Sunday Trading: Removal of Anomalies (Hansard, 18 April 1986)

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, the Government have no further plans to introduce legislation on Sunday trading.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that unsurprising reply. Nevertheless, is he aware that the present situation is causing considerable confusion and some distress? Can he advise retailers, particularly in the leisure, garden centre, do-it-yourself areas, and the most reverend Primate of All England, whether they should be opening their shops on Sunday? Will he also advise local authorities whether they should ignore the present law, or whether they should prosecute on a wider basis than has been done in the past?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the law on retail trading hours, as on any other matters, must be obeyed. In the case of shops it is the duty of local authorities to enforce the Act.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, arising out of that answer and from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will my noble friend bear in mind the anxieties of the right reverend Prelates who may be facing the prospect of the deans and chapters of their cathedrals being prosecuted for the criminal offence of selling a Bible on Sunday?

§ Lord Glenarthur
Yes, my Lords. I shall certainly bear that in mind. I am sure that the right reverend Prelates and their respective deans will also do so.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, will the Minister accept my satisfaction with the reply he gave yesterday to my Question for Written Answer, that until the law is changed it should be obeyed? Will he now tell enforcing authorities that unless and until the law is changed they have a legal duty to enforce the law? Otherwise the local enforcing authorities will be guilty of bringing the current law into even further disrepute.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested in a Written Answer given in another place 877 on 19th December 1985. In it my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General said he considered that: a local authority will generally be in a better position than the Attorney-General to judge whether it is expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area that proceedings for an injunction should issue to restrain the breach of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950."—[Official Report, Commons. 19/12/85; c. 252.] That is what my right honourable and learned friend said.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
It is a cop-out, my Lords.

§ The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that many of us who opposed this Bill are extremely unhappy at the present state of the law? Secondly, that we regret that reasoned amendments tabled in this House were not found acceptable? Thirdly, will he take note of the fact that Church leaders will feel a responsibility to take some initiative to draw together those of us in this country who still believe that a compromise proposal, such as we had before this House, is still possible? Will he take note of the fact that meanwhile archbishops and bishops will take the consequences of what has transpired in our own House?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the most reverend Primate will accept the consequences of what has transpired, but I have to say that it is really a little too late to be unhappy about the turn of events. Your Lordships, very sensibly to me, and to many others as well, came to a certain conclusion, and another place in its wisdom decided that it did not agree with it. That is how things stand.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend that he consults with the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament and the Bench of Bishops with a view to extending the Shops Act to Scotland, because then perhaps the whole country will be in a uniform state of chaos?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I think I have already declared an interest in that I live in Scotland, and I do not think that I should particularly welcome that.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, notwithstanding the anomalies that remain within the existing Sunday trading laws, many of us in this country are pleased that it has been possible to retain some measure of serenity on the sabbath?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I do not think that the question of serenity on the sabbath was ever at issue. What was at issue was the right of people to enjoy that serenity in any way they chose to do so.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, is my noble friend fully aware that it is not necessary to take any of the steps proposed in one, not insignificant, part of the United Kingdom, Scotland, where shops are free to open on Sundays and have been open for many years without noticeably damaging the spiritual welfare of 878 the residents or the nature of their Sunday? Surveys have shown that the percentage of the population in Scotland attending church on Sunday is larger than that in England.

§ Lord Glenarthur
Yes, my Lords; I entirely agree with my noble friend. As I said, I have some experience of the circumstances there. In fact, the same applies to other parts of the world as well. But nevertheless the decision has been reached in another place, and that is a decision that I think we have to accept with good grace.

§ Lord Sandford
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that prosecutions are now bound to follow, the other place having affirmed their preference for the existing legislation covering Sunday trading? Prosecutions are bound to be continued until all DIY shops, all garden centres, the great majority of corner shops and all leisure retailing have been closed down on Sunday. Does my noble friend think that the electorate will appreciate that change in the character of Sunday?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I fear that my noble friend may well be proved right. I agree with him that I do not think that the electorate will particularly favour that.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that when the dust has settled and the Government's irritation at what has happened has had time to subside, they will recognise that there remains a problem; that there was ground for compromise; that the Auld Report was not written on tablets of stone; and that it will be possible to look at this again in a calmer atmosphere and come to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I thought that your Lordships considered it in a calm atmosphere. Yes, there is a problem. That is why we set up the Auld Committee and that is why we brought forward a Bill; and a decision has been reached which does not agree with what many of your Lordships think.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, if the Government had agreed to try to attempt a consensus in this House, it is almost certain that they would not have lost the Bill in the House of Commons.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord at all on that. We looked at all the issues, and so did Auld; and that is where we stood when the Bill left your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, is it not correct that the Government cannot simply leave the matter there? There is considerable confusion on it. It is not a matter that they can leave to the local authorities. It is the Government's responsibility to see that the law is adequate for the purposes of the governance of the land, and the decision must rest with them to take the next step.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I really find the noble Lord's remarks surprising. A perfectly good 879 opportunity was afforded to your Lordships and to another place to consider all the possible scope for reforms within the terms of the Bill. Sadly for me, at the end of the day those were rejected. The noble Lord's suggestion has really come a little late.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, if the business managers in another place are not as competent as the ones in this place, the Government must not blame me.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am certainly not blaming the noble Lord specifically, and I am certainly not blaming the business managers here or in another place. I certainly agree with what the noble Lord says about the business managers in your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, would it not have helped if the Government, at the outset, had decided to give a free vote to all their own members, and then we might have got a sensible compromise and given a lead to the other place?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the Government are perfectly entitled to apply whatever vote they think right, and government business is whipped in this way. As I have said on many occasions (and it has proved to be the case), even if you apply a Whip it is no guarantee that those who feel strongly about these matters will follow the Whip.

§ Lord Coleraine
My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that, having opened this particular can of worms by introducing this Bill, it is really up to the Government to close the can of worms by legislation now? Or does he think that no bread is better than half a loaf?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, when a Bill was introduced your Lordships and others had the opportunity to consider how we should take this forward. I cannot see that to reopen the can of worms, which is what my noble friend is suggesting at this stage, is likely to get us anywhere. As I have said, the Government have no plans for further legislation on Sunday trading.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, surely the Minister should take the opportunity of reminding the House that the decision in the other place was not to confirm the existing legislation but to reject a Bill from the Government which called for complete deregulation of Sunday trading hours.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the Bill was brought forward in the light of the Auld Report, which agreed that the only sensible way forward was total deregulation. I really do not think that it profits us now to start that whole debate all over again.