House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jan 1993

Ms. Anderson : I know that my hon. Friend's views command a great deal of support in the House, but I am afraid that I disagree with them. We should have an opportunity to consider all the possible options and that is why I hope that the Government will not renege on their promise to bring forward appropriate legislation soon. Mr. Edmonds said that he believed that it was unacceptable that people should be forced to work on Sundays. I agree, because that would contradict religious freedoms, jeopardise family life and be intolerable for existing employees. The GMB and I would support legislation that includes the voluntary principle and carries with it sensible guarantees for trade union recognition rights to enforce that voluntary principle.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Anderson : No. I must get on because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Edmonds also went on to say :

Column 634

"We do not believe that Ray Powell's proposals match our policy, nor that they will clarify the position. They would rather add further confusion."

I understand that Mr. Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers union has sent a similar letter to some of my hon. Friends. As a Member representing a northern constituency and as the mother of three teenage children, I must tell the House that the only time that I get to do my weekly household shop is on Sundays. The same is often true for the more than 70 per cent. of married women who now work outside the home. I also know that there are many women in my constituency who welcome the opportunity to work on Sundays when they do not have to pay for child care because they can rely on their partners. Women want to shop on Sundays and women want to work on Sundays. The Bill does not recognise those demands.

11.22 am

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) not only on her speech, with which I totally agree, but on displaying what must be the ultimate courage in the House--opposing a Bill proposed by her own pairing Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).

Before the hon. Member for Ogmore leaves the Chamber, I should like him to know that I shall follow the two injunctions that he made. I shall try to speak for as short a time as possible--he spoke for nearly half an hour-- and, in response to his request, I shall declare my specific interest in the Bill. Until the recent growth in Sunday trading among supermarkets and large shops, it was impossible for me, given that I work six days a week at a minimum, to shop with my family. My family life has been enriched by the recent opportunities to shop that have arisen. [Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. Members regard their days off as so limited that they would not wish to broaden their horizons. They will find that the 4 million people who now regularly shop in large stores on Sundays would agree with me. The hon. Member for Ogmore referred, rightly, to the document that has been distributed, at considerable expense, to every hon. Member of the House, entitled "Towards a New Shops Act". That document sets out the aims of the Bill. I should like to do the hon. Member for Ogmore the honour, despite the fact that he is no longer in his seat, of referring to the aims set out in the document. It states that the Bill is designed

"to guarantee a common day off"--

but not for those people who, for whatever reason, would wish to have a different day off. It is also designed

"to protect the right of shopworkers not to work on Sundays." It says nothing about those people who want the right to work on a Sunday. It states that the Bill is designed to protect smaller retailers from pressure to open. It says nothing about those smaller retailers who wish to open. It also states that the Bill is designed "to provide for the reasonable needs of consumers."

That is something on which the consumers are not entitled to have a say ; they must accept whatever the hon. Member for Ogmore defines as their "reasonable needs". The document also states that the Bill would prevent unfair competition. It will do that by preventing all competition in any circumstances.

Column 635

Mrs. Dunwoody : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stern : I am conscious of the fact that the promoter did not give way during his speech and I am anxious to make sure that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak. However, I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she is brief.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall be brief. Does he accept that 25 per cent. of the business of small shops comes from trading over the weekend and on Sundays, but only 2 per cent. of the business of supermarkets comes from such trading ? Therefore, when he says that he is concerned about competition, is not he really concerned about protecting the supermarkets from the smaller shops ?

Mr. Stern : I have no way of checking the hon. Lady's figures and I am happy to accept that they are correct. However, if she considers the trading patterns of supermarkets and the profit margins to which they work she will find that 2 per cent. can be a major factor when determining the viability of a business. As for competition with the small shops, the hon. Lady will find that many people, given the opportunity, prefer to work and to shop in larger stores.

Mrs. Dunwoody : So the hon. Gentleman is protecting the larger stores.

Mr. Stern : We should not single out those people who should be protected.

The aims set out in the reasoned amendment standing in my name and that of several hon. Members are the reverse of those in the Bill. In any legislation on Sunday trading, employment and business opportunities should be encouraged and meaningless distinctions between one shop and another should be abandoned. Such legislation should protect the quality of life of most people, as they choose to lead it. It should avoid the imposition of extra duties on local authorities and extra burdens on businesses. Above all, it should not destroy jobs. More than 140,000 shop workers would lose their Sunday work and earnings if any Bill remotely like the one before us today were passed. About 50,000 of them would lose their only employment. Is it really the job of the House to destroy employment on such a massive scale, especially since, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, most of these people are women who have been the beneficiaries of one of the great liberalisations of our society in recent years--for the first time, they have an equal opportunity to choose when and how to work and how to organise their family lives instead of being tied to a previous view of society supported by law ?

The Bill contains other anomalies with regard to encouraging employment. I represent a Bristol constituency and must therefore very much resent the fact that in a tourist area such as Bristol, which is not by the seaside, tourist shops would be barred from opening because only seaside tourist resorts are covered by the Bill's exemption.

Another aim is to encourage business opportunities. As I said, about 4 million customers now pass through and buy at the four leading supermarket groups that currently open on Sundays. The report of Eldred Tabachnik QC, which has been made available to most hon. Members, states that the United Kingdom is no longer a nation of

Column 636

small specialist shops. An increasing number of shops were never contemplated by the 1950 Act and are not even considered by the Bill.

For example, bureaux de change provide a great service to tourists, but they would not be able to open on Sundays. Professional offices increasingly find that their clients can see them only Sundays because they also have to earn a living, but they would also be debarred from opening--I speak as a former full-time practising chartered accountant. The Bill would destroy many of the opportunities for businesses that have opened in recent years. The Bill perpetuates rather than ends the meaningless distinctions between one shop and another. The hon. Member for Ogmore said that he would accept amendments, but he must stand by the Bill as he has presented it to the House--either he meant what he said in the Bill or he did not. What is the point of getting rid of the 1950 Act when, under the Bill--

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stern : No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have undertaken not to give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak.

If the Bill were passed unamended, the vast majority of garden centres would have to close--we have that from the garden centres themselves. The remainder of the garden centres which are able to register to open under the Bill can be closed on an arbitrary basis if, by accident, their sales of particular and ill-defined goods happen to go over the limit set by the Bill.

Mr. Cormack : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stern : No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.

The hon. Member for Ogmore claimed that video hire shops would be unaffected, but he may not have noticed that video hire shops also sell videos and, under the terms of the Bill, if they sell one video too many on a Sunday, they will be closed.

The Bill covers the sizes of shops which are permitted to open. There is a good working rule which hon. Members could apply to shops in their constituencies--if a shop has one window, it is under 1,500 sq ft and would be allowed to open. As a general rule, a shop with two windows will be more than 1,500 sq ft and will be forced to close

Mr. Lord : Nonsense.

Mr. Stern : It is not nonsense--it is based on survey.

With reference to the anomalies which will arise under the Bill, I refer to a letter that I--and, I believe, many other hon. Members--have received from the Boots Company. It states that some brands of toothpaste will qualify for sale on Sundays, others will not and some

"food supplements and vitamins will be legally saleable, others will not."

It asks how it will be

"possible to differentiate between items in a pharmacy that can be sold only for two hours on a Sunday and those that can be sold without restriction?"

The letter points out that the Bill allows

"baby foods to be sold in garden centres, nappies on garage forecourts, and condoms in video hire shops all day Sunday but none of these to be sold at any time in Pharmacies."

What ridiculous legislation.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ogmore is not here to listen to what I regard as one of the major defects of the

Column 637

Bill. Despite his not being here, I make this point to him as the proponent of the Bill with all honesty and sincerity, as a member of an ethnic minority. The explanatory document that he has caused to be circulated refers to regulations which are and are not in the Bill relating to Jewish and Muslim shops. The document states that "shops owned by Jewish proprietors are permitted to open on Sunday mornings, provided the shops also shut on Saturdays."

That is a provision of the 1950 legislation which is not changed by the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ogmore has clearly not noticed that most Jewish shops in urban areas found it impossible to survive without expanding under the 1950 Act and that most such shops, especially the successful ones which are permitted to open on Sundays, would be forced to close because they comprise more than 1,500 sq ft. That would certainly apply to most urban Jewish butchers.

There is an equally thoughtless reference in the Bill and the explanatory document to Muslims. The document states :

"We did not consider it necessary to make a special provision for Moslems because their religion only requires them to be at prayer for 2 hours on a Friday."

Are not Muslims entitled to take their own view on how to spend the remainder of their day of rest? Do they have to have a licence to practice their religion and nothing else? If a shop is permitted to open on Sunday because of the religion of the proprietor, surely the proprietor is entitled to decide how best to organise his own business even if he is a member of an ethnic minority.

I deal now with the notion of protecting the quality of life. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for highlighting some of the Bill's anomalies in relation to petrol forecourt shops and motorway service area shops. If the Bill were passed unamended it would be very much more difficult for ordinary people to travel by car on a Sunday because there would be far fewer petrol outlets and far fewer shops on motorway service areas for chance purchases.

If the Bill were passed unamended, people could forget the idea of buying fresh fruit and vegetables on a Sunday because greengrocers would be forced to close. They could also forget the idea of doing any DIY on Sundays and could find, as I frequently do, that they are short of a screw-- [Laughter.] Following Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie's evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage yesterday, I see that Camillagate has had a greater effect on the House than was originally anticipated.

Under the Bill, DIY stores would be closed and the practice of DIY, which is commonly carried out on Sundays, would be severely limited. Markets would also have to close and, certainly in my constituency, markets are extremely popular on Sundays. Under the Bill, a total of 145,000 shops in England and Wales which now open on Sundays would be forced to close.

Time is short, so I shall leave it to colleagues to deal with the impossible burdens that the Bill would place on local authorities and businesses. A vast bureaucracy would be established merely to enforce what are, in essence, unenforceable provisions.

In conclusion, I shall describe, as I promised, the overall damage that the Bill would do to jobs. I shall read out and, if necessary, table a letter that I received yesterday from a constituent. The lady, who has asked that her name and address should not be used, lives in an area of my constituency which was a socialist fiefdom in local

Column 638

authority terms until last May, when the people saw the light. It is one of the poorest areas of my constituency. My constituent writes :

"I am a mother of two children aged 4 and 2 and I am expecting a third child in April. I work in Asda, Cribbs causeway, Bristol on Sundays. I intend to return to work again after my baby has been born. I am a Sunday only worker. I work on Sundays, because I want the best for my children, not the worst. They have a lot more extras and holidays, clothes and outings and they wouldn't have had any of it, if I didn't go and work. When I leave the house on Sunday mornings I leave happy in the knowledge that my husband will be caring for them and that they will all enjoy some "quality time" together. I also get a well needed break from the children and household each week and I look forward to my own independent time I don't believe in dumping my children on childminders to go to work in the week."

I see nothing wrong in anything that this lady says in her letter. Yet the Bill would debar her from the quality of life that she wants for herself and her family.

The Bill would arrogate to the House the right to determine employment patterns, business opportunities and trade. In a civilised and moderately free society, I do not believe that the House should have that right.

11.41 am

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) in his fairytale and, if I may say so, screwy misinterpretation of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West made out a case for total deregulation--"Set the people free"--but his proposed deregulation would enslave many more people.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned ethnic minorities. I believe that one of the great virtues of the Jewish tradition is the tradition of family life-- parents together with children. The Jewish community is one of those least likely to break the law, partly because of the strength of its family life. After all, it was the creation ordinance which set aside one special day, and that has had a profound effect on the Jewish tradition over the centuries. That one day set aside has a relevance for today. It is part of a pattern, and the Old Testament creation ordinance has a special meaning now, when there is so much social fragmentation.

I shall first consider the history of the Bill and the other measures to reform the clearly anomalous Shops Act 1950. In 1986 a miracle happened. The Government had a majority of more than 100, and the Bill was whipped-- yet it was defeated, because the good sense of the people of this country, as reflected in the House, did not want total deregulation. The people realised that there was value in having one day set aside, away from the pressures and heavy rhythms of life.

Since then the Government have done nothing, and we have had the law breakers--those who have chosen to defy the 1950 Act. First, there was just a little defiance, on the four Sundays before Christmas. That reminds me of the housemaid's explanation : "It's only a little baby". Then the law breakers moved on from those four Sundays to total defiance of the law, with the acquiescence of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General.

Then there was the reference to the European Court of Justice. Anyone who practises at the Bar, as I do, knows that that process is very tardy. Indeed, that was the motive behind the reference. There was no prospect of the

Column 639

European Court ruling against our practice under the Shops Act 1950. As has already been said, all the European countries except one have their own special legislation concerning Sundays, so there is no possible case for suggesting that our practice would be deemed to be in restraint of EC trade.

The motive behind the Government's acquiescence in the actions of the law breakers was an attempt to buy time and to create facts. That is part of the reason why I support the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I have been trying to restrain myself from intervening because I do not want to take time away from other hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is embarking on a course which he knows is wrong. The Government did not take the Sunday trading case to the European Court ; it was referred there by the House of Lords, because, due to an earlier judgment by the European Court, the courts could not determine their judgments. The Government have always argued that our laws were on all fours with the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Anderson : If the Government had been so concerned, they would not have said that the law was in abeyance ; they could have supported the local authorities, which were frightened because of the potential financial impact on their poll tax payers. Instead, the Government said that they would not support Kirklees, Torfaen and the other councils, but left them to their fate in the certain knowledge that the local authorities would not be able to oppose the big boys, the superstores, the sharks who are happy to swallow up the minnows and the small people. The Government acquiesced in lawbreaking by not supporting the local authorities, which wanted to be protected about any costs that might have been awarded against them. The Attorney-General could have intervened and taken over the action on behalf of the local authorities. But the Government failed to do so ; they acquiesced.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government had to abide by the conclusions of the court. The Attorney- General cannot overturn them. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House with his account of the legal position.

Mr. Anderson : Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Attorney-General could not have taken over the actions from the local authorities? That is nonsense. Is he seriously suggesting that the Attorney -General could not have said to the local authorities, "We are prepared to stand behind you and guarantee the costs that may be thrown away in a prosecution"? Of course he is not. The local authorities were left on their own, and because of the cost pressures they could not proceed in legal actions.

We now have a Home Secretary who, on his own admission, wants total deregulation. That has been the Home Office view ever since it got a bloody nose over the 1986 Shops Bill. The Government have acquiesced in law breaking, seeking to create facts, although they know that most people in this country do not want Sunday to be just like any other day. If we accept the Government's position and wait for a Government Bill, more time will have been bought for the big boys. Another year at least will go by,

Column 640

and another Christmas. Facts will be created and then they will say, "Look, that is the tradition. All the barriers have been thrown away." That is my charge against the Government--that they have acquiesced.

This is an all-party Bill. If I wanted to advance a conspiracy theory, I could say that we should consider the way in which B and Q finances the Tory party dance--and how the Tory party has danced to B and Q's tune thereafter--but I shall not go into that because this is an all-party Bill.

The substantial reasons in favour of the Bill are as follows. I believe that the mass of the people want Sunday to be different. They want it to be a time when the family can be together--husband and wife, or wife with her children, if she is a single parent. Deregulation would have profound effects on the family. In the public interest, the Government should do nothing to increase the pressures on families. Of one thing I am confident : total deregulation would being greater pressure on family life, greater fragmentation, and a great increase in the social problems that we face today. I am equally confident that there would be an acceleration in the closure of smaller shops and in the move towards out-of-town shopping, which has adverse social effects.

The Swansea Herald of Wales has carried out a survey of market traders in Swansea market. It shows overwhelming concern about the fact that families will be forced to work on Sundays. Their freedom will be diminished, yet the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West claims to be in favour of freedom.

The Government will put forward options after a decent lapse of time when the positions have been established. Essentially, there are only two options. The Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal is not a realistic option. It is a slippery slope--a halfway house. The council wants total deregulation. It cannot have it directly, so it has put forward a proposal which it knows will slip from hour to hour to hour, in the way that the pub licensing provisions have. That is the council's motive.

By contrast, the REST--recreation, emergency, social gathering and travel-- proposals, which are the foundation of the Bill, have a coherence and logic. More importantly, they have a stopping place, whereas under the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal it would be easy to say, "Just an extra hour : it does not really matter." It is what is called a creeping commitment in planning law, with the plea, "Just another house on this site."

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and those who drafted the Bill, which has coherence and logic. More importantly, it accords with the spirit of what most people want. We do not want Sunday to be just like every other day of the week. Profound and adverse social effects will follow if we give the unfettered freedom of total deregulation, which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and his friends in the Shopping Hours Reform Council want. 11.51 am

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Shops Bill is No. 3 on the Order Paper today. It also seeks to bring some sanity to Sunday trading. I am the promoter of that Bill and if I talk a little about it, I hope that you will forgive me. I shall try to do so only in the context of this Bill. I

Column 641

congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on having come higher in the ballot than I did. If our positions had been reversed, we might have been discussing my Bill rather than his.

In 1986, when the Government introduced the Shops Bill, which was defeated on Second Reading, I spoke in favour of total deregulation. At that time, the only two options on offer were either total deregulation or living on with the inconsistencies and anomalies of the Shops Act 1950. In the past six years, other options have developed. The options offered by the Bill by and large carry on the restrictions and presumption to closure of shops on Sundays contained in the 1950 Act.

My Bill--I shall move its Second Reading if we reach that point today-- presumes a rather different position. It presumes that shops will be allowed to open, with small shops opening over a wide number of hours on a Sunday and large shops opening over a far more limited period of six hours between 10 am and 6 pm.

One of the tests for any legislation should be that it will enjoy public support and confidence, that it will be easy to understand and to enforce where necessary, and that it will stand the test of time. I shall seek to prove that this Bill would not stand the test of time or fulfil the other two conditions, whereas my Bill would. We have heard much about the anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 which have produced the present unsatisfactory position. The ludicrous anomalies include the fact that it is legal to sell partly cooked tripe, but not a tin of tuna. It is legal to sell fodder for mules, but not cat food. It is legal to sell bandages, but not nappies. It is legal to sell pornography, but not bibles. I remember the debate in 1986 and those positions were exhaustively debated.

If the Bill proceeds, it will produce a set of anomalies that are at least as confusing, complex and difficult as those contained in the 1950 Act. The Act is, without doubt, out of date. At that time, only 26 per cent. of married women worked. Now 70 per cent. go out to work. In 1950, most shop workers were full time, whereas most now are part time. Shopping has changed since 1950. Do-it-yourself centres and garden centres were unknown. Video shops and out-of-town shopping centres were unheard of. Since 1950, sadly, Christian religious observance has declined while that of Muslims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, has increased. There has been extreme difficulty in enforcing the Shops Act 1950. Some 145,000 shops are reckoned to open on a Sunday and almost all of them sell things that are prohibited under the Act. Only 4 per cent. of those 145,000 shops are large stores. It is overwhelmingly small and convenience stores that open on Sunday.

There are provisions about tourism in the 1950 Act whereby seaside towns have a limited exemption for shops to open during the summer season. Those provisions would continue under the Bill. The problem is that shops in Scarborough could open whereas those in York could not. Shops in Great Yarmouth could open, but those on the Norfolk broads could not. Shops in Margate may open, but those in Canterbury or Rochester may not. Shops in Torbay may open, but those on Dartmoor may not. That is clearly nonsense. I shall not go into all the anomalies in Bill which have already been listed.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) courageously made her stand against the Bill and she did so on a number of sensible grounds. She

Column 642

prayed in aid the letter from the general secretary of the GMB, John Edmonds. He is the representative of 60,000 shop workers, so the House should listen to his advice.

We have also heard of the inconsistencies in pharmacy. It is worth noting that many pharmacies are legally obliged to open on Sundays under NHS rota agreements with family health services authorities. A restriction to only two hours would often place pharmacies in breach of their obligation. The 80 per cent. threshold could mean that they would be excluded from opening at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West brought into sharp relief the question whether we would be able to buy family planning aids on a Sunday. We certainly should not be able to buy them from Boots, according to the letter that he and I received from that organisation.

The hon. Member for Ogmore stated that he was proud to declare his interest on behalf of the Union of Shop, Diestributive and Allied Workers. It is worth examining that point. USDAW represents many thousands of shop workers, many of whom will be disadvantaged if the Bill becomes law. That is something which we should all be well aware of in these days of difficult employment conditions. One hundred and forty thousand jobs would be at grave risk as a result of the Bill. We have heard much about turning Sunday into an ordinary day. The charge is that if supermarkets opened, the high street shops would open and Sunday would be just another Saturday. That was the thrust of the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). In that regard, I need simply refer to Scotland. There is total deregulation in Scotland. I would not propose total deregulation and I suspect that not many hon. Members would support it at the present time. Scotland enjoys total deregulation, but comparatively few shops--about 25 per cent.--actually open on a Sunday.

Mr. Donald Anderson : The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he said "at the present time". With regard to Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman consider not the static picture, but the dynamic picture and consider how the number of shops opening has accelerated over the past few years ?

Mr. Couchman : I am told that over the past three years, when there has been an atmosphere of uncertainty about Sunday trading, just 2 per cent. of shops in Scotland which did not open on Sundays before 1989 have decided to do so. That does not reveal a great dynamic in terms of shops opening in Scotland. Scotland has had deregulation from time immemorial as I understand it.

Mr. Lord : My hon. Friend is taking great pains to criticise the Bill. However, he said earlier that he favours deregulation. Some of us believe that the proposals for the Shopping Hours Reform Council are deregulation by the back door. My hon. Friend is very honest. If he believed that total deregulation could be approved by the House, would he support it?

Mr. Couchman : Yes, so long as there was a measure of worker protection. I want to make the position clear. My Bill on the Order Paper includes a substantial measure of worker protection. No one is compelled to shop on a Sunday and no one should be compelled to work on a Sunday. That is terribly important. I also believe that those who work on a Sunday should be rewarded with

Column 643

premium payments although I stop short of the position in the Shops (Amendment) Bill which prescribes double-time payment for Sunday working.

That provision would have an enormously detrimental effect on small shopkeepers who would find it very difficult to afford to pay double time as it is a very big premium. It is also worth noting that the majority of shops in Scotland open on the four Sundays before Christmas. That is their premium time. However, immediately Christmas is over, they return to their normal pattern.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : It is an absolute myth that the majority of shops open in Scotland on Sundays. I live in Linwood and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that certain shops do not open. However, the experience with Sunday opening in Scotland is not happy. If I get the chance, I will explain that in detail later. We have lost thousands of shop workers' jobs in Scotland and many small shops have shut. I do not know whether that is the result of unfair competition.

Mr. Couchman : I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

Mr. John Marshall : Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Office Ministers have said on several occasions at Scottish Question Time that they have received fewer than half a dozen complaints over the past year about the shops legislation in Scotland?

Mr. Couchman : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will no doubt repeat that point later, if he has the opportunity to speak. I do not want to take up too much time now, because it is just possible that we might reach my Bill and I will have to speak again when I move its Second Reading. I am also aware that many hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.

It was my considered view in 1986 that I would support total deregulation. I have changed that view to the extent that I would need to see worker protection written on the face of any Bill seeking to bring the Sunday trading regulations up to date. The Bill would have to be simple and easy to enforce and I was keen to ensure that in my Bill. That is why I have decided to include small shops up to 3,000 sq ft--as has been said, the size of the Chamber. That is the size of many convenience stores, which is rather more realistic than the 1,500 sq ft suggested by the hon. Member for Ogmore. Those shops could be registered easily with local authorities in case of a dispute because the Inland Revenue valuation office already keeps such figures.

Shopping has become popular. Many people shop on Sundays for the very recreation that the hon. Member for Ogmore included in his REST proposals. I am minded of the Sundays that I enjoy when I visit antique fairs. I do not look forward to those Sundays being prohibited by the Bill. Many hundreds of thousands--and perhaps millions--of people go to Sunday markets and to car boot fairs. They will lose that recreation on a Sunday under the terms of the Bill. Where both partners work, people may want to visit a travel agent or an estate agent on a Sunday either to book a holiday or to obtain house details. That will be prohibited by the Bill.

Next Section

Home Page