Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) and to the House in general for allowing me a little time for the discussion of this very small Bill.

I made a calculation the other day, and I reckoned that last autumn's ballot in this Session was the twenty-fifth occasion in my parliamentary career on which I had attempted to secure a Private Member's Bill. This is the first time that I have ever succeeded. As I am retiring from the House at the next election, it is likely to be the last one. I hope, therefore, that my ewe lamb will be given a little indulgence by hon. Members.

I remind the House that the Bill is identical to the measure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) obtained the leave of the House to introduce under the Ten Minutes Rule last Session. His Bill was given a First Reading without a dissentient voice. I hope that the same unanimity will prevail today.

As anyone can see, this is a very short, simple, one-Clause Bill. It is designed to clarify the law and to put an end to a number of anomalies in Sunday trading in garden supplies.

To those hon. Members who understandably feel that this is the thin end of a wedge and regard it with suspicion, I point out that we have deliberately drawn the Bill 's long title so tight that it is, I hope, impossible to amend it to extend the exemptions embodied in it to any other class of goods. In that sense, it is not the thin end of any wedge.

What it more, my information is that the enactment of this legislation will not lead to the Sunday opening of any significant number of additional retail outlets trading in garden supplies. It should not result in any significant increase in the staff working on Sundays. The reason is that it is estimated that about 95 per cent. of all garden centres and nurseries are already open for trading on Sundays and that all have arrangements with their staff for a regular staggered five-day week roster with opportunities for overtime as the staff require. Therefore, as 95 per cent. of garden centres and nurseries already open, it will not lead to a significant increase in the number of retail outlets trading on Sunday, or to any significant increase in the number of staff employed. It is necessary to clarify the law in that respect because it is obscure. The law is not even uniformly imposed.

The Bill seeks to make one small Amendment in schedule 5 to the substantive Shops Act 1950 to add garden supplies to the list of goods that may legally be sold on Sundays. Garden centres and nurseries that at present trade on Sundays are in a quandary about what they may sell under existing law. The law covers flowers, fruit and vegetables including, strangely enough, mushrooms. The law contains some peculiar borderline cases. It appears to be legal to sell a pot plant which is in flower, but not a shrub that is not in flower. That is the area that needs to be clarified, and it cannot be done by immense and detailed definitions.

At present most nurseries and garden centres assume that they are entitled to sell plants, shrubs and anything that may be planted. But they are prevented from helping the gardening public by selling any gardening accessories.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had pressure from his constituents or other members of the public about the deprivation suffered by those who are unable to purchase garden supplies on Sundays?

Yes. I have no doubt about that. Without question gardening is now the most popular hobby in this country. The English are undoubtedly the great gardeners of the world. This hobby not only occupies a great many people but also beautifies the town and countryside alike. Dr. Johnson did not actually say it, but he could have done: "No man or woman is ever more harmlessly employed than when gardening."

Gardening has become so popular in this country, among families in all walks of life, that an industry has grown up to meet their needs—the garden centre and the expanded nursery industry. It is abundantly clear that families now like to include a visit to a nursery or garden centre in their weekend outing in the car. Many visit garden centres on Sundays to buy plants. There is no doubt that they are bewildered and, in many cases, extremely incensed to find that they can buy a rose bush but not a trowel or bag of peat or bone meal to use when planting it when they return home in the evening.

The anomalies do not stop there. There is an enormous variety in the ways in which various local authorities are interpreting the present law and enforcing it. I know of at least one case where a garden centre is open on Sundays and is selling virtually all the garden supplies that it has in stock. The local authority has never prosecuted the centre or even threatened to do so. Ten miles away, over the border in another local authority area, a nursery has already been prosecuted twice and threatened with closure by injunction if it continues to overstep the shadowy borderline that nobody can define precisely.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Since there is not much time I must make my Opening Speech as brief as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech later.

The law is obscure, the definitions are almost impossible and without any doubt there are severe anomalies between local authorities and individual retail outlets in the way in which the law is interpreted. That cannot be right because it brings the law into contempt, which is never good.

I do not want to weary the House with long arguments about a simple one Clause Bill with a tightly drawn long title. I understand the feelings of people who are apprehensive for sabbatarian reasons or because of a legitimate trade union interest to protect staff who might be forced against their will to trade on a Sunday. I do not believe that they should be apprehensive about this innocuous measure.

Garden centres and nurseries already open on Sundays. The measure will not lead to new centres opening on Sundays. There is no sign that more staff will be employed on Sundays if the anomalies are removed and the law is made sensible. There is no reason to suppose that any member of staff will be forced to work on a Sunday if he does not want to. The Bill cannot be the thin end of the wedge that leads to more high street trading on Sundays. Garden centres and nurseries are not in the high street but usually on the edges of towns or in the countryside. The measure does not provide a precedent for an extension of Sunday trading in shops.

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am glad that it is not the thin end of the wedge, but I am not sure that he can justify that assumption. I do not understand how he cań argue that more people will not be working on a Sunday. I speak as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Not only are garden supplies sold in the centres but a range of goods far outside gardening interests. How does the right hon. Gentleman react to the argument that garden centres are becoming larger and larger and selling more and more goods and that once one opens the others will be forced to open because of the competition? That means more people at work.

I am grateful for that Intervention. It is estimated on the basis of a fairly substantial sample that about 95 per cent. of garden centres and nurseries already open on Sundays. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) suggested that garden centres and nurseries might extend the ambit of their sales to include other goods. They would clearly be acting illegally, because the Bill simply adds one more item, garden supplies, to schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950. I may fairly be asked why I did not attempt to define "garden supplies" more narrowly. However, the hon. Member for Queen's Park will realise that that would have made the Bill and the schedule to the substantive Act so long that it would have been ridiculous. I should have had to define every type of seed, plant, shrub, garden tool, fertiliser and insecticide. However, anyone with common sense and any court that is asked to adjudicate could draw "garden supplies" narrowly enough to ensure that retail outlets do not go outside the ambit of the Bill.

We have been careful to follow the precedent and language of the substantive Shops Act 1950. Indeed, schedule 5(1)(h) to that Act refers to aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies or accessories; Obviously, those words were included to avoid an interminable list. Parliament regarded "supplies or accessories" as an adequate definition to prevent any widening of the range of goods sold or of retail outlets. That precendent is sound in this case. We should not extend the debate to cultural arguments about plastic gnomes and so on. It is clear what "garden supplies" embrace, and might reasonably be interpreted as embracing.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill applied only to garden centres. However, he will be aware that there has been a great switch to hypermarkets and that the Majority of them have large garden centres that deal not only in horticultural supplies, but in lawn mowers, greenhouses and a host of articles. If the Bill is enacted, the hypermarkets will, in self-defence, want to open their garden centres. That would be the thin edge of the wedge that the right hon. Gentleman referred to.

I am sorry, but I cannot see the force of that argument. If hypermarkets do not open their garden centre departments on Sundays now, they will not be willing to open any more than that one department if the Bill becomes law. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the hypermarkets might sell more than garden supplies on a Sunday, they would be breaking the law. The Bill would not give them the power to do that and it is up to local authorities and the police to ensure that they do not. Therefore, that is not the thin end of the wedge.

As the Bill is limited and as it cannot fail to be beneficial to all those interested in gardening—and who regard it as a hobby and almost as a way of life—I hope that those hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in safeguarding certain interests will not be killjoys for the millions of those who like to garden and to get their supplies at weekends. I have tried hard to meet possible objections and not to threaten the workers whom they represent. I hope that they will be prepared at least to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may be discussed more fully later.

I must tell the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) that I am opposed to the Bill. My Opposition is not based on trade union grounds, although I see a good deal of force in those arguments. My objection is based purely on sabbatarian grounds.

Perhaps I should have made it clear—I am about to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman—that because the Bill amends the substantive Act of 1950 it applies only to England and Wales and not to Scotland.

That is interesting. Normally I do not feel induced to interfere in legislation that is confined to England and Wales. However, on an important subject involving observance of the Sabbath, I must forgo my normal restraint.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the minutiae within the term "garden supplies". Whatever arguments are advanced in the debate, surely we need not go into whether garden gnomes or seeds come within the term. It is acceptable that we should adopt the term "garden supplies". I do not want to make any issue about definitions.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is a simple one-Clause Bill, and so it is. However, we have had other simple one-clause Bills and we have seen a whittling away of the recognition of Sundays by these "salami" tactics. It is only garden supplies this week. It will be something else next week and there will be another little piece of proposed legislation the week after that. That continues until we find that all the salami has gone. It is argued that Bills of this sort make only small adjustments and that there is nothing to worry about.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been under great pressure from his constituents to ensure that garden supplies are available on a Sunday. I accept his statement that his constituents have been pressing for this facility. In the time that I have been a Member of this place I do not recall any of my constituents saying to me "I am in great difficulties because I cannot buy garden supplies on a Sunday." I concede that in my Constituency such a demand is a good deal less likely than in other areas.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to what Dr. Johnson might have said or should have said, that: "No man or woman is ever more harmlessly employed than when gardening." I agree with that. I am interested in gardening. I have always kept a garden.]i have never experienced any difficulty in obtaining the seeds and other requirements for my gardening on the other days of the week. I have never had a great urge to have access to gardening supplies on a Sunday.

There has been a whittling away of the observance of Sundays as a result of many of the Bills that have been enacted over the past 10 or 15 years. That has not done the country any good. There seems to be a policy of attrition against the preservation of our Sundays. It would be regrettable if we adopted what is alleged to be the Soviet system and gave some people a day off on Monday, others a day off on Tuesday and so on. To say the least, it has been beneficial to regard Sunday as a day of rest and, as requested in the catechisms, to regard it as the Lord's day and keep it holy.

I am wholly opposed to any infringement of that principle. I regard the Bill as an infringement, even if only a minor one. Such infringements nibble away at that important principle. Although the Bill may be regarded' as minor and making only a small adjustment to existing regulations, I am opposed to its intent.

It may assist the House if I intervene now and explain the Government's attitude to the Bill. Before doing so, I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) on his success in the ballot, after many years of trying. The House will miss him if he lives up to his threat not to stand at the next election. I thank him for his characteristically lucid, effective and clear explanation of what his Bill seeks to do.

As my right hon. Friend has explained, the Bill is a very simple measure, but the wider and related issue of the reform of the shops legislation is extremely complex. Its solution had defied the efforts of both Houses. On more than one occasion it has been said that the problem is insoluble. Time alone will prove the truth or otherwise of that, but there was enough divergence of view evident in the major debate in Another place on Tuesday to reinforce, the Government's view that the agreement of all the major interests on how to reform the legislation is not yet in sight although we are aware of the mounting pressure for reform.

Does the Minister agree that the answer to written question No. 80 on Tuesday was contradictory? The Home Secretary said: The Government can find no ground of principle for opposing such a measure". and continued and propose to maintain an attitude of benevolent neutrality—[Official Report, 9 February 1982; Vol.:17, c. 304.]

What is benevolent neutrality, and does not one statement cancel out the other? Cannot the Government

The answer made it clear that this is an area where it is desirable to have reasonably widespread agreement before reform takes place. It is achieve reform without some consensus. However, the Government understand the mounting pressure in favour of reform. We have no desire to block the measure introduced in Another place by my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-onAvon said, the Bill is a simple measure designed to allow garden centres and other shops which sell gardening supplies to open on Sunday. The Government accept that a good case can be made for them to open. Visits to those centres on Sundays are undoubtedly a popular family activity—indeed they may almost be regarded as a leisure activity. Our only reservation is that it may create yet further anomalies in the law on Sunday trading. In particular, it could create problems of enforcement in respect of shops which sell a variety of goods in addition to garden supplies. Although it would enable them to sell these goods lawfully, they would be breaking the law if they were to sell other goods.

Many businesses—sometimes unknowingly, but sometimes knowingly—break the law. I am trying to have the law more clearly defined so that there will be less, rather than more, law breaking.

I fully understand what my right hon. Friend has said. I acknowledge that at present this is a very cloudy area in which the law is regularly broken, but he must bear in mind that the present muddle and law breaking would not be sorted out by the Bill, which, as he has acknowledged is a very limited measure.

It could also be argued that the Bill would give an unfair trading advantage to garden supplies and that there would be no reason why the same advantage should not be extended to furniture and motor cars, the sellers of which have in the past lobbied to extend the range of goods included in the fifth schedule to the 1950 Act. However, the Government do not wish to oppose this measure and our attitude will be one of neutrality, especially as this subject is traditionally one for private Members' legislation. We think that the drafting of the Bill could be slightly improved, and if the House grants it a Second Reading, I shall be happy to discuss this with my right hon. Friend.

In conclusion, whatever the future of the Bill, I again thank my right hon. Friend for having given us the opportunity to discuss this perennial and significant topic.

I wish to enlarge on the point that I made in my Intervention. There is a real fear that what has been described as a very small Bill could have far more serious implications than the right hon. Gentleman envisages. In this context, I should declare an interest as a Member sponsored by USDAW.

I fear that the extension of Sunday trading could make serious incursions into family life. There are already many—perhaps too many—anomalies. Sunday is an essential part of family life and, if at all possible, families should be together. Generally, husbands work from Monday to Friday. All too often, the women, who form the Majority of those employed in the distributive trades, already work on Saturdays. I fear that any extension of trading into Sunday would have serious implications for family life, which hon. Members on both sides are anxious to protect.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the promoter's description of it as a small and simple measure, the Bill has far-reaching implications? I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited any garden centres recently, as I have—not on a Sunday, I should add—and whether he is aware of the type of goods that may be purchased there. Garden centres are basically retail stores. One may buy jams, ceramics, sweets, electrical goods, lawn mowers, furniture and all manner of miscellaneous items including fruit and vegetables. I have even bought a trout at a garden centre—a trout to eat, not to put in a pond.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. He must not make a speech in an Intervention.

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) could even catch a trout in a garden centre on a Sunday.

I was developing the point that this very small Bill could have much wider implications than the promoter suggested. As I instanced in an Intervention to him, there has over the past decade been a great change in the pattern of retail distribution, with an increasing percentage of retail trade being dispensed through hypermarkets. If, through a measure such at this, we were to see an extension of garden centre operations on Sunday—which would involve not merely horticultural objects but substantial items such as lawn mowers, greenhouses, and fairly expensive garden accessories—the hypermarket operators would not stand aside and watch while the trade was taken from them.

Hypermarkets—which, generally speaking, are not at present in favour of seven-day trading—would be forced by the measure to open on Sundays, and that would be the thin end of the wedge. They would say "If we are opening this part of the establishment on Sunday, we might as well open the rest." Yet another powerful force would then be climbing on to the bandwagon and attempting to introduce seven-day shopping generally throughout the country.

My hon. Friend, as a Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, will be well aware of the union's monthly magazine, Dawn. In this month's magazine there is an article stating that an employee in a non-unionized shop who refused to work on a Sunday was sacked, and the company was not prepared to reinstate him. His only reason for not working on Sunday was that he believed in Sunday observance. He was a churchgoer, yet he was sacked. I assume that my hon. Friend has read the article, and I should like to have his comments on it. Does he agree that the extension of Sunday trading and the extension of licensing for garden supplies to garden centres would involve many workers belonging to USDAW—and other workers—being subjected to treatment such as that by unscrupulous employers?

I thank my hon. Friend for his Intervention. I agree with his point. That is why I am opposed to the measure. If it were made legitimate for a greater number of articles to be sold on Sunday, it would be all the more difficult for USDAW to defend the sort of case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It would also make it all the more difficult for USDAW to carry out what I consider to be a most important part of its function—the defence of the family and family life. It is easy to say that a trade union should be interested only in seeking premium payments for Sunday work, but USDAW takes a wider view and considers that it has a duty to protect the interests of its members by opposing Sunday opening. It could seek greater rewards for its members by supporting Sunday trading, but it feels that the inroads that that could make into the family lives of its members could be disastrous.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's position of "benevolent neutrality" towards the Bill and Sunday trading in general is an abdication of their responsibility? Does he agree that it would be better to set up a committee to study the problem in depth and to discuss it with all those involved, including the trade unions, employers, consumers and even those in local authorities who have to enforce the trading Laws? Would that not be better than messing about with piecemeal legislation that will do no one any good?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and his criticisms should not be applied only to the present Government. Ever since the Gowers report, successive Governments have dodged the question. We are all aware of the anomalies, but they are used as an argument for legislation to enable even more anomalies to be created.

I agree that there is a case for Government Intervention. The Home Secretary's reply to a question earlier this week did not appear to hold out any hope that the Government intend to take positive action to deal with what they recognise to be a chaotic situation, and the Minister of State's stance of benevolent neutrality suggests that the Government are prepared to sit on the sidelines while further anomalies are created.

I believe that USDAW and Parliament have a duty to look carefully at any legislation that will cause further serious disruption of family life, an essential part of which is the ability of families to get together at the weekend. I am certain that any legislation, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is not the thin end of the wedge— —

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 26 February.