Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
No. 8, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
No. 10, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
Mr. Forth: The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), said on Second Reading that
"the Bill is based on the provisions of the 1994 Act. The Bill will adopt the same exemptions from prohibition as contained in the Act".[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1156.]
He then went on to list those exemptions. I thought at the time that an opportunity had been missed simply to carry forward the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wanted to do that: a large part of his argument was that there was an anomaly or a loophole in the 1994 Act and that the thrust of what we are being asked to do now was to rectify it. Given, however, that we have had 10 years' experience in dealing with these matters, it might have been more appropriate to use this opportunity to revisit the exemptions in the 1994 Act to see whether they were still appropriate.
I recall that reservations were expressed in 1994 about the list of exemptions. I could, of course, have gone back through all the debates and rehearsed the speeches all over again today, which might have been amusing, and even slightly informative, but which would have been more than a little tedious. None the less, it is relevant to
18 Jun 2004 : Column 1002
reconsider schedule 1 to the 1994 Act, which I seek to amend. Some of the exemptions caused puzzlement at the time, and they may still do so.
The first exemption was any shop at a farm where the trade or business carried on consists solely or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm. I suspect that, then and now, that is relatively uncontroversial. Farm shops are unusual in many ways: they are, almost by definition, remote from most community centres; they are largelyif not exclusivelyfamily businesses; and they conduct, again almost by definition, a fairly restricted type of business. That was uncontroversial then and it is uncontroversial now.
The next exemptionconcerning any shop whose trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquorleads one into all sorts of different territory. In the debates on Sunday trading at the time, I remember people using the phrase, "Why booze, not Bibles?" It seemed odd that we were permitting the sale and purchase of intoxicating liquor on a Sunday, but not of a Bible.
The next exemptions concerned shops involved with motor supplies and accessories, and cycle supplies and accessories. Also exempt were registered pharmacies and shops selling medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances. Shops at designated airports and at railway stations were exempt, as were service areas, petrol filling stations, and, intriguingly, any stand used for the retail sale of goods during the course of an exhibition.
I thought then, and do now, that the list was interesting, puzzling and not a little anomalous. I suspect that it was rather arbitrary at the time, and it seems so now. It raises the question as to how far one seeks to make exemptions to a general provision covering trading on a Sunday, as it was then, or Christmas day trading, which we are discussing now.
The thought occurred to me that we should perhaps seek to remove some of the exemptions rather than carry them forward. I was intrigued that the hon. Member for North Durham did not seek to do so in proposing the Bill. I am not just a closet libertarian, but a full-blown practising libertarian, and I will now revert to that part of my nature.
Mr. Brazier: I am enjoying this morning enormously, but I particularly enjoyed my right hon. Friend's use of the phrase "that part of my nature." I am so pleased to discover that there is also a strongly conservative part.
Mr. Forth: I like to think that I am a conservative libertarian; perhaps that will help my hon. Friend.
We should think seriously today about the list of exemptions in the context of Christmas day; hence my amendments. The first change that I suggest returns to the question of booze and Bibles, but goes wider. Of all the stores that were to be allowed to open on Christmas day, it seemed odd that we were not allowing bookstores to open on Christmas day. That is not just because someone might feel the sudden urge to buy and read the Biblenot a completely unlikely occurrence. Also, someone given a book token as a Christmas gift might like the opportunity to use it to buy a book on Christmas
18 Jun 2004 : Column 1003
day itself to read to their children, for family entertainment or to fill in those hours of Christmas day during which television is unutterably awful.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Parents could take their children to any church in the land, which they would find open, where they would be able to peruse the Bible free of charge. The following day, having introduced their children to the experience, they could go to an open bookshopso there is no need for bookshops to be open on Christmas day.
Mr. Forth: That may be the case, but my hon. Friend could not guarantee that the version of the Bible that they wanted to read would necessarily be available at their local church. Despite the fact that I am not a churchgoer, or indeed a practising Christian, I know that there are many splendid versions of the Bible. The local church might be one of those ghastly, trendy, modern ones with one of those ghastly, trendy, modern Bibles. My hon. Friend's constituent might want the authorised version to read.
Mr. Howarth: As churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I can assure my right hon. Friend that I shall make it my business to ensure that the King James version is available to all those who believe in the proper rendering of the Bible. In Aldershot all will be well, and I shall try to ensure that the same is available throughout the country.
Mr. Forth: I admire my hon. Friend's assiduity and I am sure that his constituents will be as grateful to him now, and at the next election, as they were at the last. However, that does not solve the problem. We are legislating nationwide, and not allowing local discretion; I rather wish we were, and we may return to that question in future. Given the context of the list of exemptions, it strikes me as peculiar that we are allowed to buy the items I listed but not books.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's line of argument is interesting, but I wish to question the definition of a shop that sells mostly books. I understand that he has mentioned people buying the Bible, but would large licensed sex shopswhich may sell mostly books, but sell other things as wellbe allowed to open on Christmas day?
Mr. Forth: The answer would, I presume, be yes. I simply carried forward the wording from the 1994 Actthe hon. Gentleman did the same in his Billand that refers to shops whose business consists "wholly or mainly" of the sale of intoxicating liquor etc. The same would apply to a shop whose business consisted wholly or mainly of the sale of books. I make no distinction about the sort of books, because I believe that in a free society, adults should be able to buy any sort of printed material.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |