HL Deb 16 December 1985 vol 469 cc536-53

3.7 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Removal of restrictions on opening hours and Sunday trading]:

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. A1: Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Provided that premises where a retail trade is carried on may be open for trading for up to four hours on any Sunday,").

The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is very simple and, in my view, realistic, and should do a great deal to prevent the disputes that have been going on for such a long time about the scope of the Bill. The objective is this: all the shops Acts and the trading Acts referred to in Clause 1 will be abolished, just as the Government desire, so that all shops and places where retail trade or business is carried on may sell whatever goods they wish. But if my amendment is carried this free trading on Sunday will not be for the whole of the Sunday as the Government Bill provides but just for four hours. In other words, the amendment would permit deregulation on Sundays as the Government desire, not for all the day but only for four hours.

There is no magic about four hours. It could perhaps be five or six hours. The period could be before or after lunch, just as the shop thinks fit. Your Lordships will have heard many cases put forward at Second Reading to support that kind of period for Sunday trading, leaving certain parts of the day where there is no free trading. I agree that a change in the present law is very necessary, but in my view the Government have gone too far on deregulation without giving adequate reasons why the free trading should last for the whole of the day.

The difference between my amendment and what the Government are proposing is merely the length of time over which free trading is allowed. The Government say that it should be all day and my amendment says that it should be for only four hours in that day. I have been encouraged to put down this amendment as a direct result of my studying the Government's speeches at Second Reading. The objection of the Government to some regulation—that will include my regulation, presumably—as against total deregulation rests mainly on what I submit is a false premise: that no modified form for deregulation can be adequately enforced. I can see no other reason put forward by the Government for total deregulation, except primarily that of whether it can be enforced.

As my noble friend Lady Seear has pointed out, there are many cases where total enforcement of the law is not practicable but where in any event such a law acts as a deterrent. I do not propose to review the number of cases to that effect that were cited on Second Reading, but it is very interesting, in support of my amendment, to recall how on Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, dealt with the question of partial deregulation.

Her reply was based on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am sorry that I could not find the noble Lord to inform him that I was intending to refer to his speech. The noble Baroness the Minister said at col. 1170, in the last complete paragraph, that she endorsed the view of her noble friend Lord Sandford. The question then arises: what was his view? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, first of all emphasised that the acid test would be the difficulty or otherwise of enforcement. The noble Lord twice referred to that as being the acid test. When he came to illustrate the position in his speech, the only case that he put before your Lordships, with great skill, was that which had been reported recently in the law reports where a local authority had gone to the court about a definition of what was a souvenir. In the shop in question there were jerseys and other items on sale as well as souvenirs. The question arose whether, having regard to the Shops Act, those goods were not permitted to be sold during the Sunday in question.

My amendment is directed to something quite different. There will be no question at all, if the Committee is good enough to pass this amendment, of any discussion about the nature of the goods. There has been difficulty about enforcement in that respect, in deciding whether particular goods fall into such a class that they can be sold on a Sunday. I say again that my amendment proposes deregulation as to the nature of the goods. Let us abolish the Shops Act and instead place a limit on the number of hours that goods may be offered for sale.

If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, wishes me to go on and to deal in detail with the course of his argument, I shall do so. I would then ask your Lordships' indulgence because the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is president of the Association of District Councils and his contribution is entitled to carry great weight. But his argument does not affect in any way the basis of my submission on this amendment.

The acid test for proposals for regulation therefore reduces itself merely to this, in relation to my amendment: can the regulation be enforced? What would have to be enforced? It would be the fact that a shop is allowed to be open to sell any goods for only a specific period. There would be a time allocation for such free trading. There has been no answer from the Government on the kind of deregulation that relates only to hours of business and not to the nature of the business.

3.15 p.m.

I pray in aid a brief reference to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who at col. 1126 of the Second Reading debate said that the view of the Institute of shops Inspectors caused no problems in enforcement. Then I understand that there is evidence before your Lordships from the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Administration, which has said that there is no real difficulty about enforcement.

What would happen if the Committee was to accept this simple amendment limiting free trading to four hours on a Sunday? There would have to be notices in the shops as to the period of trading; everybody would know that the shop was allowed to trade for only a particular number of hours. Enforcement would not therefore create a great deal of difficulty. As I am sure members of the Committee who serve on licensing benches as justices of the peace know, limitations about the sale of liquor are made according to hours; and of course the prices of the goods there have to be shown.

I want to be very specific to the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply. I am saying that so far the Government do not appear to have dealt with the view that there should be free trading on a Sunday by the abolition of the Shops Act, entirely as the Government wish, except that it should be during a period limited to four hours. The question of the actual number of hours is perhaps one for discussion. There may also have to be certain by-laws imposed by the local authority concerned. There may be certain minor matters that will have to be raised. However, the fundamental point remains that my amendment would have the effect that free trading would be limited to four hours on a Sunday. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I have only read the noble Lord's amendment since the moment that he rose to his feet to move it, since I have been working on the main Marshalled List, but it seems to me that there are two profound difficulties in accepting it. The first is one with which the noble Lord himself dealt; namely, the difficulty of enforcement. With all respect, the noble Lord is not quite correct in saying that nobody has yet faced the solution of this problem by limitation of hours. It has been faced constantly in relation to opening hours during weekdays.

That point was faced by the Gowers Committee, whose recommendations were not accepted. That committee, as quoted by the Auld Report, said that now was the time at last for consideration of the interests of the consumer. That question was faced by the Gowers Committee, but instead of its recommendation being accepted we had something that everybody now agrees is quite unacceptable—the 1950 consolidation Act. So the difficulties of enforcement, on which I have no doubt the Minister will be able to provide much more information, seem to me to be just as great in relation to Sunday as they are in relation to weekdays. Indeed, they are more difficult because undoubtedly it would be harder to employ police and local authority officials to work on Sundays in order to prevent people freely trading, as the noble Lord emphasised was important; to prevent a willing buyer and a willing seller from coming together at the moment that suits them both to strike a bargain.

One aspect of this matter was not emphasised on Second Reading, though both sides of the question of freedom generally were discussed with great wisdom. It is not only freedom and liberty that is in question, it is also the freedom of the market place. It is a democratic freedom. We pride ourselves on our system of representative democracy, Parliamentary democracy. Once every four years or so we choose our representatives in Parliament. Of course, it is absurd to say that we are free only at that time—only democratically influencing the decisions that affect ourselves every four years. That election throws a shadow forward and back. But the democracy of the market place—the quotidian democracy—is something much more immediate.

There, every day is a general election. Every shop is a polling booth. Every penny laid down on the counter or at the till is a vote for various candidates that are produced for the favour of the shopper. That is a day-to-day immediate democracy. Moreover, the exercise of that democratic vote in the shops influences the whole process of production. The producer is rewarded for meeting the choice of the elector in the shop. He is particularly rewarded if he foresees it and produces, say, a pocket calculator in place of an abacus; or even, these days, produces a pocket computer. That is the day-to-day democracy of the market place for free trade.

Why should we restrain it to only four hours if the willing buyer and the willing seller choose to come together outside those four hours? So there is first the difficulty of enforcement and secondly the limitation of freedom; but, thirdly, there is something much more fundamental—that is, the amendment, like so many others on the Marshalled List, is going back on the decision that our Lordships made at Second Reading.

We owe it greatly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that he defined precisely what we were deciding. Should it be total deregulation or should it be partial deregulation? Your Lordships solemnly, distinctly and clearly, decided that it should be total deregulation. Your Lordships cannot possibly accept this amendment, or the many others, without making a complete mockery of that decision. I have the greatest respect, based on long acquaintance, for the noble Lord and I hope that I shall not be thought to be disrespectful when I say that this is an abuse of the parliamentary process.

Lord Jacques

I challenge the statement that this is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. That is nonsense. What happened was that at Second Reading there was an amendment that the Motion should be qualified. Many who voted against that amendment did so because they thought that it was not the time to make the qualification and that once the Bill had been agreed in principle there would, at a later stage, be an opportunity of considering the details in the Bill and making amendments to it. That is normal practice. It is nothing to do with abuse of parliamentary procedure.

Baroness Lockwood

Like the noble and learned Lord, I saw the amendment only a few minutes ago. Unlike him, I do not oppose it on the basis of principle, but I wonder whether or not it will help. There are one or two practical difficulties which I see in this amendment and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to clarify them if possible.

The first point is this: from when is this four-hour period to run? Are they to be the four hours which are applied to all shops or will shops, individually, be able to select which particular four hours of the day they will be open? If that is so, it might present some difficulties. After all, we all want our Sunday newspapers in the morning. Most of us who intend to do a bit of gardening want to go to the garden centre on a Sunday afternoon. There are the shops in the cathedrals and at ancient monuments that many of us like to look at during the course of a Sunday. Will they be limited to four hours? If so, there will be difficulties for those who choose to visit such places at the wrong hour of the day.

This restriction would also apply to those who are travelling. Is the amendment to be right across the board and apply to all points of sale? Again, I ask about those people who are about to embark upon a road or rail journey or who are departing from one of our airports. Are they to be limited to four hours in the day in which they can purchase whatever they might want to purchase from the airport, whether a bar of chocolate or whatever? Or are certain retail outlets to be excluded from the Bill by this amendment? If so, the amendment would not be quite as simple as the noble Lord suggested. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making. He is looking for an amendment which will be straightforward and easy to apply. However, I think that this amendment might be difficult in that respect.

Baroness Phillips

I should like to follow the point made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. The amendment refers to, premises where a retail trade is carried on". My noble friend mentioned airports. I recently did some research. There are thousands of garage forecourts which now sell almost everything. There are antique sales everywhere. There are car boot sales. These take place in all sorts of premises, but technically they are carrying out retail trade. Does the noble Lord want me to go on?

I notice that my friends in the Institute of Shops Inspectors say that it presents no problems. However, if it has not presented any problems I am staggered to think why my borough, in which one can buy almost everything at any time on a Sunday, does not seem to have had any prosecutions for a long time. I assumed that it was because they could not enforce the law. I now see that it is because they obviously did not want to enforce the law, which is rather different. To be quite practical about this, we all know how people get round any law of that kind. If one shop is to be open at one time of the day and other shops at other times the analogy of licensing is not an accurate one, because at present licensed premises are all open or closed at the same time. Therefore, I think this is a totally impractical suggestion.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Like other noble Lords, I have only just seen this amendment and therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will forgive me if I ask him a very simple question as to its meaning. Does the amendment mean that the four-hour limit shall be applied only to those shops authorised by the Bill? Or will it also bite on shops which already lawfully open on Sundays? It is an important point which the noble Lord owes it to the Committee to clarify.

3.30 p.m.

Secondly, on the merits of the matter—and I am bound to say I think this will sound rather an Irish expression—I see very few merits. I understand the point of view of those who oppose shop opening on Sundays; indeed, the fact that we have the pleasure of having with us this afternoon as many right reverend Prelates as we have on our Christmas card (those on the Christmas card were acquitted of course) indicates that there are people who feel very strongly about the principle of Sunday opening. Others, of whom I must confess I am one, do not feel that in this day and age it is right to restrict Sunday opening. Views are strongly held on both sides.

But four hours is neither one thing nor the other. It will give those who work in these shops a considerable interruption in their Sunday if they are to work for the four hours of the shop's opening, plus the time for preparation, plus the time of getting there, plus the time of closing up and of leaving. They will not have very much of a free day on Sunday if the shops are to open for four hours. On the other hand, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, it will deprive the public of the right to shop on a Sunday, which many of us think the public are entitled to do.

Therefore, with very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for whom I have a sincere admiration, I say that his amendment is really neither one thing nor the other and I suggest that this assembly must make up its mind, as I thought had been done on Second Reading, whether we are to go for real deregulation or for a half-hearted compromise which will please nobody.

Lord Stallard

I should like to rise for a minute to support my noble friend Lord Jacques who voiced some reservation about the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that this amendment was an abuse of the procedures of the House. He said it to fairly loud cheers from the Government side of the Committee.

I do not hide the fact that I was opposed to Sunday trading at all costs—any Sunday trading at all—and I have not changed my views greatly in this respect; but I was prepared to listen to amendments and to support them after the Second Reading debate, when we took a decision in principle which I accepted entirely, and I came back ready to debate amendments which would improve the Bill along general lines. I see no abuse at all and I say to the Government spokesman, who cheered the noble and learned Lord when he said that this was an abuse, that he must think again. There is no abuse in coming back here and amending a Bill after Second Reading.

If that is to be the attitude of the Government, then we are in for an even longer session than we have had on previous occasions. I shall certainly resist any attempts by the Government to say that any amendment of the Bill that they do not agree with is an abuse of parliamentary privilege. I should like the Minister to clear that point up immediately, or when he speaks, because that is not how I see it.

I must take exception to the fairly puerile Irish joke made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just sat down. I think we are all sick of that kind of racism, which ought not to be brought into this kind of debate at all. If he has a point to make there are many other ways of making it without resorting to that kind of tactic. The noble Lord says that he cannot understand why the four hours would be acceptable. He seems to imply that there has to be a length of time, and that it must be an all-day session because there is a public demand.

I must confess that since the Second Reading I have been trying to do my own research about the public demand in my own area and I cannot find it. There is no great public demand for any opening time beyond that which already exists, let alone opening for all hours, which the noble Lord seemed to imply when he said that four hours would not be enough to satisfy the demand for extra shopping hours and the public would need more than four hours. I know what his meaning is—that is what he said. He said they would need much more than four hours to satisfy this demand. The public demand does not exist. If it did, I am sure that four hours would be ample and we ought to discuss it therefore on those lines.

I hope that we shall discuss constructively all the amendments on the Order Paper, because there is a great deal to be discussed in this particular Bill, and that we shall be told by the Minister that we are within parliamentary procedure in so doing.

Lord Sandford

I should like to comment from this side, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned my name. After the very cogent way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has spoken in opposing this amendment, I myself do not think there is very much more to be said. If I may say so, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, dealt with any of the objections listed in the Auld Report from paragraph 53 onwards about flexibility of opening hours. But the noble Lord asked me to comment on the enforceability aspect of all this.

The amendment of the noble Lord introduces a welcome measure of flexibility in a matter of this kind. As I understand it, it allows shops to choose which hours they want to remain open, when they want to start, when they end, whether they open for two hours in the morning, two hours in the evening, or four hours at lunch-time or whatever they do. But if that is his intention, and it is clear from the wording of the amendment that is what he has in mind, then enforceability amounts to quite a considerable operation. I suggest that one needs to remember that Leeds, for instance, has 2,000 shops, Southwark has 1,100, so has Leicester, and Reading has 450 shops. All those shops, or at any rate a substantial sample of them, have to be inspected every Sunday to see whether the terms of the little board—which they are not obliged to have by this amendment—saying when the shop will be open are being adhered to and whether the board that was in force last month is still in force this month, and so on and so forth. If that is not a major activity being laid on the shoulders of the local authorities, I do not know what is.

Lord Galpern

During the Second Reading of this Bill references were constantly made to the position in Scotland and many people accepted the arguments that if this position was good enough for Scotland, then it would be good enough to be extended to England and Wales. I can assure your Lordships that in Scotland, where Sunday opening has been operating for quite a number of years now, 90 per cent. of the retailers open between 12 and 5, allowing half an hour only for the assistants' lunch period.

The reason for that is an omission which I think attends the discussion of this Bill: that governing Sunday opening is the effect of the wages council upon Sunday opening, because it lays down that a shop assistant who works for four-and-a-half hours shall receive double pay for four-and-a-half hours. If he works for five hours or more, he has to be paid double pay for eight hours, even if he works for only six hours or something just over the four-and-a-half hours. So the practice has developed, because of what the wages council says in relation to the payment which has to be made to the assistant, that 90 per cent. of shops do not open longer than from 12 to 5, giving assistants half-an-hour's break, so that they are paid double rates for only four-and-a-half hours.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

May I ask the noble Lord, since he speaks with authority on this matter, whether this limitation on hours applies also to petrol stations, which are "shops" within the definition?

Lord Galpern

No, but I do not think that we are discussing the question of petrol. We have accepted the sale of petrol as being something which already entails Sunday opening. It is something which the entire British people accept, without needing to have Bills in that respect.

I am referring to retail establishments which are to employ assistants not knowing at this stage whether the wages councils will be abolished—and I know it is on the cards. But the opening hours are governed by the rates of pay laid down by the wages councils and it is remarkable that not any of the establishments, beyond the odd one or two, opens for longer than from 12 to 5 p.m.

There is the other argument, of course. A fellow who has not been employed by an establishment before the Act comes into operation and who then wants a situation will be compelled to work on a Sunday. It would not be unreasonable for someone to have to work the four hours suggested, but let him enjoy some of the sunshine in the summer or during other periods of the year and be with his family. Otherwise the time will be extended. With the wages councils being abolished and with no rate laid down for people who work over the four hours, a person should be entitled to be with his family other than for the four hours that he is asked to work.

Lord Coleraine

I shall not follow noble Lords in dealing with the problems of shopworkers. We shall come to that at a later stage. My noble friend Lord Sandford referred to the cogent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Indeed, it was cogent. He seemed particularly concerned with every day being a polling day in the local supermarket. I do not propose to follow him down the populist line approach there. The noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Stallard, answered the point that he was making about the propriety or otherwise of the amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that it is perfectly proper, notwithstanding the failure to pass the amendment at Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord, it seemed to me, would rather that we had no Committee debate at all on the question of Sunday opening.

I should like for a moment to refer to the Auld Report on the point at which the noble and learned Lord started, and that was the question of enforceability. As I read it, the report is clear. If one attaches variable Sunday openings to the existing restrictions on what can be sold in shops, we have something that is quite unenforceable. I do not think that the report is arguing that if we allow shops to sell what they will on Sunday, the law then becomes unenforceable. The only reference that I can find in the report is to the Massachusetts situation, where general trading on Sunday is permitted in the afternoons, but only limited trading, mainly by small shops, in the mornings. It says on page 52: some of the larger stores are causing problems by opening their doors before the officially permitted time of noon". I should have thought that something as simple as that could be perfectly well dealt with.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has a good idea. I do not suppose that the amendment is all that it should be at the moment, but I certainly support his idea that we should have a choice of four hours for shops to open on Sundays when they wish.

Baroness Lane-Fox

The Consumers' Association considers that all the half-way measures of reform proposed in the amendments to the Bill will inevitably create new anomalies and new problems of enforcement. I am constantly amazed to find how much I can already buy on a Sunday which is not allowed to be bought on a Sunday. In other words, the law is being flouted. This amendment will encourage the law to be broken in further little complicated ways. In my view to support the amendment is to vote for a bonanza for the lawyers. I consider that the amendment would do nothing other than that and also canvass great inconvenience.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I rise at least to welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. Like other noble Lords, I should perhaps have preferred earlier notice of his intention so that we could consider yet another option. But if the Government and their supporters really believe that the battle was fought and won or lost at Second Reading, they should seriously reflect not merely on the issues but on the proper use, duty and responsibility of this House.

I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite will support the Government in saying, as I suspect they will say, "Out, out!", to every amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that the issue was complete or partial deregulation. At Second Reading the Minister introduced another phrase—"substantial deregulation". We have to decide whether substantial deregulation is complete deregulation or less than complete but not quite partial deregulation. I believe that substantial deregulation at least provides the opportunity for some movement away from complete deregulation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is putting before the Committee something less than complete deregulation. I and others feel that anything less than total is preferable to total opening. If, for instance, we are talking about the possible Sunday trading day being 12 hours, anything less than that is preferable. There are amendments down on the Order Paper for shops to be open until 1 p.m. or 6 p.m. This is another amendment; it is a variation. It bristles with anomalies; that is true, but noble Lords who support it if it comes to a Division will weigh them against what they consider to be the disaster and catastrophe of the Bill going through completely unamended.

I accept the sincerity of those who argue not so much that the legislation is unenforceable but that it is difficult to enforce. But the shop inspectors' institute says that whenever it has had the support and the resources its members have found no difficulty in enforcing the existing law. It stands by that. Some people may be puzzled because of the two qualifications "support" and "resources". That may be the answer to noble Lords who wonder why various matters have not been checked. But noble Lords are constantly saying that the legislation is unenforceable and does not work. Those whose job it is to make sure that it does say that it works whenever they have the support and the resources. It will be terrible if the issue finally boils down to the Committee recognising the problem but not willing the means to make the law stick.

I turn in the Auld Report to paragraph 204 on page 46 and my eye comes to the following line: Proper enforcement would be unpopular and the costs high". Are those the criteria upon which we decide to make or to amend law—that the legislation would be unpopular or it would cost too much? If so, I am very much afraid that harsh words will be said not merely on this but on many other Bills.

This is a proper amendment. It offers the Committee another variation on Sunday opening hours. It also gives us the opportunity as we move through the variations to test the will of the Government. I have heard senior members of the Government say that proper amendments need to be tested. I accept that in good faith. I do not accept that the Government will not move an inch. We must make sure that when the Bill leaves this Committee every opportunity has been given to the Government to demonstrate that they are willing, if not to be flexible, at least to move a little bit. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister reply to this amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

To hear some noble Lords one would think that the Bill was not to permit shops to open on a Sunday if they wished but to force them to open for the whole day whether they wished to or not. It is important to remember that it is not. Secondly, in Scotland few shops are open on Sunday in spite of the fact that it has been legal for them to do so for 40 years. In most cases the reason is that it does not pay.

Lord Glenarthur

I must confess that when I saw the Marshalled List of amendments and the later addition to it I thought that we were in for a great number of Second Reading speeches. I fear, looking at the list and studying it, that this may well be the case. A great many alternatives have been put forward. I shall come back shortly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.

I should like to pick up first a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, upon which other noble Lords have commented. While the amendment at Second Reading was quoted, I do not for one minute suggest that anyone expected amendments to the Bill not to be put down. The fact is that the terms of the amendment were that.

this House considers that the law should be amended so as to rationalise restrictions on trading hours without such extensive deregulation as the Bill proposes". All that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been saying is that that was soundly defeated. That is where we start.

As I understand it, the amendment appears to nullify one of the main purposes of the Bill. That purpose is to remove all restrictions on trading hours both in the week and on Sunday by allowing all shops to open for up to four hours on Sunday but allowing any further opening either in the week or on Sunday to be at the discretion of the local authorities. They would appear to be granted power to decide whether Part I or Part IV of the ShopsAct 1950 should operate in particular areas and would appear theoretically to be able to say to shopowners that they could not open at all during the week as only the four hours on Sunday have been expressly given for the purposes of opening. They could, of course, allow them to open at any other time.

I should also point out that the amendment could have the effect of introducing for the first time a general statutory prhobition on opening for more than four hours on Sunday in Scotland. That would include the petrol stations that were referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, shakes his head, but that is the effect of his amendment. One thing that we all seem agreed upon is that we should not emerge from our discussions with more regulation than we started with. That is nevertheless the effect of his amendment.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought that I understood the noble Lord to say that the amendment was concerned merely with the United Kingdom and certainly not with Scotland.

Lord Glenarthur

I think, first of all, that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I beg your pardon. It is for England and Wales only. It does not affect the position in Scotland at all.

Lord Glenarthur

The noble Lord is wrong. If he studies the Bill, he will see that what he proposes will apply to Scotland. The fact is that the Bill does apply to Scotland because it is merely the existing legislation that has fallen into desuetude in Scotland. This Bill rights that by deregulating throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

This amendment is the first of several, though we have not gone into detail on them now, that give local authorities power to decide opening hours without any guidance on the principles on which they may base their decision. This was the theme deployed by my noble friend Lord Sandford when he spoke. I respect the view that local authorities are well fitted to make decisions about local areas. But, surely, they should have to do so only within an agreed and consistent framework. This amendment gives the local authority a free hand. I do not suppose for one moment that this is an area in which it would particularly welcome such a free hand.

The only general principle on opening hours that I can discern in the amendment is that some Sunday opening is possible. While welcoming that, I cannot accept the other implications of the amendment and the chaos that it would cause all over the country. I am not clear either upon what particular principle the noble Lord bases his view that some opening may be allowed. Geographical disparities would occur across local authority boundaries. A trader within one area may well lose a considerable amount of trade to another trader in a different area. In fact, this occurs already where local authorities take different views on how strictly they should enforce the Shops Act. Local authorities' views change from time to time, and political persuasion, of course, plays its part. So there would be variations from time to time. There would be nothing permanent or consistent about a local authority system of regulation except in the particular variation of the four hours on a Sunday. It would have the effect of removing all the present restrictions and leaving only that particular restriction to which I have referred.

Another point that strikes me as being particularly strange about the amendment is the difficulty of enforcement. There does not appear to be any consistency, or the likelihood in the future of any consistency, about which hours the four hours should be. Which sort of premises should be affected—newsagents and tobacconists in the morning, garden centres in the afternoon, and garages? The whole thing is thrown wide open.

I come back to what I consider the key to the whole matter. This is what was so widely discussed by Mr. Robin Auld when he considered the matter. His conclusion on page 52 was that, we are convinced that none of the suggestions for reform, short of complete abolition of restrictions, would work. None of them would work because they would not form the basis of a fair, simple and readily enforceable system of regulation". I return to where I started. We talked about the amendment at Second Reading. That amendment was defeated. I believe that the present amendment on its merits simply would not work. That is why I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.

Lord Jacques

Is the Minister suggesting that every country in Europe except Sweden is wise enough and able enough to make some regulations but we are not?

Lord Glenarthur

If the noble Lord wishes to look at the example of Sweden, he will find that he has picked a particularly good example; there is no regulation. The effects have been particularly good for the purposes of the small shoptrader in particular. Other parts of Europe have various forms of regulation. What we are saying, in the full light of what Mr. Auld and his committee decided, is that there is no other means short of total deregulation that would suit this country.

Lord Jacques

The Minister has got me entirely wrong. I said that there was regulation in all countries in Europe except Sweden. I am therefore ignoring Sweden. I then put a question to the Minister. Is the Minister saying that all these countries except Sweden are able to regulate Sunday trading but that we are not able to do so?

Lord Glenarthur

If the noble Lord wishes to follow the example of countries that are not as satisfactory as Sweden in this respect, that is a matter for him. What I am trying to say is perfectly fair. The fact is that Sweden has a particularly good record that others may pursue. We have examined this closely. The noble Lord can talk about other countries and give an example of how they may differ from the view that we take. The fact is that Sweden has a particularly good record of achievement in this respect. We believe that the opportunities which we can gain from deregulation—millions of people want this—are ones that we should adopt.

Lord Galpern

In the city of Glasgow the local authority already possesses powers to deal with the opening of shops. In some parts of the city shops have abandoned the weekly half-day holiday. In other parts the weekly half-day has to be observed. But there is machinery for those that are closed at the present time to apply to the local authority for permission to open.

4 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

With respect to the noble Lord, I wonder whether, in embarking now upon the employment restrictions that are in the Bill, we are widening the debate that has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd.

Lord Galpern

I am referring to the powers possessed regarding the times of opening of shops. In some sections of the city they have abandoned these and are allowed to open on a weekly half-day. In other sections the local authority prohibits the opening.

Lord Glenarthur

I am not sure that I can follow the noble Lord at this moment, about Glasgow in particular. But I stand by what I said. I believe that the noble Lord's ideas—well-meaning though they are—go rather wide of the amendment with which we are dealing.

The Earl of Lauderdale

The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said he was rather afraid that this debate might degenerate into a repetition of Second Reading speeches. Then I thought that he got on to Second Reading points himself when he referred to the Auld Report on the one hand and to what happens in Sweden on the other. Those matters were debated at the length of nearly 40 speeches—there would have been one more if I had spoken, but I withdrew—on Second Reading. But he also used an argument which I also heard, and was surprised to hear, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that because the Second Reading was a vote for total deregulation, therefore there was no merit in discussing any amendment which amounted to any degree of regulation.

Lord Glenarthur

I must say to my noble friend that I never said anything of the sort. I said that I supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his view that there had been a very decisive majority against the amendment which was put down at Second Reading.

The Earl of Lauderdale

I am much obliged to my noble friend because it will give me greater heart in speaking on amendments that follow. However, if it is argued that a decision on Second Reading for complete deregulation rules out all the amendments that we are proposing on the Marshalled List, what is the good of having a Committee stage? What is the good of having the procedure which enables us to vote against clause stand part? A number of us had very great reservations during the Second Reading debate. A considerable number went into the Lobby against the Second Reading, and several, including myself, will persevere with amendments in Committee.

Lord Shepherd

I only intervene to see whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would agree with me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was quite wrong when he said that amendments of this character were an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The Committee stage has been called, and the Committee will remember that the Title of the Bill has been postponed. It has been postponed for a very special reason: that amendments could be put down and in no way be limited by the Title to the Bill. I intervene only in this respect. When we had the Transport Bill in the last Session a number of noble Lords opposite took the same view as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. If this is so, that because one has a Bill that has been given a Second Reading one then is limited to the basic principles within it, inevitably one will have Divisions on Second Reading. I think one of the more sensible conventions of your Lordships' House is that Bills, whether they be Private or Government, should be given a Second Reading so that we can then freely examine them and make up our minds on Third Reading.

I hope that I have explained what I thought the House in the past, and even today, understood a Second Reading to be and what it stood for. If I am wrong, then I think we could be in increasing difficulties and much of the constructive nature of your Lordships' House will undoubtedly have been lost. I hope that never again will it be said that because the House has given a Bill a Second Reading it imposes upon any Member of the House any limitations as to the amendments which he wishes the Committee to consider. At the end of the day of course it is only by leave that amendments are moved and considered. I make that intervention in the hope that we shall not hear that argument again during the period of this Bill, because we take up so much time on it.

With regard to the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I share the anxiety which has been expressed. Yes, in some ways I should like to see some limitation of Sunday trading. I certainly should like to have a public debate within the localities as to whether they wish it or not. But the amendment that is immediately before us seems to me to open this matter so wide that in one street one could have shops open in the morning, and in another in the afternoon. My anxiety about the Bill has not been what the consumers or the shopkeepers want; they have an interest. But so have those who suffer because of the environmental difficulty, I think that they should have a voice in this respect. Therefore, if there were to be limitation, then I should think it must be a limitation that affects the whole of the trading area.

Therefore, much as I support and understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I do not think that I can support this amendment. However, that does not preclude me from supporting other amendments which seek to bring some limitation of the general principle within the Bill.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Before the noble Viscount replies to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and as he was not here, I think, when I made my original observations may I respectfully point out that they were based not on the fact that the House had given the Bill a Second Reading but on the precise terms of the amendment that was moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and decisively negatived by your Lordships.

Lord Mishcon

It is upon that point—only so that we complete one argument tidily—that I venture to address the House, again apologising to the noble and learned Lord that I was called away rather urgently at the beginning of his speech. However, I heard the purport of it and I know that he will forgive me if I make some comments on it. Because I regard it as rather important from this Front Bench, I want to deal with the argument that has been advanced. I am not speaking on the passing of the Second Reading. I am on the point that the noble and learned Lord, lord Simon, wants to emphasise; namely, the question of the amendment which was defeated. Your Lordships know already that on this side of the House—and rather proudly do I say it—there is no Whip and there will be a free vote. And I look at very independent faces opposite me and I hope that any attempt to discipline people upon a vote of this kind will, with your Lordships' usual sense of independence, be stoutly resisted.

Having said that, I want to emphasise this point from this Front Bench. There is a tradition in this House—absolutely right—that we do not oppose a Second Reading. An amendment was put by the Bishops' Bench which your Lordships carefully considered. Some people called that amendment a wrecking amendment; and some of us who thought that it might be—it did not include myself but there were people who did think so—decided that it would not be proper to vote for that amendment on Second Reading because it might impinge upon the old, and the very much respected, tradition of your Lordships' House. But there were others who considered the debate and who said, "Look, there is much force in the argument of this amendment but we do not yet know what amount of deregulation and what is the nature of the deregulation that is suggested. We cannot deal with that on Second Reading and therefore we shall abstain on Second Reading, although we are in favour of the spirit of the amendment; but we must wait until the Committee stage to see what is put forward as the limitation on regulation; and we shall consider those amendments on their merits." Therefore, it is only from that point of view that I venture to intervene. It would be a sorry day in this House if the Committee stage were strangled by reason of the fact that an amendment was moved on Second Reading.

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

I think that it is proper for me to reply to one of my distinguished predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he addresses a question to me. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that, owing to another engagement, I was not present when he spoke and so did not hear what he said. However, his remarks have been reported to me and I understood that he was addressing himself to the position of those who, rightly or wrongly in their judgment, voted on the amendment. To some extent it was fair for him to argue that, having done that, they have made their position in relation to this amendment more difficult. That was the argument, but I do not think that in the end that can address itself to the procedures of the House.

I am always subject to correction because I know so little, but, as I understand the position, once the House has set out on a Committee stage the House will have a Committee stage. Like everyone else in the House, I am a servant of the House, prepared to do what the majority of Members wish, and so if the House wishes to have a Committee stage, it will have a Committee stage. Having listened to a very proper argument from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I suggest that it would be right for us to do what the majority of Members of the House want to do and to get on with the Committee stage.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I think the Committee will agree that we have had a very helpful and valuable debate. Many points of view have been put forward, some in support of my idea. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, summed up my attitude towards this amendment by saying that it was a good idea. If noble Lords think that this amendment is a good idea in principle, I hope that they will vote for it if I press it to a Division.

Two noble Baronesses have spoken during this debate and have made very cogent points. I am very reluctant to go into the details of the practicalities which they have raised, but certain points could be dealt with quite simply by ordinary arrangements, by- laws, or perhaps even by subsequent amendment of the schedules. Their points are not fundamental to the proposition that I put forward in this amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as president of that famous organisation of district councils, rather ridiculed the suggestion of keeping open for only four hours, because he said that it might be open only for one hour, then the shop would shut for the second hour, be open for the third hour, and so on. Surely the noble Lord has knowledge of practical matters in relation to the retail trade. That is not how people would carry on a business. The noble Lord's view is contrary to that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who so kindly alluded to me—and I thank him for it—and who pointed out that time will be taken up by people travelling to the retail shop and that once they have arrived, they will have to open up, and so forth. I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put forward that argument when dealing with this amendment.

As I have said, we have had a long debate and I think this is an occasion for a free vote. In spite of the general weaknesses or limitations of my amendment, many people have said that it is a good idea.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I thought that he was about to sit down. As it seems that he intends to invite your Lordships to decide on this matter. Since the definition of "shop" is to include any premises where retail trade or business is carried on, perhaps I may ask him whether he thinks his amendment extends, first, to petrol stations, secondly, to public houses and, thirdly, to pharmacies. I ask because, as I said, I did not see this amendment until the noble Lord started to speak.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I ought to apologise to noble Lords for the late arrival of my amendments. I was not aware of the final time for submitting amendments to be printed in the Marshalled List. I brought these amendments up early on Friday morning, expecting that they would be printed in the Marshalled List, but I am afraid that they were too late and, therefore, I apologise for their late arrival.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has asked me a technical question about the definition of "shop". My amendment simply does what the Government want to do with shops and places where retail trade is carried on, but it limits trading to four hours as opposed to having free trading all day. Therefore, the position of petrol stations and public houses, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, is totally unaffected. I assume that the Government will not say that public houses will be open all hours of the day and night.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

It must be my fault that I have not made myself clear. The question is not whether public houses shall be open all day; that is controlled independently by the licensing laws. The question is whether public houses, coming under the definition of "shop", will be closed for all except four hours in a day. The same applies to petrol stations and pharmacies.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I am very grateful indeed for the help which the noble and learned Lord is giving me in this discussion. Perhaps I may reply positively to him. I am not saying anything about public houses or petrol stations. I am taking the words of the Bill dealing with shops and places of business where retail trade is being carried on. Therefore, the position of petrol stations and public houses is as it always has been, or at least as it is at present.

I almost said that I was in some kind of spiritual difficulty, because when I was speaking I was looking very attentively at the array of right reverend Prelates facing me and occasionally I saw one or two of them nodding. I am sure that they were nodding in favour of what I was saying at the time. However, none of them has spoken and, therefore, at this stage I ask your Lordships' indulgence to quote from a letter which I received from my friend the Rev. Bernard Thorogood, who is the general secretary and clerk of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. In his letter he says that the Council of Churches and many of the Churches are very much in favour of having a limited number of hours of free trading. He says: the amendment which appears to me to have the greatest general support is one which limits the number of hours a shop may open on Sunday. This would mean that smaller local businesses would find it worthwhile, but larger city shopping centres would not find it profitable and so we would avoid the large-scale congestion, the major employment of staff and the provision of all public services". The kind of amendment which appeals to Mr. Thorogood is one which limits trading establishments which open on Sundays to no more than four hours on any Sunday. I think that it is time to test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Viscount Davidson

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.