§ 11. Mr. John MarshallTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently about the operation of the Shops Act 1950.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeSo far this year we have received 149 written representations broadly in favour of more Sunday trading and 819 against.
§ Mr. MarshallI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for promising to produce the Government's considered thoughts on the matter by the end of the year. Is he aware that Sunday trading is popular with the majority of shoppers, shopworkers and shopkeepers? Is it not high time that the British people were free to decide whether to shop or not to shop, to work or not to work on a Sunday?
§ Mr. ClarkeFirst, I have not promised to produce anything by the end of the year, so my hon. Friend will have to wait to see whether his thanks are premature. We are committed to bringing proposals to the House once the law has been made clear by the European Court of Justice for whose judgment we are still waiting. Then we shall obviously have to consider what to do to produce a solution that the House finds acceptable for the future. Meanwhile, I agree with my hon. Friend. Sunday shopping seems extremely popular with my constituents and is certainly not giving rise to any protests from anybody in my part of the world.
§ Mr. Ray PowellThe Secretary of State may not have promised to prepare anything before the end of the year, but I have prepared, with the Keep Sunday Special campaign, a Bill to change the law on Sunday trading. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the Bill and give it the Government's support? It contains measures that were accepted on both sides of the House. On 22 January when I produced a similar Bill, 224 hon. Members voted in favour of it—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to test my patience in that way. He should put his question.
§ Mr. Ray PowellI do not wish to test your patience, Madam Speaker, but—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I was not giving the hon. Gentleman pause for a second breath.
§ Mr. ClarkeWe are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the Shops Act 1950 to see whether that can still be enforced. It certainly seems to be the case that no one wants the Shops Act 1950 still to be in force and people are proposing variations upon it in all directions. By the time we reach the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the position will be clearer and no doubt we shall debate the matter then. But I shall be surprised if there is any proposition which has only four opponents in the House.
§ Mr. CormackDoes my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bill being introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)? Will he ensure that there is a proper free vote on that Bill when it comes before the House?
§ Mr. ClarkeAs I have said, we have not yet committed ourselves to introducing any measure of our own. We have 1031 therefore not yet taken a decision on the handling of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. However, I appreciate that views on the issue run across party lines and that strong views are held on both sides of the House. A feature of the proposed reform is that it seeks to distinguish between one type of goods and another, one type of shop and another and one type of hour of day and another. All those solutions are difficult to envisage in practice, but we shall consider them all once we have the judgment of the European Court of Justice and are clear about the present legal position.
§ Mr. RandallIs the Home Secretary aware that Government incompetence has resulted in Dewhurst's having to announce the closure of 600 of its high street shops—one third of its network—because of illegal competition from certain super-stores? That has meant a serious loss of consumer choice and of jobs. As we can now expect an early decision from the European Court about the state of the Shops Act 1950, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether he is committed to introducing legislation as a matter of urgency after the decision has been announced, or whether he is going to connive with the law breakers like his predecessors?
§ Mr. ClarkeThe Government presented a Bill that would have enabled us to reform Sunday trading. I spoke in favour of that Bill on Second Reading and voted for it, but the last Parliament threw it out on Second Reading and left the House unable to do anything about the existing state of the law. The House must address the issue and reach some clear conclusion. No one is breaking the law, because the House of Lords has decided that it is not clear what the law is. That is why the matter has been referred to the European Court of Justice; when we have a decision from the court, we shall know the basis on which we are starting.
I do not accept that any company has been closed down by the impact of Sunday trading. If the Labour party's only contribution is to undertake to protect Dewhurst from competition, I do not think that that is a very good starting point. What we need is an accepted law on Sunday trading, within which all retailers can compete on level terms.
§ Mr. HigginsShould not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this case?
§ Mr. ClarkeOur national Parliament has not made a tremendous success of getting the law right in this regard. Of all the legislation passed by the House, the Shops Act 1950 lends itself to least defence, and we all now want to change it.
Our European commitment extends simply to ensuring that national laws do not place any impediments in the way of free trade within the Community. This country is strongly in favour of that. We shall wait to see whether the European Court decides that it extends to the Shops Act; there is a real possibility that it will say that this is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. If it says that, we shall face up to all the arguments that have just been presented.