I wish to oppose this Bill. At the outset I must say that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has introduced what appears to be a simple piece of amending legislation aimed at dealing with what he calls an "anomaly" arising out of the 1950 Act. The Bill may sound simple in its presentation, but it is full of danger and is highly complicated in its practicability with regard to its application.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not included Sunday trading where much of this kind of presentation and demonstration work takes place. At present, the Sunday trading situation is probably the worst aspect.

We have all seen on television, and in other media, advertisements about discount buying, promotional drives and so on, on Sundays. We have seen advertisements stating, "Bring the family for a day out" and that kind of thing. Some of us have often thought that some of these advertisements must come perilously close to advertising illegal activities.

The hon. Gentleman said that some local authorities turn a blind eye to the kind of promotion which he wishes to introduce—where one walks around, completes an order form and finalises the deal on a Monday, or, say, pays a few hundred pounds for a bag of carrots or whatever system is devised in this promotional situation. He also said that other local authorities observe the strict letter of the law.

The answer which the hon. Gentleman really seeks to his so-called "anomaly" is that all local authorities should turn a blind eye to this kind of promotion. But the real answer is that all local authorities should observe the strict letter of the law and the Act as it now stands. I think that is the answer to the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman has come across.

As we all know, the basic principle of shops legislation has been based on the uniformity of its application. This equality under the law is of paramount importance, as is every other aspect of the law. Obviously, we hear a great deal of talk in the world of trade about fair competition, whatever that means. Yet many in competition in the commercial world seek advantages over their competitors—some fair and some unfair. It is wrong that an advantage should be given in the legislation of this House to some traders over others. In my opinion that is what this Bill seeks to do.

It would be wrong to legislate for the demonstration of certain goods outside permitted shopping hours but not to do the same for other goods in other circumstances. Who decides which goods come into the justifiable category? How does one limit and control by legislation the situation or the number of applications, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech? What about the cost of checking and enforcement by local authorities? It is not possible to bring in legislation of this kind. If introduced, it would give rise to pressure from the remaining traders for similar privileged exemptions from the present law.

The hon. Member said that men and women welcomed the opportunity for extended demonstrations of goods after normal trading hours. But where does the list end? In carpet and drapery shops there would be a call for demonstrations of new textiles and new designs. In do-it-yourself shops there would be a call for demonstrations of new tools and devices. Building merchants would want to demonstrate new materials and new brick-laying techniques. There would be a demand for demonstrations of furniture design and house planning in furniture shops. Hardware shops would want to demonstrate new mowing machines and compartmentalised greenhouses. Chemists' shops would want to demonstrate new cameras and film equipment. Food shops would want to demonstarte the cooking of new dishes or foods to eat and grow slim or how to get the best out of a piece of mutton. It goes on now in grocery and food shops.

There is not much left when one considers the list that could come out if this kind of amendment to the law were made. What is more, supermarkets and hypermarkets would not want promotional functions affecting three-quarters of their stores and not the remainder. I am sure that chaos would result.

Are these promotional demonstrations to go on until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.? I think that that is a valid question, bearing in mind that some shops now close at 9 p.m. on the so-called late night. If so, they will say "What nonsense. We can promote. We can demonstrate. We can take an order on these occasions. But we cannot take the money and complete the sale." Of course it will be nonsense and, before long, they will take the money. The result will be that shopping hours in the retail trades will go back to what they were 50 years ago.

Some people may ask "Why not?" We hear a great deal of talk in this House and elsewhere about prices. People have a limited amount of money to spend. If shops are allowed to stay open for eight, 10 or 12 hours a day, the amount of money available for spending is not increased. But if the shopping hours are increased, operational costs are increased, and those costs are recouped by increases in prices. The shopping public pay for those increased operational costs, and the Chopping public would have to pay for these demonstrations if they were allowed.

All over the country we suffer already from artificially high prices because of competitive advertising, over-elaborate packaging and presentation—sometimes the packaging costs more than the com