Shops Act 1950

HC Deb 12 December 1991 vol 200 cc1195-211

6 am

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)

A very good morning to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish that I looked as bright as you look.

This important and contentious debate deals with the emotive subject of the operation of the Shops Act 1950. I know that the Minister is well informed about the Act and about our debates on the Act over the years, especially since 1986. There have been no fewer than nine attempts to amend the Shops Act 1950 since the great debate in 1986. There have been ten-minute Bills, and I presented a Bill myself. Some of the Bills have had little support and have been defeated on their introduction. Sometimes Ministers have taken a blatantly arrogant attitude in attempts to amend the anomalous Act.

The most recent Government attempt to introduce legislation on the subject—the Shops Bill—was rejected on Second Reading, having successfully started its progress in the Lords where it had a protracted and controversial passage. On 14 April 1986, as I remember only too well, I had the great pleasure of announcing the result for the Opposition as the Teller in the defeat of a Bill that the Government led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) earnestly wanted to be introduced. The Government were defeated by just 14 votes, despite their built-in majority of 170. I well recall the result. It was 282 in the Aye Lobby and 296 in the No Lobby. Standing by my side was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—I should say hon. Friend, but he deserves to be a right hon. Gentleman because of his activities in the House. He stood beside me as the result of the Division was announced. He was as exalted as I was that we had defeated the Government despite their majority. The result was undoubtedly due to the enormous efforts of a great colleague and friend of mine who was at the time deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers which sponsors me.

If I could find the quote from Hansard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I would refer to it because it is relevant, but, as I cannot find it, I will not quote my right hon. Friend. However, the Minister would find it worth while to read what my right hon. Friend said. He asked the Leader of the House whether the Government intended to proceed further with the Bill. The reply was that the Government had no intention of introducing any such legislation on that very emotive subject.

I recommend that the Minister reads the penultimate paragraph of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 14 April 1986 in which he called for a conference of all interested parties. He said that the representatives should not be called to the Minister's office for consultations; instead, there should be a collective conference and the Government should use their tempering powers to accommodate and reconcile clashing and conflicting convictions. [Interruption.] If the Minister is not listening, I will not refer to this point, but I believe that it is important and the Government should bear it in mind. If the Minister had acted on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, and had implemented that recommendation and request, we might not be in the position that we are in today.

Today large retailers and small shops are clamouring blatantly to flout the law. The Prime Minister has claimed that the law is bizarre and he has allowed the position to become worse by making no positive attempt to rectify the position after the statement by the Attorney-General of 27 November. The present position is bizarre when the large retailers open on Sunday, using the recession as their excuse and claiming that it has caused sales to be at their lowest levels. They are offering 20 per cent. off all goods to boost their Christmas turnover. However, the traditional January sales will be a universal flop when people cannot afford to buy for Christmas despite 20 per cent. off and Sunday opening which will mean further costs for the retailers and eventually the shoppers.

The Minister's statement to the House following the Attorney-General's response to a private notice question clearly shows that, having burnt their fingers once, the Government have no real intention of trying to solve the problem. On 27 November, the Minister stated that the Government would

consider measures which fall short of total deregulation of the Sunday trading laws".—[Official Report, 27 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 919.] That was a great step forward compared with what was said in 1986, but it took five years of constant lobbying by Keep Sunday Special, by USDAW and by several other organisations before that conclusion was finally reached.

Therefore, I look forward to the Minister's support on 22 January, when I shall propose my Bill further to attempt to change the Shops Act 1950, especially as the Act leaves unprotected shop workers who are called to work illegally in shops that should be closed on Sundays during the run-up to Christmas.

The last paragraph of the Minister's statement referred to Community law and awaiting the interpretation of the legal position. I have received many letters expressing deep concern about Sunday trading and law breaking, and the Government's attempt to blame Europe for the mess that they are in because of their inactivity. The evidence presented to me suggests otherwise. I ask the Minister to answer my question of 27 November, reported in column 923 of Hansard. If one of my constituents or anyone else takes a packet of biscuits and forgets to pay for it in a store that is illegally trading on Sunday, will that person expect to be prosecuted?

I now wish to refer to Sunday trading and European law. A lengthy document on that matter states: The Attorney's Statement on 27th November confirmed that a reference to the European Court of Justice does not suspend UK law. (Hansard Col. 913, 27th November 1991). Therefore the contrary proposition put forward by the law-breaking retailers is seen for what it is—deliberate and planned flouting of the criminal law for profit. The European Court at any time has hundreds of references from the 12 Member States. It is an absurdity to argue that a mere reference 'neutralizes' the laws of a country pending the Court's decision. If that were reality, there would be legal chaos across Europe. There have been three cases already brought to the European Court to test whether Sunday laws are contrary to the treaty of Rome. These came from France, Belgium and Britain. In all three cases the court ruled that countries are entitled to make their own Sunday laws and none is in conflict with the Treaty of Rome. Eleven out of twelve countries in the EC have laws which restrain Sunday Trading or Sunday employment to a greater. or lesser extent. Clearly there is a conscensus in the EC that to restrain Sunday trading is in the interests of the working population and has wider social benefits for family life. Against this background for law-breaking retailers to appeal to Europe as a defence for their actions is totally indefensible. The reason why the Shops Act is currently unenforceable is due to another decision by the Court of Appeal which requires local authorities to give a cross-undertaking for lost profits when seeking injunctions to uphold the Act. Regrettably, the Attorney-General has refused to provide the local authorities with the necessary support to make enforcement feasible under those conditions. That is especially embarrassing for a Conservative Government who seek shortly to offer themselves to the electorate as the party of law and order.

To demonstrate even more clearly that the Government have made a highly electorally damaging decision, one of the 10 million leaflets that have been produced by Marks and Spencer, which is one of several household names that has decided to put truth and integrity before profit, states: it continues to be our firm belief that it is not in the interests of our customers, our staff or our shareholders, for us to compromise our integrity by breaking the law. There is still time for Parliament to rectify matters, and I should like to suggest several ways in which the Minister could act. She should urge the Attorney-General to take up the matter again. He has the power to seek a nationwide injunction against the multiple retailers. It would require only one court appearance per national chain and, in all probability, the matter could be joined. That appears to be the most sensible mechanism for enforcing the Shops Act. The Attorney-General also has residual powers in the Criminal Law Act 1977, relating to conspiracy to undermine the public law. There is also a common law offence of incitement to breach the criminal law.

At present, local authorities that enforce the law risk huge costs if the European Court decision goes against them, while public limited companies that break the law face no risks if the court decides, as expected, for the validity of the Shops Act. That is obviously unfair.

However, section 71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 empowers a magistrates court to make a confiscation order against an offender if it is satisfied that he has benefited from the offence. A person benefits from an offence if he obtains property as a result of or in connection with its commission. His benefit is the value of the property so obtained. The powers are limited to the offences that are specified under schedule 4 and do not at present include offences under section 47 of the Shops Act. However, other offences may be added by statutory instrument. Thus, all that is required is for the Home Secretary to make the appropriate order. Is he willing to do so? If not, why not?

I should like to the Minister to request the Government to apply a series of moral sanctions. Law breakers should be denied public recognition whenever possible, such as the Queen's awards, development grants and local authority assistance. Official bodies should eschew anything other than formal involvement with law breakers. Executives involved in illegality should be denied public office, positions of influence and invitations to public functions. Those already honoured should be told that they are placing their honour in jeopardy.

Despite all the hype in the popular press and the media, the Tesco-led assault on the law has had nothing like the commercial success that has been claimed for it. Local press opinion polls and surveys throughout the country have come out strongly against a Sunday trade free-for-all. Evidence of unacceptable pressure and duress on shop staff, supervisors and managers is steadily increasing. The only day that many families will have been able to share together since 1 December will be Christmas day. Does that help to stem the breakdown of family life and relationships?

Respected market research by A. G. Neilson Ltd. shows that only about one in 20 households went grocery shopping last Sunday. That means that 19 out of 20 households did not. Is it right to stand idly by and allow a small group of directors of retail companies to dictate a fundamental change to our way of life for their benefit and that of fewer than 5 per cent. of the population? Immediate enforcement action and reform of the law is needed, and I trust that the Minister will respond to that request.

My interests in the matter include being the senior Member of Parliament sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. My views on this emotive subject, especially on the protection of workers' rights, conditions of employment and rates of pay and enhanced payments for overtime, have been put on record on numerous occasions. Perhaps those conditions should apply to Members of Parliament too, especially when we are up all night until 6.20 in the morning.

On Monday 25 November Durham university business school, one of the most prestigious in the country, presented in the Jubilee Room its report and findings of a six-month study of women and work. It examined the family attitudes and position of women employees, and the possible consequences of working unsocial hours, especially Sundays. I acted as host and the event was sponsored by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and organised by the operations director, Mr. David Blackmore. We discussed in detail the reform of the Shops Act 1950.

The study concluded that women employees in retailing do not want to work on Sundays. If they are compelled to, they would prefer to work on Saturdays, and to work non-standard hours on weekdays. The report claims that women are not in a strong position to negotiate with employers, most of them being part-time employees. The report also concluded that employee protection was not likely to be effective, whether or not women were members of a trade union.

The report further concluded: any reform of the Shops Act 1950 needs to take into consideration —the needs of the consumer —the needs of the shopworker and —the general trend towards the reduction in the hours of working which means more time for shopping will be available during the week". The overall conclusion is that Sunday work should be kept to a minimum and the Shops Act should be reformed but should not permit any major extension of Sunday trading". That report on women at work is well worth reading. I trust that the Minister has a copy. If not, I can provide her with one.

I have referred to the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Indeed, I presented, with the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), an all-party early-day motion on Sunday trading. The motion has already been signed, without any undue canvassing, by 101 Members from both sides of the House. Had names been canvassed, in all probability more than 200 would have signed by now, and I have no doubt that before 22 January, when I present a ten-minute Bill on the reform of the Shops Act 1950, that number will have been exceeded.

Having referred to the REST proposals put forward by Keep Sunday Special, it might be helpful—especially as those proposals are mentioned in the early-day motion —if I put on the record what the proposals are. The principles behind the proposals are to ensure that consumers' reasonable needs are met; that friends and family spend quality time together; that the freedoms of shopworkers, owners and residents are safeguarded; and that Sunday is kept a special day, as in the rest of Europe.

The REST proposals claim that exemption from basic closing should be based on the type of shop, not on lists of goods, and that exempt shops should be able to sell all their goods, that "type of shop" approach being used in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Special provisions should apply to small food and general stores, registration should be administered by local authorities, enforcement should be made simple and cost effective, and there should be full employment protection rights.

Under the REST proposals, shops similar in type to 'those already legally trading should be allowed to open. They would be sports centre outlets, historic house outlets, newsagents, garden centres, florists and video hire shops. They would come under recreation outlets. In emergencies, allowed shops would be chemists and small food shops. For social gatherings, restaurants, take-aways and off-licences would be included, as would petrol stations, motor spares shops and travel kiosks under the general travel heading.

I referred to the report on women. USDAW, with a membership of 400,000—mostly women shopworkers—would, I am sure, support the findings that I listed earlier from that report on women workers. Assurances about protection are requested whenever any attempt is made to change the Shops Act. My union is worried about any change in the law that might not include negotiated protection for its members. It points out that during 12 years of Conservative rule it has seen the systematic demolishing of employment and wages legislation, the end of wages councils and the introduction of numerous anti-trade union laws, all depriving its members of protection.

Whatever legislation amends or replaces the Shops Act 1950, shopworkers must be given protection for their rights, working conditions and contracts of employment, and if Sunday trading in a limited sense is introduced, employees must be free to refuse to work on Sunday. That right must be paramount in the consideration of, and clearly defined in, the legislation.

A recent ruling of a tribunal in Suffolk has substantiated USDAW's stance against unlimited Sunday trading, when shopworkers would be forced to turn up for work, whatever their wishes. Indeed, in the USDAW journal Today it is reported that The tribunal ruled that the seed packer Robert George's dismissal for refusing to work Sundays was unreasonable. He had told his employers he wanted to attend church and spend Sundays with his family. Mr. George had been told that during the harvest season he was required to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He requested Sundays off but the company, Plant Breeding International, said it would not allow less than a seven-day working week.

Mr. George said: To dismiss me after 16 years was atrocious. I had offered to work 14 hours a day, six days a week, instead.

'What I did was for the sake of family life, and to get a rest.' Expert advice on the importance of Sundays to family life was given to the tribunal by Malcolm Wickes, director of the Family Policy Study Centre. And Paul Diamond of the Keep Sunday Special campaign described the decision as unique and historic. This is a major victory for the principle of Sunday rest,' he said. I hope that by my remarks in the early hours of this morning I have convinced the Minister that there is need for a revision of the Shops Act 1950 or, indeed, for a new Act. Perhaps my proposal, to be presented to the House on 22 January, if it is supported by the Government, will be a move in the direction of overcoming the dilemma that the Government, retailers, consumers and everybody else are in at the present time, when people are blatantly flouting the law. I hope that every effort will be made to alter the situation as early as possible.

6.31 am

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on his success in the ballot. I believe that it is a success because there has been an opportunity here to get the Sunday trading case debated in the House of Commons, although it is very early in the morning and we all have difficulty in stringing our sentences together. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given us that opportunity. He has been a consistent advocate of ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to. I know that he feels great distress at what is happening as a result of Government inaction on this matter.

My hon. Friend referred to the opportunity that he had of presenting the result of the vote on the 1986 Bill. I recall that occasion, too. I remember in particular the huge smile that he had on his face when the Government were defeated in a way which can be described in parliamentary terms as nothing short of absolutely remarkable. The Government were defeated despite their huge majority of 130 or 140 votes. The reason why the Bill failed was that the Government were, I think, contemptuous of the House. They had this very unhealthy large majority and they put before the House a Bill which offered total deregulation of shopping hours and to all intents and purposes stripped out nearly all the employment protection which has been a hallmark of Sunday trading legislation, certainly for the past century.

The essence of Sunday trading legislation has always been to protect shop workers, who traditionally have always been abused. The House might recall the Auld report, which referred to our 2.2 million shop workers as people who have been generally abused in terms of their long working hours and poor wages.

Surely the House acted wisely when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber threw out the Shops Bill, which I considered to be a disgraceful piece of legislation. It deserved nothing short of the wastepaper basket.

In the meantime, the Government have attempted to pull together a solution to the dilemma that arises as a result of the different views that are held by various groups. Some organisations stand for total deregulation while others emphasise the consumer. There are others that wish to retain the feel, as it were, of Sunday, and there is the Christian element.

The Government's attempt to produce a solution has failed. I regret the approach of the Minister of State, Home Office. The right hon. Lady has seen the various groups to which I have referred, and I accept that the list is a long one, but she did not bring them together collectively to discuss a consensus. I am convinced, having talked to the groups, that a consensus could have been reached. A solution—[Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is making comments from a sedentary position. Is he asking me what the solution is?

Mr. Irvine Patnick(Lords Commissioner of the Treasury)

No, I am not.

Mr. Randall

It is unusual for a Whip to comment. Perhaps I should refrain from responding to the hon. Gentleman and continue with my speech.

I have had discussions with the various groups and I am convinced that a solution could have been arrived at if the Minister had arranged for collective discussions to take place. Now that we have moved into what is essentially a total deregulation mode, I think that the opportunity has been lost for ever.

I am sure that the House is distressed that the Minister has failed to make a proper statement. The right hon. Lady made an apology of a statement a week or so ago. I believe that she did so because a private notice question had already been accepted by Mr. Speaker. That statement told us nothing. It was made to save the Government some embarrassment.

What the Attorney-General—not so much the Minister of State—had to say in response to the private notice question was tragic. He decided to take no action. I think that most of us recall the way in which the Attorney-General seemed to expect that no comments would be thrown at him. It was disgraceful. I think—I measure my words carefully—that the Attorney-Generally behaved politically, in party-political terms, before he carried out his responsibility of ensuring that the law of the land is enforced. That is a disgraceful thing for an Attorney-General to have done. The House and the country will have noted—

Mr. Patnick

The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that.

Mr. Randall

The Government Whip is again making comments.

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

It is important that I should ask the hon. Gentleman carefully to consider what he has just said about my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who set out the legal position as a Law Officer. As the Attorney-General—not as the Government—he took a stand and put his point to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that he has accepted that point.

Mr. Randall

I do not accept that point. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my comments were not out of order or tasteless, but I shall rephrase them. It is a matter of concern throughout the country that the Attorney-General has not used his powers to ensure that the law of the land—the Shops Act 1950—is enforced. He has the

power to introduce an injunction on a company-by-company basis. As the number of companies leading the law-breaking campaign is small, he has a viable means of enforcing the law but he refused to do so—(Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) seek to intervene so that his interjections may be properly recorded?

Mr. Randall

I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he continues to interrupt from a sedentary position, irrespective of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hull city council, which Ministers accept is a good, efficiently run council, wanted to enforce the law, but, in practice, it cannot be enforced. Two courses of action are open to a local authority. First, it can take a company through the magistrates courts in the normal way with the aim of securing a prosecution. These days, that cannot happen because the case is unlikely to be listed and, if it is listed, it will be adjourned, so a local authority has no means of carrying out its responsibilities. Secondly, it can apply for an injunction. My city council did that against B & Q and had to pay a cross-undertaking of £1.2 million. That was for just one company.

I am not sure how the law-breaking campaign is working or whether other companies would have joined B & Q, but the chief executive of my council felt that he was not in a position to commit the poll tax payers of Hull to what could have amounted to several million pounds, and a deal was finally struck that Hull city council would refrain from taking out an injunction and the cross-undertaking was therefore withdrawn.

That is what councils are confronted with in practice. My remarks about the Attorney-General were strong because he has not faced up to his responsibility to enforce the law. He has copped out of his responsibilities. How would the Minister advise Hull city council to go about enforcing the law, bearing in mind that it cannot go through the magistrates courts because of the cross-undertakings required? She is bound to answer that there is no possible action and that the Shops Act 1950 is an unenforceable law. That is what is causing so much distress on both sides of the House.

The Government do not support law and order. There is a record level of chronic law breaking throughout the country and they are prepared to allow companies to break the law for profit. That is nothing short of irresponsibility, and inflicts severe damage on our democracy.

The upshot is that—

Mr. Patnick

What is the hon. Gentleman's solution?

Mr. Randall

The Whip is interrupting and asking for my solution. If he will be quiet I shall tell him what the Labour party proposes to do.

The Government have allowed law-breaking to continue. They have not used their powers and there is now total deregulation in this country. Any company can do whatever it wishes—it is easy. The various lawyers acting for the pressure groups that advocate the law breaking are saying that the Shops Act 1950 is not extant and that the referral to the European Court of Justice implies that the 1950 Act is suspended. That is nothing short of stupidity. If that were to happen every time there were a referral to the European Court the laws, not just of this country but of all other members of the EC, would be in chaos. A number of test cases on Sunday trading and the possible conflict with the treaty of Rome have already come before the European Court and all have been referred back to the various countries involved.

The defences that have been used to justify the campaign of law breaking are disgraceful. At the general election we shall be justified in saying that the Conservative party cannot again claim to be the party of law and order. Its credibility has been severely damaged and its attempts to find a solution to the problem have resulted in abject failure.

The fact that there is now total deregulation will have a serious effect on small shops. The advice that I have received from those who understand the issue better than I is that it will drive many small convenience stores out of business. Those little shops are loved by the British people because they are conveniently located just around the corner. People can use them to buy their newspapers on Sunday morning and are often prepared to pay more to use those stores because they are convenient.

I know that the Minister likes small stores, because she referred to them. in her speech on 14 October. I agreed with her and thought that her comments were eminently sensible. She said: They provide help to those who are unable always to go shopping on weekdays and Saturdays. They are small corner shops. We all acknoweldge that they provide an important service, especially for the elderly and those less able to get to the larger stores during the week." —[0fficia/ Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 129.] We all agree that small stores are important, but they can remain viable only if they can carry out their trading on Sundays. One must recognise that Sunday business can account for about 25 per cent. of the turnover of those small shops. If one adds late-night opening, it can account for about 40 per cent. of total trade. The decision by Tesco and other groups campaigning to break the law to get their own way—which they have largely done as a result of the Government's co-operation and collaboration—has made a serious dent in the turnover and profit of the stores that are already struggling.

Mrs. Rumbold

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the small corner shops which have been trading on Sundays—in many cases, outside the Shops Act 1950—-provide a useful service to some people in our communities. However, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. He has asserted that the Government have been unable to find a solution and has alluded to one anomaly, but will he state categorically what legislation the Opposition would introduce to resolve the difficulty?

Mr. Randall

I shall certainly answer the question, because we have a policy to which I alluded as a result of an interruption made by the Government Whip.

One of the reasons for the Government's failure has been the fact that they did not bring together all the groups involved. Until things collapsed. I had planned to hold a conference in either the last week in January or the first week in February because, as a result of discussions with the Shopping Hours Reform Council, SOS, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Keep Sunday Special campaign, the consumers and other groups, I am confident —

Mrs. Rumbold rose—

Mr. Randall

I shall finish the point and then I shall give way. From the discussions that I have had with those groups and from some statements that I have received—I do not want to go into detail because they were confidential—I am confident that a solution could have been found which would have formed a reasoned consensus for those groups, for the interests that they represent and for the House. The Government have blown it. They should have held a joint conference. There is no question but that it would have involved tough chairmanship and I am convinced that the Minister —whom I should have expected to chair the conference—would have had to hit a few heads together. However, the parties involved were prepared to have their heads hit together to arrive at a solution.

As the basis of its policy, the Labour party has advocated such a conference. When we form the Government—whether it is in April or May, we do not yet know—we shall hold the conference to reach the consensus, the potential for which already exists. However, the Government unfortunately failed to bring the people together. The Minister held a number of meetings and I know what went on, but the opportunity was lost.

Mrs. Rumbold

I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman believes that a conference will be the panacea to all the ills connected with Sunday trading. Would that it were so. The absolute naivety of his suggestion knocks me out. Whatever people say to him in confidence and whatever they may say in twos or threes, if he had been here when the issue was raised on the Floor of the House only a week or so ago he would have realised—indeed he was here so he should have realised this instantly—that the leaders of the groups might come to an—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

He was at the Dispatch Box.

Mrs. Rumbold

Indeed he was. The hon. Member should have observed, at that debate, the variety of views held by hon. Members. The leaders of the groups that he mentions might well come to some sort of compromise —I might have achieved that—but I would not be able to command a majority of Members, who have other ideas. How would the hon. Gentleman solve that?

Mr. Randall

I am confident from the discussions that I have had that we could have found the basis for an agreement. In the Minister's position, I would have hit heads together, stated what I believed would be ultimately acceptable to the House of Commons, and had the courage to put the case to the House. Instead of doing that, the Minister kicked the ball into the long grass. She has been pressurised by the big companies that contribute to the Conservative party and been forced to deliver what they want.

That is why we are in this trouble, and why the Government have been grossly irresponsible. The Minister should have started with an agreement on terms and conditions relating to employment protection and dealt with the other aspects afterwards. That would have got her 80 per cent. of the way to her goal; but, as a Minister on the right of the Conservative party under political pressures, she could not do it. The next Labour Government will do it; we will have the guts to come to the House with a solution that we think will be in the interests of the consumers, those who want to retain the special nature of Sunday, those who work in the industry and all the other interested groups.

This Minister will go down in history as the Minister who killed off small shops in Britain. The trend already has been remarkable: we used to have 140,000 village shops in the 1960s. Only 39,000 remain. People representing those shops tell me that the latest move by Tesco and the others that are breaking the law could sound the death knell for some of the vulnerable stores.

The Opposition feel strongly about this. We are told that the people of Britain want to shop on Sundays. Well, let us put the case to the House and vote on it. The opinion polls do not reflect the true opinions of the British public. They do not want their small stores destroyed and put out of business. They have a great deal of love and affection for the small stores, and the Minister will go down in history as the woman who wrecked them.

As a result of the opening on 8 December, small shops' trade for the day in the south midlands fell by 15 per cent. In Bristol, a group of shops affected by trading on 8 December saw their incomes drop from about £4,000 to less than £3,000, a drop of about 25 per cent. That is serious. It means that those shops are no longer viable and we condemn the Government's inaction on the reform of the Shops Act 1950.

6.59 am

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

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) made a good point at the beginning of the debate when he said that there have been considerable difficulties in redesigning the Shops Act 1950 to meet the requirements of the 1990s.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I well recall the Second Reading debate of the Shops Bill 1986 which followed upon the discussions and deliberations of the Auld committee which, since as long ago as 1985, had been engaged in a series of debates about Sunday trading. After considerable deliberations, a great deal of attention, many discussions with the various parties concerned—no doubt the kind of conference which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) so naively believes will produce a solution—the committee came forward with the only viable solution, total deregulation of Sunday trading. As a result, the Government introduced the 1986 Bill.

As hon. Members may or may not recall, Conservative Members had a free vote, a conscience vote, because the Bill was regarded as being of sufficient importance to require people to make up their own minds. On that occasion, the Government's proposals were not accepted by the House. I freely admit that, following that, the Government have been unwilling to introduce other proposals because they feel that they would have to be enforceable, workable and acceptable to a majority of hon. Members.

It is a wonderful notion that we could have a conference of the main spokesmen for the different organisations—

Mr. Randall

They have agreed to that.

Mrs. Rumbold

Of course they have. Of course they will come together and discuss the matter. Of course it is believed that some will give way to others. I have had discussions with those people, collectively and individually, but even were the leaders prepared to make some concessions, the strongly held views of people at both ends of the spectrum are such that it would be exceedingly difficult to introduce a proposal to the House which hon. Members would accept could form the basis for coherent, workable and enforceable legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

What is the evidence for that?

Mrs. Rumbold

I have been sufficiently foolhardy to raise the issue from time to time with small groups of individuals who put their point of view to me when it is easy to be civilised and who propose arrangements whereby Sunday trading could be limited to certain times, to shops of a particular size, to the selling of particular goods or to certain types of shop. If groups of, say, 50 to 100 people were to be asked how many of them would like to see some deregulation on Sunday, only about half would put up their hands; the other half would want to keep Sunday special. That is what would happen if the matter were put to the House, but the Opposition seem to think that the matter could be resolved overnight.

As I explained in my statement on 27 November, I have undertaken intensive discussions with a wide range of major and conflicting interest groups on possible ways of reforming the Sunday trading laws for England and Wales, and they will continue next year. I am willing to talk to anyone who comes to me with a proposed solution that they believe the House would accept—including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and other Labour Members. However, it is unclear to me at this time what recommendations one could put in the form of legislation to be put before the House that would command the majority needed to make sensible legislation, to allow the country to move forward in the 1990s.

Neither the Government nor Parliament can decide with confidence on the options for reform until questions about the compatibility of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 with article 30 of the treaty of Rome, which deals with free trade, are answered. I remind Labour Members that that article, which was signed in 1972, was referred by another place to the European Court of Justice, and that question of compatibility must be resolved.

Many of the proposed options, particularly those advanced by the Keep Sunday Special campaign, would continue to restrict Sunday trading by a class or list of goods. Whether or not agreement could be reached, it would not be sensible to settle policy on the merits of any proposals until their compatibility with Community law could be determined. There is nothing new in that concept.

This week, Labour Members announced that they are total Europeans, believe 100 per cent. in Europe, and that theirs is the party of Europe. I am therefore surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ogmore express concern at our reluctance to reach a decision until the European Court of Justice makes its pronouncement. I thought that the hon. Member for Ogmore and other Labour Members would be anxious to await that judgment.

When we joined the European Community some 20 years ago, Parliament decided that our own courts should refer questions of international compatibility in law to the

European Court. I made it clear on 27 November that we intend to bring forward proposals for Sunday trading once the legal position is clear.

Mr. Randall

The right hon. Lady is skating on thin ice.

Mrs. Rumbold

Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about that. I am convinced that if the hon. Gentleman were ever in a position of responsibility in the House—the likelihood of which is becoming increasingly remote—he would also find himself advised that it would be foolish to put before the House proposals which in a few weeks or months might fall outside the law.

I point out to the hon. Member for Ogmore that the Sunday trading laws could be suspended only by primary legislation. It would be neither right in principle nor practicable to introduce such a Bill. An order made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 43(1) of the Shops Act 1950 would only lift the requirement for shops to close ordinarily by 8 pm on Sundays. It would not affect the suspension of the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act.

I was asked why we cannot suspend the law, and I have explained why that would not be possible. I have also been asked whether it would be possible to make partial exemption orders under section 48(1) of the Shops Act. That, too, would not meet the purpose: such orders require protracted and elaborate consultation on the part of local authorities with local traders. Except in emergencies, the orders allow only for the sale of additional grocery provisions such as bread, flour, fish and confectionery until 10 pm on Sundays.

The hon. Member for Ogmore said that the opinion polls demonstrated that only a limited number of people would be interested in total deregulation. Other polls have been published in the newspapers, however, and the issue has gained a good deal of attention over the past few weeks. I have experienced some of it personally. People from the newspapers foolishly park outside my home on Sundays, I suspect to see either whether I go shopping or whether I go to church. As they are parked outside in their cars, I do neither: I find it quite irritating to have my Sundays plotted. I dig the garden, or wrap my Christmas presents. That seems to me a better way of spending Sundays—among my family. Opinion polls always give different answers depending on the questions that have been asked, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not place too much emphasis on the outcome.

The hon. Gentleman referred to another issue in which I take a good deal of interest—women and work. I am very concerned about women, their rights and how they are looked after and protected at work. I am keen for them to have a greater opportunity to develop both their working and their family lives. I place equal emphasis on both aspects. The majority of women—and, indeed, the majority of men—are feeling that they must start protecting family life.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that women might feel that they were under considerable pressure to work on Sundays. I understand his point, but many women have written to me asking us specifically not to prevent them from working on Sundays. Many said that they welcomed the opportunity to work, and were not able to do so during the week because there was no one look after their children. They therefore chose to look after their children during the week, and to allow their husbands to do so while they went to work on Sundays. That is a matter of choice, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to deny people the opportunity of employment.

One of the common threads that have emerged from my discussions has been the necessity, when considering how the law might be reformed, of tackling the question of protecting employees from being obliged by their employers to work on Sundays, against their wishes, or incurring any penalty for not doing so. It is a matter of great concern that employees should receive proper rewards for working on Sundays. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) assumes that I have been sitting drinking cups of coffee and not talking to people about the issues. That is foolish of him, because we have discovered that there is agreement more or less across the spectrum.

The Government generally take the view that matters of pay and hours are better left to negotiation between employers and employees, or by their representatives, and that they should certainly not be dealt with in legislation or in codes of practice provided for in statute. Employees aggrieved by the actions of their employers may seek redress through the courts or at an industrial tribunal.

The Government recognise the importance of personal conscience in this context and included a measure of protection for existing shop workers against being made to work on Sundays in the Shops Bill which was debated by the House in 1986. I assure hon. Members that we readily acknowledge the strength of feeling about that aspect of Sunday trading and will take it fully into account when we draw up proposals for the reform of the law. I shall be more than happy to comply with that undertaking.

The Member for Ogmore also asked me to consider the question of enforcement. As he and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in his personal capacity as Law Officer of the Crown and not as a Minister, came to the House to inform it how he intended to proceed. He made clear on 27 November what he felt was the best action for him to take in his capacity as a Law Officer. I deprecate the rather ungracious and ill-considered words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West in referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That was unnecessary and completely wrong. The Attorney-General has made clear to the House the position under the law and it is important that the House should recognise that.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also raised the question of the Robert George case. Contrary to press reports, Sunday working was not the central issue in that case. The crux of the matter was the overall length and organisation of working hours during a peak session and their impact on the employee and his particular family circumstances. The industrial tribunal that heard that case accepted that it was undesirable for employees to be prevented from taking time off with their families, although there were other issues involved. In that case, Sunday was the only day on which such time off with the family was possible. That would not necessarily apply to all cases,

The hon. Gentleman must remember that many people are willing to work overtime, including Sundays, at peak periods. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that many people work on Sundays to deliver our emergency services. Many do that by choice. The men and women in the national health service go into our hospitals and work exceedingly hard, not necessarily by choice, but because it is part of the work that they undertake to do. The same is true of the police and the law enforcement officers generally, and of many people who man the emergency services, such as the fire service.

Mr. Powell

I was not referring to a press report of the Robert George case. I listened to Robert George at a conference at which he gave chapter and verse of the detail of his case. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was present at the conference when Robert George was on the platform. I was referring not to press reports, but to my conversation with the gentleman concerned. His statement to the conference and to me personally was that it was a Sunday issue. The fact was that he did not want to work on Sunday. He had worked for the same firm for 16 years without working on a Sunday because of his objection to working on a Sunday and his wish to stay at home and then to go to church.

Mrs. Rumbold

As I said, the industrial tribunal accepted that employees should be able to take time off with their families. He wanted to take Sunday off and spend it with his family. However, the principle of Sunday trading was not at the heart of the judgment.

I am sure that this will not be the last occasion on which we shall debate this issue. There are many difficulties involved, not least with regard to the application of the law, given that we must wait for the judgment of the European Court of Justice. No doubt we will hear the views of the hon. Member for Ogmore once that judgment is made. I understand that he is likely to bring forward proposals in a ten-minute Bill in the not-too-distant future and I will listen to that debate with great interest. I am here to listen to all my colleagues and to all hon. Members and anyone else who wishes to make representations to me. I am interested in possible solutions. If the solutions of the hon. Member for Ogmore command great support, we will consider them with great interest.

I am convinced that it would be foolish for the Government to formulate policy until we are clear, from the European Court, what that policy should avoid so as not to become entangled in the law. I can assure the hon. Member for Ogmore that once the legislative procedure is clarified, the Government will be more than anxious to end the anomalies and the present situation in which people are unclear and therefore feel free to take the law into their own hands. We are not anxious to see the situation evolve. We want to take control of the situation, but it is no use hon. Members like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West telling me that we should have a conference and then table a Bill and that would be the end of the matter. Were it that easy, we would have done that three or four years ago. It is not that easy. People must understand that the issue is difficult and needs a great deal of give and take. They must also understand that the issue is very important for the people of this country.

At the end of the day, I hope that there will be a general recognition that Sunday is different and that we all, from time to time, need a breathing space during the working week. The legislation that we intend to introduce will have

to have the support of the House and the different interests will have to be brought together before such legislation can be introduced.