HC Deb 25 April 1991 vol 189 cc1194-6
3. Mr. Cartwright

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about reform of the law on Sunday trading.

8. Mr. Andrew MacKay

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with retailers on the reform of Sunday trading laws.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

Since my reply on 15 November to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), up to 23 April we had received about 570 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and about 362 against.

I have now begun my extensive programme of separate discussions with bodies representing retailers and other interests to assist the possible development of acceptable proposals for reform.

Mr. Cartwright

May I wish the right hon. Lady well in her difficult task of trying to find a workable compromise or solution to the problem? Does she accept that a key element in that compromise must be effective statutory protection for the rights of shop workers? Any system of Sunday trading that left shop workers vulnerable to pressure and to exploitation would not be likely to carry a majority in the House or, indeed, outside.

Mrs. Rumbold

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for my endeavours. I assure him that I am discussing any possible solution and compromise that we could reach with the relevant organisations, with my colleagues in the Department and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment so that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised can be safeguarded. As he knows, there would be no sense in bringing to the House a proposal that would not be enforceable and would not command a majority in the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of deep regret that many people still believe in the nanny state and, therefore, do not allow the people of this country to have the freedom to choose whether to shop? Is not it time to change the law and bring it up to date?

Mrs. Rumbold

My hon. Friend will know that, following the Auld report and the introduction of the Shops Bill in 1986 which would have met his criticisms, the House decided to reject total deregulation. It is because of that rejection that I am now trying to find a practicable solution—a compromise—to resolve the anomalies in Sunday trading, a compromise that will command the support of all hon. Members and be enforceable outside.

Mr. Duffy

The Minister and certainly the Home Secretary know that it is precisely the ideological approach to deregulation expressed by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that has put the Government in some of their recent trouble. The Keep Sunday Special campaign has produced some detailed ideas for reform in its REST proposals. Is she aware that a Harris poll shows that 88 per cent. of consumers believe that most of their shopping needs could be met by those proposals?

Mrs. Rumbold

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know about the Keep Sunday Special campaign's proposals and I shall, of course, study them carefully. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the matter with that organisation, but I look forward to meeting its representatives shortly.

Mr. Stanbrook

Do I gather from what my right hon. Friend said about the 1986 Bill that the Government are still committed to a policy of total abolition of all Sunday trading restrictions, or have they come to their senses and realised that a compromise is likely not only to achieve success, but to correspond to what most people want—a special status for Sunday?

Mrs. Rumbold

My hon. Friend knows that I am in discussion with many different people at the moment. Since the Shops Bill failed in 1986, we have sought to find a compromise between total deregulation and the current position in which there are many anomalies, which is most unsatisfactory and which leaves people uncertain. At this stage, I cannot give my hon. Friend any greater assurances.

Mr. Randall

Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the statements that she has made so far, there is still deep concern about the mess that the Government are in over the Shops Act 1950? [Interruption.] The Government are in a mess. Is she further aware that the Labour party is prepared to co-operate with the Government in a responsible, constructive and positive fashion to push sensible, amending legislation through the House at the earliest opportunity? I wish to ask the Minister one simple question—what target date does she have in mind for pushing a new Shops Bill through the House, or will she continue to dither?

Mrs. Rumbold

I am riveted to hear that the Labour party, which introduced the Shops Act 1950, is offering co-operation with the Government. It has not been forthcoming in offering co-operation at any other stage. Frankly, I am not certain that I should want to take that poisoned chalice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the Government to step into the arena of introducing legislation until we were certain that there were agreed grounds for legislation that would meet the requirements of the largest number of people.

Mr. Randall

Dithering.

Mrs. Rumbold

I am not prepared to go further than that. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are dithering. If he does not wish the Government to consult, that is an amazing position. I should be very interested to read specific proposals from the Labour party which would reassure the many people who have different ideas.

Mr. Latham

As a fully-paid up member of the nanny state, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the thought that if 500 representations are one way and 300 are the other, the best thing to do is to push the ball down the pitch?

Mrs. Rumbold

My hon. Friend has been very helpful. I do not intend to push the ball down the pitch, but to continue my consultations and discussions with interested parties to try to reach a compromise.