ACS Sceptical About Sunday Trading Report
05 May 2006
The Department for Trade and Industry’s (DTI) cost benefit analysis published today on Sunday trading has been met with scepticism by the Association of Convenience Stores (ACS).
The report, commissioned by the DTI and conducted by the economic consultancy Indepen, will form part of the Government's decision as to whether there should be any change to the current Sunday Trading laws.
ACS has been at the forefront of efforts to stop any change to the Sunday Trading Act. It submitted detailed evidence for the report to the Government explaining why changing the Act would undermine the viability of local shops. ACS also highlighted consumer research which showed that two-thirds of the public are against changes to the Act.
ACS Chief Executive David Rae said: “ACS maintains that liberalisation of Sunday trading laws would cause significant damage to the viability of local shops. This would be bad for consumers, and it is not surprising that poll after poll shows that most consumers oppose reform of the Sunday Trading Act.
“The Indepen report does not help us to evaluate the true costs of extending Sunday trading hours. It excludes the social costs of communities losing their local shop, as well as the impact on workers and their families. The Government should not give undue credence to this report, because the case against Sunday trading law reform is far more than simply economic.
“We have severe concerns about the validity of some of the assumptions made in this report, and this undermines the foundations of the analysis. For example, the report wrongly assumes that shoppers who would have used their local convenience store would instead shop on- line if that store closed down as a result of Sunday trading liberalisation. Furthermore, the report identifies benefits from longer Sunday trading hours for shops close to superstores which offer a complementary service. In a market where superstores sell books, music, toiletries, newspapers and clothes as well as food and drink, few local retailers are truly complementary to superstores rather than competing with them.
“Despite these skewed assumptions, the report actually quantifies only very small benefits from liberalisation in terms of money and time. We dispute these findings, but even so they hardly make a compelling case for changing the law. In particular, the suggestion that households will save two minutes per week as a result of liberalisation of Sunday trading laws hardly makes a powerful case for new legislation.
“ACS is continuing to fight for the retention of the present law on Sunday trading, and we will be analysing this report in detail to ensure that the Government are aware of its weaknesses and of its reliance on flawed assumptions.”
The report, commissioned by the DTI and conducted by the economic consultancy Indepen, will form part of the Government's decision as to whether there should be any change to the current Sunday Trading laws.
ACS has been at the forefront of efforts to stop any change to the Sunday Trading Act. It submitted detailed evidence for the report to the Government explaining why changing the Act would undermine the viability of local shops. ACS also highlighted consumer research which showed that two-thirds of the public are against changes to the Act.
ACS Chief Executive David Rae said: “ACS maintains that liberalisation of Sunday trading laws would cause significant damage to the viability of local shops. This would be bad for consumers, and it is not surprising that poll after poll shows that most consumers oppose reform of the Sunday Trading Act.
“The Indepen report does not help us to evaluate the true costs of extending Sunday trading hours. It excludes the social costs of communities losing their local shop, as well as the impact on workers and their families. The Government should not give undue credence to this report, because the case against Sunday trading law reform is far more than simply economic.
“We have severe concerns about the validity of some of the assumptions made in this report, and this undermines the foundations of the analysis. For example, the report wrongly assumes that shoppers who would have used their local convenience store would instead shop on- line if that store closed down as a result of Sunday trading liberalisation. Furthermore, the report identifies benefits from longer Sunday trading hours for shops close to superstores which offer a complementary service. In a market where superstores sell books, music, toiletries, newspapers and clothes as well as food and drink, few local retailers are truly complementary to superstores rather than competing with them.
“Despite these skewed assumptions, the report actually quantifies only very small benefits from liberalisation in terms of money and time. We dispute these findings, but even so they hardly make a compelling case for changing the law. In particular, the suggestion that households will save two minutes per week as a result of liberalisation of Sunday trading laws hardly makes a powerful case for new legislation.
“ACS is continuing to fight for the retention of the present law on Sunday trading, and we will be analysing this report in detail to ensure that the Government are aware of its weaknesses and of its reliance on flawed assumptions.”