§ 5.1 pm
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relax certain restrictions on the opening hours of shops and other places where a retail trade or business is carried on; to make provision for licensing Sunday trading at such places; to make transitional provision as to the rights of persons employed as shopworkers; and for connected purposes.The House might like to know that I have been authorised by the Consumers Association to say that it supports the principles of my Bill and hopes that the House will support it too.Some weeks ago the Prime Minister, in a typical moment of understatement, described the Sunday trading laws as bizarre. Who can defend a situation where it is legal to sell a bottle of gin on Sunday but illegal to sell a packet of teabags? The latter-day Marie Antoinettes seem to think that it is moral to drink gin but wrong to drink a cup of tea on Sunday. Who can defend a position where it is legal to sell plants but illegal to sell the pots into which they might be put, and where it is legal to sell Sunday sport but illegal to sell the Bible on Sunday? Who can defend the absurd situation where cinemas can open legally for trade on Sunday, but a video shop, which seeks to sell or rent out the video of the same film that the viewer can see at the cinema, is acting illegally? It seems to be all right in the view of the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign to watch a film at the cinema but wrong to watch the video of that film in the bosom of one's home.
The Sunday trading law is rarely enforced. Every week it is broken by the 60,000 shops which open regularly to serve the needs of customers. The number of prosecutions is very small. A law which is regarded as so indefensible and so out of date that no one or very few seek to enforce it brings the whole rule of law into disrepute. If the law is regarded as out of date, that is not an argument for not enforcing it; it is an argument for repealing it here and now. The irony is that if the law were enforced there would be a minor revolution and a major campaign to ensure that it was changed dramatically.
The Shops Act 1950 was passed for a different era. It was an era of austerity and not of plenty, at a time when the majority of married women did not go out to work. It was passed long before anyone had thought of a DIY centre or a garden centre, and when no video shops existed anywhere in the country. The position has changed completely. Some 70 per cent. of married women go out to work. I hope I am not regarded as chauvinistic if I say that British industry could not survive without the work which women do.
Shopping on a Saturday is frequently a most unpleasant experience. One has only to get into a supermarket check-out or go to a toy shop just before Christmas to realise how unpleasant shopping on a Saturday can be. Since 1950 there has been a dramatic change in our attitude towards Sunday. Sunday sport, which was completely uncommon, is now regular and successful. More people go to watch cricket at Lords on a Sunday than on a Saturday or any other day of the week. Similarly, we have professional football on a Sunday, and it is not unknown for Wimbledon finals to take place on Sundays as well. Cinemas are open on Sunday. And of course the opening hours of public houses on a Sunday have been increased by a motion of the House.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Parliament does not open on a Sunday.
§ Mr. MarshallI sometimes think that those who have very little to say, apart from sedentary observations, would be better to keep quiet.
Sunday trading is defended by two unrepresentative bodies, one being the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers which represents one in 11 shopworkers. Sunday is rightly regarded as a day of rest and a day for the family, but many family-style activities are regarded as illegal under the 1950 Act. Who can say that it is bad for the family to be able to rent a video to watch in their own home, to go to a DIY centre and buy paint and wallpaper so that they can get on with improving their own home, to go to a garden centre to buy plants and other things for the garden?
Opponents of reform say that change would revolutionise Sunday. I should merely like to make two points about that. First, the Scottish sabbath has no protection from Sunday trading but many more people in Scotland than in England go to church, so the protection of Sunday does not guarantee that people go to church. I regret the recent publicised decline in church attendance. Secondly, many shops already open illegally on a Sunday, regardless of the state of the law.
The Bill seeks to introduce a system of licensed Sunday trading so that shops which currently open illegally, such as DIY centres, garden centres and convenience and neighbourhood stores, would be eligible to apply for licences to enable them to trade on Sundays. Others, such as the major multiples, major supermarkets and stores of over 3,000 sq ft, would be able to trade, again under licence, between 12 noon and 6 pm. That would show that there is a difference between Sunday and the rest of the week.
The Bill would also introduce provision for widespread Sunday trading in the six weeks before Christmas. Nothing destroys the spirit of goodwill that Christmas is meant to generate more than going shopping in a toy shop on a Saturday before Christmas. Conditions are unbearable. The queues are even longer than at normal supermarket check-outs.
The Bill would introduce local authority licensing which would mean that it would not be a formality. Local authorities could take account of the characteristics of an area.
The Bill would also introduce protection for employees who do not want to work on a Sunday. This is the first attempt to do that. I urge those who believe that there is a huge reservoir of people who do not want to work on a Sunday to consider the position at the moment. This morning I received a letter from a director of Do It All Ltd. in which he says:
All our Sunday workers are paid premium rates and are volunteers. Indeed, the desire to work on Sunday is so strong that in many locations we have to rota the staff.More people want to work on Sunday in that DIY store than there are jobs available.The leaders of USDAW should point out to the House and the country that we have 2.2 million shop workers of whom 200,000 are paid-up members of USDAW. It represents one shop worker in 11. It should be regarded as being as unrepresentative as the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign.
I regard it as unfortunate that the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign has sought to rubbish my Bill and to 165 oppose it without having the courtesy to ask me for a sight of it. That suggests that those involved have closed minds. They have issued a press release stating that they want a right of veto over Government measures on Sunday trading. I believe that that is wrong because they are unrepresentative and a small minority. They seek power without responsibility—the preserve of the harlot throughout the ages.
Under my Bill, individuals would be free to choose whether to work; they would be free to choose whether to open their shops; they would be free to choose whether to shop. Many will choose not to do so, but all should be free to make that choice. The defeat of the Shops Bill in 1986 underlined the need for compromise. This Bill provides a workable compromise, and I commend it to the House.
§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)Having listened with great care to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), I am even more pleased that I have sought your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rise to oppose this Bill. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should re-read—if he has read it—the report of the full debate on the Shops Bill that was held on 14 April 1986, which was a classic debate covering this whole subject. It commenced at 3.45 pm and lasted until midnight. We had 8 hours and 15 minutes of reasoned, articulate, sincere and forthright arguments from hon. Members of all parties. As most hon. Members will recall, that Bill was defeated by 296 votes to 282—a majority of 14 votes.
Shops legislation, especially on the emotive subject of Sunday trading, will always engender considerable interest and inevitably conflicting opinions. Even if I were to attempt to sum up my total opposition to this Bill in the short time now available to me, I could say little that would be different from the many arguments that I have already made when discussing similar Bills to reform the Shops Act 1950.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South suggested that his Bill is the first attempt to protect workers on Sundays. Again, I ask him to read the report of another debate. I presented a ten-minute Bill entitled the Shops (Sunday Trading and Workers' Protection) Bill on 14 May 1986, which recognised the major criticism of the 1950 Act; its many and varied anomalies; its complications and, above all, the difficulties of enforcement. My Bill called for a standing conference and named the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is now the Father of the House, to chair discussions, proving that the only real solution is to seek agreement beyond the realms of personal and political prejudice.
I said then—I repeat again today—that any new proposals must provide adequate protection for some of the lowest paid workers—the shop workers. There must be wide involvement and comprehensive consultation with those who are directly or indirectly involved. The House should continue to seek consent by discussion and negotiation and should not attempt to tinker with a problem that requires great care and protracted negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is second best when it comes to employee protection. It is essentially an exercise in damage limitation. No employee can be adequately 166 safeguarded once the dam has been breached. Where are the proposals in the Bill to ensure the employment, remuneration and working conditions of the employees who would be expected to work on Sundays? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the cost, and the prices for the retail and distributive industries, or the interests and wishes of consumers? What about the suggested increase in crime; the demands on transport; the car parking; the effect on the environment and the interests of residents, to name but a few of the issues that the hon. Gentleman purposely overlooked?
Even more important, despite—or perhaps because of —the hon. Gentleman's known association with the deregulation lobby, he has blatantly disregarded or conveniently overlooked the talks that have already been planned and arranged by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, Home Office. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is singularly ill-timed, given that those talks are about to take place.
In the debate on the Shops Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) called on the Government in the last paragraph of his speech to withdraw their Bill and to hold a conference of all interests to work out agreed changes in the law that could be widely acceptable. His sound advice was rejected and the Government suffered the most humiliating defeat of their term in office.
Five years have passed and they now seek consensus. My union, USDAW, has accepted a meeting with the Minister of State, Home Office, on 11 April for talks about reform. The other organisations involved include "Keep Sunday Special"; "Sort out Sunday"; the Association of District Councils; the National Institute of Chambers of Commerce and Industry; the Free Church Federal Council; the British Council of Churches; the Irish Council of Churches; the Institute of Safety and Public Protection; the Board of Deputies of British Jews; the Churches' Main Committee; Churches Together in England; the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility; and Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs. Most have accepted dates, and discussions are already planned. That is a positive response and the most sensible and logical conclusion to this emotive subject.
My union, USDAW, is not Luddite. Whether or not only one in 11 shop workers is a member, it still has 400,000 members. They are law-abiding and expect all others to obey the law until such time as Parliament is convinced that there is a need for a change. We expect everyone, including the Prime Minister, to advocate and to ensure that the 1950 Act is not violated and that local authorities carry out their responsibilities if anyone attempts any blatant abuse.
If the hon. Member for Hendon, South is not prepared to withdraw his Bill, on the basis of the talks that are already planned, I have no alternative but to ask the House to join me in the No Lobby to vote against his Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 144.
168| Division No. 86] | [5.17 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Ashby, David |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Banks, Robert (Harrogate) |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | McCrindle, Sir Robert |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Bowis, John | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Bright, Graham | Marlow, Tony |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Clark, Rt Hon Sir William | Neale, Sir Gerrard |
| Colvin, Michael | Norris, Steve |
| Conway, Derek | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Page, Richard |
| Devlin, Tim | Price, Sir David |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Riddick, Graham |
| Dykes, Hugh | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Favell, Tony | Sims, Roger |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Speller, Tony |
| Franks, Cecil | Squire, Robin |
| Fraser, John | Steen, Anthony |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Hague, William | Thurnham, Peter |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Tracey, Richard |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Tredinnick, David |
| Hayes, Jerry | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Hayward, Robert | Walters, Sir Dennis |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Whitney, Ray |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Janman, Tim | Wilkinson, John |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. Barry Field and Mr. Robert G. Hughes. |
| Knowles, Michael | |
| Knox, David |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.) | Campbell-Savours, D. N. |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Canavan, Dennis |
| Allen, Graham | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Alton, David | Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) |
| Anderson, Donald | Cohen, Harry |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Corbett, Robin |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Cormack, Patrick |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Crowther, Stan |
| Ashton, Joe | Cryer, Bob |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Barron, Kevin | Dalyell, Tam |
| Beith, A. J. | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bell, Stuart | Dixon, Don |
| Bellotti, David | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Body, Sir Richard | Eastham, Ken |
| Callaghan, Jim | Evennett, David |
| Fearn, Ronald | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Flynn, Paul | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Foster, Derek | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Fry, Peter | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Fyfe, Maria | Mudd, David |
| Galbraith, Sam | Mullin, Chris |
| Gale, Roger | Murphy, Paul |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Nellist, Dave |
| George, Bruce | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Gordon, Mildred | O'Hara, Edward |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Gregory, Conal | Patchett, Terry |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Pawsey, James |
| Grocott, Bruce | Pendry, Tom |
| Hardy, Peter | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Harris, David | Prescott, John |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Haynes, Frank | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Randall, Stuart |
| Hinchliffe, David | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Hood, Jimmy | Ruddock, Joan |
| Howells, Geraint | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) |
| Illsley, Eric | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Irvine, Michael | Snape, Peter |
| Jessel, Toby | Spearing, Nigel |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Kilfedder, James | Straw, Jack |
| Lamond, James | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Livsey, Richard | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| McAllion, John | Wallace, James |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Wareing, Robert N. |
| McCartney, Ian | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Wigley, Dafydd |
| McMaster, Gordon | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Wilson, Brian |
| McWilliam, John | Winnick, David |
| Madden, Max | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Marek, Dr John | Woodcock, Dr. Mike |
| Meacher, Michael | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Meale, Alan | |
| Michael, Alun | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. David Marshall |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.