House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 1993

Mr. Lloyd : I accept the hon. Lady's point that employment protection and the way in which it should be incorporated into the Bill is a lively issue which is important to many people. Part of the Bill will be devoted to employee protection. Like any other part of the Bill, it will be subject to amendments and votes of the House. I believe that we shall end up with a Bill that includes a clause on employee protection which commands the support of a majority of the House. But I would be straying from the new clause if I were to expand on that.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore and his friends in KSS for bringing this complex Bill so far. I also thank them for the constructive and lengthy discussions that they have held with my officials in which many problems with the practical working of the Bill were identified. I am impressed by the determination with which they have set about the difficult and frustrating task of curing them. However, as I have said today as clearly as I can, there is, alas, still a long way to go. However, I am sure that the curative process could be completed well in time for the Government Bill in the autumn and, I hope, for the publication of the Government's draft Bill before the summer recess, although there are only a few more weeks for that.

Mr. Alton : The Minister has tried to convince the House that we should have a touching regard for the Government's superior ability to introduce legislation on complex issues such as Sunday trading, which mere Back Benchers cannot possibly understand. On the day after the Government-- indeed, the Minister's own Department--came to the House to tell us that they got the Criminal Justice Bill wrong and they could not understand issues such as unitary fines and access to previous records, and leaving aside the community charge or compulsory testing, the Minister will forgive us for saying that his great confidence in the Government's superiority over Back Benchers is misplaced.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central) : Does the hon. Gentleman share my wish that the Government's proposals will include not only proposals in law but explanations? Bearing in mind the stated views of the Home Secretary, which I suspect that the Minister of State

Column 1072

shares, and the views of the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), there is clearly a great weight of opinion at the top of the Conservative party in favour of total deregulation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety that the explanations may be weighted the wrong way? Perhaps we ought to consider that carefully.

Mr. Alton : On this occasion, as on many occasions in the Committee, I am happy to be associated with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He has put them succinctly today. I am also worried about the motives of those within the Department who will present both the explanatory memoranda and the Bill.

The House will perhaps forgive me if I recall for a moment the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It was mentioned in the context of this Bill during an earlier intervention. Three choices were laid before the House, as they have been in new clause 14. I shall not detain the House long on this point, but, as a result of the confusion that arose, we ended up with legislation which allows abortion up to birth on the handicapped. I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the House to allow that. But that is what happens when legislation is drafted and choices are offered in this manner. People become confused.

So I hope that people will not be gulled into believing that the Government can introduce proposals that will have great clarity, but Back Benchers cannot. After all, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and many other Acts are the Government's legislation, not ours.

11.45 am

Rev. Ian Paisley : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that after listening to the Minister today, people will have grave concern that he could not give an unequivocal declaration that those who would have to work on Sunday and refused to do so would be protected? He failed to give such a declaration today.

Mr. Alton : Indeed, he did. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden also failed to deal with that. Conservative Members talk, as she did, about choice. They say that choice is the most important thing. They elevate the idea of choice to an ideology or philosophy. Yet they fail to understand that for many people there is no choice when economic pressures are placed on them to work on Sundays. Such workers will often be women. We have heard people suggest that those of us who take a different view are misogynists. What nonsense. Many women want to be protected from having to work on Sunday and from exploitation by commercial pressures. What choice will there be for employees who want to operate their conscience if their employer says that they will either work on Sunday or lose their job? Those people will be forced to work on Sundays and we know it.

The Minister also said that it would be impossible under the terms of the Bill to deal with enforcement. There is no way in which that can be true. Local authorities up and down the land are capable of enforcement on a range of issues. I was deputy leader of the city council for some years and a member of the council for eight years. Enforcement is a day-to-day part of the work of local authorities. They will be able to enforce the legislation, just as they enforce many other requirements.

Column 1073

The Minister said that it would not be possible to go back and see what went on before. That is precisely what happens in cases of tax evasion every day of the week. Of course the Inland Revenue does not know that an offence is being committed at that moment. But it finds out about it and prosecutes subsequently. So the Minister's argument is ludicrous.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister's argument is perfectly absurd. The Health and Safety Executive does not examine every factory, but it expects that spot checks will work. They could work equally well for the Bill.

Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton : I cannot give way until I have dealt with the first intervention. The Minister was sparing in taking interventions. He took only two--one from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the other at the end of his remarks. That gave the game away. The Government do not want to have an open and free debate in the House today or at any other time because they know what they want--total deregulation. That is the agenda. They will try to push it through. If they cannot do it by fair means, they will do it by foul. If they can load the three options placed before the House, they will do it in that way. The Minister is grinning because he knows that that is true. He knows that if the Government can load the options, they will succeed. By chicanery and trickery, they will put their agenda through.

New clause 14 gives us a chance to deal with the three options. I hope that we will take it.

Mr. Dykes : What is the point of the Government indulging in such antics? They know full well that they cannot get full deregulation through the House.

Mr. Alton : Absolutely. The only time that the Government were defeated in the 13 years up to the last general election was on this issue. A coalition of Members from across the House said that they wished to keep Sunday as a special day. That is what the House of Commons decided to do. Will the Government accept that verdict? No. They have come back time and again, as have Members such as the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, and tabled amendments. They have tabled 135 amendments and 13 new clauses ; 99 of the amendments and new clauses are in the name of the right hon. Lady. She is a former Minister in the Home Office. She had the chance to legislate. The Government were not prepared to accept the will of the House and they never will be. That is why they do not deserve our trust today and why we should proceed with the vote which I hope you will allow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course so that we can determine the issues and they are not determined by people of whose motives we should be deeply suspicious.

Mr. Thomason : The hon. Gentleman alleged that it would be easy for local authorities to enforce the legislation encapsulated in the Bill. Does he agree that the Bill requires local government officers to investigate the books of those businesses that they want to open on Sunday in order to establish the 80 : 20 rule? The Bill does not specify, however, which books of which year should be under inspection. A degree of accountancy expertise would

Column 1074

be required by the inspectors expected to enforce the legislation--expertise which is beyond their normal job specification. Although many of us may not object to the principles underlying the Bill, their practical enforcement would be almost impossible.

Mr. Alton : It will not be impossible. The 80 : 20 rule is clear. Shops will be able to show from their accounts of a previous year their precise trading figures. Any trading standards officer worth his salt will have no difficulty with that. The common sense of the courts will also be at play and vicarious prosecutions will not be brought purely on the basis of malice against some small shopkeeper. At present, there are clear abuses, day by day, of the Shops Act 1950, but the Government have encouraged local authorities to turn a blind eye to the law breakers. How can hon. Members claim to be concerned about the epidemic of crime, or the standards and values of our young people when they break the law, when we are prepared to condone the breaking of a law when it is done by people for the sole reason of mercenary, monetary interest? They make huge sums of money from being able to keep their shops open.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we cannot trust the Government, because we have already had experience of what Government promises on employee rights mean not only for Sunday work, but weekday work. The Government claimed that if betting shops were open in the evening it would make no difference to the terms and conditions of the employees, if they chose not to work at night.

William Hill has now presented its employees with a contract that covers evening work. If any employee refuses to sign it--most of them are women-- he or she will simply be sacked. Two people with more than 30 years of experience between them were given the alternative of signing that new contract or going down the road in search of a job. The Government have refused to take any action in that case.

Mr. Alton : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the attention of the House, because that is why those on the Front Bench must not be lured into voting for new clause 14.

Mr. Peter Lloyd rose --

Mr. Alton : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was not prepared to give way himself, in a moment. No guarantees have been given on employment protection and until there are, how anyone can vote for the Government's proposals, even if he is in favour of Sunday trading, I do not know.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : Any employee whose contract is unilaterally changed by his employer and who is dismissed if he does not agree to that contract, is dismissed unfairly. There is a remedy at law, which is exactly the same for any other employee who is treated unfairly.

Mr. Alton : I am grateful for that intervention, which enables me to refer to a letter sent to me in April from the chief executive of Budgens in which he dealt specifically with the employment implications of the Bill. He stated :

"As a multiple grocer with 98 stores, Budgens plc has been one of the pioneers of Sunday Trading."

In other words, it has broken the law and is on the Minister's side. He went on :

Column 1075

"On balance, we have experienced an increase in sales of 10 per cent."

It has been doing well and making money.

"We understand that other large food retailer multiples have similar experiences.

The issue of Sunday Trading is not important to Budgens as such. Our commercial losses and gains are about equal. But, for the following reasons we believe only food stores with less than 3,000 sq. ft. sales area should be allowed to trade on Sundays : Approximately £5 billion of market share at today's prices will shift towards the multiple food chains. This potentially represents a net loss of employment of 44,000-50,000 people due to the labour cost differential as a result of much higher labour productivity in large food stores/superstores.

This is likely to cost the nation between £400-500 million in unemployment support. Social, criminal and economic problems associated with unemployment are widespread."

That is what Budgens, an ally of the Government, thinks about the Bill. That letter makes the point about the potential loss of jobs, to which the Minister also referred, very well. Added to that will be the many people who will be forced to work on Sunday who currently do not.

Mr. Alfred Morris : The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous in giving way. He has speculated about the viewpoint of the Minister of State, as have others on both sides of the House. Is not this debate the best opportunity for the Minister to say exactly where he stands? He has addressed the House, but should not he tell us, if only by intervention, exactly where he stands on the three options?

Mr. Alton : The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give way and I will happily give way to the Minister if, in due course, he wants to intervene to make that point.

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

Mr. Alton : I shall do so in a moment, but I should make progress, consider the three options and explain my position on them. We have the chance to sort things out with new clause 14. The first of the options, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred, is total deregulation. I hope that the House will vote against that, as it has in the past. If we were to give the Secretary of State total power to decide which shops should or should not open on a Sunday, far too much responsibility would be passed into the hands of someone whose motives are only too well known. The second option is that of the SHRC, which is deregulation by the back door. It proposes that all shops under 3,000 sq. ft. should be able to open at any hour on a Sunday, regardless of the goods sold, and that large shops exceeding that size must notify the local authority of which six hours they wish to open out of a specified eight- hour period. The SHRC proposals effectively provide for total deregulation. They do not offer effective employment protection, enforceable in tribunals. According to the latest statement from the Minister and his colleagues, the only employment protection to be offered in the Government Bill is for existing employees. Until we obtain clarification on that, I do not see how anyone who cares about employment protection could possibly vote for the SHRC proposal. No employment protection is offered for workers in shops in Scotland, as there is in the Bill offered by the hon.

Column 1076

Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), which represents the third option. To achieve the third option it is therefore necessary to vote against new clause 14, if we get to that vote. I should like to explain why the House should vote accordingly.

The Bill received its Second Reading with a majority of 173. It is also worth noting that 257 hon. Members have now signed the early-day motion before the House, so there is clearly a majority view that Parliament should do something along the lines of the Keep Sunday Special campaign proposals. Those proposals have been pragmatically amended in Committee, in line with what the hon. Member for Ogmore promised the House on Second Reading.

In Committee, more than 200 amendments were given detailed consideration. The Bill was amended in a number of important respects, including allowing DIY stores to open on a Sunday and garden centres to sell their full range of goods. It provides for a wide variety of shops to be open--a total of 26 categories, which are up to 3,000 sq ft in size. Anyone who suggests that the hon. Member for Ogmore has been inflexible or unreasonable entirely misses the point. Many of us would argue that he has gone too far, but we recognise that the Bill needs to command the widest possible support and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to achieving that.

The Bill will not allow Sunday to become a free-for-all. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was speaking on the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill earlier, someone questioned his motives for doing so. I am not sure what those motives were, but he referred to Corky the cockerel. I should like to refer to another bird, the kingfisher. That bird is found on the headed notepaper of many large stores that are members of the Kingfisher Group, one of which is Woolworths.

A woman came to my surgery on Saturday last to complain about the Woolworths store in the Allerton road area of Liverpool, which I have mentioned in the House before. It chooses to break the law and is currently open on a Sunday. That causes congestion in the small terraced street in which that woman lives. During the week, she works with mentally handicapped people and she told me that she will soon develop mental illness because of the noise, rowdiness and comings and goings on the street on the one day when she expects to be able to build up her energy to face her demanding job in the next six days.

This week I have written to the Woolworths store and the Kingfisher group to ask them to comply with the law. The Bill and new clause 14 gives us the chance to sort the matter out and ensure that people living in such areas do not have their Sundays disrupted and that Sunday remains a special day. That is why the House should vote against deregulation, against the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals and against the new clause, and leave the Bill intact.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

12 noon

Mr. Alton : No, I am about to conclude my speech--I have spoken at length. I have been generous in giving way and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later in the debate. The Minister said that the Government were not prepared to provide time for the Bill, which is to their

Column 1077

discredit. The status of Back Benchers in this place is constantly being reduced. It seems that the only things that we can deal with are tethering ponies and other obscure issues, and the House of Commons cannot decide on an issue such as Sunday trading--which the Government have conceded should be on a free vote. Why do not the Government provide the time for the Bill, which has completed its Second Reading and Committee stage, and which will have completed much of its Report stage today?

Here is an opportunity for the official Opposition, who are also given time in the House. Regardless of whether they are for or against the Bill, I hope that they will allow the Bill to make further progress by considering the use of Opposition time--an Opposition day. We could also consider using minority party time, although there is precious little of it. If the Government are not prepared to honour the intentions behind the Bill and the overriding view of the majority of hon. Members that it should make progress, we shall ensure that Back Benchers' rights are upheld. Other parties in the House must achieve what the Government have so lamentably failed to do.

Mr. Cormack : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who made a passionate appeal and a sensible speech. I appreciated the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister gave way to me, but I could not understand what he was getting at. It is not as if the arguments have not been well rehearsed--even over-rehearsed. It has been made abundantly ill of the majority of hon. Members is to amend the law on Sunday trading, but not to have total deregulation.

One talks about the dog that barked in the night--or did not. I was surprised and disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister did not intervene when he was given the opportunity to do so and was challenged to give his personal views on Sunday trading. I suspect that today we are debating, not the Bill's Report stage, which was so well orchestrated by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), but the Government's hidden agenda --total deregulation.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with his characteristically robust bravado, has made it clear that he supports total deregulation. He is fully entitled to that view. It also seems that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has a similar view--I should be delighted to be corrected. It is apparent that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Mordan (Dame A. Rumbold)--who, as a previous Minister with responsibility for the subject, has to display a certain agnosticism--is also very much in favour of total deregulation. She is fully entitled to those views.

From time to time, all of us, whatever views we embrace, find ourselves in a minority. It is not the job or prerogative of the Government at any time or in any place to usurp the manifest will of the majority, which is what is happening.

Dame Anglea Rumbold : It is a dangerous practice to assume that one knows the way in which one's colleagues are likely to vote. My hon. Friend is not entirely correct in his assumptions about my personal choice.

Column 1078

Mr. Cormack : If I am wrong, I am delighted. If my right hon. Friend, for whom I have a high regard, does not believe in total deregulation, but in something along the lines of the Bill, that is fine.

We had a full debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Ogmore showed exemplary flexibility in Committee and accepted amendments. I am sorry that I could not serve on the Standing Committee which was, by all accounts, a good Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that it was a good Committee. Issues were debated at length and amendments were made. In a true non-partisan spirit, the hon. Member for Ogmore has made it absolutely plain that if the Bill leaves this House for another place, he does not expect it to return unaltered. Time and again, he has made it plain that he is happy to sit down with Ministers to discuss refinements and improvements. The Government do not have a prerogative on perfection in legislation. We only have to recall the events of less than 24 hours ago to be aware of that.

What is the obstacle? In another place, there are many Members on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches with enormous experience who can contribute to the Bill. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops ; my views do not stem from a sabbatarian stance--far from it. I do not want, and never have wanted, a high street Sunday. I do not want Saturday to be replicated. [ Hon. Members :-- "Stay away."] My hon. Friends tell me to stay away. In doing so, they show a total misunderstanding of what I am trying to say.

As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill made clear when he quoted the letter from his constituent, if there is a high street Sunday that replicates Saturday, one cannot stop the world and get off. If one lives in the heart of a city or town, one is stuck there, and surrounded and enveloped by the activity. I remember a Good Friday in Wolverhampton soon after I moved to the midlands nearly 25 years ago. I was so astounded by the frenetic commercial activity, which was so different from the atmosphere in my native Lincolnshire, that I rammed my car into the one in front--it was a costly Good Friday. A high street Sunday would result in many such incidents.

Today we have been given an opportunity--ingeniously devised by the hon. Member for Ogmore, assisted by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)--to exercise choice. The House can pronouce on the three choices-- total deregulation and the two forms of amendment. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill, with his characteristic skill, took us through the details of the choice ; I shall not attempt to repeat what he said, as it would be superfluous to do so.

We have a choice. There is no problem about hon. Members not knowing about today's business. Of course, it is commonly understood that one does not know the nature of specific amendments until close to the day on which they are to be debated. We constantly live our lives in ignorance of what is to happen in the week ahead. We do not know the business for the following week until the previous Thursday and many of us have to adjust our timetables accordingly. But that does not apply to Fridays. We have known for a very long time that this day would be largely devoted to the issue of Sunday trading, and we have known for a few days that this crucial new clause existed. There is no reason, therefore, why the Lobbies

Column 1079

should not be full at 2.30 pm or thereabouts. I believe that it would be wrong of the Government to insist on frustrating the will of the House--

Mr. Fabricant : Nonsense.

Mr. Cormack : It is not nonsense. My hon. Friend, who is a near neighbour of mine, is an expert on the subject of nonsense. We know what the subject before us is--

Mr. Fabricant rose --

Mr. Cormack : My hon. Friend served on the Committee, and if he will just contain himself for a moment I will point out to him that no Member of the House, present or absent, has any excuse for not knowing the business today.

Mr. Fabricant : I thank my near neighbour for giving way. I said "nonsense" because we have known for only three days that there was to be a choice between these three areas. I also said it because my hon. Friend claimed that the Lobbies could be full. There are 651 Members of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend seriously claim that they will all be in the Lobbies? I think not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly intervened on this and related subjects this morning. I hope that he will not do that any more.

Mr. Cormack : Every Member knows the business of the House for the day and makes his or her choice accordingly. As to the nature of the amendments, hon. Members can look at the amendment paper and see what amendments are being tabled--and they can adjust their diaries, if they feel it necessary to do so.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : I hesitate to intervene on this fraternal strife, but the hon. Gentleman has said that it would be superfluous to go through the alternative procedures when we come to vote. But surely those procedures are an incomprehensible dog's breakfast? If hon. Members want to secure what I take it the hon. Gentleman himself wants--restricted Sunday trading--they must vote against the new clause moved by the promoter of the Bill, who may have to vote against it himself. What sense is there in that?

Mr. Cormack : As I said when I paid the hon. Member for Ogmore a compliment, he is adopting an ingenious procedure, in response to requests from various parts of the House. He is doing it to tell the Government that they do not need to waste their time with the three options, because the House can pronounce on them this Friday.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cormack : I am sorry, but I must get on. I promised to be brief, and I have already gone on for far too long--[ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."]--because I have given way to those who have intervened. The Government are always saying that they need more time to get their legislation right. Here is a marvellous opportunity for them to allow a subject to be dealt with in a private Member's Bill. To claim that the subject is too complicated is an insult to the House. One has only to look at many of the issues that have been decided in the past by

Column 1080

private Members' Bills--the abolition of the death penalty, the creation of conservation areas--to recognise that matters of great moment and of fundamental importance to many people have frequently been decided in this way.

12.15 pm

Hon. Members have referred to workers' rights. I wholly accept the Government's wish for proper protection in legislation for workers, but if we move towards total deregulation it will be increasingly difficult to maintain that stance. Only the other day, I was told by a member of Her Majesty's Government, whose driver's wife works in a branch of Sainsbury, that, in spite of Sainsbury's frequently proclaimed assertion that it does not wish to interfere with the freedom of conscience of its workers, the women had come under intolerable pressure--so much so that it had been acknowledged in a letter from the company's head or regional office.

This would happen increasingly, and over time it would have the inevitable consequence of cutting away the very foundations on which the village and corner shop economy is built. We would be destroying an element of the very choice in which we frequently proclaim we believe, to the disadvantage of our constituents, whether they live in villages or in small streets served by the corner shop. Total deregulation would spell the slow decline and death of most of these shops.

Hon. Members have mentioned the lawbreakers. One of the reasons why I regret the Government's refusal to allow the Bill to proceed is the fact-- the Minister acknowledged his own unease on this score--that so many people are breaking the law. All over the country, large stores are opening in flagrant violation of the law. It is no excuse to blame local authorities. We have not heard from the Dispatch Box the ringing denunciation of this lawbreaking that we should have heard. It is inexcusable and it creates perverse double standards for those who talk of law and order and the need to enforce them.

If for no other reason than that, I ask the Minister to think again and allow the Bill to go to another place to be further improved. My hon. Friend can play a part in improving it, so that we can have something on the statute book well before next Christmas, thereby doing something positive and definite to stop a pernicious kind of lawbreaking.

Ms Janet Anderson : I wish to commend new clause 10 to the House. The Report stage of a private Member's Bill is the last place to be holding a debate such as this, on new clause 14. It is much more a Second Reading matter as it goes to the heart of the Bill. New clause 10 is a genuine attempt to amend the Bill, and is much more in keeping with it. It does not go as far as new clause 14, but it would introduce a welcome element of flexibility by allowing more classes of shop to register under clause 3 and by altering some of the current requirements that might, in the fullness of time, seem unnecessary or irrelevant.

If the sponsers of the Bill were forced to translate the long title into plain English, they would probably say, "This is a Bill that closes shops on Sundays, unless they sell goods or services that contribute to recreation, emergencies, social gatherings or travel"--the REST proposals-- "and provides protection for Sunday shop workers." Most of us agree about the necessity for that protection.

Column 1081

That is not quite the approach that the Bill takes in practice. No doubt for good legal reasons, the sponsors of the Bill have not tried to insert into law tests based on whether shops satisfy the REST proposals. Instead, they have set out all the goods and types of shop which they think meet the various REST proposals. That presents a problem. Because the REST proposals are not defined in a detailed way, it is hard to see how some shops have been fitted into them but others rejected. For example, DIY shops are recreational, but second- hand book shops are not. I endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), as set out in the article in The Independent yesterday to which reference has already been made. She said :

"Given the number of men on the committee (18 out of 21) it was perhaps predictable that various exceptions have been proposed to the general ban on Sunday shopping. Boys' shops' such as DIY stores and motor spares shops will be allowed to open ; supermarkets and the clothes shops that women want will not. It appears that a woman's place is in the home, at least on Sundays, while a man's is out at the shops, down the pub, up a ladder or under a car. Is it not also a case of double standards for many male MPs to favour more Sunday sporting events but not more Sunday shopping?"

It is essential that the law, if it is not to be brought into disrepute, keeps up to date with what people want, and remains enforceable. New clause 10 gives the Secretary of State power to add new classes of shop to the Bill. It will allow the Government of the day to remedy any oversights that we have not picked up. Without it, it is entirely possible that we shall face a whole new set of private Members' Bill adjusting this one as oversights are remedied. It is possible that the Bill will have unexpected loopholes. We know that the Shops Act 1950 has brought a great deal of income to lawyers down the years, as they have pored over it looking for new ways to stretch its meaning. Almost by definition, we would not expect to discover loopholes today, or we would have closed them. If the Bill contains loopholes--it would be a brave Member of Parliament who declared any but the most simple legislative measure free of such loopholes--the new clause gives the Government of the day the power to close them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : I raised this point earlier, but I did not get a satisfactory answer. The sale of wet fish, which is covered by the 1950 Act, is important to Grimsby. Is new clause 10 the way to allow what I want to be allowed--the sale of wet fish on Sundays?

Ms Anderson : I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has said, with all the amendments, concessions and compromises, the Bill has become something of a dog's breakfast. Those of us who support the SHRC proposals, are constantly misrepresented as being in favour of deregulation, but we are not. We are in favour of legislation based on size of outlet rather than on type of goods sold. Any Bill based on the latter is bound to be anomalous, as my hon. Friend has rightly said.

Mr. Thomason : Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a strange anomaly that, under new clause 14, spare parts for motor vehicles can be sold, but motor vehicles themselves cannot be?

Ms Anderson : That is a good example of the mess that the Bill has become.

Column 1082

One of the most obvious problems of the Shops Act 1950 is that it has failed to keep up not just with changes to retailing but with changes of life style in our wider society. The Act was already pretty outdated when it came into being. It was largely a consolidating measure and much of it can be dated back as far as 1936. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that it cannot cope with the huge changes in the way that we work and shop. In 1950, 26 per cent. of married women worked. Now, 61 per cent. work, even though they are still largely responsible for the shopping. I speak as a working mother who is still largely responsible for the shopping. That is not to say that my husband is not willing to do the shopping. He is, but he generally gets it wrong.

Mr. Stern : As one who has overcome that barrier, may I recommend a course of action to the hon. Lady? If she allows him enough practice, he will eventually get it right.

Ms Anderson : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that advice. DIY shops, video shops, garden centres and out-of-town shopping developments did not exist in 1950. Shop workers were largely full-time workers ; now they are largely part-time workers. Whether we like it or not, religious observance by Christians has declined, while that by Muslims, whose holy day has no legal recognition, has increased.

Mr. Fabricant : Does the hon. Lady agree that in Scotland, where there are no Sunday trading restrictions, more people attend church on Sundays than is the case in England, where there are Sunday trading restrictions?

Ms Anderson : The hon. Gentleman is right. Attendance at places of worship on Sunday in Scotland is higher than it is in England and Wales, and shops there have been allowed to open for many years. The new clause, as the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said earlier, is an attempt to give the Bill what engineers would call future- proofing. If whole new sectors of shopping come into being, the Bill can be amended by statutory instrument to take account of those changes.

Perhaps most importantly, the new clause will allow the law to be changed when there is public demand for change, without Parliament having to go through the difficult and time-consuming process of introducing new legislation. The sponsors of the Bill might be a little suspicious of that argument, although they claim to have public opinion on their side, but the actions in recent months of hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the Bill make the case for incorporating the new clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) showed when he predicted that, if the Bill goes further, there will be more amendments to it.

The main argument in the behind-the-scenes lobbying that has gone on in the corridors, tea rooms and bars in recent weeks is that the Bill is now a compromise and has caught up with the overwhelming public desire to open DIY stores. At one level, that shows a welcome flexibility by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and his colleagues, but it also confirms that, even in a short time, views about what should or should not be opened can be changed. Think how much could change in 43 years if we had to wait that long before the House got to grips with Sunday trading again.

Column 1083

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) will be putting the views of USDAW at great length later if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take the opportunity to place on the record the position of the Transport and General Workers Union and GMB. The TGWU recommended that the Bill be opposed on Second Reading because of fears that it would be too restrictive. It is now carrying out an extensive consultation with its membership to get a clear and comprehensive picture of views on working on Sunday. The union expects that its position will be resolved at this summer's biennial conference.

The GMB has said that it accepts that public pressure for Sunday trading will result in a change in law. Its aim is to protect its members by supporting a limit on the number of hours that shops can open on any day of the week. No worker should be forced to work on Sundays and a refusal to work should not lead to a setback in the worker's prospects. Premium payments should be made in recognition of the special nature of Sunday working.

Next Section

Home Page