| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
While the DTI took those sector-specific views into consideration as part of the review, it recognised that the trades association was not able to provide evidence to reinforce them. After carefully considering all the views received during the consultation, including, I assure your Lordships, those of the Horticultural Trades Association, the then Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, announced in July 2006 that there would be no change to the existing Sunday trading law. He confirmed that the Sunday Trading Act had been in place for many years, that the Government should look at whether it was still appropriate, and contemplate changes if they were appropriate. The Government decided that that was not the right step to take at that time. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that the Government have issues with the Bill.
The House will appreciate that the Government need to consider a range of evidence from across the social and trading piece. The key principles of better regulation compel them to consider carefully the impact of proposed regulatory change before action is taken. Any such action should be proportionate to the need for change.
It is a principle of good government, therefore, that Ministers ensure that there is a compelling case for change. They should be sure that the interests of business, employees and consumers have been taken into account and that they can be met equitably if change is to be effected. When considering their position on the Bill, the Government had to consider the appropriateness of the existing regulatory framework. They also had to consider the evidence indicating that change was necessary.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and other noble Lords appreciate why the Government, after giving the changes set out in the Bill the necessary consideration, are compelled to voice reservations about the change that the Bill advocates. We are being asked to consider the Bill without supporting evidence and in the absence of other relevant points of view, as I have just recited.
The Government’s view might of course be affected in future should the appropriate evidence be presented to them. As I assured the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is not “no, never”. The evidence should indicate what impact there might be on employment, the economy, on competitiveness and wealth creation. Noble Lords may be assured that this Minister will always take those into account. The Government might reconsider their view also if they knew the views of all interested
16 May 2008 : Column 1239
It would be wrong to ignore or fly in the face of properly and honourably held views about the position of Sunday in our society. The noble, Earl Lord Ferrers, mentioned Easter Day, which has significance in the hearts of so many people in this country. However, it moves around—this year was the earliest Easter Day for nearly 100 years and I doubt whether many garden centres suffered much loss of trade in early March. The views of relevant employers and trade unions would also be relevant to us if we re-evaluate the present legislation.
Having given the House the news, I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for the opportunity to discuss his Bill. I give the House the assurance that I
16 May 2008 : Column 1240
12.48 pm
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friends for their constructive points—that is probably the best way of putting it. A number of points have been made and, if they excuse me, I will write to my noble friends with answers to all their questions. I was pleased that my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed out employment rights in the 1994 Act which had escaped my view. I also thank the Minister for his encouragement—a bit of a curate’s egg, I suppose. I thank all who took part in the debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at 12.49 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |