My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. One of the things that strikes me forcefully is that the existing legislation was introduced in the context of a lot of controversy, argument and differing points of view. It has prevailed, to good effect, for a good number of years now, and those who crafted the Bill, introduced it and took it through the House should be commended. It represents the fruitful outcome of consensus-building in an open democracy at its best. We should be very wary of beginning to unpick that consensus and agreement, which involved a lot of hard work, by seemingly innocent little steps in this direction or that. The fact is that the proposed amendment is a breach in the existing law and the principles and understanding that lie behind it.
My second point refers back to my noble friend Lord Christopher. In his significant office and responsibilities, Vincent Cable used very specific words. At the very least, I would expect from the Government in their reply to this debate, in words of one syllable, a statement about whether they are now repudiating the work and undertaking of Vincent Cable and whether coalition policy applies in this sphere. It is quite simple: a Secretary of State has given a solemn and firm undertaking and this Bill runs against that undertaking. From that standpoint, we need a very specific and clear response from the Government in their reply.
For all sorts of reasons, I find myself in line with the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate. But you do not have to come from his position, or indeed mine, to see the social significance of the prevailing legislation. We live in a society that is becoming increasingly boring in the sense that everything is the same all the time and there is a feeling of playing to the lowest common denominator all the time. In the richness of life, the principle of contrast between the six days and the seventh day is very important, whether you are religious or not. It introduces a rhythm into life, which is terribly important for the fulfilment of people psychologically as well as physically.
4.30 pm
In talking about the physical fulfilment of people, I am rather concerned about the standards set for our physical development if we now get our exercise by walking from the car to the garden centre. If that really is what our weekly exercise is about, we are in a pretty desperate situation. Having said that, my wife, in particular, gets quite a lot of exercise from walking about in garden centres, but the point that I am making speaks for itself.
I think we need to be a bit more in touch with the front-line social realities. We are talking about the convenience of consumers. There is a lot of evidence
that a significant number of shop workers who currently work in shops that open on Sundays would much prefer not to be in that position. However, they are under all sorts of pressures to be available for work on a Sunday, and those pressures are increasing all the time. What are the social implications? Very often in families of limited means, Sunday is the only day of the week when the family can get together and the parents can have a bit of time with the children and with each other. It is also a day when it is more difficult to ensure adequate and proper care for your children while you are at work, and that applies particularly to single parents. Such care is not available then.
There is a lot more to be thought through in terms of the tangible, real social implications of legislation of this sort. It is not just a question of convenience for the shopper; there are all sorts of profound implications for people, not least those working within the industry. When we come to the stage in the proceedings when we vote in the House, I will certainly vote against this, as I think it is unwise. It would be very reassuring to hear in the Government’s response a firm statement that the consensus, which was so carefully built and crafted and which has served the nation so well, will be preserved and that we are not going to start changing things by the back door. In particular, I want to know—and I am sure that that goes for most people in the Committee—whether the words of the Secretary of State are being honoured or repudiated.