Previous Section Home Page

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Mine.

Ms Ruddock : -- saying that there was a lack of wisdom, but I did not say that ; he is mistaken. He knows from our discussions and deliberations in Committee that, on that matter, I shall probably be on the other side, although there have been matters on which we have agreed. I know that the hon. Gentleman very much wanted to see some amelioration of environmental impacts should they occur after the Bill be passed.

I believe that protection is required, particularly in relation to older premises, many of which are situated in residential neighbourhoods. As I said in Committee, I believe that many stores would not need to have any deliveries on a Sunday ; many do not have perishable goods and there is no reason why deliveries should be made.

However, where they are taking place--I believe that there would be fewer than on other days of the week--there is a need to try to see that the least possible disturbance is caused. The modest provisions of the new clauses and amendments should be eminently workable, and are patently in the interests of those who live adjacent to such stores and who have every right to expect some protection from increasing commercialisation.

Finally, much could be done in addition to early morning restriction of deliveries. A number of changes have already been entered into by some companies in consultation with local authorities and have led to a considerable reduction in noise nuisance during existing weekday deliveries : the re-routing of delivery vehicles, a common request with which we would expect all firms to comply where it is possible ; development of acoustic loading bays ; use of wooden pallets ; and secondary double glazing of residents' homes. Those are all proven examples of positive local action to ameliorate the environmental impact of large-scale deliveries.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : The hon. Lady mentioned doubling glazing of residents' homes. Obviously that is a benefit. Does she agree, however, that that is the benefit of last resort, that limiting the emanation

Column 287

of noise is the key factor, and that, when one has to double-glaze, it is an admission that one has failed in the first place ?

Ms Ruddock : I accept that. The force of the new clauses and amendments is that there should be prevention rather than cure. Of course those measures are measures of last resort, but it is important that we note that such things have been done, that there are examples, that companies have been obliged to take such measures to protect local neighbourhoods. Those measures are important. The burden of my case is that we should expect all possible measures to be put in place if the Bill becomes law.

Many local authorities have been conscious that prevention is better than cure, and have therefore built into their planning consents restrictions on Sunday activities, such as the time when deliveries may be made or, in some cases, that no deliveries are allowed. These constraints tend to apply only to the most recent supermarket and other large store developments.

Furthermore, I believe that, if the Bill becomes law, companies will seek the lifting of the existing restrictions.We are pleased to have on the record the Minister's assurances, given in Committee, that a new Sunday trading law could in no way provide automatic relief from those restrictions ; none the less, we feel that these new measures are necessary.

I believe that hon. Members will welcome the protection from the curse of noise nuisance that the new clause and amendments would give their constituents. Large companies must consider themselves under a public duty to reduce noise wherever possible ; while we must expect them to make much of that effort voluntarily and willingly, the prohibition of early morning loading and unloading would give more force to what I am sure all hon. Members want--the protection of the local environments of our constituents.

Mr. Alton : The new clause and amendments are worthy of our support, because they constitute an attempt to improve the Bill ; I am tempted, however, to see them as yet another example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. How much easier it would have been had the House decided at a much earlier stage to limit Sunday opening to small shops.

I was extremely disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that, although no changes had been made to provide proper employee protection and no guarantees had been given on such issues as premium payments and double-time working, she was prepared to budge at all in the votes that will take place later. Those votes will give the House a chance to think again, and to try to undo some of the damage done by earlier votes.

Mr. Fabricant : Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether he agrees or disagrees, the House decided on 6 December that shops should be allowed to open on Sundays ? There was no three-line Whip--at least on either Labour or the Conservative party--and, given that the House made the decision, it is arrogant in the extreme to argue in Committee and on Report that it should be deferred.

Mr. Alton : The hon. Gentleman should realise that, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, it remains a Bill, and we in the House of Commons-- and, indeed, the other

Column 288

place--have the right to reform it at any stage. When hon. Members voted at an earlier stage, they did so with a false prospectus before them : they were told that emplolyment protection would be provided, but it was never set out in the Bill. Nor were they told that the House would be presented with another Bill--the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill--which would allow shops to open from Monday to Saturday, 24 hours a day. If they had been told that, I do not believe that they would have voted as they did.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : Some hon. Members--including me--voted on the options before us after saying, in points of order, that the way in which we were being asked to vote was wrong, and that employment protection should have been debated first. We voted conditionally, on the basis of what that employee protection

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The debate is about loading and unloading, but we are moving very wide of that subject.

Mr. Alton : The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) makes a fair point, however. I shall return to the new clause immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is fair to point out that votes were conditional. That is my response to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : We repeatedly warned that that would be the result, and that shopworkers would be affected. Now Opposition Members are ruing their actions.

Mr. Alton : The hon. Lady reinforces my point : hon. Members voted without the necessary information before them and with no knowledge of the other agenda with which they would be presented.

Now there are attempts, such as those in the amendment, to tidy up the Bill, to give it a more attractive face, but those are superficial amendments and the House should not be conned into believing otherwise. The amendments before us are, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, modest. That is a charitable use of the word. They are minor amendments, which will simply tidy things up.

If we think about the real environmental pressures that are linked in the amendment to the trading and the opening of shops on Sundays, we can obtain some idea of what will happen when Sunday becomes yet another Saturday. There will be increased energy consumption, greater air pollution and greater noise.

I draw the attention of the House to a report that appeared in The Independent on 6 December 1993 :

"A shift to widespread Sunday trading could result in an extra one million tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted when the Government wants to cut ten million tonnes per annum from Britain's present emissions in 2000, to comply with the Rio climate protection treaty."

In other words, however much good the amendments do in trying to reduce the environmental impact on a Sunday, widespread Sunday opening will have a catastrophic effect on the environment because of the extra noise, the extra air pollution, the extra wear and tear on road surfaces, and the traffic that will be generated as a result of all that extra trading.

There is clear evidence of lower levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide in London on Sundays at present, which makes life easier for asthmatics. How much worse it will be for them--and for

Column 289

anyone else who cares about their children, in the light of reports that we have seen in the newspapers recently about the high concentration of air pollution at the level of prams and cots, as people take their children on walks through high streets. They will not even be able to do that on a Sunday in the future without coming into contact with that air pollution.

In addition, the cross-party Association of District Councils warned of the dangers from Sunday trading in increasing traffic congestion, which would force them to levy the increased costs of traffic wardens on the motorist through car park charges. That report appeared in the Financial Times on 10 December 1993.

I believe that those reasons show why we are wrong, as a House of Commons, to give widespread powers to shops to open as and when they wish on a Sunday, and indeed every other day of the week, but, if they are going to do so, new clauses such as this at least try to limit that. For those reasons, I would give what the hon. Lady called "a modest amendment" my support.

Mr. Lord rose

Mr. Alton : Before concluding, I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lord : Are not all the things that we foresaw starting to happen ? We are discussing noise in the vicinity of supermarkets, but we have to think of policemen, of traffic wardens, of refuse collection and of those people in local authorities whose job it is to regulate shops and their activities. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is all coming about as those of us who did not want Sunday trading prophesied. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not too late for those people who think that they were misled earlier in the debate to change their minds today and ensure that we keep our Sundays.

Mr. Alton : The hon. Gentleman is right. All those things were laid before the House, but some people felt that the arguments about employee protection would be met later ; that they were conditional

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not discussing employment protection : we are discussing loading and unloading. The hon. Gentleman must get back to the new clause.

Mr. Alton : I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try not to be led astray again.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : Will the hon. Gentleman express a view on the subject of arrogance in dealing with relevant issues now ? Surely it is the job of the House, and the business of elected representatives, to make the necessary changes--if changes are to be made-- now, before the Bill becomes law. Is it not arrogant to suggest otherwise ?

Mr. Alton : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, I not only think that we should support the amendment now, modest though it is, but hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his argument forcefully to the House in later debates.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : New Clause 1 on unloading and unloading demonstrates well the dangers

Column 290

and difficulties that arise with Sunday trading. The Government are supposed to be taking regulations off people's backs, but here are more regulations. As the schedule relates to unloading before 9 am, lorries will arrive before 9 am, disturbing other people en route. Local authorities will have to apply for powers to deal with that problem, but I already have a problem in my constituency. Lorries make deliveries to a 24-hour operation called Allied Colloids, where there was a major fire about two years ago. There is a group of houses near the factory to which lorries make deliveries at all hours, although Allied Colloids has asked them not to do so. At 6 am or 7 am, people have to ask the lorry drivers to switch off their engines or move away. Some drivers are helpful and co-operative, while others tell them to get lost.

4.15 pm

Lives are being permanently disrupted because of gross pollution. Hon. Members are in a difficult position. The new clause is designed to remedy such pollution and the intrusion into people's lives. By and large, they will agree to the clause because they believe that it might help people who will be oppressed by this wretched legislation.

However, those are only peripheral matters. The very existence of the new clause is a recognition of the fact that lives will be intruded on by deliveries and unloading. Pollution and noise will be created first, and only after they have occurred will people, as a reaction, have to try to stop them. The fact that the new clause is necessary is a measure of the deterioration that will occur on Sundays.

The new clause is a sop to get the legislation passed. The sop will no doubt be accepted by the House, but there is an alternative. If hon. Members are seriously concerned about providing decent quiet lives for people--and, incidentally, about providing protection for people who work on Sundays--they must vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Wolfson : I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because some of his constituents are clearly in exactly the same position as some of mine. My constituents have two problems.

The first involves an organisation called the West Kent Cold Store in Sevenoaks from which lorries move at all times. There are some limitations on their movements, but it is a continual battle to get them to conform. My experience is that, by and large, the traffic commissioners tend to give increased leeway to such companies when they apply for a more liberal regime which means that the residents lose out time and again.

The problem will, of course, get worse when there is an increased demand for activity on Sundays. Sundays will be busier and there will be more traffic and more lorries waiting outside people's homes with their engines running to keep the refrigeration going, whether or not it is allowed. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, when residents remonstrate with a driver they get a mouthful. That will be no more pleasant on a Sunday than on any other day of the week.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, I understand the arguments being presented. This week, we have been told that we should not pass legislation that will be difficult to police. Some of us have had experience of trying to get the law on quietness enforced six days a week

Column 291

but what will it be like trying to get this law enforced on the seventh day ? Will it not be impossible to enforce properly ?

Mr. Wolfson : It will certainly be very difficult to enforce, which brings me to my second point.

Under the new law the local authority will be given increased powers. Will the Minister clarify for me whether there will still be the opportunity for companies to appeal against its decisions, so that they can be overridden ? When Sainsbury's opened a superstore in Sevenoaks, which we were happy to have, no sooner was the ink dry on the consent to build, the building ready and the store about to open, than the company appealed against the original restrictions set on traffic movement. I want to know whether that difficulty will be adequately dealt with, because in my experience superstores tend to get what they want, even if it takes a long time for them to get it.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The council's decision will be made through its power to pass a resolution to take advantage of the new schedule introduced by the new clause. If a store does not like a local authority's decision-- for instance, if it has applied to the local authority to deliver before 9 o'clock and been refused--as things stand it may go for judicial review if it can argue before a judge that the decision was unreasonable. That is the only route available, but it is the usual route with administrative decisions of that nature.

Mr. Wolfson : I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position.

Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Although the hon. Gentleman is thanking the Minister for clarifying the position, does he agree that he has clarified it into such a mess that it can hardly be untangled ? Will we not have to untangle what the Minister said about the process and the judicial review that he suggested would have to take place ?

Mr. Wolfson : If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to develop my argument I shall come to that.

Certainly my hon. Friend has clarified the position, but my experience of the way in which the superstores look to their own opportunities at the expense of local residents does not make me feel optimistic about how the provision will work. Superstores have the resources, the opportunity and often the desire to go to judicial review, so that may well happen.

I support the new clause and the amendments because they help to deal with a problem that the House has created by agreeing to a relative free-for-all on Sunday trading, but I firmly hold to the view that I greatly regret our having taken that decision. Having seen some recent Sundays in London, I know that the city is already becoming a great deal busier than before the decision was taken. As other hon. Members have said, we are already seeing many of the problems that were aired on Second Reading coming to light. The amendments are designed to deal with them, but they will not deal with them satisfactorily.

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness) : In general terms, the amendments should be welcomed. If they are carried, as I suspect they will be, they will represent a modest improvement to the Bill. But, following what the

Column 292

hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, I must tell the House that I have some specific concerns about the collection of amendments, especially No. 49.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the position on appeals against local authorities' decisions, and the Minister said that any company that had received an unwelcome decision from a local authority could exercise its right to go for judicial review.

The group of amendments and the other issues that we shall deal with today concern matters that are in the main related to planning. It is normal and customary for there to be an appeal to a planning inspector in respect of planning applications, so it is rather bizarre for the Minister to tell the House that the best solution for a dissatisfied company is to exercise its right to go the High Court and seek judicial review. That is an immensely expensive option. I wonder whether underlying the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's question is something of a lack of preparedness on the part of his Department with regard to the issues raised by these amendments.

I should like now to say something about my second concern with regard to the amendments. They lay down a detailed procedure relating to local authority decisions on any restrictions that are to be imposed on the delivery of goods at a superstore on a Sunday. I welcome this move, but it seems that the amendments contain nothing concerning a procedure for revoking a council's original decision. We know what will happen when a council wants to exercise its powers under these provisions, but what procedure will it have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision ?

As the amendments are constructed, it is reasonably clear that a council will be able to exercise its powers only if a written application is received from a company that wants to open a large shop on a Sunday. What will happen if, for example, as a result of complaints from residents, a council wants to tighten restrictions that it has imposed--perhaps to lessen noise or inconvenience ? What revocation procedure does the Minister have in mind ? It seems to me that the amendments contain nothing to address that issue. The Minister may well say that a council wanting to revoke a decision will simply have to pass a new resolution. It seems to me that the amendments contain no such provision.

Mr. Lord : The hon. Gentleman is talking about judicial reviews and a whole variety of processes. Is not the history of this problem one of people hiding behind long, drawn-out legal processes, whether in this country or in Europe ? Those of us whose constituencies have noise problems can envisage the judicial process grinding along for months, if not years, while the lorries continue to run and the noise and all the other problems remain.

Mr. Hutton : I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about delays in the legal system, though it may well be outside the scope of the amendments. One of the problems about judicial review is that delay is built into the system. I am not here to argue the case for the supermarkets and the big superstores--they have their own lawyers--but it seems logical that these amendments should incorporate an appeals procedure. This is quite clearly an omission, which I hope the Government will take into account in another place.

The crucial point is that the amendments contain nothing by way of power to revoke a local authority's

Column 293

original decision. As I have said, it is hardly good enough, by way of response, to say that a local authority can pass another resolution amending its original decision. Such a procedure does not appear to be envisaged in the amendments.

Anyone looking at amendment No. 49 will see that a local authority must carry a resolution within 21 days of submission of the written application to the local authority. In the nature of planning applications--and it is right that these amendments should be considered as an aspect of planning procedure--21 days is a remarkably short period. I wonder whether it will be sufficient to enable the consultation with residents that the amendments envisage. I have in mind in particular a number of superstore developments right in the centre of my constituency that continue to cause immense disturbance to residents. I do not believe that the period of 21 days is sufficient for consultation that most council taxpayers would think acceptable.

With these quite substantial reservations about their accuracy and comprehensiveness, I express my general support for the amendments, as they represent an improvement in the Bill. My point to the Minister is simply that there are three gaps or holes in the new clauses and amendments on which I urge him to respond and reconsider and, if necessary, in another place ask his right hon. Friends to table further amendments.

Mr. Lord : Throughout the debate, some of us have argued that if Sunday is totally deregulated it will become just another day of the week-- just another working day. We all know that from Monday to Friday or perhaps Monday to Saturday, 9 am is the time at which we all start work--perhaps not in the House but in schools and most offices, it is the beginning of the working day. Thankfully, until now 9 o'clock on Sunday has not meant a great deal to anyone. The time at which we go to church or go about our Sunday activities is not scheduled like the rest of the week.

On the specific point dealt with in the new clause, by talking about "9 o'clock", "before 9 o'clock" and "after 9 o'clock", we are admitting that we are bringing Sunday into the working week and no longer is it a special day.

4.30 pm

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : The point that I should like the Minister to clarify for me in the light of the amendments is whether any assistance will be given to local authorities in funding the additional costs that will inevitably occur. In my constituency, the two supermarkets that come to mind are older and literally cheek by jowl with residential areas. It will not be sufficient for the local authority simply to write yea or nay on the application by the owners of those supermarkets to trade on a Sunday. The local authority will physically have to change parking arrangements that already exist and, indeed, are posited for my constituents.

To make such changes is no small thing. Will the local authority be assisted with changing notices, repainting lines and redefining bays ? If one of the superstores wishes to open on a Sunday, residents of the street will have no right whatever to park in the spaces because it will be physically impossible for a lorry to draw up to the delivery

Column 294

bay. That is where my constituents, and their families who may be visiting, park their cars on Sundays when parking restrictions in delivery bays are lifted.

On the face of it, the procedures proposed in the new clauses and amendments seem simple for the local authority to undertake. They are simply the granting or denying of permission for lorries to deliver at 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. However, for my constituents in two particular areas, if such permission is given, it will not only be vastly deleterious to their Sundays by virtue of the noise that they will have to endure, the fumes that they will have to breathe and all the points that hon. Members on both sides of the House have already made, but it will involve costs for their local authority. I believe that those costs will be sizeable.

One of the earlier points was about the cost of policing this particular arrangement. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that the best policemen would be the residents. He said that they could alert their local authority on the day if noise was worrying them. But that presumably would mean that the local authority had to set up on that Sunday, either at the town hall or in some office so designated, employees to take phone calls, log complaints and forward complaints to the necessary committee. There will be a great deal of hidden expense for local authorities in the new clauses and amendments, if the House sees fit to pass them. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some idea of whether central Government will assist local authorities, if the Bill is passed. If not, will the Government enter into negotiations with the owners of superstores to help relieve local authorities of an undoubted financial burden ?

Rev. William McCrea : I shall not detain the House long in speaking to these new clauses and amendments. I want to point out two things. First, while the amendments are an improvement on what we had before, they are an acknowledgement that the legislation on Sunday trading is flawed. If the Bill goes through and becomes law, it will cause serious problems and anxieties to local communities. The amendments themselves are an acknowledgment of problems that were dismissed with a wave of the hand in the original debate and were regarded as foolish, not only by the Government Front Bench but by the Opposition Front Bench--something which genuinely surprised me because there are a lot of other rights that I thought they would have been concerned about.

Ms Ruddock : If I have understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Opposition Front Bench has not been concerned about these issues or has not expressed such concerns. I can assure him that if he reads the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill, he will see the extent to which we were concerned, as shown by the number of amendments that we raised. If he had listened to my opening remarks today, he would know full well that I dealt in detail with our concern about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. I relate our responsibility, as I said earlier, to the fact that the House made a decision. The decision having been made, our task has been to try to ameliorate some of the effects which we agree would be adverse.

Rev. William McCrea : I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but it was the Front Bench of the Labour party who, with other hon. Members, helped the Bill through, so

Column 295

they cannot now say that they have a particular concern. We should not be discussing the legislation today had they joined many other hon. Members in taking a particular stand on Sunday trading, so they cannot piously wipe their hands now.

Coming back to the issue--I could easily be led off the track by the hon. Lady on this particular issue, and one would not desire to do that--of lorries and deliveries after 9 o'clock, mention was made of the large stores having adequate legal advice of their own on this. They also have adequate resources of their own.

The people who concern me are those in the community who have few resources or none at all with which to defend their rights. They are being cast aside. Ordinary members of the community will be unable to afford to establish even the rights that this Bill would give them. That is why I believe that the legislation is flawed and why I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will think again, if they are really concerned about the Bill's environmental and other effects on the community.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : There is one question, in particular, that I should like the Minister to answer. He refers, in new clause 1 and amendment No. 49, to local authorities having the right to agree to applications for loading and unloading to take place at big stores before 9 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) made an important point when she referred to the expense incurred by local authorities in introducing this provision. The Shops Act 1950 puts a responsibility on local authorities which over the past 10 years they have failed to meet, yet the Government have taken no action whatever to ensure compliance with the law on Sunday trading. Can the Minister tell the House what action he will take if this new provision becomes part of the law and the local authority does not implement it, either because it is not prepared to meet the expense involved or for any other reason ? It is possible that large companies such as Tesco, B and Q and a number of others will put a lot of pressure on local authorities to allow them to be serviced by this agreement.

We know the problems that are encountered when large shops are serviced by large vans, as happens on weekdays and, illegally, on Sundays when such shops are open. I do not want to encourage the two branches of Tesco--one each end of my town of Bridgend--to be serviced in that way. I do not want my authority to grant those stores licences allowing big vans to load and unload before 9 am on Sunday. Bridgend is a market town of some 25,000 to 35,000 people, and the district has always enjoyed the tranquillity of Sundays. But the position is getting worse by the week, with more shops and large stores opening. If the licence is granted, it will cause great concern and difficulty.

Listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), I was alarmed at what I thought I heard. My hearing is not all that good and I do not know whether I caught what she said correctly. I am of the firm belief that the Bill must contain employment protection for people who deliver goods to the stores and are expected to work on Sunday.

In the last debate on the Floor of the House on the subject of transport workers, I read out a letter from start to finish. I shall not read it out again today as it can be seen in the Official Report . The letter dealt with the protests of workers who will have to drive their lorries early in the

Column 296

morning to deliver and take away goods from big stores. Those people do not want to work on Sundays. Most of them--long -distance lorry drivers--say that they have never worked on Sundays, but will be expected to do so in the future.

Employment protection is highly relevant to the group of new clauses and amendments. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said that she thought that we had won some employment protection measures from the Government through minor amendments. I am not satisfied that the Government have made any amendments involving employment protection that would allow the Opposition Front Bench team to support the Government. We should not support the Government unless they give us more guarantees on employment protection before the end of the debates. Those guarantees should be stated clearly and precisely by the Minister so that we know the exact position.

Ms Ruddock : I shall help by hon. Friend and the House, without passing comment on my hon. Friend's hearing. I have not mentioned employment protection at any time during my contributions. The most important vote will be on Third Reading, and we have made it clear that that is to be a free vote.

Mr. Powell : I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I presupposed her remarks, but I have probably saved myself a later intervention as she has been warned of my intentions.

Before we vote on this group, particularly amendment No. 49, I should like an assurance from the Minister that local authorities will implement the legislation and that the Government will not show the indifference that they have shown to the Shops Act 1950. 4.45 pm

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I thought that this would be a short debate and did not even propose to reply to it. I shall not respond to most of the issues raised because many of the contributions rehearsed general attitudes to the Bill. They did not engage in debate on the principles or practicalities of the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : My hon. Friend spoke of matters that we have rehearsed, but the Opposition were under a misapprehension. They thought that they had won certain conditions which we warned them that they would not be granted--the ball game has changed.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : My hon. Friend seems to be saying that the ball game is just the same.

I shall reply to three questions posed on new clause 1. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) animadverted that the new clause was prepared quickly. He was right--I made an undertaking in Committee and wanted to produce the new clause on Report. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is no appeal process. I am aware of that and I will certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman's words to see whether it might be sensible, in another place, to introduce an appeal process. I am not convinced that it would be for two reasons. First, it would lead to some extra expense for local authorities--that in itself is not decisive. Secondly, it would encourage some companies to appeal rather than simply obey the local authority's determination. The possibility of a judicial review remains, but I would not encourage people to take

Column 297

that option--although it is widely used-- unless they felt that the procedures and the reasons used by the local authority were unreasonable. The judicial review remains a possibility for anyone who seeks to use it in relation to an administrative decision. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, on which I shall reflect. Usually, it is the Opposition who call on the Government to find ways of setting aside decisions. I am willing to be convinced, but I am not yet convinced. I shall consider the matter and there will be an opportunity to adopt the proposal in another place should it seem sensible to do so.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible for a local authority to revoke permission once given. Yes, it would be possible to revoke permission or to provide additional conditions. A local authority could do that and, no doubt, there will be occasions when it will want to do so.

Mr. Hutton : The Minister says that the local authorities have the power to revoke an earlier decision. What procedures will they have to follow if they want to do that ? The new group of amendments and new clauses contains no information about the procedures that a council will have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision.

Mr. Lloyd : A local authority would have to use a fair and equitable procedure. It would doubtless do so on the basis of complaints received from local residents or knowledge that noise and disturbance were being caused. The local authority would have to talk to the store and its suppliers to see whether the problem could be remedied and to draw the store's attention to its displeasure. That would be done when consultation had taken place, but failed to resolve the problem. If the local authority did not do that, it would lay itself open to a judicial review because it would be proceeding unfairly and unreasonably.

Next Section

  Home Page