House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Dec 1993

Mr. Sheerman : Some of the companies in the forefront of this campaign used to be names that we regarded with great admiration. We used to think that the Sainsburys of this world were progressive companies in the retail trade, but they have changed. They have led this charge ; they have led this lawbreaking. Is not that disturbing and astounding?

Mr. Llwyd : I entirely agree ; it has been a disgrace. Those companies should be ashamed of themselves, driven as they are by only one motive--profit. That is abhorrent

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : They also have their customers in mind.

Column 394

Mr. Llwyd : The hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber long. She has been here for five minutes, whereas I have sat through five hours of debate. Let us have an element of decorum.

Those companies should be ashamed of themselves because they have been selective about adhering to the law. If a person is caught shoplifting, whether on a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day, he is likely to be prosecuted.

Time and time again, local authorities have turned a blind eye to lawbreaking. Some have decided as a matter of policy not to enforce the law, but I am sure that others are unable to do so because of financial constraints. I hope that the Committee will vote for the second option, but that new law can only be adhered to if local authorities are able to ensure that it is upheld. It is no use saying that some local authorities will police the law and others will not, because we would then be back at square one. We must ensure that local authorities have the resources to police the new legislation carefully and properly. They must prosecute all fairly and without fear. The Home Office must accept the scale of the problem and ensure that the local authorities receive the required resources to perform their function.

9.15 pm

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimates that 1 million tonnes of additional CO emissions will result from complete deregulation and the resulting extra traffic.

It is important to remind the Committee of one topical, important point. When the Government introduced VAT on fuel, with which I disagreed, they argued that it would lead to a reduction of 1.5 million tonnes in CO emissions. In one fell swoop, however, we could drive a coach and horses through that intention, because total deregulation would sanction the emission of an extra 1 million tonnes of CO . That point is not peripheral to the argument because we live in the world and we have a duty to protect our environment. If the Government are truly committed to the Rio agreement on emissions, they should take that on board.

The only viable option is the Keep Sunday Special option. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option because it will give the consumer what he needs, protect smaller shops and give larger retailers a say. It will also ensure that workers' rights are preserved. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option.

Mr. Couchman : I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate.

Last week, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading by a massive majority. It did so for one good reason--the law is in disrepute. It has proved to be unenforceable because it is shot through with anomalies. Tonight when we vote, however, we must ensure that we do not support an option that will create similar anomalies and contention.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) produced a most interesting option at the very last moment. It is, however, a complete nightmare. Who will tell housewives who run out of something on a Sunday morning that they cannot buy the necessary groceries from the corner shop? That is absolutely beyond the pale. It is not possible to support something so fundamentally flawed.

Column 395

Mr. Butterfill : We are on common ground so far.

Mr. Couchman : My hon. Friend might care to listen.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested that it might be possible to amend his option in Standing Committee. That seems to me to be an entire cop-out.

We are then faced with the possibility of total deregulation, which was proposed most eloquently and powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). It still has a good deal of attraction for me. I voted for total deregulation in the unsuccessful attempt to reform the law in 1986 and I still feel considerable warmth towards that option. However, I do not expect it to succeed in the Committee tonight.

For a long time, I have nailed my colours to the mast of the Shopping Hours Reform Council compromise--the only real compromise among the options that are offered.

I have a great deal to say about the Keep Sunday Special campaign. I view it as a complete nightmare for lawyers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that it would be a real field day for lawyers if we were to end up with the Keep Sunday Special option.

It seems that there is a certain amount of dissembling among those who proposed the RSAR option, which has now become the combined KSS-RSAR option. In Scotland, Marks and Spencer opens two of its stores on Sunday. It announced several months in advance--even before the shopping centre was open--that a recently opened store would be open on Sundays. Marks and Spencer led the way and was not led by others. That gives the lie to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) earlier this evening.

Much has been made of the way in which Marks and Spencer is preserving the small shopkeeper. I found an interesting article on a shuttle bus which it runs to the Fosse Park shopping centre in Leicestershire. The shuttle bus runs through all the villages, taking the villagers away from the small village shops and putting them in the large store at Fosse Park.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Couchman : I shall not give way at all because I have sat here for five hours waiting to make a short contribution.

Mr. Lord : Marks and Spencer did not break the law.

Mr. Couchman : My hon. Friend says that Marks and Spencer has not been breaking the law, and indeed it has not. However, it may well be that Marks and Spencer is preparing for a change in the law. I understand that, when stores are interviewing applicants for new jobs, potential employees are asked whether they would be prepared to work Sundays. There has been a certain amount of dissembling on that matter. If the law changes to allow Marks and Spencer to trade legally south of the border, as it is doing north of the border, it certainly will do so. We should do away with the dissembling on that issue.

It seems that the Keep Sunday Special option totally ignores the social changes that have occurred in the 40-odd years since the 1950 Act was passed. It ignores the fact that many more women go out to work but remain the principal shoppers in households. Sunday shopping has come as a great boon to them. I visited a shop in my constituency

Column 396

where many families were doing their weekly shop as a family because mum could come out, too, because she was not at work as she was during the week.

There is a demand for a liberal change in the law and not for a more restrictive change in the law. Half the population who regularly shop once a month on a Sunday do not want to find themselves with a more restrictive choice than they have now. The list of exceptions that the KSS option would allow leads one to believe that that option has been drawn up in a way that is as near Sabbatarian as its promoters could get away with.

Much fun was had by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the fact that I like to go to antique shops on Sunday. I only wish that I could have responded to his suggestion that, in future, I will have to go to B and Q for my antiques. That seems a most unlikely place for antique collectors to spend their leisure time on Sundays.

There are, as we have heard from various hon. Members, bakers, butchers, book shops, boat yards, car showrooms, caravan showrooms, carpet shops, compact disc sellers, charity shops, china and glass shops, clothes shops, confectioners, craft shops, curtain and blind shops, electrical shops, furniture shops--even greengrocers--jewellers, kitchen shops, lingerie shops, pet shops, shoe shops, stationers, textile shops and toy shops.

Mr. Sheerman : On a point of order, Dame Janet. That is a very tedious list. This is the Committee stage of the Bill, yet hon. Members are getting up and refusing all interventions. Will you rule on that? It is quite extraordinary that hon. Members are starting their speeches by saying that they will not take interventions and then they go on to read long and boring lists.

The Second Deputy Chairman : The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether to permit an intervention. I am not able as Chairman to judge the value of a speech unless it becomes tedious repetition.

Mr. Sheerman : It is.

The Second Deputy Chairman : It has to be considerably more tedious than that.

Mr. Couchman : Thank you, Dame Janet, for your support. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has made many interventions during this debate. My point is that, among those many categories of shops--mostly small shops-- some 39,000 will not be allowed to trade on a Sunday. That will mean that 39,000 shops that are currently trading, either legally or illegally, will have to close under the KSS option. Many thousands of workers will lose their Sunday work, alongside the 80,000 who now work for the major stores-- the supermarkets--on Sundays. What sort of worker protection do the proponents of the KSS option view that to be? It seems to me that it is no option whatever.

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not speak for much longer. We need some form of compromise, because many people hold deep reservations about Sunday shop opening. In reforming the law, I believe that the Committee must take those worries into account. The restriction on large shops, which is in the SHRC option--the six-hour option--will mean a freezing of the present situation and we shall not see many more shops

Column 397

opening on a Sunday. If the partial deregulation option were passed, Sunday would continue to be maintained in a special way and the specialness that all of us crave would be preserved.

Whatever we do by way of reform to this outdated and anomalous law, we should ensure that it is durable. The one thing that we do not wish to see coming back next year is a shopping hours reform Bill. That is what will happen if we end up with a restrictive and regulatory option such as that proposed by the KSS campaign. If, as I suspect, total deregulation does not gain favour with the Committee, I hope that it will give massive support to the alternative compromise SHRC proposal.

Mr. Soley : I intend to be brief and speak in support of the SHRC position, and bring in a couple of new points, which might seem a little difficult after so much time. I shall touch equally briefly on a couple of points that have already been mentioned.

The importance of the employee's rights has been mentioned. I would vote against legislation if I thought that it was against those rights. As the main trade unions, including one of which I am a member, have concluded that the compromise proposal is in the best interests of their members, I am not in the business of telling them to go back and tell their members that they are wrong. Nor am I in the business of telling them to go back and renegotiate. That is an important point, and so far as I am concerned, it deals with that issue.

My second point is about small shops. Again, if I felt that a measure that extended shopping hours would cripple small shops, I would be tempted to vote against it. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Bench to listen to me. I do not want to take too many interventions, but when they have heard what I have to say, one of them may wish to intervene and, if so, I shall consider giving way.

The important point to remember about the regrettable decline of small shops is that it started long before the Sunday trading issue. It is the result of the growth in supermarkets and large stores. In the debate, hon. Members have blamed the growth of the great stores for closing the small shops and said that if they open for another day, yet more small shops will close. That theory is not correct and it is not supported by the experience in my area or by a look at the types of shopping.

9.30 pm

When people go to the large superstores, particularly those out of town, they tend to do a different type of shopping from the shopping they do at local shops. They stock up for a week, 10 days or two weeks ; they buy in bulk and it does not matter what day of the week they do that. If one went on the Wednesday because the shop was closed on a Thursday, Sunday opening would not make much difference to the pattern. It makes little odds what the day is. If I cannot go on a Sunday now, I will go on a Monday, but if I can go on a Sunday, I will not go on a Monday.

If hon. Members really believe that Sunday opening will lead to the decline of the small shop, they should listen to my experience. Only a couple of years ago a couple of large stores--both Sainsbury--opened in my area within about five miles of each other with my main patch,

Column 398

Shepherd's Bush, right in between them. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if I could have a little less noise around me. There should have been a decline in the number of small shops in the area as a result of those two stores opening, but in fact there was probably a marginal increase, although not one connected with Sunday shopping. People go to the large shops on Sunday but down the end of the road for local shopping. That is what I do where I live in Shepherd's Bush. If I want five, six or 10 items, I will go down the road for them, even on a Sunday, when I go to my local Asian shops, whose owners are not in favour of the KSS option, or at least have not told me that they are. On the other hand, if I want to stock up for a week or two, I go to the nearby Sainsbury store, or whatever.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soley : I will give way, but I do not want to give way too often because of the lack of time.

Mr. Gapes : I thank my hon. Friend. Is he arguing that there is a limitless increase in the amount of goods that will be bought in the shops to which he is referring? Is there not a finite amount of shopping that will be done, and if that amount is spread over a longer time, will not that result in higher overheads and other costs?

Mr. Soley : I would like to think that it was as simple as that, but as is so often the case, there are variables. My hon. Friend has not taken into account the changed nature of shopping. If he was right in his argument, the situation in Scotland would have changed much more drastically. However, the argument that Scotland is different does not wash. I lived in Scotland for a number of years and I know that there is not much difference between the areas around Glasgow and Edinburgh and those around London. There is a far greater difference between living in London and living in the southern rural areas. One must also take into account the change in shopping patterns, which is vital.

Hon. Members have spoken about family life. It is hard to determine what improves or makes worse family life in an issue like this. The majority of shoppers are women. That is changing, I am pleased to say, but it is still true. I would like to think that hon. Members, like me, have gone shopping with young children. Those who have will know that going to shops with young children on one's own is a difficult job.

It is far better to go to the shops with another person. One of the advantages to the family, and to the mother, of shopping on a weekend, whether it is a Saturday or Sunday, is that there is partnership of people to shop and look after children. Another equally important option, which I employ, is to share the child care--either stay at home with the children while the other partner goes shopping, or vice versa. It is therefore not an argument to say that Sunday trading undermines family life. There is considerable evidence that it makes family life much easier and that it certainly makes the woman's role much easier.

The majority of representations that I have received from women are in favour of that sort of flexibility.

We must also be careful about the impact of technological change. Superstores grew in number because with the growing availability of cars and fridge freezers people were able to travel to those stores and stock up for a week or more.

Column 399

We must also consider another imminent situation in which people will sit in front of their television sets and order goods by telephone. If we are to go down that road in a few years, we must be clear about whether that will be allowed to happen on a Sunday. Technology drives social change. Whether that change is the growth of superstores or the ability to shop by telephone and television is marginal to the issue before us. However, it is critical if we kid ourselves that we can stand in the way of that social change. We must ensure that we protect certain values and rights. We must protect the rights of the employees to the satisfaction of the trade unions involved and ensure that we do not introduce anything that is destructive of family life--there are some advantages. Logically, to protect small shops, the big shops would have to close. That would allow growth in the small shops, but apparently nobody is arguing for that.

The SHRC approach is the best option, not because it is perfect but because the others do not bear the analysis which is sometimes applied.

Mr. Cormack : The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) always makes a thoughtful and interesting speech, as he has done tonight, although I could not follow his logic or his argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who had hoped to participate in the debate, a few moments ago handed me an interesting quotation of the words of an eminent neurologist, Dr. James Brown. He said :

"We doctors, in the treatment of nervous diseases, are compelled to prescribe periods of rest. Some of these periods are, I think, only Sundays in arrears."

It is an interesting observation from a medical man. I stand full square behind the special nature of Sundays. It is not a question of whether one goes to church ; it is a question of a day when the tempo of life is slower, when the family can be together more and when it is different from the rest of the week.

I have always opposed the deregulation of Sunday trading because I am completely against a high-street Sunday. I do not want Saturday to be replicated the day after and if there is total deregulation through either of the deregulation options before the Committee, Sundays will certainly be a second Saturday. I also oppose the deregulation of Sunday trading because I strongly believe in the value of small shops. Members of Parliament have a prime duty to those who are most vulnerable in society. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) who talked about the rich and powerful. We do not have to worry about the rich and the powerful a great deal. As we have seen in recent years, the law has been flagrantly violated by those who ought to know better. We are concerned with protecting those who are less able to protect themselves--small shop keepers, workers in shops and those who live in modest houses who will suffer the greatest disruption from the clutter and bustle of a high-street Sunday.

Let us consider those three categories one at a time, beginning with the small shopkeeper. I am afraid that I was not convinced by what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. I believe that they would suffer in one of two ways--they would be driven out of business or forced to open on Sundays and people who work all around the clock would lose the little rest and recreation that they sometimes have.

Column 400

I was much influenced by a letter that I received from the National Organisation of Asian Businesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is a member of its advisory board. I fully respect her position but it is certainly not in accord with that of the organisation which urges us to support the RSAR initiative, allowing shops of up to 3,000 sq ft to remain open on Sundays.

Small shops perform a significant and signal service in rural areas such as mine, where they are often the centre of the community where people gather, and in urban and suburban areas where they are the corner shops. They would all be endangered by the unrestricted Sunday opening of the large shops. There is no doubt about that. The second category concerns those who work in the shops. I am especially worried about the total inadequacy of the well-meant provisions in the Bill which are supposed to give some protection. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to quote a contract circulating in the Wolverhampton area. I received a very sad letter from a lady who received a copy of that contract. She drew my attention to a clause in the contract which states : "If it is decided that your branch will trade on a Sunday or a Bank holiday, you may be asked to work on these days. Your employment is subject to your full agreement to this condition of employment." What option does the ordinary shop worker have if there is unrestricted Sunday trading? As has already been said, if Sunday ceases to be special, there is not much of a logical case for arguing for double time or overtime, so shop workers will suffer whatever happens.

The third group of small people are those who live in modest terraced houses and other accommodation in or near the centres of towns and cities. Their lives will be disrupted by the clutter and clatter of the commercial Sunday. When I listen to debates on this topic, I often think of Oscar Wilde's words about people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. We have a duty to know the value of Sunday, and we should not allow it to be driven out of our heads by purely commercial instincts.

I urge all hon. Members to realise that if we abolish the special nature of Sunday, we cannot call it back--it will be gone for ever. If we accept the Keep Sunday Special option, linked with what I call the Marks and Spencer option--meaning that shops would be allowed to open for the four Sundays before Christmas--we could amend and adjust it to meet changing demands. Total deregulation, however, would mean the removal of all restrictions to the disadvantage of everyone. I end with two examples to support my argument. The first involves the effect of total deregulation on many of our town centres and cities. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members know Dudley in the west midlands, which has become a ghost town since the opening of the Merry Hill shopping centre. Such competition sucks the life out of a town--the hoardings go up, the criminals come in, and the town is dehumanised. I believe strongly that we would be doing a great disservice if we allowed that to happen everywhere, which would be the result of total deregulation.

Secondly, I think that it was the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who mentioned Good Friday. Many hon. Members must remember when commerce stopped on Good Friday. It was an extra day of the year--another Sunday, if you like--when people could

Column 401

sit back ; whether or not they went to church, it was a day of rest and recreation. For the more serious people it was a day of contemplation ; and for the even more serious it was a day of contemplation about the most serious thing in their lives. Good Friday is now another commercial day. One can drive down the main streets of any of our towns and cities, in almost any part of the country, and the cash tills are ringing and the queues are there. The rest, the recreation and the opportunity for contemplation has gone for ever. If we move along that road tonight, we will condemn every Sunday to go the way that Good Friday has gone in so many parts of the world.

I urge all right hon. and hon. Members not to throw away something that is priceless and beyond recall. The special character of Sunday is priceless. If it goes tonight it will be beyond recall.

9.45 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I apologise for missing the earlier parts of the debate but I was delayed by traffic. I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshir MWe have heard some specious arguments tonight. For example, according to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the more people break a law the less likelihood there is of that law being upheld and therefore we must change it. It is a strange argument. Perhaps I am more aware of that because I come from Northern Ireland.

I did not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). In this debate at least, my experience has been that trade union officials--having entered into agreement with some of the bigger stores to collect dues--have been protecting their jobs rather than those of some of their members.

The debate is about whether we go for further materialism or stand for other values. I declare my interest without any ambiguity as an ordained minister of the word and sacraments. We are living in a materialistic society. Reference has been made to the Jews, Moslems and Christians, and we all accept the principle that one day in seven must be kept different. In other countries, where the predominant religion may be Jewish or Moslem, their specific day is different. Because of our heritage, traditionally our's is the first day of the week.

When people were arguing for Sunday football and Sunday sport some years ago, one of the arguments was, "We must play on Sunday because Saturday is the only day that we can go shopping with our wives." When the premier league was introduced and the main matches played on a Sunday were televised, it was amazing how many found that they could play football on a Saturday because they were not getting the gates on a Sunday. That reflects the materialistic spirit that is passing through our world.

Reference was made to Germany and France. It is not surprising that those who have been leading the advance to

Column 402

totally deregulate Sunday trading in this country are now beginning to spread their wings and seeking to influence thinking in France and Germany.

The Government are calling us back to basics. Tonight is an opportunity to get back to the basics of the decalogue and to remember that the fourth commandment is one of the fundamental basics that gives us a day of rest, when we can recycle ourselves and opt for values that are more important than profits.

Mr. John Marshall : Having listened to every speech, I shall resist the temptation to comment on all but one--that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose integrity, principles and commitment to Christianity we all accept, but some of whose conclusions are not acceptable to me.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's kind comments about the Jewish community, and his observation that that community honours Shebat. I suppose that I represent more orthodox members of the Jewish community than any other Member of Parliament. When I go around Hendon on a Saturday, I can guarantee that orthodox Jewish families will also be walking around my constituency. They do not do so because there is any lack of temptation. Nearly all the shops in Golders Green open on Saturdays, as do virtually all the shops in Hendon. Those families could go to the shops at Brent Cross, or to the cinema, but they do not do so for reasons of conviction-- and I believe that Sunday will remain special through conviction rather than legislative fiat.

Mr. Donald Anderson : I was trying to make a point about the value of family life. I am certain that, if deregulation were introduced--either immediately or by stages--it would impose an undesirable additional pressure on the family. In many cases, a key member of the family would not be present on that one day.

Mr. Marshall : There is no reason why family life should be destroyed by partial deregulation, as recommended by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Over the past few weeks, I have visited a number of supermarkets and have noted the instances in which father, mother and children go shopping together.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of the way in which seven-day trading can aid family life. I asked a gentleman of about 50 who was shopping in Asda, "Why are you shopping today ?" He replied, "I shop for myself on Saturdays, and on Sundays I take my elderly mother out in the car so that she and I can shop together. That is the only way in which she can visit the supermarket : it is open on Sundays, and I can go with her and help." That is family life--a son helping his elderly mother. It would stop if supermarkets closed on Sundays.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Is not one of the greatest joys of childhood sitting on a supermarket trolley while the parents do the shopping ?

Mr. Marshall : I went to a supermarket with my children last weekend -- [Interruption.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

Column 403

Mr. Marshall : My children thoroughly enjoyed the experience, although I did not enjoy paying for their extravagances ; they thought that I should buy whatever they selected.

The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the supermarkets had been breaking the law. Every shop that has opened on Sunday has been breaking the law for generations : every shop that has sold a bag of sugar or Tetley tea bags--Tetley's beer can be sold on Sundays, but the tea bags cannot--or a can of beans has broken the law. Every shop that would benefit from the amendment supported by the hon. Member for Swansea, East has been breaking the law. The argument that lawbreakers must not be allowed to benefit is an argument for voting for none of the amendments.

Over the past few weeks, an unholy alliance--a marriage of convenience--has been created between the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR campaigns. It should be remembered that the two campaigns came together only because they knew that individually they could not get their proposals through the House of Commons. It is the most disgracefully restrictive and protectionist group of retailers imaginable.

Waitrose does not want to open Sundays. I would not force Waitrose to do so, but why should it stop Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury opening on Sunday? Marks and Spencer wants to open only four Sundays a year. Why should it prevent British Home Stores or Woolworth opening the other 48 Sundays? Marks and Spencer wants to deny consumer choice and to restrict competition. Marks and Spencer wrongly claims that it will be forced to open on Sundays if the SHRC option succeeds. One only has to look at the experience of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee to realise that if shops were allowed to open on Sundays in England, Marks and Spencer would not be forced to do so and would not do so most Sundays.

Keep Sunday Special's decision to get into bed with the RSAR was completely unprincipled. When we debated the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) earlier this year, one understood that the hon. Gentleman was advancing the principle of no trading on Sundays by the big boys. We no longer have that principle, but we are told that there should be no trading except on four Sundays. Why four and not six, eight or 10? No one has said. We have been told that shops should only trade on the four Sundays before Christmas, and see the KSS campaign supporting the commercialisation of Christmas. I find that completely-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Sheerman : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is difficult to hear the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and a rumour that is circulating is adding to the noise. The rumour is that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has withdrawn his amendment, which would change the voting pattern. If that rumour is true, right hon. and hon. Members should know before they flood out of here and into the wrong Lobby.

Column 404

The Chairman : It is not for the Chair to listen to any rumour that may be circulating. If any right hon. or hon. Member wants to withdraw an amendment at any time, it is up to him to do so. At this point, the Committee is debating amendment No. 35 and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has the Floor.

Mr. Marshall : Much of the debate has been muddied by discussion of the small shopkeeper. It is amusing to see Marks and Spencer, which has been competing against small shopkeepers for generations, suddenly come along and say, "We are terribly concerned about the small corner shop." Marks and Spencer could not care two hoots. It is amusing also that Iceland, which has been trying to win business from the small corner shop, says, "Vote for our option to help the small corner shop." It would be more honest of Iceland to say, "Vote for our option to benefit Iceland"--because that is what it seeks to do. The dramatic decline in the number of small shops in the 1980s had nothing to do with Sunday opening by supermarkets, because they did not open on Sundays then. It all had to do with a changing pattern of retailing, which presented small shops with intense competition, not from supermarkets but from petrol stations.

The test is simple. What would benefit the consumer, what do workers want and what do local authorities, which will have to enforce any change in the law, want? Local authorities prefer deregulation. They consider the SHRC option to be tolerable and the KSS-RSAR option to be intolerable, because it is riddled with illogical concepts.

This evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, "Vote for the KSS option so that you can buy antiques in a DIY store on Sunday." Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the public would go to B & Q to buy a George IV desk? What arrant nonsense. How out of touch is my right hon. Friend. The consumer enjoys Sunday shopping. Several million people shop on a Sunday. One of the reasons they do so is that supermarkets give good value. The supporters of KSS and RSAR want to keep convenience stores open. I went to a convenience store and a supermarket on a Sunday. In the convenience store, I had to pay 38p for a pint of milk. In the supermarket, the cost was 25p. Why should the pensioners of Hendon be prevented from paying low prices for their milk, bread and Nescafe? The supporters of KSS want to stop the pensioners, the low-paid and those who are not well off in my constituency from enjoying the benefits of cheap prices on Sunday. There is nothing moral about Labour Members voting to impose higher prices on my constituents.

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman-- left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Next Section

Home Page