| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.18 am
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). As a fellow promoter of a private Member's Bill, let me say that he and I know how much skill it takes to succeed in the ballot.
This is a good Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it. I make it clear from the outset, that since the events of 18 years ago, this has been a conscience issue in my party, so I speak purely in a personal capacity. We have had a good debate and
interesting contributions from both sides. I did not agree with the bulk of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he brought to the House the erudition, knowledge and experience that he brings to all his speeches. This House is the better for having a strong defender of Parliament speaking out as he does five days a week, unlike the vast majority of us, who are only here on four days or even fewer.My right hon. Friend was right about one point, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). This is a good time for us to remember those people who necessarily have to work on Sundays. As the son of a soldier, and with many relatives in the medical profession, I am very conscious of that as we discuss this matter.
I warmly welcome the Bill. It is intended to protect not only retail workers, but, more importantly, their families and those who live around major retail outlets. I supported the restrictions on Sunday trading and thought that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was good because the old arrangements were being so widely breached. At least we now have some proper regulation to ensure that shops do not open early on a Sunday morning, which in practice many large shops were doing under the old arrangements. I should have liked greater regulation in that respect.
I make no bones about being pleased that the Bill publicly recognises the fact that we are still a predominantly Christian country, and I feel in no way embarrassed about that. Christmas is a very special day for families across the country—a day on which as many people as possible should have the opportunity to spend time with husbands, wives and children. We already have fewer public holidays than most other EU countries—eight, as opposed to 12 in Portugal and Austria, 14 in France and Belgium, and 15 in Germany.
The Department of Trade and Industry's work-life balance campaign recently found that nearly two fifths of adults in the crucial age group of 35 to 55—the majority of parents—feel that they spend too much time at work. Those people include the majority of parents. The DTI's second work-life balance study found that almost 38 per cent. of all employees work in occupations that from time to time involve working on Sundays. In the retail sector, the figure is well over that. It is staggering to think that, according to a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a higher proportion of people in this country than in any other feel that they have to work for longer than they wish for economic reasons. That has much to do with issues that go way beyond the scope of this Bill, such as overcrowding and the cost of housing. I do not think that it is a coincidence that our divorce rate is one of the highest in Europe—more than 50 per cent. higher than the average. The Bill seeks, in a modest way, to ease one strain on family life.
As the 24-hour society comes inexorably closer, partly encouraged by the instant nature of the internet, on which one can do or purchase almost anything 24 hours a day, it is inevitable that even Christmas day will come to be regarded by some as no different from any other day. I do not believe that, which is why I am glad to support the Bill. Shopping has become almost the new religion, and in the process we forget the retail worker. Almost any occupation that one cares to name will,
rightly, have its stout public defenders: nurses, doctors, teachers, farmers, alternative medicine practitioners, fisherman, police officers; the list goes on and on. There are always strong voices for those people in this House, but retail workers do not have a particularly loud voice, despite the large number of USDAW members. Yet roughly 10 per cent. of the work force works in the retail trade, the majority of whom are women. Many of those who already work on Sundays are single parents. A survey entitled, "The Changing Nature of Sunday 1994–1999" calculated that as many as 500,000 children could be deprived of their parent's or parents' attention on that common day off.Of course, increased opening hours affect not only workers, but anyone living in close proximity to a large shop who has to deal with delivery lorries, customer traffic, increased pedestrian activity and so on. The fact that stores are not allowed to open until 10 am on a Sunday gives people some relief, and it is right that they should enjoy full relief on Christmas day.
I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham will find it useful if I draw his attention to three small defects in his Bill. First, it refers only to shops opening, which applies to retail workers but not to other activities. We do not want simply to transfer the burden so that Sunday becomes the big day for restocking, for example. That would affect storemen and drivers and, in areas such as mine, could result in increased, not reduced, nuisance to people who live nearby.
Secondly, I wonder whether a fine of the size specified in the Bill would act as a deterrent to a large store. I am genuinely puzzled as to why it is included.
Thirdly, I hope that what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said about rural exemptions will be picked up. It is anomalous that the only shop in a rural area could be affected if it wanted to provide a small Christmas service.
Shona McIsaac: But it is a large store.
Mr. Brazier: Perhaps the hon. Lady was not in her seat when my hon. Friend spoke. The point is that a shop that has just passed over the threshold might be the only one a rural area.
Mr. Paterson: It exceeds the threshold of 3,000 sq ft massively. Because it is such a successful family operation, it is now 22,500 sq ft. The definition is much too blunt. As my hon. Friend suggests, the shop provides a very valuable service in a thinly populated rural area. Another one further down in Shropshire called Harry Tuffins would also qualify. There must be several such outlets that began as little family businesses, and have all those characteristics, but are physically quite large.
Mr. Brazier: With respect to my hon. Friend, the history of the business is not the relevant point. If the shop is genuinely the only one serving a very large area and has, for example, a pharmaceutical side or sells other essential things that people might need at short notice, there is scope for an exemption. There may be several such shops around the country.
The Bill must not be seen as an attack on large stores. In supporting it, the House should commend the fact that just over 90 per cent. of them choose to close on Christmas day anyway. However, it is right to create a level playing field.
I want to close by making one more personal remark. Earlier, we discussed libertarianism. I, for one, am not a libertarian—I am an old-fashioned Conservative.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): As are we all.
Mr. Brazier: I am delighted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on an awful lot of issues, although not, following his correspondence with one of my constituents, on people defending their homes.
My attitude to regulation is that it should be principled. I am proud of the fact that I am part of the party that, in the middle of the last century, introduced the Clean Air Act 1956, which was the first such Act and the cornerstone of subsequent environmental legislation. I am proud of the fact that in the middle of the previous century it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Factory Acts that got children out of the most dangerous places of employment. But principled legislation must be separated from the absolute detritus of paperwork that is besieging our small businesses, hospitals, schools and police stations. The Bill is an example of principled legislation: it represents a thoroughly good principle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brazier: Happily, although I was about to sit down.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I want to pursue the issue of regulation, because it is constantly raised by Conservative Members. Which employment regulations would the hon. Gentleman like to be withdrawn?
Mr. Brazier: Every time I visit a small business, a police station, a hospital, a school, or almost any other place where people are employed, they show me the huge quantities of paperwork that they are engaged in. It would go well beyond my brief in this debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. He has allowed himself to be tempted into territory that is not covered by the Bill.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your wise guidance. I shall avoid the hon. Gentleman's blandishments.
The Bill is an example of principled regulation. It is a good Bill that will have one narrow effect that I believe will be for the good of this country. I urge the House to support it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |