Sunday Trading (Hansard, 20 January 1992)

§ 25. Mr. Simon Hughes
To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received since the beginning of December which have been critical of his reaction to Sunday opening of stores.

§ The Attorney-General
Including letters addressed to other Ministers and transferred to me, the answer is about 2,000. Substantive replies have been sent in almost every case.

§ Mr. Hughes
Does the Attorney-General accept that the many letters protesting at his view about Sunday trading, as expressed in the House, suggest that the matter should be reconsidered by the Government, especially as the approach appears to be inconsistent and hypocritical? On Sunday trading, the Government say that there is a risk that the European Court might rule against us, so they take no action. On the environmental impact assessment directive, the European Commission sent a letter before action had been taken, accompanied by a personal letter. The Government said then that although they have been told that they are in the wrong, they will do nothing about it. Surely European laws should be either obeyed or disobeyed. It should not be a matter of pick and choose, as the Government please.

§ The Attorney-General
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my last answer. If he had, he would have heard me say that it was for the Attorney-General to enforce the law, not the Government. The answer on this subject that I gave in November made it perfectly clear that the decision is mine and nobody else's. I think that those letters show a wholly 13 understandable sense of frustration, but the House of Lords, before which an appeal is pending, has shown uncertainty about whether the provisions of the Shops Act 1950 remain part of our domestic law. Accordingly, the House of Lords referred the issues to the European Court of Justice so that the House of Lords could answer that question. I keep the matter under review, as I must, but in the circumstances I am not persuaded that the public interest requires me to take the necessarily large number of actions up and down the country.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Action was taken on the poll tax.

§ The Attorney-General
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contrive to listen to what I am saying on this complicated matter. My jurisdiction is limited to taking action in the public interest. Local authorities have a separate and specific jurisdiction conferred on them by the Act, and the course that they take is a matter for their judgment. The environmental assessment aspect is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the relevant Minister.

§ Mr. Channon
Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any estimate of the time that will elapse before the European Court gives its judgment on the matter.? Can my right hon. and learned Friend take any action to shorten that period and clear up what is a highly unsatisfactory situation, whatever view one takes on Sunday opening?

§ The Attorney-General
I agree that it is unsatisfactory. The Government have asked the European Court at Luxembourg to expedite its hearing. The best that I can say is that we shall receive the answer to the question that the House of Lords has asked in forthcoming months—I hope that the number involved will be few, not great.

§ Mr. Anderson
What is the Attorney-General's authority for saying that he cannot rely on Crown privilege in relation to cross undertakings for damages? Is not it crystal clear that the Government are willingly in collusion with those stores that are using salami tactics bit by bit—before Christmas, between Christmas and the new year and after the new year—and which so handsomely contribute to Conservative party funds? Surely, circumstances have now changed and any reasonable Attorney-General would respond accordingly.

§ The Attorney-General
I have not troubled to inquire whether any firm has contributed to the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a matter of total indifference to me, as it should be to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). If he chooses to use the word "collusion", and apply it to me in that context, he is attributing dishonourable conduct—he should be ashamed of doing so.

§ Sir John Farr
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider advising local authorities—which still seem to be unaware of their present powers on which they can act—and circulating information to them to tell them that if they want to come down on Sunday traders, the statute book in Britain already gives them that authority?

§ The Attorney-General
I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the section is entirely clear and I think that all local authorities are aware of its provisions, which place the primary duty of enforcing the Shops Act 1950 on them. There is no shortage of advice available to local authorities 14 to enable them to decide whether, in uncertain circumstances, it is politic for them to seek to start proceedings, whether criminal or civil. That is for local authorities to decide, and it is not for me to offer them advice.

§ Mr. Fraser
Does the Attorney-General agree that the defence of using the treaty of Rome in relation to breaches of the Shops Act 1950 is pretty flimsy and slender? As the European Court delays are providing a valuable premium for some people and holding up injunctive relief in this country, should not further representations be made to the European Court to deal with the problem as an injunctive matter so that certainty is quickly returned to the courts of this country?

§ The Attorney-General
We certainly want to know the answer and the House of Lords, which is dealing with an appeal in the B and Q case, also wants to know the answer. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished and experienced solicitor. I do not know whether he wishes to reconsider what on earth he means by saying that it is a flimsy excuse: either it is part of the law, or it is not. So long as there is uncertainty about the matter, that must have a bearing on whether enforcement proceedings are taken by the Attorney-General up and down the country in a necessarily very large number of cases. I explained to the House in November that I do not consider that the public interest lies in my taking that very large number of proceedings up and down the country in those circumstances. Whether local authorities take the same view in their own jurisdictions is a matter entirely for them.