25 MARCH 1995, Page 28

A campaigner writes

Sir: Boris Johnson's column (Politics, 4 March) contains many inaccuracies which will no doubt be corrected in correspon- dence. As I was referred to by name, I would like to make my personal position clear.

I took up the part-time, paid position of chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council before I became a member of the House of Lords and after I resigned as full- time paid director of the National Aids Trust. There was no legislation pending on Sunday Trading at that time. I campaigned for a Bill to be introduced, in the same way that I had previously campaigned for Aids to be included in 'The Health of the Nation' policy.

The Sunday Trading Bill, which was later introduced, was unique. Parliament was asked to decide between three options: the SHRC option, the Keep Sunday Special Option, and one which became known as the Marks and Spencer option. Each one was vigorously supported by its proponents.

I, obviously, supported the SHRC option, as did, for example, Lord Sainsbury. The Bishop of London was a prominent advo- cate of the Keep Sunday Special option, and Baroness Young, a director of Marks and Spencer, spoke often in support of the third option. All of us held positions and `received considerations' which we declared at every stage of the Sunday Trading debate, in accordance with the conventions of the House, and which, presumably, were historically relevant to our different posi- tions on the Bill.

I am in favour of a Register of Interests for the House of Lords. The existence of a TII have a double entendre.' Register would have made no difference to my actions on the Sunday Trading Bill. They were consistent with any rules the Register might be likely to contain. Baroness Jay

House of Lords, London SW1