I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt video shops from the provisions of the Shops Act 1950.

Some months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described the Shops Act 1950 as bizarre. The ban on the sale or renting of videos is a particular example of that much more general complaint. The 1950 Act was passed in a quite different era. The 1940s were a time of rationing and not of plenty, and the Shops Act 1950 was passed at a time when cinemas did not open on Sunday, professional sport never took place on Sunday, and most people did not have television—and those who did had the choice of only one channel, which broadcast for only four and a half hours.

The 1950 Act was passed at a time when no one had heard of videos, garden centres, or do-it-yourself superstores. Today, the situation has changed. In 1972, the House passed the Sunday Theatre Bill and Sunday Cinema Bill. Today, cinemas and provincial theatres can, and do, open on Sunday—and only last Sunday the Haymarket theatre opened for a performance of "Talking Heads", which repeated an earlier performance and raised money for charity.

Videos are surely part of the same entertainment industry as the theatre and cinema. Whereas television used to be broadcast for only four and a half hours on Sunday, today one can view 20 hours of BBC1 or BBC2; 24 hours of ITV; or 20 hours of Channel 4. That represents 84 hours of viewing choice on Sunday, compared with four and a half hours in 1950. Furthermore, if one is a subscriber to Sky Television, one can watch 24 hours of movies on either of two of its film channels.

Current law says that it is perfectly moral to see a film at a cinema, but wrong to watch the same film on a video at home. The law says that it is right and moral to watch television all day, but wrong to hire a video to view after church.

A further anomaly is the changing attitude to sport. As I said, in 1950 there was no professional sport on Sunday, but today the most popular games of cricket are those played in the Sunday league. It is not unknown either for the British climate to cause the Wimbledon finals to be played on Sunday.

Members of Parliament do not work on Sunday.

Some of us work a seven-day week, even if that is not true of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

The law says that it is perfectly all right to watch golf, cricket, football or tennis on Sunday, but wrong to view a sporting video. Apparently, it is perfectly moral to watch Arsenal playing at Highbury on Sunday, but wrong to watch a video of the 1966 World Cup final. What giants they were—Peters, Hurst, Charlton, Stiles and Banks—yet one cannot enjoy watching them on Sunday in one's own home. That is nonsense.

One of the ironies is that the video industry is more closely regulated than the cinema or the theatre. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 much stronger standards apply to the video industry than apply to the cinema to take account of the fact that videos are seen in the home, not outside. Another irony is that video shops are owned by small shopkeepers who operate legally selling newspapers, so why should not they also be allowed to hire out a video? Why should not small shopkeepers be free to serve the needs of their customers? Why should not individuals in that branch of the entertainment industry be treated in the same way as the rest of the entertainment industry?

The importance of videos can be seen by the fact that more than 25,000 people are employed in the video software industry. It is the largest visual entertainment media employer, employing 50 per cent. more people than ITV and 25 times as many as British Sky Broadcasting. Sunday trade is especially important to the video industry because 28 per cent. of video rentals take place on a Sunday. If obstacles are placed in the way of this industry, the viability of some shops will be affected and some individuals will have to close shop.

There are currently 110 prosecutions pending against the video industry. In Newham, Hartlepool, Kingstonupon-Hull and Scunthorpe the social problems are so light that the local authorities are prosecuting the video industry for renting out videos. What blessed places they are that they have nothing better on which to concentrate local authority time.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the B and Q and Wickes cases has created uncertainty about the future of the Sunday trading law and its enforcement. It will now be more difficult to resort to injunctions to enforce the law, but it will be possible to prosecute and the maximum fine for a prosecution is £1,000. To a large firm, £1,000 is no deterrent, but to a small video shop which rents out a few videos it is an important penalty which acts as a real deterrent.

People, not legislation, make Sunday a special day. The church will not be graced by having conscripts in the pew and those churches which thrive do so because they offer a positive message. Would Charles Wesley have needed the protection of the Shops Act 1950 to get people to hear a good Wesleyan sermon? We all wish Archbishop Carey well in the future. This year we have seen a new Archbishop of Canterbury inducted and we shall shortly see a new Chief Rabbi. The new Chief Rabbi has a congregation that is not protected by trading Laws, but it honours the Sabbath rather better than the followers of Archbishop Carey honour the Sabbath.

A church that relies on the protection of the law to encourage people to come to its services will do less well than the Jewish faith does, not by relying on the protection of the law but by having a positive message for those who come to shul.

A law that is frequently broken by the 60,000 shops that open every Sunday and by the 2 million people who work every Sunday, and a law that is enforced intermittently and is riddled with inconsistencies brings the rule of law into disrepute. I invite the House to face reality and to support the Bill. The need for the reform of Sunday trading is widely accepted by the Consumers Association, by the Majority of retailers and by the majority of people in this country, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The nonsense has been confirmed by the recent Court of Appeal judgment.

One local authority has said that the law is now unenforceable. The Keep Sunday Special campaign has said that it believes in the need for compromise. The Bill offers a compromise. It deals with small traders and suggests that video shops should be put on a par with the rest of the entertainment industry. I ask the House to allow the Bill to be introduced so that the House can demonstrate that it believes in the need for compromise.

I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for all his good works. At the end of his speech, he said that we should face reality. I appeal to the House to face reality and to realise that it is nonsense for ourselves and for our democracy to try to pretend that we still have the power to do anything in the meantime about Sunday trading. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said that, because of the recent court judgment, there was some difficulty in moving an injunction. He should consult a lawyer because the lawyers in Southend will tell him that it is not only difficult, but impossible to move an injunction at present. The law has effectively been frozen because of the decision in the B and Q case which was based solely on a decision whether our Sunday trading Laws were inconsistent with the treaty of Rome.

We know that a higher court will make its judgment next week. We know that the matter will then go to the European Court. Although we may pass laws on Sunday trading and on whether video shops, greengrocers' shops or any other shop should stay open or be closed on a Sunday, we shall be told what to do by the European Court in two years' time.

It may be nonsense to try to hold up the House in the good work that it wants to do, but I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and to the House generally to stop pretending that we still have power that we do not have. It does not make the slightest difference whether the Bill is passed or rejected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South kindly mentioned Southend. I drove round on Sunday and saw that, rightly or wrongly, all the video shops were open. The law is in a state of total confusion. It has been suspended because of an action that our laws are inconsistent with the treaty of Rome. I do not know whether our laws are inconsistent with the treaty. The people who will tell us are the judges in the European Court who are appointed to do so. Once they make the decision, whether we pass 1,000 laws on Sunday trading or whether the trading standards inspectors rush round, those inspectors will have no power.

I do not know what the court will do. My hon. Friend does not know what the court will do and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who follows these issues closely, does not know what the court will do. The plain fact is that, irrespective of what we decide today, we shall be told what to do in two years' time. Even if the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats decide differently, that is that.

In the House of Commons, we spend a great deal of time asking for inquiries into matters and asking the Government to give more priority to certain matters when the power has gone away. A point of order was raised today about a rumour that the House will rise two weeks early simply because we can no longer do the things that we used to do. The time has come for the House of Commons to face up to the threat to our democracy, to consider the implications and to decide what we should do, instead of going on a wild goose chase and saying that we want to change a law that has been suspended because of an action relating to the European Court.

In no sense of hostility to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South—and he is one of the most conscientious, hard-working, sincere and undoubtedly good Members of the House—I must say that I hope that he will not be taken away from reality by what he says. The reality is that our law has been suspended. The reality is that, irrespective of the views of Parliament, we shall be told what to do in two years' time. To try to pretend that matters are different is to run away from reality and from our respect for democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Bill. If he does not, I hope that the House will reject it, not because we reject his ideas, but because we have to say, sadly, that his opinions are utterly irrelevant today. The European Court and not the democratic House of Commons will decide and will tell us what to do.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 71.

Question accordingly negatived.