2004 : Column 974
Orders of the Day
Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 1
'(1) Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees in that shop and lodges notice of such fact with the local authority no later than 1st November in any year, the large shop shall be exempt from the provisions of this act for the Christmas Day following.
(2) A notice made under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall identify—
(a) the shop premises concerned,
(b) the owner of the shop, and
(c) the identity of all the employees.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
9.36 am
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection(1) does not apply to any shop where there is a local public demand for it to be open on Christmas Day.
(2B) A local public demand under subsection (2A) shall be deemed to exist for the Christmas Day following where by 1st November in any year the local authority has received a petition signed by no fewer than 1,000 persons
(a) who reside within the local authority area in which the large shop is situated, and
(b) whose names appear on the electoral register.'.
Mr. Knight: I start from the position of thinking that the Bill is not necessary. I have arrived at that position without encouragement, coercion or inducement from any trade union. However, if others take a different view and think that we should legislate, it is right and proper that we try to accommodate all shades of opinion from all members of our society.
The new clause recognises that not every resident of England and Wales is a Christian. Indeed, many members of this country do not practise the Christian religion and, indeed, may support another religion for which Christmas day has no religious significance.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I hope it may help my right hon. Friend, even at this early stage in his analysis, if I remind him of what I told the House on Second Reading, because it relates exactly to his point. I said—I quote myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is always a pleasurable thing to do:
"Among people of working age—the 16 to 74 age group—the Christian element is 72 per cent., but the number of people with no religion, or no stated religion, was 22 per cent. The figure for the other defined religions was 4.1 per cent.—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1169.]
"Other defined religions" includes Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, others and Buddhists. Does that not set the context for what my right hon. Friend is going to argue? It reinforces his point that we simply must not assume that everyone of working age—this is the key point, as is made clear in the census, from which I quoted—is necessarily of the Christian religion.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the argument goes wider than that. I come from a relatively small family and have one brother. We received a similar education and obviously come from the same cultural background, yet his attitude to Sundays and Christmas day is totally different from mine. For me, Christmas is the time to stay at home with friends. My brother takes the opposite view. He likes to travel the world and to go shopping. He now lives in Hong Kong, where he can go to the shops on Christmas day. He often visits America, where it is possible to shop in New York on Christmas day. So two brothers from the same cultural upbringing have a totally different view of Christmas. I would argue that many Christians—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will start to address his new clause.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was seeking to explain that it is not just non-Christians who would favour new clause 1. Many people from a Christian background do not believe that Christmas day is a day on which one should stay at home and not be able to visit a shop.
New clause 1 would exempt from the Bill large shops owned and run by non-Christians with non-Christian employees. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the city of Leicester, but I suspect that in view of the forthcoming by-election in Leicester, South many will become far more familiar with it in the coming weeks. I used to live in the city, which has changed dramatically, not always for the better as for many years it had the misfortune of having a Labour-controlled, anti-motorist city council. However, multiculturalism has made Leicester a better city, as members of the Asian community have brought a quality of life that was not present before.
If hon. Members visit Melton road or Belgrave road in Leicester they would find a number of Asian shops that provide a valuable service, not just to members of the Asian community but to everyone. They include a number of large shops—we are not just talking about small corner shops—that are owned and run by members of the Asian community and trade seven days a week. Why do some Labour Members want to force such shops to close on Christmas day, when the owners and employees are not Christian? What is the argument for forcing the non-Christian owner of a large shop to close his store on Christmas day? People who seek to change the law in that way ought to be prepared to consider reasonable exemptions where there is a good case for them.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |