Sunday Trading Bill (Hansard, 27 April 1990)

§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Given that my Bill is number five on the Order Paper for today I am delighted that I have some time to bring this important matter to the attention of the House once again. The Sunday trading laws have been debated in the House for almost two centuries and it is fair to say that they have always been controversial. I have no doubt that those who oppose my proposals will seek to speak today.
People who believe that this subject will go away should venture out on a Sunday to visit the busy garden centres, do-it-yourself superstores, video shops and convenience stores. They should also consider what is happening in our courts. The owners of small neighbourhood shops are being prosecuted for selling toilet rolls and a video shop run by a husband and wife was fined for renting a film that could be legally seen at a cinema or broadcast by a television company. A garden centre has been prosecuted for selling garden furniture. Now we are witnessing the personal prosecution of company directors and I have heard it said that they should go to prison, but for what? Merely for selling to the public what the public want to buy in shops and stores that never existed when the basis for our present restrictions was approved by the House 54 years ago.
Matters in the courts have been further complicated by a recent judgment handed down by the European Court on 23 November. Some claim that that judgment has clarified the issue, but leading lawyers, and now judges, disagree. What is more, judges are beginning to complain that they are being required to interpret legislation that should have been reformed by the House long ago. I fear that they will hand out different judgments in different cases because we have failed to grasp the issue. It has become increasingly clear that we may face a constitutional problem in our courts as they struggle to interpret law that the House has failed to reform.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I read out the recent opinion of learned counsel which is important: I consider that the court's judgment does impose material legal constraints on the application of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950. The national courts will first have to determine whether the application of the Shops Act in the instant case"— the case before the European Court— would have any effect on imports of goods from other member states. If there is such an effect it must then proceed to the following considerations; it must then decide, as a matter of English law, what are the objectives of the relevant provisions of the Shops Act legislation. That may well be a complex exercise, at least in the first few cases and any subsequent appeals, although eventually, no doubt, clarification will be established. The courts will then have to consider whether in the instant case the adverse effect of the Sunday trading laws on EC imports is disproportionate in the sense that the adverse effect on such imports could he reduced or eliminated altogether by other legislative provisions which would no less effectively meet the relevant objectives. That may be a complex exercise which may produce different results for different products and different types of retail outlet. Again, although a body of decisions may evolve over time, the process will be longer and more complicated. Lastly, the court may have to consider the motive for the prosecution. A discriminatory prosecuting policy could also render a prosecution contrary to Community law. 682 Evidence has often been put before the House that the laws that restrict Sunday trading have never been observed and certainly have never been properly enforced. Figures put before the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department show that in 1988 there were only 444 prosecutions. There are 514,000 shops in England and Wales, according to an examination of the returns made by valuation officers at the Inland Revenue. Research shows that on average, at least 12 per cent. or 60,000 of those shops are open for business every Sunday, with almost all of them selling some or most of their goods illegally under the present law.
There are 401 local authorities with a statutory duty to prosecute and as a handful of those authorities take out several prosecutions against single companies it is easy to conclude that there is not an average of even one prosecution per authority per year.
Local authorities such as the city of Coventry admit that between 400 and 500 shops are open and trading illegally—or 15 per cent. of the total number of shops. The local authority said that many of those shops "stock non-permitted goods", yet it admits that in 1989 it prosecuted only eight traders covering 11 shops and stores. Although 15 per cent. of the shops in Coventry are open, only 2 per cent. of that number were prosecuted.
The city of Cambridge, having prosecuted a large do-it-yourself superstore, while ignoring a large garden centre next door, and after it was pointed out that councillors had decided to open shops at Addenbrooke's hospital, has now decided to prosecute those shops with a view to closure. Yet the council is still prosecuting only a small proportion of the more than 11 per cent. of its shops that are open and breaking the law.
The city of Southampton, having decided to employ a full-time enforcement officer, finds that he has prosecuted shops on a new quayside development which was developed for the sole purpose of attracting tourism to Southampton. The shops were opened to meet tourist demands. If those shops have to close, no doubt tourists will be less inclined to make Sunday visits. Yet Southampton still prosecutes only a small proportion of more than 150 shops that are open and trading illegally.

§ Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that as long as that is the law, it should be obeyed? Moreover, local authorities are obliged to enforce the law in a fair, thorough and even-handed fashion, and, where that is not happening, it is regrettable.

§ Mr. Couchman
I cannot take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comment that local authorities should be prosecuting in a fair, open and even-handed manner. However, that is not what is happening. Local authorities are seeking to make an example of particular large companies which they feel may be more susceptible to conviction than small shops, and they do not wish to offend those people who keep small shops and trade illegally. Of course I wish to see the law upheld, but the law is not being upheld at present. It comes ill from Opposition Members who have a substantial number of colleagues who do not wish to obey the law in regard to the community charge to hold forth about upholding the law.
South Somerset district council——

§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)
You have just admitted yourself that the shops that are open are blatantly breaking the law. When you referred to the community charge——

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should speak to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) through me. He should not accuse me of all these things.

§ Mr. Ray Powell
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), he suggested that some Opposition Members might refrain from paying the community charge. It may prove in due course that their advice is right, because it appears that the Government are going to change their mind about the community charge.
The question is whether shops—large, small, grocery or corner shops—should infringe the Shops Act 1950. I know of the hon. Gentleman's regular and loyal support for the Prime Minister, who has often preached from the Dispatch Box that we should not break the law, so he, she, and all Tory Members should be upholding the Shops Act. The fact that many shops are breaking the law and that not many local authorities are prosecuting does not justify breaking the law.

§ Mr. Couchman
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's long intervention allows us a clear insight into his views, for which he is well known and well respected. I am not advocating breaking the law. My Bill seeks to change a law that is obsolete, in disarray and in disrepute, by virtue of the fact that so many of our shops open with apparent impunity against its enforcement. I am seeking to introduce a Bill that would sensibly alter, in a compromise fashion, the basis of Sunday trading——

§ Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his opinion that the Shops Act 1950 is held in disrepute. Is he aware that on 23 November 1989 the European Court of Justice upheld the validity of that Act, which certainly does not suggest that it is held in disrepute?

§ Mr. Couchman
The hon. Gentleman may not have been in his place when I mentioned that judgment; I said that it was held in some quarters to have clarified the law, but the lawyers are already disagreeing about whether it has. We could have a fruitless but long-winded argument about whether lawyers ever agree on anything.
South Somerset district council—Yeovil, to those who do not know where it is—has taken out 100 prosecutions in three years against two traders. Some of the summonses were issued without the council even bothering to collect evidence—yet South Somerset collects rents from five shops that it owns which break the law every Sunday and which have never been prosecuted.
Furthermore, when taking a decision to prosecute another trader, councillors were given incorrect advice by their officers. They were advised that comments by a Crown court judge in Northampton were a judgment, binding upon local magistrates, from the Court of Appeal.
I give hon. Members these details from four local authorities to show just how complicated and unfair the position has become. We have a duty to find a balance between the reasonable needs of the consumer, the desire of traders to open their shops and stores, the wish of 684 shopworkers to work and the wish of some to keep Sunday as a special day with a different rhythm from other days of the week.
In 1984 the House gave a majority of 120 to a motion accepting the Auld committee report, which came down firmly in favour of sweeping away all restrictions, thus giving England the same basis of law as Scotland has enjoyed for many a long year. However, less than two years later the House rejected the proposals put forward by the Government in their Sunday Trading Bill which was intended to give legislative power to those recommendations.
Mindful of that decision, many of us think that it is possible to strike a compromise between all the different points of view. I accept that a compromise is never satisfactory, but the present crazy situation that I have described cannot be allowed to continue. Equally, the attempts by some people to create a re-hash of the existing law will lead to the widespread closure of shops and stores that are now open. That will be to the inconvenience of shoppers and will cause inescapable harm to workers, who will lose jobs and wages.
My Bill is based on a series of principles that can be supported by many people on both sides of the divide. First, the law should reflect today's pattern of life which has changed dramatically since the passing of the current Act in 1950 and very substantially since the principles were first put into legislation in 1936. Any change should take the form of deregulation and liberalisation of the present law to reflect what is actually happening rather than to apply further restrictions which might in any case become unenforceable in the same way as the present Act.
The special nature of Sunday should be respected by maintaining some limits which would deter many shops from opening, thereby meeting only the observable needs of people rather than trying to define them. The interests of employees should be protected. That is important both for those who want to work on Sundays and for those who do not. The emphasis should be on the smaller family and community shop rather than allowing the opening of all the shops on the high street.
The first provision in the Bill is to allow all shops to open between 12 noon and 6 pm. That achieves three objectives. First, it keeps the morning free from commercial activity. Secondly, it will of itself limit the number of shops that will find it viable to open and thirdly, it still leaves plenty of time for the shops that are open to satisfy consumer demand. From my examination of the statements of many leading retailers, I am confident that there would be only a limited demand for opening during that period. We would quickly find the adoption of the pattern that pertains in Scotland where the total absence of restrictions has found its own level. Many shops and stores open on three or four Sundays before Christmas in response to consumer demand, but they remain closed on Sundays for the remainder of the year. Research shows that about 23 per cent. of all shops in Scotland avail themslves of the opportunity to open throughout the year.
The second aim of the Bill is to amend the tourist provisions. It proposes that we take away the limits and allow local authorities to decide which shops may open under orders that they make. The provision in the current Act severely limit what can and cannot be sold, with the result that orders are clearly not observed or enforced. In addition, the Bill allows for the number of Sundays to be extended from the present 18 up to a maximum of 35. That 685 should cover the season for most resorts. In many areas of the country such an extension would be of tremendous benefit to local economies and to tourists.
I am especially impressed by the submissions from the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority which show conclusively that tourists would spend much more in shops if opportunities were available. For example, areas such as Covent Garden which attract many home-based and foreign tourists could freely open their shops. At present such shopkeepers risk prosecution, largely as a result by an orchestrated campaign of complaints by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers.

§ Rev. William McCrea
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Couchman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill's third provision is primarily concerned with smaller shops. That is a most important area because such shops represent 98 per cent. of those that are currently open on Sundays. They range from tiny newsagents to moderately sized convenience stores.

§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)
The hon. Gentleman talks about 98 per cent. Is he referring to turnover or to numbers of establishments?

§ Mr. Couchman
Numbers of establishments.
I appreciate that to many people a floor area of 3,000 sq ft may seem large, especially when compared wth the shops that existed in 1950 or, more particularly, in 1936. If the House is to make good law, however, it is necessary to observe the reality of what happens today. Well over half of all shops that open on Sundays and break the current law are in excess of 2,000 sq ft. To set any size below that would automatically eliminate them. Furthermore, the demands of the market place are pushing many more businesses to convert to that size. That is especially so for petrol filling forecourts where there has been a tremendous growth in the number of shops that are open for long hours, to the great convenience of the consumer. Size is important, and any size limitation will always produce borderline cases. I am assured by those who run businesses that their assessment is that 3,000 sq ft will be adequate to meet the demands of today and of tomorrow.
It is necessary to retain some listing of goods, and we find that 85 per cent. of all shops are below 3,000 sq ft. Observation of what the large convenience store is selling shows that most of the items listed in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 are included. There are also specialist shops such as those that rent video cassettes. I understand that about 2 million video cassettes are rented every Sunday, three quarters of them from specialist shops, nearly 5,000 of which open every Sunday. The remaining quarter are rented from convenience stores, corner shops and garage forecourt shops.
The Bill makes provision for taking certain types of shop out of the reckoning altogether. It appears that garden centres are non-controversial. Even those who oppose Sunday trading seem willing to allow them to open. As they are so varied in both size and the range of items that they sell, it seems sensible to take them out of any restrictions whatever. Similarly, there are the specialist shops that cater for all forms of recreation activity, including caravanning, boating, cycling, flying and plain 686 driving. It seems important to deregulate them entirely by taking them outside any restrictions. They meet observable needs and demands.
There are other areas that are related to recreation and tourist activities, including churches, cathedrals, galleries, museums, historic houses, gardens, caves, caverns, zoos, aquariums and sports centres. They all cater for those wishing to undertake leisure and recreation activities in the home or in the garden, for social gatherings, for travelling and visiting and for pleasurable activities that are associated with the entire family being together.
The protection of shop workers is a controversial issue. I understand why the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, with his long opposition to the opening of shops on Sundays, views the protection of shop workers as one of the most important factors to be set against the proposals that are contained in the Bill. What does the Bill have to offer? If we are to allow relaxation of our laws and allow shops to open and to trade on Sundays because we observe the needs of customers, we must ensure that the granting of that freedom does not intrude into the lives of shop workers and their families. First, we must ensure that those who now work on Sundays have conditions that ensure that they do not have to work for seven days a week. It is proposed in the Bill that no worker should be asked to work for more than five-and-a-half days a week, and that when they do work on Sundays they receive premium payments and-or time off in lieu.

§ Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)
Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that it is only shop workers who are deprived of the opportunity to work at the rates of time-and-a-half or double time? Engineers and anyone employed in manufacturing industries, who are, spuriously, so dear to the Opposition, can work on Saturdays and Sundays, Sunday evenings and Monday mornings. Those employed in the transport industry, which is, spuriously, so dear to the heart of the Opposition, work day and night. Why is it that shopkeepers should be deprived of an opportunity to earn extra income in a range of ways?

§ Mr. Couchman
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I understand that shops that currently trade on Sunday have no difficulty in finding staff who are keen to earn additional money. That is important.

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that shop assistants are among the lowest-paid workers and that there is exploitation of the need of, for example, some mothers to earn any money in addition to their income, especially those on the lower income levels, to support and sustain their children? What assurance will there be for those shop assistants who have very strong conscience grounds for not working on Sundays? What protection will they have if an employer unfairly dismisses them?

§ Mr. Couchman
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because it makes it clear that his opposition to the Bill is not based on a reading of it. Had he read it, he would know that schedule 2 is devoted to a code of practice that will ensure that shop workers are not discriminated against. In particular, paragraph 3(f) refers to those who have strong religious grounds for not 687 working on Sundays. The schedule provides a well-argued code of practice to protect shop workers against exploitation and discrimination.

§ Mr. Beggs
I do not wish to damage the hon. Gentleman's opportunity to proceed, but I assure him that I have read his Bill. My experience of codes of practice is that they are not necessarily sufficient to protect employees.

§ Mr. Couchman
A code of practice such as that in the Bill would protect workers against discrimination. I have no doubt that if an industrial tribunal were faced with a case of someone who had been discriminated against in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, it would without any doubt find in favour of the employee.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Couchman
I must make progress. When I have finished, there will be time for other hon. Members to make their speeches. I have been generous in giving way.
I have said that those who work on Sundays must not be expected to work for seven days and that they must be adequately paid by premium payments or by time off in lieu. We must ensure that no one can be forced to work on a Sunday, or that if they do refuse that they cannot be discriminated against.
The problem must not be exaggerated. Many who now work on Sundays are Sunday-only workers. The proportion varies from shop to shop and store to store. There is evidence that the number who work only on Sundays can be as high as 80 per cent. I have spoken to senior executives in multiple stores north and south of the border that open on Sundays.

§ Mr. Andrew Smith
There are many problems with the suggested code of practice. I wish to press the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, what about the position of those applying for a job? What guarantee is there that they will not be asked, "Will you work on a Sunday", and that if they show any reluctance they will not be told to look for work elsewhere? Secondly, what about promotion to senior positions? We are concerned about all shop workers, including managers who will be obliged to turn out on Sundays. How will the code of practice protect their fair chances of promotion? It is in the nature of shop supervision that a senior person will need to work on a Sunday. Will not those people be badly affected?

§ Mr. Couchman
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) probably knows that I run a business that operates seven days a week perfectly legitimately and legally, because it is part of the licensed trade.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was meant to be a Member of Parliament.

§ Mr. Couchman
I shall not go down that path. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know better.
When people come to me for a job, I point out to them that they will normally be expected to work on Sundays because a seven-day trading week operates in that business. People who apply for such jobs will obviously know that shops that open on Sunday may well expect 688 them to work that day. One cannot protect job applicants in the way that the hon. Member for Oxford, East suggests.
It is hard to imagine there not being some discrimination between the potential manager who is prepared to work on Sundays and the potential manager who is not prepared to do so. In organisations in which the normal working week includes Sunday, employees ho are willing to work that day are almost bound, by the nature of things, to receive preference when promotions are being considered. One cannot protect against that.

§ Mr. Andrew Smith
rose——

§ Mr. Couchman
No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
The code encompassed by schedule 2 offers protection for people who do not want to work on Sunday in their present jobs. If the Bill receives its Second Reading, which I suspect it will not, I should like to see added to it a provision requiring local authorities to make observance of the code of practice a precondition of allowing Sunday opening under the wider provisions of the Bill. In other words, I want a system of local authority licensing for shops opening on Sundays, which would provide an easy method of policing and enforcing the new law.
In 1986 I supported the Government in their attempts to implement the recommendations of the Auld Committee. A number of right hon. and hon. Members had meetings with Church people and others who opposed the Government's proposition. I well remember a meeting at a church in my constituency on 14 February 1986, attended by 200 people. Although it was St. Valentine's day, love was not really in the air.
I began by inviting my audience to indicate whether on Sunday they shopped at their corner shop, bought Sunday newspapers, or used petrol stations, restaurants, or pubs. I asked which of them, being short of a pot of paint, would not visit the local do-it-yourself superstore so that they could finish the job in hand. I asked whether they expected workers in the emergency or transport services, for example, to work on Sunday.
By the time that I finished my market research on that occasion, every hand in the room had been raised at least once, and many hands were raised several times. It as clear that those people were happy to see others working on a Sunday if it was to their convenience. At the end of the evening I was told, "You have won the argument, but unfortunately one cannot be rational about some things and one takes an irrational decision." That told me a great deal about the motives of those who seek to perpetuate the existing anomalies and unenforceable provisions of the Shops Act 1950.
I am dismayed by some of the disinformation that has recently come from the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Its glossily produced spring leaflet states: Mr. James Couchman, MP introduced a Private Member's Bill on 8 January in a renewed attempt to sweep away all legal restrictions on Sunday trading. I am said to have been a strong supporter of the Government's attempts to amend the law in 1986. It is a shame that the Keep Sunday Special campaign should sell its argument short by putting out what is a blatant untruth. At that time the Bill was neither published nor printed and was in an early draft form. The organisation cannot have known what was contained in the Bill and those who have read it for today's debate will know that 689 far from seeking to sweep away all regulations on Sunday trading, it seeks to put in place a sensible framework for shops to be allowed to open so that willing sellers can sell goods to willing consumers. Although I am a realist and realise that today's debate will probably not proceed to a Second Reading vote, I wanted to put——

§ Rev. William McCrea
Will the hon. Gentleman refer to a letter from the Keep Sunday Special campaign on 30 March 1990? Will he refer to the third paragraph, which says: There is therefore the likelihood that the Sunday Trading Bill will get a debate and although it is not, at this stage printed, our understanding is that it will follow the 1989 Bill tabled by Mr. Steven Norris MP. Surely that is a wholly different reading of information from the one that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) gave to the House a moment ago.

§ Mr. Couchman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not possess the letter of 30 March from which he has just quoted. I quoted from the Keep Sunday Special campaign update of spring 1990. I am afraid that the Keep Sunday Special campaign is obviously putting out different information at different times to different people, and that is confirmation of what I have just said.
I want other hon. Members to have the chance to speak before the end of this brief debate, but I want to illustrate to the Government that it is possible to find a package of compromise proposals that will meet the needs of those who want to open shops, work and shop on Sundays, and will take account of those who have genuine concerns about the nature of Sunday. To that end, I want to report to the House that even in the brief time since the Bill has been printed, the proposals have received backing from a substantial number of important organisations that are involved intimately in the question whether shops should be allowed to open on Sundays. I instance the following: the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, the British Videogram Association, the Consumers Association, the Horticultural Trades Association, the National Association of Shopkeepers, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Garden Centre Association, the Video Trade Association, the National Consumer Council, qualified support from the newly-formed OPEN—Outlets for Providing Everyday Needs, support from the Petrol Retailers Association, the Camping and Outdoor Leisure Association, the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the Federation of Sports Goods Distributors. That is the result of having talked with those organisations briefly this week. I wrote to them and received confirmation that they support the Bill. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade his colleagues that the Bill or something close to it would enable them to carry out the Government's election manifesto commitment in an honourable way which will give equal weight to the interests of consumers, workers and traders.
It will be necessary for me to leave the Chamber a few minutes before the end of the proceedings at 2.30 pm because my wife is very unwell and I have to take her to her hospital appointment. I hope that the House will forgive me for what might otherwise be taken as a slight.

§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)
I am sure that the whole House wants to express to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) our best wishes for the health of his wife and we are sure that he regrets having to leave our proceedings. No one will criticise him for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman referred approvingly to the Auld committee which came down in favour of complete deregulation of shopping. The Union of Shop Distributive arid Allied Workers which sponsors me, although, I hasten to say, with absolutely no personal benefit to me, when giving evidence to the Auld committee was disposed to try to reach compromises on the matter. The union's willingness was thrown back in its face and it became absolutely clear that the supporters of Sunday trading wanted total deregulation and nothing less. Although the hon. Member for Gillingham has come to the House with sweet talk about balance, his Bill is the thin end of a very damaging wedge. He could have made a similar speech if we were asking for total deregulation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to legislation dating back 50 years and told us how things had changed since then. "We have new kinds of shops—video shops, for instance," he said. Of course we have new kinds of shops. Of course there have been changes. Some changes have made the reason for our Sunday trading law even stronger. Not only do we have different kinds of shops but there have been vast changes in shopping hours and in conditions faced by shop workers. I make no apology for speaking vehemently in support of continued protection for shop workers.
At present, unlike in 1950, shop workers can be required to work very late in the evening. There are no adequate transport facilities. They are told that it is just tough if they have difficulties late at night. Shop opening hours have been extended in such a way that it is impossible to check exactly how many hours many shop workers are working. They are expected to be wholly at the disposal of their employers. If it suits an employer they will work part-time and their part-time hours will be cut to keep them outside the Employment Protection Acts. Conversely, if it suits employers, they will be expected to work as many hours as the employer sees fit. Since 1950, shop workers' conditions have deteriorated in material ways.
Hon. Members may not know that although we do not have 24-hour shop opening, we have a good deal of night shift work in shops. The hon. Gentleman talked about shop workers' wishes. I know of shop workers who work all night filling shelves in supermarkets. The hon. Gentleman might think that they wish to do that, but they work then because they can work at no other time—for example, because of lack of child care. Many women look after their toddlers during the day, fill shelves all night, and look after their toddlers again the next day. Of course they do not do that every night of the week. Who could? Women, even the women members of USDAW, are not superhuman. To do that work two nights a week, which is quite common, is an extraordinary burden to bear.
The hon. Gentleman talked about shop workers' wishes. I shall believe him when the Government do something to give real protection to shop workers.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members who support Sunday trading have seriously undermined their own case by supporting 691 Government moves to weaken the ability of the wages council to protect the interests of shop workers? The sentiments that we heard from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) would be okay if he had not been in the Lobby supporting the Government's attack on the wages council.

§ Mrs. Wise
Yes, I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention, which is relevant to some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham about protecting workers. The wages councils used to be able to protect workers on matters such as bank holidays and customary holidays, but that protection has been stripped from them. A Government who do that—and hon. Members who support that—cannot be taken seriously when they talk today about protecting the rights of shopworkers.
The hon. Member for Gillingham has included a code of practice in his Bill, but it applies only to "subscribing employers". I have read his Bill carefully, but I have not seen any requirement for shops which would open on Sundays to he "subscribing employers". The Bill states that a "subscribing employer" is an employer who has expressed in writing to the Industrial Society that he subscribes to the Code of Practice and whose name appears, for the time being, on a list of subscribers kept by the Industrial Society". That is an inadequate form of protection. We read the hon. Gentleman's code of practice, only to find that it is voluntary, to an extent that tops all other ideas of voluntary codes of practice——

§ Mr. Couchman
Towards the end of my speech, I said that I should like some form of licensing by the local authorities of those shops which are to open on Sundays so that the local authority could impose the code of practice on anyone who was to be given such a licence.

§ Mrs. Wise
I am pleased the hon. Gentleman would like that to happen. Although I noted his point, I had previously read his Bill and his wishes are not reflected in it. Who better to get his wishes incorporated in his Bill than the promoter? The hon. Gentleman may well have such desires, but they must be somewhat less than firm because if they were not, they would already have been encapsulated in the Bill.

§ Mr. Couchman
If, by some chance, my Bill were to be given a Second Reading today, I should wish to see such amendments made in Committee.

§ Mrs. Wise
The hon. Gentleman does us and himself no credit if he thinks that we would be willing to go down that road. The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to give a preliminary fair wind to the provisions that are before us—those in the Bill. If hon. Members other than the promoter say that they will seek to move such amendments in Committee, we shall take them seriously, but if the promoter has not felt sufficiently strongly about a point to include it in the Bill when it is drawn up, we can say either that his desires are not firm or that he has found some snag in his proposals, which is why he has not included such a provision. The parliamentary draftsman might have said, "No, you cannot include that in this Bill." If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to include such a provision, he should have included it in the Bill in the first place. I am not interested in pious hopes.
In any case, the hon. Gentleman's code of practice has other flaws. He wants to give protection to young persons, 692 and who does not want to do that? Opposition Members certainly want to do that, but the Government do not, and neither does the hon. Gentleman. I served on the Committee that considered the Employment Act 1989, which stripped existing protection on young people's hours of work. Young people now have no protection as to the hours that they work. They may work any hours of the day and night, including any type of shift work, and on any day—their only protection relates to Sundays.

§ Mr. Beggs
Does the hon. Lady agree that the absence of such protection for young children has a damaging effect on their education and creates endless problems for teachers?

§ Mrs. Wise
To be fair to the Government—although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the protection of children is inadequate—the protection to which I referred, which has been removed altogether, relates to young people over school-leaving age. However, they may be as young as 15½ years old. School-leaving age can be 15½ years entirely legally because of the accident of their birth date. The Government not only withdrew protection on hours of work from under-18s but amended the definition of young person from 16 years to school-leaving age. That brought in more than 100,000 young people who leave school legally under 16 years of age.
When the hon. Member for Gillingham talks about protecting young people in Sunday working, all I can say is that I welcome his conversion but I wish that he had been converted somewhat earlier and had joined us in the Lobby on the Employment Bill. His code of practice completely exempts store managers, assistant managers and other supervisory staff. I identify most with non-managerial staff because I have never been a manager, but I have not reached the stage at which I believe that managerial staff are somehow sub-human and should not be protected. If shop assistants should be protected, their managers and supervisors deserve no less protection of their family life and rights as working people. They are still working people. Many of them realise that to such good effect that they join USDAW.
So far, I have concentrated on shopworkers but I must also speak for many children whose family life would be disrupted if Sunday working were increased.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other people who work on Sundays. Of course other people work on Sundays, and we make use of their services—we are willing to use transport on Sundays and to call a fire engine on Sundays—but it is perfectly consistent to say that the number of people who work on Sundays should be kept to a minimum.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is the first stage in making Sunday virtually the same as any other day of the week. There has been much talk about premium payments, but these payments are made to other workers such as engineering workers or people in the emergency services only because Sunday is a special day. If Sunday ceased to be a special day, premium payments would be rapidly eroded. Those of us who want to keep Sunday special want to do so for the sake of shopworkers, their families and other workers who need to work on Sunday and who receive at least some financial recompense which would he lost if Sunday working increased.
I have spoken about shop workers but I also want to mention the attitude of some important retailers. The hon. 693 Gentleman read out a great list which implied that the whole of the retail trade was on his side. That is not true. For instance, Marks and Spencer, an important retailer in Britain employing a great many people, is hostile to Sunday trading. That hostility may be based on some of the arguments that I have put forward. It is also based on a knowledge of its position as a retailer. It has studied the example particularly of the United States of America where, broadly speaking, Sunday trading is legal. Retailers have found that people's incomes do not rise to enable them to shop every day of the week, so people simply transfer their shopping from one day to another. The shops who do good trade on Sundays find that they do not do good trade on other days of the week, so they close on those other days. It may be thought that so long as shops close on some day or other it is okay, but for a family person, especially a mother, it is not the same to be off on a Tuesday or even a Monday as it is on a Sunday when the children are off. Marks and Spencer found that there was not sufficient trade to spread it over seven days and concluded that it did not want an extension into Sunday trading.
We are often told of the revelry in the shops on Sundays and every day of the week on the continent of Europe. We were told at wearisome length that the provisions of our Shops Act 1950 were undoubtedly in contravention of the Treaty of Rome. When a case finally came to the European Court, it was decided that our Shops Act did not contravene the Treaty of Rome but was compatible with it. Therefore, the matter is entirely for our national laws and decisions. Moreover, it became clear that other European countries also have restrictions on shop trading hours, despite what we are repeatedly told. They may be different from ours, but they are nevertheless restrictions. It is not true that there is unrestricted shopping on the continent of Europe among our EEC partners. It is not even true that there is unrestricted Sunday trading. Those of us who have travelled, for example, in rural France know that however easy it may be to shop on Sunday morning, it is a different story on Sunday afternoon or Monday. In practice, their hours of opening, whether legally or customarily, tend to be more restrictive than ours.

§ Mr. Andrew Smith
My hon. Friend has eloquently put the case for shop workers at all grades and mentioned the knock-on effect of Sunday trading to the detriment of the pay and conditions of other workers and traders. Will she comment on another group of people who are particularly at risk through deregulation—residents in the vicinity of shops and shopping precincts? At present Sunday provides the only peace and quiet that they get. That is particularly true near big do-it-yourself stores which have outdoor areas with music and tannoys going which wreck their peace and quiet. Does my hon. Friend agree that deregulation of Sunday trading would not be in residential and amenity interests and would be wholly abhorrent?

§ Mrs. Wise
My hon. Friend makes a good point which has not yet been made in the debate. Other consequential effects will also disturb the peace of those residents. There would undoubtedly be a great increase in heavy transport because many of the vehicles which take goods to shops are large. If Sunday trading comes to our high streets and side streets to any appreciable extent, so will heavy lorries 694 at wholly unsuitable times on Saturday nights and Sundays to the great detriment of residents' peace and quiet.
For all those reasons—for shop workers in particular, for many children, for the peace of people who live in the vicinity of shops, and for the protection of other workers who have to work on Sundays and get premium payments because it is a special day—the case against giving the Bill a Second Reading is unanswerable.
One important factor must be considered regarding the protection of the consumer. Those who want to extend trading hours never talk about the increase in overheads that would result. If it were true that the system would operate on the basis of premium payments, the increase in overheads would be even greater and, inevitably, those increased overheads will mean increased prices. Consumers who say "Yes, I would like to shop on a Sunday" should ask themselves whether they are prepared to pay higher prices for doing so. In many cases I am sure that the answer would be no.

§ Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)
I am sure it comes as no surprise to hon. Members that I, as a minister of the gospel, object to the Bill. I know that there are many different reasons for such objection, but I make no apology for mine.
I came to the House seven years ago and I remember clearly the opening speech I heard. It was made by Sir Peter Mills and he was commending the Queen's Speech to the House. He told the House that at the end of the Gracious Speech Her Majesty had said: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 44.] I had heard Her Majesty say that, but having sought to have God's blessing upon our deliberations, now, once again, we are seeking to flout God's laws. The House will have taken a retrograde step if it passes a Bill that destroys the Sabbath.
I agree with a queen who once said that the secret of this country's greatness was an open Bible. I believe that the honouring of that Bible and the word of God will bring blessing upon the nation.
Sir Peter Mills said that any country that left out God would not enjoy God's blessing. The country should remember that because, whether we like it or not, there is one who is a greater sovereign than earthly sovereigns. We commence each day with acknowledgement of that fact when we gather in the House to seek God's blessing upon our deliberations.
The true objective of the Bill is total deregulation. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) toned down that message, but that was his deliberate intention. In his heart and mind, the Bill represents the first step of a hidden agenda; he desires to take further steps. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would hide his intention from us when confronted with it. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is no longer present and I understand why.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
rose——

§ Rev. William McCrea
I shall not give way as I have only a couple of minutes left.
I believe that the Bill would have a detrimental effect on our society and is against the deep instincts of our people.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
rose——

§ Rev. William McCrea
Very well, I shall give way.

§ Mr. Banks
I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but can he give us the source of his strong supposition that God does not like Sunday trading? Does the Lord never change his mind, for example?

§ Rev. William McCrea
I am glad to say that the God of Heaven is not only a sovereign God but an unchanging God. Although we live in a time when people want different translations of the Bible to suggest that God changes his mind, I believe in an infallible book—the precious word of God. Hon. Members should notice that I said "an infallible book" and not "an infallible person."
The hon. Member for Gillingham expressed his concern for shop workers. I believe that many of the citizens of our country are exploited because they earn such low wages working in shops. Many of them would be forced to work on the Sabbath day to keep the wolf from the door because of the deplorably low wages that they earn. I believe in a minimum wage for any person who puts on his clothes in the morning to go out to work. That would be honourable—