A peer introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2001 to provide that large stores could not trade on Christmas Day. Under the Sunday Trading Act 1994 large stores could not trade when Christmas Day fell on a Sunday, but were not prohibited from trading if it fell on another day. This Bill sought to extend the provision, essentially to protect the position of storeworkers. The provision was later given effect by the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004.
During the short debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, the argument was a little one-sided. I intervened in the speech of the minister replying to the debate to point out that, while I accepted there was a religious and social case for the Bill, there was also a social case on the other side. “For some people, Christmas is an extremely lonely period and for them the opportunity to work is a way of social interaction.” The minister took my point and, indeed, after the debate both he and the whip who had been on the front bench approached me independently to agree with my observation. They pointed out that the argument applied more to people shopping than those working, a point with which I agreed: I phrased my comments the way I did because of the contents of the Bill.
I accepted the case made for the Bill and made no attempt to delay it. I just felt it was important that we acknowledge that for some people Christmas can be extremely lonely. More and more people are living on their own – young as well as old (it is not just a consequence of an ageing population) – and Christmas day can resemble what Sundays used to be like: everything closed down, no mail, essentially little to do. Sundays are no longer like that, thanks to the partial deregulation of Sunday trading.
My point took the Bill’s sponsor by surprise. “This is the first time that I have ever heard the argument. I do not know what evidence there is to support that view. I do not know whether the situation even exists. Lonely people will find pursuits other than going to work. Sometimes their loneliness is not taken away even if they are in a crowd.” That last point is true and for those lacking company there is television and (for some) the Internet. Nonetheless, I have little doubt that there are people, possibly a sizeable number, for whom Christmas Day is a lonely one. I just felt at the time – and remain very much of the view today – that we should not forget those who are on their own at Christmas.
I don’t think that the peer or yourself were right to mention religious reasons for that bill, for most of us Christmas is a secular holiday, cultural rather than religious.
And just what it a ‘large store’ anyway?, I suspect the peer ment Tesco.
Regarding the point you made to the peer in question, I think that it was very true. And I think that some perfer to remove themselves from the hyper-commercialised mess that is the modern Christmas through work.
Troika21: As one of the few peers to speak was a Bishop, the religious dimension was rather central to the debate. And in earlier years the religious argument was very much to the fore in the opposition to the deregulation of Sunday trading; indeed, the churches played a leading role in the opposition that led to the demise of the Shops Bill in 1986. The sze of large stores was speficied in the Bill: you are right that it was essentially stores likes Tesco. Your last point ties in with your first: the religious importance of Christmas has rather been swamped by commercialisation.
Thank you Lord Norton, Merry Christmas!
That’s a good point! It’s also worth bearing in mind the case of those who don’t celebrate this religious holiday too.
I was very touched by your argument of Christmas being a lonely time for some people.
For those people working minimum wage, often ununionised jobs, it can do good to have the government enforce a day when your employer cannot say to you “you must come in, family commitments be damned.”
I fear that the true solution to the problem would be a shift of our economic and social priorities to reflect that many people would rather be gainfully employed than slavishly devoted to an employer. In the meantime, while we are still somewhat abusive and broken, favouring one religion over another and inconveniencing a minority of people on one day of the year is probably a fair price to pay for the general protections for labour such measures provide.
Dear Lord Norton,
As someone who has worked in the retail sector and knowing how employers work, I am sure opening shops is not the answer.
If people feel lonely at Christmas, and on Sundays, and are in need of social interaction they can always go to Church. Failing that, they can always do voluntary work for people less fortunate than themselves, people who do not have the luxury of time to feel lonely.
Howridiculous.
McDuff: As I mentioned, I was not opposed to the Bill. I certainly believe that no one should have to work on Christmas Day (or for that matter Sundays) if they do not wish to and that legislation is necessary to provide that protection. Howridiculous: Attending Church may not be an option for those who are not believers. Voluntary work is certainly to be lauded, though some of those who seek company on a Sunday may not themselves by physically able to engage in such work.
Lord Norton
It was indeed a musing commentary rather than a vociferous disagreement. The cut and thrust of swashbuckling internet debate is all well and good, but it is also sometimes relevant to talk about things even if we don’t strictly disagree.
You support the rights to take Christmas and Sundays, I assume it goes without saying that you support Saturdays (the Jewish Sabbath) and other religious holy days too. We are too concerned with squeezing productivity out of our populations in this country, and if religion can provide some respite by allowing us to enforce idleness then all the better for it.
That being said…
Howridiculous
I’m afraid you may want to button your fly, your provincialism is showing. “They can always go to Church,” indeed – even the Jews, Muslims and atheists? And as for the “luxury” of time to feel lonely, my dear sir, you could not show yourself more tone deaf to the concerns of loneliness and social atomisation if you had hired a PR firm specifically to put across that exact image. As alluded to by Lord Norton, sometimes those who are lonely and those who are needy at Christmas are the same people! Should they volunteer to bring themselves a hot mince pie?
McDuff: On your second paragraph, my point was not specific to a particular day but, as you surmise, to the principle of not forcing people to work without a break. I do not believe in putting people in a situation where they are forced to work seven days a week. Conversely, I do not believe in forcing people not to work seven days a week if that is what they genuinely wish to do. It must be a matter of choice on the part of the individual.
Dear Lord Norton – If people are physically able to get to shops, they ought to be able to do voluntary work.
Dear McDuff – I presume you think provincialism is a bad thing? Anyway, I am from The North, which no doubt you regard as deeply provincial, so take a ‘belt up’ attitude to life. Reading your comments, I was reminded of a Victoria Wood sketch which went along the following lines: ‘There was no such thing as hysterectomies in my day. You just crossed your legs and switched the radio up.’
And, of course, anyone can go Church whatever their religious affilitation, if any. Perhaps if people of different faiths did occasionally attend one another’s services the world would be a better place.
Howridiculous.