I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment was moved in another place by the Government in order to remove any question of doubt there might be about the powers conferred on police constables by Clause 1 of the Bill. With the approval of the Government and of Her Majesty the Queen, under the provisions of this Bill the police have power of entry on to Crown land.

Quite obviously, for security reasons, this power has not been extended to land occupied by the Service Departments, the Ministry of Aviation and the Atomic Energy Authority. The exclusion of the power of entry on to land owned by these Departments was provided in the original Bill in Clause 2 (3). But it so happens that as the Bill was originally drafted the definition of land in Clause 2 applies to Clause 1. It could be argued that Clause 2 (3), were it left as it now stands, as well as excluding the power of entry of a constable on to land held by the Admiralty, the Ministry of Aviation and the Atomic Energy Authority would exclude the constable's power to arrest a poacher on that land. That was not the intention of the Bill, and the new drafting Amendments from another place clear up that misunderstanding.

I think the House will agree that it is quite essential that it should be put straight, because it is always open to a Government Department to invite a constable to patrol land. When doing that the constable should have the right to arrest a poacher if he saw one on the land. For a practical example we have only to look at the very good shoat which exists on Ministry of Aviation land at London Airport or the Stanford battle area in Norfolk or the fringe areas on Salisbury Plain.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to take all the rest of these Amendments together, because the operative Amendment is that to line 27, on page 3, to leave out "rabbits"?

Yes, the hon. Member may discuss them all together.

These are purely drafting Amendments. They do not alter the substance of the Bill one iota. The real trouble is that, as hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is extremely touchy about rabbits in these days. The civil servants at the Ministry were distressed to think that in this year 1960 we should perpetrate the anachronism of continuing to describe the rabbit as "game". Under the Pest Act, 1954, the rabbit is now described as a pest.

By means of these Amendments for once we have got the rabbits exactly where we want them. They are a pest from the point of view of the Ministry and of pest officers but it will be an offence to be caught on someone's land without permission with a gun in pursuit of rabbits. If one is found doing that, for the purposes of this Bill the rabbit becomes "game", which seems a very satisfactory compromise.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

During consideration of the Bill in Committee, several hon Members, including in particular the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), raised the question whether the Bill as drafted might either cause some of the existing byelaws to become void and nullified, or prevent additional byelaws being made. This is a very complex legal matter, but, as I said in Committee, it was never my intention that the Bill should in any way interfere with the right of local authorities to make byelaws. It was never the intention that this Bill should be a substitute for local byelaws, nor was it my desire in any way to interfere with them.

I am now advised that without the provisions and savings contained in this new Clause, the adoption of which I now urge, there might be some doubt. This Clause ensures that the Bill shall not affect existing byelaws nor the powers of local authorities to make additional byelaws if they so desire. I understand that under Section 33 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, there will be an adequate safeguard to prevent any person from being in danger of being prosecuted and punished twice—for an offence under this Bill and an offence at the same time under an existing byelaw.

I hope the Clause will commend itself to the House.

I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for having gone to the trouble to produce this new Clause, which was not an easy thing to do. I do not think that any local authority officer trying rapidly to read the Bill would quite understand the result from a quick perusal of the new Clause. I am grateful to have the hon. Member's categorical statement that the new Clause will cover both existing byelaws—the one most likely to be concerned is the one known as the "noisy hawking" byelaw in London—and any further byelaws which may be put to the Secretary of State for approval.

I underline that second part of the statement. I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary about the "noisy hawking" byelaw because it was said in Committee that it all depended on the byelaw as to whether it would affect it or not. I asked specifically whether the "noisy hawking" byelaw would be affected. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary I thought a little guarded. Referring to the new Clause, he said that the effect would be to save those byelaws where they have been adopted.

That would cover a number of authorities. I am grateful for the assurance of the hon. Member for Hexham that it will also cover any future bye-laws which local authorities want to adopt as well as the "noisy hawking" byelaw. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary could authoritatively confirm that it is the view of the Government that the new Clause will put local authorities which now want to adopt a byelaw in the same position as those which have already adopted one.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for the trouble he has taken in dealing with a problem which was mentioned in Committee and which I think was a very real difficulty.

I am ready to give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19 leave out "land" and to insert "premises".

This again is a point which was mentioned upstairs in Committee in discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hexham. In the original form of the Bill, the word "premises" was used. The hon. Member removed the word "premises" and inserted the word "land". The point I tried to get cleared up, but have not yet succeeded in getting cleared up—that is why I am moving this Amendment—was that of a particular case where a number of people were occupying parts of a house. I can quite see that in the simplest case where there is a row of houses, particularly of owner-occupied houses, each squatting on a little piece of land, there is no doubt about who is occupying the land. It is occupied by the owner of the house. This difficulty would not arise in that case and house occupiers would be able to make a complaint under the Act.

The point which worries me a little is that where, particularly in London, there may be a four- or five-storey house which is leased by one person who is paying the ground rent for the whole house. He may be sub-letting each floor, or even each room, to separate persons who are occupying the premises as unfurnished or furnished premises. I want to be clear about who has the right to make a complaint. Is it each person who occupies a room in the house? Does it matter whether the room is furnished or unfurnished? Is it only the person who occupies the whole house and pays the ground rent for the land as part of his leasehold interest in the premises?

I should have thought it would have been better to go back to the wording which, I believe, was used in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937. The words in Section 66 of that Act are, "occupiers of premises". That has worked quite effectively in London for a considerable period. Therefore, I should have thought it would be wiser to stick to it in this case. The hon. Member for Hexham has adventurously wanted to alter it and to introduce the words "occupier of land", although I believe no one in the Committee was clear about the significance of the alteration and about who in fact would have the right to make a complaint.

I have no desire to press the matter if the answer to the questions I have put makes it clear that everybody who is living in a house, in the sense of renting a room or flat, has an equal right to make a complaint that he is being subjected to a nuisance from noise. I hope that the hon. Member will be able to assist us.

I support the Amendment. I can say with confidence that it will be urged that "land" includes "premises" and no doubt there are good legal arguments for saying that. But it does not alter the fact that in many legal contexts one finds the phrase "land or premises" or "land and premises". These prosecutions will come before a local magistrates' court and I should feel happier if the word "premises" were included. It may be unnecessary caution, but it could not do any harm and will not even be bad precedent in legal drafting, because it already occurs many times. I would prefer to see both words, so that the phrase was "land or premises". If the House were willing and if you would accept it, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could have a manuscript Amendment to that effect. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will have to insert the word "premises" in other places on page 2 in that case as consequential Amendments.

I support what has been said in favour of the Amendment.

It is true, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), that in the interpretation land refers to matters of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), but there is a host of cases where the word "land" is interpreted in a different way. I am particularly troubled when I see the words in the Clause itself:

"each of whom is the occupier of land and is in that capacity aggrieved by the nuisance?'

When the matter is heard by magistrates, all sorts of legal arguments might be adduced to show that the occupier of a flat, for instance, was not the occupier of land and it would do no harm to insert the words "premises".

I am fortified in that argument because I notice that the hon. Member for Hexham has altered the words of other Acts which deal with matters of this kind. In the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, the words used were

"householders or occupiers of premises."

while in Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936, the expression is that a complaint can be made to Justices of the peace

"by any person aggrieved by the nuisance."

It looks as though we are cutting down the matter and I do not think that we should cut it down too far.

I support the Amendment and reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, that it is a great pity that we cannot say "land or premises". There would then be no doubt whatever of the intention. I support the Amendment in every possible way.

There is an easy commonsense solution to this problem, which is to insert the words "or premises". As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, these matters will come before magistrates' courts and I can see no objection to adding the words to make the position clear and, if you are prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could insert the words "or premises".

I would have been horrified if I thought that the Bill was not going to provide safeguards for all owners of property and was not going to apply to all occupiers of property, be they tenants of houses, flats or tenements. I want the Clause to apply to all who occupy property in the widest sense of that word, even if they are only paying lodgers. My advice is that Clause 1 as drafted with the word "land" will meet the case. After all, we are proposing that the Clause should be operated under the terms and provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, and Section 343 (1) of that Act defines "land" as

"any interest in land and any easement or right in, to, or over land."

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says that an additional word or two could do no harm. On the other hand, it is a great mistake to put in additional words when they are not necessary and we do not want to make the Bill too verbose.

Although I have no particularly strong feelings about this, I think that the use of the word "land" may be more comprehensive and more all-embracing than the word "premises." I am satisfied that the position of tenants of flats and of paying lodgers is fully and completely safeguarded with the use of the word "land."

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not found it possible to accept the Amendment. We all accept what he has told us about the word "land" legally covering "premises" However, we will not be verbose by adding words or substituting words to make the meaning clear. The intention of the hon. Member and of everybody else is not to exclude anybody.

The word would be substituted not only here but in other places.

There will be consequential Amendments, but that can be arranged. We ought to avoid unnecessary legal argument when cases come before the courts and if the word "premises" is substituted for the word "land," that will cover every possible case which might come before the courts and will avoid possibility of dispute as to the interpretation of the word. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree to accept the Amendment so that arrangements can be made for the words "or premises" to be included.

I speak again by leave of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not taken a little more seriously the tremendous weight of legal opinion which has been raised against him. I was astonished to find such support, but if there is such a substantial amount of support to be found among practising lawyers about what the word means, it will create confusion among lay members of local authorities and among justices if the word "land" remains.

Any normal person reading page 2 of the Bill would find the reference to Section 66 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act which says that the occupiers of premises shall be construed as the occupiers of land. A normal person will think that there is some reason for the alteration, making the possibly pathetic attempt which laymen make to find some reason for what lawyers do. There will then be a tendency among local magistrates to produce decisions which will result in confusion.

I have a great respect for the legal profession, but surely lawyers do not operate in such a casual fashion as that. I am not a lawyer, but surely any lawyer dealing with a Bill will first see to what it applies and will look at the definition Section.

May I, by leave of the House, add that I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is rather important? It has occurred to me since I last spoke that it is said in subsection (6):

"In section sixty-six of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937&occupiers of premises within hearing of the noise nuisance shall be construed as a reference to three persons each of whom is the occupier of land&".

That would be confusing to a bench of magistrates. The bench would say that, whereas Parliament had previously said that they were to be occupiers of premises, it is now saying that they are to be occupiers of land. There is a real risk of people having to go to the Divisional Court to get it established whether a lodger is covered. The addition of the words "or premises" is the right solution.

If the hon. Member for Widnes agrees to add the words "or premises" rather than what he has suggested and if you, Mr. Speaker, are willing to accept a manuscript Amendment, if the hon. Member for Widnes will withdraw his Amendment I will move my Amendment.

I am merely anxious to make the Bill effective. I have no desire to hold it up or to be in any way obstructive. I certainly accept the weighty advice given by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He and I have been members of the same local authority and we know the depths and heights of intelligence to which it can sink and rise. Therefore, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment and accept any form of words which will be clear to the ordinary person. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 1, line 19, after "land" to insert "or premises"

I intervene with some diffidence, but my job is made easier because at least we are now discussing only one Amendment on which two principal protagonists are agreed. Up till now, there have been four alternative forms of words. There was the form of words in the Bill, namely "land." There were the three alternatives which different hon. Members proposed, namely "land or premises," "land and premises," and "premises."

I maintain that the present phrase in the Bill, namely "occupier of land," is more general and more precise than any phrase which has been suggested. It is more precise because "land" is defined in various Measures, particularly in Section 343 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, as including

"messuages, buildings, lands, easements, and heriditaments of any tenure."

I am advised that that certainly covers any occupiers other than a casual lodger and therefore makes the Bill effective in the full sense, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides require.

Does that cover the occupier's wife?

It does not cover the occupier's wife unless she is the occupier, in which case it does not cover her husband.

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) when he resists this because of verbosity. The proper reason for resisting the Amendment is because of confusion. We have here a definition which is general and at the same time precise. No court could possibly ignore the interpretation provisions laid down in the Public Health Act. The House would be most ill advised in this relatively casual way, playing about with four alternative forms of words, to disregard the very strong advice that I am able to give on legal backing that this form of words covers all that the House requires.

Why should not the lodger be covered?

That would be quite all right if the House so wishes, but we should have to change the word "occupier." If the House so wishes there is another place where that could be done, but that is not the Amendment which the House is at the moment considering. It is "occupier" that would then have to be changed, and not "land."

I therefore very strongly advise the House that the Amendment would lead to confusion and not to precision and would not broaden the Bill in any way.

I do not understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that this will lead to confusion, that the word "land" is precise, and that therefore we should reject the Amendment. The words "occupier of land" are in the Bill. If the Amendment is carried, the words will be, "occupier of land or premises." Therefore "occupier of land" will remain. Where will the confusion be then? If there is a doubt, we should add the words "or premises." It is certainly no argument to say that, if we accept the Amendment, there will be confusion.

One of the things which troubles me about it is that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) said that "occupier of land" includes a paying lodger. There might be a legal argument about that. If the words "occupier of premises" were in the Bill, they probably would include a paying lodger. In any case, I agree that the word "lodger" ought to be considered in another place. I cannot for the life of me accept the argument that, if the words "or premises" are adopted, there will be confusion.

May I, by leave of the House, intervene again? I think that the confusion arises because both "land" and "premises" have slightly different interpretations in the Acts which define them. Therefore, if there is a question of a change in the Bill, I should far prefer the proposal of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The addition of words leads to a possibility of confusion which one single word which is well defined in the Public Health Act does not.

Since I find that the addition of words is even more confusing than the substitution of words and since no one has been able to show that the word in the Bill, namely "land," omits any single person except a lodger, who cannot be introduced by the Amendment, I suggest that the House would be wise to accept the Bill as at present drafted.

By leave of the House, may I say that I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted me or I interrupted him. May I finish what I had intended to say? If the words were "occupier of land and premises," I could understand the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the words proposed are "occupier of land or premises." They therefore cover both and there cannot be the slightest risk of any confusion.

I am in the unusual position of not having spoken at least twice on the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the definition of "land" given in the Public Health Act, 1936. That Act by and large does not apply to London. The appropriate legislation in London is the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, in which "land" is not defined but "premises" is.

After the two 1936 Acts were passed, Parliament, fully aware of the definitions

given in those Acts of "land" and "premises", in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, used the word "premises". That word was in the original draft of this Bill as presented to the House, but it was taken out in Committee. To say that the Bill is clear, which is what the Parliamentary Secretary says, is over-simplifying it. It is not clear. The word "premises" would not have been used in this context in the 1936 Act if that Act would have been clear without it and it would not have been used by the hon. Gentleman in the first draft of the Bill if it was unnecessary. I will not fall into the trap of being led to believe by the flattery of the Parliamentary Secretary that my drafting is better. I have made my alliance with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and I will stick to that alliance.

I regret to have to say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that, in my view, the advice he has received is wrong. His argument in support of it is equally wrong. He said that the word "land" was more general than "land or premises". That is not sense. Of course "land or premises" is much more general than "land". It is the House which legislates, and not the Civil Service. I strongly recommend hon. Members to support the Amendment. I shall certainly vote for it if it comes to a Division.

Having listened to the debate, may I express my own opinion for what it is worth? My opinion is that there will be less confusion if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is accepted. I feel convinced that there will be confusion unless it is accepted. I am very impressed by the fact that there is a difference between the language of the Public Health Act, 1936, which applies outside London, and the language in the Public Health (London) Act which applies to London.

Since the Bill which we are now considering is intended to apply inside London and outside London, I should have thought that the arguments were convincing that, in order to avoid any possible doubt or obscurity, we should in Clause 1 substitute the phrase "land or premises" for the word "land". I hope that the hon. Member will take the view of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the question which I put to him. In the plethora of legal advice we have had no one has attempted to deal with it. Would it be a good defence for a person prosecuted to say that one or more of the complainants is either the wife of the occupier and not the occupier or the husband of the occupier and not the occupier? The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) wants to include a paying lodger. Would it be a good defence to say that one of the complainants, being a lodger, has not paid any rent for the last six weeks?

With the leave of the House, may I say that I have since been advised that the lodger is out? I had contrary advice before, but I understand now that the lodger is out, so the right hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

if the lodger is out, he cannot have heard the noise. Let us face the reality of the situation. It is most likely that the complainants will be three wives whose husbands are away at work. There is no dispute that in those circumstances the prosecution is bound to fail.

I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is attempting to advise two lawyers. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) is capable of advising and even instructing the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South is only entitled to tell them what is his opinion and hope, in the confused state they are now in, to get fresh instructions, either from them or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I supported the hon. Member for Hex-ham on his Litter Bill and I know that next Wednesday I shall see what a complete failure it is, in view of what I saw on television on a recent Friday.

There is nothing worse than to face legislation so worded as to make it very difficult of application and likely to lead to interminable arguments in the magistrates' room, when they have retired, as to whether the prosecution has been validly launched having regard to the exact terms of the Section.

With the leave of the House, I should like to say that, in view of the strong arguments put forward and the powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and in view of the assistance which he gave me during the passage of the Litter Bill through this House, I would be prepared to accept the Manuscript Amendment.

The object of the Amendment in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line, is to avoid any awkward marginal cases. At present, if the nuisance arises in the district of one local authority, the three objectors have all to be occupiers of land or premises.

On a point of order. I think that at this point a further manuscript Amendment would be required. I am wondering whether when we move to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we shall not get into difficulties with consequential Amendments.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Before moving my Amendment, I think that we should be moving backwards if I did not move to insert the words, "or premises". This is one of two places where the consequential Amendment on the Amendment we have just passed will have to be inserted.

I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

I will tell the House what I feel about it. The point of inserting the words "or premises" has been established in the view of the House this morning. I would personally be rather relieved if I did not have to bother about consequential manuscript Amendments this morning. No doubt that can be done in another place.

I accept your Ruling. Mr. Speaker.

:Further to that point of order. If the Bill is to be amended, surely it ought to be amended properly here and now, because we might get into difficulties if it were amended in another place. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps you would like to reconsider your Ruling, and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to move his manuscript Amendment?

I do not want to create difficulties for anyone, of course. I do not follow this. If it is right in one place it would seem to me to be right in another place. I do not know at the moment what consequential Amendments are necessary or unnecessary. I do not follow why there should be any difficulty about it in another place. The Bill has to go through another place—but I would welcome guidance.

I am quite willing to comply with any course. I thought that if I moved the manuscript Amendment it would 'be passed "on the nod" and would perhaps avoid difficulties on Amendments at a later stage. If, Mr. Speaker, you would be willing to accept that course, I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

This is not about betting and gaming. Is the hon. Member sure that I have received a sufficient number of these little bits of paper?

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line.

The object of the Amendment is to deal with the marginal case that would otherwise arise Where the nuisance is in the area of one authority and two of the three objectors are in that authority's area but the third is not. As the Clause is drafted, all three have to live in three houses contiguous to the noise, so that in such a case those people could not make a valid objection to the authority, and the machinery of the Bill could not operate. There seems to be no particular reason for these words to be in the Clause. In any case, I believe that this Amendment is acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir).

I am glad to say that this Amendment has been approved by the Scottish authorities. I am, therefore, able to accept it, and I hope that the House will agree that, in this case, silence is golden.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that line 47 in page 2 will also require a piece of paper.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 48, at the end to insert:

(7) Nothing in this section or the said section sixty-six shall apply to noise or vibration caused by aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, I notice, in page 2, line 45, the phrase:

"…householders or occupiers of premises…"

Should we not there insert the word "land"?

We can do many things, but we cannot go back.

I emphasised during Second Reading that this Bill is a compromise Measure, and in the Standing Committee I emphasised that it does not seek to cover every possible noise nuisance. It is in the nature of a stopgap Measure and I have never tried to hide the fact that, as a result., it is full of quite large gaps. That, I think, is quite inevitable in the circumstances.

At the same time, it is obviously wise for Parliament to tread warily—and I address my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—in what is a somewhat complicated matter. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill is a big step forward in the right direction, and that, in spite of the gaps in it, it is still a worth-while Measure.

One of the gaps to which I drew particular attention on Second Reading was the noise caused by aircraft. I pointed out that the Measure would not apply to aircraft; that they were Statute-barred under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949; and that it would require international agreement before we could hope successfully to tackle this very large, important and urgent problem of seeking to prevent and to eradicate noise and vibration caused by aircraft in the air and at aerodromes.

I am advised that, as the Bill now stands, proceedings could not be taken in respect of Crown aerodromes or aircraft, and that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are adequately safeguarded as statutory undertakers, but that other air firms, other aerodromes, and foreign aircraft—whether of the U2 variety or other kinds —will not be so protected unless this Amendment is incorporated in the Clause. That being the case, I am afraid that I must advise the Committee that, for the time being, and until there has been more research and inquiry into this problem, aerodromes and aircraft should continue to be exempted from the provisions of Clause 1.

The House will know that the Government have already set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to examine the nature, sources and effects of noise, and hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Committee has been asked especially to study and report on this aspect of the problem. That being the case, I think that we have no option but to await the Committee's report. We would be well advised to give it a free hand to see what steps can and should be taken to diminish the noise caused by aircraft, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, at the end to insert "whistle, bell, or bugle"

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is also moving his Amendment in page 3, line 8, after "loudspeaker," insert "whistle, bell or bugle."

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) cannot move both Amendments at one and the same time, but as the same point is involved it is inevitable that they should be discussed together.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My interest in the Bill, and certainly my reason for putting down the Amendment, results from a letter that I received from the general manager of the new town of Glenrothes in Fife, Brigadier Purches, who had evidently seen the terms of the Bill as amended in the Standing Committee. He wrote to me as follows:

"It is most distressing to find the Bill does not cover a very serious complaint which reaches me from all sides in Glenrothes.

There is great nuisance committed here by street traders who stand in the streets sounding their horns, blowing whistles, ringing bells, and even blowing on a bugle to summon the housewives to purchase their needs. I have received countless complaints about this; the gist of the complaints being that this cacophony keeps shift workers awake, it disturbs the elderly and the sick, and prevents the young children—and as you know there are many of them in Glenrothes—from resting during the day. This noise starts about 7 o'clock in the morning and carries on incessantly throughout the day, and peace does not seem to descend upon us until about 10 p.m. That applies every day including Sundays."

The writer goes on to say that the same nuisance occurs in the other new town in Scotland, East Kilbride; that they have tried to get it remedied by the local authorities and have failed. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to accept the Amendment. I realise what he has said in another context, that this is, as it were, a stop-gap Measure and does not pretend to cover all these wretched noises, but I think this is rather a minor extension of his compromise Measure and I hope he will see fit to accept the Amendment

Before my hon. Friend replies, would he consider all the implications of including the word "bugle" which is, after all, only one of a wide variety of musical instruments? If a bugle, why not a bagpipe? If a bagpipe, why not a Welsh harp? If a Welsh harp, why not an oboe or a trombone or any other of the wide variety of musical instruments? It would be dangerous to write into an Act of Parliament a single musical instrument, when we consider all the musical instruments which are played in the street and make a loud noise.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I have had as much trouble from this sort of thing as he has. My constituents have been troubled in the same way, and they often write to me about these niusances, but I think it would be dangerous to specify one instrument. A bugle may make a noise which is particularly melodious to many people. For many years I was aroused by a bugle and learned to love its tones, notwithstanding the appalling hour that it summoned me to my duties. As I say, I learned to love its tones; others love the tones of the trombone. But the national musical instrument of Scotland, the bagpipe, will have to be considered as well, and so will the national musical instrument of Wales, the Welsh harp.

I hope my hon. Friend will not jump to any hasty or impetuous conclusion in this important matter.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has already answered the point. I know that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is a representative of the Kingdom of Fife, and the Kingdom of Fife likes to be independent in matters of this kind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has asked why this Amendment should be limited to whistles, bells and bugles. As he said, what about trombones or trumpets or bagpipes? Personally, I have sufficient Scottish blood in my veins to enjoy the sound of the bagpipes out of doors.

Hear, hear.

I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that he may have come to love the sound of the bugle, but it will take me a long time before I come to love his sound.

I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "my sound" Does he refer to the musical quality, or whether it is euphonious, or to what I say?

I mean the all-embracing note and tone of the hon. Member's sound.

If there is any locality in which Britain suffers too much from whistles, bells or bugles it is up to the city fathers or their rural counterparts to introduce a special byelaw. There are model byelaws in existence; they are available in the Home Office or the Scottish Office, and the people to whom I have just referred should consider introducing the more stringent provisions which exist in these byelaws. That is the way to deal with this nuisance. I think this Amendment is too vague and goes too far, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

When we were dealing with the Bill in Committee I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman who sponsored it that under its provisions there was nothing to prevent a man using a whistle or a bugle and—heaven help me—I did not know that people were already using whistles and bugles. I had not experienced this although, like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I too have suffered from noise.

Nothing is more annoying than constantly having to listen to a man blowing his own trumpet and playing not only in the hours of daylight but darkness, too. Our ears have been assaulted by this solo obligato on the trumpet Which advertises wares which we think at times are dubious. Therefore, we ought to put a stop to this sort of thing.

The ice-cream manufacturers are now saying that they are increasing their trade enormously as a result of assaulting the ears of their potential customers, and, indeed, there are other Amendments, which it would be out of order to discuss now, which deal with this nuisance. The efforts of these people to increase their sales by this noise are causing jealousy among other traders who wish they could have the same opportunity. Unless some restrictions are placed on the sort of instruments which are to be used, we shall find our days and nights disturbed by such a variety of jangle and noise as to make life, particularly in our cities, almost intolerable.

I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that the use of a whistle is the way in which the police forces of this country, and I believe of Scotland also, summon aid when they require it. To make it a statutory offence to sound a whistle might gravely hamper them in the discharge of their duties.

Sitting here, I have often suffered from noises resembling a trombone or a clarion—

It would be out of order for the hon. Member to pursue that matter, because this Clause relates to noises in the streets.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) will resist this Amendment, because it proposes an absolute prohibition which would be too severe for this purpose. Whistles, bells and bugles are covered by Clause 1 if they constitute an ordinary noise nuisance. Clause 2, to which this Amendment refers, provides for the absolute prohibition of the operation of loudspeakers, regardless of whether they are operated in such a way as to cause a nuisance. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter in that light, he will see that to suggest that no use of a whistle, bugle or bell whatever shall be permissible in a street between certain hours is too drastic, inasmuch as the oppressive or annoying use of such instruments is already covered under Clause 1.

I have my doubts about this Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has moved. We all sympathise with his problem, but this Amendment goes rather wide and it would cover even the muffin man ringing his bell. It would cover many of the local features of life which are regarded as worth preserving.

Such as the Boy Scouts.

No, I do not think it would cover the Boy Scouts unless they were advertising either themselves or some appropriate articles which they were trying to sell.

What about "Bob a Job Week"?

I was about to say that if the local cubs were to use this means of announcing that they were available during "Bob a Job Week" they might be covered.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any band which included a bugle would be affected by the Amendment?

I think that where one ought to draw the line is between mechanical amplification and what one can do with one's own voice or wind. It is a mystery to me how anybody can get any noise out of a bugle at all, but people apparently can get quite a substantial noise from it. If they do it, I think that it ought, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, to come under Clause 1, the nuisance Clause, rather than the prohibition Clause.

Once one enters the realm of mechanical amplification, the case for complete prohibition is very much stronger. I suggest, therefore, that the wise thing for the House to do would be not to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment—I speak as an individual, expressing my own view only—but to leave the matter for action under Clause 1.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and hon. Members who have doubted the wisdom of the Amendment will consider the implications of what they are saying. I realise the difficulties of definition here and perhaps we ought to have a manuscript Amendment incorporating some term such as "musical instrument" instead of using words identifying a particular instrument. On the other hand, if this Amendment is not accepted and my hon. Friend's argument is rejected, the result will be to limit ourselves to mechanical methods of making noises through loudspeakers, and all that will mean is that the ice-cream vans about which we shall have more to say will cease to be equipped with mechanical means for making jingles. The ice-cream sellers will equip the drivers with sets of bagpipes, bugles or bells, and the nuisance which we are trying to stop will be recreated on an even wider scale.

Surely, the fact that this is associated with the purpose of advertising a trade or business is a sufficient limitation. If anyone wishes to use this kind of instrument for the purpose of selling something, he aught to be prohibited if it is done in a way to cause a nuisance. In my own constituency, a good deal of trouble is caused by this sort of thing.

In Dundee, we have a fine old boll-ringing tradition. Our traditional method of canvassing people and bringing them out to vote at elections is to have someone stand in the middle of the tenements and ring a dinner bell. There was a famous occasion in Dundee's political history when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was our Member. He was heckled by a dinner bell and the chairman put it to the meeting whether people wanted to hear the right hon. Gentleman or the dinner bell. The meeting voted overwhelmingly for the dinner bell.

There will have been protests in the housing estates of Dundee about the use of bells and other musical instruments for attracting trade.

The hon. Gentleman will remember that Lord Hailsham defeated the Labour Party with a bell.

I hoped that it was one of the motives behind the promotion of the Bill by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to deal with exactly that kind of thing.

I suggest that, if the actual form of words in the Amendment is not acceptable to the hon. Member for Hexham, he might consider a more general form of words to prevent musical instruments being used to make a nuisance for the purposes of trade.

The provision with which we are concerned is really in two parts. During daylight hours, between eight in the morning and nine in the evening, there is a prohibition for the purposes of advertising only. Between nine in the evening and eight in the morning, the prohibition is absolute for all purposes.

There is a later Amendment designed to alter the period of daylight hours covered for this purpose, it being intended to substitute six in the evening for nine in the evening. The effect of that would be not only to prohibit the blowing of a police whistle at certain hours, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, but, if the Amendment were accepted, it would then become illegal to sound a bicycle bell after six p.m.

I think that my hon. Friend has not seen that subsection (2, e) provides for the case of emergency. Subsection (1) does not then apply.

I suppose that that would cover the police whistle, but I doubt very much whether it would cover the bicycle bell. It seems to me that the proposed Amendment is far too wide and I hope that the House will not accept it.

By leave of the House, I should like to make one or two points in reply, particularly to what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabaro) said. I had in mind the danger which might result from defining certain musical instruments and leaving wide open loopholes, but, if I may say so, the Bill is riddled with them. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) ought not to talk about anything being too vague or going too far. When we come to certain of the later Amendments, we shall try to show him the danger of vagueness in the wording of the Bill. Even the term "loudspeaker" would, I presume, cover the hon. Member for Kidderminster. One does not know. One would not want to do anything to prohibit his activities in the streets or anywhere else. One really does not know from the terms of the Bill what the word "loudspeaker" covers.

What I was wishing to do in the Amendment was to define the instruments which it is alleged may be used or, indeed, which are being used in specific cases. The general manager at Glenrothes is a man of special responsibility and he would not send that kind of letter if he did not feel strongly about it. The ban is not absolute, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). There are other provisions in the Bill to limit the hours.

I should have thought that hon. Members would agree to put this provision in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Hexham thinks that it is too drastic, he could, on reflection, arrange for the other place to do something about it

I do not think that this is too wide at all. On looking at the provisions here, I see that they are all included in the byelaws of the local authority in the area where I live. There is nothing to stop a local authority in all these matters making byelaws. Indeed, in many cases they are there. I am generally in favour of including things in Acts of Parliament rather than in local authority byelaws, if it is possible. If it is reasonable for Government Departments to bless the byelaws of the local authority for the area in which I live, as the Parliamentary Secretary's Department has done, there is no reason why they should not bless this.

The difficulty about some of the suggestions made is that there is a provision in the Road Traffic Act against the sounding of a motor horn except to give audible warning of approach, but motor horns are being used by traders on their vans. In effect, that is illegal. The police do not prosecute. Even then, it would be necessary to have a complaint from two or three householders in order to deal with the matter. Very often, women will not take on themselves the odium of that during the week, so things are left to the weekend.

We have spoken a lot about the chimes of ice-cream vans. I know of a mobile shop which sounds a bell or a mechanical hooter. As I say, all these things are provided for already. If it is possible for the Department to meet in byelaws the exact things about which my hon. Friend is complaining, why cannot similar provisions be incorporated in the Bill?

I can only assume that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was being facetious when he spoke about police whistles, because nobody intended for a moment that the blowing of police whistles should be prohibited. It is covered by the emergency paragraph. On the other hand, it might be a good thing if whistles were sounded only by the police. Following that train of thought, I am reminded of something someone said about people whistling their dogs. I do not think that people whistle their dogs with mechanical whistles. Do they?

They do.

I should have thought that people could call their dogs in all sorts of ways, but hardly in that way. The bicycle bell would, I think, be covered by the existing Act of Parliament which provides for giving audible warning of approach of a vehicle. Therefore, on a Friday morning I do not think that we ought to put up all these Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. The short point is that the matter can be dealt with by byelaws.

I do not think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was putting up Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. In subsection (2, e) the hon. Member will find the words "in the case of emergency", and the opening words of subsection (2) are

"The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker."

So that this exemption in the case of emergency only applies to the special provision against loudspeakers. It would not cover a whistle.

if that is so, the short answer is that the matter obviously would have been dealt with in another place.

I think that it would be convenient to the House to consider with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) in page 3, line 3, that in the name of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) in page 3, line 3, to leave out "nine" and insert "six". I will put the Question on the first Amendment in a form which will keep the second Amendment open.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out from beginning to "for" in line 4 and to insert:

"at any time on a Sunday, or before ten o'clock in the morning or after seven o'clock in the evening, on any other day"

The purpose of the Amendment is two-fold—first, to extend the hours of prohibition on weekdays, and, secondly, to impose a complete prohibition on Sundays.

I do not move the Amendment because I am a strict Sabbatarian, nor am I a member of any bigoted organisation like the Lord's Day Observance Society. I recollect a week or two ago that wretched machine on the Thames, the Hovercraft, which is just an indication of the price that one has to pay for so-called progress. When we get this sort of thing, I think that Sunday should be distinguished from other days as much for its rest from the clang and clatter of our modern society as for its religious observance.

In this connection I have been reading the speeches in this House on the occasion of the suggested opening of the Festival of Britain Amusement Park in 1950–51. It was an extremely interesting debate. It was argued very forcibly largely by Members of the Conservative Party, although not by any means entirely —it was a non-party debate—first, that one ought not to make people work on Sundays if it could possibly be avoided, and, secondly, that we ought to minimise the noise of the everyday world on Sundays as much as possible.

I do not want to weary the House with quotations from that debate, but suffice it to say that the Government of the day, a Labour Government, were defeated by a very substantial majority on the question of the opening of the Fun Fair, largely on the grounds that it would be noisy, that it would be an affront to our traditional Sunday observance, and that it would be an advance towards what was described as a Continental Sunday.

Hear, hear.

In those circumstances, I think that I am on firm ground in moving the Amendment, particularly the part of it relating to complete prohibition on Sundays. I believe that there is great and growing concern among our people at the intrusion of noise into our Sundays. I hope that the promotion of the Bill will see fit to accept this part of the Amendment.

The second part of the Amendment seeks to extend the hours instead of from nine in the evening to eight in the morning to seven in the evening to ten in the morning. First, children, in particular, go to bed fairly early and are woken up quite often by this clanging and wretched din in the street. If that noise were to continue until nine o'clock at night it would be extremely difficult for children to settle down.

The reason for the proposal to extend the hour from eight o'clock to ten o'clock in the morning is this. If I might refer again to the letter from Glenrothes, this wretched din of bugles, whistles and a whole cacophony of horrible sounds starts at seven in the morning. I want to stop that until ten o'clock in the morn- ing, when children have gone to school and mothers have gone shopping. I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Spier) will see fit to accept the Amendment.

I am in favour of the Amendment to a certain degree, but I am not in favour of that part of it which refers to seven o'clock in the evening. I think that it should be 6 p.m. I am not impressed by the propaganda which we have received from Messrs. Wall & Sons which the promoter of the Bill seems to have accepted. The point is not that the noise is limited to so many decibels by sealed equipment. The bother to suburban life is the incessant noise.

The only reason why I came to the House today was an experience I had last Sunday. By four o'clock, five ice-cream vans had gone past any house. I live at No. 159 in a certain road and at the end they come down. In effect there was a constant cacophony until four o'clock. Whatever Wall & Sons may say about the limited number of decibels in its curious instrument, I very much doubt whether it cannot be interfered with. Simply because Wall & Sons has limited its instrument—let us assume for the sake of argument that it has limited the noise—other ice-cream vendors have pitched their instrument at a higher note and on a louder volume merely to indicate that they have something different.

At four o'clock, because a child had been awakened, I went to see one of the young men who drive the vans. He had not an idea about the law. It was no use telling him that the Lord Chief Justice had upheld the Newport Corporation in a famous case. He could not have cared less. He merely shrugged his shoulders when I said to him, "Cannot you pipe down, chum?" He just sounded all of the bells, I suppose as a way of showing his derision, and moved off. I had no doubt that the local authority was protected by bye-laws, and I made a complaint, but I was told, "Find the other witnesses" It is difficult to get people to come forward to make a complaint and go down to the police court. In the road in which I live it would be literally true to say that we were not free of noise from ice-cream vans from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has mentioned the name of one firm involved in this matter. Can he give us the names of the other firms who are disturbing him?

I think there must be some restriction in the interests of order. I am not sure about this device which torments the hon. Member. I do not know whether it operates by loudspeaker at all, and this Amendment is concerned with loudspeakers.

They are mechanical devices. I would not wish to get into controversy with the Chair on the subject of the nomenclature, but they are recording instruments which amplify the sound and which any less friendly engineer would call a loudspeaker.

May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the fact that there is another Amendment later on the Notice Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), to page 3, line 31, after first "loudspeaker", to insert:

"between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening of the same day".

and suggest that it might be convenient to discuss the matter of these chimes on that Amendment?

I am trying to speak about five ice-cream vendors, only one of which, on their own testimony, probably qualifies for the chimes. Some of them, certainly, amplify the sound through loudspeakers.

What, about the other four?

I do not think I would be justified in doing that, because none of the other four have submitted to Members of the House, as Wall's ice-cream people have done, their own testimony. Had they done so, I would have done it. I do not necessarily want to charge the firm concerned with something which their employees may have done to offend me. I do not think I would be justified in giving a list of all the ice-cream vendors who passed on that occasion. When we get a great organisation like Walls submitting something to hon. Members of this House, I am justified in answering it, and that is the line I tried to take. I hope people will consider it a proper line to take in these circumstances.

I intend to burke anything which tends to take a completely Sabbatarian view. I appreciate that ice-cream is the sort of thing that is wanted, and that one can use it for a sweet. I find a difficulty with this point which I think my hon. Friend finds himself.

There is nothing to restrict a man from trading. The Amendment does restrict people from advertising by hooting and blowing, but there is nothing to stop them going round the streets.

I take my hon. Friend's point, and I have no doubt that in the last resort I shall probably come down on his side. I think my hon. Friend is being modest in suggesting seven o'clock, and I would prefer six o'clock. My objection is to incessant noise, and one would imagine from the literature which they put out that Messrs. Wall are the only ice-cream vendors. They are not, though they may be the principal people in their own field. There are plenty of imitators, and there is no doubt why they should not continue to go on being imitated by other people.

I have always looked upon the Sabbath day, not as some people do, as a spiritual necessity, but as a physical necessity. It is necessary on behalf of oneself and one's children to have one day in seven free from the turmoil of the week.

The hon. Member for Fife. West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is much braver than I was in putting down his Amendment. I think that all will agree that what we are trying to get at here is noise, which, certainly in the inner ring of London, about which I can speak with some authority, is becoming absolutely maddening. One after another, not only ice-cream vans but even the paraffin man and everybody else comes round. What we are trying to do is to restrict noise, and also to protect two categories of people, one the night workers and the other the children.

I think that some Amendment should be accepted, and I am perfectly willing to compromise on this. I think that silence on Sundays has a great deal of merit, but perhaps we are going a little too far in the hon. Member's Amendment in restricting noise in the evenings. There is no question about it: London has become an absolute menace. People who work at night find it almost impossible to sleep during the day. Is it all necessary? The milkman in the morning does not have to ring a bell, because he knows that he can deliver the milk. It may be possible to induce many who are now making noises to adopt what was an extremely good idea before the war—that of placing a card in the window of a flat or house for the vendor to see. A great deal of nuisance was saved in that way.

I am quite prepared to be reasonable about the Amendment and to consider other suggestions, and, if you, Mr. Speaker, will accept a manuscript Amendment, perhaps we could arrive at a compromise.

I should be resistant to any manuscript Amendment fiddling about with the hours any more.

As I have emphasised on several occasions, the object of the Bill is to restrain noise, to control it and abate it, but not to abolish it altogether. The Bill is essentially a compromise between extremists who would like to go too far and those who want no control at all.

With due respect, I suggest to Parliament that in a matter of this kind, a somewhat novel matter, in which we are quite definitely restricting the liberty of the subject—in this case, the right of the individual to make a noise—it behoves Parliament to go warily and cautiously. It behoves us also in this issue especially to remember that we are dealing with a very complicated subject, which is also somewhat of an emotional subject, on which strong views are held by many people. We ought, therefore, to go cautiously.

I believe that it would be a great mistake for this Bill to go too fast or too far. We ought to recall once again that the Government have set up a Departmental Committee to look into the whole problem of noise. That Committee is already at work. At this stage, therefore, we ought not to go beyond a reasonable limit, and I think that a reasonable limit is to say that there should be no loudspeakers in the streets between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.

I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to the fact that if the noise is unreasonable, as apparently it was in his case last Sunday, it is within his power and within the power of the police and the local authority to take action under the Clause as it is now drafted, or even under Clause 1. But to go further than that at this stage and to increase the hours of total prohibition not only to include 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. but also all day on Sundays would be somewhat excessive.

In a later Amendment, I am suggesting a further restriction on ice-cream chimes; I suggest that they should be prohibited between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. I hope that the House will agree with me that we should now act cautiously, and that this proposed Amendment is somewhat excessive and unreasonable at this stage. Again, I emphasise that if in any area ice-cream vendors are abusing their privileges—and I realise that there are such areas—it is up to the local authorities to introduce a special byelaw to deal with that problem. I therefore hope that the House will not accept this Amendment.

I ask the House to think for a moment about the problems which mothers have in trying to get their children to bed and to sleep. All of us who represent London constituencies are familiar with the large blocks of flats which have been erected by the local authorities. We all know about the continuous noise which takes place around these flats, with people coming into the flats and making noises of one sort or another, ringing hells, sounding these "musical" chimes and assaulting the ears of the people on whom they have their trading designs.

Mothers come home from work, having been at work during the day, and their first job is to put the children to bed. Their first interruption takes place generally about the time they arrive home, for the vendor, knowing that the mother has arrived home from work, starts his operations about 6 p.m. Getting the children to sleep in competition with people who keep the radio on too loud, and with people who slam doors, is bad enough, but, on top of it, to have not only the noise which the trader makes but also the awakened desire in the child for the things which the trader is selling, particularly ice cream, gives the mother a devil of a job. We should ensure that when children ought to be going to sleep, they can go to sleep and that other people are not allowed to go around awakening them.

Life in London is bad enough as it is. There is a hideous cacophony of noise. Motor buses are too noisy and motor cycles are a menace. People who live near airfields have a bad time with the noise from aeroplanes. That is excluded from the Bill. But there are some positive things which we can do in the Bill.

I see no reason why there should not be this prohibition from 6 p.m. Most shops close before 6 p.m. The traders in them have done their trade. People want to be at home and to be quiet. They do not want competition with family life in this way.

My hon. Friend says that people do not want to be disturbed in the evenings. In that event, how is it that the great bulk of ice cream is sold between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.? He should remember that most adults do not arrive home until after 6 p.m. and that this is the time, therefore, of the greatest demand for ice cream.

I do not deny that I have seen some of the propaganda issued by some of the ice-cream manufacturers in which they say that they sell 35 to 50 per cent. of their produce in the evenings. I am not suggesting that they should not do so. I am sugesting that they should sell it quietly and that they should not go into the courtyards of flats, kick up a row and cause annoyance there. I see no reason that they should not do a house-to-house sale exactly as the milkman does.

It is not beyond the wit or intelligence of the sales managers of these vast international organisations, such as that to which Messrs. Wall belong, to devise some way of selling ice cream quietly. They used to sell it quietly and there is no reason why they should not do that again. It is wrong that, simply in the interests of their being able to make themselves more effective and more efficient, they should make people's lives miserable with their noise. They could adjust themselves to selling without noise. They could do what is done in other parts of the country. In Huyton, for example, there are people who have given up using these methods of attracting customers and are simply going from door to door in their selling, which is much better in every way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) knows that a man who goes into a courtyard with a loudspeaker, about 6 p.m., trying to induce the inhabitants to vote for him, makes himself pretty unpopular. It is much better to go quietly on to the doorstep than to use a loudspeaker. Indeed, I should like to see political loudspeakers banned, too. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Claplham (Dr. A. Glyn) were accepted it would be impossible for loudspeakers to be used for political purposes after 6 p.m. No sensible candidate would ever use a loudspeaker after 6 p.m., in any event, for the very reason that it outrages parents who are trying to put their children to sleep. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The hon. Member says, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander," but I would point out to him that what is good for an urban area may not necessarily be good for a rural area. There is a big difference. The Clause applies throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. In certain cases, therefore, it is far better to rely for more stringent regulations on local byelaws.

If the hon. Member is concerned only about rural areas and he likes to arrange in another place to say that this noise shall not be made in London, between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m., I shall be ready to accept that.

It could be the Metropolitan Police area.

Yes. I should not mind that at all. If people living in rural areas do not mind the ice-cream vendors making a noise at 8.45 p.m. in the villages, then I do not mind the rural areas being excluded from the provision which I suggest. I am speaking about London, where we have a large concentration of people who can be disturbed, and a great many children preparing for sleep at the time when these noises are taking place. For this reason and the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I support the Amendment.

We are in some difficulty with the Amendment. I am very much in sympathy with the first part of it, which relates to Sundays, and not very much in sympathy with the second part of it, which restricts the hours. I should like to add something to what has been said by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the sanctity of Sunday in this context. I take exactly the same view on this subject as the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Sabbatarian views apart, the most important function on Sunday in a personal sense is to obtain leisure in the peace and quietness of one's own home. I think that that is the wish of the overwhelming majority of the working men and women in this country.

I am not in a position to comment on the Walls ice-cream controversy. It may be strange, but I have never heard one of these Walls ice-cream noises. I do not live in London and they do not operate between the hours of 11.30 p.m. and 7.30 a.m., which is the only period I am in my room in London when Parliament is sitting. Out of London and in a rural area where I live, there are no Walls ice-cream vans going round. I am therefore not in a position to comment on the controversy.

What I feel with great fervour is that it is wholly wrong for any kind of loudspeaker, or instrument akin to it, to operate at any time on a Sunday. There is no reason for that kind of thing at all. Half-a-dozen people have come to me in the last few days and have said, "Mr. Nabarro, do not stop the Walls ice-cream van from going round. We like it and it tells us when we can go out to buy ice cream."There may be divided views about this.

There are.

I am not prepared to make a decision one way or another at this stage, but I feel strongly that most people who buy their ice cream for week-end use could buy it on Saturday instead of Sunday.

It is perishable.

No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has heard of a refrigerator. In houses without a refrigerator, there are other means of preserving ice cream. I do not want to go into the technicalities of ice-cream preservation. I am neither for nor against Messrs. Wall. Evidently they have carried out a magnificent propaganda campaign in the House of Commons with their pamphlets. But I believe that noise from loudspeakers and similar instruments on a Sunday ought to be the subject of total prohibition.

I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham at this stage. This is a matter which can be considered by the inter-Departmental Committee on noise which was announced in response to a Parliamentary Question put down by myself last December. This Sabbatarian issue of noise, especially in the context of loudspeakers, ought to be decided by that Committee, not by the Bill.

I recall with interest the Parliamentary occasion in 1951 to which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) referred when one of the most heated debates to which I have listened in this House arose on a free vote about whether the Festival Gardens and the Fun Fair at Battersea should be open on Sunday. I was one of those who took the view—I am not sure whether I spoke during the debate—that the noise that would be created by a fair of that kind was unwarranted, and that as the overwhelming majority of people worked a five-day week they could go to the fair on Saturday and thus not disturb the large numbers of men and women who seek the quietness and leisure of their own homes on the Sabbath day.

I feel the same about loudspeakers. I am not prepared to vote on that today because it is an issue which the interdepartmental Committee will have to decide. The Committee will have to decide the place of the Sabbath in this matter of the general nuisance of all noise.

We are in danger of getting confused about the effects of the Amendment because the position is that during the hours of night loudspeaker work would be forbidden. During the hours of the day all advertising loudspeakers would be forbidden. Later in the Bill we come to a question of whether an exception should be made for perishable commodities, but that will be decided later, and not now, and the terms under which the exception should be granted to perishable commodities is presumably a matter that ought to be discussed later.

What we are discussing now is not the limitations which ought to be put on advertising loudspeakers, because they are prohibited absolutely in the terms of Clause 2 (1, b) and therefore the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) about ice-cream vans do not arise on the Amendment. The question is, should we allow any other form of loudspeaker work apart from commercial advertising?

I do not share the view—which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford shares—that election loudspeaking ought to be forbidden. I fancy my skill on the loudspeaker and I think that by and large I benefited in my constituency by yodelling over the loudspeaker. One benefits provided one does it with reasonable care, with reasonable consideration, and with reasonable political accuracy—qualities which I endeavoured to use in my election campaign.

I should not like to see the complete abolition of the use of loudspeakers for all purposes all the time, but I think that there is probably something to be said for abolishing it on Sundays. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about that, but we have been warned, Mr. Speaker, that you would take a poor view of any attempt to reach a compromise on this by a manuscript Amendment, and after the last few days it would be a bold man who resisted your views on that. We are, therefore, faced with the prospect of leaving the position as it is in the Bill, from 9 p.m. until 8 a.m., which I should have thought was not unreasonable as a prohibition for non-commercial loudspeaker work.

Commercial loudspeaker work will come up for discussion in connection with perishable commodities, and I think that it would be better then to discuss chimes, ice cream, Messrs. Wall, and so on.

I reinforce what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said. I advise the House to be cautious about these sweeping changes. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has stressed the power of local authorities to protect their inhabitants by introducing byelaws. The Bill will give them added protection under Clause 1 and the Clause we are now discussing wherever any noise is made such as causes a nuisance.

I must remind the House that total prohibitions are rather dangerous weapons to apply unless there has been long and serious consideration of the side effects. There might be a number of implications to a total ban, quite apart from the political ones that have been raised. I remind the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) that, however much he may disapprove of canvassing by loudspeaker, he would probably be in favour of permitting parties, just before the hour when the polls close on election night—be they local, national, or small bye-elections—to remind electors that they have half an hour or so to go. That sort of power would be totally removed by prohibition, and I suggest that we should be cautious and await the results of more research into this subject.

I do not want to shelter commercial interests behind religious arguments, but there are religious bodies who in certain parts of the country summon people to meetings on Sundays by means of loudspeakers. That is not an argument for necessarily saying that amplifiers should be allowed on Sundays, but it is an argument for saying that we should await the results of the research and examination into noise, and the implications of prohibiting it.

I hesitate to say it, but, as the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) reminded the House, some people welcome notification by amplifier of something that is going on.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) reminded the House, the Wilson Committee has been set up and has started work on this problem. Therefore, we have not the alternative of allowing things to be as in the Bill and never touching them again. We have the alternative of reconsidering all the aspects of noise with the benefit and advice the Wilson Committee will give the Government and the country. I advise the House to be rather cautious of this drastic change, to await the Report of the Wilson Committee, and in the meantime to leave the Bill as drafted.

I recognise the force of the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments, but I think that they are arguments in favour of getting rid of the Bill. That seems to be the natural and logical conclusion to draw. I accept the dangers of a total ban, and I can clearly see the implications of it.

I was not aware that people in Britain were summoned to church by loudspeakers.

To church meetings.

I am sorry, to church meetings. I feel pretty strongly about Sunday loudspeaker work, not entirely because I represent a Scottish constituency—although the feelings about the Sabbath in Scotland are pretty strong—but because of my unhappy experience as a resident in the inner London area mentioned by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). I live in Dulwich near a big London County Council estate and we have to put up with an incessant din from early morning until late at night on Sunday, the day when one wants to sit back and read, or lounge about generally, instead of being a member of a captive audience.

I cannot do anything about it. It is all very well for the Minister and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) saying that one can take it up with one's local authority and with the police, but one knows how apathetic people are about these things. If it involves writing a letter or telephoning people are inclined to suffer in silence. If it were put into a Bill passed by the House that necessity would be obviated.

If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) feels that people are apathetic, will he get in touch with the honorary secretary of the Noise Abatement Society, 6, Old Bond Street, who is far from being apathetic? He is very active, and has wonderful powers of persuasion. I strongly recommend the hon. Member and his constituents to consult him and, if they desire, to join the Noise Abatement Society.

I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is a member.

I am not; they are extremists.

It is difficult to goad people into activity, whether the people take the form of a local authority or anybody else. We suffer from the major disease of apathy, and the House must "take the can back" in its legislation. If we insert a provision in the Bill it behoves local authorities to take action if it is abused by ice-cream vendors or anybody else. I have a strong impression that tremendous vested interests are at work here. They have used their influence to dampen down whatever restrictions might be imposed in the Bill.

I am very much in sympathy with the hon. Member, but is he aware that the Wilson Committee, which is dealing with the question of noise, is prepared to take evidence from Members of Parliament, among other persons? I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government with a special request to be allowed to appear before the Committee and give personal evidence about noise. Will the hon. Member consider doing something in this matter?

I shall be very glad to. I hope that that Committee will have in front of it the record of our proceedings today.

I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hexham has met our point. He talked about the rural areas, but we are concerned with the urban areas, where this nuisance is a damnable one. I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are prepared to divide the Committee on it.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "nine" and to insert "six".

I am sure the House will agree that this Amendment is a complete compromise concerning the hours during which a loudspeaker may be used. I think that we should be firm about this, particularly in view of what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) said about children. It is quite impossible for mothers to get their children to bed, and the matter equally applies to shift workers. They should be given some measure of protection so as to enable them to take their rest in the evening.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Amendment as being a compromise in this matter.

When replying to the debate on a previous Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary advised the House not to take any action that would make sweeping changes in the Bill in view of the Wilson Committee's deliberations. This Amendment is not a sweeping change. Indeed, it falls very close indeed to a later Amendment on page 2159 in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). Therefore, there is nothing revolutionary about it. It just proposes shortening the period in the interest, as the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has said, of the children. I hope, therefore, that the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the House on the previous Amendment will not, in his view, apply to this Amendment, which I hope the House will accept.

I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment because I think that it would be too sweeping, in spite of what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has said. It would mean, for instance, that there would be no possibility of calling up voters at election times or urging them to vote when coming off trains or on other special occasions.

Surely the hon. Gentleman heard what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that an exception could quite easily be made in another place.

Of course, exceptions can be made quite easily, but it is not so easy to get them through another place and through this place again before the end of the Session.

Another reason why I think that it would be unfortunate to accept the Amendment is that it would mean that loudspeakers could not be used after 6 p.m. in the evening on behalf of charitable organisations and for all sorts of other reasons. They are not used very often.

As the hon. Gentleman said, if a candidate causes a nuisance by the use of a loudspeaker he is more likely to lose votes than to gain them. There are all sorts of functions, particularly in rural areas, such as fetes and other special occasions, where it would not be possible, if the Amendment were accepted, to use any form of amplifier after 6 p.m.

I think that there is a case for limiting the chimes of ice-cream vendors after 6 p.m. and I will, if I may, put down an Amendment to that effect later on. However, I do not think that it would he right at this stage to accept such a sweeping Amendment as this.

The hon. Gentleman is being very difficult on his Bill. I should have thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) were overwhelming. We are discussing an Amendment designed primarily to protect the vast numbers of children in our community. Young children—I have two of them—who go to bed quite early are consistently and continually disturbed by this damnable din. All that we are trying to do is to stop it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to persist in this attitude throughout the rest of the Bill because, otherwise, I can see him landing himself into all kinds of difficulties.

I am sure that 9 p.m. in the evening is too late to allow loudspeakers to be used. By that time, many mothers have put their children to bed. To allow loudspeakers to be used so late as 9 p.m. is a mistake, and the House now has an opportunity of limiting the time during which they may he used.

Six o'clock might appear to some hon. Members to be unnecessarily early. I have received a letter from the largest ice-cream manufacturers in the country and I regard what they say with some respect because they have gone to great trouble to find a loudspeaker chime for use on their vehicles which is not an annoyance. On this point, the company suggested to me, and to other hon. Members, that 9 p.m. was perhaps too late—it admitted that—and suggested that 6 p.m. was possibly a little early.

I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but neither do I want him to confuse the House on this question. This Amendment has got nothing to do with ice-cream vendors. It deals with non-commercial, non-advertising loudspeaker work. The question of up to what time commercial loudspeakers should be allowed to be used comes later in the Bill.

That is so. I was only using the analogy of loudspeaker chimes for commercial purposes in order to point out that at least one sizeable company had considered carefully the nuisance which might arise at a particular time of night and it came down in favour of a time between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. It suggested 7 p.m. as a suitable time when the noise should cease. I think there is much sense in that suggestion. Nine o'clock is certainly too late in my opinion for loudspeaker amplification to continue. Six o'clock may be somewhat early to enforce an end to loudspeaker amplification, and possibly 7 p.m. would meet the point.

If it were considered helpful, I or some other hon. Members could, of course with your consent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, hand in a manuscript Amendment with a view to making the suggested time 7 p.m. I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that 9 p.m. is certainly too late from the point of view of sleep for young children which is necessary to ensure their good health.

My name is on the back of the Bill. I want to see it enacted although I am not very much concerned one way or the other on these small details, because in matters of this sort if one pleases one set of people one displeases another. They are the kind of matters on which opinion would probably be equally divided.

On this matter of hours, the Bill has just survived. It only needed four people to abstain on the last Division and as far as today was concerned the Bill would have been dead. How many hon. Members are having lunch and how many think that we have now passed the critical stage is a matter for guessing. If the hon. Members cannot reach an agreement and insist on having a Division, it may mean that for the rest of the afternoon we shall be free.

Oh, no. We shall have the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill to deal with.

No we shall not.

Oh, yes. I am watching the clock carefully, because I have a Bill of equal importance to follow the discussion on this Bill. Is not the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) a little inaccurate in saying that if in a Division the aggregate numbers of hon. Members in the two Lobbies is not 40 the proceedings come to an end? On the contrary. If there are less than 40 hon. Members, a count is called, and then if 40 hon. Members are not mustered the Bill falls. But the following Bill does not fall.

In view of the fact that the discussion on the Bill is running late, and to save the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at the end to insert:

"and any road or path on a public authority's housing estate".

To many hon. Members this may seem a small point but hon. Members who live in London will realise that it is extremely important. Vast areas in London have not been taken over by the public authorities, and an enormous number of roads and streets which until recently were not subject to police control would be completely outside the scope of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted the provisions of the Bill would become effective throughout practically the whole of London.

Local authority estates in London cover large areas. Some time ago I had considerable difficulty in getting them policed and it was only because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was extremely co-operative and kind that London police were able to control these vast areas. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, because it will extend the provisions of the Bill to the areas which I have mentioned.

I sympathise with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). He raised this point in Committee and I hoped that I had satisfied him. In London, at any rate, private streets are generally open to the public and if they are so open and if my hon. Friend will look at line 10, on page 3, he will see a definition of "street" which means

"a highway and any other road, footway, square or court which is for the time being open to the public."

If such places are not open to the public, if they are private property, then the normal means of protecting the property from trespassers and others should be adequate to deal with this problem. In any event, I feel that the definition of "public authority" would be extremely difficult to enforce. I think it a vague phrase and I should be reluctant to see the Amendment added to the Bill.

The difficulty is that there may be places in which salesmen should not enter, such as the courtyard of a housing estate, and where, because they are trespassing, they would be exempt from the provisions of the byelaw. Were they obeying the law and in an ordinary public street, not necessarily one maintained at public expense, they would come within the provisions of the Bill. But if they forced their way into a courtyard of a block of flats, for example, they might be protected. I think that is what he hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has in mind and I share his misgivings. We must be careful that protection is given to people who live in blocks of flats of that kind.

On reading the text of the Bill it appeared to me that the provisions were adequate, but having listened to what the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) had to say and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I am now in some doubt. Surely this is a matter on which the House is entitled to receive guidance from the Minister.

Here there is a difficulty, because we must be careful not to intrude upon private property, whether it be local authority property or property owned by a private individual. A landlord can make any legitimate regulations which seem fit to him in order to protect his tenants. I am advised that normal courtyards and public means of access into local authority blocks of flats or housing estates would come within the provisions of the Bill.

If hon. Gentlemen say that there are passageways and corridors which do not come within the provisions of the Bill then definitely they are within the control of the landlord and he can make suitable regulations. So here we have three sets of protection for the tenant. First, there are the local byelaws which local inhabitants can ask the local authority to make; secondly, there are the provisions of this Bill and, thirdly, for the private parts of local authority premises there are landlord regulations. So I think that the understandable concern of the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied by the definition within the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from beginning to "as" in line 20 and insert:

(b) for communicating with persons on a vessel for the purpose of directing the movement of that or any other vessel;

(c) if the loudspeaker forms part of a public telephone system;

(d) if the loudspeaker—

(i) is in or fixed to a vehicle, and

(ii) is operated solely for the entertainment of or for communicating with the driver or a passenger of the vehicle or, where the loudspeaker is or forms part of the horn or similar warning instrument of the vehicle, solely for giving warning to other traffic, and

(iii) is so operated".

I think It would be convenient if the House discussed, with this proposed Amendment, the three Amendments to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), which are not selected for a Division, namely, to leave out "operated" and insert "intended to operate "at the beginning of paragraph (d, ii); to insert "is being so operated" at the end of the same paragraph, and to leave out paragraph (d, iii).

I wish to ask the House to accept this rearrangement because of the points made during the Committee stage discussions when my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) drew attention to the fact that there are a number of people who are not Crown servants and who are concerned with the movement of ships. They may come within the provisions of the Clause unless this exemption is provided. Therefore, this introduces an additional saving for loudspeakers and loud hailers used for addressing ships from places on land which would otherwise fall within the definition of a street in Clause 2 (1).

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 30 to 39.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be in order at the same time to discuss with this Amendment in my name: in line 31 after first "loudspeaker", insert:

"between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening of the same day".

Yes, I am obliged to the hon. Member. I think it would be convenient to discuss that Amendment with the proposed Amendment and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton): in line 32, leave out paragraph (a).

It is quite clear that I am trying to exclude absolutely from the Bill privilege given to those people who convey a perishable commodity for human consumption. This is where we get into the realm of the ice-cream vendor, because that has become, as it were, the privileged totem before which we have all been bowing. It is the existence of the nuisance of these vendors who go round with vans and give audible warning of the fact that they are present.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) made some play with the very considerable efforts made by one firm of Ice-cream manufacturers who say that they modulate the tones of the chimes in such a way as to make them practically unobjectionable. That firm has circulated to all hon. Members a memorandum in which it says that the tune which is played is composed of "dulcimer sounds". Whatever" dulcimer sounds" are, I do not know.

Douce.

A sweet sound?

Euphonious.

I suppose it is a case of beauty being in the ear of the beholder. The firm says that a sequence of notes was composed by a well-known musician. To help us, his name is given, but I do not propose to repeat the name because I wish to do him no harm whatever. The object is to produce a melodious sound which is in no way raucous or annoying, but no firm can say that a noise is in no way raucous or annoying. A noise acceptable to someone walking along the street may be raucous and annoying to someone who is trying to sleep. A noise which may be acceptable to someone who is fit and well is raucous and annoying to someone who is ill. A noise which may be perfectly acceptable to a mother while she is doing her housework, is absolute hell for her when she is trying to put the children to sleep.

The fact is that we have now got into the habit of accepting such a variety of noises in our streets. I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), when he gives evidence before the Wilson Committee, will cast his argument as wide as he possibly can in order to cover these multitudinous noises. We are beginning to accept the right—and the hon. Member for Hexham seems to be attempting to enshrine this right—of some people to assault the ears of the people to whom they want to sell their goods. They are taking advantage of what the advertising profession calls "the captive audience", the audience which cannot get away.

When I was in America a few years ago there was a great attempt to have advertising on the suburban—or, as they call them, the "commuter"—trains, in buses, and places like Grand Central Station. The New Yorkers, who are a much more sturdy and independent race than many Londoners, said that they would not permit the captive audience to be treated in that way. The one great thing which can be said for commercial television is that one can switch it off, but one cannot switch off the noise made by the vendor who, whatever he is selling, is determined to make as much noise as he can, and who gets away with it—this is what has to be remembered —in the pursuit of his trade.

The argument that these noises practically do not exist is really quite ridiculous. The noises produced for the sole purpose of advertising the goods. It is like a mute man trying to speak if the advertiser says that practically no one can hear what he is saying, or that it is so melodious that it does not disturb anyone. These noises are designed to disturb people. They are designed to strike a chord of desire in the heart of someone so that he will rush out from what he is doing and go down the street or into the courtyard to buy.

How does a cacophonous sound strike a chord of desire?

It has the same effect as the effect on Pavlov's dogs. It will be remembered that the dogs salivate at the ringing of a bell. A great many people salivate at the ringing of ice-cream chimes and the desire for ice-cream is created.

In a speech I made a little time ago, I mentioned the fact that in Huyton, near Liverpool, there is great objection to what is going on. I have a letter from a man living there who says:

"One firm has started house-to-house hawking, quietly, in the time-honoured way; this gives no offence, at least they know where to call, and no man should find his livelihood suffers as house-to-house hawking takes in more people and captures more business".

This development of noise is something which is comparatively new. The people who are using it say so. They announce that it is very successful. That I am not denying. All I deny is the announcement of people who think they are doing well by it and insist on doing it. It is a comparatively new development which is arising and there is a great deal of opposition to and criticism of it. I doubt if many hon. Members in this House as a result of this Bill have not had letters complaining about what is going on in their constituencies, particularly those who represent urban and Metropolitan constituencies such as mine.

At the risk of wearying the House, I am afraid that I shall have to give some quotations from letters I have received, but, before doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I grant to Messrs. Walls that theirs is a modulated sound—I shall not call it music, but a sound. If it were that and no more, if Messrs. Walls' vans went down a street once a day playing this tune, I agree that it would be tolerable, but down our streets day after day there are going, not one of these vans, but five or six, seven and, in some cases, ten. They are following each other down the street, each getting more noisy than the one before. We had a man in Deptford called Rossi going down the streets and Deptford Borough Council is going after him because he is the noisiest of the lot. It is a sort of rising crescendo of noise which goes on particularly on Sundays.

A man wrote from Southgate:

"Vendors were still ringing chimes in this neighbourhood at 10 o'clock yesterday, Sunday"

That was 10 o'clock at night. From Ruislip came a letter to say:

"We are visited by about six of these ice-cream vans continually."

From Chislehurst:

"Every weekend we are forced to listen to the continuous noise of these vans. If Mr. Speir thinks that the sound is innocuous, he should listen to it from early Sunday morning until dusk."

From Edgware:

"On Sundays at 11.30 a.m. we hear them at least 12 times in succession in half an hour; 3 times in one street not more than 200 yards long. In the afternoon (Sundays) it starts again at 2.45 p.m. then 5 p.m., when people are resting, not to mention the sick and aged. Although I am totally deaf in one ear I can hear it two streets away… I spent a time in Edgware Hospital last year and the patients were unable to sleep when the chimes were played."

From Bedford:

"In this town they follow each other round the streets to the great disturbance of aged folk and especially to those who work at night and sleep during the day."

From Bradford:

"This is a new estate, privately built, and the tenants are working people. Quite a few of these tenants, like my husband, are forced to work on a permanent night shift… When my husband comes home in the morning, has a meal, and retires about 9 a.m., he is no sooner asleep than he is rudely awakened by a bread salesman, who presses his hooter so often and so loudly that I'm sure it could be heard a mile away…."

Another letter comes from Islington, but I will not quote that. They all follow each other in a perfect pattern.

The people who want to permit these noises to continue make no reference to the fact that many people work at night.

Many Londoners work at night for our safety and our comfort—newspapermen, policemen, railway workers and so on. They are entitled to the protection of the House to see that they get as much quiet as they possibly can in the daytime. Hon. Members who have been on all-night sittings and who have tried to sleep in the daytime will know what it is like. The ordinary noises are bad enough, but when there is a series of these people making their noises one after another down the street, sleep becomes impossible. When men have to change their shifts, as many constantly do—they are sometimes on night shift and sometimes on day shift—it takes them a little time to get accustomed to having to sleep in the daytime in any case. It is an infliction upon them that they should be treated in this way.

I know that the hon. Member for Hexham has had ice-cream vendors in mind, but there are others, too. Travelling shops are becoming quite popular. There are "gents" going round the city evading having to pay the rates when renting a shop and using travelling shops. They have only to carry some perishable commodity, butter or eggs, or some milk, and they will be covered by the Clause and able to start blowing their musical instruments.

I see no reason why this should be any exception. I do not see why it should be right for us to say, "This is a piecemeal Bill for the abatement of noise; nevertheless, we will do what we can to cut it down, but not for someone who is going round selling perishable articles."

It does not matter what the article is. Making this noise is an invasion of people's privacy and an infliction on a captive audience of a noise from which they cannot escape. Pending the decision of the Wilson Committee—and I am certain that it will have to deal with this problem—the best thing the hon. Member for Hexham can do to try to preserve people's peace and quiet is to accept the Amendment.

I do not wish to detain the House very long. The crux of the whole situation is that the object of the Amendment is to ensure that no category of vendor is given some special privilege. I am not against ice-cream merchants or anybody else, or vested interests, but I am against giving one category of vendor some specific protection in an Act of Parliament in order to increase his sales or some other financial advantage.

The Clause probably hits the ice-cream people most. Everybody likes ice cream, but the extension of this practice in the last ten years has become obnoxious and throughout London, as the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, we are also having mobile shops which do not pay rates. I am not against mobile shops, but I am against giving them some specific extra protection which is not given to the man who sells paraffin. Why should the man who sells perishable goods be given a greater measure of protection than the paraffin dealer? It is useless to say that perishables have to be sold on the same day, because, with modern methods of refrigeration, there is no substance in that argument.

What we are trying to do is to protect all types of people, particularly shift workers, as the hon. Member for Deptford said. I am prepared to go to the extent of saying that in London we have a special case and it may be that in small villages these vans are not so obnoxious because they do not appear so frequently. But in London, in which I am especially interested, this practice has become an absolute menace. This form of trading in our society is growing and I cannot see that these people have any objection to competing on equal terms with any other vendor of any other commodity.

I see no reason why, if a person wishes to buy ice cream or any other perishable commodity, he cannot arrange that the van should come round a specific time so that everybody on the estate or in the road can know full well that that commodity is available for sale in the street. Nor is there any reason why we should not have the arrangement which Carter Paterson had before the war of having notices in windows so that the vans can call at a particular time and the salesman can knock at the door and sell his goods.

I object to the Clause, not because I am against ice-cream people, but because I do not think it right to give special exemption to one category of vendor while leaving another at a disadvantage.

I support the Amendment. Indeed, I was rather puzzled that there should be any need to move such an Amendment. I am as puzzled as the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that the Clause should contain such an illogical exemption. When I first heard that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had had the good fortune to be successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills—

Not the good fortune.

—when I heard that the hon. Member was to go on from abolishing litter to abolishing noise, one of my immediate reactions was that that was fine and that we were about to get rid of a terrible, commercial jingle-jangle which had been growing steadily in most urban areas in the last few years.

I am puzzled that this exemption should have been inserted and, to judge by the amount of mail I have received, my constituents are equally puzzled. This is a considerable problem on the housing estates of the City of Dundee and in many other cities and industrial towns in Scotland.

It became an important issue in our recent municipal election campaigns and one notable municipal election meeting in the City of Dundee was attended by all three candidates for the ward and they all enthusiastically pledged themselves to take steps to abolishing loudspeakers on commercial vehicles, particularly chimes on ice-cream vans. This was perhaps because their speeches were drowned in the middle of the proceedings by the ice-cream vans passing.

On the housing estates in Dundee this is a considerable problem. On large housing estates sales of ice cream are enormous. One town councillor tells me that an ice-cream van can gross about £2,000 a week on Dundee housing estates. Therefore, a very keen ice-cream war is going on between different vans. In those circumstances, the suggestion made by one ice-cream firm that it is not putting forth any specially unmelodious chimes does not bear much examination, because the air is filled with competing sets of chimes. I am told that many of them are excerpts from various notable pieces of classical music. This might do great credit to the cultural interests of ice-cream vendors in Dundee if one did not realise that they use these themes because they are now free from copyright. Now that the d'Oyly Carte operas are becoming free from copyright, we can expect to get some of the tunes from them being played by ice-cream vans.

This practice is not confined to ice-cream vans. It has spread to other things. It is time that it was stopped. In this estimable Bill it is difficult to see any logical reason for giving an exemption to ice cream and other perishable commodities whereas the rag-and-bone man or person selling paraffin is prevented from using a loudspeaker for purposes of salesmanship.

I have a vested interest in this subject. As the father of two small children I occasionally—perhaps too occasionally—have the duty of trying to put them to bed. Anyone who has that experience will know exactly how I feel when I am just getting them off, having told them a nice goodnight story, and along come the chimes of an ice-cream van. I had one case of absolute effrontery when the ice-cream van played a set of chimes which came from the nursery rhyme "Rock-a-bye baby". It is great nuisance to the parents of young children. It is an equally great nuisance, as the hon. Member for Clapham rightly said, to the very considerable section of the community who are on shift work. They suffer from great inconvenience during the day and the evening when they are sleeping after regular hours.

I object to the chimes of ice-cream vans particularly because they make a commercial attack on children. We live in a salesmanship civilisation which in many of its aspects is vulgar and squalid, but we have to put up with it. I always feel particularly sensitive about the skills of salesmanship, the carefully thought up sequence of notes which makes people think about the delights of ice cream, being used on children. They are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. Apart from ending the nuisance of the noise, it would be a very good thing if ice-cream vendors were prevented from using this technique of trying to push up their sales. It might make a modest contribution to the dental health of our children, because nothing causes dental decay more quickly than the tremendously increased consumption of ice-cream lollipops.

I return to the main point made by the hon. Member for Clapham. It is difficult to see any logical reason for discriminating in favour of ice-cream vans and other vans selling perishable commodities. I hope that I do not have a suspicious mind, but the only reason I can think of for this exemption being in the Bill is that we have been subjected in the House to much pressure from ice-cream interests. The brief has already been quoted from. We have been accustomed over many years in the House to the efforts of the beer lobby. That is always Very active when any major interests are affected by our legislation. It seems as if one of the signs of our new affluent society is that we are now to have to face up to the pressures of the ice-cream lobby. I take this opportunity at the very beginning of those pressures to say to the ice-cream lobby that we shall not discriminate in its favour.

I sympathise with a very great deal of what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said. I readily admit to the House that this aspect of the noise problem has in recent months caused me more trouble, concern and worry than any other aspect. What these three Amendments boil down to is whether the electric chimes of the ice-cream salesman and a few others in mobile vans shall be allowed to continue and, if so, between what hours of the day or evening. It is a very difficult problem to decide, and I will explain why it is so difficult.

I referred to this problem on Second Reading and we discussed it at considerable length in Committee. I have a certain schizophrenia about this problem; I can so easily see both sides of the argument, but it would be wrong to suggest that the excessive playing of chimes is not a nuisance. I readily and freely admit that chimes can be an infernal nuisance, but it would be equally wrong to suggest that they cannot serve any useful purpose.

In this case, more perhaps than in any other case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the public does not like such chimes, presumably it will not continue day after day, week after week, to patronise the vans which play them. Yet we know that millions upon millions of portions of ice-cream are sold from ice-cream vans week after week.

Some large housing estates are very far removed from shops. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here, because he said that one could keep ice-cream in a refrigerator over the weekend. Even in these days when we have never had it so good, very often refrigerators are not found in council houses.

Even if refrigerators are found in council houses, it is very difficult to keep ice cream for more than a very short period in the condition in which it is enjoyed.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for emphasising that point. My point is that mobile sellers of ice cream play a useful part in the life of the community.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why on that argument he is preventing in his Bill the use of loudspeakers by vans selling paraffin?

That is another aspect of the problem, but paraffin can be stored. It can be bought at any time. The city worker returning on a hot summer's evening from a hard day's work likes to be able to have ice cream delivered to the door. That is an argument in its favour up to a certain limit.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East was less than just when he imputed certain doubtful motives for the inclusion of this exemption in the Bill. I will tell him quite definitely that I have no interest whatsoever—no shares and no shadow of interest—in Messrs. Walls or any organisation selling ice cream. I have no desire to protect these or any other type of high-pressure salesmen.

I assure the hon. Member that I had no intention of imputing any motives to him. I know that he is anxious—in my view, he is a little over-anxious—to achieve a compromise in an agreeable Bill. I was saying that ice-cream companies have been bringing heavy pressure to bear on all of us in the House.

That is true, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that. The fact remains that I have not put this exemption in to please the ice-cream companies. I have put it in because I think that a complete ban would deprive a large section of the public, especially in summer time, of a greatly appreciated service.

Nevertheless, if these chimes are overplayed or too many of them are played they cause an acute annoyance. Many local authorities, local authority associations, residents' and ratepayers' associations have approached me on this aspect of the problem and pointed that fact out. They pointed out particularly, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, that these chimes can be an infernal nuisance in the evenings when children on residential estates have gone to bed or ought to have gone to bed.

For that reason, I recommend to the House that we should have a compromise, not to impose a complete ban on the playing of these chimes all day and all night, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) might like to do, but to adopt the Amendment in my name, which would ban the chimes completely between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m.

Under Clause 2, if during the permitted hours the chimes are played to excess or are operated so as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons living in the vicinity, there can be a prosecution. That is an additional safeguard. It is one that may have escaped the attention of the House, but it means that, even if the Bill as now drafted comes into operation, these salesmen have been warned that they must be careful and not cause annoyance to persons living in the vicinity. If they abuse that privilege they can be prosecuted.

Am I right in saying that under the Bill as it stands at the moment no loudspeaker can be operated between nine in the evening and eight the following morning? That is under Clause 2 (1, a). That governs subsection (3) does it not?

Yes. Again, if the present provisions of the Bill are not enough and there is a special problem in certain areas, I think that it is up to the local authorities to take special action to cope with that special problem. That problem exists in certain urban areas, particularly so in the Metropolitan district, but it does not exist to the same extent throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. Therefore, in those areas where the problem is a special one the local authorities should adopt one of the model byelaws more stringent than this Clause, such as the "noisy hawkers" byelaw. That will give them still further protection and should enable them adequately to deal with the problem.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will not press their Amendments. I equally hope that the House may find my compromise Amendment reasonable and acceptable. Then, in the light of further experience of how this Bill if it becomes an Act works, we shall hope that the inter-Departmental Committee now looking at the problem will give the matter further attention and, if necessary, come forward with recommendations for dealing with it in a different way.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is trying to be helpful, but I hope that he realises what his compromise means. It means that these people can start operating at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning. I would certainly take the strongest possible objection to that. He talks about the Amendment seeking to prohibit the sale of ice cream, but it does nothing of the kind. All that it does is to seek to prohibit the accompanying noise. That is what we are objecting to. The ice-cream merchant may say that this will have a deleterious effect on his sales, but I do not believe that. One knows how the presence of an ice-cream vendor, particularly on a housing estate, pentrates round like the wind, without any chimes being necessary.

I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said in his speech. Before I refer to what he said about the children and so on, I should like to say this. Under the terms of the Bill every merchant retailing food would be excluded, not only the ice-cream merchants. Every retailer of every foodstuff would be excluded, because it is reasonable to say that every food is a perishable commodity. The Bill is capable of very wide definition. The man who sells paraffin sometimes sells other things which might well be perishable. Is he thereby excluded under the Bill from selling those things. One would like to know, because this is a very wide exclusion.

Further, under the Bill every trader would be allowed to make as much noise as he likes between eight in the morning and nine o'clock at night.

Not as much noise as he likes. He has to be very careful to see that he does not come under subsection (3, b).

I withdraw that. I would remind the hon. Member that in Committee he said that he wanted, in the first instance, to prohibit the chimes of the ice-cream vendors. He said.

"When I was originally drawing up the Bill I intended to prohibit the chimes of ice-cream vendors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 1lth May, 1960: c. 29.]

What occasioned his change of mind? He went on to give certain reasons, but it was quite clear, and one does not want to impute to him any unworthy motives, that the inference of his speech was that the "brain washers" outside had got to work on him. They certainly did. He himself said that he went to Walls at their request and was shown Peter Yorke's compositions and asked if he would like to hear them. He was very impressed by what they call the electric dulcimer, and one can imagine the sales talk that went on: "This instrument plays music composed by a well-known composer. It goes on for four seconds, then automatically cuts out, there is three minutes absolute silence and off it goes again."

If that were all that happened that would be tolerable, but we may get five or six of these firms operating on the same estate and then the music is not so attractive. Where I live in Dulwich it is everything from Popeye to Paderewski. Nothing is barred, and it goes on incessantly for seven days a week. I have heard the Walls' chimes and I think there is nothing very objectionable about them. I suppose that the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument in Committee would have been to insert a specific exclusion and to have mentioned Walls by name, because the inference of his speech was that Walls are all right; it is the other fellows that are wrong.

The hon. Gentleman said that considerable trouble had been taken by Walls to see that the chimes did not cause nuisance. I wonder to what trouble they have gone to find out? I wonder whether they went round calling at the doors of householders—

Yes.

We will deal with that public opinion poll in a moment. The hon. Member for Hexham went on to say:

"I can imagine that other operators do cause annoyance☠"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th May, 1960: c. 29.]

apparently, Wall's do not. Here we have Walls trying to tell the House that if we would only give them a monopoly, everything would be all right; there would be no noise—indeed, the British people would become a nation of music lovers if we would only let Messrs. Walls operate in this way.

In the same speech, the hon. Member foresaw legislation to put a total prohibition on these chimes or instruments. That means that if the legislation foreseen by him is enacted, Messrs. Walls will also be excluded.

When the Independent Television Bill was passing through the House, the hon. Gentleman and his party deliberately sought to limit the amount of advertising put into our homes in that way, and deliberately amended the Bill to that effect, although it lies within the power of the listener to turn a knob and switch off the set. In the present case, however, people cannot just switch off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) says, here is a captive audience. It therefore behoves this House to protect people from the kind of abuse that now goes on, and to say that Walls are not abusing people's comfort is no defence for making a general exclusion of those who sell perishable commodities.

The hon. Gentleman referred to our Amendment as being an infringement of the liberty of the subject. Every bit of legislation is some infringement on some- one's liberty to do something or other. The very purpose of our legislation is to tell people what will happen to them if they do certain things, and if they are thereby excluded from doing what they otherwise would have done, that can be argued to be an infringement of their liberty. If the hon. Gentleman wants to convince the House that his case is just, he should not use that kind of argument. He is there on very unsound ground.

We are being subjected to this amount of cacophony, and the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and his compromise Bill do nothing to ally the anxieties of people, particularly in the new towns. The new towns have in them a very large proportion of children. They are fair game for the people we are trying to get at, and I appeal to him, on that ground if on no other, to look at the matter again.

I should like to make two points that so far seem to have escaped notice. First, it would be fair to say that one difficulty is that the difference in the problem as between rural and urban areas is greater than anyone has acknowledged. Speaking for the rural areas, I should say that the electrical hooter is a tremendous aid to selling ice cream, without which the van will not be seen or heard, or known to be in the district, but it can be a great nuisance in the council estate. There, I can see no solution but the use of a byelaw.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the lateness of the hour, and of what has already been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

No.

No, that is not agreed.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I moved the Amendment, and I have no intention of withdrawing it.

I hope that I shall not be accused of taking part in the forthcoming American election if I start by saying, "I like ice", and I suspect that a lot of other people like ice cream also. What we do not like is noise, and we have to try to discover a satisfactory middle course between allowing people to satisfy a very natural and wholesome desire to eat ice cream and preventing people's ears being unduly assaulted. There is nothing moral or high principled in this; it is purely a question of satisfying the stomach and, at the same time, not dissatisfying the ear.

I sit for Gloucester, where there is a large Walls ice-cream factory. As there has been an undertone in the remarks of some of my hon. Friends directed against the commercialisation of ice-cream, let me make it quite clear that I am delighted that one of the major methods of solving the unemployment situation that beset Gloucester was the building of a large new Walls factory. I am also delighted to say that there are at least 350 women in my constituency, who would otherwise be out of work, busily engaged in making a commodity that most people enjoy consuming. I therefore hope that we shall not diverge too much on the antipathy towards people selling their produce.

I have, of course, declared an interest, and it will probably be alleged that I am being subjected to pressure from Walls, and that it is because of that that I speak as I do. That is not the case, as I shall explain when a little later I explain another pressure to which I have been subjected. First, however, let me give a few of my reasons for being satis- fied that Walls' case is a good one—whether applying to Walls or anyone else does not matter.

It is wrong to say that the urban area is so prejudicially affected as to need special protection. That is just not the case. Let us, first, take the case of the Gloucester Corporation Bill. I am in favour of whatever it does. It was promoted by the Gloucester Corporation, on which there is a very substantial Labour majority. That Private Bill, promoted by a Labour council in 1958, contained a Clause almost identical with this Clause as it now stands, permitting this kind of activity.

The Labour majority on the corporation 'were satisfied, in that highly urban area and before the arrival of Walls' ice-cream factory, that this method of selling should be permitted, because they were satisfied, as I am, that, far from its being an infernal nuisance, the desire of most of the people living there wanted to be made aware in this way, which is much better than most alternative ways, that ice-cream was for sale—

It is interesting to know that the Labour authority at Gloucester passed a byelaw permitting this practice. I represent a Labour constituency. My local authority has 33 Labour members and three Conservative members. It has passed a byelaw that does its best to prohibit the sounding of chimes in a way that would be permitted by this Bill. Therefore, the fact that one Labour council takes one view and another Labour council takes another does not go very far to proving the case presented by my hon. Friend.

I do not know the statistics. Neither of us knows how many Bills have been introduced one way or the other. I am merely stating the fact that this was the view of my constituency. I was not intending to make a political point. The Gloucester County Council, on which there is a large Conservative majority, also had a Bill before this House in 1956, and in that Bill the identical Clause was inserted and the identical provision made.

However, neither of these facts is the telling factor. The telling factor is the fact that these people have to sell their ice-cream, and if they were to adopt an unpleasant method of selling it their sales would go down. The last thing they want to do is to irritate the public. What they want to do, above everything else, is to be acceptable to the public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) spoke about the difficulty he experiences with his children. Of course, I can understand only too well what he is talking about. His children, like many others, like ice-cream very much. I cannot see why we should stop people satisfying a simple desire of that kind. It may be unfortunate if a bell is sounded at a particular moment, but we must look at the overriding fact that there are millions who like ice-cream.

My children like ice-cream. They inherited their liking for ice-cream from me. As a child, I ate large quantities of it, and I still do. But as a child I did not need somebody to come round and play tunes to tell me where to get the ice-cream.

I am satisfied that if this opportunity were barred to ice cream vendors, there are many other ways of selling ice cream which would be far more unsatisfactory and would cause more nuisance. I cannot think of any satisfactory alternative method of selling ice cream and letting people know that it is for sale.

I speak of a commodity which has to be eaten in its original state. After it has been in a refrigerator for a short time, it becomes a sloppy mess and nobody wants to eat a sloppy mess. I suggest that ice cream is not only perishable; it is highly perishable in its original state, in which it is intended to be consumed. Therefore, we shall inevitably get this kind of situation. The telling argument is that people all over the country are satisfied to be informed in this manner that ice cream is available for sale.

How does my hon. Friend know?

Because the sales go up day after day and week after week. The reason for an additional factory in Gloucester is that more and more people want to consume more and more ice cream, and if the manufacturers were not selling it they would not be making it.

That may account for the popularity of ice cream but it does not account for the popularity or otherwise of the noise.

The popularity of the noise has also been inquired into, as I am trying to explain. My own city considered this matter most carefully in the interests of the inhabitants. Gloucester County did the same thing. If my hon. Friend will read the memorandum he will see the number of cases in which the matter has been thoroughly investigated.

By whom?

It was thoroughly investigated by Walls. Who else does my hon. Friend expect to investigate it?

I would not expect anybody else to investigate it, and in that case I would not expect any other result than the result that has been given.

If my hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the result of any investigation there is no point in my quoting figures to him. So far as my limited experience goes, I have not received any objections. Some hon. Members may say that they have been inundated with letters, but I have received nothing which indicates to me other than the opinion which I am firmly convinced is the right one, namely, that a fantastic majority of the people like to know when the ice cream man is coming round.

I did not say that hon. Members had been inundated. I said there were very few Members, particularly those living in urban areas, who had not received letters from people saying how much they objected. I am not trying to exaggerate the importance of this point.

The other point I want to make is that I am not denying that sales of ice cream have increased, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any statistics to show whether they have increased in vans or in shops?

That would not help. The sales are increasing all round. It depends upon whichever method the company uses to deliver its commodity. All I am saying is that it is obvious that this is one of the most satisfactory methods of bringing to the attention of the public the fact that this commodity is available. The public like it, and if they did not like it they would object strenuously. Apart from that, they have said that they want it.

The hon. Member for Hexham has said that these noises are an infernal nuisance, but surely an infernal nuisance is covered by the common law of the country, quite apart from the Bill. There is no question of protecting people against an infernal nuisance. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I should like to come to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham—

In view of the conflict of interest here, and because everybody wants the Bill to become law. I am prepared not to proceed with my Amendment, and ask hon. Members with other Amendments dealing with this aspect of the problem not to proceed with theirs. Then we could look at the matter again and consider all the evidence before the Bill went to another place. Although I cannot give an undertaking, I will certainly ascertain the view of the House and try to incorporate some other Clause to deal with this aspect of the problem in another place.

I want to understand the hon. Gentleman clearly. Does that mean that before the Bill goes to another place he is going to have discussions with a view to trying to find between us some phrase that will bridge the opposing points of view?

This is a compromise Measure and it would be my intention to try to reach an equitable, fair and honest compromise. It is a difficult problem, but that would certainly be my aim, as it has been throughout the whole of the drafing of the Bill.