I have posted, as is my wont, the list of selected Amendments. With new Clause 1—"Local Authority Option"—we shall take new Clause No. 2 entitled, "Certificates for land used for staging spectacles on Sundays",

No land shall be used at any time on Sunday for enabling members of the public to watch thereon or therefrom any spectacle to which section 2 of this Act applies of those members or any of them make payment for the privilege of doing so (whether the payment is for the benefit of the occupier or another) unless there is in force in respect of such land a certificate by the justices of the petty sessional division in which the land is situated that it is reasonable to permit the spectacle at that time having regard to any likelihood that it will cause nuisance or annoyance to any member of the public. If the occupier of any land permits it to be used in contravention of this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence. The Lord Chancellor may by statutory instrument make regulations prescribing the procedure to be employed in respect of applications for such a certificate and providing for appeals against the grant or refusal of such a certificate,

New Clause 9 entitled "Approval by local authorities",

The Council of any county borough, borough, or district may make regulations prohibiting the presentation on a Sunday within its boundaries of any spectacle to which section 2 of this Act applies, or any class of such spectacle, or permitting the presentation of such spectacle or class of spectacle only subject to such conditions as it may consider proper. If the occupier of any land permits it to be used in contravention of such regulations he shall be guilty of an offence. Any person aggrieved by such prohibition or conditions may appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction in the area to which the prohibition or condition applies,

Amendment No. 17, to Clause 5, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'in Wales and Monmouthshire', Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 10, at end insert:

'except in a county or county borough in which it is determined in accordance with the provisions of this section that this subsection shall not take effect or shall cease to have effect in relation to sections 2 or 3 of this Act',

Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 22, at end insert:

'and if the local government electors for a county or county borough in which subsection (1) of this section does not take effect or ceases to have effect determine by a majority on a poll so held that that subsection shall have effect it shall have effect in that county or county borough',

Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 31, after first 'section', insert:

'including any poll held outside Wales and Monmouthshire',

and Amendment No. 22, page 3, line 38, at end insert:

(6) Except in the case of Wales and Monmouthshire expenses to be paid by the council of a county or county borough in respect of a poll under this section shall be left out of account in computing the expenditure of the council of the county or of the county borough (as the case may be) for the purpose of rate support grants under the Local Government Act 1966.

My Amendment No. 30, in page 4, line 41, Clause 9, after 'to', insert 'Wales and Monmouthshire'—relates to Wales. Is there any reason why it is not to be called?

I repeat what I said earlier. One of the functions of the Chair is to select Amendments. That is a function which the House has given Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order. Would you indicate, Mr. Speaker, whether you will permit separate Divisions on the new Clauses and Amendments which we are to consider together? You will, I am sure, appreciate that they raise different issues upon which hon. Members might be grateful for the opportunity to express a separate view.

I have not considered separate Divisions. Obviously, I will not give a carte blanche undertaking. If representations are made to me, I will consider them.

On the question of representations being made to you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that those of us who have certain interests in the Bill would like to divide on some of the new Clauses and Amendments later.

The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I said. I am willing to listen to representations about whether a Division should take place on a particular new Clause or Amendment. I am not willing to assure the House that I will accept Divisions, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, on some of the new Clauses and Amendments. This undertaking would be too vague.

With all due respect, representations on Government business are usually made by the two Front Benches. How are representations to be made by private Members on Private Members' Bills?

Mr. Speaker is here.

I understand that you will deal with any applications when they are made, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out to you at this stage that I am against new Clause 1, entitled "Local authority option", and in favour of new Clause 2, entitled "Certificates for land used for staging spectacles on Sundays". If there is one Division on the whole lot, I shall find myself in some difficulty. The reasons for that I shall explain if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I am against local authority option and in favour of the restrictions set out in new Clause 2. One Division would place me in a position of some embarrassment.

I am sympathetic to and apprised of the point which has been made. All that I am saying is that I am not willing to say that I am prepared to accept Divisions on an unspecified number of Amendments. I am willing to receive representations at the Chair.

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

The object of the new Clause is to treat Englishmen and Welshmen equally. As I am half Welsh and half English, this seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition, and I hope that, for the reasons which I put forward in Standing Committee and which I will briefly repeat, the House will be minded to accept it.

The position provided for in the Bill is as follows. If one is in Wales, one has to go through a complex polling procedure to acquire any freedom at all on Sundays. The situation is highly restrictive. If one lives in a community in England which wants to have a free Sunday, one cannot get it. Under the Bill, there is no provision for an Englishman to opt out of the freedom conceded in the Bill. The Clause seeks to provide over the whole of England and Wales the possibility of any local authority to say, "Our community does not require the freedoms conceded in the Bill".

11.15 a.m.

There is a lot to be said for this proposal. I think that it would be generally agreed that in many urban areas of Wales advantage will be taken of the polling procedures laid down in the Schedule, which are complex and difficult. Surely it would be better simply to provide the electorate with the opportunity to elect people who declare in an election address that they are in favour of or against a proposal rather than go through the complex polling procedure laid down in the Bill. Equally, if there is a community with elected representatives on a county or country borough basis—I do not think that one would to go below that, and that is the level which we suggest in the new Clause—which by a majority wishes not to enjoy the freedoms provided for in the Bill, should not we allow that community to opt out?

I understand that Members who move new Clauses have the opportunity to reply to the debate on them. Therefore, I propose to limit my remarks at this moment to a simple statement of the proposal and to reserve my right to reply to any points which may be raised.

I understand that we are discussing new Clause 1 and new Clause 2 together. These are separate Clauses and, therefore, my speech will be divided into two separate parts. New Clause 1 allows an option to be exercised by the councillors of a county borough. In some ways, that is rather like the Amendments to the Bill in connection with Wales.

I was a member of the Crathorne Committee. This very point was considered by that Committee, and considerable representations were made to it. I feel that, not only out of loyalty to that Committee, but also because the decisions bear my signature and since they were, I think, the right decisions, I should remind the House of what it said about local option. Paragraph 121 of the Crathorne Report deals with that matter, but I wish particularly to read paragraph 122:

"The evidence we received"—

that is, the evidence dealing with local option—

"was, however, almost uniformly against the local electorate deciding what recreations should be permitted on Sunday in a particular area. We were told that in practice the local option procedure for cinemas was exploited by vociferous minorities, was expensive in time and money and aroused little interest among the general public. We examined an alternative proposal put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations, namely, that if any local option was considered necessary, it should be exercised by the local borough or district council who could assess local opinion simply and reliably. This was proposed in the unsuccessful Bills that preceded the 1932 Act. The objection at that time was partly against the principle of local option on the grounds that it was a matter that should be decided nationally, and partly because it was feared that the controversial battles that had raged in Parliament"—

I do not know whether today's debate can be described as coming under that heading—

"Would be transferred to local government elections. We consider that these objections to decisions by local councils are still valid. We do not believe that our proposals would, in practice, change the character of Sunday in those areas where Sabbartarian views are strongest; they are often rural areas and small towns where there are unlikely to be any theatres or variety halls.…"

If new Clause 1 were inserted in the Bill, it would undoubtedly result in local councillors, when standing for election or meeting their constituents, having to argue or propose or object to the Sunday opening of various forms of entertainment. On the whole, the Committee did not think, as I do not think, that that is a fair burden to put on a local councillor when standing for election. He may offend some of his most ardent supporters who agree with him politically and personally but object to his views on that subject. It would undoubtedly be a great and unnecessary embarrassment to him. But I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and perhaps others who may support him, that there should be some form of local control over these matters and I suggest to the House that this will be found better in new clause 2.

It would be wrong and out of order for me to go into detail of how new Clause 2 is relevant to the Bill as drafted. There are many Amendments on the Order Paper which would alter much of the wording in relation to payment by spectators, and so forth. Of course, if the provisions relating to payment by spectators were amended in a certain way, new Clause 2 would be unnecessary, but I suggest that we should consider it and adopt it on the theory that the Bill will go through, and go through unamended.

Where there has to be permission for the use of land with spectators making payment for the privilege, then who know local conditions better than the local justices? They are not affected by political consideration or by pressure. They would be influenced only by the evidence, properly given in a court by those who wish to oppose or object, and they would give their decisions judicially, subject to such appeal as new Clause 2 would provide. They would give a fair and impartial decision.

As we saw in the Crathorne Report, emotional pressures are brought to bear on these issues from one side or the other. The local justices would have to consider the very important aspect of nuisance or noise which might be caused to local inhabitants by these entertainments. One of the objections to the Bill is not Sabbatarian, but on grounds of nuisance and annoyance caused to those who wish to have a quiet Sunday. Therefore, if the local justices, who would have the power to grant permission for a spectacle—perhaps a big one—on Sundays concluded that it would cause excessive nuisance and annoyance it would lie in their power to refuse permission.

At present, I see no power in the Bill for anyone, whether the Home Secretary, the local council or anyone else, to say, "We object strongly to the noise and nuisance of the type of function being proposed." New Clause 2 would deal with that position in the best way by having the matter discussed, decided and adjudicated locally.

I support new Clause 2. I have no objection in principle to the Bill. Indeed, in the last Parliament, when we debated the Crathorne Report, I gave general support to the proposals. But I also raised then the question of nuisance and noise which could affect residents in a locality, particularly from football matches.

I can give an illustration from my constituency. No doubt many hon. Members saw the excellent piece of film—in a sense, documentary—about Everton Football Club. I assure the House that this reflected a genuine situation. There is great enthusiasm for Everton. Its ground is right in the middle of my constituency, in a built-up working-class residential area. Most of those living near the ground go to Everton matches. They are great Evertonians.

But they have a split interest. They are Evertonians in one sense, but bombard me with letters and petitions—they did so when I was also a councillor for the area—complaining about noise and nuisance as a result of the matches. They naturally want some peace. They say, "We support the club. On Wednesday evenings and Saturday afternoons, we have a terrible time, but we know we have to put up with it." To suggest to these people that they should not only have the problem on Wednesdays and Saturdays, but also on Sundays as well, is quite impossible. Local residents should not be placed in a position where thousands of motor cars and people descend upon their district, destroying their peace on a Sunday.

This is a reasonable Clause. It does not say that the principle of the Bill is wrong. It does not say that there should not be Sunday entertainment. What it says is that the local justices should have the power to consider whether, in a particular locality, there was the possibility of nuisance and noise being created by a Sunday football match or other type of entertainment. They would take these factors into consideration.

I ask the hon. Members who, courageously, and with my full support, are putting the Bill through the House, to accept new Clause 2. If they do not, I must tell them that I will not only vote for the Clause, but against the Bill, and I do not want to do that. I am not being influenced by a number of letters from constituents, some of whom are members of the Sunday Observance Society. What influences me is the fact that thousands of people may be badly affected by nuisance. They have always had a case and it has not changed.

I ask hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill to accept the new Clause. If they do, I think most of us can be content that the Bill is reasonable and one that we should support. But if they do not accept it, the Bill is not likely to go through and that would be very regrettable.

For different reasons I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) will pay careful attention to the arguments being directed at him from both sides. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will show a slightly more detached view about this than he seems to have showed when he was advising the Committee—I was not a member, but I have read the proceedings.

It seems that the hon. Gentleman, in considering these new Clauses, and the Bill, has allowed himself to become too greatly enmeshed in the financial advantages of really substantial sporting presentations. I hope that he will take a rather broader view of his responsibilities to the House as a member of the Government, and an adviser.

My attitude to these Clauses and to the Bill is that I genuinely believe, looking at it from my point of view, that the law relating to Sunday badly needs revision. In principle, therefore, I am in favour of the Bill. I am very sorry that at no time in Committee did the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seem disposed to accept any kind of restriction along various lines, or along the lines set out in the new Clauses that we are now discussing.

After Reading the Committee's Report I must say, and I know that I diverge from some people here, that the old divisions between amateur and professional cannot really be sustained. I regret that in many respects. I should have liked to have seen a restriction along these lines rather than along the lines suggested.

Order. There is enough to discuss in the Clauses and Amendments before us.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of transgressing, but I sought to set the background.

I am quite satisfied that there is a substantial opinion in my constituency in favour of the principle of the Bill but which would welcome a restriction along one or other of the lines set out in the new Clauses. I favour new Clause 2, so persuasively moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey. East (Mr. Doughty). I follow what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) was seeking to put to the House in new Clause 1, and in a moment this will be a matter for the House to decide.

It seems that the principle of licence by local justices is well understood, that by and large we have a detached tribunal before whom these matters can be considered. By adding this Clause, which my hon. and learned Friend reminded the House must, at this stage, merely be considered as it stands, we can give some kind of protection to those outside this House who are deeply concerned about totally unfettered, substantial professional promotions on a Sunday.

It has been made quite clear that new Clause 2 makes no reference to, and by virtue of the tribunal with which it deals, can make no reference to, the very substantial number of people of whose interests we are fully entitled to take note, and for whom Sunday is a very special day. It would not be possible for a tribunal of that nature to have regard to matters of that sort. At least what we have secured is that those who know the locality, those who, in other respects, are well used to considering the effect of certain public matters upon the general public, will adjudicate upon an application.

For my own part if new Clause 2 is not accepted it seems that new Clause 9 is the next best step. We are all supporters of English and Welsh local government—as we are talking only of England and Wales today—and I find some attraction in the regulation-making power placed in the hands of councils, set out in new Clause 9. I still do not think it is such a good solution as that in new Clause 2. If the House should turn down new Clause 2 we shall go for regulations to be made by the council or county borough, and other councils set out.

I hope that the promoter of the Bill and those associated with him may feel that they have gone a very long way indeed and, may I say respectfully, done a great service to the country by raising this subject, and producing a Bill which in many respects has much to commend it. I hope, particularly on private Members' business, that those associated with it, and Ministers advising the House will also remember their duty to the feelings of the House or a very sensitive matter. It is already clear that totally uninhibited, public professional presentations on a Sunday is more than, at any rate a number of Members, feel it right to provide.

In those circumstances, and in that spirit, I very much hope that we will later hear that the hon. Gentleman will accept at least one of these new Clauses, preferably new Clause 2.

My task in relation to new Clause 2 has been greatly facilitated and shortened by the persuasive case made out by other hon. Members. As I understand, the group of Amendments that we are discussing can be resolved into three proposals all designed, alternatively or cumulatively, to deal with one problem. It is a problem which arises in this way. The purposes of the Bill are twofold. First, it is meant to sweep away the historical anomalies for which no one can have any great affection, and to replace them with a single clear principle to which we can all refer and which can be applied.

Secondly, it is to confer upon people the freedom to decide for themselves what activity they should pursue on Sunday. I do not quarrel with that—I believe that people should make their own provision for eternity. These very admirable principles give rise to a serious problem of how far the freedom of some people to pursue their leisure time obtrusively can be allowed to impinge on corresponding freedom the other way.

That question arises here at two points. There is, first, the question of how far people who want to enjoy Sunday as a day of rest may be compelled to follow their normal occupation as bus drivers, policemen or candy-floss vendors rather than be able to decide for themselves. It would be a tragic irony if the Bill produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), of all people, were to deprive some of his constituents of a very real freedom.

There is, secondly, the problem of how far people who wish to enjoy Sundays as an opportunity to recover from the noise and confusion of a six-day week are to be deprived of this by the activities of what may turn out to be no more than a minority. Even if it were an overwhelming majority, these people still have their rights. This is aggravated today by three characteristics. First, we live on an overcrowded island and it is very difficult to arrange an event in complete isolation from its effect upon other people who do not choose to be concerned.

Secondly, the facilities we now enjoy for travelling long distances at great speed enable any of us to assemble a large crowd without difficulty.

Thirdly, we have increased technical facilities for making noise and we cannot resist availing ourselves of them. Loudspeakers, Tannoys, transistor radios—I seem to spend half my time dealing with complaints from my constituents about noise and the other half listening to my own family demonstrate improved techniques for making it.

You do pretty well yourself.

As my hon. Friend points out, I can make my own contribution.

A very good one, too.

I am not impressed by the arguments which have previously been put forward that at least there is a respite on Sunday mornings. Many of my constituents are engaged during Sunday mornings in cooking Sunday meals and getting the children ready. For them it is Sunday afternoons that they most look forward to as a period of restraint and quiet. I am not impressed, either, by the point made that many people in any event are prepared to spend their Sundays working.

Order. The hon. Member is drifting into a debate on the Bill itself. He must deal with the new Clause.

I was hoping to demonstrate very briefly that both these principles may be entailed in the kind of position that may arise if new Clause 2 were accepted. I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and will not take the matter further.

Other hon. Members have demonstrated more clearly than I can that it is important to consider how far people are entitled to some kind of freedom from noise on the seventh day. It is not enough merely to point out that noise is inevitable for the other six days. Noise is very often tolerable simply because there is a prospect of looking forward to some kind of remission from it. Again and again we hear reports of the effect of incessant noise upon our nerves, health and expectation of life. I am told that a scientist is at present engaged in experiments to discover the possibility of turning noise into an even more frightening weapon of war.

There are three proposals which we are now discussing for deciding what can be done about this matter. The first is the proposal for a decision by local electors themselves, in the form of a local poll. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will have a great deal to say about that proposal.

For some of the reasons indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), I would be less persuaded by that than by the principle of new Clause 2, for one additional reason to which I do not believe the hon. and learned Gentleman referred but which is very important, namely, that a local poll would merely enable people to say that in respect of certain local events they want all or nothing. They might not want all or nothing; they might want some. There might be one form of activity which would be quite innocuous and another which would be quite intolerable. A method of distinguishing between these is, in my submission, the one that we should be seeking.

The second method is to decide this matter through local councillors. That proposal commends itself to me rather less than the one that it should be the magistrates who decide. I do not imagine that our local councillors would thank us if we imposed upon them a liability to be perpetually lobbied by one side or the other, and a change in the composition of a local council at a May election might result in a new policy, which my hon. Friend the "Minister for Sport" would not welcome because all the fixture cards would have to be torn up. On balance, if there were no other choice, I think that I would decide in favour of a decision by local councillors, but I believe there is another possibility which would shock my hon. Friend much less. He knows that I am no enemy of amateur sport.

The other possibility is that the question might be decided by people a little more remote from the pressures of local politics. Some people might think that perhaps they were too remote. I refer to people who will consider the matter on its merits and decide on the evidence that is provided, and who have fulfilled their function in relation to licensing with a great deal of satisfaction in the past. I am delighted to see that the Government have already accepted precisely this principle in the new Gaming Bill.

For that reason I recommend the principle laid down in new Clause 2. There is another reason. There will be inconsistencies. People will have to make applications and there is the disadvantage—and it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West will regard this as unnecessary—that lawyers will get a little more work out of it and perhaps a slight increase in their incomes. I should be prepared even to face that consequence, because it appears that this is an effective method of keeping the balance between the interests of those whom my hon. Friend had in mind when, quite properly, he introduced the Bill, and those many others who depend upon us to look after their interests.

I shall not detain the House for very long. When I first read new Clause 1, I liked it very much. I thought that it provided for a devolution of power and allowed for local decisions. Whatever may have been the strength of other arguments, I felt that the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), to the effect that the power of local decision would be unfair to locally elected representatives, was not a very strong one. My hon. and learned Friend said that a locally elected representative might offend his electors. That is true, but that is nothing strange to any elected representative of any of our elected assemblies.

On the other hand, new Clause 2 provides for a different and, in my opinion, better solution to this problem. I have one reservation about it. I regret that I did not notice it earlier. It refers to

"nuisance or annoyance to any member of the public."

The word "member" in the singular restricts too much the discretion of the justices. If the word were "members" the Clause would be very much improved.

If an Amendment were made along these lines it would remove the likelihood of one awkward customer preventing the enjoyment of a large number of others who might be local or who might have come in from further afield. If such an Amendment were made power would be retained for the justices to have regard to a slightly more general degree of local public opinion.

I want to take up a point made about new Clause 2. The situation in my constituency is unique. There are, within close proximity of each other, two first-class football grounds and one first-class cricket ground, on which test match cricket is played. There is also horse racing, in a mild way. Not all hon. Members have such activities going on in their constituencies.

I do not approach this matter from the police angle, or from the angle of a killjoy. Rather have I been in my youth and even after that an ardent and rabid follower of, and participant in, all forms of sport—even the dissolute game of billiards, and even on a Sunday when it was surreptitiously possible. But I have responsibilities to my constituents and local councils, who are already concerned about the present amount of noise, quite apart from what there will be on Sunday if the Bill goes through.

I have received a note from the West Bridgford Urban District Council, which has two major stadiums in its area—Trent Bridge and the County Cricket ground. It is greatly concerned about what will happen to its ratepayers within half-a-mile radius of the football ground if the Bill goes through as it stands.

What we are concerned about is that there is a new kind of football follower these days. Over the past nine or 10 years the young generation seems to have tried to emulate the American cheer-leading system when attending football matches. When I followed soccer one went to watch the skills of the great, like Alex James, Alec Jackson and Horatio Carter. We applauded and cheered their skills. But today it seems that when the Forest are playing at home—not the County, for they are in the Fourth Division, with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), who is a director of the club—there is an infiltration towards the ground along all roads leading to it from about 11 a.m. for a match starting at 3 p.m.

There is usually still plenty of room at the ground when the game begins, so these people do not go there early to get a position. They go to take part in the mass chanting that occurs before the game starts. The nuisance will occur before 2 p.m. on a Sunday, because the crowds will congregate to indulge in this form of mass hysteria which is now prevalent. It is an outlet for those concerned after doing factory work that is perhaps monotonous.

This is the sort of thing residents in the vicinity will have to suffer. I shall never know what relevance "Never Walk Alone" or "Mammy" have to a football match. They are not sung merely when goals are scored. In addition, toilet rolls are thrown on to the pitch and a lot of rubbish has to be swept away after the games.

The major football clubs cannot have it both ways. This kind of nuisance occurs at all the major clubs in the major cities—Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds, Nottingham and London—where the Arsenal play, as well as Millwall. When the clubs visit other towns they take thousands of sup-supporters with them and they commit many nuisances, including breaking shop windows, on Saturdays or even Wednesday nights. Already, football can be played six days a week with the use of floodligits.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Clause we are discussing.

Even before I received the note from West Bridgford Urban District Council I had heard about the problems of traffic, law and order, nuisance and disturbance arising from football matches, which I thought were relevant. I shall not read all the note. It speaks about the problem of residents who cannot back their cars out of their own drives—as I myself cannot—and continues:

"There have been many complaints of nuisance and disturbance to residential areas in the District as a result of behaviour of persons attending football matches,…, and one can well imagine that inhabitants of the residential area would take a serious view if the disturbances and nuisances which now arise on Saturdays were transferred to Sundays."

The only letters I have had in favour of the Bill are from the Notts County Football Club, Nottingham Forest Football Club and the Nottinghamshire Football Association. Every letter from individuals has been against the Bill, not necessarily on religious grounds. Therefore, I hope that we shall support having no Clause 2.

Order. We are not discussing the Bill at this stage, but a set of checks and balances.

I am glad to say that Bournemouth does not yet have the peculiarities of Liverpool in the way in which it cheers on its side. I hope that they never come to my delightful constituency.

When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) sat down I merely wanted to crystallize exactly what he was saying in so persuasively describing the support of new Clause 2. Only this morning I received a letter from Bournemouth saying:

"It seems hardly fair that those who, like myself, live en route to or near the football ground should now be faced with matches on Sundays as well as Saturdays. To be faced with inaccessibility to one's garage and noisy bedlam on one of the two weekend afternoons is bad enough, but with the prospect of the proposed Bill becoming law, the one remaining peaceful afternoon will become the same as Saturday."

Instead of the Clause so well put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), it is far better to leave the decisions in the hands of the more mature and experienced members of the community. That is better than having the matter as an issue at elections, when all and sundry, together with councillors, are considerably bothered and thereby given additional work.

I am in rather an invidious position on new Clause 1, because I am a firm supporter of local option and shall support it all the way. But my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) wanted to bring England into line with Wales, and that is exactly what he is not doing.

I said no such thing.

I am sure that I am not far wrong. I copied down my hon. Friend's words.

We already have in the Bill a Clause concerning local option in Wales which is a case of opting into the Bill and I think that is better than opting out. I should like to see the same provision applied to England so that areas will be able to opt in rather than out.

I oppose new Clause 1, first, because I do not think that local option is the way to treat Wales in this matter concerning a great, age-old national institution, which is what the Welsh Sunday is. I find it hard to hear that the Clause is proposed by two hon. Members representing English constituencies who seek in this way to change something of infinite value to Wales.

It is noticeable that Welsh hon. Members have not put down a Clause like this. The Clause in the name of Welsh Members would except Wales altogether from the effects of the Bill.

As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) has just pointed out, new Clause 1 would place on all Welsh districts the onerous task of opting out of the proposed new legislation. It would put the onus on those who want to keep what has existed in Wales for so many centuries to take the initiative in doing so. They would be assumed guilty of wanting the new Sunday which is now proposed until they proved themselves innocent.

Therefore, I find the Clause even more unacceptable than Clause 5, which at least requires those who want to get rid of the present Sunday or change its character to take the initiative and opt in. As I understand, it is claimed by those who wish to see this method of local option used that it is a highly democratic method. Of course it is, but it is the wrong method in this kind of instance. One cannot use this kind of method for all institutions or for all great problems.

For instance, we have seen fairly recently a great controversy on the question of hanging. Would one put a matter like that to people locally to decide? Obviously not. There is another great controversy raging on the question of race relations. Would one put that kind of matter to people locally to vote on? I suggest not; of course, we would not. I think Sunday, as a national institution, comes into that kind of category; it is not the kind of thing to put to people locally to vote upon.

12 noon.

We here have to accept our own responsibilities in this House as the Legislature in a matter like this, particularly because those who are so strongly behind the movement to change the character of Sunday have so strong a lobby, so wealthy a lobby, so powerful a lobby, and they have so many means at their disposal for manipulating democracy both locally and nationally. They have at their disposal such vast wealth which they do, of course, deploy, as we know, in advertising campaigns, to change the character of some at least of our life. Parliament has a duty itself to protect this institution and this is my central point on this Clause, that it is the duty which Parliament should not abdicate from.

We have to accept the responsibility to decide for ourselves in the House, in this legislature, what the nature of this institution is to be, and certainly we would not be protecting this institution by creating a situation of vast crowds congregating for noisy spectacles, certainly not by allowing a situation in which it would be commercialised, or by allowing a situation in which many people are compelled to work, work forced upon many thousands of people who otherwise would not work on Sunday. These are circumstances in which the Legislature has a duty to protect an institution like this. We all, I think, agree that not all shops should be open on this day, not all banks should be open, not all offices should be open.

If we have these spectacles and noisy congregations, if these are allowed, I fear that there will then be a further step. Part of the day will have lost its character, and then we shall have pressure groups arguing that shops should be open, banks should be open, and so on. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we should decide where the line should be drawn. It is our duty to draw the line somewhere and draw it, I would say, so as to preserve the character of Sunday as a day of rest and a day of worship.

Most hon. Members will appreciate the importance of the value of this day particularly to those who in our society are most vulnerable, and therefore I plead that we should accept our responsibility in the matter as a House, our responsibility for the whole community, and not devolve it upon people locally. In particular I do not want to see in Wales a hotchpotch of different situations all over the country on a Sunday. We lack a Government of our own and so we are more disunited than we ought to be. We are disunited enough, without adding this element of disintegration. If this matter is to be put to the people by any form of referendum it should be not locally but nationally, so that we have one solution for the whole of Wales, and not different local solutions.

I am quite sure that what is right and proper for Wales is that we should have our separate legislation on this issue, because Wales is a separate country and a separate nation which has its own separate life.

Having listened carefully to the debate, I have decided now that I will allow at the end of the debate a Division not only on new Clause 1, but also on new Clause 2, and, when we reach it at its appropriate place, a Division, but without debate, on new Clause 9.

I shall not detain the House long or intervene too long before my hon. Friend indicates his point of view, but this is perhaps the most important decision of all on all these local options. I would commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) and Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry).

As a trade unionist, I have fought for many years to reduce Sunday working to the minimum, and to seek to attain that by, amongst other measures, compelling employers to pay double pay for Sundays. I want to say this to my trade union friends—to my young trade union friends who face the trade union problems of the future—that if we allow Sunday to become just another day the case for double pay for which we have fought will go by the board.

On a point of order. With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, is this line of argument in order?

Anyhow—

Order. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is on a good point, but he must leave control of the debate to Mr. Speaker.

My own view is that in this modern, permissive, materialistic society, if we had not inherited Sunday as a day of rest, we should have had to invent it. With all the speed and noise of modern life, it has become even more absolutely essential to have one day on which people can get quiet and rest.

Order. The right hon. Member must now come to the new Clause.

I will come to it, Mr. Speaker.

On new Clause 1, the question arises whether any county or county borough shall opt out of the provisions of the Bill. The decision is to be left to councils. That would apply in both England and Wales. I would be the last to deny to England any privileges which we claim for ourselves in Wales. I would be the last to deny freedom, but, quite frankly, I do not regard the provisions of the Bill as conferring freedom but rather a new kind of slavery. That is my view.

I do not think that, if we are to have local option at all, this is the best way to do it, to leave it to councils. I would not like this matter to be brought into party politics at the local level. I am very glad that my own party has sustained the tradition that this is the sort of matter which is not a party matter but one in which we can take our own points of view.

The second proposition, in new Clause 2, is that the decision should be left to magistrates. I am not happy about leaving it to magistrates to decide this matter. If there is to be a local option, I feel that it should be by referendum.

Now I should like to ask a question. Let us assume that either new Clause 1 or new Clause 2 is carried, or that both are carried. Then what happens to the Clause about a referendum in Wales? It falls, I presume. I might vote for new Clause 1 or for new Clause 2, but if either is carried, it must mean that Clause 5 falls.

I took a leading part some years ago in consideration both in the House and in Committee on the then Licensing Bill. Eventually we arrived at a decision to include in it exactly the provisions which are contained in Clause 5 of the Bill.

Order. It is not in order now to discuss Clause 5, and the Amendment to delete it is not selected.

Special provision is made in Clause 5 for Wales and I was afraid that it might fall if either of these new Clauses were agreed to.

Let us assume new Clause 1 is carried. It will affect local options in the whole of England and Wales. If the new Clause is carried, will Clause 5, which provides separately for Wales, go out of the Bill? If the Clause is carried, England and Wales will be on the same footing, in which event it seems to me that Clause 5 will fall out. I prefer the method of local options by referendum of the electorate to a national poll for Wales. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) prefers that method, too. If there is a national poll for Wales, Glamorgan and Monmouth together will decide the fate of Wales. There is sound reason to ensure that the people of the locality, whose lives are affected by this, should have the right to decide. Let us leave it to a free vote by our people to decide whether they want it or not.

I would like my hon. Friend's new Clause, which contains provision for a referendum, to be adopted. I prefer that to new Clause 2. I know that a good many old laws need to be changed, but I say to my friends who are trade unionists and Socialists, that, as we approach this new age of technological revolution, we will do well to ensure that there is one day of the week which is different from the other days, in order to protect our health and well-being.

It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervened briefly at this stage. I must point out, as I did in Committee and in Second Reading, that the Government's position on the Bill and on the Amendments is one of neutrality. I am therefore simply giving some advice which I hope may be helpful to the House.

If new Clause 1 were to be passed, it would create conflict and confusion in relation to Clause 5, and there are a number of interpretations as to whether it would mean that Clause 5 would fall or not. Certainly it would create substantial confusion, because the two principles at stake are in conflict.

The principal objection to new Clause 1 is that there does not seem to be any evidence, so far as I can assess it, that in England attitudes to Sunday entertainment vary on a geographical basis. This is a view that hon. Gentlemen may hold, but it is not the impression which has been brought to my attention.

I want particularly to concentrate on some matters that lie behind the concern expressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House about new Clause 2 and new Clause 9. The concern in the minds of all of them is the situation that would exist in particular areas as a result of particular events on a Sunday afternoon. Some hon. Members have spoken very sharply and with deep feeling about the effect which would be created by a Sunday afternoon football match in a stadium situated in a built-up area. This is a highly sensitive subject, and my hon. Friend ought to be aware of the concern that is felt in the House.

In Committee, I promised that I would look at it with my hon. Friend to see if there were methods which could be used to limit the size of a sporting event that might create offence to those who live in the area. There are difficulties about any proposal that could be made.

It would not be proper for me to go into detail on some of the other proposals, such as the limitation of capacity of the stadium, and to say that a small stadium would be permitted but a large stadium would not. There are difficulties in this which could easily be illuminated at the right time.

Another proposal is limitation of the number of spectators attending an event. Again, this is highly unsatisfactory, because a large number of spectators in one situation is not disturbing whereas a slightly smaller number of spectators in another situation is. What we and hon. Gentlemen are concerned with is particular events in a particular place.

New Clause 2 and new Clause 9 are concerned with alternative ways of giving local people the opportunity of registering their own objections and, therefore, influencing whether or not specific events occur in their localities. Two alternatives are before us. One is that the judgment should lie with the local authority, and the other is that it should lie with the local justices.

There are difficulties about both. If the decision were to be taken by a local authority, there would be the problem, as was emphasised in Committee, that it would become a party political hot potato. There would be those who would say, "We are in favour of sport here", and others who would say, "We are against it." This is not the sort of issue which should be left to party politics at local government level. Nevertheless, there is a means by which it would be possible for local authorities to do it.

12.15 p.m.

The other proposal, in new Clause 2, is that it should be done by licensing authorities. There are difficulties in both these proposals, but it would mean establishing a complicated administrative setup. There would need to be procedures for application, objection, hearing, decision and appeal, and the procedures would have to be worked out.

The magistrates are already there. Magistrates' courts have their procedure and there is no need to alter that in any way.

This is a new form of licensing, and it is for consideration whether, in this form of licensing, there ought to be a means of appeal by the organisation putting forward its application. It is a matter of opinion whether they should, or should not. All I am saying is that these are matters which would have to be considered.

If the House were to pass the Clauses, it would be doing so without consultation with the Magistrates' Association or the local authority associations. In relation to Clause 2, I doubt whether the Lord Chancellor would be the appropriate officer to be involved. It might be more appropriate for it to be my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Principles are at stake here, and I would advise my hon. Friend to accept the principle now that there should be, by one alternative or another, the opportunity for local decision and local objection, either through the decision being taken by the local council or by the local magistrates. If the principle were to be accepted, then in another place there could be written in whatever seemed to be the best way after those consultations had taken place. This would provide for consultations either with the Magistrates' Association or with the local authority associations, to enable the proposal to be a workmanlike one. It would be helpful to the House if my hon. Friend could accept the principle of new Clause 2 or new Clause 9.

As an hon. Member representing a constituency in the Principality, I find myself in a dilemma in approaching the proposed Amendments. I consider, as do the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and hon. Members on the benches opposite, that Wales should have been dealt with in this matter in a completely separate Bill. For that and other reasons, I shall vote against the Bill.

That apart, I then come to the problem of whether any of the proposed Amendments allowing for a degree of local option are so attractive to me that I could support them as being a lesser evil than passing the Bill as it is. Superficially, I was attracted by new Clause 1, but the more that I listen to the debate and consider the matter, the more I find myself against it. It has been argued that the opting-in under the provisions of Clause 5 is much preferable to the proposed new Clause 1. That is undoubtedly true. I also take the same view as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), who said that he would prefer a referendum in each locality in Wales rather than one for Wales as a whole, because, otherwise, the rural areas would be dominated by the industrial areas, and on such matters as Sunday entertainment, there is great scope for local options.

I do not share the view that it is imposing an unnecessary burden on local councillors to decide some of these matters. It is one that they should accept. They should not burke these issues, which are often unpleasant, difficult and may lose votes, but which nevertheless have to be faced. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen, who said that the main lines of legislation must be laid down by Parliament and that it is for Parliament to ensure that minorities are properly protected. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that I am against new Clause 1, because it is in conflict with Clause 5, and I much prefer Clause 5 from the point of view of Wales.

On the other hand, an overwhelming case has been made generally for new Clause 2. There must be protection for the minority against the majority. Frequently, we have to put forward a certain view about which we know, if it went to a referendum of the country as a whole, popular opinion might be against this House. We took such a view about the abolition of capital punishment. At times, it is necessary for this House to take a certain view, especially on social matters, and create a framework, allowing certain options within that framework. Therefore, I am very much in favour of new Clause 2.

The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) put forward an overwhelming case for it, but, as a lawyer, I would make a single contribution on the point raised by an hon. Member on this side of the House. Doubt was raised on the wording of new Clause 2, which says in line 7

…that it is reasonable to permit the spectacle at that time having regard to any likelihood that it will cause nuisance or annoyance to any member of the public."

It has been argued that those words are too narrow and confining for a bench of justices I do not take that view. The test is reasonability. One of the facts which have to be borne in mind is possible nuisance to any member of the community, and it is right that it should remain in this form.

It might be, and generally would be, highly unreasonable to rule it out if it affected only a single member of the public. But there may be rare circumstances when the nuisance to a single member of the community is a matter of importance which the bench should bear in mind. There might be one invalid whose individual freedom would be infringed if a certain spectacle were allowed even though it affected only that one person. A bench is enjoined to have regard to whether it is reasonable or not, and that would cover the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison).

If my idea were adopted as an Amendment in another place and the word was changed to "members", the justices could still have regard to one member of the public. However, if the Bill is left as it is drafted, they will have to take account of only one member of the public and, in that case, an awkward customer could cause trouble.

It would be a question of interpretation as to whether "member" meant a single member or whether "members" could include a single member. The existing wording gives adequate discretion to the magistrates, whereas the introduction of the word "members" might confine magistrates in their interpretation.

May I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Interpretation Act, where the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural? In each case, the court would be able to take into consideration the feelings of one person or those of a great many persons.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that lecture on the Interpretation Act.

Taking all these matters into account, I have reached the conclusion that I would commend new Clause 2, and I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) will accept it.

I rise to speak briefly to new Clause 2. Although I hope that the Bill will receive approval, unless the sentiments expressed in the new Clause are included, I shall be forced to vote against the Bill as a whole.

I am not in complete agreement with the wording of the new Clause, but it contains the seeds of what I have in mind. However, rather than have an assurance that the existing Clause will be amended, I would much prefer the House to vote on new Clause 2 than let an Amendment be put forward in another place, because then, if we do not like it, at least we have new Clause 2 in the Bill. I would be loath to see the Bill go forward without new Clause 2 being agreed by the House.

In what I say, I am not influenced by any outside considerations. I believe that everyone is entitled to make up his own mind about what he does on a Sunday. I was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made his contribution, but, having passed through his constituency on many Saturdays, I am quite sure that he will have told the House something about what happens when professional football matches take place in Liverpool. How anyone could tolerate on a Sunday some of the things which occur on a Saturday is beyond my comprehension. It is not only a matter of car parking. It is all the other behaviour which takes place when thousands of people come pouring out of a football ground, many of them full of beer, My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) used to live in Toxteth, and I am surprised that he does not appreciate the amount of feeling that there is on this matter, even by people who are quite open-minded about how one should use Sunday.

I support the sentiments in new Clause 2, and I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that he is prepared to accept it. I, for one, am not prepared to accept an assurance that an Amendment will be moved in the other place. I want to see new Clause 2 approved today.

When we discussed the principle behind these Amendments in Committee, I made several sympathetic noises. I promised that we would look at the problem before Report and see if we could produce a reasonable Amendment which would meet some of the objections which have been raised. However, I have not done so, because I felt that I could not produce a reasonable Amendment.

Having listened to the arguments this morning and having studied the Amendments on the Order Paper, I am prepared to recommend to the House that new Clause 2 should be accepted as it stands and that new Clause 1 and new Clause 9 should be rejected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said that I used to live in Toxteth. I still do. The difficulty is that I cannot vote twice. I am still a Liverpudlian. I was born in Walton. Perhaps that will encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Toxteth to believe that I am sympathetic to the points which they have made.

12.30 p.m.

There are difficulties. The nuisance to which they refer goes on at all times. It might be worth drawing the attention of people who organise spectacles of this sort to the great nuisance that is some- times created not only on a Sunday, but at other times.

I do not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton in saying that Goodison Park might see a first-class football match on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday all in the same week. One should not exaggerate too far. There are normally 21 home league games during the season.

Is my hon. Friend aware that teams like Everton that do very well in the League, the Cup and international games, have so many games that they could play almost every night of the week?

I was about to come on to the fact that Everton is not a bad team. Liverpool, of course, is a better one. Certainly we should not exaggerate this too far.

Surely it is not only Everton at times that plays on that ground. The Football Association takes some of its games there, so it is quite feasible that it could happen.

All I am saying is that we ought not to exaggerate. I do not anticipate Everton regularly playing three first-class games at Goodison Park every week, but there is a point here.

There are certain defects in new Clause 2. I hope that if the Bill goes to the other place certain Amendments will be made to improve it. As the Under Secretary of State said, we have not consulted the local authorities and the Magistrates' Association. I am cognisant of the fact that one ought not lightly to dismiss local authorities in this context. I was a little disturbed when I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite seeming to imply that local justices of the peace were more susceptible to local needs than local authorities. I speak as a justice of the peace. I would not be so undemocratic as to think that my own bench is more susceptible to the needs of my borough than the members of the borough council. This is to take aristocratic ideas a little too far. Although I prefer new Clause 2 to new Clause 9, one ought not lightly to disregard local authorities.

I hope that what I have said will encourage hon. Members on both sides to accept the view that the sponsors of the Bill want to be reasonable. I indicated upstairs that we want to be reasonable. We want to provide for objections to the Bill to be listened to courteously and carefully. At the same time we want the main principles of the Bill to be maintained and retained. On the assurance that I have given, the sponsors of the various Amendments will perhaps understand what might best suit the will of the House.

Having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has said, I wish to withdraw new Clause 1. I prefer new Clause 9 to new Clause 2 because of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West. It would be wrong to dismiss altogether local authority influence in what, from some points of view, might be regarded as a local authority matter.

On new Clause 9, may I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to the fact that most justices' benches have a fair representation from the local authorities.

I take my hon. Friend's point. I am seeking leave to withdraw new Clause 1 without reservation, if the House agrees. I am expressing agreement with the view put forward from my Front Bench that the House should take away new Clause 2 and new Clause 9 and come back with an Amendment from another place expressing the sense of these new Clauses taking into consideration both the magistrates and the local authorities.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Is it your pleasure that new Clause 1 be withdrawn?

On a point of order.

No.

Objection is taken. I will hear the hon. Member's point of order now.

I think that my point of order has fallen as a result of the decision that has been taken. I was proposing to submit that, inasmuch as the debate is based mainly upon new Clause 1, with which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that other new Clauses and Amendments may be considered, if there be any question of the sponsor withdrawing new Clause 1, he should postpone putting such a matter to the House until the debate on this group of new Clauses and Amendments has ended.

It is open to the hon. Member to seek to withdraw his new Clause at any stage, but he has to have the unanimous consent of the House. That consent has not been given.

I rise not because I wish to oppose the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in withdrawing his new Clause 1, but because I understand that if he were allowed to withdraw it at this stage it would not be possible to say anything about the other new Clauses and Amendments which we are discussing with it.

I wish to make one or two comments in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). It would be churlish not to welcome what he said. The Committee stage upstairs was a good example of a constructive Committee stage, because we thought through these problems. Many hon. Members started from the Crathorne recommendation. We argued this out. The majority, including myself, felt that it was unworkable and we worked towards a solution of the kind we are now putting into the Bill—at least for the moment. I hope that the House will accept the advice of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West to put this in the Bill and let it go through.

The only one of these new Clauses to which I have put my name is new Clause 9. I urge, therefore, that when these necessary consultations take place, the points in new Clause 9 will be borne in mind. Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, I am not convinced that justices are necessarily better than councillors.

There is another difference between new Clause 2 and new Clause 9. Under new Clause 2 it is necessary for a specific licence to be issued in each case. This is a relatively cumbrous piece of machinery for what may be a very small event. Under new Clause 9, on the other hand, it is only necessary for action to be taken concerning a major event which it is desired to stop.

I think there is something to be said for the point of view that, rather than try to have a complete licensing system over the whole field to deal with every Sunday event, there should simply be this local power—I am not worried whether it is the council or the bench—of control. If the point can be borne in mind during the discussions, I shall be glad to support the hon. Gentleman in what he has advised.

My hon Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has probably spared a number of us from expressing rather strong feelings about the Bill by his undertaking to accept the new Clause. It would be churlish if someone on this side of the House, though perhaps motivated very strongly by emotions, did not express our gratitude that he has recognised the, force and strength of the feeling of hon. Members on all sides with regard to the Clause and the Bill.

Although we are grateful to him, and although we like to feel that he accepts this, he must understand that the new Clause does not say all the things that some of us would like it to say and is merely a compromise between my hon. Friend and those of us who feel so deeply and strongly about what the application of the Bill will mean in its incursions into the sanctity of the Sabbath.

What concerns me even more is the quietude that one gets on Sunday, to which we all look forward. Many people are not activated by considerations of sport in resisting something of this kind. It is merely that they want Sunday to remain a day of quietude and rest. So I thank my hon. Friend and hope that when he looks at it again it may be possible to strengthen this even further when it goes to another place.

We are all grateful to the sponsor, the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), for accepting the new Clause. I congratulate him on retaining authority for the Bill and not accepting the advice from the Government Front Bench that it might be altered in another place. It is far more satisfactory to the House that the hon. Gentleman accepts the new Clause, even if an Amendment comes back for further consideration.

I was a little surprised to hear the Under-Secretary say that one of the reasons why we should not accept the Clause was that consultations had not taken place with the Magistrates' Association. I always understood that Parliament was to legislate and the judges were to carry out the laws that we enact. It will be a sorry day if we have always to consult the judges and the magistrates before we pass any laws.

I support the Clause because I am opposed to the Bill. There are many people in my constituency, a large and scattered one where there are many very famous churches and also a very large element of nonconformity, who still like the peace of the Sabbath. I am influenced towards the new Clause for other reasons. Unlicensed organisation of sport imposes a burden in that certain people have to go to work although they do not want to. This goes for special police and persons belonging to the St. John Ambulance Brigade and other voluntary organisations who may be called upon to attend. Although not everyone goes to a place of worship on Sunday, it is a day of rest and peace that ought to be preserved. It is also a family day, and because of these events a father may be prevented from spending the day with his family.

I am glad that the new Clause has been accepted. I am sure that it will improve the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad if you are able to help me here. I am supporting new Clause 2, and I find that two different principles are involved as between new Clause 2 and new Clause 9. Is it a fact that in the event of new Clause 2 being carried new Clause 9 will fall? May I have your guidance on that?

At first sight, I do not think so. I think it will be possible to carry both of them. They tackle the problem in different ways but I do not think that they are mutually exclusive.

I welcome new Clause 2 and the attitude of the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). Many of us are extremely disquieted about certain elements in the Bill. Finding the sponsor so generous in his attitude and flexible in his response makes it much easier for those of us who feel strongly about certain parts of the Bill.

An important principle is at issue here. During the Committee stage hon. Members were constantly invoking the use of Gallup Polls and referendums. I believe that this would be the wrong way to approach this sensitive issue. We are concerned not so much with the quantity of feeling as with the intensity of feeling. Though it may be a small minority who feel very strongly against the Bill, the House must take into account that small minority with intense feeling.

The Under-Secretary said that there was no evidence of any difference of views in England on a geographical basis. I take strong exception to that remark. There is considerable geographical difference of view. If it cannot be proved in quantity, it can be proved in intensity, as anyone who represents a constituency in South-West England will know. We have received many letters from people whom we respect very greatly, people who often lead opinion, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not take account of them. So we are trying to produce machinery by means of which the feeling can somehow be mobilised on a local basis.

I have heard nothing in the debate which satisfies me that we have the wording right or that the wording that will come back from another place is likely to prove satisfactory. This is an extremely unsatisfactory situation on the key Clause in the Bill. We have not got adequate wording and shall have to accept new Clause 2 as it stands, which I think is inadequate. We have had an inadequate debate about how it will take effect and whether it is workable. We gather that no consultations have been taking place about it. We do not yet know whether local government can take a more active rôle. I am a strong believer in local options. However, none of these very important areas seems to have been examined enough. Though I accept this situation with reluctance, I think it would be wrong to allow it to go without some protest.

I am slightly unhappy about vesting these powers in justices of the peace. In many ways this is an imperfect mechanism, but it has, as was said, the benefit of giving a flexible approach. I hope that it may be possible to have in the Bill a provision whereby the local authority of the area can at least debate the matter, lead public discussion and give a view on the broad aspects of the Bill. If it is also possible for the local magistrates to take account of the feeling, it may get round some of our very real difficulties. In saying this, I should also like to thank the sponsor for his extremely co-operative attitude.

I should like to associate myself with nearly everything said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), because I have the same feeling of disappointment and frustration about this matter as he has expressed. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the gesture of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), because I realise that, holding the views which he sincerely holds, it represents a concession on his part that he is willing to accept new Clause 2 in principle.

I am not accepting new Clause 2 in principle; I am accepting new Clause 2.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I understood that the consensus of the House was in favour of passing new Clause 2 so that, if the Bill were given its Third Reading, between then and the consideration of the Bill in another place there could be consultations with the Magistrates' Association and the local authority organisations and that that consultation might well lead to Amendments in another place giving effect to the views of either of those important bodies of opinion.

I should have thought that it was a good thing for those consultations to take place and for due regard to be paid to their result and possibly for the Clause to be improved in some particulars in another place to give effect to the views expressed in those consultations. However, on this matter I do not want to take issue with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, because I appreciate that, with his views, he has made a concession to the views of many hon. Members and certainly very many people in the country.

I regret that new Clause 1 is to be withdrawn. My view of the matter is that if new Clause 2 stands, the best procedure is to have new Clause 1 in the Bill so that those local authorities which wish to do so can opt out of the Bill, when the procedure of Clause 2 can be put into effect to deal as far as possible with nuisance and annoyance for those local authorities which allowed the general provisions of the Bill to stand. If that procedure had been adopted, it would have enabled local authorities to decide on the general principle whether they wanted to opt in or out, and it would have permitted those who opted in to apply the procedure of Clause 2.

That would seem a reasonable and sensible way in which to deal with the matter, because it would have enabled the application of Clause 2 to be considered by the local authorities in the first instance and then for questions of nuisance and annoyance in suitable cases to be dealt with by the powers which it is proposed to give to the justices. That would have been a preferable way to deal with it.

Having said that, I welcome the fact that new Clause 2 is to be incorporated in the Bill, but I am sure that the other place will not feel itself inhibited from considering whether new Clause 2 is capable of improvement by all that the sponsor of the Bill has said, because it could be improved.

As this is the only opportunity of doing so in view of the grouping of the new Clauses and Amendments, I want to refer briefly to the exclusion of Wales.

Order. There is an Amendment which proposes to take out the special provisions for Wales and Monmouthshire, but that Amendment has not been selected.

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

This new Clause brings us to what might be called a limited and restricted type of nuisance. While some protection against nuisance and annoyance is given by new Clause 2, that Clause relates only to nuisances and annoyances which would arise under Clause 2, whereas new Clause 7 would relate to nuisances and annoyances arising under the Bill as a whole. It cannot, therefore, be argued that my new Clause is no longer necessary because the House has adopted new Clause 2. New Clause 7 extends to a much wider area of possible nuisances and annoyances.

Whatever view hon. Members may take of religion and religious observances and the work of churches and chapels, even those who do not themselves belong to any of the historic faiths which are represented in the House, they will all recognise that it is right for the community, in the interests of decency, order, proper behaviour and religious freedom, to safeguard the opportunities of worship in the place of worship to which resort members of different branches of the Christian church, members of the Jewish faith and members of any proper religious order or movement. That must be right and, even though it may be argued that the religious people, if I may so classify them, are in a minority in the country today—perhaps it would be better to say that the conventionally religious are in a minority—it is none the less true that the majority would wish that the rights and opportunities of worship of these people should be preserved.

It is clear that the Bill would create acute problems for various churches and places of worship. We have been used to there being fairly severe restrictions on what is permitted on Sundays, and the Bill represents a substantial relaxation of the present position. The House has shown a real desire to avoid nuisance, annoyance and offence to minorities, and to safeguard their rights while according what some would regard as freedom to other people who do not agree with them.

1.0 p.m.

In my constituency there is a Nonconformist chapel. It has a large congregation, and it holds services in the morning and in the evening. The services are well attended, and in addition it runs a Sunday school in the afternoon. The building is occupied from perhaps 10 a.m. until about 7.30 p.m. by adults and children attending various kinds of services. During that time it is used for the religious exercises which are usual in a Christian place of worship on the first day of the week.

That chapel is immediately next door to a large public hall which, for many days of the week, is used for dancing. It is separated from the hall by a passage which is only a few feet wide. If a dance is held during the week in the public hall, usually a steel band is in attendance. One knows that because of modern tastes dance bands are more noisy than they were 20 or 25 years ago. I do not complain about that. I recognise the right of people at the right time to listen to noisy dance bands if they want them, even though they may not appeal to me.

In as much as the hall is used in that way during the week, and is something of a nuisance to the activities carried on in the evening during the week in the Nonconformist chapel next door, it seems reasonable that those who attend the chapel on Sunday should be specifically and clearly protected from having their services of worship rendered impossible.

Nobody wants to be unreasonable about this. If the owners of the public hall and the promoters of the dancing have a free rein six days a week, it is surely not unreasonable to say that the Nonconformist chapel should have an undisturbed day on which to conduct its services of worship. It may be argued—I hope that it will not be—that the situation is covered by the general law, or will be to some extent by new Clause 2, but I believe that it is necessary to write a provision into the Bill for the kind of case that I have mentioned.

I have mentioned only one case. I know of many others, but I do not want to burden the House with them because I have no desire to make a long speech. I attach considerable importance to this Clause, as I am sure other hon. Members do, and I commend it to the House. I hope that it will be received in the spirit of reasonableness with which new Clause 2 was accepted.

I am glad to join a fellow Baptist in recommending the Clause to the House.

I commend to those who read HANSARD the title of the Clause:

"Saving for places of worship."

That is the important aspect of it, and I am glad to support what was said by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). I wish that it would go further and deal with noise from low-flying aircraft, but that is outside the terms of the debate.

We must ensure that services held in places of worship are not interrupted by noise and nuisance. I know that we in Wales will have a double chance to deal with the matter because if we cannot deal with it by a referendum, we can insert some provisions to safeguard these places.

I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) will accept the Clause. So far I have been very kind, but I must declare my interest. I hope that we shall talk and talk and that the Bill will not receive its Third Reading.

I, too, support the Clause. In fact, I am one of its sponsors.

Perhaps I might state my position clearly. I do not wish to hide the fact that I believe that Sunday is a different day. I believe that it is a day of rest and of worship. I accept that not everybody is prepared to agree with what I believe, but I do not intend to beat about the bush. That is what I believe, and what I desire to see accepted in the country. I shall not be pig-headed about this, but it is an issue about which I feel very strongly.

If we neglect this day of worship and rest, in the long run this country will suffer. There are many pressures on us today, and Sunday, as a day of rest, is something which we ought to try to preserve. I support the new Clause because religious worship is being disturbed in present-day conditions by certain people, and because, on property adjoining churches and chapels, things go on which disturb that day of rest. If the new Clause is not accepted, serious problems will arise.

I hope that a church will never become a place in which there is a service at 8.30 a.m., or 11.0 a.m., and the idea is, "Get it over boys and we can have the rest of the day free." A church is a house of God where worship should be going on during the whole of Sunday. It is, therefore, only right and proper that we should seek to preserve quietness around the house of God.

Sunday schools are held in churches on this day of rest, and as an Anglican I know that on certain days services are held throughout the day. Good Friday is now a popular day for sport, but some churches hold a three-hour service on that day, usually from mid-day into the afternoon. Surely that time should be preserved as a period of quietness so that those who want to can worship in peace.

Perhaps I might now consider the position in some of the country churches with which I am more concerned than the town churches. They are faced with the problem of noise from motor-cycle scrambling, autocross, and other events being held in fields nearby. These create a lot of annoyance to those who want to worship. I am not saying that these events should not take place, but I do not see why they should be allowed to destroy the peace and quietness of those who look on Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Such events should be held away from parish churches and chapels.

For those reasons, and many others with which I do not wish to bore the House, I commend the Clause to hon. Members. It is an important Clause, and I hope that it will be accepted.

I support the new Clause, which was moderately and ably moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). This is not the first time, during our association over many years, that we have agreed across the Floor of the House, and I am happy to agree with him today. I am convinced that what he proposes in the Clause is right. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was quite right in pointing out that 8.30 or 11 o'clock in the morning are not the only times on which religious services are held.

There is a great deal of misrepresentation in high and important places about sport and the city and environment of which I represent part. These days, Merseyside seems to be a popular subject for television. Recently, the conflict between religion and sport was portrayed in a high-sounding play by, I presume, the B.B.C. called "The Golden Vision", which dealt with the conflict which can arise between religion and sport. I have been in the Army and to many parts of the world and I have never heard the sort of language which came into the homes of people of this country on that occasion.

This is the sort of misrepresentation which takes place, and, to my mind, maliciously and deliberately takes place Therefore, it is important that those of us who have an interest in the Bill and the welfare of our people should be bold enough to say precisely what we feel, whether it is popular or unpopular. I condemn the sort of misrepresentation to which I just referred because it goes into the hearts and minds of our young people. It is so easy to give people a wrong impression of the position of religion and church life in our society.

Order. I understand the need of the hon. Member to make some preliminary remarks, but he must come to, the new Clause.

I expected that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for it. Nevertheless, what I have in mind has some bearing on this subject.

I represent a constituency which, I suppose, is unique in the House. I can fairly say that 50 per cent. of the people whom I represent belong to the Anglican and Nonconformist Churches and that about 50 per cent certainly of the children are Roman Catholics. Therefore, if there is interference with the freedom of worship, it does not affect the minority of people, as some would say.

One church which I have in mind is in close proximity to the Anfield and Goodison Park football grounds. About 60,000 or 70,000 people can attend important games at the first-class football matches which take place at those grounds. That is a great thing in its place, and I do not decry it, but these people have six days out of seven on which to pursue their lawful and wonderful activities.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the new Clause, which is concerned with the proximity of these activities to places of worship and the disturbance resulting therefrom.

With great respect, I pointed out the proximity of places at which these activities take place to churches, and I was about to point out that one of the churches to which I go is within a matter of hundreds of yards of both the football grounds to which I have referred. We were reminded a long time ago, at the highest level of spiritual advice, that we should keep the Sabbath Day holy. This Clause attempts in a modest way to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

The services which I am talking about would be affected by any activity which took place adjacent or in proximity to them. It would not be for one hour or two hours in the day, because these services go on from 7 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening in hourly sessions of Holy Mass and nearby there are Anglican churches conducting their services at different time. The Clause seeks to safeguard the practice and freedom, not of minorities—although that would be important if it were so—but of many people who wish to go to church and practise their faith, whether it be the Jewish, Christian or any other faith. People come to this country who have other faiths, and they are entitled to follow them in trying to save their souls.

I ask that the Clause be given the careful consideration which it deserves. It is a moderate and reasonable proposal, and I am sure that all the people who read it would agree. It should be supported by those of us who have responsibility in these matters.

I share the views of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) on this important Clause, which I trust will be accepted. I associate myself with the well-expressed remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about his personal position.

I have received numerous letters from my constituency on this matter. Many people of all denominations attend church services in Bournemouth. It has been said that my constituency has the largest number of people who are concerned with the life of the Church in all its denominations. I should like to quote a letter which I have received from a group of young people:

"We believe that if the Sunday Entertainments Bill is passed, it will contribute to the disintegration of the Spiritual, Moral and Social life of the nation, and cause division and disruption among us at a time when Her Majesty's Government is appealing for unity and positive action. We sincerely hope you will respect our convictions and vote against the Bill".

I was discussing the subject matter of the Clause with a member of the Church of England, to which I belong. He was confronted with a problem very recently in South London when a band started up in a park adjacent to his church. This was to be a recognised Sunday entertainment. It involved a number of people attending the band and attending his church. He made representations to the local authority that the band and the bandstand should be moved. I am glad to say that his representations were accepted and the disturbance and nuisance was removed.

If the Clause is accepted, that sort of thing will not be part of the activities of the nation and, therefore, will not be looked upon as a right. I should like to see the Clause incorporated in the Bill, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

I am a member of the British Council of Churches and of the Christian Citizenship Committee of the Methodist Church and a regular local preacher. I am against the new Clause, almost instinctively, because I am not sure that it is wise for the Christian churches to seek to have special privileges which are not available to other members of the community. I think that, in the very worst sense, this can be divisive and cart often be a source of rebuke for the Christian Churches. Therefore, instinctively I feel some concern about the new Clause, although I sympathise with the motives of the sponsors.

Apart from that, I think the Clause would be unworkable as legislation. It would create a criminal offence, and one must be careful when creating a criminal offence, that one is no doing so in language so uncertain that it could perhaps catch conduct which was not intended to be caught, or might not catch conduct which was intended to be caught. This Clause although drafted quite reasonably in terms of expression of sentiment as to what is desirable in the community, is far too uncertain as a piece of criminal legislation.

It is, for instance, almost impossible to say whether a person has caused annoyance to people in a church or place of meeting. How is a magistrates' court intended to deal with that type of conduct? Is it annoyance if a young boy outside a church is whistling on a Sunday when someone who has very strict Sabbatarian views goes into church? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hear hon. Members say "No", and I agree that that is not the intention of the sponsors of the Clause. But it might be called annoyance by a zealous prosecutor and magistrates if they were prepared to accept that view, as they could under the wording of the Clause.

It is also a little difficult to express, in terms of the words of a criminal Clause, the idea of nuisance in the law. The law has a very clear and strict idea of what is a nuisance for the purposes of a civil action in tort. But it is difficult to express it in terms of what the ordinary man in the street means by the word "nuisance", and what is included in the Clause is really the idea of what the ordinary man in the street means by a nuisance—something which causes him annoyance, temporary or perpetual—and the idea of the law about nuisance is much more strict, relating more to his rights of property than to the dignity of his privacy.

But surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that magistrates have a certain amount of common sense. To talk about a boy whistling outside a church as a nuisance is ridiculous. But if there were a tremendous crowd and a brass band outside the church, that would be judged a nuisance. Surely he must concede that magistrates have some common sense, even if we do not always have.

What is being suggested is a new criminal offence. I am showing, by what I accept quite obviously to be a ludicrous extension, the furthest point of the argument.

rose—

Perhaps I can first express my views about the intervention by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills).

My intervention is also on that point. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understood him to say that, if the boy was whistling, it could be an offence and he could be prosecuted. But surely the whole point of this is that it is the occupier of the land who is responsible and he is the person who would be prosecuted, not the boy.

It is the occupier of the land who is responsible for conduct which takes place on the land. I was coming to that point in a moment. There is the question of the public highway, which is a point really covered by the Clause, although it does not seem to have come within the purview of the sponsors.

I return now to the intervention by the hon. Member for Torrington. I clearly took an extreme example. One could take an extreme example on the other side—that of a church alongside Wembley Stadium, when an English international was being played. There would be extreme noise and, clearly, nuisance. But between these two extremes there are all kinds of different ways in which private people can annoy the members of a church in their place of worship and one would, under this Clause, have to decide in each case whether there had been a criminal offence.

How would a bench of magistrates decide that? It would lead to grave uncertainty. It would cause offence to people who were using their land in what they considered to be a perfectly reasonable way if the magistrates, perhaps because of a somewhat restricted view of what should be done on Sundays, decided that a criminal offence had been committed.

Although I sympathise with the underlying reasons behind the new Clause, I hope that the sponsors will not press it to a Division. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) about who is likely to be the offender when noise has been committed on land adjacent to a church. But land, of course, can be adjacent to a church and be part of the public highway. I have had occasion not infrequently to be preaching inside a place of worship when a band, of the Forces or of the Boy Scouts or Girl Guides or of the Salvation Army, has passed by. I have found that a great distraction in the course of my sermon, and there have been times when I have wished that the band had been re-routed.

But who is responsible for causing annoyance to me on those occasions? Clearly, it is not the Salvation Army band. Is it the owner or occupier of the land or premises? Who is the owner or occupier of the public highway? Is it the public highway authority? Is it the local authority as representing the inhabitants of the locality? Or is it the world at large?

I hope that I have indicated that there occur in everyday life and which would arise as a result of this Clause. I recognise that some of the examples I have given are perhaps extreme, but it is not difficult to think of others which are perfectly rational and reasonable, which occur in everyday life and which would cause difficulty if the Clause were implemented. For these two reasons—first, an instinctive reluctance to have a special position for the Christian churches, and, secondly, because of the very difficult application of the Clause—I hope that it will be withdrawn.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) on the new Clause. I am in some difficulty about it, although I accept it in principle. Those hon. Members who have spoken have been frank about their personal beliefs. I believe that, in a case of this sort, one must represent all sections of one's constituency. I hold the view that, much as one may deplore their absence, one will not encourage people to go to church because there are no counter-attractions. The situation is different from what it was in the Victorian age.

Each of our constituents is entitled to the protection we can give him in carrying on his life as he wishes, and those who have the privilege and benefit of higher religious feelings have the right to practise them in a way which fits the occasion.

1.30 p.m.

I find that a new Clause of this sort is necessary. I have not had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) preach a sermon, and I do not know what effects a band would have upon it. I know that in certain churches adjacent to village greens this can be a distraction. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), because his is a constituency I know very well, as my family originally came from there. I know the feeling there. While I was in favour of this new Clause when I entered the Chamber, having listened to the argument develop I feel that there is a certain lack of precision which might result in us failing to achieve our object, particularly

"…on land or premises adjacent or in proximity to any church".

As the hon. Member for Bootle mentioned the football ground, well known in the constituency, I began to wonder what was meant by "proximity". What area was affected? What would be the position if someone built a new church alongside premises which were in use? Planning authorities could quite readily agree to a church being built and it would not be impossible for someone who had very strong feelings to build a church adjoining such a building. If we accepted the new Clause as it stands there would be dangers. I firmly believe that those who wish to worship are entitled to do so in appropriate conditions. We must give protection to those people.

I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will appreciate that it is our fervent desire to give the privilege of worship. If they are prepared to accept this principle, although this new Clause may not cover the point for technical reasons, can we have some assurance that the wishes of all Members who have spoken on this matter will be met? If they are not to be met by the new Clause, what do the sponsors intend to do to meet the position? If I cannot have an assurance on this I will have to vote for it.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) because, while I do not know whether he is still a member of the Methodist Church, he has Methodist connections in many ways, and the Methodist Church is very grateful for that. I am not in the same position as he is, a "doubting Thomas" over this new Clause. Neither can I follow my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in his legal jargon. The cases that he mentioned are very hypothetical.

As I understand it, the sponsors of this new Clause are seeking to ensure that the minority of men and women who still wish to enjoy Sunday as a day of rest and worship shall be free to do so without any outside interference. My hon. Friend said that when he was preaching there was a brass band passing by. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who so ably moved this new Clause, has no doubt been subjected to that, as have many of us. Often when a band is passing by we are glad to hear it, provided that it does pass by.

It is when the band continues to make the noise throughout the service that the trouble arises. This new Clause seeks to ensure that those who wish to worship shall be free to do so in peace and quietness.

Would my hon. Friend refer to any part of the new Clause which mentions the words "habitual, permanent, total" or any of the other words which might cover a long period of noise rather than a short period?

This is a typical cross-examination. It is surely not in the minds of those of us supporting the new Clause that this should be the case. All we wanted to do is make sure that those who worship can do so in peace and quietness. There are a number of churches in my constituency and I am delighted at the way in which worship is conducted there. I want to ensure that those who worship there shall not be distracted by outside interferences. This is a safeguard and I hope that all my hon. Friends will support it.

Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department I will try to be objective and impartial in my intervention, but I must ask the House to turn down this new Clause on the ground that it is impracticable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) will not mind my saying that this was discussed in Committee and that the objections put forward by the Government were on the grounds of practicality. The Amendment was defeated, and presumably he and his colleagues have been looking at the situation since. It is significant that they have not been able to produce any other form of words to deal with the very real objections made by the Government, which have been adequately and modestly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).

I am getting rather worried that, in our attempt to deal with this matter, we become inclined to over-exaggerate some of the situations. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) talked about the great difficulties in the South-West. I could not help reflecting that there are probably more people causing a disturbance in Plymouth in the summer, trying to get to the seaside resorts of that region than are ever likely to go to see Plymouth Argyle play on a Sunday afternoon in winter. Other Members too, in dealing with other provisions of the Bill, have completely ignored the fact that there is a great deal of Sunday sport going on already.

Too much.

My hon. Friend is entitled to say "too much", but I would remind him of a precept laid down by Archbishop Temple. Some of us who modestly claim to be Christians believe that we are entitled to the free expression of our views. Archbishop Temple once said on this subject, that God's most precious gift for any of us is individual free will. The exercise of our individual free will, or the exercise by other people of their free will, is of tremendous importance, and minorities ought not to try to stop majorities exercising their free will on occasions.

I am trying to strike a reasonable balance. The picture is not all black or all white, and one has to try to form a judgment. My point is that a great deal of Sunday sport is going on without doing much harm to very many people, and we ought to be extremely careful when legislating, not to interfere with the rights of majorities while trying to protect the rights of minorities.

No one would object to the sort of people about whom my hon. Friend was speaking, who participate in a quiet game of golf or tennis. I have supported that all my life. What most of us have in mind is this highly commercial and sometimes very ugly commercialisation of the sport. Commercialisation is the point.

I suspect that I should be out of order if I tried to deal with that point. I shall try to deal with it on Third Reading. It is a complete distortion of the facts to suggest that anybody is commercially exploiting sportsmen by organising sports contests. At present little profit is made from any professional sport in this country. That is why, in order that their sport shall survive, the people who organise it are moving towards Sunday cricket.

People are entitled to object to this movement, but we have to pay some attention to the views of the M.C.C. and the county cricket organisations who say, "We are performing a public service by organising the county cricket championship and this sport can survive only if it takes account of the changing sociological pattern of the nation"—and the change in the sociological pattern of the nation, whether the House likes it or not, is that more and more people want to watch their spectator sports not on Saturdays but on other days of the week. It was conclusively proved last year that twice as many people wished to watch cricket on Sundays as on Saturdays.

I do not believe that it was the experience of any county cricket club which organised Sunday cricket last year that their operations affected any of the churches with whom we are dealing, or created a considerable degree of disquiet in their neighbourhoods. I understand the point made by some of my hon. Friends that this may not be the case with certain football matches but I advise the House to rest upon the provisions contained in new Clause 2, which the House has passed on the advice of my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for York was absolutely right when he said that the Clause with which we are dealing is completely unworkable. It goes far wider than dealing with sport or entertainment; it creates a new class of nuisance in the vicinity of any church or place of worship. My hon. Friend was right in saying that it would be possible to demonstrate that many ordinary activities which are now permitted, and which have been going on in this country for many years—innocent entertainments and recreation—would be illegal if the Clause were accepted.

For instance, bathing on the foreshore of any beaches in this country which were in the vicinity of a church would be illegal. I should imagine that the whole House, including the sponsors of the Clause, would be horrified if it were suddenly found to be illegal for the owner of any beach to allow children to bathe in the vicinity of a church. Even the holding of a Christian service on such a beach or foreshore, as we are advised, could mean that the owner of the land who had allowed such a service to be held was guilty of committing a criminal offence. In all these circumstances it is quite clear that this Clause ought not to be supported.

This is not to say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and others that people who want quiet in their places of worship ought not to have the opportunity of expressing their view. The Government's view is that new Clause 2—which we had not got when this proposed new Clause was put down—gives them that opportunity. If a place of worship thinks that some organised piece of sport or recreation is likely profoundly to affect their worship, new Clause No. 2 provides them with the opportunity of expressing their view. They would also have the opportunity of expressing their view when the matter was heard before the court.

Not the least of the vices of this new Clause is that it will not even provide far argument before the magistrates in cases where new Clause 2 does. This is an entirely prohibitive provision which will not even allow for counter arguments to be put forward. For all these reasons—although I am prepared to give way before I sit down—I hope that the House will negative the new Clause.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for saying that he will give way before sitting down. I want to make one short point because his speech, in part, was based on a delusion. He said that in his opinion the situation is adequately dealt with by new Clause 2. I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when I moved my new Clause. I pointed out that new Clause 2 has reference only to nuisances and annoyances which arise under Clause 2 of the Bill. Nuisances and annoyances, as I indicated, can arise under other Clauses. Therefore places of worship cannot possibly be protected in references to nuisances and annoyances covered by other Clauses by reference to a new Clause that is confined to Clause 2 of the Bill.

I reiterate that in respect of new Clause 2 we have agreed the method by which objectors with legitimate objections can express themselves and we have almost agreed on the procedure by which these objections can be determined. Our objection to this new Clause is not only that it goes far beyond new Clause 2, or Clause 2 of the Bill, but beyond the whole Bill. It tries to create a new category of nuisance and to deal with a situation far beyond the range of the Bill. Therefore it will cause a considerable amount of confusion. In our view it is quite impracticable, and I must therefore advise my hon. Friend not to agree to it.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) I recognise that there are difficulties about the new Clause, but I support the achievement of the object that it seeks to bring about. If, as the Minister says, it is unworkable, I hope that some other way of achieving this important object will be put forward. I attach the greatest importance to what is desired by my hon. Friend and I feel that we must press this matter to a Division unless we receive an assurance that, perhaps in another place, something will be done to allay the anxieties which we feel.

We must accept what the hon. Member has said about the Clause being unworkable in its present form—although I thought that he strayed a little from the position of neutrality which he claimed to occupy, perhaps because he was provoked a little from some of the intervention in his speech. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) made somewhat heavy weather of his argument. I am not as learned in the law as he is, but when he was being so meticulous and legalistic about the subject I was surprised to hear him suggest on two occasions that the Clause was intended for the protection of Christian worship alone. It is not; it is intended for the protection of religious worship of all kinds.

I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke about it as if it were for the prevention of disturbance in the vicinity of a church but it is also for prevention of disturbance in the vicinity of a synagogue, a mosque or a gurdwara—if our Sikh fellow citizens have now erected gurdwaras in this land. It is intended for the protection of religious worship as a whole.

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. A synagogue usually has its services on Saturday. The Clause would not protect a synagogue but would protect a Christian church. It is in that sense that I say that it would be devisive of opinion in the country.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and apologise to him for what I have said. I think that this is the best objection I have heard so far to the Clause. If, as is clearly necessary, something is to be done in another place, I hope that this point will be covered, and that there is no limitation to Christian places of worship and that all places of worship will be taken into account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said that religious worship is already being disturbed. Clearly, if the Bill is enacted in its present form the amount and degree of disturbance to religious worship will probably increase. In my constituency I periodically worship at the lovely modern Roman Catholic Church of St. Edmund of Canterbury, Traps Hill. Immediately alongside the church is our new swimming pool, of which we are very proud in Chigwell. When it was built everything was done to ensure that the activities of those rightly enjoying it would not interfere with the worship and the life of the Catholic church next door. This was a manifestation of the mutual respect and co-operation between the local authority and religious bodies which is a great joy to me as the Member of Parliament. But this kind of spirit does not always obtain. In whatever form the object of the Clause is met, it must be met.

The hon. Gentleman, quoting Archbishop Temple, spoke of the paramount importance of the exercise of free will. Of course. Those of us who worship of our free will wish also to be able to exercise that free will. That is the whole point of the Clause. Unless something is done I fear that there will be a further encroachment on the fundamental human right of freedom of worship.

Speaking on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill I advise the House not to accept the Clause, but to accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister. I believe the Clause to be quite unworkable as drafted, and quite unnecessary.

I remember that in my youth, in Liverpool, much of the interruption to Christian worship came from other Christians. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) mentioned the Salvation Army's interference with his Sundays, but in my youth, unfortunately, Orange bands went around Liverpool playing as loudly as they could outside Catholic churches at particular times in order to annoy. I hope that with the growth of ecumenical feeling that has now stopped.

I also witnessed the return of the Archbishop from a visit to Lourdes through a street in which all the lampposts had cardboard hams tied on them with orange ribbons on and "Cured at Lourdes" written on them, in order to annoy on the return of the Archbishop from that pilgrimage. Give and take on Christian lines between different users of property, whether hall or chapel, is the normal and natural way of settling these differences. If they cannot be settled in that way I suggest that no new Clause can adequately deal with the matter. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Clause.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) on introducing the Clause. Like other hon. Members, I support it only in the event of the Bill's going through. I should very much prefer to see the Bill fall on Third Reading.

The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred to Orange bands. Because I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) I was going to suggest to him that it was a pity he had not also had the opportunity of hearing an Orange band walking past the church in which he was preaching, because he might have found that additional inspiration to help him with his sermon. His observations on the churches were most interesting, and his is a point of view which anyone is entitled to hold.

I should greatly deplore the extension of professional sport in particular on a Sunday. Part of the trouble from which we are suffering today is that we have become too much a permissive society. We have forgotten too often the rights of minorities and of fellow citizens to attend worship without being disturbed in their devotions. I am a son of the manse and I agree with the proposition that it is not really too much to expect that one day, the Sabbath, should be preserved as a day of rest and, for those who have the spirit to take part in it, as a day of worship.

I am afraid that I was getting away from new Clause 7. One would have liked different wording in it. For example, I should have liked to see after

"Members of the public in such manner"

the words "as would be likely". That would be a much easier form of words for interpretation by a court if proceedings were taken under the Clause. It would indicate to a promoter that he had a duty to consider whether or not the sport or entertainment being promoted would be likely to disturb religious worship or cause annoyance to persons attending the church.

The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that that excludes a Northern Ireland Member from having a right to take an interest in such a deeply religious matter. I welcome the fact that on both sides of the House Members for Scottish constituencies are present, although the Bill does not apply to Scotland.

rose—

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie)—and I would wish to say this before the intervention—is getting away from the Clause. He should direct himself to it.

I acknowledge that, and am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wished just by way of personal explanation to make reference to that fact because it is a matter which must be examined.

May I say how much I appreciated the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), a very sincere, very interesting and far-reaching speech. With these few words I support this proposed new Clause.

There have indeed been one or two outlandish statements made in this morning's debate. I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has left the Chamber temporarily, for I wished to join issue with him because he said that in his boyhood services at Catholic churches were deliberately interrupted by Salvation Army bands. Naturally, as a Catholic, I have a very great regard for my own faith, but as an ex-Service man who in the very dire circumstances which existed during the war often received a bed at a shilling a time from the Salvation Army, I have a very, very high regard for the Salvation Army as well. I do not want to be too severe, but I would say that that statement represented almost a travesty of the truth.

The nearest to it that I remember was seeing a wonderful figure who always gave me great inspiration and joy, a Salvation Army member, Red-Hot John, who, to the tune of an old English concertina, sang the words

"Dare to be a Daniel,

Dare to stand alone.

Dare to have a purpose firm

And dare to make it known."

I am delighted that there are here on both sides of the House people who have a firm purpose and are willing to say what they feel they ought to say on this very important matter and on this very important Clause.

I was bitterly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister—bitterly disappointed. I thought he might have given us a little more inspiration and a little more joy and that he ought perhaps to have shown a little more impartiality. He said in the first place that the new Clause was impracticable. If that is so, it is a very great pity indeed. He went on to say that our case was exaggerated. He went on to say that the noise from the swimming pool interrupted services in the church. Well, the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) dealt very adequately with that point. He went on to talk of amateur sport. It is true that there is a great deal of amateur sport, and that, of course, is all to the good. In my opinion these people do not interfere with church services on Sundays.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that Gaelic football is played in my constituency. If this new Clause were accepted it would be impossible for Gaelic football to be played on Sundays in my constituency because of the noise it would create.

I would not accept this. I think that provision will have to be made in the Bill in some way or another whereby amateur sport and the pursuits of people in the ordinary way would be catered for. I do not think that that would be too much to ask and to expect.

The hon. Member who sponsored the Bill is a Liverpool person like myself, and very often in his sojourn in Liverpool he must have had to contend with Evertonians and Liverpudlians going round the town and shouting "Everton" and "Liverpool". I am a lover of sport myself. I have been all my life. I have been a follower of football all my life and in my youth I played football for many amateur teams. My son plays rugby for Waterloo, R.U.F.C. I would not take second place to anyone in this Chamber in love of sport. Sport is a great safeguard and a great outlet for the people of this country and when sport is going on every day of the week, and on the seventh day, on the Sabbath Day, and is going to involve a lot of working people, I do believe—

Order. It is not the purpose of the new Clause to deal with the activities of sport or other matters in the Bill, but with activities in proximity to places of worship. I hope the hon. Member will come to the new Clause.

Indeed, yes, and this is a very important aspect and I am most sorry to have departed from it. It is an important Clause and I wish to give it the utmost support.

In view of the tremendous and soul-searing issues which are coming into the open day by day, apart from religious considerations, I believe that there must be a day of reflection without any interference at all. There must be one day of quietude. There must be one day free from the supporters of all professional sporting activities.

The hon. Member is dealing with the principles of the Bill and not with the new Clause. The new Clause does not say whether these activities should take place on Sunday but whether they should be in the proximity of a church so as to cause nuisance.

I am slowly coming to the point which I am most anxious to develop. I come to it very quickly, and I will eradicate from my speech some of the very important things I hoped to be able to say, for I abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Everton football ground has a church close to it. The sponsor of the Bill knows this to be so. Everton Football Club—

Have the prayerbooks got rattles on them?

I may be particularly slow in uptake, but I fail to see the significance of that remark.

They have been trying to buy that church for many years to make room for another thousand or so spectators, but the little church has not given way over the last 50 years and I certainly hope it will not give way. It is a Nonconformist church but will not reform.

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is in danger of being nonconformist in regard to the rules of order. He really must come to the new Clause.

I think I have done very well. I think that is more or less what I wanted to say, and I will now close.

Hearing the musical tone and the words of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) I think that if he were to speak on the pavement outside any church in which I was worshipping I would leave the church and go to listen to him on the pavement outside.

However, I do feel that there has been a failure to appreciate—and I refer particularly to the Minister and his intervention—that there is a genuine attempt to seek to find a balance in what is genuinely a problem. I was intrigued by the description by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) when he said he sometimes, when he was speaking in a Methodist chapel, found inspiration in some of the little noises off which came in from outside. I feel that in a real sense there is truth in that, that those who go to a place of worship on Sunday hear occasional sounds from without, reminding them that they are nevertheless in the world though they may be not of it for that brief period.

However, there is a distinction between that sort of little disturbance, the incidental noises of life continuing outside, of vehicles passing by, and so on, and the totally different problem of scale when there is set down next door to the church, or very close to it, a source of continuous disturbance—from an entertainment, whether of the musical or the sporting kind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was obviously right in pointing out that this new Clause relates to the whole scope of liberalisation which the Bill introduces, and not only in the matter of sport, and the difficulties which would in many cases arise to make the use of and worship in church totally impossible. This cannot be within the wish or the remit of the sponsors of the Bill. Many hon. Members sympathise with the sponsor of the Bill in his effort to change archaic laws. We are impressed and delighted at his flexibility in attempting to meet some of our difficulties. and new Clause 2 is a good case in point. The Bill is a liberalising Measure, and it is difficult to anticipate precisely what changes will be unleased in the way people spend Sundays, particularly in entertainment, out of which much money can be made.

In the light of this uncertainty, it is reasonable to seek to write into the Bill a specific safeguard against the unique feature of Sunday occupations which is most likely to be threatened by the undesirable increase of noise from organised activity. I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) in the new Clause. There may be imperfections in drafting, but these can be put right elsewhere.

I fully support the purpose of the new Clause, if not the actual wording on the Order Paper, which is not the real test of the value or purpose of the Clause.

I would ask the Minister to consider again what is likely to happen in the minds of the church-going community, whether it be a minority or a majority, in the next few years if the Bill becomes law. There will be a danger of a vast extension of mass sporting and entertainment activities, and all the great commercial services associated with them. The sponsors of the Bill can no more control that situation, once the Bill has become law, than they can control great natural disasters.

The Minister must realise that a new situation is about to be created if the Bill becomes law. Activities which are at present illegal will become legal and will spread throughout the country on a wide scale. It is no use the Minister saying that there is no important com- mercial element involved. As these entertainments, dancing and other sporting activities extend, does the Minister think that the gambling element and increased transport and catering facilities can be excluded? These activities involve calls on the services of millions of working people who are not at present required to work on Sunday.

Does not the Minister therefore agree that people who value Sunday as a day of rest will be greatly disturbed in their desire to have peace and quiet in their very churches, which is the preferred form of Sunday enjoyment that they choose?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the advent of the motor car, with its sociological effect on the country, has already in large measure had an effect on the catering industry. To that extent, I do not agree with him that there would be a tremendous change in the pattern of the hundreds of families who travel around in cars looking for somewhere to go.

The short point that I want to intervene on is to say that my right hon. Friend would be quite wrong to say that there would be any change in the pattern affecting gambling. None of the sports involved, representatives of which have written to us or expressed interest in this matter, are sports which countenance gambling. The only sports which countenance gambling are horse-racing and greyhound racing, which would still be illegal.

And football.

Football does not count as gambling in the sense that my hon. Friend was suggesting. It is not gambling where the sport takes place and at the time it takes place.

I thought for a moment that the Minister was on our side, and was trying to talk out the Bill. With respect, that would have been his most valuable contribution to the debate. His impartiality, or even the appearance of it, has not been enhanced by the remarks he has just made or the remarks he made earlier. If I had as many "independent" supporters as the sponsors of the Bill have on the Front Bench, I would not have to worry about victory for my cause.

The Minister cannot really give a guarantee against extending abuses. No one can guarantee that, once mass sport and the many forms of mass commercialism associated with it are legally extended, it will be possible to control the extension of gambling, even to sports which have never been seriously affected by it before. That is a point about which no doubt the Minister would wish to say much more, but it is not the main point of my argument.

On an earlier Amendment, one of my hon. Friends said that it was not a question of legality, but a question of intensity of feeling and conscientious views, deeply and honestly held by people who have been encouraged by the House to hold fast to them—convictions, buttressed by the legislative support of this House for centuries past. Whether those people are a minority or a majority does not matter. We can get very hot at times about minorities in the House, and last week's debate on race problems was an example of that. We have a right to express ourselves warmly, and indeed vehemently, about the rights of longer established minorities too.

The sophistry of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) will not satisfy the anxieties of millions of people who are disturbed by the Bill, and by the lack of provision in its Clauses for the protection of their rights, when so many of their valued rights are now being taken away from them. I hope that the Bill's supporters will not say too much about these arguments of mine representing only a minority feeling or view. After all, the Second Reading of this Bill went through with only 29 on the side of victory.

My hon. Friend is relating his speech to new Clause 7. Surely he knows, as an intelligent hon. Member, that any constituent who objects to a noise nuisance or any of the sports to which reference has been made can be dealt with under new Clause 2.

This was the Minister's argument, to some extent, but I am far from sure that it is correct. In the Bill, we are specifically creating new situations which will have to be looked at individually as they arise and extend, affecting the life of our communities more and more. It is the Bill itself which is creating these new situations out of which new offences may arise, but—

Does the Bill affect my hon. Friend's constituency?

Of course. My hon. Friend takes a narrow, English, nationalist view. I thought that he was supposed to be arguing for liberty and democracy and new freedoms. He is, in fact, in favour under this Bill of depriving millions of working people of their freedom, which this House has guaranteed for centuries. In his Second Reading speech, his main argument was based upon a very narrow personal experience of what he regarded as the repression of his own desire for greater licence in connection with a Sabbatarian matter which I will not go into now. Although I am here to represent the views of my constituents, he must remember that I am also an hon. Member of what is our national assembly. I am ashamed that in 1968 he or any hon. Member should talk in that way. Sometimes a Scotsman learns more quickly than a Londoner that London is not even England—let alone Scotland and Wales.

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the terms of the new Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been interrupted by the highly irregular suggestion from my hon. Friend that my constituency had nothing to do with a matter of importance to the whole of the people of this country, I felt obliged to reply to him. Of course, it may be that he wishes to minimise the importance of the Bill and suggest that it does not matter to anyone living outside London. If it did not, that would be an excellent restriction. However, clearly it affects people all over the country.

In this Clause, however inadequately worded, we ask that the fullest protection should be given to people to worship in peace on Sundays in places set aside for their worship. I should have thought that that would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Inevitably and dangerously, the requirement of some protection will grow with the new licence which is given under this Bill, if it ever becomes law, which I shall try to prevent. I should have thought that that was a simple argument which would be accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), for whom I have a great respect.

I ask my hon. Friend to keep carefully in mind the deep and sincerely held feelings of people and try to bring in some provision to safeguard their rights. That cannot, surely, be against his real intentions. If he is not satisfied with the wording of the Clause, I fail to see why he cannot suggest a form of words to meet its intentions, without necessarily adopting the exact wording of it.

I wish to support the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Going back to the example which he gave at the start of his speech, it seems to me that it would be utterly outrageous if that happened. Clearly, it can happen if the Bill is passed. It is equally clear that, if the Clause were accepted, it would be stopped.

As other hon. Members have said, I, too, feel that the "Minister for Sport" was not at his best in his speech. He talked about there being a quantity of Sunday sport in the country, and that is perfectly true. He talked about Sunday cricket, but that is utterly irrelevant to the Clause, which deals with the occupier of premises who permits those premises to be used on a Sunday by other people so as to disturb religious worship or cause annoyance to persons attending church.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) took a very narrow and legalistic view. It is well within the competence of a magistrates' court to see the facts presented to it and decide whether they are such as to disturb religious worship or cause annoyance to persons attending church.

It may be that the wording of the Clause is not ideal. If that is so, the Minister should have given some help in redrafting it rather than brushing it aside as he did. I feel that it is a practical step. The courts are quite capable of deciding whether or not an offence has been committed. They will not take a narrow view and allow a prosecution to be brought forward on no basis at all. I support the Clause and I hope that my hon. Friend will take it to a Division, in which event I am confident that the House will agree to it.

I wish to oppose the new Clause, because the points which have been argued are adequately covered by new Clause 2 which has been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hambling).

Those hon. Members who drafted the Clause must realise that it can operate in reverse. As a child, I was brought up as a member of the Church of England, in the High Church. On those occasions when my mother failed to get me out in sufficient time to go to Sung Eucharist, I can remember being somewhat annoyed at the lusty singing and the ringing of bells at the Congregational church close to my home. It may have been because I was not of that persuasion, but annoyance was certainly caused to me by the lusty singing—

Might it have been not because the hon. Gentleman was not of the same persuasion, but because he was not of a musical nature?

That may be true. However, it has to be recognised by all the Churches that their services may annoy people who do not attend church. They, too, have their rights. In built-up areas, many people go to church by car, and that also causes annoyance. However, one has to be tolerant, and it seems to me that the points which have been made about noise and annoyance are well covered by new Clause 2.

I would suggest to hon. Members who have argued so persuasively in support of this Clause that they are not arguing the case for the Churches. They are arguing against the whole concept of the Bill in principle. This is an entirely different matter. I said this morning that I thought there was a need to safeguard the interests of people in an area where there would be a nuisance as a result of Sunday games. Nevertheless, it should not be pushed as far as it has been pushed in the Amendment. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who is always eloquent and persuasive. I think that he has as great an interest in English affairs as we have in Scottish affairs. However, I find it difficult to accept what has been said on this matter by some hon. Members from Northern Ireland when we are not entitled to raise questions dealing with Northern Ireland.

I have the greatest respect for the Northern Ireland Members. They are useful adjuncts to this House. They speak with clearness and clarity, and I hope that they will long continue to remain here giving us the benefit of their views.

I support the Clause. I will not go through the wording, which is open to a good deal of criticism purely from the legal point of view. I suggest the House should accept the new Clause, leaving it open to the Minister and the sponsors of the Bill in another place to vary the wording. If I were to give a lecture about certain criticisms which can be offered to the wording I should be giving a legal lecture and boring the House.

The principle of the Bill is to permit games, often noisy games, on Sundays. Many people—whether it be a majority or a minority does not matter—regard Sunday as a day of worship. They attend their respective places of worship, whether they be cathedrals or small places with tin roofs, to listen to their preachers, and they do not wish to be disturbed on that day. If these games and sports do not disturb them and the organisers have a certificate or the permission set out in new Clause 2, well and good. But for extra clarification or extra force for new Clause 2, new Clause 7 should be added, so that congregations and other people concerned can go to the magistrates' court and say: If you grant this certificate this game will take place right outside the main entrance to our church, cathedral or chapel"—or whatever it may be. This is, therefore, an additional reason why the certificate should be refused, because it is offending against the new Clause we are discussing.

This is not a wrecking Motion. A great many of these functions will take place a long way from any place of worship and the Bill will not apply. The Bill will only apply to those functions which take place near, and are a nuisance to, a place of worship during the hours of worship, and only upon a Sunday, which is the principal day of worship.

We have to marry up the various conflicting interests of the people who wish to do things that are a nuisance to others and of those others who object to what is done. The House, in considering these conflicting interests, should be able to say, "You must not on a Sunday go so near a place of worship that you disturb and are a nuisance to the people there. If you do you will be guilty of an offence"—whatever that may mean under the Clause. That is one of the wording criticisms, into which I will not go now. That no doubt can be done in another place. I hope that the Clause will be adopted subject to any drafting Amendment which might have to be made.

We have been debating noise and disturbance since just turned 11 o'clock this morning. A great many of the speeches which I have heard on this new Clause were almost identical to those which were made on previous Amendments or new Clauses. I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has not seen fit to accept the assurances already given. He spoke about the Clause as an extra assurance. What he fails to understand is the wording of new Clause 2, which the House has already accepted.

rose—

I will give way when I have finished my point.

New Clause 2 refers to a demand by any person about a complaint. Every point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made is already covered by new Clause 2. In any case, under the existing law, anyone has the right to go to the courts to seek protection from a nuisance or disturbance.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that every church and chapel-goer should be put on guard that he will have to go to a magistrates' court before he has the right to worship in peace?

A worshipper in a church is in the same position as anyone else. I do not see why he should be singled out and given this protection. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) spoke about enlarging freedoms. The new Clause would not enlarge freedoms. It would severely limit freedoms which we already possess.

rose—

When my hon. Friend was making his speech I made a point about Gaelic football. This was relevant to the new Clause. I have had complaints from constituents about the activities of Gaelic footballers on Sunday mornings.

If the Clause were put into operation any church would have the right to prevent any undertaking or occupation or entertainment such as I have mentioned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I suggest that Members who put down and support new Clauses should read the words that they have put down. They must accept responsibility for their wording. It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying that if I do not like it I can amend it. They must accept responsibility for something that they support. I will not accept the responsibility for it. I am merely bound to explain the way I see it operating.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] This debate has now been going on for an hour and fifty minutes. Interventions like that merely prolong it. I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking.

The existing law gives churches every protection and, in addition, new Clause 2 gives people the protection that they want under the Bill. I have already accepted new Clause 2, and I hope that the House will recognise that in accepting it I am paying some attention to the feelings of those who might otherwise object to the Bill.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

I think I have a right of reply to this debate as the mover of the new Clause. I do not want to prolong the matter for more than a few minutes, but I certainly want to respond as far as I am able to what has been said on the other side.

There are only two points with which I want to deal. They have been repeated time and time again. I believe that they are based upon a misunderstanding. What was said by the sponsor and others—it was repeated several times—was that the situation which my new Clause seeks to deal with is fully, adequately and completely covered by new Clause 2 which the House accepted earlier. I have already made the point that this is not the case. If new Clause 2 were the only Clause which creates new opportunities for sport and other activities on Sunday, that argument would be a very strong one and I should certainly be prepared to accept it. But there are many other activities which are at present illegal but which, if the Bill passes into law in its present form, will become legal under Clauses other than new Clause 2.

Therefore, what I am seeking is not protection for the churches in respect of activities under new Clause 2 because I accept that they may to some extent be provided for. I am seeking protection for places of worship with regard to activities which will be legalised under other Clauses of the Bill. For that reason I cannot accept the argument that we should rest upon new Clause 2 and that I should withdraw new Clause 7.

The only other point I want to make is that there has been a good deal of criticism of drafting points. I am not a lawyer. I am a layman in these matters, and I certainly do not attempt to draft new Clauses of this kind, not regarding myself as competent to do so. I employed for the purpose an experienced lawyer and Parliamentary draftsman who specialises in this field. That is the best that an ordinary Member of the House can do in the circumstances. This is the best new Clause that could be produced by the eminent lawyer whom I consulted and retained in this matter.

I am not going to argue the points of drafting that have been raised. What I say is that the same kind of points—not to the same extent, but the same kind—have been made in regard to the drafting of new Clause 2, which the House accepted. The Home Office spokesman pointed out clearly that it might well prove to be unsatisfactory, that the Government wanted to consult the magistrates and the local authorities and that as a result of those consultations other alterations might become necesstary in another place, and the House accepted that. What I am suggesting is that the House should agree to pass my new

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

I voted for the Closure, because I do not believe in using delay to destroy Private Members' Bills, but I shall vote for the Clause if it goes to a Division. As the Closure has been lost and the debate continues, I have a suggestion to make to my hon. Friends who have sponsored the Bill. I do not share their views, but I respect them. I fail to see why they cannot give a definite assurance that they will accept the principle of the new Clause. I am sure that I speak for the people in my constituency and in all constituencies when I say that in this country we all respect our religious traditions and our religious freedom.

As a Nonconformist, I believe that one of the best things done by Nonconformists in the last Parliament and in the Parliament before last was to keep religious education in schools out of party strife. That represented a great change in our Nonconformist views. I ask hon. Members who belong to the same party as I do to remember that our party owes a great deal to the Nonconformist tradition. Unless the new Clause is accepted, if it becomes known that it has been turned down, they will offend many of the best citizens of the country. I do not want to delay the debate, but I hope that they will reconsider and accept the spirit and intent of the new Clause, whatever words are used, so that those who worship in churches and chapels can be allowed to worship in quiet and peace, which is all that the Clause would provide.

I had not intended to speak on this new Clause until the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, I regret to say, has now left the Chamber, challenged my right to do so. He suggested that as I came from Northern Ireland and represented a Northern Ireland constituency, there was something improper in my speaking, as the Bill did not refer to Northern Ireland. I completely agree with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) that any hon. Member is a Member of Parliament, not a delegate from his constituency, and has a right to speak on any subject which properly comes before the House of Commons. It is simply in defence of that right that I have decided to speak on this Clause, because my views on the whole subject of Sunday observance are well known. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) put my point of view remarkably well, and I did not want to add to what they had said.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said about the old days in Liverpool. In an interesting speech he said that the nuisance in those days tended to be among Christians themselves rather than between Christians and secular disturbances from outside. I hope that he will have noted the extent of the ecumenical movement when his hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and I can go into the Lobby against the hon. Gentleman.

Many people feel deeply that in defence of Christian worship something more than is already done by the Bill should be done to extend privacy and the right to the undisturbed exercise of Christian worship on Sunday. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and others have referred us to new Clause 2, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) pointed out, that does not deal with many of the disturbances which might be created as a result of the Bill. It applies only to those under Clause 2. I know that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West wishes to be fair—although he got a little heated earlier. If he is fair, he must realise that only disturbances created under Clause 2 can be dealt with under new Clause 2.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) talked about sports, which are not covered by the Clause. None of those who have spoken in support of the new Clause has been very specific about what sports might cause annoyance and are not covered by new Clause 2. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be specific?

I shall be specific on one thing—dancing.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon referred to sports.

He may have done so, but I am talking about dancing. I am talking about the various kinds of commercial disturbance which could be created as a result of the so-called liberalising of the law.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) moved the new Clause he referred to dancing. He spoke about a dance hall next-door to a church in his constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

3.0 p.m.

As the hon. Member for the Western Isles argued, we cannot see the ultimate consequences of the Bill. We do not know what will become lawful that is not lawful now. The only people from whom I have received any representations for this so-called liberalising of the law are those who want to make money. All kinds of people want to make money, and we do not know what methods they will adopt to do so. It will be impossible to guard against them all unless we have some such Clause as this.

I thought that the Minister's dismissal of the argument was shallow in the extreme. He put himself forward as neutral, but he was not being fair. He dismissed the Clause on the ground that it would create a new criminal offence, that it would be unworkable. If he is sincere, and is not using his argument merely as an excuse for not accepting the Clause, he ought to say, "I shall try to meet your objections is so far as the Bill other than Clause 2 is concerned. I will see whether I can produce a draft. I am sure that, if the will is there, it is not beyond the wit of man to produce something to meet it".

Even if the Clause is imperfect, I hope that, to demonstrate our desire to see that Christian worship is defended from all the unknown consequences of passing the Bill, my hon. Friends will join me in dividing the House.

As a lawyer I dislike the kind of offence which the Clause envisages. There is great uncertainty about the kind of offence which will be committed if the Clause is incorporated in the Bill. As the representative of a Nonconformist constituency, and being aware of the views of my constituents and my church about the Bill, I am concerned to ensure that there is no disturbance to the holding of religious services in any part of the country.

I suggest to the sponsors of the Bill that the way to overcome the difficulty is to take the opportunity when the Bill is being considered in another place to write in a provision that when considering whether to grant a certificate the magistrates should have particular regard to the fact that there shall be no interference by the holding of this kind of Sunday entertainment with any church meeting or any person attending a church service. This kind of compromise is not unknown to the House. I think that it would meet the objections which I, as a lawyer, have to the new uncertain offence.

I think that the Clause would be workable. Magistrates are often called on to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of fact. Whether annoyance is being caused in such a way as to disturb religious worship is an easy matter to interpret on the evidence. I should have thought that there would be no difficulty in making the Clause work. It may be improved, but that is not the point.

In this country we have a basic right, which is the freedom of worship. But added to that there has been freedom of worship in peace. That right has always existed within the social framework of this country. Now the sponsors of the Bill want to change the social framework. They want to introduce new rights. Therefore, they have a duty to safeguard the minority who may not take the same view as they do.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is normally very tractable. However, today he has shown himself to be a little insensitive to the mood of the House. I am sorry that I missed the speech of the Minister who is responsible for sport, and I apologise for doing so, but it seems from the reports of it which I have heard that he, too, showed insensitivity. Had he conferred with the Secretary of State for Wales, who, in these matters, represents a very important section of the community, he might have shown a little more sensitivity. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West would have had more sympathy for his basic aims if he had been a little more sympathetic and tractable. I see no reason why he should not accept new Clause 7, which can be easily interpreted, and then change it by Amendment, if necesary, in another place.

I wish to voice the strongest possible objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) on the ground that the new Clause will create a loophole, an escape route, for those who wish to find reasons why sport should be allowed to take place near churches. I hope that the House will turn down this proposal, which is simply an escape route for the sponsors of the Bill.

His proposal?

Yes, that something, about which we do not know, should be written into the Bill in another place. I object to the new Clause, because it will create a powerful loophole for evading what we are trying to do.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He needs leave if he wishes to speak again.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this Motion.

I am sorry. Mr. Ennals.

It is important, particularly when we are debating Private Members' Bills, that we should always try to respond to the mood of the House. One can come in with one impression and go out with another. This is the purpose of debate.

I have some sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards). The Clause is unsatisfactory in many ways, and the Committee thought so when it analysed a proposal in exactly the same form. However, the argument of one or two hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, that new Clause 2 totally covers the point is valid. New Clause 2 is related to Clause 2 of the Bill, and this does not cover other forms of spectacle.

There is great merit in the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth, and it has two suggestions linked to it. One is that new Clause 2 should be redrafted, perhaps in another place, so that it does not tie itself only to Clause 2 but can concern itself with other forms of activity which would be permitted if the Bill were passed and does not limit itself to sport. The second suggestion is that special consideration should be given by those who will have to take a decision on licensing, whether it be the local authority or the magistrates, to the needs of those concerned with religious worship.

I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he can respond to this and that equally hon. Members who are pressing a particular form of words, which I do not think is satisfactory, will feel that if my hon. Friend accepts this suggestion it would be unfortunate if we were to divide as if it were a question between Sabbatarians and others. I hope that those of us who feel that the Clause as originally drafted was very unsatisfactory and who are as deeply committed to our church worship as others believe that it would be a pity to divide on an issue like this.

We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his intervention and for his sympathy towards us, but I feel that my hon. Friends and I would want some categorical assurance that all forms of interference with church worship will be taboo and that nothing to be allowed under this Bill will be allowed near places of worship.

I have a vested interest in this. I go to church every Sunday and I recommend that habit to those who do not. In hot weather we have the doors open and if a motor cycle goes by it reverberates throughout the church. Children's voices carry right up to the nave when they are in church and interfere with the service. If we allow any form of sport or dancing or motor cycling or gathering on the green which hitherto has not been allowed, it will affect those who go to church on Sundays and it is important to realise that.

I hope that I may have permission to speak again, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman need not have the leave of the House. He is in charge of the Bill.

I am grateful.

I would like to respond to the mood of the House. In my original remarks, I made the point that, in my opinion, the activities to which objection was taken were covered by new Clause 2. All the discussions we had in Committee in relation to this point were concerned with sport. It is only today that hon. Members have referred to other matters. I would certainly be quite willing to see some Amendment which would give the protection of new Clause 2 to all the other activities mentioned in the Bill.

For the purposes of the record, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that his memory is incorrect. In Committee, I made a point connected with the nuisance which would be caused by sport under Clause 2, and gave a specific case of a very noisy dance band in a public hall immediately adjoining a place of worship in my constituency. My argument then, as today, has been based upon that.

The record will display whose memory is at fault. Memories on both sides can be at fault, but I am within the recollection of the House in suggesting that the hon. Gentleman referred specifically to sport this afternoon. However, I am seeking to be cooperative and I hope that the House will accept the fact that I am trying to be.

All I am saying is that if we can, in some way, provide the protections of new Clause 2 to all the activities mentioned in the Bill—whether dancing or cinemas or theatres or sport—we will do so. I hope that the House will accept that assurance and that new Clause 7 will be withdrawn.

Surely the right way to deal with this matter is in the same way we dealt with new Clause 2—that is for the House to accept new Clause 7 on the understanding that, in another place, it and new Clause 2 will be refashioned to make them more satisfactory to hon. Members who hold different views. Rather than divide on a matter which would appear to be a division between those who believe in strict observance of Sunday and those who do not, it would be better to reach an agreed solution.

I urge the sponsors of the Bill to adopt the advice of the Minister and accept new Clause 7.

I will accept that.

In view of the acceptance of this new Clause I have nothing more to say at this stage.

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

The Bill increases very largely the opportunity for what one can call, in no disrespect way, secular activities on Sundays. It is clear from the debates that have taken place today that, although there is concern on both sides, and that hon. Members differ in regard to the main purposes of the Bill, there is agreement that we must do all that we can to reduce the annoyance and disturbance caused as a result of the activities which will be legalised if the Bill passes on to the Statute Book.

The purpose of this Clause is to make the fact clear that, although certain illegal activities will, if the Bill is passed, become legal, that will not confer upon the people who engage in these activities the right to conduct them in such a way as to be a source of annoyance, public or private, to others. We all accept in principle that a fair balance has to be held between two or more classes of people.

There are those on the one hand who wish to indulge in Sunday activities which necessarily create large crowds and disturbance, and in some cases annoyance. There are others who wish to spend Sunday in another way. They are not by any means all of them people who habitually frequent the churches or chapels, unfortunately. They have however been brought up in the tradition of the quiet English Sunday, and they like the older way of life on a Sunday more than the encroachments upon Sunday which are continually taking place.

The House has, therefore, tried to draw a fair line between the two sections of the people, to maintain the balance between those who wish to indulge in noisy activities and those who, on the other hand, wish to have a quiet day, undisturbed by noisy activities. It is clear that in this world of imperfection and limitation it is impossible to devise an Act of Parliament or system of government that will give both sets of people all that they want. There has to be an element of give and take, a measure of comprise—there has to be a degree of forbearance on both sides. We recognise that, and our business today, and generally, is to try to hold the scales fairly between the different sections of the community with different requirements and points of view.

All that I want to write into the Bill, and this seems to be a simple, clear, reasonable, straightforward matter, is a declaration that those who engage in the noisy activities which will be legalised if the Bill gets a Third Reading are not entitled to assume from that that they can conduct the activities or themselves in such a way as to cause a public; or private nuisance. I hope that this is so reasonable that it may prove non-controversial and that we may be able to accept it without difficulty ard write it into the Bill.

I would have thought that after the acceptance of new Clauses 2 and 7 there was no need for this one. I hope that the hon. Member will not press it. It is not very well drafted, and would probably have to be redrafted in another place. In any case, it seeks to prevent the Bill doing something that it does not do anyway, namely, to authorise any nuisance, public or private. Furthermore, it refers to Scotland, whereas the Bill does not apply to Scotland. I cannot see the significance of that reference in the Clause. Any nuisance or disturbance to which the hon. Member was referring would be covered by the assurances that have already been given on the new Clauses that have been accepted.