| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Rifkind : I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that what I have said today will not be construed as a simple expression of sympathy. Indeed, I wish to provide practical support and to ensure that the legitimate interests of those who live near our major airports are protected from the very damaging environmental consequences that inevitably flow from the way in which modern airports operate. I do not pretend that these are easy matters, and I do not intend to address them simply by making soothing noises. I wish to ensure that legitimate interests are properly protected. That will mean occasionally saying no to the requests of airports and airlines.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making this statement in advance of the further Bermuda 2 negotiations. It would
Column 161
be helpful to the House if we were to have a proper debate on civil air transport. Issues of the most fundamental kind have been raised. I am grateful and sympathetic to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he, too, would welcome such a debate.Mr. Rifkind : I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which will be drawn to the attention to the Leader of the House.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : If the Civil Aviation Authority has a statutory duty to act against discriminatory charges, why on earth has it not already acted to deal with the fact that the same charge is levied in respect of a small Brymon Dash 7 coming in from the west country as in respect of a jumbo jet arriving from across the Atlantic? That is terribly unfair. It will sound the death knell of the small regional companies unless something is done.
Mr. Rifkind : Clearly it is for BAA to seek to justify to the Civil Aviation Authority the respective cost of landing charges for smaller and larger aircraft. If my hon. Friend believes that the existing statutory requirements, under which the Civil Aviation Authority operates, are inadequate, I should be interested to hear any suggested improvements, but the legislation expressly outlaws discriminatory practices. There will always be a range of views as to what constitutes a discriminatory practice, but it is for the British Airports Authority to satisfy the CAA if it wishes to make changes that give rise to controversy.
Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham) : May I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courageous decision to get rid of the outdated traffic distribution rules which hinder competition and which have acted against the interests of the consumer? Does he agree that if we want to establish a competitive multi-airline business in Britain which will give consumers more choice, lower fares and a higher-quality service, all the small airlines, such as those which use my local airport, Newcastle, must be allowed access to Heathrow on an equal and fair basis to British Airways?
Column 162
Mr. Rifkind : I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for today's statement. I agree with his desire to see the most beneficial use made of our airport facilities, consistent with the other requirements to which I referred throughout the statement. Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry that three hon. Gentlemen have not been called. There is great pressure on time today. We must move on to the presentation of Bills.
BILL PRESENTED
Homeworkers
Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, presented a Bill to extend the rights of homeworkers so that they will receive the same protection from employment, health and safety at work and financial legislation currently afforded to employees undertaking similar work on the employer's premises ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]
Column 163
Shops
5.1 pm
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relax certain restrictions on the opening hours of shops and other places where a retail trade or business is carried on ; to make provision for licensing Sunday trading at such places ; to make transitional provision as to the rights of persons employed as shopworkers ; and for connected purposes.
The House might like to know that I have been authorised by the Consumers Association to say that it supports the principles of my Bill and hopes that the House will support it too.
Some weeks ago the Prime Minister, in a typical moment of understatement, described the Sunday trading laws as bizarre. Who can defend a situation where it is legal to sell a bottle of gin on Sunday but illegal to sell a packet of teabags? The latter-day Marie Antoinettes seem to think that it is moral to drink gin but wrong to drink a cup of tea on Sunday. Who can defend a position where it is legal to sell plants but illegal to sell the pots into which they might be put, and where it is legal to sell Sunday sport but illegal to sell the Bible on Sunday? Who can defend the absurd situation where cinemas can open legally for trade on Sunday, but a video shop, which seeks to sell or rent out the video of the same film that the viewer can see at the cinema, is acting illegally? It seems to be all right in the view of the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign to watch a film at the cinema but wrong to watch the video of that film in the bosom of one's home.
The Sunday trading law is rarely enforced. Every week it is broken by the 60,000 shops which open regularly to serve the needs of customers. The number of prosecutions is very small. A law which is regarded as so indefensible and so out of date that no one or very few seek to enforce it brings the whole rule of law into disrepute. If the law is regarded as out of date, that is not an argument for not enforcing it ; it is an argument for repealing it here and now. The irony is that if the law were enforced there would be a minor revolution and a major campaign to ensure that it was changed dramatically.
The Shops Act 1950 was passed for a different era. It was an era of austerity and not of plenty, at a time when the majority of married women did not go out to work. It was passed long before anyone had thought of a DIY centre or a garden centre, and when no video shops existed anywhere in the country. The position has changed completely. Some 70 per cent. of married women go out to work. I hope I am not regarded as chauvinistic if I say that British industry could not survive without the work which women do.
Shopping on a Saturday is frequently a most unpleasant experience. One has only to get into a supermarket check-out or go to a toy shop just before Christmas to realise how unpleasant shopping on a Saturday can be. Since 1950 there has been a dramatic change in our attitude towards Sunday. Sunday sport, which was completely uncommon, is now regular and successful. More people go to watch cricket at Lords on a Sunday than on a Saturday or any other day of the week. Similarly, we have professional football on a Sunday, and it is not unknown for Wimbledon finals to take place on Sundays as well. Cinemas are open on Sunday. And of course the opening hours of public houses on a Sunday have been increased by a motion of the House.
Column 164
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Parliament does not open on a Sunday.
Mr. Marshall : I sometimes think that those who have very little to say, apart from sedentary observations, would be better to keep quiet.
Sunday trading is defended by two unrepresentative bodies, one being the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers which represents one in 11 shopworkers. Sunday is rightly regarded as a day of rest and a day for the family, but many family-style activities are regarded as illegal under the 1950 Act. Who can say that it is bad for the family to be able to rent a video to watch in their own home, to go to a DIY centre and buy paint and wallpaper so that they can get on with improving their own home, to go to a garden centre to buy plants and other things for the garden?
Opponents of reform say that change would revolutionise Sunday. I should merely like to make two points about that. First, the Scottish sabbath has no protection from Sunday trading but many more people in Scotland than in England go to church, so the protection of Sunday does not guarantee that people go to church. I regret the recent publicised decline in church attendance. Secondly, many shops already open illegally on a Sunday, regardless of the state of the law. The Bill seeks to introduce a system of licensed Sunday trading so that shops which currently open illegally, such as DIY centres, garden centres and convenience and neighbourhood stores, would be eligible to apply for licences to enable them to trade on Sundays. Others, such as the major multiples, major supermarkets and stores of over 3,000 sq ft, would be able to trade, again under licence, between 12 noon and 6 pm. That would show that there is a difference between Sunday and the rest of the week.
The Bill would also introduce provision for widespread Sunday trading in the six weeks before Christmas. Nothing destroys the spirit of goodwill that Christmas is meant to generate more than going shopping in a toy shop on a Saturday before Christmas. Conditions are unbearable. The queues are even longer than at normal supermarket check-outs.
The Bill would introduce local authority licensing which would mean that it would not be a formality. Local authorities could take account of the characteristics of an area.
The Bill would also introduce protection for employees who do not want to work on a Sunday. This is the first attempt to do that. I urge those who believe that there is a huge reservoir of people who do not want to work on a Sunday to consider the position at the moment. This morning I received a letter from a director of Do It All Ltd. in which he says :
"All our Sunday workers are paid premium rates and are volunteers. Indeed, the desire to work on Sunday is so strong that in many locations we have to rota the staff."
More people want to work on Sunday in that DIY store than there are jobs available.
The leaders of USDAW should point out to the House and the country that we have 2.2 million shop workers of whom 200,000 are paid-up members of USDAW. It represents one shop worker in 11. It should be regarded as being as unrepresentative as the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign.
I regard it as unfortunate that the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign has sought to rubbish my Bill and to
Column 165
oppose it without having the courtesy to ask me for a sight of it. That suggests that those involved have closed minds. They have issued a press release stating that they want a right of veto over Government measures on Sunday trading. I believe that that is wrong because they are unrepresentative and a small minority. They seek power without responsibility--the preserve of the harlot throughout the ages.Under my Bill, individuals would be free to choose whether to work ; they would be free to choose whether to open their shops ; they would be free to choose whether to shop. Many will choose not to do so, but all should be free to make that choice. The defeat of the Shops Bill in 1986 underlined the need for compromise. This Bill provides a workable compromise, and I commend it to the House. 5.11 pm
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : Having listened with great care to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), I am even more pleased that I have sought your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rise to oppose this Bill. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should re-read--if he has read it--the report of the full debate on the Shops Bill that was held on 14 April 1986, which was a classic debate covering this whole subject. It commenced at 3.45 pm and lasted until midnight. We had 8 hours and 15 minutes of reasoned, articulate, sincere and forthright arguments from hon. Members of all parties. As most hon. Members will recall, that Bill was defeated by 296 votes to 282--a majority of 14 votes.
Shops legislation, especially on the emotive subject of Sunday trading, will always engender considerable interest and inevitably conflicting opinions. Even if I were to attempt to sum up my total opposition to this Bill in the short time now available to me, I could say little that would be different from the many arguments that I have already made when discussing similar Bills to reform the Shops Act 1950.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South suggested that his Bill is the first attempt to protect workers on Sundays. Again, I ask him to read the report of another debate. I presented a ten-minute Bill entitled the Shops (Sunday Trading and Workers' Protection) Bill on 14 May 1986, which recognised the major criticism of the 1950 Act ; its many and varied anomalies ; its complications and, above all, the difficulties of enforcement. My Bill called for a standing conference and named the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is now the Father of the House, to chair discussions, proving that the only real solution is to seek agreement beyond the realms of personal and political prejudice.
I said then--I repeat again today--that any new proposals must provide adequate protection for some of the lowest paid workers--the shop workers. There must be wide involvement and comprehensive consultation with those who are directly or indirectly involved. The House should continue to seek consent by discussion and negotiation and should not attempt to tinker with a problem that requires great care and protracted negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is second best when it comes to employee protection. It is essentially an exercise in damage limitation. No employee can be adequately
Column 166
safeguarded once the dam has been breached. Where are the proposals in the Bill to ensure the employment, remuneration and working conditions of the employees who would be expected to work on Sundays? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the cost, and the prices for the retail and distributive industries, or the interests and wishes of consumers? What about the suggested increase in crime ; the demands on transport ; the car parking ; the effect on the environment and the interests of residents, to name but a few of the issues that the hon. Gentleman purposely overlooked?Even more important, despite--or perhaps because of--the hon. Gentleman's known association with the deregulation lobby, he has blatantly disregarded or conveniently overlooked the talks that have already been planned and arranged by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, Home Office. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is singularly ill-timed, given that those talks are about to take place.
In the debate on the Shops Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) called on the Government in the last paragraph of his speech to withdraw their Bill and to hold a conference of all interests to work out agreed changes in the law that could be widely acceptable. His sound advice was rejected and the Government suffered the most humiliating defeat of their term in office.
Five years have passed and they now seek consensus. My union, USDAW, has accepted a meeting with the Minister of State, Home Office, on 11 April for talks about reform. The other organisations involved include "Keep Sunday Special" ; "Sort out Sunday" ; the Association of District Councils ; the National Institute of Chambers of Commerce and Industry ; the Free Church Federal Council ; the British Council of Churches ; the Irish Council of Churches ; the Institute of Safety and Public Protection ; the Board of Deputies of British Jews ; the Churches' Main Committee ; Churches Together in England ; the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility ; and Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs. Most have accepted dates, and discussions are already planned. That is a positive response and the most sensible and logical conclusion to this emotive subject.
My union, USDAW, is not Luddite. Whether or not only one in 11 shop workers is a member, it still has 400,000 members. They are law-abiding and expect all others to obey the law until such time as Parliament is convinced that there is a need for a change. We expect everyone, including the Prime Minister, to advocate and to ensure that the 1950 Act is not violated and that local authorities carry out their responsibilities if anyone attempts any blatant abuse. If the hon. Member for Hendon, South is not prepared to withdraw his Bill, on the basis of the talks that are already planned, I have no alternative but to ask the House to join me in the No Lobby to vote against his Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :--
The House divided : Ayes 75, Noes 144.
Division No. 86] [5.17 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Column 167
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bowis, John
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buck, Sir Antony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Colvin, Michael
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Devlin, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Favell, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus
Franks, Cecil
Fraser, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Hague, William
Hampson, Dr Keith
Haselhurst, Alan
Hayes, Jerry
Hayward, Robert
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Janman, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Kirkwood, Archy
Knowles, Michael
Knox, David
McCrindle, Sir Robert
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Marlow, Tony
Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Monro, Sir Hector
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm
Neale, Sir Gerrard
Norris, Steve
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Oppenheim, Phillip
Page, Richard
Price, Sir David
Riddick, Graham
Roe, Mrs Marion
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Sims, Roger
Speller, Tony
Squire, Robin
Steen, Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter
Tracey, Richard
Tredinnick, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Walters, Sir Dennis
Warren, Kenneth
Whitney, Ray
Wiggin, Jerry
Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Barry Field and
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.
NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Beith, A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Body, Sir Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Cohen, Harry
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cormack, Patrick
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dalyell, Tam
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Dixon, Don
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eastham, Ken
Evennett, David
| Next Section
| Home Page |