Previous SectionIndexHome Page


7 Feb 2003 : Column 553—continued

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Does he also consider that the activities of these multiples have a knock-on effect on smaller shops, which are effectively forced to put the same pressure on their workers to survive in a highly competitive environment? That is why we must have legislation that will curb the more aggressive retailers and protect workers in smaller or independent outlets who would otherwise come under the same pressure.

Mr. Brown: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman's excellent point. For my part, I have looked around and learned a lot in the short period I have been here. In particular, I have looked at the retail sector and supermarkets and some of the things that happen in everyday life as a result of pressure from what we call the big boys. Pressure is imposed by reputable companies, or companies that are seen as reputable, which has a knock-on effect. That hits home in the more rural areas. At one time, some of the new stores that were about to open were struggling, and it may be a cause for congratulation of this Government that unemployment in my constituency has fallen significantly. With unemployment being so low in my area, it is difficult to find people to take up the job opportunities that come along. That may be good in one respect, but it creates difficulties in another. It is extremely worrying, however, if employers can see a chink of light that allows them to exploit an opportunity. That is why this is seen as a loophole, although I see it as a major gap. Something must be done to make sure that the working

7 Feb 2003 : Column 554

environment and life for people who give of their time to serve the public in shops and stores are made much better.

In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde—the constituency used to be Greenock and Port Glasgow. If we think that we have difficulty in determining who represents which constituency, that is nothing compared with what we will see once the Boundary Commission for Scotland finishes its exercise. Obviously, there will be fewer of us, and, as I have said for a long time, not many members of the public will shed tears at the thought of 13 MPs suddenly disappearing. Perhaps that is an argument—and a battle—for another day. I also congratulate other parliamentary colleagues, on both sides of the House, on coming here this morning. It is important that we offer the same protection to shop workers—and betting shop workers—in Scotland as we have done to others who work in that sector elsewhere in the UK.

10.33 am

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on both his good fortune in achieving such a favourable placing for his Bill and his good sense in introducing such a splendid measure. However, I dispute the history that is given as the official version in the documents supporting the Bill.

The Christmas and Sunday trading factsheet issued by the Department of Trade and Industry consumer and competition policy directorate states:


Even the explanatory notes—which do not form part of the Bill, and for which the Department, not the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, is responsible—state:


That is absolute nonsense. I well recall my childhood in Scotland, but I do not remember any shops—other than the small corner shop—being open.

Malcolm Bruce: Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the real version of the history is that Sunday trading laws did not exist in Scotland because the power of the Church was sufficient for people to withhold Sunday trading voluntarily?

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I shall come to that later. I can recall a time, however, when one could not get a drink in Scotland on a Sunday unless one was a bona fide traveller and one went to a hotel. I hasten to add, however, that at that time I could not legally purchase a drink. Nevertheless, that was the case.

7 Feb 2003 : Column 555

As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has pointed out, such were the cultural and religious certainties that Sunday trading did not take place, so there was no need for the law to protect Scottish workers.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I am glad that my hon. Friend has touched on what he describes characteristically as cultural and religious certainties. One of the things that has always intrigued me about these debates, which occur from time to time, is the comparison with the United States. As he knows, religious observance is much more prevalent there than in this country, as is church attendance, yet the American people manage to combine a belief in God, church attendance and a relaxed Sunday, on which many of them shop—and work and shop—perfectly satisfactorily.

Mr. Swayne: They are fortunate indeed.

Mr. Forth: Sensible.

Mr. Swayne: I, too, credit them with good sense. The reality is, however—I suspect that this is based on my prejudices rather than my knowledge—that religious leadership in the United States is somewhat more robust than it has been in the United Kingdom. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is infinitely preferable that workers' rights should be protected by cultural values and certainties than that we should have to have recourse to the law to make up for deficiencies in that regard.

Mr. Tom Harris: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that a more or less informal agreement among shop owners in Scotland has only recently broken down? It is only because of the betrayal of Argos that this new legislation has had to be introduced. Previously, a voluntary agreement existed.

Mr. Swayne: I entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is right. I will deal with that point shortly.

As briefing material for this debate, I sought a statement from the Lord's Day Observance Society. It provided me with a very lengthy statement, from which I will extract just one or two lines:


The society goes on to catalogue a long list of what it regards as direct consequences of Sunday working. I would go as far as to say that Sunday working may have been a contributory factor in many of those social phenomena, but I do not think that the finger can be pointed to it as the main cause. It is probably a phenomenon in itself rather than the root cause of many of society's evils.

I would like hon. Members to keep in mind the telling phrase in the Lord's Day Observance Society statement about our


7 Feb 2003 : Column 556

I shall shortly come to the issue of Argos in that regard.

Mr. Forth: I am intrigued to know whether my hon. Friend thinks that the long-term decline in church attendance in this country is a long-term secular trend that one can trace far back. Does he detect any acceleration in the decrease in church attendance since the Sunday trading provisions were changed in England or Scotland?

Mr. Swayne: There has been a very long-term decline. My right hon. Friend may wish to go back to the days when there were recusancy fines in England to ensure that people attended church, but I suspect that he does not. In church last Sunday, my vicar, who had recently attended a conference on the issue, gave us depressing statistics about the precipitous recent decline in church attendance. I cannot remember the figures—they were stark—but he suggested a parallel with the increase in Sunday trading. The reality is that there are many more things that we can do on Sunday. Even a churchgoer like me often thinks of many things that I would rather be doing when I listen to a sermon. Other opportunities exist.

In a society that is so fractured, I draw attention to one factor that did not exist to anywhere near such an extent 20 years ago. Sunday has come to be regarded as father's day for all those fathers who do not otherwise have access to their children during the week because of the breakdown of marriage. It is unlikely that they will spend that precious day in church with their children when they could go to an open shopping centre and enjoy all the facilities there. That is a powerful factor in the figures.

Anne Picking (East Lothian): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sunday is special to our constituents for all sorts of reasons? Above all, the Bill should be about employment rights and against discrimination.


Next Section

IndexHome Page