§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to provide protection for workers in the retail industry.Most hon. Members are well aware of the anomalies in the 1950 Shops Act and certain other Acts that govern the laws applicable to regulation of shop opening hours both on a Sunday and for the remainder of the week. They are also aware of the difficulties and problems of enforcing those laws. As legislators, we have a responsibility to change the law so that its application is enforceable and practical, thereby ensuring the right and just protection of the people it covers—be they shopowners, shop workers or shoppers.There are three major criticisms of the 1950 Act—first, its many and varied anomalies, secondly, its complications and thirdly, the difficulty of enforcement. Many argue that the Act was hopelessly out of date when it was enacted, and after 36 years of far-reaching changes in the structure and pattern of retailing it is necessary to alter something that is entirely out of touch with modern conditions. The Act is a complicated piece of legislation; it is not easy for a lawyer. let alone the average shopkeeper, to understand and interpret.
There is also the problem of shops selling a mixed range of goods, some falling within the exemptions in the act and others not doing so. Compliance by shopkeepers and understanding by shoppers are severely tested, and effective enforcement becomes virtually impossible.
Added to all that, the penalties for breaches of the Act have not kept pace with the times. Currently, the maximum penalty for infringing the Sunday trading restrictions is £1,000, and only £100 for breach of general closing hour requirements. The level of fines imposed by magistrates is little deterrent to large traders to break the law. Frustration with the inadequacies of the penalties deter local authorities from enforcing the law.
Clearly, the Act has produced such difficulties and so much criticism that there is a profound need for change. Many have shared that view and attempted to change the Act. There have been six attempts by private Members in the other place and 12 attempts in this House, and in 1961 the Home Office departmental committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Crathorne, conducted considerable research. Yet they all failed to introduce the necessary legislation. Of course, most recently the Government's own proposals for complete deregulation were rejected by the House. Some hon. Members have suggested that, after that marathon debate, we should forget about reform. 730 However, I am sure that most hon. Members, appreciating all that I have stated about the Act, would like action to be taken.
My Bill would seek the establishment of a standing conference under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who should succeed to the position of Father of the House if he is reelected, and who is recommended by the present Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). That proves conclusively that I am suggesting things beyond the realms of personal political prejudice on this issue.
Representatives on the standing conference would include all organisations that declared interest in the recent debate—Members of Parliament, religious organisations, the Keep Sunday Special campaign, the National Chamber of Trade, the Retail Consortium, the Multiple Food Retailers Employers Association, local authority associations, the police, the Union of Shop. Distributive and Allied Workers, other interested unions and representatives of consumers. In addition, all other organisations involved in retail distribution should be considered, including ACAS, so that the broadest spectrum can be covered.
The standing conference would be asked to consider in detail the 1950 Act and other Acts involved in the retail trade, and, by agreement, to recommend to the House either amendments to the existing Act or a new shops Act. It would be asked also to consider other factors before presenting its recommendations. such as the exercise of the right to worship, the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees, costs and prices in retail distributive industries, the interests and wishes of consumers, the incidence of crime, the demands on transport, the effect on the environment and the interests of residents.
s The Bill is necessary, for a number of good and cogent reasons. Equally important, it should enable adequate protection for some of the most low-paid workers in this country. The Bill would make a serious attempt not to tinker with one or two sections of the 1950 Act, but to make constructive proposals for wide, involved and comprehensive consultation with those directly or indirectly affected. It is also essential to show the nation that this House is prepared to continue with consent, discussion and negotiation and to make all attempts necessary to remedy and rectify any and every law that is widely treated with contempt.
It is for those and all the other reasons to which I have referred that I ask the House to give leave to bring in my Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Thomas Torney, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. David Winnick, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Terry Lewis.