House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Dec 1993

Column 361

level. I beg the Committee's indulgence to consider whether that might not be, for many people, the second best option available. There is strong evidence for that.

Logically, it would have been better to have a vote on the local option first, but procedurally that is not possible. I would ask the Committee to accept that also.

I will first state my preferred position, so that there can be no dissembling about it. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading and I believe that the present law is a nonsense which needs to be reformed urgently.

I also think that the law-breaking that has happened is indefensible. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), who was a Minister, and also the Attorney-General and others who were in office when shops started opening on Sunday did not make it clear enough that what was going on was unacceptable. Had the Government called in the managing directors and the chairmen and chairwomen of the boards and formally made it clear that it was unacceptable, there might have been far less Sunday opening of big stores.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Hughes : I must continue. We may have only until 10 o'clock for the debate.

I will declare all my interests. I share many of them with most of my colleagues, but one or two may be unusual and it seems reasonable to put all of them on the record.

Like all hon. Members, I represent many small shops, market stalls, markets and big shops. Sadly, like many hon. Members, I also represent many unemployed people who want to work. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain. Like many hon. Members, I represent shoppers and employees. I also represent large, good, clean, efficient and pleasant stores. Those stores include the Tesco store which opened two or three yars ago at Surrey Quays--a store which is currently opening illegally on Sundays. Tesco did me the courtesy of asking me to meet the employees of that store last Sunday to hear their views. Lastly, the registered headquarters office of J. Sainsbury plc is also in my constituency.

No option will please all of the people all of the time--that is self- evident. We must do what is for the best, not just in the short term but in the long term.

I am for keeping Sunday special. It is important to me as a Christian, but I can arrange to keep my Sunday special without the law. It is not on that basis which I argue the point. I do not claim special protection for my faith, nor for the faiths of others. Much more importantly, I believe that it is in the interests of our society as a whole--for people of all faiths and people of no faith--that we have a common context for our work and for our leisure. That context should have an order to it and it should respect the pattern of work and leisure. It should build in a guarantee that, on one day at least, there is a presumption in favour of something other than work.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes : I will not, for the reason which I gave earlier. I do not want to use up too much time.

Column 362

I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who argued for the deregulation option. The right hon. Lady has been a Home Office Minister.

One cannot reasonably argue that deregulation is good in principle--or else one would argue that deregulation is good for health and safety at work, for pubs which could open at any time day or night, or for speed limits. That is an invalid argument. One cannot say that one person's freedom to choose does not have an impact on other people's freedoms. That is a dangerous argument which the right hon. Lady made. One cannot argue for regulation to be left to local authorities and yet argue that they cannot do the enforcing, which is one of the difficulties of the present law.

The Minister argued that we live in a market economy. In a market economy, the big fish eat the little fish, and the little fish increasingly are no longer there. [ Hon. Members-- : "Not necessarily."] Not necessarily may be correct, but the big fish have the power and the capacity more often to eat the little fish. Lastly, one cannot say that deregulation is necessary for women in particular, or workers in general, to have Sunday work in order to get a better deal. I would say to Tesco and Sainsbury's that if they are so concerned about workers' rights, they should pay the workers double time on a Saturday. They could certainly do that, and there is no need to get them in on Sunday to give them double time.

What would more Sunday trading mean? It would mean more transport on our roads. It would mean that there would be a greater incentive to spread the business of six days over seven, and that is what is happening. There would be a greater incentive to work every day and there would be greater pressure on people not to have a day of rest at all. More people are doing so, including hon. Members it may be said. Many people wish that they did have more spare time, but they cannot now find a way to do so. There would be a greater incentive to spend money on seven days--money which some, regrettably, may not have. There would be a greater incentive to advertise more and to appeal to people's commercial interests. There would be greater pressure both on and from children and young people. There would be more pressure for more people. Simply, there would just be more pressure.

It is important that we listen to the voices of leaders from all faiths-- Christian, Jewish and others--who share the views of a letter to The Times which was headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and which was printed on the day of the Second Reading. The letter said :

"Commercial pressures already loom large enough in our society. Sunday affords space for the nurture of other values, pursuits and dimensions of family life in a more restful atmosphere. On the grounds of not only religious conviction but also pastoral experience, we believe that the spiritual, psychological and physical health of our nation would be poorer if there were no longer one common day in the week which was substantially different from the rest." I say amen to that.

What has been the experience in Scotland under a different regime? I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who speaks for my party on Scottish affairs, before the debate. He told me that the number of people who shop on Sunday has gone up. What happened in Scotland will happen here. When I was at my local Tesco last Sunday listening to the views of Sunday shoppers, some of them said that they liked shopping there on Sunday because it was quiet. It is not so

Column 363

quiet as it was when it first opened on Sundays two years ago. In five or ten years' time, Sunday will be much more like a Saturday, a Friday, a Thursday or a Wednesday. I gather that that is the general experience in Scotland, too.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes : I will not give way, but only because time is limited. The reality is that the amount of shopping might be little today, but once the door is open there is no turning back.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Rubbish!

Mr. Hughes : It is not rubbish, and I will give the reason for that in a moment. The local authority option--the fall-back position--at least allows a turning back, because local authorities will be able to change their minds. If we vote for the Honiton option, or if we vote for six hours now, then we will be asked later to vote for longer.

Of course it would be convenient for all if shops were open on a Sunday. It would be convenient if they were open when we finish here at 2 a.m.-- indeed, some of them are. If the shops were open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it would be convenient for some people and there would be people in the shops. Especially in urban areas and city centres, that would be convenient for at least some people. Convenience is not the most important argument, however, and I hope that we shall resist it.

I am convinced that, whatever the best practices and best intentions of the best managers may be, given the choice between employing someone who says that he or she will never work on a Sunday and someone else who says that he or she will, there will be a great deal of hidden pressure to appoint or promote the person who agrees to work. He or she will be a more valued and useful employee. Let us be honest : in this place we prefer to employ staff who are willing at least occasionally to work anti-social hours.

7 pm

Marks and Spencer and Iceland both agree with me that deregulation kills small shops. The opening of the new Tesco in Surrey docks has meant that shops in the market square in the Blue in Bermondsey have been under more pressure. Their profits have declined, some have closed, and some market stalls are struggling. That is fact, not speculation.

Deregulation will not ultimately help people who cannot get to out-of-town big shops. Such people want to go next door, but they will find when they do so that next door is no longer there. Mr. Couchman rose --

Mr. Hughes : I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has a clear view in favour of deregulation which he has often presented. I, on the other hand, did not speak on Second Reading, and this is my first contribution to the debate.

I do not say that there should not be shopping on Sunday. I do not argue for an unrealistic world. The Honiton option is unrealistic ; it decrees that everything shall be closed on a Sunday morning, and people will be able to buy only newspapers. That is not an acceptable option.

I am arguing against large shops and for small shops. I am arguing against more traffic, more pollution, more

Column 364

consumption of fuel and more damage to the atmosphere, and I am arguing for a quieter and more pleasant existence in urban and rural Britain. Above all, I am arguing against big profits for the few and in favour of the greater number of people who need a little profit to be able to survive.

The Keep Sunday Special proposal is that on four Sundays before Christmas shops may open. That is realistic, as most people do need to shop more then --the evidence for that is clear. People shop more in December than in any other month of the year. Let us therefore respect that fact and respond to it. It is no good being strongly dogmatic and failing to take account of the real world.

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East) : That defeats your own argument.

Mr. Hughes : Not at all. I am arguing for the best possible conclusion compatible with people's reasonable demands. That conclusion is that we should keep Sunday special for as many weekends of the year as possible. Regardless of whether people are religious, many of them celebrate at Christmas and go shopping more in December as a result. That, too, is a fact.

I hope that we defeat the Honiton option and the total deregulation option. I hope that we will then vote in favour of the third opion--the KSS option. But that may not happen, as there may be a coalition against it. We shall then face the prospect of the six hour opening option between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays--not many shops would open at different hours anyway. If this last option is rejected too, I ask the House to consider that it might be better to leave the decision to local councils.

I thought about whether I could propose a valid amendment for a local referendum--the precedent was set by the Welsh decision-making process on Sunday drinking--but I cannot validly propose the idea in this Bill. My local council decision option is at least better than keeping the law as it is.

There are different views in different communities. For instance, in my urban London constituency I am sure that there are stronger views in favour of Sunday opening, even though I do not believe in that, than are held in rural Herefordshire or rural Suffolk. We should respect that diversity. England and Scotland are already different--as are different areas in Switzerland, for that matter. The enforceability question is also important in this context. Those who should decide about the local rules should be those who are legally obliged to carry out the enforcement. If they think that they cannot enforce a tight option, let them decide as much, and vice versa.

This option would also allow a change of mind. If, say, Southwark council decided to vote for six hours between 10 am and 6 pm but after five years the local community said that that was a pain--the traffic was awful, and so on--the council could change its decision. This is a way of turning the clock back. Either way, local authorities will be able to decide what is best for their areas. Some communities are multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-racial, others are of predominantly one faith, one culture and one ethnic background. That is the glory of Britain, and let us respect it. Local environmental issues also vary. A supermarket may be sited next to a lot of houses in one area but far from them in another. The Sunday drinking precedent worked well in Wales, where Sunday drinking has been allowed in one district but not in another. That solution respects local views and

Column 365

allows local people to participate in the process. Local communities can get involved in the debate. I am worried about legislating with one answer to meet the breadth of views being expressed in this debate. How much better it would be if the issue could be handled in a non-partisan manner by local people. I do not believe that Parliament should enforce one view on the communities of widely varying local authority areas. If a certain community wants to keep Sunday special, let it do so. If shops opening in another community will cause a nuisance to residents, let them decide.

Dame Angela Rumbold : Would the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages this working? I can understand how it would work in a country district, but I am confused as to how it would work in a big metropolis, where there would be far more pressure for everyone to go for one option or another. It would be difficult for local authorities to hang on to their communities under the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has fairly described my proposal as the least worst solution. What the right hon. Lady says holds true only for London, because all the other metropolitan areas are one local authority. Uniquely, London is not.

I ask colleagues what the greater good is. My answer is a cycle of work and rest, upheld by us, within which people can make as many choices as possible. As for my "least worst" option, if we cannot come to another conclusion, I suggest that the decision should be taken by local communities. We should certainly not leave them under the present nonsensical law. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is an acceptable fallback, if we need one. It is better to allow people to have their say than to perpetuate a nonsensical law.

Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West) : I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We are all aware that Sunday trading is one of the most vexed issues to come before the House in recent years. I have never known a time when a lar issue is made more difficult for us by the voting arrangements, because the first amendment to command a majority wins all. That means that we will never know whether another option might have commanded a bigger majority had we been able to vote on it. That puts us in an unusual procedural position.

We all agree that the existing legislation is full of anomalies. We all agree that it is a bad precedent for the law to be flouted, especially when law breaking is carried out by prestigious major companies, which should behave within the law. Sainsbury and Tesco would be quite happy to seek redress from the law if their windows were smashed. They expect the law to be respected when it defends their interests, but they are prepared to break it when their profits are at risk.

Ms Glenda Jackson : The hon. Gentleman has underlined a point made in a letter from one of my constituents, who pointed out that, although the big

Column 366

retailers are not prosecuted for opening illegally on Sundays, someone caught shoplifting in one of those stores most certainly would be prosecuted.

Sir David Mitchell : The hon. Lady has summed up exactly the point that I was trying to make.

I believe that Sunday should be a day for leisure and for the family. Our Good Lord said :

"Six days shalt thou labour But the seventh day is the sabbath". I believe that the modern effect of that instruction is that we should have a day free from stress in which we can recharge our batteries and sustain family life.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir David Mitchell : I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend because long speeches have been made and I want to make a brief one.

If one accepts the idea that Sunday is a day for leisure and for the family, it logically follows that the businesses that should be open should be those that enable people to enjoy leisure pursuits and enjoy a family day. That means almost all the businesses, apart from supermarkets, which now open normally on Sundays.

Full deregulation is said to be popular, but we need to keep its effects in mind. It is important that the House is aware that the danger is that that opinion may lead to short-term popularity and long-term damage.

The village and corner shops rely heavily on Sunday trading. We already know that many of those shops are trading at the margin. It will not take much to tip them over into loss-making concerns. Their closure would mean that a facility upon which local communities rely would be lost.

Local communities in villages or urban areas rely on the corner shop because of their convenience. They are convenient for the elderly who may have difficulty in travelling to supermarkets, especially if no bus service operates. They are convenient to the less well-off who cannot afford to travel some distance to supermarkets for their shopping. The loss of the village shop is too high a price to pay, and once it is paid it will never be possible to get that shop back.

It is also important to draw attention to the effect of Sunday trading on prices. Joe Public's spending power will not be any greater because of trading on seven days instead of six ; he will simply spread his spending power over that time. Similarly, shops that decide to open for seven days will find that their costs will increase, and eventually they will be passed on to the consuming public.

The restrictive solution, which allows shops under 3,000 sq ft--a reasonable size--to trade on a Sunday, is worth considering because it would include the village shop, the corner shop, the newsagents, video shops, chemists, florists, tourist shops, farm shops, sport centre outlets, theatre and cinema shops and petrol station shops. Those shops that are not bound by any size restriction include off licences, take-aways, cafes, public houses, pharmacies, vehicle hire shops, motorway service shops, airport shops, post offices, undertakers, wine warehouses, garden centres, DIYs and motor supplies shops. They will be able to open on Sunday for the sale of leisure goods. No restrictions would be imposed on Sunday markets. On any basis, that means that a great amount of shopping could be

Column 367

done on a Sunday by those who particularly wanted to do so. For that reason, I am against the concept of total deregulation. Partial deregulation would allow supermarkets to operate for six hours. Today, those supermarkets that are breaking the law open for eight hours. Once it is legal for all to trade, the amount of available business will barely be enough to fill six hours and no supermarket will want to trade for more than that time. What we have been given in the supposedly split-the-difference solution is total deregulation to the extent that the supermarkets want to have the opportunity to trade on Sundays. The law breakers now trade for eight hours, but when everyone is allowed to trade I am sure that, given the business available, six hours would be sufficient.

7.15 pm

I believe that the KSS-RSAR amendment is a little too restrictive, but I shall vote for it because we will be able to make further changes to it in Standing Committee and on Report. We can offer a more relaxed formula for Sunday trading, which is what I would like, but if we voted for total deregulation there would be no turning back. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will vote for the more restrictive of the three options and, having done so, that it will seek to amend it as the Bill completes its further progress through the House.

Ms Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) : We all agree that the Shops Act 1950 is in desperate need of reform. It is important to reflect on exactly what has happened in recent months.

Hon. Members have made it plain that they do not condone law breaking and nor do I. I share the concern that has been expressed about the fact that the Government should have stepped in sooner to try to make it easier for local authorities to enforce the law. I hope that what has happened has made it plain to us that it is the responsibility of Parliament to pass a law now which is enforceable, workable and meets the wishes and needs of the majority.

There is no doubt that the majority of the public want shopping choice to be extended. They want to be able to shop on Sundays. If they did not want to do so, there would be no point in shops opening.

Most hon. Gentlemen may rarely be responsible for shopping for a growing family. They should understand, however, that women, and working women in particular, value the extra choice that Sunday shopping offers them. Several months ago the organisation Working Women for Sunday Shopping was established. Its co-ordinator wrote to me recently to report :

"Since Working Women for Sunday Shopping was launched last month I have been inundated with letters from women questioning why legislation should dictate what they can or cannot do on Sundays. Poll after poll has shown that working women want the shops to open on Sunday. 83 per cent. of those surveyed by MORI said they would find Sunday trading convenient--69 per cent. want to see more shops open. The majority of women are now active in the workforce, very many are juggling the competing demands of home, work and family--seven day opening is a necessity for them, not a luxury."

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Anderson : If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak. One of the problems that has been apparent throughout the lengthy debate on Sunday trading is that those who

Column 368

want to keep the shops shut have been the most vocal. For a long time they have told us that the shops must be kept shut in the name of employee protection. They said that the Government would never agree to the voluntary principle for Sunday working and that workers would be forced to work if shops were open.

Now, an albeit reluctant Government have included a guarantee of voluntary working. They have changed their tune again. Before the Minister of State beams too broadly, I must tell him that I have serious reservations about the Bill's proposals and I hope that we will be able to toughen them in Standing Committee. As he will also know, it is a priority of Opposition Members that there should be a principle of double time for Sunday working.

Those who want to close shops on Sundays say that such protection is meaningless and that there are higher principles at stake than the thousands of shop workers who will lose their Sunday work if shops shut. Shop worker unions which unanimously reject that message are simply the tools of management rather than genuinely representing their members' views.

I should like to read an extract from a letter from the deputy general secretary of USDAW to Members of Parliament. USDAW should be congratulated on listening to the views of its members. The letter says :

"If you wish to follow the Shop Workers' Union position, you will need to vote as follows :--

Total deregulation (1st Vote) No

Keep Sunday Special (2nd Vote) No

6 Hour Option (3rd Vote)-- YES

Many thousands of USDAW members are currently working on Sundays and, provided that working is entirely voluntary and they are paid at double- time rates, they wish to continue to have that opportunity. If the KSS proposals were to go through this would deny many of our members the opportunity to work and would have a significant effect on their income. USDAW members are mainly located in the large stores and large companies and there is little organisation, if any, in small shops and the majority of them do not pay double-time and may not have even followed the Wages Council rates."

Mr. Sheerman : I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but that is not what I heard. Perhaps it is a total calumny against USDAW, and I have a lot of friends in USDAW, but is it not a fact that Tesco marched the executive of USDAW in and said, "Change your mind or we will recognise another union"? That is why USDAW changed its mind ; it had nothing to do with principles.

Ms Anderson : I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point as it is a misconception that has been doing the rounds in recent days and weeks. I have seen the statement from the USDAW executive which categorically states that the union held a meeting with 96 of its shop stewards, 93 of whom said that their members wanted to work on Sunday.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones : My hon. Friend has just read out some correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament from the union USDAW. Let me read a short extract from a letter from USDAW sent to me on 16 December 1992 saying :

"The Shopping Hours Reform Council. . . after all, is backed by employers who have already ridden rough shod over the current law protecting shopworkers from Sunday working and we have no confidence in them when they say they are prepared to protect shopworkers in the future."

What has changed?

Column 369

Ms Anderson : I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I shall tell him what has changed since that letter was written. The major retailers to whom it refers have made a statement saying that they would be happy for the voluntary principle and the entitlement to premium pay to be written into legislation. Clearly that has had some effect.

Those who want the shops shut tell us that Sunday shopping destroys family life. Yet what causes most disruption to family Sundays--an open pub or a branch of Boots? Most people do not live in 1950s-style happy families who come back from church to a Sunday roast. Many people cannot afford a Sunday roast these days. There is a huge diversity in the way people live their lives in the modern world and, although that nostalgic view may be tempting to some hon. Members, shutting shops will not bring it back.

Mr. Lord : Is the hon. Lady aware that the Home Office commissioned what I hope is an unbiased report into the effects of the various options we are considering on jobs in the retail trade? It did not concentrate on part-time or full-time jobs, but stated that, if the KSS proposal is accepted, there will be 5,000 more jobs in the retail industry. If partial deregulation is accepted, there will be 5,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry and total deregulation would mean 20,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry. Surely the hon. Lady must be concerned about that.

Ms Anderson : I am extremely concerned about jobs. That is precisely why I shall be supporting the six-hour option. We estimate 80,000 Sunday- only jobs would be lost under the more restrictive option.

We are told that the restrictive option will help small shops. They should try telling that to small shops that depend on their Sunday trade and would be forced to shut on Sunday. It will destroy the attractiveness of tourist destinations and rip the heart out of ethnic minority shopping areas which are dependent on the percentage of their groceries goods. The idea that browsing in a second-hand book shop on a Sunday afternoon is a threat to civilisation is absurd.

Some people will say that, if Members of Parliament vote for Sunday shopping, they will be giving in to commercial lobbying.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about small shops, may I ask her whether she agrees that the issue is not that there has been a decline in the number of small shops over many years? It has had nothing to do with Sunday trading but with the development of very large stores. To reverse that, we would need to close very large stores not just on Sundays but on every day of the week. There is now a different shopping pattern. Several years ago, two superstores opened in my area. There has also been a small increase in the number of small shops. The small shops are mainly Asian and not necessarily against Sunday opening. People go to the big stores for the weekly shopping and down the road to their local shops on Sunday. That is what I do.

Ms Anderson : I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He is quite right.

Many people suggest that Sunday shopping will be giving in to commercial lobbying. However, there are commercial lobbies on every side of the argument. For every Tesco arguing for opening, there is an Iceland

Column 370

arguing for closure. Then they say that they will allow shops that people want to open. That actually means the shops that men want to open. DIY stores and motor accessory shops will be allowed to open, although the wording of the Bill is so restrictive that real DIY shops probably will not be able to open. Any outlet selling alcohol will be allowed to open, but supermarkets and clothes shops uniquely threaten family life and therefore must shut.

I understand and accept that few want Sunday to become just another day of the week. That is why I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will reject total deregulation. However, Sunday is special because it is the day when people have most choice about what they do. Some go to church, others play sports, others visit friends and family while others simply laze about with the Sunday papers. That will not change if people are allowed to shop as one of their Sunday alternatives.

Sunday is still special in Scotland, yet shops are free to open. That is why I hope hon. Members will support the partial deregulation option. It is the only option before us tonight which reconciles the wishes of those who want to shop with those who want to work--particularly women--and at the same time make sure that Sunday will remain just a little special.

Sir George Gardiner (Reigate) : I shall try to speak more briefly than some earlier in the debate, to whom we listened with fascination.

A pervading theme so far in the debate has been that Sunday should be a special day. Many go further and argue, as Christians, that the law must reinforce the requirement in chapter 20 of Exodus, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).

I understand that many church worshippers wish to obey that injunction in their weekly lives reinforcing the special nature of Sunday. I consider myself a Christian and a somewhat irregular churchgoer and regard Sunday as a day different in character from the rest, but the question that I ask myself is what moral right have I, as a Member of Parliament, to dictate to the rest of the population how they must spend their Sundays, especially as a majority of them do not wish to abide by that literal injunction of the ten commandments.

Mr. Harry Greenway : Does my hon. Friend accept that Parliament constantly dictates to the citizens of the country on almost every subject under the sun?

Next Section

Home Page