Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The evidence for the pent-up demand comes from the additional number of visitors; it is as simple as that. We need to ensure that the retail sector can be as flexible as possible.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has gone to great pains to state that this will be a temporary position, and that it is not part of a longer-term Government strategy. I have sympathy for him as someone who has been the victim of briefings from the Treasury, but does he acknowledge that there would be less concern about the measure if the Treasury had not briefed that this would provide an opportunity to determine whether there was demand for further liberalisation in the future?

[Vince Cable]

I am not aware of any such separate briefing from the Treasury. I am working alongside my colleagues on this; it is a Government initiative, not one from any particular Government Department.

Let me turn from the Trojan horse issue to the very genuine religious concerns that have been expressed. The Government are sensitive to the fact that, for many people, Sunday has particular religious significance as a day that is set aside for worship. We have therefore consulted the Churches in advance of the Bill—the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church in Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own separate arrangements—in order to emphasise the temporary nature of the changes. I should add that the Lords Spiritual in the other place did not oppose the measure when they were reassured that this would be a one-off change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this debate on the Government’s proposed changes to Sunday trading laws, which purport to be in order that we might all—shop workers excluded—enjoy the Olympics the more. I am an avid follower of sport in general, but the fact that in attending the debate, in all its glory, I have missed out on viewing one of the most important club football matches in my lifetime could hardly be a matter of regret.

On 6 July 2005, millions of Britons stood glued to their radios or television sets to hear the announcement from the International Olympic Committee that London had beaten off challenges from some of the other great cities of the world—Paris, New York, Moscow and Madrid. Now the games are just 87 days away—or, as the Home Secretary would have it, 86 days. Those of us who celebrated in our workplaces at the news that the greatest show on earth was coming to Britain could only imagine the work that had gone on behind the scenes to secure the games. Since they were secured, the 80,000 seat Olympic stadium in Stratford, east London has been completed on time, on budget and with a near-impeccable safety record. According to John Armitt, 98% of the facilities for the Olympics have been built by British companies, and altogether an estimated 75,000 firms are expected to win work related to London 2012.

When we think of the preparation, the expertise and hard work that went into winning the Olympics, it calls into the sharpest possible focus the contrast with the Government’s shambolic performance on this issue. How can it be, when we have known for seven years that the Olympics were coming, that two years after the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister had their “Brokeback Mountain” moment in the rose garden, we should be debating this legislation under emergency powers designed for the introduction of counter-terrorism proposals?

Sadly, any pragmatic case for the proposals has been utterly undermined by the shambolic nature of the Government’s attempts to convince us of their need. No credible business case has been made in favour of the proposals. Like much of this Government’s policy, they have been made up on the hoof, without any credible evidence, because someone thinks they might move on the news agenda, or be useful for political positioning. This is fag packet politics that sounds like it has emerged over a damn fine claret at the Carlton club, rather than credible, evidence-based policy to deliver jobs and growth. It is, in fact, an appropriate way to end this Session.

I would like to mention a couple of the contributions that hon. Members have made. The Secretary of State admitted in his opening speech that 40% of the benefits of the legislation would fall outside London—proof, if ever it were needed, that much of the shopping will not be the result of the Olympics, but an extension of the shopping that would be done anyway. It will therefore be displacement activity, away from small businesses and towards larger businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reminded us that the Prime Minister had said that all future legislation would have to pass the family test—a comment repeated in a rambunctious speech by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea).

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) spoke largely in favour of the Bill, but said that he believed that the legislation would be a damp squib. That was pretty much as full as the praise got. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) talked about his experience as someone working in the retail sector, reminding us that workers at the bottom of the pile often do not really have the choice of saying yes or no to their boss. He told us about the important opportunity that we could be creating during the Olympics to give a boost for small businesses that want to take the opportunity to promote the greatest show on earth, here in this country.

The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) told us that using the evidence from this experience as a basis to extend the legislation in future would be a ludicrous basis on which to propose future policy—as though the fact that something was ludicrous would be a reason for the Government not to pursue it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) highlighted the fact that under the Government’s proposals, workers would have to opt out by 22 May. She talked about how unrealistic that was, given that we are talking about the legislation only now. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) reminded us that the bulk of retail staff are female. She also reminded us of the impact on their families of being asked to work during the Olympics, at a time when so many will be wanting to spend more time with their families, enjoying the great spectacle.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made a wonderful speech against the Bill—and then told us that he would vote in favour of it. I fear that he has been in the coalition a little too long. He focused on the importance of Sunday evenings to small businesses—a point repeated by many hon. Members. He also said that the legislation was rushed and that there was no demand for it, further undermining his determination to vote for it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) was sceptical that the provisions to protect workers would make any difference to workers on the ground. Just before I got to my feet, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a thought-provoking speech, urging us all to slow down and warning us—this was possibly aimed in the direction of his own loved ones—to beware of becoming shopaholics. None the less, it was an important contribution and one that I enjoyed.

The Secretary of State spoke of many of the groups that he had consulted, but he declined to tell the House what they had said. He told us he consulted the Federation of Small Businesses, but the FSB said that the Bill was:

“Contrary to Government rhetoric about supporting small business on the high street”.

He told us he had consulted the Association of Convenience Stores, but it says:

“Liberalising Sunday Trading would cost businesses and jobs.”

He also told us that he had consulted USDAW, yet its briefing included the comment from Mr M from Stoke-on-Trent, who said of the proposals:

“If this is allowed to happen, it will erode my working terms and conditions”.

The Secretary of State might well have consulted a multitude of organisations, but he seems to have paid precious little attention to what they told him.

On this side of the House, we are a party whose leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), has committed to make Labour the party of small business. At every level, when we see the actions of this Government, we see how desperately small business needs the Labour party to be that voice in politics that the governing parties have left so far behind.

It is a matter of tremendous regret that, because of the way in which the Bill has been programmed, we will not have the opportunity to vote on our amendments. One of them would have enabled us to keep Sunday special, by allowing for the expansion of the Olympics while maintaining the difference and remaining mindful of the effects of the measures on shop staff. It would have limited the proposed number of hours to 13 on a Sunday. Another amendment would have entitled shop workers to two months’ notice of a request by their employer to work on a Sunday during the Olympics. That would have given them a realistic opportunity to discuss the request with their family and to exercise their right to opt out. A further amendment proposed the reduction of the notice period for exercising the opt-out to one month, so that shop workers could have a credible opportunity to decide whether they wished to work on a Sunday.

As Members on the Government Benches consider which way to vote, they might want to think about what the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) wrote on the ConservativeHome website. I do not know whether you are a regular reader of that website, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am not, but this is damned good stuff, so I might start reading it more often. The hon. Lady wrote:

“During the budget speech, the Chancellor announced that ‘we will introduce legislation limited to relaxing the Sunday Trading laws for eight Sundays only, starting on 22nd July.’ It appears, however, that the previous day his aides had got a little carried away during a media briefing”—

this is what I was telling the Secretary of State about; he will be happy to hear this—

“and informed the press that this measure would, in effect, be a pre-cursor to relaxing Sunday trading permanently...However, there isn’t a single person in Westminster who believes that for one moment.”

That is, that the measure would last for only eight Sundays.

“If the eight Sundays show an increase in profit for the stores concerned (and why wouldn’t they with the number of visitors expected in London during the Olympics?), those figures will be used to support a simple extension of what will then be existing legislation, to roll out full trading hours across the UK for seven days per week.”

I could not have put it better myself.

So, we have heard from Members across the House—and Mid Bedfordshire—from the small business community, from a director of Sainsbury’s, and from a coalition of thousands of voices across the country who are against these half-baked proposals. We have heard precious little to recommend them, and that is why I will be exercising my free vote to vote against them. I urge my colleagues from across the House to do the same.