Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I do not wish to say much. Regardless of my opposition in principle and in its entirety to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, I understand that continuity is important and that instruments need to be in place to preserve the framework around the status quo. I make the point, however, which I have made before in several such Committees, that the Government should have done the sensible thing from day one and ruled out no deal, so we did not have to go through all this nonsense and this process. They continue to refuse to do that, despite a majority in the Commons having instructed them to do it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Stephenson
I will of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating those involved in the opening of the new UK Hydrographic Office headquarters in her constituency. It is a world-class natural asset. The UKHO is working with local partners to scope the feasibility of developing a marine geospatial innovation centre in Taunton, and it plays a key role in the south-west’s local industrial strategy.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Informed by my regular discussions with trade unions, we have extended worker rights, and both Houses agreed last month to close the Swedish derogation loophole to protect agency workers. On 1 April, we celebrated with union representatives the 20th anniversary of the national minimum wage. The day was marked by the rise in the national living wage, which has delivered the fastest pay rise for the lowest paid in at least 20 years, benefiting nearly 1.8 million workers.
Martyn Day
The Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Grahame Smith, has said that the Scottish Government’s
“Fair Work Action Plan demonstrates a commitment to using the powers the Government has at its disposal to deliver Fair Work, which is good for workers and good for business.”
Will the Secretary of State do his bit by introducing a real living wage? If not, will he devolve the policy so that the Scottish Government can?
Greg Clark
What the hon. Gentleman did not mention is that this Government introduced the national living wage, and we have just increased it to its highest-ever level, benefiting millions of people around the country. I would have thought that he would welcome that.
Evidence-based Early Years Intervention
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in what has been an interesting, informative and wide-ranging debate. I am grateful to the Science and Technology Committee for its work on the report, and to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for opening the debate on the Committee’s behalf. He gave a thorough presentation, particularly on the importance of the data that was used. I am grateful for his reference to the work of the Scottish and Welsh Governments; I will give some Scottish examples later.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) linked the issue to poverty and inequality, which are themes that I will return to. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) talked about the parallels with the report of the Health and Social Care Committee on the first 1,000 days, and the importance of early intervention for the child in that period. They are all good lessons that we should take messages from.
As I have mentioned a few times in Parliament, I have never been a fan of acronyms, but I will frequently refer to ACEs. As acronyms go, however, ACE is quite a misnomer, considering the sad catalogue of stressful events that make up adverse childhood experiences, which range from psychological, physical and sexual abuse to a whole range of household dysfunctions.
Earlier, reference was made to the effect that a family member being in prison can have on a child. One thing we have done in Scotland—I am busking here, as the subject takes me back to my council days—is multi-agency working. In those days, the Lothian and Borders Police—but Police Scotland has continued the same theme—worked with local authorities to time their raids on houses so that they could be less stressful, and a support package was in place. That ties in with a presumption against shorter sentences, so that less time is spent in prison for relatively minor offences.
What happens to us as children can have a huge impact on us throughout our lives. We all agree that adverse childhood experiences can have a significant impact on people; indeed, a reasonable body of evidence demonstrates that correlation. We have heard that about half of adults in England have suffered at least one ACE, and while Scottish figures do not exist, they are believed to be similar. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk for pointing out that one in 10 have experienced four or more ACEs, which is truly frightening. I went through the chart of 10 tests, and I am pleased to say that I came up with zero, but many of my constituents did not have as fortunate an upbringing as I did, so there are real pressures out there.
I put on record that the SNP welcomes the publication of the report and will study its findings and recommendations. The Scottish Government have consistently recognised the importance of early years interventions and have prioritised that approach across our public services. NHS Health Scotland says:
“While ACEs are found across the population, there is more risk of experiencing ACEs in areas of higher deprivation. ACEs have been found to have lifelong impacts on health and behaviour and they are relevant to all sectors and involve all of us in society.”
In 2016, the Scottish Public Health Network produced a wonderful report, “‘Polishing the Diamonds’: Addressing Adverse Childhood Experiences in Scotland”, which summarised the research available at the time and set out a number of areas for action in Scotland. The report highlights the link between ACEs and deprivation. The experience of four or more ACEs is reported by 4.3% of those in the least deprived quintile and 12.7% in the most deprived quintile, which brings it home that that is three times as likely in the most deprived areas.
Having looked at the data from English and Welsh studies, the report suggests that the Scottish health and economic impacts and the potential economic savings of reducing health-harming behaviours are likely to be “very large indeed”. Preventing ACEs, rather than dealing with the consequences after the damage has been done, makes sound financial sense, as well as moral and societal sense.
As a result of that report, the Scottish Government set out their commitment to preventing and mitigating ACEs in their 2017-18 programme for Scotland, which highlights:
“We now know through research and experience that preventing adverse childhood experiences where we can and tackling their impact where they do happen, can change a child’s life and, importantly, their life chances.”
The programme committed to
“embed a focus on preventing ACEs and supporting the resilience of children and adults in overcoming early life adversity across all areas of public service, including education, health, justice and social work.”
Sadly, while all children are equal in society, not all have the same opportunities. Tackling child poverty is therefore one of the most effective early interventions, and ensures that every child has the opportunity to prosper. Child poverty across the UK was dropping, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently shown that it is increasing again. England is now at 30%, Wales is at 28% and Scotland, which has the lowest figure, is at 24%. As I say, all were falling, but all are now rising again. Scotland may have the lowest figure of the UK nations because the Scottish Government mitigate austerity and welfare cuts, such as the bedroom tax, and have a Scottish welfare fund of £100 million. The UN special rapporteur, Philip Alston, was a critic of the benefits freeze. As we know, 70% of children who are in poverty have a working parent, so it is not about worklessness. There are some real issues that we need to get to grips with.
The Scottish Government’s “Every Child, Every Chance” plan commits to concrete action from across Government portfolios to tackle the key drivers of poverty, including by providing intensive employment support for parents; using new social security powers in an enhanced best start grant, a carer’s allowance supplement and the development of a new income supplement; and tackling food insecurity during school holidays.
I have no doubt about the ability of early intervention to transform lives while reducing costs to the public purse. It is a truly virtuous circle. Childhood experiences shape who we are and how we respond to events in our lives, especially if those experiences have, unfortunately, been adverse. There is much that we can learn from examples from around the UK of good practice in tackling ACEs, and I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting that and for its considered recommendations. I finish with a lesson from Scotland, however: although it would be good to have more detailed information and data, we should not let that delay action.
Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Front-Bench spokespersons for setting out the case. It certainly is a mammoth tome, and I am glad that I got it this year and not last year when I was waiting for a hernia operation. Humping it around Parliament was a fair job. I emphasise the point made by the Opposition spokesperson that it will take considerably longer than three hours to go through and digest it, even with an informed summary.
While I have some sympathy for rolling different measures together to make things simpler for the future, I noticed in the impact assessment that the principal reason for doing this was for
“effective use of Ministerial and Parliamentary time.”
Bearing in mind that this is a no-deal provision, we could have made much better use of our time by simply ruling out no deal in the first place, had we had the sense to do that. However, we are where we are.
I find myself concerned about a number of points, many of which have been mentioned already. I worry about things such as the loss of access to cross-border regulators such as the European consumer centres, which affect customers and not only businesses. Coming on to the businesses, which is the main issue, points have been made about the simple cost to them of doing this: 241,000 businesses, many of which will be very concerned, spending around £19.6 million—I fear that is a conservative estimate—is too much and we should not be forcing that on people during such a hard-pressed and stressful period as the Brexit process.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided by remaining in the single market and customs union, and avoiding having dual sets of standards. I worry about dual standards, from both a business and a consumer point of view, so I too will not be supporting the regulations today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The record of this Government has been to extend workers’ rights way beyond what the European Union has offered. In the UK, we have 52 weeks of maternity leave, for example, compared with a requirement of 14 weeks in the EU. This House has chosen to give rights of paternity leave and pay to fathers and partners that are not yet available in the EU. The measures that the hon. Lady knows we are about to introduce for people returning from maternity leave makes us a leader in Europe on the issue. She should be confident in the ability of this House to promote and protect workers’ rights.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
Through the good work plan, the Government are strengthening employment rights for all workers. We are introducing measures that will support innovative businesses, while ensuring that workers of all ages have access to fair and decent work. In April, we will introduce inflation-beating increases to the national minimum wage rates, benefiting 350,000 young workers directly.
Martyn Day
Despite the PM promising on her first day in the job to tackle burning injustices, this Government have consistently refused to introduce a real living wage for all, with the under-25s particularly hard hit. If Government will not act, will they devolve these powers to Holyrood?
Kelly Tolhurst
I point out that some of the highest unemployment rates are among that age group so our priority is to make sure that young people are able to gain secure work and experience. In actual fact, nine out of 10 workers between the ages of 18 and 24 are paid above the national minimum wage rate, and we are continuing to work towards increasing that year on year.
Draft Justification Decision Power (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here, and I am grateful to the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson for their comments. I, too, do not see the measure as particularly controversial: it simply replaces EU-derived law so that the regulation of ionising radiation can continue, which I would welcome.
I have said before in other meetings that it is a shame we are wasting so much time doing such things, but I recognise why we have to. It is quite nice, in all the chaos going on around us today, to find ourselves in what is probably the most consensual part of Parliament.
Crown Post Offices: Franchising
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing the debate and for her very informative introduction, and all those who have contributed for the very consensual nature of the debate. Some 15 Members have spoken so far, which says something about the strength of feeling in the House.
As we have heard, Crown post offices are large post offices that are directly managed by Post Office Ltd and account for about 2% of post offices. I am grateful for the Communication Workers Union briefing, which is very informative. It highlights how, despite that small share of the overall network, Crown post offices have historically brought in between 10% and 20% of the Post Office’s overall revenue—a point that several Members have made, and which is well worth emphasising.
There are no Crown post offices in my constituency—unsurprisingly, given how few are left across the country as a whole. Having said that, it is fair to point out that Linlithgow and East Falkirk gained two post offices between 2011 and 2018, increasing their number from 18 to 20. However, that figure includes hosted outreach venues. As we have heard, a variety of services are offered at different ones, which adds to the confusion of the public when such events happen.
On 11 October last year, the Post Office announced an agreement with WHSmith that would see up to 41 further Crown branches relocated within WHSmith stores this year, and WHSmith take over the running of 33 Crown post offices already hosted in its stores. The decision to turn 74 Crown post offices into franchises in those stores is alarming for a number of reasons; Members have rehearsed them well, and I do not need to go into all the technicolour detail again. However, reports that the franchising is being done without consultation with existing local post offices are particularly alarming. That means that competition risks destabilising the existing network even further. There must be more consultation and strategic consideration on franchising. It is alarming to hear that in some cases franchised WHSmith outlets are opening within five minutes of existing post offices, and without any advance notice having been given to existing postmasters.
We know that the Post Office’s director of sales and trade marketing has stated that there is no contingency plan in the event of WHSmith collapsing, even though it has, as has been pointed out, experienced 14 consecutive years of sales decline. Although we would not wish that to happen to any business, the reality of our modern high streets is that businesses are folding on a regular basis, so a contingency is, in my opinion, required. That is before we consider the fact that WHSmith was voted the worst high street retailer by Which? consumers in 2018, having been ranked in the bottom two over the previous eight years. That raises a serious question about the quality of service on offer from that franchisee.
We must ensure that further franchising happens only after consultation with local businesses. It is essential that our post office network remains robust for communities and businesses across the entire country. Given the mismanagement, the UK Government cannot have that as a priority. Post offices play an important role for our rural businesses and are part of the fabric of our communities. I will not pretend that my constituency is particularly rural, but it has many rural aspects; it is a mixture of small towns and villages between the major cities. Increasingly, as banks have gradually withdrawn from many of our local high streets, post offices have become a last-stop banking facility for many people.
Post offices provide an important part of national infrastructure, particularly as parcel delivery has been growing with the rise of e-commerce, which allows us to have many more businesses throughout our communities. Small businesses, especially rural ones, contribute more than £200 billion to the UK economy. They rely on post offices, with an estimated 80% likely to lose money if rural post offices close. More than 2 million small businesses—62% of all small businesses—use post offices at least once a month, and in rural areas, they are vital, with 36% of rural businesses using post offices at least weekly.
Due to issues including the new postmasters’ contract, Crown post offices are closing more and more regularly. The UK Government must ensure that the post office network remains able to cover all areas of the country, especially rural ones. More than 1,500 of the 11,547 post offices in the UK were temporary as of March 2018. That is 426 more than in 2014, according to post office data collected by the House of Commons Library.
Marion Fellows
The question of post offices temporarily closing is really down to the fact that Post Office Ltd cannot contract new sub-postmasters to run them. That is not to the benefit of my constituents in Wishaw, who lost their post office for almost four weeks last summer.
Martyn Day
I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. I hope that the Minister is listening.
The Scottish National party supports a strong network of post office branches, which are the backbone of local communities and businesses. Many post offices are offering a greater range of services, including paying in money, after many local bank branches have closed. Some 537,000 businesses are registered in rural areas, accounting for one in four of all companies. They are very creative—almost half are considered to be innovators—and they contribute, as I pointed out, more than £200 billion to our economy. Small rural businesses are more likely to use post offices for deliveries and paying bills, and twice as likely to use them for withdrawing or depositing cash. Citizens Advice found that eight in 10 small businesses in remote rural areas would lose money if local post offices were closed. That should be a salutary economic warning to us.
The UK Government’s disastrous privatisation of Royal Mail and recent mishandling of post office management show that they cannot be trusted with our public services. The current contracts make it harder for sub-postmasters to afford to keep going, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) pointed out. At the same time, Post Office Ltd recorded net profits of £35 million in 2017-18, up from £13 million in 2016-17. As hon. Members have pointed out, its chief executive Paula Vennells got a 7% pay rise last year, while postmasters took an average pay cut of 4.5% and 11,500 Post Office workers received a combined £17 million pay cut. I ask the Minister to take urgent action to review the contract for sub-postmasters that was introduced in 2012.
My final point is about the effect on footfall on the high street. Closing a post office and moving its services to a franchisee will not increase the franchisee’s footfall, since many of the customers were already using the high street; it simply reduces the footfall travelling across the high street and has a detrimental impact on other businesses. What we actually need is to ensure throughput on the high street. If a post office closes and is moved out of a town centre location, that can be even more detrimental to the local community.
There are many concerns about the proposal and its effect on customers, staff and local communities. At the end of the day, we must remember that the Post Office is wholly owned by the Government. I implore the Minister to step in and halt the process.
Draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Christopher, and I am very grateful to have heard the Minister’s explanation of the measure. All I would really say is that it is hard to see how Westminster will be able to handle competition issues any better than Brussels has.
I note that the political declaration discusses
“creating a free trade area combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition”.
Competition is clearly vital to our economy, and we must not fall behind our European neighbours. Many UK businesses are subject to EU competition laws already, and divergence would create unnecessary red tape.
Having said that, I do not oppose today’s regulations. They are somewhat sensible and necessary given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but I seek some reassurance from the Minister on what additional costs they come with. Financial regulators are already underfunded, and I wonder what increased cost will come from the measures.
Fireworks: Public Sales
Martyn Day Excerpts(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening today’s timely and topical debate and for covering so much of the territory.
Complaints about fireworks are an annual and seasonal occurrence, as I evidence in my office, and I have no doubt they increase year on year. I am grateful for the work of the Firework Abatement campaign, which has highlighted hundreds of incidents that have occurred, mostly from October onwards, and it sums up the problem succinctly as random and unexpected use. I have certainly seen evidence of that in my office, which has been inundated by complaints since October. It came as no surprise, when I saw the statistics on this e-petition, to discover that the West Lothian and Falkirk constituencies were among the top for signatories to the e-petition. Livingston came out top, followed by Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and Falkirk had the fifth-most signatories. Scottish constituencies were more likely to have a higher level of signatories on this issue than on many of the e-petitions I have seen.
I welcome the fact that Scotland is to have a consultation on fireworks next year. The regulation of the sale of fireworks is regarded as a consumer safety issue and, as such, is a reserved matter. The Scottish Government Minister for Community Safety, Ash Denham, wrote to the UK Government to request an update on their position on the sale of fireworks and was informed that there are no plans to consider legislative change.
The position on the use of fireworks is a little more complex; the Fireworks Regulations 2004 cover antisocial use in Scotland, apart from regulation 7, which relates to curfews, which are a devolved matter. Curfews in Scotland are covered in the Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which, similar to England, prohibit use between 1 pm and 7 am, with certain exceptions.
Enforcement of curfews primarily is a matter for the police. Excessive noise from fireworks or noise during the curfew period can be considered a statutory nuisance. Local authority environmental health officers have the power to investigate complaints of fireworks noise, but I can think of much better uses of both police and environmental health officers’ time than pursing the inconsiderate use of fireworks. I would much rather they focused on the dangerous use of fireworks, where they are used recklessly and potentially endanger others, although that remains a fairly small minority of fireworks users.
The majority of firework use is, without any doubt, responsible—often by families in private gardens at a reasonably early hour of the evening around bonfire night, or to mark celebrations of family, cultural or religious events. Nobody wishes to remove people’s ability to enjoy fireworks, which is why I would prefer fireworks to be restricted to licensed displays and the general public perhaps restricted to purchases of silent fireworks.
The vast bulk of complaints I receive from constituents on this issue relate to noise; in most cases, the noise occurs outwith any curfew period and therefore does not break existing regulations. Something needs to be done, as severe distress is being caused to people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or to those with other mental health issues, and to animals. It is random, unexpected noise that causes many problems. When people know the timings in advance, as is the case with organised displays, it is pretty easy to take precautions, such as putting on some music. My cat, Porridge, quite enjoys it when I put on a bit of soul—not just sole—and I was grateful to hear from the Battersea campaign, which works with the University of Lincoln, that dogs find reggae and classical music most relaxing. I did not know that prior to this debate.
The effect on animals was the biggest area of concern raised by multiple constituents. Many sent me videos and stories of their dogs, cats and horses suffering from severe acoustic stress. I will detail a small but representative sample of concerns raised with my office this year alone. One constituent stated that she has two dogs, one of which is a nine-year-old Rottweiler that is terrified of firework noise. His heart rate increases greatly, he cries continually throughout the bangs and other noises, and is too frightened to go outside. For a period after the noise ceases, he is anxious and extremely clingy. He paces, does not eat or sleep, and is simply not able to relax or settle. My constituent has huge concerns about the effect all that has on the dog’s welfare.
Another constituent stated that her little girl woke up in floods of tears due to fireworks going off. Another constituent advised that she could feel the explosion from the fireworks through the floor of her house, and that domestic rubbish bins were targeted. One constituent, who is a registered veterinary nurse, advised of the animal distress that she had seen due to fireworks. Another constituent stated that she is a teacher and is very concerned about the safety of her students around fireworks. She believes that most teenagers are responsible and caring, but it only takes the action of one reckless person to alter the course of someone’s life. The resulting trauma is a drain on NHS resources, and our emergency services are abused when attending unsafe displays that can get out of hand.
Another constituent went even further than the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). She has two dogs that are so terrified by the noise that she took them away for a week to a cottage in a remote area at a cost of £800, so that her dogs could relax stress free. People should not have to go to those lengths.
Perhaps the most upsetting complaint I received this year was from a woman who advised that she
“had the tragedy of having to put to sleep one of my horses. It was scared by fireworks and ran into a fence causing a terrible wound which he wouldn’t be able to recover from.”
Those are just some of the complaints my office received this year.
Most issues could be resolved by limiting noise. After about three weeks of complaints, I raised that in a written question tabled on Monday 5 November, after the heaviest weekend of fireworks. I asked whether the Government had plans to amend the regulations on the sale or use of fireworks to reduce the maximum decibel level of fireworks purchasable by the general public, and to encourage the use of low-noise fireworks. I fared no better than the petitioners or the Scottish Government at getting the answer I was after. I was advised:
“There are already controls on noise levels for fireworks and it is an offence to supply fireworks exceeding 120 decibels to the public. There are no plans to amend the regulations to reduce this level.”
My internet research, which I did for comparison purposes, shows that that is higher than the 100 dB noise of a jet take-off measured at 305 metres, or what I am told is the average human pain threshold of 110 dB.
I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider this issue. It simply will not go away by itself, and doing nothing is not an option. My proposals on organised fireworks displays and the sale of silent fireworks to the general public would solve most of the noise problems, allow pet owners to make suitable arrangements for the times of organised displays, and let police and local authorities concentrate on the genuinely dangerous misuse of fireworks, their unlicensed sale and so on.
Public Holidays on Religious Occasions
Martyn Day Excerpts(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 220501 and 221860 relating to holding public holidays on religious occasions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am pleased to open the debate about this interesting subject on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank the House for agreeing to the later start time to accommodate Members attending the Chamber for the Chancellor’s Budget statement, which I was able to hear myself.
I thank the Committee staff in the digital outreach team for their assistance with the consultation work that was conducted in advance of the debate. I am also grateful to the National Council of Hindu Temples UK, the Hindu Council UK, the National Secular Society and over 1,000 individual petitioners, most of whom are Muslim, who responded to the process. They provided me with valuable insights into the subject of public holidays and time off for religious occasions, as well as points and quotes that I will reference further.
Petition 220501 calls for public holidays on Muslim religious occasions and has more than 46,000 signatures. It states:
“This will give an opportunity for Muslim families to get together and share happiness with other religious communities. It is very important for Muslims to celebrate Eid.”
It adds that despite being the second largest UK religion,
“Muslims don’t get a lawful Public Holiday on their two special religious occasions in a year”.
Petition 221860 calls for public holidays on Hindu special occasions and has more than 11,000 signatures. It states:
“It is very important for Hindus to celebrate Diwali…Diwali—Festival of Lights is a major holiday that is also celebrated by Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.”
It notes that Hinduism is the third largest religion in England but that Hindus do not get a “lawful Public Holiday” on religious occasions. The petition also asks for a public holiday on Dussehra.
Today is Budget day and the more numerate among us may have spotted that today’s petitions have fewer than 100,000 signatures, the threshold normally required for the Petitions Committee to schedule a debate. There are a number of factors for that, not least the absence of any petition over that threshold. When combined, these were among the next largest petitions, representing issues that primarily affect minority groups who may find it difficult to attract 100,000 signatures. The subject has not had a parliamentary debate since 2014 and is without doubt of interest to a significant number of people in the wider public.
It is fair to say that the petitions are essentially about the same issue: establishing public holidays for religious occasions. The Muslim and Hindu faiths are the second and third largest religions in the UK, the first being the Christian faith, which has public holidays during its major religious festivals at Easter and Christmas, as Members will be aware. It is equally fair to point out that the Government response to each petition is the same, stating:
“The Government has no plans to create a public holiday to commemorate religious festivals such as Eid”
and “such as Diwali.” The responses add that the costs are “considerable” and cite the example of the 2012 diamond jubilee holiday, which cost about £1.2 billion. The responses add:
“The Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions including religious festivals. However the current pattern is well established and accepted.”
I am sure that that will have disappointed the petitioners, but some comfort can be taken from the Government’s comment that:
“The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences.”
The responses note that festivals such as Eid, Diwali and Dussehra “contribute towards this objective”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. I spoke to him about the subject beforehand; I also discussed it with the Minister in the Tea Room earlier today. As a Christian, I value having public holidays to clearly mark the importance of religious holidays, but I understand that the Government are not disposed towards making that happen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the strongest terms, employers should work with their employees to accommodate their wishes to take time off to celebrate Eid? Working with employers is probably the best way forward.
Martyn Day
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments; there is a lot of merit in what he suggests. I looked at various resources online in preparation for the debate, and ACAS gives very good advice to employers. I will address that point later in my speech, but we certainly need to highlight to the wider employing public the requirements to facilitate all religious faiths within the workforce.
I am sure that we all agree with the Government’s comments about trying to encourage greater engagement with communities. However, 87% of respondents to our consultation said that they felt that not allowing time off for religious occasions was discriminatory, while 84% felt that they could not ask for time off work or education for a religious occasion, so there are clearly underlying issues that need to be addressed.
I will start the debate with a range of questions. When are the festivals on which petitioners are requesting public holidays, and why are they important? Why do we have the public holidays that we have? How do we compare with other countries? How do we best achieve social cohesion across our multicultural societies? Last but not least, how do we satisfy the legitimate concerns of the petitioners? I will briefly take each question in turn.
First, when are the festivals on which petitioners are requesting public holidays, and why are they important? All four are moveable feasts; they are based on lunar calendars and are therefore not on fixed dates.
Eid al-Fitr is a Muslim festival that marks the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. It is celebrated on the first day of Shawwal, the 10th month of the Islamic calendar, but in the Gregorian calendar it shifts yearly, falling about 11 days earlier each year. This year, it was on Friday 15 June, while next year it will be on Tuesday 4 June.
Eid al-Adha, the other Muslim festival, is celebrated following the annual pilgrimage—the Hajj—and falls on the 10th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th month of the Islamic year. This year, it was on Tuesday 21 August; in 2019, it will be on Monday 12 August. The exact timing of each festival, however, is dependent on the sighting of the crescent moon following the new moon.
Diwali is the five-day festival of lights celebrated by Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jains for a variety of reasons. It usually falls between mid-October and mid-November; it will be on Wednesday 7 November this year and on Sunday 27 October next year. The date is determined by the Hindu lunar calendar.
Dussehra is the Hindu festival that celebrates the victory of good over evil. It occurs on the 10th day of the month of Ashvin in the Hindu calendar; it was on Thursday 18 October this year and will be on Monday 7 October next year. It falls 20 days before Diwali. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who were affected by the Amritsar train accident, which killed 61 and injured many others during this year’s festivities. Sadly, the reporting of this tragedy on TV and in the news was how I learned the details of Dussehra.
The celebration of these festivals is very important to worshippers of the faiths concerned. They represent the most important occasions in their religious calendars. At a time when religious persecution is growing around the world, it is important that we do everything we can to protect people’s freedom to practise their religion or belief.
We can be very proud of the diversity of our nations within the UK. We have a modern multi-faith and multicultural society in which people of all faiths and none can follow their belief systems. However, we can never take that diversity and tolerance for granted, particularly as we have seen increased antisemitism and significant Islamophobia. Just yesterday, The Sunday Times reported on a poll in which 47% of respondents believed that Britain was becoming less tolerant of Muslims.
The Petitions Committee’s public engagement also suggests that things are not as good as they could be. Some 88% of those we engaged with felt that their community had few opportunities to get together to celebrate religious occasions. A large number of general comments that we received focused on fairness, inclusion and the need for religious diversity to be recognised through public holidays, while others spoke about wellbeing and benefits to society and the economy.
The Government’s response to the petitions focuses on the likely costs of holding an additional public holiday. Those costs could be very significant indeed, but they do not reflect the full economic impact because they would be partially offset by increased activity across the leisure, tourism and retail sectors as a result of domestic consumers enjoying time off. Enhancing our global reputation by recognising these festivals also has an unknown potential to attract international tourism.
Many people felt it unfair that although they were forced to take time off at Christmas and Easter, they struggled to get time off to celebrate their own religious festivals. Some 72% of respondents who identified themselves as directly affected said they had been refused time off work or education for a religious occasion. Similarly, 72% felt that their employer was not sympathetic to the request and did not understand its importance. Some of the respondents described the process of asking for time off for a religious occasion as “risky” or
“risking job prospects and growth”.
Many people said they were made to feel guilty for asking for time off to celebrate religious occasions.
The Hindu Council UK points out that without guaranteed time off for religious occasions people are
“penalised financially and spiritually by taking off time and thus losing income and forced to work (or study) at a time when there is a major religious celebration of their faith.”
The National Council of Hindu Temples UK advises:
“What should be a carefree positive celebration becomes tainted and stress laden and the final outcome is diminished”.
Two comments from the consultation, emphasising the issue of inclusion, are illustrative. One contributor said:
“Our government needs to guarantee its citizens the right to celebrate their particular religious festivals in order to make all its religious groups inclusive in modern British society.”
Another said:
“I feel as a British citizen and a tax payer, I should have the right to have my religious day off without having to make me feel that I am not part of this country.”
We clearly have an issue: those are strong arguments that something needs to change.
Why do we have the public holidays that we have? That is an important point to reflect on, before we consider adding new ones or changing existing ones. The original bank holidays were established under the Bank Holidays Act 1871 as days when banks could close and all trade could cease. Across the UK there are now a variety of bank and public holidays. There are eight such days in England and Wales, nine in Scotland and 10 in Northern Ireland. The differences are that in Scotland we have 2 January as a holiday and not Easter Monday, and the first rather than the last Monday in August. We have St Andrew’s day in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland there are St Patrick’s day and the battle of the Boyne commemoration.
Most of those days are determined by statute under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; some, such as new year’s day in England or the first Monday in May in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, are determined by royal proclamation under the 1971 Act; and some, such as Good Friday and Christmas day in England and Northern Ireland, are common law public holidays. The battle of the Boyne anniversary, proclaimed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has been a public holiday since 1926. The most recent addition, in 2007, was the St Andrew’s day holiday in Scotland. It is an official bank holiday, but it operates as a voluntary public holiday. Just to add to the complexity, bank holidays in Scotland are not necessarily public holidays, and public holidays can be set by local authorities.
Clearly, parts of the UK differ a bit as to the number of days, the specific days and how they have come about. It is also fair to point out that things have changed over time. Taking Scotland as an example, as I know it reasonably well, Christmas became a public holiday only in 1958, and Boxing day was added only in the early 1970s. Most of the current holidays are not on religious occasions, Easter and Christmas being the exceptions.
In comparing our holidays with those in other countries, I have not looked at the situation worldwide. However, compared with other European Union members we are at the bottom of the public holidays table. Countries with similar numbers of holidays to ours are Ireland with eight, Spain and Luxembourg with nine, and Hungary and Holland with 10. Every other EU nation has more, and Belgium and Latvia have as many as 17.
Of course, public holidays are only a part of the equation. Perhaps a better indicator is a person’s annual holiday entitlement, particularly as the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 does not automatically entitle workers to time off on bank holidays. Instead, the right to time off comes from their contract of employment, which will cover holidays, public holidays and holiday pay. Full-time workers in the UK generally have the right to 28 days’ paid leave per year, with public holidays included in that, which means that most people have about 20 days’ leave that they can take at other times.
Some employers may well require staff to work on bank holidays, which means that designating additional national holidays still might not deliver the effect sought by the petitioners. Concern has also been raised by the National Secular Society, which commented:
“A likely result of increasing the number of public holidays by including Muslim, Hindu, or other religious festivals would therefore be a decrease in the number of discretionary holidays workers can take.
Compelling those who do not celebrate minority faith festivals to take time off work risks causing unnecessary resentment and would harm efforts to promote a concept of common citizenship.”
That concern was echoed by those who chose to comment on the House of Commons Facebook post about today’s petitions. On that forum, the majority of commentators did not think that new religious public holidays should be introduced. Some, such as Giselle, argued that no religious occasions should be public holidays, and Tom said:
“Religion is a private matter for individuals, not the business of the state or whole society.”
Others suggested that dates such as St George’s day should be holidays. There is clearly a demand for various national days across our nations.
How are we best to achieve social cohesion across our multicultural societies? Clearly we have a conundrum. How do we succeed in bringing people together, and supporting religious festivals as a way of achieving that, without causing any resentment and inadvertently hampering that objective? Although today’s petitions relate primarily to Muslims and Hindus, it is worth remembering that there are many other religions in the UK with smaller faith communities, and that their festivals are equally important to their individual worshippers.
The situation was summed up well by the National Secular Society:
“The UK’s religious landscape is in a state of continuous change. Our population is more irreligious, yet more religiously diverse, than ever before. A multi-faith approach to holidays can therefore never serve the individual needs of the many different people who make up the UK, or adequately keep abreast with the changes in the UK’s demographics. A more practical and equitable approach is to give workers greater flexibility, where their work allows, to take holidays on the specific days that matter to them.”
That is a pragmatic suggestion, which is perhaps let down only by the apparent lack of awareness in society as a whole, and among employers in particular, of the significance of religious occasions—something I mentioned earlier in my remarks.
That lack of awareness featured repeatedly in the comments by petitioners, who made the point powerfully. Many people said that employers wanted holidays to be booked well in advance, which was particularly difficult for Eid, because it is lunar and not on a specific calendar date. They said that employers often did not understand it. One person said:
“It’s very difficult to bring it up as many don’t recognise religious occasions and how paramount they are for the ones celebrating.”
Another commented:
“I’m made to feel like they’ve done me a favour by giving me the day off. Sometimes they say they cannot give me the day off because I took the day off for the last Eid. They don’t think Eid is important.”
Another said:
“The problem was mainly with my employer not understanding the importance of the occasion.”
Another said:
“There is a lot of scepticism on non-Christian holidays at my work place—be it Eid or Diwali.”
One commentator said:
“Religious Holidays is sometimes spoken about like it’s a dirty subject and employers and schools do not understand the significance of it.”
That last point about schools is important, especially if communities wish to celebrate together and if religious families want their children to participate fully in their festivals. It can be difficult for pupils and students to get time off for religious festivals, and this year Eid al-Fitr fell within the GCSE exam timetable in England. In Scotland, Scottish Qualifications Authority examinations occur earlier, so that problem is heading in my Muslim constituents’ direction in a few years’ time. I ask Members from a Christian background to imagine for a moment what their thoughts would be if they or their constituents were required to sit exams on Christmas day, because that is the closest comparison. Clearly it puts students from faith backgrounds at a disadvantage.
That brings me to my last point about how to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the petitioners. Obviously, they would be delighted if the Government were to have a change of heart, and the Minister were to look at establishing public holidays for the largest minority religions. However, I suspect that that will not happen; indeed, I have in my remarks explored a variety of reasons why it might not be the best option. We do, however, have a problem that needs to be addressed, and I will make a few suggestions.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman referred to education. Does he feel, as I do, that raising awareness of other religious sects’ holidays through school education might be a way of gently pushing into people’s minds the importance of other celebration days for religious groups, whoever they may be? People might then say, “Do you know something? That is the way it should be.”
Martyn Day
The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a good one, because if we educate people young enough, they learn the lessons for life and we do not have to keep re-educating people. There is some merit in that suggestion.
Most of the petitioners who responded to the survey, 52%, said that they would prefer a legal right guaranteeing time off work or education to celebrate religious occasions not currently recognised as public holidays, such as Eid and Diwali. A small number of people, 5%, wanted the ability to swap public holidays such as Easter for other religious occasions. I ask the Minister whether those suggestions could be considered as a possible way forward.
It is clear that at the very least we need greater understanding among employers about the significance of religious festivals for employees who are people of faith—I am referring to all faiths here. No one should feel discriminated against for practising their religion. We must all do more to improve awareness; I would like to hear the Minister advise how the Government can ensure that public bodies in particular take that on board. We also need action to ensure that all employers sympathetically consider requests for time off to celebrate festivals or attend ceremonies, whenever it is reasonable and practical for the employee to be away from work. That is something I believe many workplaces could manage, with some foresight and advance planning.
Surely it must also be possible to consider the likely dates of key festivals well in advance and avoid educational bodies’ setting exams on those potential dates. In the absence of formal holidays on those festival dates, there is a need to ensure that support is in place for pupils and students who miss routine coursework during any non-attendance. Believers should not be forced to choose between education and their faith. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister address those points in the summing-up.
In conclusion, I hope that my summary of the issues raised in the petitions has done justice to the petitioners’ concerns, and helped to raise public awareness of the wider issues.
Martyn Day
We have had a very interesting debate, and Members have made some very good points. I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for their contributions. They added some good points, such as the situation with Brent Council’s diary and the idea of paid personal days.
There can be no doubt that the percentage of our society’s population that is of other faiths is increasing, so perhaps, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested, there needs to be a threshold for such holidays at a future point. There is certainly much work that we need to do between now and then. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some very good points about education and the need to work with employers, and that is definitely a way forward. I am encouraged by some of the Minister’s comments regarding the new duty on employers and the work being done to tackle workplace barriers, and we need to ensure that that information is relayed to all employers out there.
We pride ourselves on being a tolerant and inclusive society, but we cannot be complacent and must all take on a leadership role. Clearly, as the petitions indicate, many people do not feel as included or valued as we want them to, so we must do extra work to remove barriers. One of the points I made, which I hope the Minister will pass on to the Education Ministers, is the issue of exam timetables; I will certainly write to Scottish counterparts about that as well.
There is a lot more we can do to ensure that communities can celebrate together, not just within their own faith but across faiths, and I look forward to taking part in a number of such celebrations over the coming years, as I have in the past. Now that I know the date for the hon. Member for Harrow East’s event, I will be coming along to stick my head in and show some support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 220501 and 221860 relating to holding public holidays on religious occasions.