Commons Sitting of 26 March 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34 am
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased to be able to propose the Bill and I thank its sponsors, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who cannot be here this morning—my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), and finally the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).
  The Bill has cross-party support in the House and has a lot of support in the country among trade unions and people working in the retail trade, but it also has resonance in the faith communities and the Churches, from whom I have received many letters of support. The Bill resonates with ordinary people who want to protect Christmas day as that one day in the year on which they can come together with their families to cherish a special day.
  Christmas is about giving gifts, but many of us think it is more than just another shopping day. Certainly many in this House and the country do not think that giving gifts and the commercialism of Christmas should be at the expense of those who work in the retail industry. USDAW, the shop workers union, represents 2.6 million workers—not just in the retail trade, but in the distribution industry—and it supports the Bill, as do the main established Churches. Others, including campaigns such as Keep Sunday Special, support the Bill.
  That is why the Bill is important. It would allow shop workers and those in the retail trade in England and Wales to spend Christmas day with their families, something that many, including MPs, take for granted.
  1156
  The Bill would prevent large shops from opening on Christmas day and would simply correct an anomaly in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that allows shops to open on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday. As people would expect, the Bill is based on the provisions of the 1994 Act. The Bill will adopt the same exemptions from prohibition as contained in the Act; those will include farm shops, motorcycle supply shops, stands and exhibitions, pharmacies for the sale of medicines, shops at airports and railway stations, shops servicing oceangoing liners, and shops at petrol stations and motorway service stations. If the prohibition from opening on Christmas day is broken, the occupiers shall be liable to conviction by fine not exceeding £50,000.
  Larger shops are defined in exactly the same way in the Bill as in the 1994 Act. Therefore the definition of a large shop will be one with a relevant floor space over 280 sq m, or—for the traditionalists or Eurosceptics in the House—3,000 sq ft. In the same way, the definitions of retail customer and of shop are identical to those in the 1994 Act.
  Clause 2 of the Bill sets out the enforcement provisions, which will be the responsibility of local authorities, who will appoint enforcement officers. As is outlined in the explanatory notes, the enforcement will lead to a potential increase in expenditure for local authorities, but the cost will be relatively negligible.
  I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the inspectors who would enforce this Act would have the same powers as those under the 1994 Act. Those powers would allow inspectors to enter premises in a local authority area at all reasonable hours, to view them and to take copies of records relating to any business conducted there. It would be an offence for anyone to obstruct an inspector in carrying out his or her duties.
  The Bill applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, Christmas day trading is a matter for the Scottish Executive, and I understand that a similar Bill is currently being considered there.
  The principles underlying the Bill have the support of the vast majority of the country's people. Christmas day should be a unique day—the one day in the year when people can come together with their families. The Bill seeks to preserve the special nature of that day. It would also, very importantly, protect the interests of those working in the retail trade. It has been suggested that the Bill is simply a trade union Bill, promoted by USDAW. As a Labour MP and a former trade union official I would have no problem with that, but I must stress that the Bill in fact has wider support, including from the Churches and ordinary members of the public. People would be making a great mistake if they thought that the Bill was just about shop workers.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman knows that I want to support him later, in the Lobbies if necessary, but just before he leaves that point, and in order not to delay the House further, will he accept that a significant number of Members on both sides, who were present in 1994 and who are practising Christians, want to protect both Easter and Christmas day? That protection should be continued. All the Bill

  1157
  does, in effect, is to enforce what was the will of the House at that time—without which the original Sunday Trading Bill would probably not have been passed.
  Mr. Jones: As I was not in the House at that time, I cannot comment on the individual occasion; but I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Most people assumed that the 1994 Act covered Christmas day, and that was certainly the sentiment of the House and of those Members who supported that Bill.
  In December, I tabled early-day motion 327, which emphasised the need to protect and preserve the special nature of Christmas day and called on the Government to introduce legislation to do that. That early-day motion is supported by 199 right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions.
  Another question that has been asked is why we should introduce the Bill now. There is evidence, from the shop workers union USDAW and other sources, that certain shops are starting to test the market and open on Christmas day. There is a danger that we could get a domino effect: once one or two shops start to open, others might start to do so as well. The market pressures on retailers could become so intense that people had to open, and before long, Christmas day would be the same as any other trading day.
  This is the third time there has been an attempt to correct this anomaly in the 1994 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich introduced a similar private Member's Bill in 2001, which again had cross-party support but unfortunately ran out of time because of the general election that year. The Bill was subsequently introduced in the other place by Lord Davies of Coity, and promoted in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I put on record my tribute to those hon. Friends for their work to date to promote their Bill, although it was, unfortunately, unsuccessful.
  Following that failure, the Government went out to public consultation on the provisions, to find out what people thought about ending the anomaly in the 1994 Act. The consultation showed that the vast majority of supermarkets that would be affected by the provisions did not oppose them. Some 97 per cent. of respondents, of whom 15 per cent. were major retailers, said that they favoured the introduction of restrictions on Christmas day trading. Support for legislation also came from across the retail sector. Although the Association of Convenience Stores called on the Government to take the interests of small stores into account, its chief executive, David Rae, stated that the ACS supported the proposals to prevent larger shops from opening on Christmas day.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has carried out a regulatory impact assessment on the effects of introducing restrictions on Christmas day trading, and its report clearly states that the effects would be negligible. However, as I have said, we should not ignore the possibility that once certain large retailers begin to open, others might follow suit. That domino effect has already begun. In 2000, large stores such as Sainsbury's
  1158
  and Woolworth's broke with tradition and carried out Christmas day opening trials in London, and there is evidence that other stores will try such experiments.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We could reach the absurd situation, if that is the thin end of the wedge—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Let us see the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Skinner: I am trying to address my hon. Friend, and trying to get in an appropriate position for the microphone.
  We could finish up in the absurd situation not only of having shops open on Christmas day, but there being the likelihood of a reality TV programme showing the Member for Kensington and Chelsea working in Asda on Christmas day.
  Mr. Jones: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the present right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) or the future one.
  I draw the House's attention to the fact that certain non-food retailers such as Woolworth's are experimenting with Christmas day trading—so this is not just a matter of catering for people who find on Christmas day that they have run out of the odd jar of cranberry sauce or packet of stuffing. The main products of a store such as Woolworth's are non-food. Of course, we all agree that essential services must operate all year round, but I argue strongly that the opening of large supermarkets on Christmas day does not constitute an essential service. I do not know of any recorded instance of anyone starving to death because Sainsbury's was not open on Christmas day. If I, or any other hon. Member, had forgotten the Brussels sprouts or brandy butter, that would be a minor inconvenience, and we would have the option of eating something else. I do not see why families of shop workers should have to sacrifice Christmas day to avoid the inconvenience that I and others might suffer. I do not think that it is worth destroying the unique nature of Christmas day to cater for someone's slight inconvenience or absentmindedness.
  Today, 12 per cent. of employers give employees time off for Christmas shopping, so there is not a strong argument for giving people an extra day of the year—Christmas day—to complete their Christmas shopping.
  The House and the nation need to ask whether the public price of ruining a unique, special day is worth paying to allow larger shops to open. Christmas day would then become just like any other day of the year. If it did become an ordinary shopping day like any other, there would also be a ripple effect in terms of costs to the taxpayer, because there would be an increase in traffic.
  There would obviously be extra transport needs, and the ripple effect would go beyond retail into distribution and the manufacturers who supply the retail trade. Thousands of people could have their Christmas day ruined.
  Obviously, in a free society, we need consumer choice, and the Bill retains that by allowing local convenience stores and stores under 3,000 sq ft to open, but it will protect what is a special day of the year.

  1159
  Some argue that retail workers should have the choice to work voluntarily, but my experience and the evidence of shop workers suggest that voluntarism is a mythological concept. In practice, pressure is put on people, and if they do not volunteer to work on Christmas day they are victimised or made to feel that they are less committed to the company than fellow workers.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the role of the trade unions, and USDAW in particular, in protecting their members? I refer to the provisions of schedule 4 to the 1994 Act, which refer to Sundays, but which I believe are also relevant here. If there is victimisation, what is the union doing about it?
  Mr. Jones: The union does sterling work in protecting its members in the retail trade, and I congratulate Sir Bill Connor on his campaign to protect workers in the retail trade from the attacks that they suffer every day. It is fine to say that people should be free to work on Christmas day, but many of the large stores are not unionised and employ very low-paid women workers, and it is not acceptable for them to be forced to work or face victimisation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a libertarian, and we could discuss the hellish view of society that he favours, but I want to ensure that people have a genuine choice about whether to work on Christmas day.
  Christmas day is a Christian holiday, but it also has a resonance for other faiths. It is a traditional time for families to come together and enjoy a special quiet day. It is right, in a predominantly Christian society, to recognise the Christian holidays. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made that point eloquently last time this was debated in the House. There have been calls for other faith days to be celebrated, but I think that that would be impractical, and as a Christian nation we should recognise the Christian holidays first, allowing people of all faiths to enjoy them.
  Phil Sawford: My eldest son worked in non-food retail for about eight years. On Christmas eve, he would arrive home shattered—exhausted. On Christmas day, all he wanted to do was rest and get some sleep before the mayhem of the sales that would start on Boxing day. That had an impact on the whole family. It is not just about trade unions, the Church or religion. Does my hon. Friend agree that the family is at the heart of this legislation?
  Mr. Jones: I totally agree, and it is also about the individual. My hon. Friend is right to point out that people in the retail trade work very hard in December. They work long hours, seven days a week, and to add the further burden of Christmas day would be intolerable not only for their family life but for their health.
  Britain was once described as a nation of shopkeepers, and some may argue that we have become a nation of shoppers, but I do not accept that this should extend to Christmas day. Christmas day trading would mean the end of the peace and quiet of people living in towns and near out-of-town retail centres. Surely people should be allowed at least one day of the year to enjoy their peace and quiet, even in modern Britain?
  1160
  I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and ensure that we not only protect those working in the retail trade but preserve the unique nature of Christmas day—something that we have all taken for granted for a very long time.
  9.56 am
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to support the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in his promotion of a very sensible and moderate measure. I am one of those anti-libertarian, old-fashioned Tories who rejoiced when Mrs. Thatcher's attempt to impose Sunday trading was defeated, and who deplored the fact that the—in so many ways—admirable John Major brought that Bill back. I voted against it again.
  During the period before Sunday trading was imposed on us, we had a series of big stores flouting the rules, just as the hon. Gentleman described Woolworth and Sainsbury's doing on Christmas day. We all knew that it was the thin end of the wedge. We knew what would happen, and it did. I opposed Sunday trading as vigorously as I did because the one thing I did not want in this country was a high street Sunday. I said that if we passed the legislation, we would have one—and we have one.
  Anyone who drives into London on a Sunday, as I frequently have to do now that we have these absurd new hours of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have some support among Government Members. I find that London, which used to be quite pleasant on a Sunday, is now congested and crowded with people shopping.
  That has all happened, and 1 am not so starry eyed as to believe that we can reverse it, much as I would like to do so. It is all part of the increasing secularisation of our society, with so many people living up to the old Oscar Wilde dictum of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I deplore that. We do, however, have Christmas day. Occasionally, it falls on a Sunday—but only occasionally. The Bill is designed simply to carve out that one day.
  It was the intention of most of my colleagues who supported Sunday trading that Christmas should not be invaded. The Sunday Trading Bill was, like so many Bills, not as well drawn as it should have been, so Christmas day, if it does not fall on a Sunday, is vulnerable. The Bill will redress that. It does so not only in the interests of the Christian Church, although I make no apology for saying that that is a good thing. We are, as the hon. Member for North Durham said, a Christian society, and we have an established Church. I am pleased that we do, and I hope that we will have one for many long years to come.
  I might add that that is a view shared by many Muslims, Jews and people of other faiths. They respect the fact that we have an established Church. It is appalling that a country with an established Church should say that on one of its two greatest festivals, pressure—however direct or indirect—will be put on certain people to go to work, thereby driving a nail into family life.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman mentions the pressaure on family life as a result of shops opening on Sundays, but is it not true that most shop workers are women, and that they already experience phenomenal pressure on Christmas day as a result of getting the meal ready and ensuring that their families have a nice day—let alone having to work on it?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course they do, but it is the sort of pressure in which most families rejoice. It is the big meal of the year, and they enjoy preparing it and having their families around them. They want to be free to celebrate a traditional Christmas, and I want them to be free so to do, if that is their desire.
  The Bill simply provides a safeguard for some of the least well paid in the community. Of course, it can be argued that there are those who always work on Christmas day. For example, a son of mine managed a hotel for some years and he was incredibly busy, but that was a matter of choice. I might say that there was always the opportunity for the guests—and indeed the staff—to go to church, but that is another point. But many shop workers are among the lowest paid, and although my libertarian right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might say in his interjection, "What are the unions doing to protect their workers?"—
  Mr. Forth: I did.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: There are two answers to that question. I believe that they genuinely try to protect them, but there are insidious pressures, as we all know. The other answer, of course, was given to my right hon. Friend by the Bill's promoter: a lot of shop workers are not members of a union.
  Mr. Forth: Why not?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As a libertarian, my right hon. Friend should jolly well welcome the fact that they are not. He tries to have it both ways all the time. He is the arch-maverick wrecker of Parliament.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Had he not been so indiscriminate in his wrecking tactics when first we had a Labour Government with a large majority, keeping the House up night after night for spurious reasons, we would not now be suffering the current sitting hours. Frankly, he should realise that he, more than any other individual, has destroyed the parliamentary pattern, and he has destroyed enough. Now I shall give way.
  Mr. Forth: I am glad of this opportunity to allow my hon. Friend to calm down a bit. He says that I am having it both ways. That is what I try to do all the time here, and I succeed at some times but not others. I am rather intrigued by his saying that the unions are doing their best to protect vulnerable workers, but that vulnerable workers who are being exploited choose not to join a union. There is a circularity in that argument that I find
  1162
  difficult to follow. If workers believe that unions can help them, they are free to join them, and if the unions are any good, they should be able to help them.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend knows full well that that is not the reality of life. Many who work in such places do not necessarily wish to be members of unions, and others are subject to the insidious pressures to which I referred. We all know how that can be exerted; if someone will not do a certain thing, they will not get overtime. Or if the question of who is going to be laid off first arises, the answer is, "The person who is least flexible. We'll put them to one side."
  This very modest Bill merely seeks to protect the people in my constituency, and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who are most vulnerable. But it is not about the trade unions; it is about the fact that Christmas day is one of very few days of the year that are truly special for the vast majority of our people. It tries, very modestly, to ring-fence that speciality.
  The hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) spoke about his son in the retail trade, and in doing so he illustrated just how commercial our society has become. Only a few years ago, not only Christmas day but Boxing day was special, and the earliest date for the sales was 27 or 28 December; now, throughout the country it is 26 December. [Interruption.] As we all know, the 24th has traditionally been a day of great commercial activity, and nobody objects to that, but when the tills closed at 6 o'clock on Christmas eve, they did so for a good two clear days. Now, they do not.
  All that we are seeking to do is to put our constituents first. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to do the same, and to say that they deserve this one day. Whether one lives in Bromley and Chislehurst, South Staffordshire, Bootle or Bognor, one is entitled to have Christmas day as a special day, and Parliament has a duty to ring-fence it. The Bill is modest and moderate and I hope that it will pass on to the statue book with great alacrity, and be enforced long before Christmas 2004. I hope that the Minister will, with commendable brevity, give his unreserved support to it. When my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) speaks, I hope that he will endorse—with perhaps even greater brevity—what the Minister says, and when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) speaks, I hope that he will do the same. This is not a party issue but a national issue. It is a very small national cause. but an extremely worthy one, and I warmly commend the Bill.
  10.6 am
  Ms Ann Coffey: I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his choice. I agree with all the points that he eloquently made in support of it. When we passed the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which enabled large shops to open on Sundays for six hours, the House debated carefully the question of shops opening on Easter Sunday, and it took the firm decision to protect that as a special day. I do not recollect our discussing Christmas day, but perhaps that was because the legislation focused on Sundays, and because it was inconceivable to Members that large

  1163
  shops would open on Christmas day and that it would become just another shopping day. That was an oversight on our part. The Bill does away with that possibility by protecting Christmas day, which is the wish of the majority of people. In supporting the Bill we have the support of the British people, and I shall vote for it in the Lobby.
  10.8 am
  Lembit öpik: This is a free vote issue for Liberal Democrats because it is a question of moral judgment, but I side with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). He simply seeks to emulate existing legislation by extending it to Christmas day, so the question is merely whether one agrees with the underlying principle. In my contribution, I shall focus on why I do.
  Members may be relieved to know that I, too, am a libertarian—in fact, I have been defined as such by the University of Hull. It determined that I have the most libertarian voting record of any member of my party, which in itself should be fairly liberal-minded, given its name.
  In essence, libertarianism is defined as the freedom to live life and to harm oneself—as long as one can show that one is conscious of the harm that is thereby being done—but not to harm others. The harm principle is the core of this discussion, because it applies to those who are compelled by others to work on Christmas day. It is not intellectually rigorous to pretend that there is no harm involved in making people work on Christmas day. I should tell those who oppose the legislation that it is not about unions.
  We certainly could have a debate about what the unions have done and want to do, but that would be a sideshow and distraction from the Bill. Furthermore, the debate is not really about deciding whether other creeds or religions should have the same representation—not least because we are discussing a clearly defined issue here. We can always debate those issues—they are not mutually exclusive—in different circumstances. Given that Britain already has fewer public holidays than just about any other European country, there is heavy pressure on us to support the Bill on the two main bases of the harm principle and equalisation of free time between countries.
  Finally, I would like to reinforce the point that it is not possible to have it both ways. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to announce with satisfaction that he tries to have it both ways—sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing—but that is somewhat disrespectful to the general public, who do not regard these questions as a game. It is not reasonable to assume that postponing or preventing the Bill's passage is anything other than a personal—and, I have to say, somewhat—egotistical victory. It is an important Bill and should be treated as such.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows that I often agree with him on matters associated with freedom, not to amention on the new hours of the House. He should therefore reflect seriously on the fact that someone who is predisposed to share the same libertarian values as him has a totally different view on this Bill. I counsel him to think with some humility about his motives in trying to postpone the Bill. I hope that he will think again.
  10.11 am
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I declare an interest from the outset, as I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. My details are in the register, and I am also the chairman of the USDAW branch in Parliament. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on persisting with this fairly long-running debate, which has been knocked back—perhaps by nothing more than coincidence—in previous years. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on his excellent contribution to the debate.
  I shall be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already covered the main points. We must remember that we are talking about many thousands of shop workers who are already under a great deal of pressure. They are not well paid and they are often regarded by the public—including themselves, I suppose, when they are shopping—as part of the furniture in stores. USDAW has had an extremely successful campaign over the last 12 months in drawing attention to the large amount of aggression and abuse that is directed at shop workers. The union has uncovered a hidden problem, and it is trying to highlight in the public mind the fact that shop workers are people with human rights.
  The Bill is about one single day in the year. It is designed to nip in the bud the practice of large retail outlets opening on Christmas day. For all the reasons that have been mentioned, we need to stop that now. It is not only workers in the large stores who are affected; the people who have to supply the large stores, who have to carry out waste disposal, who have to manage the traffic and so forth are all affected by the opening of large stores on Christmas day.
  Competition is also relevant. The irony is that virtually all the stores that USDAW consulted said that they did not want to open, but if one of them opens, the competition and margins are so tight that all the competitors will want to open up, too. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire explained, the problem will escalate. The stores are saying to us, "We do not want to open, so will you please legislate to stop us doing so?" That is ironic, but that is the position.
  It is no use saying that the matter can be left to volunteering—that the workers in the stores can say yes or no. We all know what volunteering means in this place when there is a one-line Whip: we are free to attend or not, but as every Member who has ever run into a Whip knows, it is not as easy as that. Large stores cannot be staffed with many hundreds of volunteer employees: it is an impossibility As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire described perfectly, the reality of volunteering is heavy pressure on each shift in the light of how much business has been generated at the end of the month or year.
  People outside the House would be truly astonished if this modest and moderate measure were objected to. The Bill is simple, just and proper, and I believe that about 99 per cent. of the population would be astonished to find any opposition to it.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Pickthall: I am about to finish.

  1165
  I urge support for the Bill, whose passage will be met with acclaim by everyone outside Parliament.
  10.16 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: I greatly support the Bill, conscious of the fact that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I gave full support to the Conservative Government's Shops Bill 1986, which was intended to allow shops and other businesses to open on a Sunday. The House will recall that that Bill did not succeed. It was the largest revolt by Government Back Benchers ever, until the Higher Education Bill this year—and, perhaps, until next week! Opposition to the Shops Bill was encouraged by an unholy alliance between the Churches and the trade unions, which both wanted the law to restrict what people could do on Sundays. I supported the Shops Bill because it included protection for those who did not want to work on a Sunday.
  The Bill before us today confirms the protection that this country has always given to the special place of Christmas day in our society. Such protection is much the same as that which every Christian country gives to Christmas day. Many more Christians go to church for mass or a service on Christmas day than attend church regularly on Sundays. As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, Christmas is the one day of the year when most families come together and when good people go out of their way to find and provide for those with no families. There is therefore no case for our high streets to be busy on Christmas day. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I believe that few people in this country would wish other than for it to be passed.
  I felt one hesitation when the hon. Member for North Durham announced his Bill, following his good fortune in the ballot. It arose from my own experience in my first job, which was working in a family business in the motor trade. It had two petrol filling stations and was a small business with an enviable reputation for fair dealing and service to customers. To provide such service, we opened to supply petrol every Christmas day. I well recall opening Chalkwell motor company in London road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex at 9 o'clock on Christmas day for several years, closing at 1 o'clock to speed home for Christmas lunch. We provided a service that was appreciated by our regular customers and by many others who found that most filling stations were closed on Christmas day. I am encouraged by the fact that the Bill excludes petrol stations, as well as small convenience stores.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on introducing the Bill, and I congratulate USDAW on its campaign in support of the Bill. Half the union's members appear to be in the House today. I hope that the Bill succeeds.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall be brief, because I want to see the Bill go through as quickly as possible. However, I wish to give a little support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He is old enough, and certainly
  1166
  ugly enough, to look after himself, but to attack him for seeking to wreck the parliamentary process is undeserved. He is probably one of the greatest proponents and defenders of parliamentary democracy on either side of the House, and always has been. He and I disagree honourably on occasions, as on this, but I defend his right to use such parliamentary measures as he sees fit to promote what he believes in, as I now propose to promote what I believe in.
  In that context, I hope that my right hon. Friend will retain his seat for the rest of the morning and not see fit to intervene on this occasion. I am one of those who proudly and—I hope—honourably voted against the Shops Bill in 1986. It was not so bad. My toenails grew again, after the Whips' attentions. I was equally proud to have my name on the list in the handbag for several years afterwards.
  When the Sunday Trading Act 1994 went through, it was on the clear understanding that as there was an established Church in this country, we had two specific, very holy days in the calendar. One was Easter Sunday, which is protected because it always falls on a Sunday, and the other was Christmas day. It was wrongly and—it transpires—naively assumed that Christmas day would also be protected. Setting aside all the other arguments that have been made this morning, all the Bill seeks to do is to correct an error in that Act.
  My right hon. Friend is acutely aware of the fact that those hon. Friends of ours who helped the 1994 Act go through—I must say that I voted against it—did so on the clear understanding that Easter Sunday and Christmas day would be protected. This morning's debate is about the restoration of that tiny piece of democracy, to put right what is now perceived to have been a wrong and to reinforce the will of the House at that time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that and give the Bill the fair wind that it deserves.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I do not wish to get involved in arguments that our party may have had in the past—which are still obviously very much alive—so perhaps I could find a third way: I wish to take issue with the definition of a large shop. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on coming so high in the ballot and bringing this Bill before the House. It is a great opportunity.
  However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the case of Stan's Shop in my constituency. It was started by a gentleman called Stan Faulks, with his demob money, shortly after the war. At the time, it was a little shop. It has been a tradition that the shop opens for a couple of hours on Christmas morning, originally to provide batteries for disappointed children whose parents had forgotten to buy them when they bought electronic toys as presents. It was a community service and there was no pressure on staff. I endorse everything that has been said about preserving the nature of Christmas and would not want to see any compulsion on people to work.
  The problem is that Stan's Shop is no longer a little shop: it is a large shop. It now covers an area of 22,500 sq ft, having been developed by Stan's son and grandson. The family work in it and it is—in terms of the

  1167
  Bill—a large shop, but it has all the attributes of a little shop. It provides a wonderful local service and it is very popular. It also maintains the tradition of opening for two hours, from 10 to 12, on Christmas morning. Does that really impinge on the nature of Christmas in my area? It is a strong farming community, where the cows have to be milked on Christmas morning and evening. Stan's Shop is a family enterprise. Half a dozen girls and boys come in to help in the shop and, although I have not been there on Christmas day, I understand that there is a festive atmosphere. As I said, it also provides a useful service. For instance, last Christmas, a lady in Shrewsbury found when she defrosted her turkey that it had gone off. Her Christmas would have been spoilt, but she drove up from Shrewsbury and Stan's Shop provided—as always—what she needed.
  I entirely endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack); I do not want to see Christmas being spoiled. I also agree with him about the nature of Sunday having changed in London. However, I hope that we can look at the Bill a little more carefully with regard to splendid institutions such as Stan's. It is a small family organisation that provides a valuable local service, but it would be swept up in the Bill as if it were a monster multiple. I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham will reflect on that point and be willing to tighten up the definition of a large shop.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I oppose the Bill and I shall explain why. I hope that those Members who do not often grace us with their presence on a Friday will understand that taking a position on a Bill is part of the parliamentary process and that Members are always free to turn up on Fridays and express their views one way or another on private Members' Bills. I am slightly surprised—although not shocked—that my attendance every Friday the House sits to express my views on private Members' Bills should attract such opprobrium. I thought that that was what we were here for, but perhaps I am a little old-fashioned and things have moved on.
  I wish to discuss the Bill under several headings. I shall not speak at excessive length, because that would be of little relevance on this occasion, given the time of day, although it has extreme relevance on other occasions. I have a good feel for the way in which such days work. I will, if I can persuade any of my colleagues to assist me, seek to divide the House at the end of the debate, because I wish to discover how many Members of Parliament, of the 659 of us, have taken the trouble to be here today to support the Bill. It is always important to demonstrate that and I am sure that Labour Members will also wish to do so. Those who have taken the trouble to be here would surely like that to be a matter of record, and I am sure that the public would wish to know just how much support there is for the Bill. It has been claimed repeatedly in this short debate that there is enormous support for the Bill, but I am in favour of quantifying that support, and the only way to do so is to divide the House.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before my right hon. Friend takes too much criticism for the time that he takes to discuss these matters, will he
  1168
  reflect on the fact that one of the longest speeches we have had in recent times on a private Member's Bill was made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), when he attempted to stop a Bill making progress? My right hon. Friend does not hold the record: it is held by a Labour Back Bencher, who may have been acting on orders.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I am a fan of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is my role model and I sometimes wish that I could do half as well as he does. [Interruption.] Here he is, to enjoy my praise. It is no good Members turning up once in a blue moon to support a Bill that they happen to favour and to criticise regular attenders, like the hon. Gentleman and myself. It will not do. For that reason, all the personal criticisms that are aimed at me from time to time bounce right off. Being here every Friday inures one to such comments.
  I shall press on with my attempt to analyse the Bill and its background. I have a few introductory remarks, then I shall address the Bill itself, and I shall then indicate appropriate amendments for subsequent stages of the Bill, which I hope will be helpful to colleagues. I shall start head on with the proposition about choice and freedom. Of course, it is important, that we consider how to balance individual personal freedoms in a mature society—even, dare I say it, in a mature consumer society. I use that term—I hope that it will appeal to Labour Members—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made little secret of the fact that it is the consumers in our society who have provided the economic growth that has contributed to the fall in unemployment of which the Government are so proud. Let us not decry the role of the consumer in our society.
  There is a danger in debates such as this that people start to talk about consumers as though they were pariahs, but in our modern society—where, sadly, manufacturing sector employment has shrunk to less than 20 per cent.—employment has been generated in the retail and service sectors. Any attempt that we make to restrict the activity of those sectors, on this day or that, or for this reason or that, must be weighed very carefully indeed. That consideration has been missing so far in the debate. Let us bear in mind that we live in a consumer society and that the consumption of goods and services and the retail and hospitality sectors are extremely important components of our economy; we interfere with them at our risk.
  That is a general background for the preference I always maintain and for which I have already been criticised this morning, although I make no complaint about such criticisms: I always try to come down on the side of choice, freedom and individual action, as against the arbitrary use of the law to interfere in that freedom—the Bill is an example. That is my starting position and it tends to inform my attitude to legislation such as this.
  Let us look for a moment at multiculturalism, something that rather fascinates me. I am not by instinct a multiculturalist; I do not think that any of my friends will ever have heard me refer to the concept—except, perhaps, in critical terms. I believe in monoculturalism, and I wish that those who choose to join our society would freely accept its mores and traditions, because that is the way a sound society is built. The melting-pot

  1169
  concept, which built that great country the United States, was based on that very principle and premise. I welcome that. None the less, there is a problem in relation to the Bill. Members and other people outside this place who praise the concept of multiculturalism and constantly urge on us the fact that we must respect other religions, views and beliefs, are in difficulty when it comes to provisions of the kind that we are talking about.
  I should have thought that we wanted to respect those elements in our society that are not Christian. I took the trouble to look up the 2001 census to try to put some numbers on that. Among people of working age—the 16 to 74 age group—the Christian element is 72 per cent., but the number of people with no religion, or no stated religion, was 22 per cent. The figure for the other defined religions was 4.1 per cent., and I shall run through them in order. Because we are talking about Christmas day, it is relevant for us to understand how many people in our society are not Christians and for whom that day might not be of the same relevance as it us to others. The number of Muslims was 2.6 per cent; Hindus, 1 per cent; Sikhs, 0.6 per cent; Jews, 0.4 per cent; other, 0.3 per cent; and Buddhists, 0.2 per cent.
  I mention those figures because we must not make the glib assumption that our law has to be directed in such a way as simply to satisfy the Christian element in our society. If we are serious about multiculturalism, and about acknowledging the beliefs and the freedom to act of those who follow other religions, we must take that into account.
  Incidentally, in case anyone is curious, the census figures for the religion of the wholesale and retail element in the working population are broadly the same as those I gave earlier. Christians are 72 per cent; no religion, or no stated religion, 23.5 per cent.; while the other religions that I listed comprise 6.5 per cent. If we are to follow our words with action, we must be careful not to legislate so that we prohibit the activities or behaviour of those who are not of the Christian religion. We have to meet that challenge head-on when contemplating legislation of this kind.
  Furthermore, we must not forget that many members of other religions own or operate retail outlets. At present, they are free, and should be free, to close their stores on the days that they regard as important and holy, and to open them on other days. That is important. In the Sunday Trading Act 1994, to which the Bill refers, the Jewish religion is, properly, singled out for recognition, and—as a passing thought—if we update the law on these matters we should revisit those provisions and consider whether we should identify other significant religions in our society in the same way as, at that stage, we singled out the Jewish religion. I leave that thought in the air, because that is an anomaly.
  We have heard talk of anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out that the Bill deals with an oversight in the previous legislation, although, given the parliamentary focus on Sunday trading legislation in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, I find it slightly difficult to understand how such an oversight was possible. Amendments could and should have been made to deal with it. It is interesting that we are revisiting the matter in 2004 when so much
  1170
  time has passed, but we must deal with the Bill as it is and not as it might have been—although I shall come on to the might have beens as I develop my argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) noted an interesting aspect: the anomalies that are inevitably created as soon as one makes distinctions in legislation between this or that category of item—between larger or smaller stores, in this case. I am surprised, and almost disappointed, that the anomaly created by the 1994 Act is being repeated in the Bill, because apparently the Bill wants to provide a degree of protection to those who are privileged enough to work in large stores while ignoring those who work in smaller stores. That is in itself discriminatory, which I find disappointing.
  A trade union point is relevant in this context. Employees of large stores are more likely to be trade union members and to enjoy trade union protection than those in small stores but, ironically, the Bill seeks, in effect, to give greater protection to people who are probably already protected by their union, and by the law, whereas those who have the misfortune—in these circumstances—to work for small stores appear to be completely unprotected. That is an anomaly and, in a sense, discrimination, and I am surprised that the House and the Bill's supporters apparently want it to be continued. When will we have a level playing field?
  I should have been much more sympathetic to the Bill if it had included a provision that offered the schedule 4 protection for Christmas day provided in the 1994 Act. That is a weakness that I do not understand, so perhaps when the sponsor of the Bill replies to the debate he will explain why he has not included schedule 4 protection.
  On the subject of anomalies, there is another point that has not yet been mentioned. We should not assume that Christmas day is an oasis of peace for every member of our society. Health workers, the police, the people who provide our transport and utilities and large parts of the hospitality sector are all expected to work on our behalf, providing us with support and services, on Christmas day—to say nothing of the list of exemptions to be carried forward from the 1994 Act, about which I shall speak in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) told us an emotional story about the provision that he and his family were prepared to offer the public at large on Christmas day. I welcome that and congratulate him. That story shows that there is a demand for services on Christmas day. We do not all necessarily sit in our homes, go nowhere and use no services of any kind. When we pick up the telephone on Christmas day, we expect it to work. Indeed, a large proportion of all long-distance calls are made on Christmas day. That is yet another example involving people who would not be protected by the Bill, because we simply assume that they will be working.
  We are singling out a specific section of the work force for protection under the Bill, while—apparently—glibly assuming that all those other people will be available to provide the services that we expect on Christmas day.
  Mr. Paterson: May I reiterate a point that I made earlier? There is a case for carefully considering the definition of such premises in rural areas. As I pointed out in an example from my constituency, a small

  1171
  enterprise can become a big one, and large areas of countryside with nothing else often surround such premises. They provide a valuable service, without impinging on the nature of Christmas. In a rural area, a small enterprise can become a big one and still provide the same valuable family services as before.
  Mr. Forth: That may well provide the opportunity for my hon. Friend to seek to amend the Bill, either in Committee or, as I would expect, on Report. His intervention rather neatly leads me into mentioning the exemptions in schedule I to the 1994 Act that are carried forward into the Bill, apparently uncritically and on the basis of acceptance. I wonder whether he has looked at that list of exemptions because it has a bearing on his intervention. The lists starts with
  "any shop which is at a farm and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm"
  That is a nod in the direction of the rural dimension that he mentions. It presumably does not cover the case that he mentions, which is why an amendment may be relevant. Let us remember that such stores can open on Sundays and that that provision would be carried forward into the Bill, as I understand it.
  Then, intriguingly, the list of exemptions continues:
  "any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor".
  That is an interesting exemption if ever I saw one. We are starting into that list of activities—either on the part of the shopper or the provider of the service—that we think are acceptable on Christmas day, as opposed to the other activities.
  The schedule then goes on to list
  "motor supplies…cycle supplies…pharmacy…medicinal products…surgical appliances…railway station…petrol filling station"—
  to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East referred—and
  "any shop at a service area"
  related to a filling station and food stores for vessels or aircraft. So we have a large list of exemptions. Let us not therefore imagine that the protection originally provided by the 1994 Act—I am told that the Bill seeks to close a loophole in it—was all-encompassing. In fact, a large number of exemptions exist, covering both the size of stores and, in that explicit list in schedule 1, the type of stores.
  Let us put aside all the tear-jerking and emotional appeals that we have heard in this morning's brief debate. What we are really saying is that we want to single out a group of people in the retail sector who we believe deserve special treatment—those working for large stores—but there is a probably an even larger group who will not receive that protection. Why? On the one hand, they happen to work in a small store, while on the other, they happen to sell booze. That strikes me as an interesting, perhaps even a rather odd, approach. Why so many people want to argue that such protection is so effective is somewhat beyond me. I do not think that it is effective.
  USDAW, which is the union that has driven the whole thing, has targeted a modest campaign at me in my constituency. I have no complaint about that. We
  1172
  are all used to bizarre little interest groups targeting us from time to time, and another one has popped up. It is pity that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) is not still in the Chamber. He proudly claimed to be the chairman of USDAW in the House, so I thought that I would tell him the figures to show how effective his union is in targeting me in my constituency.
  I checked my post this morning and my telephone. I shall give the figures for the amount of interest in the Bill among USDAW members in Bromley and Chislehurst: phone calls, five, one of which was extremely abusive, but I do not mind that as I am used to it even in the House; pre-printed rather glossy postcards, 17; and proforma letters, 16. So of the 70,000 voters in Bromley and Chislehurst, most of whom are proud shoppers and consumers—I am happy to say that we have one of the best shopping malls in the country at Bromley, and I am even happier that it is open on Sundays—and of the massed ranks of USDAW, pumped up by their union and invited to contact me for my wicked activities in the House today, the grand total so far is 37 people. I hope that that message will be passed on to the hon. Member for West Lancashire. He wants to gee up his people a bit if he wants to try that sort of thing.
  We now come to inspectors. This is another interesting one because we will create a small category of people who must work on Christmas day, as a result of the Bill. Inspectors have not been mentioned much so far. They are an honourable group of people. Until now, probably except for one Christmas day in seven, which happens to fall on a Sunday, they have Christmas day off, but not any more. Funnily enough, I have not received any representation from local authority trading standards inspectors so far. They are obviously a pretty compliant bunch—or perhaps they want the overtime, who knows? I have no idea, but they will have to be out there, pounding the streets, ensuring that no store of over 3,000 sq ft opens on Christmas day, as a result of the Bill. By the way, that must inevitably involve an extra cost. It will not be very substantial, but it will be incurred.
  I always try to be fair to the explanatory notes. I always like to put in this point in passing at some point during such debates. The explanatory notes state that they
  "have been prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry with the consent of"
  the promoter of the Bill. I am always a bit suspicious about such things. It is interesting how some private Members' Bills receive no help from Departments, yet others do. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government were neutral when such a Bill was last considered in the House and failed because only 37 Members bothered to vote for it. That is something obviously burned on the conscience of Labour Members as they have been dragooned in today to ensure that that does not happen again. I hope that we get the numbers if we have a Division. I would be fascinated to know the provenance of the explanatory notes.
  The explanatory notes state:
  "In view of the current practice and plans of large retailers"—
  an interesting comment, given what follows—
  "the effect of the Bill on local government staff numbers (in relation to enforcement) is expected to be negligible."

  1173
  So the explanatory notes predict that there will be very little activity on that front, but they confess that there will be an effect on local government staff numbers—the poor inspectors—and a cost because they must be paid either overtime or, if they are salaried, for an element of additional expenses.
  While I am on the subject, the very next paragraph says:
  "the vast majority of large retailers do not currently open Christmas Day and have no immediate plans to do so."
  What about all the scare stories that we have just heard from Labour Members? The explanatory notes themselves—the Department, the Minister—tell us that
  "the vast majority of large retailers do not currently open Christmas Day and have no immediate plans to do so."
  That is somewhat at odds with the scare stories that Labour Members have tried to peddle, so we need a bit of clarification about that when the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That small but significant category of people would be disadvantaged if the Bill were to reach the statute book. They would have to work on Christmas day, as opposed to the other people who would not have to do so.
  Lembit öpik: I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman. He said at the start that he was informed by libertarian principles. He has made no comparison of the harm principle in respect of the relative benefits to those who would not be made to work versus the small number, as he says in the quotation that he cites, who would be. Will he spend a moment or two explaining his view of the Bill's libertarian consequences and why he is against it for libertarian reasons?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, we have had enough.
  Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to expand—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is getting my hon. Friend over-excited already, and that is just by an intervention. I am now caught between two colleagues. The hon. Gentleman, who urges me to expand on some of my remarks, and my hon. Friend, who will become over-excited if I am tempted to do so. Subject to guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which I do not seek, I hasten to add—I find myself in a bit of a quandary.
  In friendship to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik), I point out that I said briefly at the beginning of my remarks that there is always a tension between the entirely liberal approach that his party, sadly, rarely follows these days and the costs. My preference is always to leave the maximum freedom to, in this case, the shop owner, the shop proprietor, the shop worker and, most important of all, the consumer. They are by far the largest majority in society. That is my view on the balance of things.
  The hon. Gentleman has led me easily into the next part of my brief analysis?the applicability or not to this Bill of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act. I remain puzzled
  1174
  because of what was said by one of the USDAW members, who telephoned me at the instigation of her union and with whom I discussed the matter. When I asked her, "What about your union? What are they doing for you?", she replied, "Oh, they're useless?absolutely nothing." I asked, "What about your shop steward in your store?", and she said, "He's just left and gone off to another job." That is in an interesting comment. In this era of full employment, people have many more options as to where they choose to work than they might have in other circumstances.
  I believe that the role of the trade union is worthy of exploration. It seems to me that it wants to use the law to do what it should be doing already. The hon. Member for West Lancashire is back in his place, but he did not feel that he had time to give way to me earlier. If he is going to tell me that the provisions of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are inadequate or inoperable or that his union cannot make them work effectively, that should be the target for the amendment to legislation. We should not have this heavy-handed Bill that is trying to stop people doing what they might reasonably want to do on Christmas day. We should ask what protection is provided by a combination of the existing law—the 1994 Act—and the trade union. If the trade union is falling down on the job as badly as its member, who was instigated to call me, said—I am glad that she did—the union should look seriously at itself, what it does, how it does it and why it does not protect its members adequately.
  The provisions of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are lengthy, detailed and comprehensive, but I will not attempt go through them in detail. That is for another day and a subsequent stage of the Bill when we will want to get into the nitty-gritty, but the question is hovering unseen in the background to the debate. What has the union been up to? Has it been serving its members effectively? Why is it spending a lot of time sending out glossy postcards to its members asking them to send them to their Members of Parliament instead of doing the job that it should be doing, which is to make itself available to its members, perhaps to recruit more members and to make sure that the proper protections that were provided in schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are made available to shop workers and to retail workers? That question has to be answered.
  Having trotted through the preliminaries, I shall take a brief look through the Bill. I do that to provide an introduction to its subsequent stages. It will be considered in Committee and come back, very importantly, for Report and Third Reading. Much useful work will be done then.
  Clause 1(1) states:
  "A large shop"
  this returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire—
  "must not be open on Christmas Day for the serving of retail customers."
  My wife and I are avid shoppers at a store called Costco, which I thoroughly recommend to the House. The nearest one to us is in the Lakeside complex in Essex, just across the Thames from us in Kent. It is a large wholesale store and the public cannot just wander in; one has to be a member to have the privilege of shopping there. It is a wonderful store with very keen prices and a

  1175
  wonderful range of goods. It is packed on Sundays. Presumably it would not be covered by the provisions in clause 1(1), which talks about the serving of retail customers. Therefore, if I can persuade Costco to open on Christmas day, I would be able to go and shop there. I might well be tempted to do so. Mrs. Forth and I are avid retail and, in this case, wholesale shoppers and we would find that a very attractive possibility.
  That is another anomaly that has opened up to add to all the other anomalies that are beginning to become apparent in the Bill. They include discrimination against employees in small stores, discrimination against people of religions other than Christianity, and all the others that I have mentioned. Here is another one right at the start of the Bill. One does not need to go any further.
  Perhaps the Bill's promoter or the Minister—he has had such an input to the process—can explain why there has been no need to revisit the exemptions in schedule 1 of the 1994 Act that are carried forward into this Bill. I would be fascinated if either of them could tell me that they are completely satisfied with that list of exemptions in every respect or that there might be scope—there may well be—for adding, reviewing or reducing the list. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that it is a rare piece of legislation that arises from a 1994 Act that we, as this great body gathered together, can see no reason to update or amend. I refer to the provisions for liquor stores, petrol stations, pharmacies and all the other exemptions mentioned in the list. Is this list so good and was our perspicacity so great in 1994 that, 10 years on, we see no need to revisit the matter? That is an interesting question.
  Funnily enough, the adequacy of the level of the fine in the Bill was mentioned in our previous canter round this course three or four years ago when the previous attempt at a Bill failed miserably through lack of support by Members of Parliament. There is a real question as to whether the fine would be an effective deterrent to a large store that decided to open in defiance of the provisions and take the hit, if I can put it that way, of the fine. I have no way of measuring the effect of the fine, but its appropriateness is a relevant consideration.
  While we are talking about the fine, one always has to ask whether it is wise to include a precise amount in the Bill. As we learn at our grandmother's knee when we arrive in this place, whatever we put in a Bill that will become an Act—I hope that it will not in this case?is difficult to change. However, the Bill's promoter has decided to include a figure in the Bill. He had better hope that inflation remains as low as it has been. If we get a burst of inflation, the real value of the fine specified in the Bill will be whittled down pretty quickly. Then there would be some regret. Should a figure for the fine be specified in the Bill?
  I mentioned, in passing, the duty to enforce and the duties of the inspectors. This unfortunate group of people will now have to work on Christmas day, as opposed to all the others for whom the aim is that they should not have to work. We should give the inspectors a passing thought and, in doing so, ask whether the enforcement provisions, which are largely carried forward from the 1994 Act and which include the powers of entry?a matter that always makes me uneasy—are exactly what we want them to be. Should those provisions be revisited?
  1176
  Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act refers both to general enforcement provisions in part 1—the inspectors, powers of entry and so on—and to shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath and shops occupied by persons of the Jewish religion in part 2. It is at least worth considering whether we should extend that provision given the changing nature of our society. I gave the figures and analysis of the different religious groups not only in our society as a whole, but in the wholesale and retail sector as well. It strikes me that it is worth giving some thought as to whether faiths other than the Christian faith could be mentioned either explicitly or in a more general, all-embracing provision. I accept that there would be definitional problems with that and it would have to be considered in more detail. I simply flag it up as something that needs proper consideration because it picks out a particular group.
  I think I am right in saying that, interestingly, the members of the Jewish faith in particular who work in the retail sector are actually, according to the census this may surprise some hon. Members?smaller in number than the members of all the other faiths, other than Christianity, that are listed. That raises the question of why it is that members of the Jewish faith are picked out when greater numbers of other faiths may not wish to acknowledge the sanctity of Christmas day in the way that most Christians would. The relevance of the Bill to them has to be considered.
  All in all, I have cantered briefly around the course and have no reason to detain the House unduly. [Interruption.] I see that I am disappointing the hon. Member for Hendon. He knows that there are horses for courses, and times for this and times for that something that he explained to me recently about a Bill of his own, to which we shall return on another Friday. I recognise the dynamics of each Friday, and of this one in particular, so I am happy to have set out my severe reservations, for all sorts of philosophical and practical reasons.
  I will send this little speech of mine to all the USDAW members who were kind enough to contact me by their pre-printed postcards and pro-forma letters. Indeed, if any USDAW officials who were kind enough to waste their union's money on that exercise would like a copy of my speech, I shall be only too happy to send it to them, such is my generosity.
  I hope that I have given some flavour of my reservations. I look forward very much to' returning to them in the Bill's subsequent stages, which I think will, if anything, be even more interesting.
  11.3 am
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: It gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, like me, regularly attends Friday morning debates. We have some of the most interesting, colourful and best debates on such occasions because they are traditionally unwhipped. He is a master of Friday mornings and knows the procedures of the House better than most, if not any. It was interesting to note the way in which he decided to terminate his remarks. Many hon. Members will be grateful that he does not want to filibuster and to talk the Bill out. He realises that that would be otiose and not in keeping with the will and mood of the Chamber.

  1177
  I, too, do not wish to detain the House for long. I wish the Bill the speediest of passages, both today and in future. However, many comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House related to the specifically Christian nature of the celebration of the high holy day of Christmas. I speak not simply as a practising Christian, but as a representative of the most ethnically diverse and multicultural borough in Britain and, indeed, Europe. Brent has more than 120 different first languages spoken in its schools. We have every faith that it is possible to conceive of in our borough. Yet not one person has opposed the Bill on the ground of respect for different cultures and faiths.
  Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many other faiths support the Bill because they also want Christmas day preserved as a family holiday? In addition, they do not want the taxpayer to incur the extra cost that would arise from large stores opening on Christmas day, which would require normal council services, such as waste disposal and street cleaning, to be in place.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She encapsulates the one thing that I wanted to talk about: respect for the family, which underpins all the different religious traditions and communities that are represented in my borough. It is because of that respect for the family—because people realise that there should be, in any culture, one day on which the family is paramount—that people of different faiths have chosen to support the Bill, and I am delighted that they have done so.
  It is clear from the nature of large work forces that the idea that shop workers can simply decide whether they want to work on Christmas day—that they can volunteer—is ridiculous. We all know the pressures that exist in any workplace. People who do not volunteer are marked down for the future and their managers look at them less favourably when it comes to promotions. It may well be that my own lack of volunteering is responsible for me languishing on the Back Benches week after week.
  I hope that hon. Members who want to divide the House and who will go into the Lobby against the Bill will consider, when they think of the freedoms that they believe themselves to be fighting for, the way in which those shop workers are being denied their freedoms.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on what I said about the effectiveness of the protections that are given in schedule 4 to the 1994 Act, and the role of the trade union? Is he completely happy that the trade union that is behind the Bill has done everything in its power to make the provisions effective? If not, what is the solution?
  Mr. Gardiner: I have a different view of the role of trade unions in this country from that of the right hon. Gentleman. He always sees trade unions as an oppressive force in society.
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he does so, but I see trade unions as
  1178
  the organisations that have fought for workers' rights for more than a century and achieved many progressive measures to emancipate the work force. It is essential to understand that trade unions, and particularly USDAW, seek to protect the situation of their members. They do not want workers in large stores and shops coerced, albeit by managers who say, "Of course you have a choice," in the full and certain knowledge that if they exercise that choice in one direction they will ultimately be penalised and have it marked on their cards against them. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, I am sorry but we must disagree.
  Many Labour Members have experience, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, as members of USDAW or other unions or from a retailing background. They have seen such pressures being applied. They know that that is the way that things operate. Earlier in our debate, one of my hon. Friends commented on how this House operates—we all know the pressures that a one or two-line Whip can impose to make sure that Members are here. Even if a three-line Whip does not apply, there are always pressures on people to vote, and that happens with retail management too.
  To return to my central point, all communities recognise the importance of family and of having one day on which people take care of each other, come together, and are not subject to the commercial pressures that we see throughout society during the rest of the year: one day on which family is sacred. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke of his experience of opening a petrol station for just a couple of hours on Christmas morning. The service that he provided enabled families to come together. On Christmas day, families need to travel to see distant relatives or to come to the main family house for Christmas lunch, so that the whole family can be united on that day. That is why I agree wholeheartedly with him that that is an honourable and welcome exception to the Bill, which should not restrict petrol stations that provide that service. It goes to the heart of what the Bill is about: the nature of family and bringing families together on one day a year without commercial pressures.
  It is wrong that people should be discouraged, that there should be alternative attractions to go out and engage in commercial activity on Christmas day and that large stores should be open, vying for custom. That is not why I support the Bill, however. I recognise what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says: if people want to go out and engage in commercial activity when it is available, that is a decision for them. But the point is that the work force are being coerced on those days when they find it difficult if not impossible to refuse. It is their families whom I seek to protect, and whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) seeks to protect through his Bill.
  Many stores have said that they have no desire to open and compete on Christmas day, but if one of them does, the others will feel obliged to do so to protect their position because commercial margins are so tight. They want us to legislate, to step in and say, "No. We will protect this time, which is for family." My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by promoting this Bill.

  1179
  The Ministers on the Front Bench are raring to wind up this debate, and I have no intention or desire to prolong it. The House should have the opportunity to vote on this important matter, and I am confident that my hon. Friend's Bill will be passed.
  11.15 am
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I want to speak briefly on this Bill. I will not speak for as long as the hon. Gentleman who spoke previously.
  I welcome the Bill. Should there be a Division, I will support it. But I would also like one change to be made in Committee. A great number of people work on Christmas day in the catering trade, and in the forces, where cover must be provided. For the catering trade, I would like an amendment to protect those who work on Christmas day. At the moment, there is a national minimum wage, but it does not reflect statutory holidays or working on statutory holidays. I believe that Christmas day is particularly important, and there is a case for reflecting that in the Bill for people who work in the catering trade on that day. The matter should be discussed in Committee. I will not delay the Bill further, having made those small points.
  11.16 am
  Shona McIsaac: I, too, shall be brief in my words of support for the Bill.
  This is in essence a simple measure that deals with the anomaly of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that prevents stores from opening on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday. I cannot understand how anybody can vote against a measure that puts right that anomaly, and neither will the millions of shop workers, who are largely women workers who already have a great deal of pressure on them at Christmas because they are responsible for organising Christmas day and bringing the family together. I therefore support the Bill totally.
  Christmas is already the busiest time of year for shop workers, and most of them are not allowed to take annual leave in the final weeks of December because the stores are so busy. They must have Christmas day protected for that reason, too. I was imagining earlier what would happen if stores opened on Christmas day. I envisaged a scenario in which families would open their gifts in the morning, have their lunch and all be down the shops in the afternoon returning the Christmas presents they did not want. That would destroy the whole essence of Christmas day and family life, so I hope that this Bill speedily passes into law.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). As a fellow promoter of a private Member's Bill, let me say that he and I know how much skill it takes to succeed in the ballot.
  This is a good Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it. I make it clear from the outset, that since the events of 18 years ago, this has been a conscience issue in my party, so I speak purely in a personal capacity. We have had a good debate and
  1180
  interesting contributions from both sides. I did not agree with the bulk of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he brought to the House the erudition, knowledge and experience that he brings to all his speeches. This House is the better for having a strong defender of Parliament speaking out as he does five days a week, unlike the vast majority of us, who are only here on four days or even fewer.
  My right hon. Friend was right about one point, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). This is a good time for us to remember those people who necessarily have to work on Sundays. As the son of a soldier, and with many relatives in the medical profession, I am very conscious of that as we discuss this matter.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It is intended to protect not only retail workers, but, more importantly, their families and those who live around major retail outlets. I supported the restrictions on Sunday trading and thought that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was good because the old arrangements were being so widely breached. At least we now have some proper regulation to ensure that shops do not open early on a Sunday morning, which in practice many large shops were doing under the old arrangements. I should have liked greater regulation in that respect.
  I make no bones about being pleased that the Bill publicly recognises the fact that we are still a predominantly Christian country, and I feel in no way embarrassed about that. Christmas is a very special day for families across the country—a day on which as many people as possible should have the opportunity to spend time with husbands, wives and children. We already have fewer public holidays than most other EU countries—eight, as opposed to 12 in Portugal and Austria, 14 in France and Belgium, and 15 in Germany.
  The Department of Trade and Industry's work-life balance campaign recently found that nearly two fifths of adults in the crucial age group of 35 to 55—the majority of parents—feel that they spend too much time at work. Those people include the majority of parents. The DTI's second work-life balance study found that almost 38 per cent. of all employees work in occupations that from time to time involve working on Sundays. In the retail sector, the figure is well over that. It is staggering to think that, according to a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a higher proportion of people in this country than in any other feel that they have to work for longer than they wish for economic reasons. That has much to do with issues that go way beyond the scope of this Bill, such as overcrowding and the cost of housing. I do not think that it is a coincidence that our divorce rate is one of the highest in Europe—more than 50 per cent. higher than the average. The Bill seeks, in a modest way, to ease one strain on family life.
  As the 24-hour society comes inexorably closer, partly encouraged by the instant nature of the internet, on which one can do or purchase almost anything 24 hours a day, it is inevitable that even Christmas day will come to be regarded by some as no different from any other day. I do not believe that, which is why I am glad to support the Bill. Shopping has become almost the new religion, and in the process we forget the retail worker. Almost any occupation that one cares to name will,

  1181
  rightly, have its stout public defenders: nurses, doctors, teachers, farmers, alternative medicine practitioners, fisherman, police officers; the list goes on and on. There are always strong voices for those people in this House, but retail workers do not have a particularly loud voice, despite the large number of USDAW members. Yet roughly 10 per cent. of the work force works in the retail trade, the majority of whom are women. Many of those who already work on Sundays are single parents. A survey entitled, "The Changing Nature of Sunday 1994–1999" calculated that as many as 500,000 children could be deprived of their parent's or parents' attention on that common day off.
  Of course, increased opening hours affect not only workers, but anyone living in close proximity to a large shop who has to deal with delivery lorries, customer traffic, increased pedestrian activity and so on. The fact that stores are not allowed to open until 10 am on a Sunday gives people some relief, and it is right that they should enjoy full relief on Christmas day.
  I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham will find it useful if I draw his attention to three small defects in his Bill. First, it refers only to shops opening, which applies to retail workers but not to other activities. We do not want simply to transfer the burden so that Sunday becomes the big day for restocking, for example. That would affect storemen and drivers and, in areas such as mine, could result in increased, not reduced, nuisance to people who live nearby.
  Secondly, I wonder whether a fine of the size specified in the Bill would act as a deterrent to a large store. I am genuinely puzzled as to why it is included.
  Thirdly, I hope that what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said about rural exemptions will be picked up. It is anomalous that the only shop in a rural area could be affected if it wanted to provide a small Christmas service.
  Shona McIsaac: But it is a large store.
  Mr. Brazier: Perhaps the hon. Lady was not in her seat when my hon. Friend spoke. The point is that a shop that has just passed over the threshold might be the only one a rural area.
  Mr. Paterson: It exceeds the threshold of 3,000 sq ft massively. Because it is such a successful family operation, it is now 22,500 sq ft. The definition is much too blunt. As my hon. Friend suggests, the shop provides a very valuable service in a thinly populated rural area. Another one further down in Shropshire called Harry Tuffins would also qualify. There must be several such outlets that began as little family businesses, and have all those characteristics, but are physically quite large.
  Mr. Brazier: With respect to my hon. Friend, the history of the business is not the relevant point. If the shop is genuinely the only one serving a very large area and has, for example, a pharmaceutical side or sells other essential things that people might need at short notice, there is scope for an exemption. There may be several such shops around the country.
  1182
  The Bill must not be seen as an attack on large stores. In supporting it, the House should commend the fact that just over 90 per cent. of them choose to close on Christmas day anyway. However, it is right to create a level playing field.
  I want to close by making one more personal remark. Earlier, we discussed libertarianism—I, for one, am not a libertarian—I am an old-fashioned Conservative.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: As are we all.
  Mr. Brazier: I am delighted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on an awful lot of issues, although not, following his correspondence with one of my constituents, on people defending their homes.
  My attitude to regulation is that it should be principled. I am proud of the fact that I am part of the party that, in the middle of the last century, introduced the Clean Air Act 1956, which was the first such Act and the cornerstone of subsequent environmental legislation. I am proud of the fact that in the middle of the previous century it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Factory Acts that got children out of the most dangerous places of employment. But principled legislation must be separated from the absolute detritus of paperwork that is besieging our small businesses, hospitals, schools and police stations. The Bill is an example of principled legislation: it represents a thoroughly good principle.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: Happily, although I was about to sit down.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I want to pursue the issue of regulation, because it is constantly raised by Conservative Members. Which employment regulations would the hon. Gentleman like to be withdrawn?
  Mr. Brazier: Every time I visit a small business, a police station, a hospital, a school, or almost any other place where people are employed, they show me the huge quantities of paperwork that they are engaged in. It would go well beyond my brief in this debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. He has allowed himself to be tempted into territory that is not covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your wise guidance. I shall avoid the hon. Gentleman's blandishments.
  The Bill is an example of principled regulation. It is a good Bill that will have one narrow effect that I believe will be for the good of this country. I urge the House to support it.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on introducing the Bill and on putting up with all the vagaries of a Friday sitting. Some of us who are in the Chamber on Fridays more often than others are aware of the tactical to-ing and fro-ing and know how frustrating and frightening that can be. However, I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend will achieve his objective today.
  I wish particularly to support the Bill because at Brent Cross in my constituency there is one of the largest shopping centres in the country. Retailing is the major employment sector in my constituency. There are more people employed in retailing than in any other form of work. The Bill is of great importance to those who work in the sector.
  Those who work in retailing in my constituency come from many different faiths. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), in his peroration, set out all the different faith groups that we have in the UK. When I first read the Bill, I shared some of his concerns about whether we were doing enough to protect those of other faiths from being required to work on days that they regard as holy. However, that does not detract from the main thrust of the Bill, which is to preserve the special nature of Christmas day for families generally, not only for Christians, for people of no faith or for those with other faiths.
  I think of the enormous stress and work that we place on those in the retail sector in the run-up to Christmas. People are working day in and day out, seven days a week, with no holidays. They work long hours and a great deal of overtime. It is only fair that we recognise the huge contribution that those people make, not only in making other people's Christmas happy and enjoyable but in contributing to the strength of our economy. We should recognise that by giving them at least one day off, which is absolutely clear, a year. I say to the Scrooge from Bromley—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—that his approach is not the way forward.
  It is important to recognise that we are talking not only about shop workers but about all the other workers whose lives would also be affected if trading were allowed to continue on Christmas day. At present, transport workers will almost certainly not have to work on Christmas day. If trading were to continue on Christmas day, they would have to work. Other examples are street cleaners, parking attendants, traffic wardens and bank call centres.
  Many people are affected indirectly by trading on Christmas day. They deserve the help that the Bill will give to them as well as to shop workers. The issue goes well beyond an USDAW pressure group. It affects a great many people throughout the country in all walks of life. I very much support the Bill.
  11.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his success in the ballot and on introducing the Bill. It is an important measure.
  1184
  As did my hon. Friend, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who have raised the issue previously. They were unsuccessful in achieving what they wanted for reasons that we have heard this morning.
  I respect the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who attends the House on Fridays when private Members' Bills are being discussed and advances his point of view. However, I suspect that some people will think of him as the grinch who stole Christmas, or as Ebenezer Bromley
  I pay tribute to the work of USDAW on this issue. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was unkind in his criticism of the union for the way it has tried to support its members and the industry by making Christmas a special day, as hon. Members have said it should be.
  John Mann: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to set the record straight by confirming that USDAW has been the fastest growing trade union and the best recruiter of any trade union over the past five years, and exposing the myth that has come from Opposition Members--that it has a problem in recruiting shop workers?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. USDAW figures prominently in my ministerial responsibilities for employment affairs, consumer affairs and competition. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the growth of USDAW's membership.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should reflect on his party's opposition, in terms of employment relations legislation, to the union modernisation fund. Other unions could learn from the work that USDAW has done in respect of recruitment. There is an involvement in social issues that applies throughout my portfolio. I pay tribute to USDAW and to all the other organisations that have campaigned to keep Christmas day a special day.
  I agreed with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he referred to the Wilde quote about the price of everything and the value of nothing. That counts in this debate and the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point. He had an interesting exchange with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the historical consequences of some of the things that were done when the Conservatives were in government. It was interesting also to hear the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talking about his name being on the list that was in a former Prime Minister's handbag.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) put her finger on the pulse when she talked about the creeping commercialisation that has taken place and which has damaged—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Bill give the same legal ruling on Christmas day as that which applies on Easter Sunday? There are certain restrictions on

  1185
  Easter Sunday. Will the same restrictions be applied on Christmas day—in other words, the same rules and the same regulations?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said in introducing the Bill, that is the intention. I am sure that he will return to that matter when he replies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made the interesting and valid point about creeping commercialisation. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was right to support what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the role of the consumer and the role of the economy generally. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, if on nothing else.
  There have been many interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) supported my hon. Friend.
  The Bill contains only five clauses. There is a limit to what I can say that would go beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said about the measure. I do not want to go over all the ground again but I shall make a few brief remarks. I am aware that there is a great deal of anticipation about what may be happening next.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that people in the UK already work some of the longest hours in Europe, and that that should not extend to forcing people to work on Christmas day? Furthermore, does he agree that far more women are employed in supermarkets than men, and that even in this day and age they carry the main day-to-day burden of bringing up families? They, most of all, deserve time off on Christmas day. Their families deserve to celebrate the day with them. They deserve the Bill and it deserves to pass through the House.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that he made the point about women workers. He will be proud of the Government's record on employment relations legislation and the introduction of the social chapter, which have developed and helped the lives of people at work.
  As I have said, the Bill has only five clauses. There are 274 shopping days before Christmas, and some people may think that talking about Christmas now is premature. However, we must be aware in the context of legislation that time is an important commodity.
  The purpose behind the Bill is simple. It would prohibit large shops—those measuring more than 280 sq m or 3,000 sq ft—from opening on Christmas day. The definition of large shops is the same as that which appears in the Sunday Trading Act 1994. As is the case with that Act, the Bill sets out a number of exemptions from the proposed prohibition. These are farm shops, shops whose trade consists wholly or mainly in the sale of alcohol, pharmacies, shops at airports and railway stations and shops servicing ocean-going ships, motor and cycle supply shops, stands at exhibitions and shops at petrol filling stations and motorway service stations.
  1186
  The 1994 Act could be said to be one of the precursors of the Bill in so far as it prohibits the opening of large shops on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. However, the same prohibition does not apply when Christmas day falls on any other day of the week. I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that Christmas day stands apart from the ordinary days of the week and even other holidays; indeed an indication of this is the fact that many people:—myself included—lose track of the days over the Christmas period.
  In the debates that preceded Royal Assent to the 1994 Act, it was clear that there was a desire among Members that the prohibition should apply to this special occasion falling on any day of the week. Unfortunately, the very nature of the Act meant that its scope was limited to the regulation of trading hours on Sunday alone. Its provisions could not be applied to the regulation of shops opening on other days of the week and it was therefore not technically possible to extend the legislation to cover Christmas day on any day other than Sunday. I believe that applying a prohibition when Christmas day falls on a Sunday but not when it falls on any other day is an inconsistency that it is right to address; and that, while the House accepted the position in 1994, it is no longer tenable.
  Enforcement of a prohibition on Christmas day trading by large shops would fall to local trading standards officers. Again, like the 1994 Act, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. With regard to Scotland, a Bill similar to this was introduced in the Scottish Parliament last year. The Bill has been put out for public consultation, after which the Scottish Executive will consider the way forward.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already mentioned, the Government carried out a public consultation in the summer of 2003 on the proposals to keep large shops closed on Christmas day. The vast majority of responses received were supportive of such a law; specifically, 97 per cent. expressed their support for the measures.
  It is not difficult to see why these measures would be popular among the general public, and I have been pleased to hear the support from so many hon. Members today. Christmas day, for many in our rapidly changing times, represents a traditional time for celebration and provides a focal point in a busy and often chaotic period. Christmas is a time for the family; particularly, as we all know, for the younger family members. Speaking personally as a father and grandfather [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] It may come as a shock to some. We must not forget the importance of Christmas for parents to spend quality time with their children.
  On the latter point, I understand that the majority of those who work in the retail sector—particularly in large supermarkets—are women, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) said. Many of them are also mothers. We want to ensure that the special nature of Christmas day is preserved and enable thousands of parents to continue to share quality time with their families and friends. In the absence of other legislation covering Christmas day trading, I believe that the Bill is the best way to achieve this.
  In the summer of 2002, major retailers were consulted individually on their plans for opening on Christmas day of that year and in future years, to inform

  1187
  consideration of whether legislation was necessary. To some extent the responses to this consultation from the retail sector itself were encouraging. It was found that the majority of large shops did not open and did not intend to open on Christmas day 2002. Nor did they have plans to open on Christmas day in the near future. However, this seemingly reassuring fact does not preclude the possibility of change were one competitor to decide to break with the pack and open. A significant number of retailers confirmed that their existing plans would be reviewed if competitors were to open. So inevitably, if one major retailer decided to open on Christmas day, the result could be a domino effect.
  There have been instances since 2000 of large chain stores gauging consumer demand through market testing; that is, either through opening for a specific limited period on Christmas day or by conducting research on consumer habits and preferences in relation to Christmas day. That further validates the need for the Bill, as it seems inevitable that in the not-too-distant future large shops will begin to test the market, leading in turn to knock-on effects across the retail sector.
  With this in mind, I believe that this is an opportune time to legislate. This is not only to preserve the traditional character of Christmas day but also, significantly, to avoid legislation representing a new burden for the retail sector. In other words, while it is currently the norm for large shops not to open on Christmas day, they will have little, if anything, to lose by this Bill becoming law. It will simply mean a continuation of current practice and maintenance of the status quo.
  I acknowledge that there is an issue of consumer choice here—something about which certain Opposition Members are particularly concerned. This concept is important to our economy, and to some extent it is a reflection of a prosperous society, but it is also important not to be too dogmatic about it when there are other issues to consider. We have to strike the right balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of parents to spend time with their families. In this context, I believe that the right balance is in favour of the latter, as it is far more important to the fabric of our society than the desire to go shopping on Christmas day.
  Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend think that it would assist the rights of consumers if we legislated to require that all toys and items of personal grooming should come supplied with batteries?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the Minister should not be tempted down that line.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On regulation, however, we never hear from the Opposition which regulations they want to be passed.
  There is a question as to why the Bill is concerned only with large shops. My answer is that of course we do not believe that every shop should be closed on Christmas day. We believe that the right balance is struck by the exemptions.
  The Bill is important and I hope it gets the support of the House today. The vast majority of people—97 per cent.—want Christmas day to be kept special and we
  1188
  should support the Bill. In the past, Governments were neutral on the issue but this Government fully support my hon. Friend's Bill. That is why we have been working with him to make sure that the Bill is put together successfully. There is more work to be done in Committee, but I wish the Bill well.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Kevan Jones: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to reply to some comments made in the debate today. It has been a good debate, showing the cross-party support for the Bill. The debate has also shown that support for the Bill is inspired not only by the trade unions. Many people support the Bill because of their religious convictions, while others want the traditional nature of Christmas day to be retained.
  The hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about the special nature of Christmas from a Christian perspective, which is very important to many people from all Churches. We should not forget that we are a broadly Christian nation, something we should all cherish.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) holds deep religious beliefs, which came out in his speech today. The hon. Gentleman is a loss to the trade union movement, as he was eloquent about recruiting retail workers; USDAW will soon be knocking on his door for assistance.
  The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to Stan's Shop, I think on two separate occasions. He will be very popular the next time he goes into Stan's Shop for the free publicity that he has given that retail outlet today. He made a point about rural areas, and I accept that in some rural areas there are not the large retail outlets that exist in many urban areas. We could perhaps look at some of those issues in Committee, but we need to be careful. I know that there is a tradition in many rural areas—and also in many urban areas—of shops closing on a Wednesday afternoon to allow their workers to have time off because they work on Saturday mornings. That tradition still exists in some areas, and long may it be cherished, because it allows people who work in the retail trade to be compensated for having to work on a Saturday, a day that many other people—not Members of Parliament, I should add—can cherish. We already have a tradition in this country, which I think is more prevalent in rural areas, that shops do still close sometimes.
  The reason why large shops are specified is quite clear. A small neighbourhood shop that is run by a family is mainly staffed by its owners and their family, whereas Stan's Shop and others of such a large size will have to bring in employees who are not family members. This Bill wants to protect those people from being forced to work on Christmas day.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point—most of the people who come in on Christmas day in the business to which I have referred are members of the original family. My point is that that is a small family business that has been immensely successful and

  1189
  is now a big one. It occupies a Dig area, but it has all the attributes of a small family business that the hon. Gentleman seems to admire.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has now got his third plug for Stan's Shop in this debate; his discount is going to be very good when he next goes there. The important pointis that that is clearly not a small shop if it is the size that he has claimed. I am quite prepared, however, to consider issues of rurality.
  Lembit öpik: The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned Harry Tuffins, which is a fantastic shop, but it originated in the constituency of Montgomeryshire.
  Mr. Jones: At this rate, I am sure that some Opposition Members will get good discounts when they go in all these stores. However, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to allow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) to make that point, so that he gets it recorded in Hansard.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for their contributions. They have a long, proud tradition of association with USDAW, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has been very active not just in helping to protect Christmas day but in other campaigns such as the "Freedom from Fear" campaign to stop violence against shop workers, which USDAW has rightly been pressing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to the multicultural nature of his constituency and the fact that people cherish Christmas day, irrespective of their religious faith. That is an important point. In the consultation, the Department of Trade and Industry received no representations from any groups objecting to the Christmas day provisions in the Bill.
  Welcome points have been made about trade unions, and we had some good speeches in support of trade unions from Conservative Members.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I cannot let this opportunity pass without putting on record the gratitude that the House ought to feel to the late Sir Raymond Powell, who campaigned for so long against Sunday trading on behalf of USDAW.
  Mr. Jones: I was only just elected at the time, so I did not have the honour of knowing Sir Raymond, but the work that he did to try to protect shop workers who worked on Sundays is on the record.
  I welcome the important fact that some Conservative Members are now arguing for regulation. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested that the legislation could extend to catering workers. I do not necessarily disagree with that, in that I want to protect people's employment rights, and I should be interested to see any regulations that Conservative Members wanted to introduce to prevent the exploitation of people who work in such trades.
  1190
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire gave the Bill the support of the Liberal Democrats, which I welcome. That reinforces the fact that the Bill has cross-party support.
  It would be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for whom I have much respect. I even have a sneaking admiration for the front that he puts on and his passionate beliefs. We saw today the divisions in the Conservative party—they exist in every party—between the traditional Conservatives represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the libertarian wing represented by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree that we want a society that allows people to do anything they want—that is the logical conclusion to libertarianism. That would mean youngsters still being put up chimneys and the excellent Factories Acts and other measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury not being on the statute book. That is not a society in which I would like to live.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called libertarian tendency really believes in freedom for the very few and a lack of it for the very many, and especially those on low pay?
  Mr. Jones: Yes, that is reflected in the premise that we are all individuals and there is no such thing as society—something with which I do not agree. I think it was Hobbes who said that man's existence in such a situation was poor, nasty, brutish and short. I do not believe that many hon. Members would wish to live in such a society.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but to put the record straight, even we libertarians occasionally see where our duty lies. I, for example, voted against the lowering of the age of consent, because I thought it proper for the law to protect young people, sometimes from themselves.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that clarification—clearly libertarianism has its bounds.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Costco. That is covered, because if people shopped there on Christmas day and purchased retail goods, the provisions in the Bill would apply. The only thing that would be excluded would be if they were buying goods for retail sale afterwards.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury spoke well. He is a true believer in the Bill. He is possibly part of a dying breed, as a traditional one-nation Conservative with a compassionate side. That tendency was in the wilderness in the 1980s and the 1990s. I agree with him about the distribution industry. Pressure is not only on shops but on distribution networks to get the goods to those shops on Sundays. That is exacerbated by the procedure of delivering goods just in time rather than storing them at the point of sale. We cannot include the distribution network in the Bill, but I would be pleased to support any regulations suggested by the Conservative party or the hon. Gentleman personally to deal with the working hours of people employed in distribution.

  1191
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about rurality. I accept, as someone with a rural constituency, albeit with urban problems, that there is a different dimension to life in rural areas. Perhaps we can examine that in Committee.
  I again commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 ( Committal of Bills).

  Retirement income Reform Bill
  Order for Second Reading read..
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Allan Haselhurst): Not moved.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House will wish to know my reasons for withdrawing my Retirement Income Reform Bill. Despite cross-party support for this legislation, the Government are still unwilling to back it, for the fourth time of asking. When I tabled the Bill in January, the Government had yet to introduce their Pensions Bill. They have now done so, but it remains deficient and will do nothing to help those who are forced to annuitise three quarters of their pension pot at the age of 75.
  I am grateful to the Retirement Income Reform Campaign and to Cicero Consulting for their help. Having sought advice, I feel that the Bill would better continue its parliamentary life as an amendment to the Pensions Bill in Standing Committee and on Report. That will force the Government to confront its many merits, instead of relying on their Back Benchers to talk it out.

  Genetically Modified Organisms Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12 noon
  Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The subject of genetically modified crops is a subject that can fill an MP with trepidation, and it is clear that it has so filled the Government deputy Chief Whip. [Interruption.] Indeed, I can see consternation on the faces of Government Front Benchers. Usually, it is the complicated science and the entrenched views held by those on both sides of the argument that put people off this subject. However, GM crops have potentially irrevocable consequences that could affect us all. Although I am only an arts graduate, when my name came up in respect of promoting a private Member's Bill, I was determined to tackle this subject, and I am jolly glad I did.
  In the run-up to today's debate, I have been extremely gratified to learn of the support for my stand, not least from my own Rother district council, but also from the many letters and cards I have received from various other parts of the country. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has drawn to my attention the strongly worded resolution of Devon county council.
  I am pleased to say that the Bill is sponsored by several members of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I, too, am a member. I am delighted to say that our report, "GM foods—Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials", has been extremely well received by the public at large. I am sorry that the Government have not taken more trouble to take on board the Committee's views. I am also glad to say that one of the Bill's sponsors is my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—he, too, is a member of the Committee—who is in his place. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Committee wrote to the Minister yesterday in support of the principles of my Bill. I am pleased to say that several members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are also sponsors. Any mistakes in the Bill are mine, but their support—and that of other sponsors on both sides of the House—adds a great deal of weight to the fundamental principles that I will argue for today.
  Without wishing to get bogged down in the complexities of GM crops, I should point out that, whenever any new technology or product is introduced, it has risks as well as benefits. As a point of principle, we must preserve consumer choice and allow people to choose whether they wish to use or consume a product. We must also ensure that, if the technology could have adverse impacts on our health, wealth or precious environment, those who introduce it and benefit from it must be properly held responsible, and if necessary required to pay damages, or to put right whatever harm is done.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: Not at the moment; I want to make some progress, if I may. One does not need to be a scientist to understand that freedom of choice and
  1194
  producer responsibility underpin my approach. It does not matter whether one is in favour of or against the commercialisation of GM crops: those are the basic rules, and we should all subscribe to them. That is what my Bill seeks to achieve for GM crops.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that this is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bill that would normally be answered by a DEFRA Minister. Do you know whether the Government will be providing a Minister at least to hear the arguments, if not to give DEFRA's opinion on the matter?
  It was definitely the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who made the GM statement to the House. It is rather odd, therefore, that there is no DEFRA Minister present to hear the arguments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are represented on the Front Bench, and the Chair cannot intervene beyond that. It needs to be well observed that events on Fridays sometimes do not follow an entirely normal course, which may explain the current absence of a DEFRA Minister.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is it not at the very least a discourtesy, if not sheer indifference, to the House that the Government have not seen fit to provide a full team of Ministers to cover the full set of Bills before the House today? Surely the Government cannot make casual assumption that Bills will take this or that course. It must be right for the Government to supply proper Ministers to deal with Bills in the order in which they appear.
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to deal with the matter. There is no genuine problem of order. The Government are represented on the Front Bench, as I said. Whether or not the absence of a DEFRA Minister is intentional is entirely another matter. Circumstances are such that no DEFRA Minister is in his place at the present time, but that is not a point of order for the Chair because the Government are represented on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government are represented on the Front Bench. We all realise that, but as I understand it, the Minister present is from the Department of Trade and Industry. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any other officials in the Speaker's

  1195
  Office, been given any information this morning of a Government reshuffle, which would explain the change of responsibilities?
  Mr. Miller rose—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me tempt Mr. Sutcliffe to contribute.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you protected my status as a proper Minister. I am a Minister based in the Department of Trade and Industry, which other parties are trying to do away with. The DTI is very interested in all aspects of the business of the House and will pass on to the appropriate Ministers anything that is raised in the debate.
  Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not more appropriate—you, Sir, may wish to discuss the matter with the Speaker—when there is a change of business on a Friday brought about by the mechanism of Bills being withdrawn, that prior notice be given of that change? That is important, because it affects the workings of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot control every event occurring in the House. Members sometimes take initiatives, involving motions to sit in private and so forth, which can completely alter the order and time taken on particular items of business. No one knows before the start of business whether a Bill will be dealt with in 10 minutes or five hours. In the best of all ordered worlds, both the Government and Opposition Benches should be manned for the appropriate legislation. The Chair expects that to happen, but nothing out of order has taken place and I believe that we should now move on.
  Gregory Barker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I can shed a little further light on the matter. I received a letter from the Minister for the Environment at 6.30 yesterday evening, in which he said:
  "I will of course listen carefully to what you have to say in support of your Bill on Friday and judge it accordingly."
  What could possibly have happened to that Minister from 6.30 last night, when he said he would be in his place listening to the debate on my Bill? Perhaps it is a cause for concern or a cause of consternation for the Government Whips. Perhaps it explains why the Government deputy Chief Whip has scuttled off.
  I want to press on, in the hope that at some point the DEFRA Ministers will turn up. 1 return to the issue of freedom of choice.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: No, not on this point. We have done it to death.
  All crop seeds have the potential to mix with other varieties, and GM crops are no different. They can be
  1196
  mixed by cross-pollination, when the pollen of one crop is blown or carried by insects from one plant to another. They can be mixed when birds or animals eat or otherwise transport seed to other fields. They can be mixed if a field is planted with a GM crop one year and a non-GM crop the next. Some of the seed will inevitably remain in the ground and grow later than intended, mixing with the following non-GM crop. Such plants are known as volunteers. Humans, too, can mix the seed, in farm machinery or silos that are not completely emptied of one batch of seed or crop before another is added or when seed is spilled in transportation. Seed can be mixed by accident at the grain merchant.
  The point is that if GM crops are allowed to mix with non-GM crops, it will not be possible for a consumer who does not wish to eat GM food to be able to buy GM-free products. It is clear that many people want to continue to buy GM-free products.
  Lembit öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Assembly has had much debate about this issue, and it shares his concern that unless we do something about it now, our choice will be removed by default?
  Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
  Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman has outlined the principles behind the Bill and some of the challenges that GM food poses for retailers. Has he managed to inform Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth about his Bill? What are their views on his Bill?
  Gregory Barker: If the hon. Gentleman occasionally read the newspapers, he would know that Friends of the Earth has been extremely helpful in the drafting of the Bill. All the environmental groups have taken an interest, although they do not all entirely agree with what I am doing.
  Mr. Miller: I am concerned not with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, but with the methodology. The Bill would regulate in a very prescriptive manner, but does that not go against the basic tenets of his party?
  Gregory Barker: I do not intend to respond to time-wasting interventions. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill carefully instead of having just been passed it by the Whips, he would find that what he alleges is not the case.
  The Government's "GM Nation?" debate found that 86 per cent. of respondents did not want to eat GM food, something that our retailers—even the large supermarkets—have long recognised. Indeed, none of the major supermarkets goes out of its way to stock GM food. To preserve the choice that our constituents clearly wish to continue to exercise, we have to prevent the contamination of non-GM crops with GM traits. GM crops must be required to be planted according to rules that govern separation distances and planting intervals, as well as according to farm hygiene rules that prevent equipment from being used for GM and non-GM crops simultaneously.

  1197
  I hope that so far I have followed a logical path. I know from meetings with the Minister, who is unfortunately not in his place, that the Government agree with me that we need a co-existence and liability regime—
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House do now sit in private.
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 ( Motions to sit in private):—
  The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 23.

  Division No. 111]

  [12:13 pm

  AYES

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Barry Gardiner and

  Rob Marris

  NOES

  Barker, Gregory

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushclilf)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  öpik, Lembit

  Davidson, Ian

  Paterson, Owen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Redwood, rh John

  Flook, Adrian

  Robtain, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Francois, Mark

  Teather, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Mr. Andrew Miller and

  Mr. Andrew Dismore

  It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
  Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Through the most shameless and despicable use of House procedures, the Government have deliberately killed off my Bill and the debate on it before I had got even halfway through my speech. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment wrote to me saying that he would be here to hear my Bill and to judge it accordingly. How can anyone ever trust not only this Labour Government but DEFRA, when a Minister deliberately tells untruths in a letter and refuses to come to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going much too far in his remarks. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. The procedures of the House have been observed correctly and the Chair has no control over the actions that are taken provided that they are in order. What has happened has happened.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue of genetically modified organisms is a matter of enormous national controversy and the House is as divided as the general public. It is simply unacceptable that a Bill of this nature that asks Parliament to decide the nature of regulation should be closed down and that a Minister should not come to the House. Is it possible for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make representations to the Minister that he should come in future to debates that concern his Department?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The importance of a particular matter cannot be decided by the Chair. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that any particular matter that hon. Members wish to have debated on the Floor of the House should be taken up with the usual channels.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that it is, indeed, the role of Parliament to determine that? If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) had secured the support of even 40 of his colleagues, he could have continued with his peroration and his Bill might have been able to proceed, but as he did not have the support of his own side, it fell.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These points of order are turning into a debate. They are not for the Chair—[Interruption.] Well, we will try one more.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In more measured tones, will you accept that on reading Hansard on Monday, people will find that 23 people voted in the No Lobby? It was not 23 Tories because, as a matter of fact, there were six or seven Labour Members. It was a cross-party Division. Let the facts speak for themselves—they only got about 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the record will show that. No hon. Member who is experienced in Friday sittings will be surprised by what happened, but what has happened has happened. It is in order and we should proceed with the other measures on the Order Paper.

  Performance of Companies and Government Departments (Reporting) Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  12.31 pm
  Andy King rose—
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection is that when the Bill was previously considered, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) had finished introducing it and the Minister was in the middle of his remarks. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot speak again without the leave of the House, and, unless we hear from a Minister, should we not move on?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that plain, but we had to get the ball rolling. The Bill is now before us and we are continuing an adjourned debate.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: This is something of an unexpected treat.
  Rob Marris: For all of us.
  Mr. Dismore: For the whole House, no doubt. I had expected to speak at some length on the Bill before last, but happily I did not spend too much time preparing for it, and I have not spent much time preparing for this Bill. As will be apparent, I support it and regard it as important.
  I want to draw attention to a few reports that show where companies fall short of the high standards that we expect of them. All the reports have been published since our last debate on the Bill. According to a report by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, labour standards in the high-tech computer sector are among the worst in the world. Systemic problems of unsafe working conditions, compulsory overtime and poor wages falling below the legal minimum are just some of the catalogue of examples found in factories in Mexico, Thailand and China.
  In Brazil and Kenya, Christian Aid continues to report extreme health and safety violations of tobacco farmers who supply to major companies, such as British American Tobacco. In Nigeria, communities report ongoing problems with oil spills, emanating from Shell's operations there.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, which looked in detail at the smuggling of tobacco? It specifically mentioned Imperial Tobacco and the lack of co-operation at that time with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in reaching a memorandum of understanding. Is he aware of any information relating to China or anywhere else which would put Imperial Tobacco in the frame in the same way as BAT is now in the frame?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee,
  1200
  is well placed to make that point. I am afraid that I have not read that report, but I am sure that the management and board of directors of the companies to which he has referred will be in some trepidation when they see the contents of this Bill, if those are the sort of business practices in which they are engaged.
  Ms Julia Drown: My constituents have written to me in support of this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only conditions of workers that are at issue, but activities such as supply of baby milk to countries where it can lead to deaths of infants and what companies are doing to promote GM crops, which perhaps our constituents would not want? What about the mining activities by companies in the great lakes region in Africa? Are those companies stimulating some of the civil war that has affected Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo? People want some reporting on those issues.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes the point strongly. There is a range of issues, such as those to which she refers, on which companies must take greater responsibility. My sole concern is that this Bill is only being introduced this year—we should have had such a Bill decades ago. I remember looking at reports of cases of asbestos workers in South Africa who were poisoned by big asbestos companies and are now trying to fight for compensation. Their claims were resisted tooth and nail by those companies all the way up through our courts here, until finally, for once, the judges got it right and allowed those people properly to bring claims for compensation. That is exactly the sort of problem with which we should be dealing.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the organic farmers of Herefordshire, which has more organic farms per hectare than any other county in England, whose crops might be contaminated by genetically modified crops? What would he say in defence of his Labour colleagues who have just caused a Division that has effectively meant that an important private Member's Bill has now been lost, which might have had a chance for further debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is way outside the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I would say is that the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about genetically modified organisms, which raises an issue in relation to corporate behaviour. He may be interested to know that I share his views about corporate behaviour in relation to genetically modified food, and I regret that he could not summon enough Liberal Democrat Members to support the previous Bill, or enough Conservative Members, or enough between them, to do so.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled that discussion on the topic of the previous Bill is outside the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Dismore: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was getting a little carried away.
  Tony Cunningham: I have in my constituency a running shoe manufacturer called New

  1201
  Balance. It is the only running shoe manufacturer that produces running shoes in the United Kingdom. All the other companies—Reebok, Nike, Adidas and the rest—produce in far-flung parts of the world. Is this Bill designed to look at those sorts of companies, which may be producing their running shoes in ideal conditions, while in some third-world countries workers could be suffering from poor health and safety and so on. Is this Bill designed to examine those issues?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point about looking at the performance of companies in this respect. We have all read stories and seen television documentaries about companies in the far east, for example, employing child labour on a penny or two a day. That is completely exploitative and outside any form of proper reporting and control. If companies are engaged in those practices, shareholders and the wider public ought to be aware of it. Of course, the issue goes beyond unfair labour practices elsewhere, to fairness of competition and trade with legitimate companies such as that in my hon. Friend's constituency. How can that company compete fairly when other companies behave so improperly and badly, undercutting its legitimate business?
  Andy King: I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware that large multinational companies do not just behave disgracefully towards their work force, as in terms of the computer issue. In places such as Plachimada in India, Coca-Cola took away drinking water, which is necessary to sustain life, and Shell is of course notorious for its activities in the Niger delta. Such companies put whole communities at risk, yet they are not held to account by their shareholders.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Coca-Cola and water. Recently, there was a scandal in our own country when Coca-Cola had to withdraw its bottled tap water because it was not safe. That was a rip-off, if ever there was one. That is an example from the developed world of a company that has misbehaved in the developing world, in India.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will provide tremendous assistance to pension funds? The Government introduced a provision whereby investment companies must issue a statement of investment principles by which the funds must abide, and which their trustees must observe. That is especially relevant in the context of exercising corporate social responsibility, given that those companies are some of the major shareholders in many multinational companies on the index. Having analysed their investments, their shareholders will be able to exercise their vote at annual general meetings. The Bill would allow the shareholders of those companies to analyse their investments and to vote at annual general meetings with a clear knowledge of the social responsibility of the activities in which they are engaged. That will—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather long for an intervention.
  Mr. Dismore: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. I hope that he will have the opportunity to develop it after I have concluded my remarks.
  1202
  I want to put my hon. Friend's point in a slightly different light in relation to ethical investment companies and pension funds. When I recently had a financial health check with my financial adviser, who no doubt tried to bamboozle me, I was astounded, when I looked at my pension, that the small amount of money that I had put into an ethical fund had performed much better than the funds in the general market. That is a sign of the times. People are much more interested in knowing where their money is going and what the companies that they are investing in are up to. That is why my hon. Friend's Bill is so timely. It catches the spirit of the age—the zeitgeist that allows us, as investors, to ensure that our money is invested properly based on companies' reports of what they are doing.
  Ms Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is true not only of investment companies? Many people have expressed concern about call centres going abroad. Nationwide, whose headquarters are in my constituency, recently stated that it was going to keep its call centres in Swindon, which is a great reflection on the staff there. That is the sort of decision that people want to know about; certainly, Nationwide's financial performance is reflecting it. Similarly, there is huge increase in interest in fair trade. People want to know about what companies are doing, and the Bill would assist that.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she makes a good point. The issue of call centres is a difficult and thorny one. Personally, I do not necessarily object to their going overseas. The real question is whether the people who work in them are being exploited, and that would emerge clearly from corporate reports that deal with the subject, as they would have to under the Bill.
  Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that earlier in our debates a point of order was made to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was then in the Chair, stating that there was not an appropriate departmental Minister on the Front Bench. That matter was pursued extensively by Conservative Members, yet the Members on their Front Bench are not the appropriate shadow Ministers for the relevant Department—the DTI.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is on the record, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Before the last round of interventions, I was talking about the problems in Nigeria in relation to Shell's operations, especially in the context of oil spills. We have all read a great deal in newspapers recently about that company and its lack of social responsibility towards the people of Nigeria.
  Tony Cunningham: Earlier today we had the successful Second Reading of the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. It was helped through its Second Reading by a trade union, which provided support. If the Bill before us passes through the House, I hope that it would allow people to know whether companies that have dealings in other parts of the world accept and encourage trade union involvement and trade union

  1203
  membership. We know that in this country that is acceptable. Would it not be as well if people knew what companies were doing in respect of trade uionism in other parts of the world?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we are talking about organisations such as those in the oil industry, it is extremely important. We are not thinking only about terms, conditions and wages—we must also have regard to health and safety. Many companies operate in ways that are downright unsafe.
  Recently, a multinational company was describing to me its health and safety record with particular reference to fatal accidents. In Europe, those accidents could be counted on one's fingers—that is if one still has them! However, there were more people killed by this one company worldwide than the whole of the people killed at work in the United Kingdom in a year, twice over. That shows that while in Europe we may have a strong attitude to health and safety, that does not apply in the rest of the world. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of the trade unions on health and safety. An inquiry into health and safety is being conducted by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Trade unions are important when it comes to terms and conditions, and especially important in the context of health and safety at work.
  It is easy for us in the west to take for granted the right that is guaranteed by all the international conventions to organise as a trade union. We know that there are many dictatorships throughout the world that operate hand in glove with some rather despicable companies, which will deal only with sweetheart trade unions or which actively fight against trade unionism itself. Many people have died in the developing world, particularly in south America, for the right to be represented by a trade union. It is an issue on which companies should report back to their shareholders in the developed world.
  Andy King: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Bill has the full support of every trade union in this country and that of the TUC, which has written to me offering its full and unqualified support because of the benefits that the Bill would bring to the very workers to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because it significantly emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). The trade union movement is an international movement. An important reflection of the good work that our trade unions do is the attempt to promote decent labour conditions for workers internationally, often in circumstances where they are not able to look after themselves.
  Amnesty International continues to be the leading source of information on human rights abuses, where business has failed to act within their sphere of influence, or sought to avoid responsibility altogether, through legal means. That includes, for example, BP's negotiation within the context of the Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline.
  If I were to draw a thread through all these different stories, including those to which I was referring before I was intervened on, I would ask what they all have in
  1204
  common. Concerns have been expressed by stakeholders who have been unable to articulate their concerns by issuing reports, by media attention or by direct lobbying. Most of these issues have failed to appear in corporate social reports. Why is that? Is it perhaps because those companies are unwilling to explain what has been going on? Is it because no one wants to be seen to be taking a lead for fear of creating a disadvantage for their company?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has been most generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that some of the very principles with regard to stores that felt a compulsion as a result of their competition opening on Christmas day on the basis of which we were earlier urging this House to pass legislation to prevent Christmas day trading are exactly the same as those that apply here? There are companies that fear the impact on their own share price and operations from doing the right thing and publishing each year a statement of their socially responsible activities. They fear that unless we act, they will be disadvantaged in the commercial arena.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a strong point that I was starting to develop. Blue-chip companies may like to do that, but nobody wants to be seen to be the one putting a toe in the water. All our companies and employers—not just trade unions—would also see the benefits of the Bill.
  Tony Cunningham: In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for many years and democracy has broken down. Many people would not want British and European companies to invest there, but they need to know whether companies are investing in a country with such a regime. I hope that the Bill will provide them with the information.
  Mr. Dismore: That is a strong point. The question is why people want to know that information. There are two or three different reasons. The first is whether they are happy with their money being invested in a country such as that. But there may be big corporate investors who are prepared to see that done for profit but also prepared to put pressure on companies in turn to pressurise the regimes to try to move towards democracy. My hon. Friend makes an important point about Burma, where a number of UK companies invest. If some of the shareholders, pension fund members and people with individual pension rights knew where their money was invested, they might well put pressure on those companies to improve standards throughout the developing world in their operations, as well as on Governments to clean up their acts.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman may be a sponsor of the Bill and will be au fait with its contents. Companies such as Clarks of Somerset produce all their products in China and what are known as third-world countries, but comply with the Bill's provisions. What advice has he sought from such companies?
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention. Such companies have a lot to

  1205
  gain from the Bill. The same situation applies to the company that makes training shoes, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Companies with decent labour standards and proper health and safety regimes have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the Bill.
  Andy King: In addition, decent companies in this country fully support the Bill. The Co-operative Bank, which is thriving, is fully behind us, as are British Telecom andB?Q. A lot of companies are saying that the time has come to act together so that they are not undercut by the worst.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he mentioned some important companies. The Co-op hank is a major finance business, and B?Q brings in raw materials from all over the world, particularly timber, in respect of which there are issues involving hardwood. It is interesting that BT, a high-tech company, also subscribes to the Bill, which goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made about call centres.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he shows extraordinary generosity of spirit. May I add Tetley, which is based in Greenford my constituency, to the list of companies that operate ethically? Tetley has been ethically sourcing tea for not the past five or 10 years but for the past 15 years, because it recognises that it has a global duty and an imperative to act as an ethical sourcer in the growth and boxing of loose tea. It has been extraordinarily successful, even though it has had to withdraw from some of its tea-growing operations in Zimbabwe and China. Does he accept that there are some good companies and that, in a reverse of Gresham's law, the good might possibly drive out the bad?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. When he mentioned Tetley's, I wondered whether we were going to go down the beer route, which would have been interesting.
  Mr. Pound: Not during Lent.
  Mr. Dismore: Given that we debated Christmas day earlier, we seem to be having a day of religious festivals.
  My hon. Friend is involved in Labour Friends of India, and has a large Indian community in his constituency, so it is important to him that the tea company in his constituency is shown to be using proper practices in the region where many of his constituents have their roots. It is a double bonus for him to have such a company on his patch.
  Why do such issues not at present appear in corporate reports? Is it really because companies do not think that they are likely to have any impact on shareholder value until they pose a clear financial risk? Shareholder value, however, is the starting point of the founding principle of the Government's proposed operating and financial
  1206
  review. Some people involved in the company law review process, such as civil society groups, are calling for an operating and financial review that addresses the interests of all relevant users, including shareholders, consumers, employees, communities and charities. The company law review has accepted that premise, and argues that an operating and financial review should be prepared for members and other users. However, the proposals are still aimed primarily at members' interests alone.
  The proposed operating and financial review must ensure that companies take into account and disclose a range of impacts on relevant stakeholders, instead of perpetuating the status quo, which is based on companies' voluntary good will. Do businesses currently report on what is important to other users? Some might, but not all. Looking at the leaders in corporate social responsibility, there are significant gaps between companies' social and environmental concerns and their financial considerations. When a business makes a decision, it must arguably consider several issues beyond financial impact, including legal implications and the risk to its brand reputation, but business decisions rarely allow a stakeholder interest to overrule financial concerns if it has no proven financial bearing. In forward-looking strategies, unless there are clear financial risks, business will do what is best for business as it perceives that in its short-term, blinkered view of the world today.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a parallel with the change in the legislative and regulatory environment in local government from compulsory competitive tendering to the best-value regime that this Government introduced? Previously, local authorities were obliged simply to look at the cheapest price for delivering a service, whereas they can now assess "value" much more widely. Does not the Bill seek, in many respects, to do the same for business? A business should not simply consider the cheapest price at which it can produce its product in a given area but the overall value that accrues to the consumer, and to society in general, as a result of its interventions.
  Mr. Dismore: Again, my hon. Friend makes a cogent point. That is the nub of the debate. We want companies to look more broadly at the wider range of stakeholders and people who may be affected by their operations.
  We have had such laws for a very long time. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 gives companies duties towards the general public. Here, we are asking companies merely to tell us what they are up to, and then perhaps market forces, paradoxically, will do the trick.
  Mr. Pound: I do not have my copy of the Register of Members' Interests to hand, although I know that my hon. Friend knows it by heart. Does he agree that many right hon. and hon. Members who rightly list their directorships, in certain cases in companies dealing in tobacco, for example, might set an example to the House

  1207
  and to the nation by insisting on this form of disclosure, and in the absence of legislation for it, perhaps even arranging to do so themselves?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, but I do not know the register inside out. We consult it only when we are investigating someone.
  It is amazing that the only representative of the Conservative party here today is the shadow Minister, and the same goes for the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Gardiner: He is not a shadow Minister.
  Mr. Dismore: Whatever he is, he is sitting on the Front Bench. Perhaps he will clarify what he is doing here.
  Gregory Barker: I am a member of the Opposition Whips Office, and as such a shadow Minister.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman can make a similar declaration.
  Mr. Keetch: As the Liberal Democrat shadow Defence Secretary, I have an important interest in defence matters in this debate, which is why I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Gregory Barker: May I also add that, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) must respond to the first intervention before taking a second one.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Conservative representative has clarified his position as a shadow Whip. Perhaps he can whip in some of his colleagues today, and in particular those who have the shareholdings that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). Perhaps then they can answer for the companies of which they are shareholders and, I suspect, directors, and defend them at first hand in relation to both the Bill and the issues that have been raised today. I suspect—my hon. Friend may be able to supply the detail shortly—that some of them may be a little worried about the Bill, because it may expose them as directors of companies involved in nefarious practices in the developing world.
  Gregory Barker: As well as a shadow Whip, I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, so this is a subject that I am especially interested in and sympathetic to, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that, at his instigation, we have tested who is in the House today, and it transpires that only six Labour Members were prepared to go into the Lobby, versus 16
  1208
  Conservative Members, so it ill becomes him to speak about Members not being here, especially as he has destroyed a very good Bill.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that, rather than responding to that intervention, the hon. Gentleman will continue with the debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) spoke about the interest of the defence industry in the Bill. He may wish to make a fuller contribution later, but I invite him to say a little more now.
  Mr. Keetch: The defence industry clearly has an interest in the Bill, and I should point out that, as the Register of Members' Interests confirms, I am a non-executive director of two companies based in my constituency, neither of which has activities outside the United Kingdom. Indeed, one of them does not even have activities outside Herefordshire.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sure that the House has heard the hon. Gentleman's declaration, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have no directorships whatsoever.
  Mr. Pound: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has registered nine shareholdings in the current register, but that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We really must return to the debate currently before the House.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sure that we can examine the hon. Gentleman's shareholdings in the Tea Room afterwards.
  Ms Drown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening, as we were getting a little off track. That said, this is a good debate and I wish that we had more such debates. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the danger with a Bill such as this is that one adds more and more elements to it, and that it is important that regulation is not burdensome? Has he any thoughts on how we can encourage appropriate reporting without the system becoming too big, burdensome and costly to companies? A balance has to be struck in that regard.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Bill makes a useful contribution to the debate and is a good start. I suspect that it has little prospect of becoming legislation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) has done us a great service in bringing these issues before the House and at least kicking off the debate. The best way forward is for business to listen to this debate and to engage with those of us who feel strongly about these issues. It is clear from her interventions and her work outside this place that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) feels strongly about them.

  1209
  The CBI and the large companies represented by such organisations should engage with us and start to develop some solutions. We have witnessed the failure of voluntarism, but perhaps the one or two good companies that do want to make progress could become pilots and flag-bearers for business organisations. Notwithstanding the ignorance of the reporting, if shareholders were to say at annual meetings, "We know that there is no law requiring you to act in this way, but we as shareholders are insisting that you do," we might start to make progress. In that regard, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon says, this debate is important and valuable.
  I was talking about business strategies and what business gets up to. A good example is the construction of an oil pipeline or dam. As we have seen throughout the developing world, such projects are often completely rejected by local communities. However, the voices of those communities are seldom, if ever, heard. If they are heard, they are seldom, if ever, the crucial factor in the business decision as to whether that oil pipeline or dam should go ahead. Such decisions are taken irrespective of environmental, cultural or social damage.
  We have discussed the idea that the operating and financial review should not be a full social and environmental report, and that only key performance indicators should be included, yet some businesses will assume that if they have done the OFR, they have done the job. Furthermore, what they chose to include in the final report would be a matter for them. Such an OFR could therefore have an adverse effect, resulting in companies disclosing less, not more. However, the Bill requires an OFR that ensures that companies report on relevant social, environmental and economic impacts and performance, thereby providing both shareholders and stakeholders with an informed assessment of companies' operations and financial positions. The Bill also sets out the matters that should be included in the OFR, and those matters that directors have a duty to consider in order to allow an informed assessment. Moreover, it provides a process for signing off the review. It determines which major companies must publish an OFR—approximately the top 1,000 United Kingdom companies—but more importantly, it allows the OFR to bring in more companies in future.
  In addition, my hon. Friend's Bill will amend the basic duties on company directors to include social and environmental impacts by requiring the director to promote the success of the company while having to consider all factors of potential risk, including impacts on communities and the environment, among other matters. Where possible, directors must also reduce damaging impacts on the environment and communities.
  We have had some six years of consultation on the review of company law, and we should use every opportunity to ensure that legislation includes the requirements that many of my hon. Friends believe should be implemented, as we have heard in today's and previous debates. Regulations for the operating and financial review were promised in the 2002 White Paper,
  1210
  which has been followed by further consultation, and still more consultation is due when the review is published.
  Tony Cunningham: The Government chief scientific adviser recently said that climate change was perhaps a greater danger to the world than terrorism. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if companies in this country are developing techniques—whether it be for oil, coal, gas or whatever—in other parts of the world, that
  contribute to climate change, shareholders and stakeholders should know that such activity is going on?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend once again makes a cogent point. There is always considerable debate about climate change. We need only reflect on the weather to see how the climate has changed—whether it be the consequence of CFCs in the atmosphere or whatever. I believe that there is now overwhelming evidence that corporate activity, particularly in the developing world—logging, for example—can have a major impact on the climate not just for individual countries but worldwide. The British public should be aware, in taking investment decisions, of what contributions companies are making towards resolving that extremely serious problem that the whole world faces.
  To conclude, I remind the Minister that commitments were made in 1994, reviews begun in 1997 when the Government came into office, and the challenge was put to business in 2001—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important issue. Like him, I am pleasantly surprised to have an opportunity to debate the issues today. I hope that he is pleased to know that the Government were the first to introduce a Minister with particular responsibility for corporate social affairs.
  Mr. Dismore: I hope that my remarks have done nothing to detract from the Government's achievements so far. We are now examining corporate responsibility in a wide range of matters, not least corporate manslaughter. I have taken a strong interest in that matter for some time.
  The Minister is right that the Government have already done a lot, but what we are discussing now is very important, going beyond the narrow confines of company law. Even though the Bill amounts to company law reform, it affects the investment decisions made by everyone who has a pension fund. It affects the way in which our big companies behave worldwide. It is an essential reform. It is now opportune, after the challenge put to business in 2001, for social and environmental concerns to be crystallised into company law. The Bill will make that happen. I strongly support my hon. Friend, who has done the House a great service in introducing the Bill. I hope that he will make at least some progress today.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). We have had an interesting

  1211
  Friday morning. Friday mornings are a time when the House debates matters in a way—different from during the rest of the week—that few people see. We have had both good humour and bad temper in this morning's debates. However, we are now debating provisions on which there seems to be a good measure of agreement across the Chamber.
  I want to focus my remarks on the importance of corporate social responsibility, reform and the wider impact of the proposals not just in our society, but throughout the world. The Government set up an independent company law review in 1998, and I commend them for that. It was intended to establish fundamental reform of the framework of core company law. The company law review published its final report in 2001, and the first part of the response was published in 2002, in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law". As I understand it, the Government remain committed to the implementation of their proposals for company law reform.
  Two of the main recommendations of the company law review were, first, that there should be an accessible, codified statement of the general duties that directors owe to their company as managers and monitors, embodying a modern, inclusive view of the range of decision making and objective standards of professional skill and care, tailored to the role of the individual director. The second principal recommendation was that all companies of significant economic size should be required to produce, as part of their annual report and accounts, an operating and financial review—the OFR, as my hon. Friend called it. That recommendation is reflected in clause 1(1) of the Bill, which states that a major company must
  "prepare an operating and financial review."
  The intention of the Bill is not to focus on smaller companies. Right at the beginning, it explicitly mentions major companies and tries to recognise the impact that they have on the wider community.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Bill imposes an obligation on directors to prepare the OFR. The review reports to the members of the company, but interest in it will go beyond those members. The Bill performs a neat conjuring trick, in that while remaining within the confines of company law, it will ensure that the wider public can have a greater understanding of how companies operate.
  Mr. Gardiner: In a good debate, ideas feed off each other, and the intervention that I made in my hon. Friend's speech earlier has now come back to me. The wider interest that must be generated by an OFR is in the wider community's involvement as shareholders in the company. That will drive the company towards better and better practice, because it will know that when investors read the OFR and consider the wider implications of investing in that company, they will have some tough decisions to make. Investors will have to pay great attention to the sometimes damaging effects that a company can have before deciding whether to invest in it or not. That will promote better practice and companies will be forced on to their mettle to clean up their act.
  1212
  A good example of that was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who used to work for a multinational oil company. She and a number of other people were studying the plans for a new plant that was to be built in an African country. My hon. Friend felt that something was not quite right about the plans, and when the meeting broke up she kept the plans to study them overnight, and found out that there was no filtration plant at the appropriate point to stop effluent being gunked out into the local community. When she pointed that out the next day, there was a bit of a silence and the people responsible for drawing up the plans said, "That's quite deliberate". There was no law to oblige that company to include such environmental controls.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the Government are supporting the UN global compact that Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced in 1999, which sets out principles for business on human rights, labour and the environment, and would cover the circumstances he describes.
  Mr. Gardiner: Indeed. I wholeheartedly support the Government's actions in that respect. My hon. Friend is right to point out that those things need to be tackled internationally.
  Andy King: It is important that the Government put their money where their mouth is. The Prime Minister issued a challenge to the top 350 companies in October 2000: to issue OFRs by the end of the 2001. However, only about 20 per cent. of them actually did so. We are lagging behind. Denmark has introduced mandatory reporting, as have the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, yet the Department of Trade and Industry says only that we will soon be bringing forward OFRs. How soon is soon? It has taken six years so far—surely it is time to do something?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in support of his Bill and I agree; it is time to act. It is shameful that companies issued with that challenge have ignored not only the Government's directive, but also public will in this country. People certainly want OFRs to be set up so that there is a clear understanding of the impact of companies' practice in the areas and countries where they operate. It is a matter of the public right to know. Shareholders have the right to know what is going on so that they can make the appropriate decisions. They should be able to find out—if they want to know—how their money is being invested, and whether it is being invested in companies that behave in a socially responsible manner, as I believe the vast majority of shareholders want them to. We all have a stake in this matter; for example, those of us who share in pension funds.
  Lembit öpik: I do not necessarily disagree with the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I should like some reassurance. Will he confirm that he is not suggesting that legislation is required because we think that the majority of companies are irresponsible? From my

  1213
  experience in industry, I know that Procter and Gamble was always highly responsible internationally. Does he agree that, although there are details that could be discussed in Committee, the principle is not that everyone is guilty until proven innocent? The Bill would simply ensure that companies that transgressed internationally, perhaps significantly, were publicly brought to book.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for guarding my back. Before I became a Member, I ran an international company in the City for 10 years. In that respect, I am very industry-friendly. I understand the constraints of running an international company and am aware that the vast majority of such companies and their directors want to operate properly and ethically, for the benefit of the wider community. I welcome that. However, it sits ill with that when only a small percentage of major companies are prepared to prove their good intentions by producing an OFR.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend with some of the figures: 132 of the FTSE 250 companies report on environmental performance, with a further 100 reporting on social and ethical issues. So there is still a long way to go, but progress is being made.
  Mr. Gardiner: Indeed, progress is being made, and I understand that, in many respects, it is better that companies willingly make progress. No one wants to drag companies kicking and screaming into declaring such matters. We want co-operation, and I am sure the Government want co-operation. Of course that is a tremendously sensible way to proceed, not just for FTSE 100 companies, but for all the companies involved who are saying, "This is what we want to do. We want to be open and transparent."
  I remember speaking to Chief Justice Verma, a former chief justice of India, who is now a human rights commissioner there. He had a wonderful phrase, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." That touches the heart of the matter. Putting forward the OFR and allowing transparency and all the facts to be available is the surest way of companies cleaning up their acts.
  Lembit öpik: As Sunlight is a Lever product, I would suggest that Fairy liquid is the best disinfectant. From my experience in Procter and Gamble, I think that that company would say that it could use its impeccable standards, especially in international investment, as a competitive advantage. I have not been asked to raise this on its behalf, but it might ask why it should be made to do something that responsible companies already do effectively, without being made to by law. Given the Minister's statistics, will the more successful companies not report anyway, over time, because they will understand that not doing so puts them at a competitive disadvantage?
  Mr. Gardiner: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the counter-argument is, "Look, if you are already doing this as a responsible company in the community, what can possibly be your objection to the regulations stating that you ought to do
  1214
  it?" If companies want to do something, surely they cannot object to the regulations stating that they have to do so, particularly as their competitors, who may have good reason not to want to do it because they may be shown in a disadvantageous light by comparison, will be forced to do it.
  The perverseness of the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes—I will not call him my hon. Friend, as that would only ruin his career—is that those good companies that are already happy to put such information into the public domain may perceive a benefit to them by being contrasted with their competitors who do not put it in the public domain. They may perceive that they can then claim that they are more virtuous and more likely to attract investments from the ethical funds and managed trusts that want to invest ethically, and hence that they may gain a competitive advantage over those who do not conform as they do; so they may be against such legislation for that reason. That may simply show the labyrinthine workings of my mind, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that perverse argument may encourage companies to favour worse practices than those that they themselves carry out.
  Mr. Dismore: There is another aspect to the debate. Clause 9 is entitled "Promotion of company's objectives", so is it not an enabling power? At the moment, directors may wish to do the socially acceptable things that we have been talking about, but may feel constrained by the existing restrictions of company law, which says that they must act in the best interest of shareholders. Clause 9 would enable directors to act in a socially acceptable way even though they may feel constrained from doing so at present. The problem is not just reporting, but enabling directors to act.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Clause 9 states:
  "A director of a company must in any given case…act in the way he decides, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company."
  Mr. Sutcliffe: That throws up the question about the work that the Government have been doing on the Tyson report, on who should be company directors. Company directors should reflect society, and my hon. Friend may want to say something about that.
  Mr. Gardiner: I confess to my hon. Friend that the Tyson report is not a part of the Government's work about which I have read a great deal. If he wishes to enlighten the House further, I shall be grateful to hear from him.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. The Tyson report talks about who should be company directors. It says that they should reflect the make-up of society—for example, there should therefore be more women on company boards. The Tyson report, which the Government have accepted, is a major step forward, because it would help the way that people look at these issues—whether social, environmental or whatever. It is an excellent piece of work.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am certainly happy to agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. A good

  1215
  company will wish to reflect the community that it serves. It can improve its capacity to serve the community by more closely representing the make-up of that community. I certainly would not support any arbitrary notion of imposing directors on companies; that would be wholly redundant and not the way forward. The directors appointed should be those most capable of taking the company forward, but my hon. Friend makes a good point when he says that women are under-represented as directors in some of the major companies in the UK. I know that the Government are working to redress that problem, and we should support them.
  Andy King: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue relates not just to the directors but to the investors in companies? The Bill would give more power to shareholders so that they can become enlightened shareholders, obtain a true picture of the activities of their company and begin to shape those activities in a more sustainable way.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is absolutely correct. One of the most significant changes that the Government have made on this issue is the vesting of responsibility in the trustees of pension funds to make a statement of investment principles. They must report on that each year in their annual reports, and the statements must take account of social and ethical matters. Exercising corporate responsibility as investors has now been placed on the trustees of pensions funds, and that will have one of the most dramatic impacts in improving the practice of companies. They will feel the heat from their corporate shareholders. They will have to act responsibly to attract the investment funds that they need to expand their businesses and to perform well in the market. They will have to ensure that their statement of corporate social responsibility is made public, and made accessible to shareholders; and that, when the shareholders read it, they do not blanch at what their money is used for. I have no doubt that that will create short-term turbulence in the stock market and in those companies, but the long-term impact will be highly significant. I welcome the Government's intervention.
  Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is important that the public know where the buck stops? Clause 10 is important. It significantly limits the powers of delegation of a director so that people know who is responsible for the decisions taken.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is correct. He highlights the delegation and independence of judgment that is required. A company director must not, unless authorised to do so by the company's constitution, or as a result of any decisions as set out in clause 8, delegate any of his powers or fail to exercise his independent judgment in exercising his powers. The provision not to alienate his powers and not to be at arm's length from the decisions that his company makes is critical.
  Clause 9 provides that a director must
  "take account in good faith of all the material factors that it is practicable in the circumstances for him to identify",
  1216
  and take
  "all reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the company's impact on the communities that it affects and on the environment."
  Let me give a good example of a successful company in the UK that operates in precisely that way and fulfils Government policy in, perhaps, unexpected ways in an unexpected area. Timbmet sources timber from around the world and supplies it to the building trade in the UK. The company recognises that people in the UK, and in particular their Government, do not want any destruction of the rainforests and want the continued growth of forests of hardwood trees, which, unlike pine tress, which grow within 20 or 30 years, cannot simply be cut down and replenished. Hardwood trees have lifespans of 200 or 300 years, and sometimes longer.
  Timbmet has engaged in a careful programme of identifying sustainable ways of supplying timber into the UK market. On the other hand, the Department for International Development has included in its country strategy paper on Cameroon, which has substantial forest resources, the importance of considering the impact on wildlife and the environment of the interventions that it makes and of its development interventions through aid.
  It is often the case that an aid programme, such as the promotion of a new road through a community, has great commercial benefits in linking towns and communities that were separated, and in enabling a country to develop. No one knows as well as the Minister the importance of transport infrastructure in facilitating development. However, roads can have a devastating impact on the environment and wildlife.
  The bushmeat trade used to be localised within selected, very poor communities in that part of the world, which depended on it for protein and have done so for generations. They were tremendously badly affected, because hunters from the cities used the new highways to come into those communities, snare wildlife, take it into the cities, and develop what has become an international trade in bushmeat. That is an example of the unexpected and perverse impacts that can result from otherwise good and sensible development proposals that bring real economic benefits to a community.
  To return to corporate and social responsibility, Timbmet has formed an alliance with the bushmeat campaign in this country, has initiated programmes and is working with the Government, who have just issued the AFLEG—African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance—declaration, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development signed a few months ago in Ghana. That company wants to maximise its beneficial impact on the community in which its centre of operations is located in west Africa. It has also recognised how the consumer market works in the United Kingdom. It has decided that it is imperative that it operates in those communities in a way that is beyond reproach.
  Timbmet has thus established its credentials in the construction industry in this country and the rest of Europe as a supplier of timber that can be certified as coming from sustainable sources. I should mention in passing the tremendously good work of the Forest

  1217
  Stewardship Council in that respect, in providing one of the few effective certification processes for timber around the world. Timbmet is also able to match the Government's aspirations, as their procedures state that wood used in construction by the Government must come from sustainable sources. That completes the chain, which goes right back to some of the poorest communities in the world, by ensuring that the pathways opened up into the forest by Timbmet's work are not used by hunters. That initiative protects those local, indigenous people who have depended on bushmeat, cane rat, duika and bush antelope for years, as a way of topping up their protein intake, and who otherwise would have been forced into food poverty as a result of a timber trade that came in and merely allowed hunting to continue on the back of it.
  The impact of industries and companies on communities is incredibly diverse. It is sometimes difficult for Members to appreciate just how far the ramifications of such a seemingly dry Bill can be felt in communities throughout the world.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the breadth of the environmental issues that the Bill addresses. I want to point out to him an issue that has so far been omitted from our debate: protection of the marine environment. We have looked at forestry and land-based problems, but the marine environment is also significantly under threat. Does he have some observations about that?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend tempts me down yet another route on a matter that he and I have debated at great length in the past. He is absolutely right; one need only consider the pollution of our seas and waterways. In using the word "our" I do not mean to suggest that the situation is confined to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that the Environment Agency has done over the past few years to improve the watercourses in this country.
  It is absolutely critical that companies take into account the water supply of the areas in which they operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth described how Coca-Cola's location of its operation in India used up the local people's water supply. One would think that those people must have felt great joy that a major multinational company was locating in their area as they thought of the prosperity and employment opportunities that it would bring with it. That is true, and it is welcome that such inward investment goes into developing countries. However, unless those companies operate within clear parameters that protect the local community and the very essentials of its life, they are not welcome, because they are not acting in partnership with that community, but behaving in the same manner as the Danes in this country 1,000 years ago by pillaging its resources.
  Gregory Barker: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman's comments about procurement from the third world. I want to draw his attention to the report on Government procurement that was undertaken last year by the Environmental Audit Committee, which highlighted the scandal surrounding the procurement of wood for the
  1218
  Cabinet Office. Similar things have happened in other Departments. Does he agree that before hon. Members start lecturing business, the Government should clean up their act?
  Mr. Gardiner: If the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of parliamentary questions, he will know that I have tabled more than 120 on the timber sources used by the Government and by each Department—a subject that is very close to my heart. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that we in Parliament should get our act together—indeed, it is an absolute priority. It is difficult to stand up and preach to industry and the rest of the world about what should be done unless we are following those procedures ourselves. I am delighted to say that all the Departments to which I put my questions about the procurement of timber were able exactly to describe the parameters of those processes and to say that they specify that hardwood should come from sustainable sources.
  As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, he will recognise that it is very difficult to track back the certification process. I mentioned the Forest Stewardship Council and the tremendous work that it does on enabling that to happen, but it is one organisation and we are talking about a global trade. When a supplier presents somebody with a certificate saying, "This has come from sustainable sources," there are very few ways in which they can be 100 per cent. sure that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did with the Government of Indonesia when he was in the more junior ministerial position in that Department. He worked with them to ensure that the entire process of governance within that country, including the timber industry, enabled proper certification to take place.
  There are an infinite number of links in the chain following the moment at which a piece of timber is cut down in the forest until it takes the form of sawn timber and arrives at a building to be turned into a door, a door frame or whatever. Unless every link in the chain can be certified, it is difficult for us to say, "We rely on the fact that we have a policy. We rely also on the fact that we have a formula that states that the material has come from sustainable sources." It is not enough for us to adopt the right policy. There must be an onus at every stage in the commercial chain, which goes right back to the forest, to ensure that we can properly identify the product that we eventually use.
  I rose to talk about the reform of company law and the Bill, and I fear—
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has made an excellent speech, as he always does in the Chamber, on a Friday and at other times.
  We are talking about a global situation. That reinforces why the Government need to ensure that we have high-performance companies and high-performance workplaces. All the issues that my hon. Friend has raised are global and there needs to be a global solution. Is he proud of the fact that the Government, since 1997, have supported a global approach in every instance?
  Mr. Gardiner: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. He draws me back to my theme and to one of the major points, and that is that the Government have sought to be what all Labour Members would welcome, which is an internationalist Government. We must recognise that there is no such thing as getting something right in one's own backyard because it is intimately connected with the rest of the world. For things to be right in our backyard, it is necessary to ensure that everybody else is operating to the same standard that we wish to see domestically. I know that that is what the Minister believes, and it is what I believe. Many Labour Members would say that it is simply the Socialist International working properly. It is what the Government are trying to do, and I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's remarks.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee. I can confirm that the Committee has looked into these matters in detail and has expressed considerable concerns. There has been a lot of upset about the way in which the Government handled the procurement of some of the timber for the new Home Office building. Will the hon. Gentleman accept, without my wishing to make a particularly partisan point, that the Government need to try harder to put their own house in order? All members of the Committee have been pressing that point.
  Mr. Gardiner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have been extremely upfront in my own acceptance that this is a matter that we, as a Government, have to get right. I am provoked to say that at least we have the right policies in place. At least we are setting the right standards and trying to abide by them. The hon. Gentleman must accept that for 18 years in this place that was not the case. We did not have those standards. Had I asked 100-odd written questions under a Conservative Administration 10 years ago, I would not have received the same answers from the Department concerned, setting out the good practice policy that we as a Government have implemented. I accept that it is not enough to have the right policies. We must ensure that we get things right, that we abide by our policies and that our suppliers abide by them. It is easy to say, "Well, it was in the contract. We did not realise that the suppliers were not doing what we wanted." Of course the Government must monitor their contracts properly. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), sometimes, unless certification processes are in place, it is difficult to monitor effectively. That is why it is vital that the responsibility be placed on industry and carried down the chain; in large part, that is what the Bill will deliver in just one of its aspects.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: On Government procurement, the Government's investment in the public services will give my hon. Friend more examples of how large amounts of money going into the public services will make things better, as opposed to the Conservative party's policy of reducing investment.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is right. Awarding contracts and commissioning from companies and
  1220
  industry allows the Government to determine the terms of contracts and set the standards. The Government have spent billions on 14 new hospitals already built and 78—or is it 178?—in various stages of construction, as well as on new schools. It is open to the Government, quite properly, to specify the standards that they want and to ensure that corporate social responsibility and environmental standards are met. We have to follow that up by delivering the proper monitoring processes to ensure that that happens.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry published the "Modernising Company Law" White Paper in May 2003, which, again, broadly welcomed the Government's proposals. What does the Bill propose on the OFR? The Bill reproduces the draft clauses on the OFR that were included in that White Paper, but with a few significant changes. Broadly, the Bill would require all major companies to publish an OFR, the objective of which was to permit the members—the shareholders—of a company to make an informed assessment of the company's operations, financial position, future strategies and prospects and impacts on the environment and on any communities in which the company operates.
  Major companies are defined essentially as companies that will fill at least two of the following three conditions and are not subsidiaries of another European economic area-registered company. The first condition is that their turnover should be at least £50 million: the second is that the balance sheet total should be at least £25 million; the third is that they should employ at least 500 employees.
  Opposition Members should not use that example to jump up and down to talk about red tape. From the remarks of the two Conservative Members who have spoken, I would not expect them to do so; they have indicated that they are broadly in favour of the Bill. I have no doubt, however, that should the Bill pass into law, it will be added to their list of red tape initiatives introduced by the Government. But this is red tape that the Opposition support and which we support; this is red tape that tries to improve the way in which companies operate.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend raises another important point on regulation. In an earlier debate, I tried to tease out from the Opposition which employment regulations they were against. That is a continual challenge that we put to the Opposition, who talk glibly about red tape but never tell us which regulations they want to get rid off.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is absolutely correct. I look at all these dreadful regulations and red tape brought in by the Government and then I look at their effect. Their effect has been that we now have a national minimum wage for the first time, at £4.85.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are wandering a little outside the scope of the debate.
  Mr. Gardiner: I will observe your gentle caution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and return to the theme of our debate, because you are absolutely right.
  The White Paper's proposals were far from perfect and it made it clear that they were a preliminary draft, designed to aid discussion rather than to give a

  1221
  conclusive view on the best legislative approach. The main changes from the White Paper proposals to the Bill are these. First, the OFR will always have to include information on the company's impact on the environment and on any communities in which the company operates. That is in clause 1(3)(d). Secondly, there is a power for the Secretary of State to make rules by negative resolution, although the purpose of such rules is not clear. That is in clause 1(9) and (10). Thirdly, the wording on employment, environment, social and community issues has been changed, I presume in an attempt to make it broader, although the effect is again uncertain. That is in clause 3(2)(c) to (e). Finally, the Bill would apply equally to private and public companies, whereas the White Paper proposed higher thresholds for private companies. I believe that the Government are in any case likely to propose different coverage in the draft regulations now being prepared.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend's speech is so excellent that I shall take the opportunity now, rather than mentioning this later, to announce that the draft regulations will be ready after Easter. The delay with the OFR has been raised with us before, but the draft regulations will be launched after Easter.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am delighted to have that assurance from the Minister, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will be as delighted as I am to hear that that is the case. We feel that the delay has been unacceptable, and it is good to know that there will be progress in very short order. We welcome the fact that the Government are going to publish their draft regulations in the near future.
  The OFR will improve corporate governance by increasing transparency and accountability. It will provide better and more relevant information on businesses for shareholders and will enable investors to make better decisions, thus improving confidence in financial markets.
  Andy King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution to this excellent debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for announcing that the Government will issue the draft regulations after Easter. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has teased out a few differences between what was in the White Paper and what is in the Bill. The Bill is not set in stone, and the whole point of producing it has been to get the debate going. I believe that we have gone a long way in that respect. We want to get the Bill into Committee so that we can put it into shape and adjust it as necessary. That is why I would be delighted dutifully to amend certain aspects of it in Committee.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am sure that the Minister will have heard that offer from my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him, because he has introduced his Bill in a most distinguished manner. He has argued his case with passion but also with the great reasonableness that the
  1222
  whole House recognises characterises him as a Member. He has put forward a strong case, and whether or not the Bill ultimately goes into Committee—I wish it a fair wind in that respect—I am sure that he will take great comfort from the fact that he has brought it to public attention. The Minister might not be able to accept it publicly, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has pressed the Government's heels on this matter, and he will be delighted when that bears fruit after such a short time in the publication of the draft regulations.
  One of the main benefits of the OFR is that directors will need to identify and report on all factors that are key to the past, present and particularly future performance of their business. It is not intended to replicate or replace the social and environmental reports that many companies already publish. It is not the place for general reporting on environmental and social factors for the public interest. However, it will include disclosures on such factors where they are material to an understanding of the business, and it will be for the directors to decide what is material.
  The Government have set up a working group, which will shortly publish guidance, and I am sure that the draft regulations will be significantly different from the White Paper and the Bill, partly in order to implement aspects of the EU modernisation directive of 2003, and partly to reflect developments in policy in the light of responses to the White Paper and further work, including technical improvement of the drafting. The intention is to publish a consultation document, including the draft regulations, as soon as possible.
  What does the Bill propose on directors' duties? It reproduces part of the Government's draft statutory statement of directors' duties, but with one significant amendment.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Would my hon. Friend care to refer to consultation with organisations such as Business in the Community? We talk about regulation and red tape, but much good work is done in consultation with Business in the Community.
  Mr. Gardiner: Of course, consultation with business is absolutely vital. We need business to be able to feed into legislation that concerns it. When its interests are to be materially affected, it is right to consult it at every stage, and I welcome the discussions that have already taken place.
  The amendment to directors' duties is to impose a responsibility on them to take all reasonable steps to minimise negative social, environmental and economic impacts, while at the same time requiring them to act in a way that is most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members.
  I believe that the Bill will create best value in companies. It tells them to look beyond the financial bottom line to the community bottom line. It says that they should not only maximise profit for shareholders, vital though that is, but consider how they are creating value in the community that they serve. A dry Bill alone cannot do that—it has to be at the forefront of directors' minds. I look forward to the day when Government, working with industry, can achieve that.
  2.9 pm
  Gregory Barker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on securing this welcome debate. I am only sorry that it is being held at the expense of my own Genetically Modified Organisms Bill, but I guess that, as this is my Dispatch Box debut, from adversity springs opportunity.
  As we have heard, the Bill would provide for the production and publication of annual reports on the social, environmental and economic impacts and performance of companies and Government Departments. As someone who is interested in the whole green agenda, I am very pleased to be able to respond to this debate.
  I should like to begin by making it clear that I am well aware of the need to be concerned about the harmful impact that some corporate activities can have on the environment and on local communities. All of us who want to promote sustainability would welcome greater transparency and better practice. However, at the same time I believe that the main priority of business and its most important contribution to society is the creation of wealth and jobs and the provision of goods and services. Winning orders and contracts might sound mundane, but it is central to the success of our economy.
  It is clear that a balance must be found. I have been struck by the wide consensus that exists in respect of this issue, which is indeed about finding the right balance. The Bill's aims are not in dispute, but there is a genuine debate about whether they should be pursued by encouraging and nurturing best practice, or through regulation. Corporate social responsibility is important, but we must also recognise the primary necessity of encouraging wealth creation, for it is only through wealth creation that we can fund all the improvements in public services that our constituents rightly demand.
  Social responsibility can indeed aid productivity and enhance a company's reputation among consumers. Britain has a pretty good record in this regard; indeed, the best performing companies on the stock market are often those at the forefront of best practice. Yet initiatives such as this can also inhibit commercial success. Policy makers have two options: the first is to impose legal requirements that businesses must meet—the Government are very good at that—and the second is to promote a voluntary approach, outlining the responsibilities that businesses should accept in the interests of all shareholders and all stakeholders. The choice is the classic one between carrot and stick.
  It is my instinct and that of my party to be very vigilant in respect of any measure that might increase regulatory burden. I know that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who spoke extensively, is very relaxed about increasing regulation, but we Conservatives do not share his laid-back attitude to the ever-rising burden of red tape on business.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench; hopefully, this could be the start of a long career. Given that there have been some notably poor performances by major corporate companies, does he feel able to support the Government's efforts to improve
  1224
  public confidence in the way that they operate? How should one balance the use of regulation against the performance of certain companies?
  Gregory Barker: I do not have enough time to discuss particular companies, and to be honest I am not sufficiently well briefed to give the Minister an expert answer on the performance of individual companies. However, as someone who has worked in the City and in business, my feeling is that, by and large, British companies do a pretty good job and can hold their heads up high in the world. Indeed, they have often been at the forefront in encouraging and nurturing best practice. We should not be ashamed of our businesses; rather, we should be proud of what they achieve daily. I am not here to berate businesses, but I do want to encourage them to be better, and to take that best practice abroad and share it more widely. We must continue to be vigilant in terms of increasing performance.
  There is no doubt that socially responsible programmes have the potential to bring benefits to business and to society as a whole; as such, they are to be welcomed and encouraged. However, too much compulsion can hit competitiveness, particularly of smaller firms, give less responsible firms an advantage, and even give the whole agenda of corporate social responsibility a bad name.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman talks about small companies, but has he read the Bill? If he had, he would know that we are talking about companies with turnovers of £50 million or balance sheets of £25 million or with more than 500 employees. Those cannot be viewed as small companies.
  Gregory Barker: If the hon. Gentleman were familiar with the definition of small to medium-sized companies, he would know that by stock exchange standards that is typically taken to mean companies with a valuation of anything less than £250 million—or, in some cases, less than £500 million. That definition may exclude basic trading companies, but many small companies with a market capitalisation in excess of £100 million perhaps on the AIM mark et or approaching a stock market flotation—could find their performance greatly inhibited by burdensome regulation.
  My concern is that there are risks in the imposition of legal requirements, so it is vital not to force socially responsible initiatives on to business without proper and due regard to their impact on Britain's ability to compete. If business is faced with rising costs, the ability to win orders and create jobs is affected and all members of a community—rich and poor alike—may be made worse off. Regulation reduces economic freedom and deprives people of opportunities. That is the great risk of introducing a statutory approach to corporate social responsibility. The potential for harm caused by the imposition by the Government of a legal framework, including too many onerous standards and policies, is an important consideration.
  As I said, it all comes back to a question of balance. I prefer to encourage business itself to take the lead in dialogue not just with politicians, but with other representatives and stakeholders in the community. A lightly regulated business environment, which promotes a dynamic economy, is the most important force in creating the fairer society to which we all aspire.

  1225
  In summary, I am broadly sympathetic to the aims of the Bill and I am glad to see it debated here in the House, but I am keen to see that it is neither too bureaucratic nor too prescriptive. Accordingly, my party will encourage the Bill into Committee for further detailed debate. At the same time, we will insist on a proper regulatory impact assessment so that the costs as well as the benefits of the measures in the Bill can be rigorously scrutinised.
  2.17 pm
  Roger Casale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on his debut at the Dispatch Box. Given the strength and brevity of his contribution, I am sure that we will hear many more fine performances from him in the future. We can all agree that we have heard many fine performances in today's debate.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution because I represent a constituency with a high percentage not only of shareholders, but of professional and managerial people who are active in international companies and in many Government Departments. It was interesting to hear the expertise and comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on introducing the Bill.
  It has not featured much in today's debate, but my hon. Friend also includes the actions of Government Departments—the public sector, not just the private sector—in the scope of the Bill. Many examples spring to mind. From the recent Budget we know about job changes in the Department for Work and Pensions?and other Departments—that will affect many of my constituents who live close to, and work in, central London. There is also the action of St. George's trust in disposing of land in my constituency, which will have considerable environmental implications. I would certainly like to see a more rigorous approach towards assessing the environmental and social impact of various Departments.
  My constituents, like those of my hon. Friends, will be attracted by the touchy-feely appeal of the notion of corporate social responsibility, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle was right to say that we should be cautious about what that will mean in practice and, in particular, for the bottom line. However noble our social and environmental objectives, we have to let businesses be run as businesses. We must not give them any other objective than being successful as businesses. To be successful, they must aim at maximising shareholder value and making a profit. Some directors and shareholders may go into business because they want to make a wider contribution to society, but the way to do that is to run a successful business and then invest the money made in other social projects?give it to charity or invest it in other ways.
  At the same time, however, we must realise that the notion of shareholder value—which companies and directors have to maximise—is changing, in a changing world. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North
  1226
  spoke about best value. but I prefer to refer to the notion of enlightened shareholder value that recognises that if businesses are to be successful in the long term and in a sustainable way, they must be held to account in relation to wider objectives such as those that we have debated today. The Bill is desirable for exactly that reason.
  The Bill is necessary, but when we review it in Committee we will need to take a cautious approach to how it will work in practice. One of the issues that will enjoy closer scrutiny in Committee is the question of whether the regulation should be mandatory or voluntary. We should not be too inhibited by the prospect of regulation because the Bill does not seek to introduce more red tape. Instead, it would introduce what may become known as green tape—something that will help companies to resist actions that would be damaging to the environment and, therefore, to the relationships that they have with clients and suppliers. Green tape could also prevent companies from damaging their reputations and, therefore, their longterm business interests, as well as assisting long-term sustainability.
  Should the legislation be mandatory or voluntary? Well, we are talking about minimum standards. We want to encourage best practice, and Business in the Community has been mentioned as one vehicle among many that does that. However, we should not forget the extent of malpractice that occurs. We have seen several terrible business failures, with consequences on a massive scale, including Enron and Equitable Life. The people most affected are often those with investments—the rich and powerful—but we are considering the impact on local communities from job losses and environmental problems. Just as we seek to be tougher in the regulatory framework on business malpractice in the financial sector. we should introduce proper measures to prevent malpractice in relation to social and environmental concerns, which may affect all of us. I favour a mandatory approach, but we will return to the matter in Committee. The other aspect that we should focus on is the criteria. When the Bill was debated in January, it was made clear that whatever regime is introduced, it must be transparent and fair.
  The point about consultation with the business community has not been made strongly enough. The Government have not said, "We know all the answers, we're smarter than everybody else. We know what to do, thank you very much. Here are our laws." They want to work in partnership to solve the problem. The Government will listen carefully to any proposals for legislation to bolster corporate social responsibility and will build on the excellent relationships that they have forged with the Federation of Small Businesses and other bodies representing business. The same thing applies locally. I am in close consultation with the Merton chamber of commerce in my community, which helps us in our work. I am sure that business representation will be clear and helpful and will assist us in framing transparent, specific legislation.
  To return to my original point, society has changed. Sustainability is at the heart of our considerations on how best to secure the future of our local communities and on ensuring a fairer global business community. Our market economy must be underpinned by a strong and effective regulatory framework. Citizenship

  1227
  involves rights matched by responsibilities. The idea that such responsibilities and duties should apply to corporate entities is much stronger than ever before.
  Much of company law is backward looking. These proposals are forward looking and will help companies to prepare for the future and could have a positive impact on their business success, which has to be the bottom line. I am delighted to add my contribution to a debate in which there has been a high degree of cross-party support for an important measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on introducing it.
  2.26 pm
  Lembit öpik: I think we all agree with the intentions of the proposals; the question is the degree to which they should be mandatory.
  As hon. Members may have realised by now, I once worked for a multinational—Procter and Gamble. I chose to work for the company because I thought it acted with social responsibility, even though that was not mandatory. Members may not know that when there is an oil spill, Fairy liquid is used to wash the birds—not for public relations but because Procter and Gamble believes in doing the right thing. It is a shame that we seem to be saying that people will only start to act responsibly if it is made mandatory.
  Employees are more inclined to stay with a company if they feel good about its values and feel that it is making a contribution to the community. Procter and Gamble did a lot of outreach work in schools and so on. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will assure us that the Government are not as cynical as that mandatory approach might imply and that he believes that good, responsible companies will act positively because they and their staff want to do so.
  I came into politics because I think that human nature is basically good and that people will generally try to do the right thing without needing to have the Government breathe down their neck. Those who want to do
  1228
  otherwise will always find a way through and, looking at some of the provisions, I am worried that words such as "fairness" could be interpreted negatively by cynics. If the Bill goes into Committee—I am sure that the Minister will keep his contribution brief enough to allow that to happen—it is on such points that we shall push the most.
  I agree with the intention behind the Bill but, as a Liberal Democrat and a positive politician, I still think that the human race is generous-spirited enough to do the right thing without always having to look over its shoulder for the law.
  2.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Things are improving. The last time we debated private Members' Bills, I had a minute and a half to wind up the debate; today, I have two minutes.
  I never cease to be amazed by the way we manage to get things done in this place. I anticipated making long speeches on previous Bills this morning, but that 1 would have no opportunity to speak on this Bill. I am delighted that we have been able to debate it, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on introducing it. My Department has had a previous opportunity to respond to it, and I am grateful to be able to talk on it today.
  There have been tremendous contributions from lots of hon. Members—pnotably, my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—and I would find it difficult, even in two minutes, to respond in the necessary detail to the many issues that they have raised.
  There is always a balance. That is why I tried to draw the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on his views about regulation—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 April.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    PROPERTY REPAIRS (PROHIBITION OF COLD-CALLING) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [ 12 March J, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 April.

  Tyrannical Regimes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell. ]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: One year ago, I helped to organise the largest revolt within a governing party in modern parliamentary history: 140 Labour Members of Parliament. We sought to dissuade the Prime Minister from joining President Bush's premature, counter-productive and premeditated war on Iraq. We failed, but those who won the vote also failed. Lessons must now be learned by all of us. Humility is not a quality for which politicians are renowned, but perhaps all of us ought to take a step back to see how we can learn the lessons, how we can move on from where we are now and, above all, how we can unite on how we can better meet the challenge of tyranny next time around.
  I totally endorse the Prime Minister's call to reform international law and on the United Nations to find a better way to deal with the next Iraq. Sadly, that was not attempted in the six years before the conflict. In his Sedgefield speech a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister certainly talked the talk, but if it is to be more than the rhetoric of triangulation, it must be the prelude to decisive, vigorous executive action, led by the Prime Minister, of the sort that he demonstrated so ably in the prelude to the Afghanistan conflict.
  The Prime Minister is right to state that the old doctrines of state sovereignty and territorial immunity are inadequate to tackle tyrannies. Those doctrines should be replaced by international standards, defined and enforced by the United Nations, not by the Bush doctrine—a blanket authority for any strong country to shoot its way into any weak one and depose its Government at a time of its choosing. That way lies international anarchy and the law of the jungle in which terrorism breeds so virulently.
  My first question to the Minister runs through my contribution: what action have the Law Officers and the Foreign Secretary and his team taken in this field over the past year? Despite the time that Her Majesty's Government have had to devote to much of the media trivia on Iraq over the past year, can he demonstrate that we have moved on, that we are already acting on the big picture and that we are not just waiting until the Secretary-General's high-level panel reports some time next year?
  The Prime Minister's call could not be more timely, for while the Bush doctrine is dead, it needs someone of international stature and a friend of America to give it the last rites and move on to something more sustainable. The Democratic challenger in the American presidential race, John Kerry, has already made it clear that he favours international, rather than unilateral, action to deal with the threats of terrorism and weapons proliferation that confront the United States and the world. That is a key battleground for the American election, and all the American people are looking for a more effective way to protect their security over the next four troubled years. The Prime Minister, therefore, has

  1231
  a time-limited opportunity to rally American and world opinion behind the logical and compelling proposal to reform international law and to confront the weakness of the United Nations.
  A robust legal and institutional basis is needed to allow the international community to act quickly and decisively—not qualities that were evident over the past 18 months. However, at the same time, it should not allow individual states to take the law into their own hands. In the terms of the old-fashioned western, nations should act together as a posse not as a lynch mob.
  One of the tragedies of the US neo-conservatives' learning-on-the-job philosophy was that the decision to go to war was settled long before the public justification had been devised. From axis of evil to regime change to humanitarian intervention to weapons of mass destruction, the public reasoning and the supporting evidence that was required changed constantly—sometimes from day to day—often contradicting itself, and that inspired the mistrust that divided our Parliament and, indeed, the world.
  Where do we go from here? It might be helpful to start from first principles. When might it be right for one state to use force against another? International law already recognises the right of a state to defend itself against actual or imminent attack and the right and duty of a state to defend another from attack. After 9/11, the Security Council acknowledged a new principle. A state attacked by terrorists may take action against any state that harbours them even if that state did not play any direct part in the terrorist attack.
  Another situation is when a state commits abominable crimes as an act of policy against people within its own territory. If those people have no hope of relief from those crimes in their own country, they must look outside for protection. States have regularly intervened to protect their own citizens from the crimes of another state, but increasingly they have shown themselves willing to protect other people to whom they have no direct obligation. That has happened in many places, often belatedly: East Timor, Kosovo, and Iraq in relation to the Kurds. There is an underdeveloped but none the less evolving law of humanitarian intervention. It provided the best reason for a timely invasion of Iraq rather than a premature one, although, sadly, that was not the pathway chosen by the allies last year.
  The right or duty of humanitarian intervention has also been applied to states living under anarchy rather than tyranny—"failed states" whose Governments lack the strength or will to protect their citizens from civil war, lawlessness, disease or famine. In all those cases, there was a developing international consensus before Iraq that national sovereignty has limits and is subject to conditions.
  Indeed, the Prime Minister, by his gruelling efforts on behalf of us all on Afghanistan, had done more than anyone to help the world to build a global coalition against the threat of terrorism. Building that global coalition against terrorism was tragically interrupted and discredited by the misjudgment over Iraq. That coalition must be rebuilt. Our Law Officers and Foreign Office Ministers must now enter a permanent session
  1232
  with their international colleagues to reform international law and provide a ratchet of graduated practical action through the United Nations.
  Some of what I propose already exists, but what we need most at the table is the political will to make it work—determined yet painstaking. That is the Foreign Office's, the Prime Minister's and Britain's greatest challenge but potentially their greatest contribution to the new global order. This is not some starry-eyed utopianism that goes back to the League of Nations in the 1930s, but a tough, practical necessity as we count down to the next crisis—and we do not know where that may come from.
  A right of intervention, especially armed intervention, must be codified in a reform of the United Nations charter. One possibility is that the UN could declare a state of emergency, but I think that the words have a legal connotation and may not be appropriate. I am sure that the Foreign Office can come up with a better formulation, but that will do me for now. A state of emergency could require the restriction or even suspension of the sovereignty of a member state. It would cover the use of that member state's resources by terrorists, gross human rights abuses by its Government, or an actual or incipient humanitarian catastrophe. Such a declaration might be sought by any member state, including the proposed subject, so that countries in the grip of famine, plague or civil war could ask the United Nations to take control of all or part of their territory.
  It should also be possible for the United Nations to hear appeals for such a declaration from oppressed peoples—whether from exile groups or human rights organisations—and to satisfy itself that such appeals are authentic and representative. If we can build a United Nations capable of making such a declaration, it could authorise or enjoin member states to take action to remedy the conditions that had led to it. That might include armed intervention, but the UN would decide what action to take, not individual member states.
  The UN might decide not to declare an immediate state of emergency, but to establish instead a clear set of escalating conditions that would lead it ultimately to make such a declaration. The escalator must be made unequivocal. It must be clear to all those, wherever they are on the globe, who tune in to see the debates and hear the decisions that the UN makes on behalf of us all. As far as possible, it must be made invulnerable to the lawyer's wriggles and political spin that so discredited UN resolution 1441, which was twisted into an excuse for war despite earlier categorical assurances that
  "it was not the trigger for war".
  In future, the UN should set out its decisions in clear language, understandable to anyone in the world, and try, as far as is humanly possible, not to use diplomatic double-talk such as "serious consequences" or "all necessary means", which involve so much interpretation and misinterpretation that they engender mistrust and discredit the process that we must rebuild for all our futures.
  The proposal does, of course, raise difficult questions, and it will not be easy. None the less, the concept of a UN state of emergency offers some hope and a way of tackling 21st-century problems by consensus. Its very existence could induce Governments to behave better,

  1233
  whether towards their own subjects or the outside world. That influence would be reinforced if all member states, including President Kerry's America, accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and stripped members of vicious Governments of any immunity from prosecution.
  Much more could be said on the matter, but I shall be brief. There is certainly a case for random UN inspections on the use and control of traded weapons of any kind. However, weapons of mass destruction entail a threat of immediate devastation to civilian life on an altogether new and frightening scale. The risk of them falling into the hands of a vicious Government—still more into the hands of terrorists—requires new forms of action by the international community.
  Every state in the world should subject itself to a compulsory random and intrusive UN inspection of the kind that we all demanded of Saddam Hussein. The inspectors should verify not only whether a state possesses or produces weapons of mass destruction, but also its systems for controlling them and its doctrines for their use. Biological weapons must also be properly included in such an inspection regime. The UN produced a model of how to do that when the inspectors returned to Iraq and imposed increasingly demanding conditions on Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it is ironic that almost everything that was done in Iraq was a triumph of principle and of lawful and effective action until the premature invasion.
  All those ideas are embryonic, but they are not novel. They represent a continuation of valuable developments, from which the Iraq war was an irrelevant aberration, that could quickly be revived and taken forward. They could reunite us behind the lessons learned from error and division.

  The task is daunting and epic. It needs prime ministerial focus and energy. The Bush doctrine is dead, and I hope that the proposals that I have set out may form the basis not of the Bush doctrine but perhaps of a Blair doctrine—a return to a strong, independent British foreign policy, making a telling contribution in an ever more interdependent world.
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what is an exceedingly important subject. Never has the debate about the circumstances in which it is right and appropriate to intervene in tyrannical regimes been more important. I have some sympathy with the view that my hon. Friend has expressed?that the international community should act earlier and more firmly to assist those who are subject to oppressive regimes. I think genuinely that the terms of the global debate are changing.
  The Government want to be at the forefront of that debate. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Sedgefield on 5 March, Britain's role should be
  "to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and the means of enforcing it."
  1234
  Before I discuss that agenda further, I feel that I must respond to some of my hon. Friend's criticisms about the decision to go to war with Iraq.
  I respect my hon. Friend's integrity, and have always made clear my view that we were right to go to war, although I fully respect the right and belief of others who reached a different decision. I would not accept his arguments that the actions that we took were counterproductive or that we failed. If he does not believe me or the Government when we say that life is better for the people of Iraq today than it was under Saddam, I urge him to listen to ordinary people in Iraq, where a majority say that life is better than a year ago under Saddam, and more than 70 per cent. say that they think that it will continue to get better. That is the polling evidence, and what Government colleagues who visit Iraq find, and it is backed up by what ordinary people are saying on the ground.
  My hon. Friend has also made the case that the international community's response to oppressive regimes has not evolved sufficiently. While I accept that it needs to evolve further, over the years, there has been evidence of significant change. First, political pressure has always been a powerful tool in facing up to tyranny, and it has become more so. Anyone who doubts that ought simply to witness the huge, extraordinary lobbying effort at Geneva at the moment by those nations that fear that they risk being criticised for their human rights records. When I delivered our contribution to the debate in Geneva last week, I saw that at first hand.
  Within the European Union, we now build dialogue on human rights into our relations with third countries, and bring the economic and political weight of the EU to bear by linking those dialogues to wider relationships of trade and other assistance. That is absolutely right. Through NEPAD—New Partnership for Africa's Development—African countries have established a peer review mechanism to pressure each other, rightly, into better governance. The African Union is playing an increasingly confident role in enabling dialogue to resolve disputes peacefully. Such collective political action can and does shame Governments into better behaviour, opening the doors to external monitoring, and can be used by reformists and civil society within a country. International institutions such as the UN play a key role in this: setting the standards of acceptable behaviour; providing independent monitoring mechanisms as well as assistance; and finally, providing external legitimacy to successful political reforms.
  Sanctions also have a role to play, which we see with regard to the situation in Burma and Zimbabwe. Increasingly, sanctions regimes are better targeted to ensure that their effects are concentrated on the leaders and regimes responsible for repression, and their sources of wealth and influence, rather than on the people suffering under such regimes.
  Other forms of direct action have grown in volume and effectiveness, including governance support and reform programmes, economic adjustment, security sector reform, police training and peace support operations. The establishment, now supported by more than 60 countries, of the proliferation security initiative will help further to prevent trafficking of weapons of

  1235
  mass destruction and related materials through enhanced interdiction efforts, which can help us to face up to tyranny.

  Let me turn to the issue of reforming the international system. We have achieved a great deal through our efforts to strengthen the international systems and structures that are needed to deliver results. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments about the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which marks a new step in the long battle against impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes. I want to take this opportunity to make it very clear that we urge all states to sign up to the ICC, which we believe can be a key tool in the fight against tyranny.
  In the final analysis, when we are facing up to tyranny, military action can be used, in accordance with international law, against those tyrannical regimes. For us, military action has been, and will always remain, a last resort. Over recent years, the UN has been developing its thinking, based on individual cases, on where military intervention is justified for humanitarian purposes. The Security Council can authorise the use of force in response to threats to international peace and security, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression. It has explicitly determined that widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have contributed to situations threatening the peace, and mandated enforcement action in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and East Timor. I think that most people regard that as essentially just and correct. The Security Council also supported enforcement action to return to power an elected Government that had been overthrown, such as in Sierra Leone and in Haiti. Again, I think that most people would accept those actions and propositions.
  On occasions—thankfully rare—the Security Council does not authorise actions that we consider necessary. In a sense, that is the nub of some of the issues that my hon. Friend highlighted. There are no easy solutions in those circumstances. For instance, in the case of Kosovo, we had to ask ourselves how to respond when a Security Council decision could not be reached in the face of an imminent humanitarian crisis in the form of appalling ethnic cleansing the like of which we had not seen on our continent since the second world war. At that time, we made clear our view that states do have a right, in exceptional circumstances, to take military action when it is the only way to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, and that that is the case even in the absence of explicit authorisation from the Security Council. My hon. Friend is nodding; I know that he supported that action at the time.
  Since 1999, our view has been increasingly supported, although it is not universally accepted. We continue to work to build up a consensus on the circumstances in which a right to intervene applies. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that very clear in a speech that he made in Chicago in April 1999, in which he rightly suggested the five broad guiding principles that should, in an international context, be the framework within which decisions on whether to intervene for humanitarian purposes are taken.
  It is worth repeating those principles. First, we must decide whether we are sure of the case and sure that armed force is the only means of dealing with the
  1236
  problem. Secondly, we must assess whether we have exhausted all diplomatic options. Thirdly, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, we must judge whether there are military operations that we can sensibly and prudently undertake. My hon. Friend suggested that intervention should be applied universally and impartially to all states. The logic of such an argument is strong, but the benefits of intervening have to be weighed against the risk of creating a threat to peace and security. As I said, other options, such as political pressure and sanctions regimes, are available when intervention would be unwise. Fourthly, we must decide whether we are prepared for a long-term commitment once the military action is over: that is critical. Finally, we must assess whether we have national interests involved.
  That speech was a major contribution to the evolution of international thinking since the end of the cold war. In 1999, we put forward similar suggested criteria to the Security Council, although they did not prosper in discussion at the time. Nevertheless, we are still advancing the case and will continue to do so. At the same time, important work is going on to ensure better action against the threat or use of genocide, most notably to create a focal point for genocide prevention within the United Nations framework.
  Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for a thought-provoking speech so far. May I bring to his attention again the question of trust? The British Government, in particular, are seeking concrete and practical steps to realise some of the things that he is talking about. He alluded to the Prime Minister's Chicago speech. Not a great deal may be seen to have been achieved by the British public and the global public from that speech, good as it was. Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us want to take matters further and ensure that the Sedgefield speech is looked back on as one of the landmarks that moved our country forward in real, practical steps, so that we do not refer to it as a good speech but as something that started a lot of practical action?
  Mr. Rammell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We cannot just make speeches; we must follow things through. We are attempting to do that, but we cannot do it on our own. We must seek international consensus and support. We are taking this debate and the need for change internationally extremely seriously. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly taking a lead in setting out the framework of our thinking and the challenges that the UN need to face. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is taking that agenda extremely seriously. We are continually discussing these issues and this agenda with our partners.
  I have visited the UN on a number of occasions in recent months. I recently met leading members of the Secretary-General's high level panel, all with a view to pushing forward this debate and trying to engage others to support us. We have also published a Command Paper on our relations with the UN, and we shall shortly be submitting formally our views to the Secretary-General's high level panel.
  The nub of the debate, given what my hon. Friend has said, is his wish to create an international framework in which unilateralism, by whatever state, does not take

  1237
  place. He wants to see agreed collective international action under the auspices of the UN. Ideally, those are the circumstances in which I would always want us to operate. It is not as easy as just wishing that to happen. I think that the Secretary-General got it absolutely right when he spoke to the General Assembly in September 2003:
  "it is not enough to denounce unilateralism unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable."
  It is not just a simple equation between unilateralism and internationalism. If we want the UN to be the key agency that affects and governs the decisions, it has to demonstrate that it has the collective will and political capacity to face the key challenges that are to be found in the modern world, principally international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In making that case we must convince those countries that are sceptical about it, at the same time, that we are prepared to take their concerns seriously—global poverty, inequality and injustice—and follow through significantly on achieving the millennium development goals. That is the other side of the bargain in taking these issues and this debate forward.
  In that context, and in facing those challenges, I believe that the decision of the Secretary-General to appoint a high level panel to look at how the UN can improve its response to the broad range of threats to international peace and security has been a positive development. The panel is likely to take a broad view of the current threat to peace and security. That is surely correct. Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats to the environment, AIDS, poverty
  1238
  and disease were not considered part of the security agenda when the charter was drafted, but they manifestly are part of the agenda and the challenge that we are now facing.
  Mr. Allen: I am sorry to spring this one on my hon. Friend. I hope he will take the matter away and consider it rather than giving an answer from the Dispatch Box. Will my hon. Friend consider how we might involve Parliament in feeding ideas into the high level panel as it goes about its work? I do not know how that might best be done. It might be by way of pre-legislative scrutiny, meetings or whatever. However, it is important that all parties in the House have the opportunity to make a contribution.
  Mr. Rammell: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have already been doing that in Westminster Hall and in Government time on the Floor of the House. We have initiated a debate on UN reform and enabled Members to come forward with their views. That is the right way forward. I have met the all-party group in the context of the UN and will seek to do that further.
  We are facing critical challenges. The world we live in today is enormously more dangerous than it was even in the most recent past. It is critical that we face these questions, and we need all parliamentarians, the whole of civil society and the whole of the international community if we are to respond to them. In a small way, debates such as this one give us—
  The motion having been made at Half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.