I rise more in sorrow than in anger. I have made my views known to the Minister. I am disappointed that I shall have to support not the Government but the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I shall not support the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) because I think what can be classified as a tourist area is a moot point. People might come to Warwickshire near her own constituency and visit Stratford, yet she has Chelmsley Wood in her constituency, which some might describe as a brutalist horror, yet it could be reclassified as a tourist attraction. It will be difficult for lawyers to prove what is a tourist area and what is not. This makes it difficult for the amendment to stand.
This is not an economic issue or even a faith issue, although I pay tribute to the very good speech by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is about what kind of country we want to be. It is a conscience issue. My understanding was that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was subject to a free vote on what was regarded as an issue of conscience. Why can we not do the same now?
I find it pretty shocking that a manuscript amendment appears on the Twitter feed of Sky News at 2.4 pm before Members have had an opportunity to look at it. I have to tell the Minister that five or six weeks ago, I said to no less important a figure than the Prime Minister that what we needed was a competitive regime in which local authorities could come forward and offer to be pilots, yet that was dismissed. Indeed, Ministers were not talking to Back Benchers about this issue until 48 hours ago—in fact, even less than that. [Interruption.] I mean on the specific issue that we have put forward.
I am not an uber-liberal and I am not a social liberal. I think we have a social contract and a bond with our constituents. We should regulate some behaviours. That is why, for instance, we voted to ban smoking in vehicles with children in them. “Devil take the hindmost” is not the right way in which to pursue this issue, especially given that in 2014 the Prime Minister, no less, said on the BBC news that families should be the prism through which we should decide policy. Indeed, as my hon. Friend pointed out in April 2015, during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister wrote to the Keep Sunday Special campaign saying the same thing.
It is not acceptable that there has been no proper scrutiny and oversight in the House of Lords. It is not acceptable that the Whips packed the Public Bill Committee with people who were likely to be sympathetic. It is not acceptable for the Government to use the relevant section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to stifle debate by hiding the number of consultations that have taken place—and we saw the ridiculous answer that my hon. Friend was given by Ministers.
Why has there been no family assessment? Why has there been no impact assessment? Those are important questions that the Government have not yet answered. The issue is important to me because 32% of the economic activity in my constituency takes place in the retail sector, and there will be a domino effect. Decisions will be taken naturally. If Peterborough were to deregulate and adopt a different retail regime, Fenland would want the same, and so would Huntingdonshire, Corby and other local authorities. I think it foolish and naive to assume that will not happen.
What am I asking Members to vote on today? I am asking them to give the Government some breathing space. We know that this proposal has been driven not by the superb ministerial teams in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I do not always agree with them, but they are very good at their jobs—but by the dead hand of the Treasury. The Treasury has been taking the media flak for this, and the Treasury is putting out the lines to be taken. An obscure Back-Bench Tory MP who votes the right way today is likely to get a brand-new bypass, or perhaps become a special representative to some warm and exotic place of which he or she has never heard.
The fact is that this is an issue of principle, integrity and conscience. I defer to no one in my admiration for the Government’s work in important areas such as the reform of education and welfare, but they are now engaging in a needless and egregious conflict with their own Back Benchers. They do not need to do that. There is no authority for this proposal, because, as we know, it was not in the Conservative manifesto. I have already
said that the legal case is threadbare, and I have cited the legal opinion of John Bowers, QC.
I am very fond of the Minister, but only a week or so ago he said that the Government were proceeding on the basis of what was in the Bill after the Committee stage. Today, he waxed lyrical at the Dispatch Box about the fantastic idea of launching pilot projects to open up retail across the country. That does not stack up; it is close, but no cigar. If it was such a good idea, why was it not taken up by senior Ministers weeks ago, when I raised it personally with the Prime Minister? I think that that is a fair question.
If Members on both sides of the House vote against the Government and in favour of my hon. Friend’s amendment, all they will do is allow the Government to consult properly, present coherent arguments, and propose measures that will protect workers’ rights and the special interests of the Association of Convenience Stores—which has raised concerns—while also taking proper note of what is said by the trade unions. They are not always the friends of our party, but they have a right to be heard, and 91% of members of USDAW have opposed the Government’s proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) suggested that new legislation could be proposed in the Queen’s Speech. I can even offer a name: the Sunday Trading (Pilot Projects) Bill. I will invoice the Minister later for that suggestion. We could then have a proper debate, because we would know what we were voting for. I must say to the Minister that this has not been done properly. There has not been proper scrutiny and oversight. There has not been proper debate and discussion. Running around with manuscript amendments at four minutes past two on the day of a Report stage is not good government.
I want to support the Government, and I want them to succeed, but I am afraid that on this occasion, with a very heavy heart, I cannot support them, and I will be voting for the amendment. I will be doing that so that the Government can come back, carry the House in a consensus, protect jobs, protect a way of life, protect family life, and look after the interests of our constituents, because, if for no other reason, that is why we are here.