NORTHERN IRELAND (SHOPS)

HC Deb 11 December 1978 vol 960 cc189-95

11.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry)

I beg to move, That the draft Shops (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd November 1978, be approved. The purpose of the order is to provide for six-day trading in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. It amends the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 to allow district councils to exempt traders from the early closing day. Under this Act shops are required to close on one weekday in each week not later than one o'clock in the afternoon. Under the revised legislation, a district council would be able to exempt all shops within its district or to limit the exemption to a specified part of its district or to shops of a specified class.

Elsewhere in the United Kingdom local authorities already have this discretion—under the Shops Act 1950—and the proposed order will, therefore, merely have the effect of bringing the law in Northern Ireland in this matter into line with that applying in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Requests for this change in the law have come mainly from the representatives of the large Belfast city centre stores which see six-day trading as essential for the economic and social development of Belfast. I share this view. I have no doubt that the proposed order will make a worthwhile contribution towards the revitalisation of the commercial heart of the city—to which my ministerial colleagues and I are already fully committed. I should add, however, that this change in the law will be welcomed not only in Belfast but in many other areas throughout Northern Ireland, where the existing law is regarded as being unnecessarily restrictive.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Does this mean that one of the days could be Sunday?

Mr. Pendry

I shall come to that question later. I am sure that it is on the minds of others in the Province.

I realise that the order causes some trade union anxiety. In advocating the measure I have been concerned to ensure that the interests and rights of shop-workers should be safeguarded fully.

With this in mind, two ministerial meetings took place—one in August last year and another in August this year. At those meetings the Government's proposals were explained in detail to the local representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

The union, for its part, outlined its concern that the introduction of six-day trading might upset existing arrangements for a five-day working week which was in operation in most of the large stores. My Department therefore consulted the various bodies representing traders in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Chamber of Trade and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. As a result, firm assurances were obtained from these bodies that existing arrangements would be honoured and that, in implementing six-day trading, the interests of shopworkers would be fully respected by their members. I have no reason to doubt these assurances, but I stress that other important statutory safeguards already exist.

In the first place, the order will not affect in any way the existing statutory entitlement of shops' employees to a weekly half holiday. Secondly, the prescribed procedures under the statutory order which applies and under which district councils will be able to grant exemptions from the early closing day requirements ensure publicity and opportunity for representations to councils to be made and to be taken into account before a district council makes its order—so that all interested parties, not merely the traders concerned but also employees and others to be affected by the introduction of six-day trading, will have their say. Finally, a district council's proposal to introduce six-day trading must have the agreement of the Department of Finance for Northern Ireland before it can be effective.

It is fair to say, therefore, that every consideration has been given to the assurances given by the traders and to the statutory safeguards which already exist. that the unions' fears are not well founded and that, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, it should be possible for em- ployers and employees to make acceptable arrangements for six-day trading where this is required.

In answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I would say that my Department initially considered wider aspects, including Sunday trading and late night closing, but they were decided against because there was not a great feeling for them. They were considered, and rejected.

Hon. Members will already be only too well aware of the serious difficulties which shop owners have had to face in Northern Ireland as a result of the sustained campaign of bombings and other forms of terrorist attacks. One must admire the courage and resilience of those who have suffered in this way. Despite in many cases serious injuries and loss of life and the repeated destruction of or serious damage to their premises, traders have persisted in their efforts to recover and to re-establish their businesses.

I am sure that hon. Members will wish to support and to encourage such efforts in every way possible. The proposed order will assist in no small measure by allowing flexibility in the law on this matter of early closing at the discretion of local councils. I commend the order to the House.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I understand that there has been wide consultation about the order in Northern Ireland and that it is generally welcomed. Certainly it corresponds with my party's belief that local issues should be settled by local people who know the local conditions.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

Early closing or half-day closing in Northern Ireland has long been a feature of life in the Province. The order brings in its train a number of hopes that I can only call pious. I rep-et that the Minister has had to open his career at the Dispatch Box with such an order. He deserves something far more substantial.

The "road block" provision in article 3 is meaningless. No council in Northern Ireland will have the guts to stand up and defend the workers in the shops —and it is about them that I am con cerned. That road block will be swept away at the first request from any shopkeeper in a particular town or village.

The order is nothing more or less than the product of greed for extra profit. That is very sad, because that extra profit does not exist. There will be no increase in total turnover. There is only so much money for the necessities and luxuries of life on the present trading days. Once one shop in a town opens, they will all have to open, because they are in competition.

So what effect will the order have? If it does not affect the total turnover and profit, it can only affect the distribution of money among, the shops. In the long run this can only mean price increases arising from increased labour costs. Either extra staff must be taken on or overtime worked, and that will he extremely difficult on the small man.

I took careful note of the Minister's opening remarks. He said that the order arose mainly because of pressure from the large Belfast concerns, and he is dead right about that. It is natural that pressure for it should come from that source. The large concerns carry a lot of staff. They can operate a five-day working week for their employees with six-day opening. It is probably worth their while to press for this order, because they can reap any benefit resulting from it. The hardship will fall entirely on the small businesses run by one, two or three men, businesses that exist extensively throughout Northern Ireland. Those businesses have already suffered at the hands of the large multiple stores. They are a happy feature of life in Northern Ireland.

The order is a mistake. It will increase the proportion of sales made from large stores at the expense of their small counterparts. The present system has worked very well to the benefit of the small business man and his employee. By this order we are sweeping away a system that has served us so well, and we are doing so for no good purpose. I regret it.

11.17 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I am glad that the Minister made it clear that the order will not pave the way for Sunday opening in our Province. I am glad, too, that he realises the strength of feeling there against such a proposal, and that he made that clear.

I wish to say a word on behalf of the workers, from whom I have received representations. They feel that their best interests are not served by the order. They also feel strongly that more obligations and onerous duties could be placed upon them as a result of it.

The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right when he said that in a large establishment with a large work force times can be juggled and working days can be changed. The change, however, will be made by the manager of an establishment, not at the behest of the workers. If a manager feels that staff should work a particular rota and then finds that that rota does not work out, he will tell the staff to work a different system. That prospect is causing serious concern among the working people. At present they know the five days that they have to work. They know which days they have off, and they know which day of the week is for early closing. They arrange their lives according to that pattern. But in the large establishments all that will be changed.

Another matter that concerns me is the representations that led to the order being laid. We were told in our press that certain big business interests had complained that because of terrorism they felt that there was inadequate time in which to conduct their business. They therefore felt that they should be allowed to open on an extra day. I do not think that that is justified.

The hon. Member for Londonderry is nearer the mark. The big business interests can see that if they are allowed to open for longer periods than the small business men, the small business men will go to the wall. The customers who would naturally shop with small business men on a particular day will discover that it suits them better, when a larger establishment is open, and when they are doing business in that locality, to shop there instead. Northern Ireland consists mostly of small and family businesses. Such businesses are not able to organise themselves in the way that large firms can be organised.

The fact that we sit on these Benches does not mean that we are not interested in the workers of Northern Ireland. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, when on a public platform, often talks of bread and butter issues, is never present in these debates when we are dealing with such issues. This is an issue that relates to the workers of Northern Ireland, and their voice must be heard. As this order has been laid as a result of pressure from big business, let us hear the voice of the ordinary people whose lives will be affected by these provisions and who will have to carry the burden.

I am interested in those people. I am also interested in the little man who, although he has been bombed and shot at, has set up again and put out his sign "Business as usual ". The big combines with the aid of their cash flow, are able to survive more easily, but some of the small business men have carried an unbearable burden.

The district councils will have the final say in what is done. I am glad that on this issue the elected representatives will have that final say. I am hopeful because those councils will contain representatives who will stand up for the workers. That is where the debate will take place.

It is better that the debate takes place on the local scene with local people than on the Floor of this House. We are too far away from these shops. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry that we do not all like the principle of this order. Perhaps the district councils will be able to sort it all out. I believe that the order need not have been laid at all.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Pendry

I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for welcoming the order. He was right to say that there have been wade representations to the Department. Therefore, I was right to stress our concern following the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are concerned about worker representations and their fears. We have gone some way to allay those fears.

There are a number of safeguards in this operation. First, the district council has to carry out a ballot of all registered traders, and the matter will go through only if two-thirds of these traders vote in favour. At that stage the small shopkeeper will have his say. Therefore, on the arithmetic alone they should be in a strong position.

It is not true to say that district councils have the final word. That will lie with the Department of Finance. This is another tier of representations. I give the pledge that my Department will ensure that in such circumstances all objectors will be heard fairly. The picture is not as bad as has been painted.

Of the 11 district councils which replied to the departmental circular on this order, Ards, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Down, Larne, Newtownabbey, and North Down fully supported the proposals. That should be stated clearly. The remaining four—Craigavon, Londonderry, Magherafelt and Strabane—replied "No comment ". They all had their opportunity, and those who replied positively were in the majority.

I hope the House will recognise that the exercise has been thorough. There is still time, where district councils so wish, for representations to be made. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Shops (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.