HL Deb 29 March 1994 vol 553 cc983-91

3.9 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee in respect of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee in respect of Clause 1 and Schedule 1.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Reform of law relating to Sunday trading]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, leave out lines 5 to 7.

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the Committee's approval I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

The aim of today's Committee is to enable the Committee to choose between the options for the reform of Sunday trading law. With the risk of spelling out the obvious—and I shall take that risk—the options are: first, total deregulation; secondly, partial deregulation, which is proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council; and, thirdly, regulation, which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform.

I do not intend to advise the Committee about the merits or otherwise of any of these options for reform —and I fancy that if I did, it would not make much difference. As I explained at Second Reading, the Government do not have a preferred solution. We recognise that although there is widespread agreement that the present law should be changed, there is no consensus about how it should be changed. The Government have therefore decided to leave the choice to Parliament. The Committee might find it helpful if I were to try to explain briefly the procedure which we might adopt today. I hope that I shall be acquitted of any charge of providing a "child's guide on voting". The principle of what we have to do is really quite simple, as I shall try to explain.

I prepared a memorandum on the voting procedure as an aidemémoire, and that is available in the Printed Paper Office. One noble Lord—rather ungenerously, I thought—said that he found the memorandum extremely complicated to understand. I replied that if it is complicated, I like to think that it is a good deal less complicated than it was before I put my hand to the tiller and addressed the problem —and the memorandum. But maybe therein lay the trouble. It does show that it is not always very easy to explain simply a simple problem. But, if I may have the Committee's indulgence, I shall try.

The Bill, as it now stands before the Committee, contains only one option; namely, that of partial deregulation, which is supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. In brief, this option allows all small shops to open at any time on a Sunday, but it limits large shops to opening for only six hours. This was the option which was chosen by Members of another place.

Members of another place started with all three options in the Bill. They had to remove two of the options, leaving the preferred one in the Bill. We, on the other hand, have the opportunity to remove the option which is in the Bill, namely that of partial deregulation, if we think fit, and to put in its place either regulation or total deregulation.

With agreement through the usual channels, we have grouped all the amendments together for the purposes of this debate. So there will be a single debate on all the options. When the Divisions come therefore I hope that it will be possible for them to take place one after the other without speeches being made on each amendment, as all the arguments will have been displayed in the one debate.

At the end of the debate the first vote will be on whether total deregulation should replace the option that is in the Bill. Those who support this proposition, should vote "Content" to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. If Amendment No. 1 is accepted, then Amendment No. 2 should be accepted without a vote as it is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. If Amendment No. 1 is not accepted, then I suggest that we should not divide on Amendment No. 2, which is, as I have said, purely a consequential amendment. If Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are successful, Amendment No. 3 cannot be called.

Once the Committee has decided the fate of the first two amendments, the next question, which might be taken formally, is whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. As your Lordships will appreciate, Clause 1 is a necessary part of the Bill whichever option the Committee chooses.

After Clause 1 stand part has been taken and, if Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not carried and total deregulation has not been approved then we shall come to Amendment No. 3. This represents the opportunity to replace the option which is in the Bill—namely that of partial deregulation—with the regulatory scheme which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. This seeks to prohibit shops from opening at all on Sundays —with exemptions for certain categories of shops. All shops, though, could open on the four Sundays before Christmas. Those of your Lordships who are attracted to this option should vote "Content" to Amendment No. 3.

Once the amendments have been dealt with, we shall complete today's business with the question of whether Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. If Amendment No. 1 has been carried then it would be consistent for the Committee to disagree that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, because Schedule 1 relates solely to the option which is in the Bill at present.

If the option which is in the Bill at present is removed, then so also should Schedule 1 be removed. However, if Amendment No. 1 has not been accepted, then those who support the option of partial deregulation which is in the Bill should vote Content that Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. When the question of whether Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill has been answered, the whole Bill will then be recommitted to Committee for the customary line by line scrutiny which noble Lords always give at the Committee stage of a Bill. It will then be possible to consider whether any fine tuning is needed. I hope that this is all abundantly clear.

Lord Elton

Can my noble friend clarify a point for me? He has described a process whereby one schedule has been removed from the Bill and another has replaced it, and has said that after that noble Lords who favour that option should not wish to keep the schedule in the Bill. Surely, if the amendment places a new schedule in the Bill, that schedule must still stand part. Can my noble friend help me in my difficulty?

Earl Ferrers

My noble friend is not correct, in that if the Committee decides to accept an amendment which replaces the schedule, that schedule then forms part of the Bill by virtue of it having been by way of an amendment inserted into the Bill.

This matter affects noble Lords in a variety of different ways, and of course, there is a free vote on this subject. The Government are not asking those who normally support the Government to vote in favour of any one of the options. Indeed, it would not make any difference if we did. Your Lordships would do—as your Lordships frequently do do—exactly as your Lordships like.

For my part, for what it is worth, I shall vote against all three amendments and for the option which is in the Bill, for a very simple reason. It is not because I do not want Sunday to be a special day. I think that Sunday is a special day and that it ought to remain so. But the fact is that the present state of the law is a complete shambles, and must be changed. Another place has come to a conclusion. It has taken 44 years and 29 Bills to enable it to come to a conclusion—any conclusion —and I see little advantage, and some considerable disadvantage, in asking Members there to think again. And, if we did, I think that there is very little likelihood of them coming to a different conclusion, arid choosing an option which they have already considered and have already rejected. I think that most honourable and right honourable Members are sick and tired of the whole subject and that they want it solved once and for all.

However, that is just my view. Others may hold a totally different one, both within government and on the Back-Benches. And Members of the Committee need take no notice of my views, and they should certainly not be interpreted in any way as "guidance" for those Members—if there are any—who may be in a dither as to which way to vote. Your Lordships will vote in the way in which your Lordships decide to vote.

The issue crosses all party lines, and it crosses all lines within parties. I fancy that, whichever Lobby Members decide to enter today, they may well find themselves in unusual company. I suggest that that is nothing to worry about. It is a simple process attaching to the passage of this Bill. I hope that this explanation has been of some help. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I take it that this will be a short and non-contentious debate. Members of the Committee who wish to express views on this matter have already had the opportunity to do so at Second Reading. Some 30 to 40 noble Lords did so and all but one of those speakers identified in their speeches the option for which they proposed to vote. Therefore I do not see why any of those arguments should be repeated and we should be able to proceed fairly rapidly to a vote. This will be a rational debate. Anyone who felt that discussion was being stifled had an opportunity to speak at Second Reading.

I join in the debate because some of my noble friends who support more restrictionist options than I do want to have something to attack. The conclusion that we reach at the end of this afternoon ought to be logical, fair and enforceable. I venture to suggest that the options of extreme restriction and half-way restriction would be difficult to describe as logical, fair or enforceable.

First, there is the Keep Sunday Special option. It proposes to discriminate between different types of shops, so that on Sunday toys could be bought from a newsagent but not from a toyshop, books could be bought from a newsagent but not from a bookshop and meat and bread could be bought from a small supermarket but not from either a butcher or a baker. Is that rational and enforceable? The option seeks to distinguish between different types of goods. So on Sunday a small convenience store could not sell groceries unless it also sold household cleaning materials; and on Sunday a chemist's shop could not sell nappies but a DIY store could.

The option seeks to distinguish between different sizes of shop, so that on Sunday a large DIY store could sell things which are necessary for the repair or maintenance of the structure of a dwelling but presumably not goods for use on other parts of the dwelling. Paint could be sold for painting a windowsill but not for painting an interior cupboard, and an electric plug could be sold for a drill but not for use on a toaster. I suggest that it is not a very rational distinction.

Finally, there is the distinction in the Keep Sunday Special option on the location of the shop and there are exemptions for those involved in sports or games. Does that mean, for example, that walking equipment could be bought anywhere in the Lake District or boating or surfing equipment bought anywhere in a seaside resort? The opportunities for confusion and injustice with that option are enormous.

The Shopping Hours Reform Council option is a good deal better, although the main argument put forward for it is that the total deregulation option is not politically acceptable. It is not that deregulation is wrong but it is not felt that the argument could be won. However, there are still the problems of defining the size of shop; the distinction between 270 square metres and 290 square metres still escapes me. There is also the proposal that many shops which now open for up to 12 hours a day would be able to open for only half that time.

Those options tell other people what to do. I suggest that, unless there is some positive evil or some positive nuisance to be overcome, we should not attempt to tell other people what to do. We should not attempt to follow public opinion from a distance. It is a fact that people in this country want to shop on Sunday. They do shop on Sunday, even though it is against the law. It is a fact that many people want to work on Sunday. I wonder how many Members of the Committee know that 20 per cent. of the workforce works on Sundays. They work in transport, the utilities and communications—all those services which we consider necessary. After all, we read newspapers on Mondays and expect people—indeed we allow their contracts of employment to require them—to work on Sundays. That is not the case under the Sunday Trading Bill because there is very firm, clear exemption for those workers who do not wish to work on Sunday.

The religious objection must be taken seriously. However, without saying in any way that we are in danger of becoming a theocracy, as we would were we in Iran or some orthodox parts of Israel, I suggest that it is a pathetic state of affairs when people are told what to do not because of their beliefs but because of their failure to comply with the forms of other people's beliefs.

Those who wish to keep Sunday special should do so and may do so for themselves. The role of Parliament is not to attempt to enforce a particular form of observance on any part of our citizenship.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

I should like to begin by thanking the Government, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the care and fairness with which they have facilitated the consideration of the Bill as a non-partisan measure. I welcome the opportunity that we all have this afternoon to discuss and vote on three different options for change. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his views and assure him that I do not want to tell people what to do. However, I want to state some of the implications.

I am reminded of the story of the Bishop who was a keen golfer but lived in a part of the country which took its Sunday seriously. One Sunday he sneaked off and had a quick round with a close friend. To his surprise and joy, for the first time in his life he managed a hole in one. However, his enthusiasm turned to dismay when he realised that he could not possibly tell anybody.

I have never been a great legalistic sabbatarian in these matters. I certainly do not want to turn back the clock to the days when nothing but religion was on offer on Sunday. Moreover, my concern is not that the Churches themselves could not cope if Sunday trading were deregulated. They have the flexibility and commitment to serve people, if necessary, at new times and in new ways, as many already do. That is not why the Bishops' Benches are full today. We are always glad to see the bishops in the Chamber on other occasions too. The main issue is the long-term interest of the community as a whole on a day of the week that is special and different from other days. It is a matter of conscience with far reaching, long-term implications. If we in this Chamber believe that the Bill before us does not represent the best choice for our country's future, it is surely our responsibility to ask those in another place to think again.

I gladly acknowledge that there are deeply committed Christians and other conscientious people on all sides of the argument. There are no devils and angels here. The option before the Chamber that has the greatest element of regulation is itself a compromise, allowing a substantial volume of trading to take place. However, the key question for me is: Do we allow market forces and consumer choice to determine the character of our Sunday, with little or no regulation; or do we believe that regulation should secure a real compromise between those forces and other wider considerations in the public interest?

Contrary to the popular habit of running down this country, we should be proud of Sunday as we know it and should treasure it. As leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, I have met many people from abroad who speak wistfully and enviously of the English Sunday. It is a time of relative peace and calm. It is a family day. It is a day for visiting friends and relatives. It is a time when millions of people take to the countryside, parks and open spaces to refresh body and soul. Despite the many people who already work on Sunday—in addition to the clergy—Sunday remains for the community as a whole a distinct day, which brings unique opportunities and pleasures. For millions, it is still a special day for worship and meditation. For millions more, it is a day when dimensions of life can be nurtured which otherwise might be crowded out. These are values of which noble Lords have been doughty champions over the years, not least in recent debates in this Chamber. I hope that that tradition will continue today.

Many people look to the Churches to give a lead on moral and spiritual matters. Indeed, some want us to promote some of the Ten Commandments very strongly, while conveniently forgetting the one about keeping the sabbath holy. But I should like to remind the House that the leaders of all the Christian denominations, as well as successive Chief Rabbis, believe that further damage to the character of our Sunday would be contrary to our Maker's instructions. It would be a move away from a pattern of living in which we believe we are most likely to fulfil our nature and God's purpose for us. It would also signal a further retreat from the Christian character of our nation.

I believe that market forces are excellent servants but bad masters. Freedom of choice is a great blessing but only up to the point where people make mutually conflicting choices. At that point arbitration is required. The consequences of today's vote are serious. It will affect the character of our first day of the week: people cannot choose to enjoy peace and quiet where others choose to be noisy. It will affect family life: people cannot choose to be with their families if half the family is at work. People will not in reality be able to choose not to work on Sunday if it gradually becomes the norm to do so. It will have complicated effects on different shops and businesses: big ones cannot choose to remain closed if commercial competition is unleashed which forces them to open. And some small ones cannot choose to stay open if they are driven out of business. Above all, individuals cannot choose to keep the overall character of Sunday special any more than they can choose to keep the national parks and green belts special. They need the support of legislation to arbitrate between incompatible individual choices in the wider public interest.

It has been argued that we can have our cake and eat it; that we can largely or completely scrap regulation and yet keep our distinctive Sunday as well. I cannot believe that that is true in the long term. Substantial deregulation would be irrevocable as changed habits, expectations and conventions take hold of successive generations and are reinforced by economic pressures. We create a momentum of which the logical outcome is a homogeneous day like all the rest. It would not happen everywhere evenly arid at the same speed, but in my view that is where ever-intensifying competitive commercial pressures will push us.

I suggest that we decide not to be pushed. I believe that this House is in a good position to think long term, partly because so many of us have been around for a long time! In this matter, as in so many others where your Lordships have exercised a benign influence, such as our approach to the environment or medical ethics, we have to think of the long-term consequences on our grandchildren's grandchildren. I suggest and make this plea that for their sake we should not throw away the underpinnings of Sunday as a distinct day in the life of our people. A free-for-all is not always the same thing as the common good, especially in the long term. I hope that your Lordships will decide to recommend a measure of continuing restraint sufficient to safeguard the special opportunities and blessings of a different day of the week.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Ashbourne

I was in the South Atlantic attending to what I nearly called my operational or military duties—they were actually parliamentary duties—when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading, and therefore this is the first opportunity I have had to make a contribution to your Lordships' deliberations. I wish to make only three points and I shall be brief.

First, when Sunday trading was considered in another place, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill allowing shops to open without prescription from Monday to Saturday had not been published. It is for your Lordships to decide in this matter, but it seems to me that if shops can open at one minute past midnight on a Monday morning and remain open till one minute before midnight on a Saturday evening, continuously, it may be felt that there is little requirement for shops to open also on Sundays. However, that is for your Lordships to decide.

It is worth noting also that in America, where there is no regulation, 36 per cent. of the shops never close; that is to say, they are open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and so forth. I need not go on. That is the pattern and that is the fact. Therefore, whatever retailers say today in this country it is possible —dare I say likely?—that they will be open continuously after the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is on the statute book.

Secondly, I am concerned that the Bill contains inadequate employment protection safeguards. For instance, it does not prevent a new employee being offered a contract requiring work on Sunday. Thirdly, it disturbs me to see that each of the options being offered by the Government to Parliament is contrary to the fourth commandment. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the fourth commandment reads: Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord Your God; in it you shall not do any work… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it". In the circumstances I find myself in something of a dilemma. But on balance I recommend that your Lordships support the least offensive and the most restrictive option; namely, to keep Sunday special and retain the Shops Act reform proposal.

In conclusion, from every point of view one day set apart for rest and worship is best for man physically, mentally and spiritually. The Creator God, who made man in His own image, certainly had man's welfare at heart when, from the beginning of creation, he instituted the weekly sabbath. The fourth commandment underlines its importance. We ignore the sabbath at our peril. We keep it to our inestimable benefit. The verse of Sir Matthew Hale, a former Lord Chief Justice, remains even more true today than when first written. He said: A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content And health for the toils of tomorrow; But a Sabbath profaned, whate'er may be gained, Is a certain forerunner of sorrow".

Viscount Ullswater

It may be for the convenience of the Committee that we take the Statement now. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.