---

Column 669

Supporters of the Bill claim that it will settle the issue of Sunday trading. It will do no such thing, unless we define "settle" as meaning prohibit. It is generally agreed by hon. Members that four acid tests must be applied to all proposals for new legislation. They should be practicable, enforceable, acceptable and be able to command a majority in Parliament. The Bill fails each and every one of those tests.

When one applies the test of practicality, one looks for legislation that is necessary, fair and easy to understand. The Bill is unnecessary because its provisions will be included in one of the three options of the Bill that the Government intend to introduce. The Bill is unfair because, by imposing a set of arbitrary criteria on Sunday trading, it will force a large proportion of the 140,000 shops that normally open on Sundays, and which meet a real public need, to close. Many of those shops are small businesses that depend upon Sunday opening to keep afloat.

The Bill will have a severe effect on employment opportunities. It will deprive 120,000 workers of their Sunday jobs and cause many others to lose their premium payments for working on Sundays. Is that what the Labour party wants?

The Bill is complicated because it introduces a new set of anomalies and exclusions that are illogical and unrelated to the pattern of consumer demand. For example, the Bill would allow video hire shops and newsagents to open, but not those newsagents selling books or recorded music. It would therefore still be possible to buy a pornographic magazine or a pornographic video on Sundays, but not to buy a bible. So much for family values.

To enforce any Sunday trading legislation requires that the dividing line between legal and illegal trading should be clearly drawn, easily understood and straightforward to police. The perceived unfairness of the Bill would lead to widespread breaches of its main provisions. Local authorities would be faced with a task well beyond their resources and the Bill would achieve nothing.

What about acceptability? No doubt the Bill will commend itself to the vociferous minority who want to impose their views on the rest of us as to how we should spend our Sundays. The vast majority of ordinary people, however, are voting with their feet. Hon. Members will be aware of the MORI Poll which was conducted last September, before the Christmas rush, and which revealed that 67 per cent. of the public favoured liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws while only 12 per cent. said that they were against. A poll carried out last month in my constituency by the Lichfield Post showed that 84 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted shops to open on Sundays. The Bill would prevent that in the run-up to Christmas and all year round.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant : No, I shall not give way because other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall try to limit my speech to five or six minutes.

The Bill would prevent shops from opening in the run-up to Christmas and all year round. Hon. Members should go to a shop, go to a garden centre, go to a DIY store or a supermarket on Sundays to see for themselves what demand there is.

---

Column 670

There is no Sunday trading law in Scotland or Ireland and many shops choose to stay closed. That is a commercial decision, but it is interesting that more people there worship regularly in church on Sunday than in England and Wales where there is legislation. Sunday is still special there.

Times have changed. We should not forget that more than 20 per cent. of the population work on Sundays and do not work regular hours. However, I sympathise with firms such as the John Lewis Partnership which has resolutely kept its department stores and Waitrose supermarkets closed on Sundays. Its integrity--as it sees it--has cost it more than £1 million a week in lost business. The partnership has remained closed because it believes that opening on Sunday flouts the law. Whether or not that is the case, I urge the Minister to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the necessity of passing legislation as quickly as possible. I do not want stores such as the John Lewis Partnership to be in the same position this Christmas as last Christmas.

Of course, existing shop workers must have their rights protected, but major trade unions such as the GMB support Sunday trading. I remind hon. Members that Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is a minority trade union--fewer than 8 per cent. of shop workers are members. The days of old-time religion are, thankfully, not gone, but in 1993, the nanny state should not tell shops when or when not to open. Such edicts belong to the days of old-time socialism--may it rest in peace.

2.2 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : The description of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) of his seven-day working and the burdens of shopping on Sunday would carry more weight if he were arguing that we should meet in the House on Sundays in order to free him to do his shopping during the week. I declare with pride my interest as a Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the parliamentary committee of the Co-operative Union. The Co-operative movement's powerful and enthusiastic support for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) reflects the interest of responsible employers for the community and employees as well as their own business interests.

I pay tribute to the many businesses and co-operatives which are included in the massive business support for the Bill. That must be put on the record. In the past few days we have had correspondence from the British Hardware Federation ; Iceland has played its part ; and we received an excellent letter from the John Lewis Partnership showing that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals will lead rapidly to complete deregulation. A long list of businesses support my hon. Friend's Bill.

Any flaws in the Bill can be dealt with in Committee--arguing about the flaws does not come well from any hon. Member, because there is a chance to amend it, but it especially does not come well from the Minister. By their failure to act, successive Ministers have placed inordinate pressures on law-abiding firms. Sunday law-breaking is theft, and Ministers have condoned it. That is not good enough.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

---

Column 671

Mr. Michael : What we have heard today is a further abrogation of responsibility. The Minister said that we shall have to wait another year or so before we have Government legislation. That is a cop-out. The Minister should offer the help of his Department and the facilities of Parliamentary draftsmen to my hon. Friend to give the Bill a fair wind and make it as effective as possible.

Most people want Sunday to be a special day. Flexible hours of work mean that there are plenty of opportunities for people to shop on other days. However, two questions remain. First, where is one to draw the line? Like the SHRC, the Minister gives a series of quibbles which draws the thinnest of veils over the real intention of a total free-for-all which, in fairness to him, the Home Secretary has declared to be his personal choice.

The other consideration is how we ensure fair play not only for the community but for employers and employees. I remind hon. Members again of the words of Winston Churchill in setting up the wages councils. Without regulation, he said,

"the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."

Churchill went on to warn that without legislation things would get out of hand and said :

"there is no reason why it should not continue in a sort of squalid welter for a period which compared with our brief lives is indefinite." -- [Official Report, 28 April 1909 ; Vol. 11, c. 388.] We face the same sort of choice today.

I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind the fact that in the near future the last vestiges of the wages councils will come to an end. I ask them to look at what deregulation in practice, which has come about because of Government inactivity, has brought us already. If the Shopping Hours Reform Council and others tempted by that siren voice are serious in saying that they recognise the importance of employee protection, they must say unequivocally that the issue must be resolved before any of the Government's options are put before the House.

I sympathise with women who now work one day only at premium rates, but they would totally lose that freedom even more quickly if a defeat for the Bill signalled the onset of a free-for-all. That would be not freedom or liberalisation, but a new form of slavery. This week I received a letter from my constituent Eddie McCarthy, chairman of the Cardiff branch of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. He wrote :

"Some facts emerged from the first branch meeting since Christmas. Firms like James Howells and Woolworths did not pay double time for Sunday work, just single time and time off in lieu, at management's convenience, not the workers'. Howells recently forced all staff to sign an agreement stating they would be willing to work all bank holidays. Woollies are making all new starters sign agreeing to work for single time on Sundays and bank holidays. Anybody showing reluctance to sign is simply not offered a job. Another shop sacked three part-time ladies who refused to work until 11 pm- -they were given two hours' notice of extended opening hours--and a pregnant girl was fired by one firm for refusing to work on Sunday. Of course, none of them had employment protection."

Those are the difficulties that we face already and that is why Eddie McCarthy wrote on behalf of his workers--he said that he could cite many more instances--to thank me for supporting the Bill and giving the same praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) for doing the same.

The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) waxed eloquent about freedom. She

---

Column 672

should reflect on the need to protect the freedom of employers and employees which was referred to by Winston Churchill. I regret that, although the right hon. Lady claimed objectivity when she was a Home Office Minister, the freedom of the Back Benches has revealed her as a member of what should be described not as the "Aye" lobby but the "I" lobby.

I am surprised that one or two unions have failed to understand that a free -for-all means exploitation. My union, the GMB, which has a fine record of social responsibility, has expressed views which I hope will be reconsidered.

A consensus that can protect the special nature of Sunday and extend freedom and responsibility is attainable. The Government have had their chance. Successive Home Secretaries have failed to take it. Today we have our free vote and we, as Members of Parliament acting as individuals--as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has acted as an individual in introducing the Bill--need to take the law into our hands. Let us take courage on behalf of decent retailers and those who work in the industry and on behalf of families and communities throughout the country. Let us give every support to the Bill ; let us give it a Second Reading.

2.8 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Those who, like myself, have sat through virtually the whole debate--I sadly missed 10 minutes of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)--will agree on one point, which is that it has been in the high tradition of Friday debates in the House. It has been a spirited and at times a witty debate. Hon. Members have spoken with passion and eloquence, and differing views have been held by hon. Members of all parties. When hon. Members have sought to come to conclusions, they have done so on the merits of the case as they see them. I have always felt that some of the best debates take place on Fridays.

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), whom I am delighted to call my hon. Friend on this occasion, has done the House and the country a signal service in introducing the Bill. I am glad to be one of the sponsors of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and my fellow sponsors have done me the honour of asking me to reply to some of the criticisms of the Bill made during the debate. I first make my own position plain. I am an unrepentant supporter of the Bill in its broad, general principles, because I do not believe in a high street Sunday. I do not want to see Saturday replicated on Sunday. There is something very special about Sunday. I do not speak from the point of view of one who goes to church from time to time. Whether Sunday is used to wash the car, to play with the children or to have an extended lunch--it is often the only day of the week when families sit down together to have a meal--or for any other purpose, it is a special day in most people's calendar. It is important that we should try to keep that special day.

In a good and eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to wanting to conserve the best of Britian, She made the point that she was using the word with a small "c". I believe that our British Sunday has a special character which is worth safeguarding. I also agree with my hon. Friend the

---

Column 673

Member for Congleton that one of the root causes of the problems in our society today--goodness knows, there are plenty of them--has been the progressive disintegration of the family unit over the past 30 or 40 years. Wherever we sit in the House, we look at that disintegration of the family unit with real regret.

As I do not want to go in for hyperbole, I do not suggest that by rejecting the Bill the House will drive a final nail into the coffin of the family-- of course it will not--but it will be assisting in the process of disintegration, for the reasons I have mentioned. Sunday is still a special day for most families and it is the one occasion on which many of our constituents get together as families and share their thoughts and expectations, and enjoy themselves together. There is another reason why I strongly support the Bill. I believe that one of the best things in Britain is the small shop. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know how important the village shop is. It is very important in my own village to local community life. If we close the village shop, we take part of the heart out of the community. The same can be said of the corner shop in many urban areas.

Anything that militates against the continuance of small businesses--this is the one party political point that I shall allow myself in responding to the debate--is profoundly inimical to the beliefs of our party. It is wrong for us to do anything that damages the small business and the specialised business. It is a joy to go into a shop where people know what they are selling and care about it. We have often been called a nation of shopkeepers. Shopkeepers should care about what they are keeping. It is difficult to have that care and concern in the enormous, frenetic activity of a huge superstore, whatever it sells. From that personal standpoint, I am delighted to give my support to the Bill.

As I have said, the hon. Member for Ogmore and others have asked me to respond to some of the criticisms. Those criticisms fall into two categories. First, there are those from colleagues such as my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who are unashamedly libertarian. They believe that there should be no restrictions. I believe that they are mistaken. That philosophy sits ill with our own. However, I respect them for that belief.

I particularly respect my hon. Friend the Member for

Mid-Staffordshire because, if I may say so without sounding unkind, he was the most brazen about it. He did not try to pick holes in the Bill. He was not concerned about faults in the Bill. He simply thought that it was wrong to regulate and he was bold enough to say so.

Mr. Lord : Like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am a sponsor of the Bill. Is it not important that the House must decide on whether we want to preserve our Sunday through regulation? It may be complicated and troublesome to put the legislation together, but the alternative is deregulation under one guise or another. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was honest about that.

Mr. Cormack : I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) has been able to make those entirely appropriate remarks because he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate.

---

Column 674

Other of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Gillingham, also strongly opposed the Bill. I do not blame them for attacking the Bill, but none of their criticisms could not be met with constructive amendments. Their root-and-branch opposition is, of course, a different matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, confessed--and here I quote his words--that he was frequently a screw loose on a Sunday. If he wishes, he can table an amendment on DIY stores, secure in the knowledge that at least some of the Bill's sponsors would respond positively to such an amendment.

Mr. John Marshall rose--

Mr. Stern rose--

Mr. Cormack : I cannot continue to give way because I must try to respond to the points that have been raised.

Mr. Stern : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do now withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : I hear the hon. Gentleman. Is he clear that that will not prevent the House from reaching a decision today? Is he quite sure that he sees strangers?

Mr. Stern : I am.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The question is, That strangers do withdraw. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Therefore, I call Mr. Cormack.

Mr. Cormack : I should like now to move on to the criticisms that were levelled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. He sought to give us a detailed critique of the Bill. However, in response to an intervention, he honestly said that there was no chance of having a Government Bill before next Session. He acknowledged that there is virtually no chance of a Bill reaching the statute book before Christmas.

By the admission of my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill is, broadly speaking, one of the three options that the Government will offer to the House at a later date. Therefore, why does not my hon. Friend accept the invitation offered from a number of quarters and provide the services of the Home Office draftsmen and experts and sit down with the Bill's promoter to consider the matter? Perhaps we could consider having a Special Standing Committee. If my hon. Friend the Minister were prepared to do that, it would be possible to iron out the anomalies, about which he quite understandably complained, and deal with them in good time and certainly well before Christmas. A common thread of criticism in the debate has been a widespread sense of annoyance, and even anger, about the way in which the law has been flouted by some of the larger stores. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who spoke from the Opposition Front- Bench, made an extraordinary speech because she placed her faith in the Government. From some points of view, that might be rather touching and appealing to hon. Members on this side of the House. In a debate on a Bill introduced by one of her colleagues, and a Whip to boot--I bet that she will have some very late nights in future--for an Opposition spokeswoman to say that she placed her faith in the Government without receiving any of the assurances that

---

Column 675

she sought is extraordinary. Why can she not, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, take part in discussions to iron out the anomalies and introduce some mutually agreed amendments?

The other common threads that have run through the debate fall into three broad categories. The first is those who are concerned that the restrictions on size are inhibiting. That may well be the case. The hon. Member for Ogmore made the reasonable point that the figure could be the subject of amendment, and so it can. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that a Government Bill would get it right. As he has been reminded, it is not always the case that because legislation comes galloping out of the Government stable, it is pristine and perfect in all regards. I will not mention certain recent legislation which was perhaps less than perfect to emphaise the point. The issue of size can be dealt with.

It is clearly the intention of the hon. Member for Ogmore and his fellow sponsors of the Bill that garden centres should be allowed to continue to open on Sunday. It has been said that one is closer to God in a garden than anywhere else, so perhaps it is appropriate that garden centres should be open on Sundays. That is certainly our intention, and we wish to meet any valid objections by suitable amendment. In an eloquent persuasive speech, the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said that DIY centres may present greater problems. I suggest to her that they are not insuperable problems. Once again, that matter can form the basis of an amendment to the Bill.

I simply remind all hon. Members in the Chamber, some of whom have not had the benefit of hearing the debate today, that, although only a relatively small number of Members will be on the Committee, all Members can take part in a debate on Report. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench can make another contribution by giving extra time for the Report stage if necessary so that the matter is got right in every aspect. In so doing, they will save Government time in the long run in legislation which will not be necessary next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton obliquely referred to Oscar Wilde without directly quoting him. When she referred to people who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing, she struck an important note. There is great value in our British Sunday and in small shops in the United Kingdom. There is considerable merit and value in the Bill, and I urge all hon. Members to give it a Second Reading ; it deserves it. I believe that it can be improved in Committee.

We have a unique opportunity to get the law in order before next Christmas. It can do no hon. Member whatever his or her views, any good to connive, however unwillingly, at large organisations breaking the law. We know now beyond any peradventure that we cannot hide behind European cloaks. We know that our law is the law. It must be either enforced or amended. Here is a special opportunity to amend it sensibly so that we can set in order the law on Sunday trading for the next generation.

In her excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said that she opposed the Bill. One of the reasons that she gave was that it would not put things right for ever. What legislation ever did ? None. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, but the Bill would certainly tidy things

---

Column 676

up effectively when suitably amended and take us well into the next century. Few of us will be in the House by the time the law needs looking at again. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, with her well-known reputation for generosity of spirit and breadth of mind, will come into the Lobby with us in a few minutes.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 228, Noes 27.

Division No. 120] [2.25 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Amess, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashton, Joe

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Margaret

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Dr. Roger

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Boateng, Paul

Body, Sir Richard

Booth, Hartley

Boyce, Jimmy

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Burden, Richard

Burns, Simon

Byers, Stephen

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Cann, Jamie

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clelland, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Ann

Cohen, Harry

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cormack, Patrick

Corston, Ms Jean

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Dafis, Cynog

Dalyell, Tam

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Denham, John

Dixon, Don

Dowd, Jim

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Dykes, Hugh

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evennett, David

Fatchett, Derek

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Flynn, Paul

Forman, Nigel

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Foulkes, George

Gale, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

Gerrard, Neil

Gill, Christopher

Godsiff, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gordon, Mildred

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Hain, Peter

Hall, Mike

Hannam, Sir John

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Hargreaves, Andrew

Heppell, John

Hoey, Kate

Hood, Jimmy

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Adam

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Janner, Greville

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mo n)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Keen, Alan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

---