I have, as usual, posted up my selection of Amendments. At the end of our proceedings last week, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was addressing the House.

We were advised on behalf of the Home Office that these words would make no legal difference to the Bill. I accept that, but it means that there can be no objection to their inclusion, and I hope that the Amendment will not be opposed. While the insertion makes no legal difference, the words would serve a useful purpose by making the legal position clear to the layman. This is very important, because reference has been made to various subterfuges which have occasionally been used to get over the provisions of the existing law and to enable payments to be made which are illegal. Of course, laymen may not be entirely clear about what in law constitutes and does not constitute a payment.

Laymen may have misconceived the legal position and have acted in good faith although infringing the law. If the Bill is allowed to proceed without the Amendment, laymen may be able to plead that they did not know that indirect payments were precluded. The Amendment would, therefore, remove any likelihood of a plea of ignorance of the law by a person who was accused of a breach of the law. It is important to make legislation as clear as possible, not only to trained lawyers but even more to laymen who may be genuinely trying to understand it.

This is particularly true when the criminal law is involved, as it is in this case, and I therefore strongly support the Amendment.

I also support the Amendment and ask the promoter of the Bill to accept it. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, but whatever the strict legal position—of course, I accept the advice given to the Under-Secretary—it would be of great advantage to the public to have it made crystal-clear that, whether the payment is made directly or indirectly, it will be covered.

I strongly support the Amendment and hope that it will be accepted.

I cannot completely accept the Under-Secretary's interpretation that, if payment were made for a cricket scorecard, that would be a payment for entrance. That is questionable. Is it not rather payment after entrance? This is a small point, but there is some chronology in the argument which is important and cannot be disregarded.

My hon. Friend said that the Bill liberalises sport and entertainment on Sunday, so that there would not be the present temptation to fiddle, but I should have thought that, with more and more people feeling liberalised and attending these spectacles on more and more occasions, it would rather lead to more opportunities for fiddling the system of charges.

Undoubtedly more people will be involved, both in the spectacles and in the audiences, and in that case it will be much more difficult to have any sort of control unless the legal definition is water-tight. That is what I dispute. With the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, I do not think that it covers this point. In another place, Lord Willis said:

"…it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction"—

Order. Was the noble Lord speaking officially on behalf of the Government?

He spoke as the sponsor of the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

"…it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction between amateur and profes- sional sport and certainly difficult to draw a distinction in their ability to draw crowds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 21st November, 1966; Vol. 278, c. 18.]

Crowds require many services apart from the actual entertainment. They require parking facilities for motor cars and buses and, since during a fairly long entertainment they are apt to get hungry, they require catering services and this raises the question of charges for such services after admission. So it is not a new thing to find notices at the entrance to such places bearing words to the effect of, "Join our club and you will be able to come free every other time."

There will still be ways to evade this provision. Then people find that they are expected to pay for things which are thrust upon them after they have been admitted. When my hon. Friend interprets the sale of a cricket score-card as a charge for entrance, I doubt whether he can sustain that legally at present and I doubt whether it could be done under the provision which will be made.

The owner of a cinema chain came to see hon. Members when we were debating the abolition of the Entertainments Duty on cinemas. We were told by her that she could not make them pay if it were not for the charges for sales of things like tobacco, cigarettes, ice cream, lemonade and other soft drinks once people had been admitted. Certainly, a charge was made for admission, but the profit was actually made after the charge for admission inside the building.

I do not think that we have any guarantee to date from the Minister or from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that that will be eliminated. Therefore, something which would put into effect the spirit of these words—possibly another form of words, though I doubt whether that is necessary—is essential if we are to close this well-developed and traditional loophole, with which we are all familiar.

After all, these spectacles have to be financed by somebody. They have to be paid for partly in advance and, no doubt, partly afterwards. Because of the bigger number of such spectacles in future, accommodating greater numbers of people, there will have to be more and more selling of programmes, selling of cushions, high fees for parking, and all the other things associated with these events. Therefore, mere entrance of itself will not by any means be the most important item in these transactions.

Will it help my hon. Friend if I remind him again that I am not resisting the Amendment?

Last week, the Minister said that the Amendment was not necessary. Perhaps my hon. Friends have not consulted since that was said.

This is my difficulty. The Minister's point was that either a person pays for the privilege of admission or he does not. That is impeccable as a mere statement of fact. It does not mean that either a person pays for admission or he does not pay for any goods or services after admission which are associated with his admission and with the purpose of his being there. It does not cover that point.

I should like the Minister to elucidate further his argument. It is not only a question of paying for admission or not paying for admission. It is a question of paying for services, and possibly goods, associated with a person's admission after he has entered without charge. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words about that, in which case I shall be more satisfied.

I think that all that needs to be said is that, if these words are added, the definition is tighter. It might well be that certain people who would not be caught by the present wording would be caught if the Amendment were made. Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, said that it had not seemed to be necessary but that he did not advise the House against the acceptance of the Amendment. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has said that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

This is a change. Last Friday, we were given certain advice. Now the advice is changed. This is very important. It should be made absolutely clear that the Amendment will tighten the Bill and is necessary.

Nothing that I have said adds to or subtracts from what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary last week. The only new situation since my hon. Friend spoke last week is that my hon. Friend the sponsor of the Bill has accepted the Amendment. The advice of the Government on the legal implications has not led us to doubt the wisdom of my hon. Friend's acceptance.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 9, to leave out '2 a.m.' and insert: the expiration of Saturday'.

We now come to a group of Amendments. With this Amendment we shall discuss the following Amendments: Nos. 36, 4, 6, 37, 7, 10, 38, 11, 39, 12 and 18.

The Amendment, together with the other Amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it is in order for us to discuss in the course of this one debate, deals with what might be called the prohibited period, because the Bill is drawn in such a way that it relaxes the law in reference to certain classes of activities on Sunday. It does not relax the law for the whole period of Sunday, but seeks to do so from 2 o'clock in the afternoon until 2 o'clock on Monday morning.

This series of Amendments seeks to make three alterations. Two of them are alternatives the one to the other, but the third series is distinct from it. Series 1 and 2 deal with the question of what should be the commencing time for the prohibited period. Series 3 deals with what should be the concluding time for the prohibited period.

First, Amendment No. 3, and the Amendments associated with it, seeks to substitute 'the expiration of Saturday' for '2 a.m.'. We are dealing here with a period of two hours from midnight on Saturday until 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. The natural time for a prohibition affecting Sundays would be at the beginning of Sunday and not 2 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, unless a very good and sufficient reason can be given why the beginning of the prohibited period should be 2 a.m. and not 12 midnight on Saturday, I shall press this Amendment upon the House.

This matter was briefly debated, according to my recollection, in Standing Committee; and, again according to my recollection, no answer was given by the promoter of the Bill to the points which were then raised in support of substituting midnight on Saturday and to explain why he considers that 2 o'clock on Sunday morning should be preserved. I hope that in the course of the debate we shall be told why the promoter of the Bill thinks that the time he has inserted in the Bill is more appropriate than that I wish to substitute for it.

I want to look for a few moments at the effect on the major classes of activity which will become legalised on part of Sunday if the Bill passes into law. There are, first, the sporting events which under the Bill will be permitted in future within the permitted hours on Sunday, with people paying as spectators to enter, and with performers being paid for their services for taking part in them. It can hardly be seriously suggested that these great out-door sporting events, such as football cup matches and cricket test matches, will be held between midnight on Saturday and 2 o'clock on Sunday morning.

That would be unthinkable. Therefore, I submit that there can be no objection to the substitution of midnight on Saturday for 2 o'clock on Sunday morning and that all grounds of reason support this substitution. Making this alteration may cause hon. Members to consider such in-door events as cinema and theatre performances and entertainments of that sort. Some people may desire such indoor activities to go on until 2 a.m. on Sunday morning, but it is not necessary for that to happen.

There is no reason why the entertainment in question should not start a little earlier on Saturday evening so that it concludes by not later than midnight on Saturday. This would result in those being entertained being able to get home at a reasonable hour and for the entertainers to do likewise, remembering that they will not be getting home until the early hours of Sunday morning, even if the Amendment is accepted. For these reasons, 12 midnight on Saturday is the natural, proper and expedient time.

The second group of Amendments seeks to substitute 1 a.m. on Sunday for 2 a.m. on Sunday. Here again, I would prefer 1 a.m. if I had to choose between the two, but I see little logic in substituting 1 a.m. for 2 a.m. and, therefore, if I must vote for either of the two alternatives, I shall vote for 12 midnight on Saturday.

The third series of Amendments deals with the other end of the scale and seeks to substitute 7 p.m. for 2 p.m. on Sunday, taking the view that Sunday afternoon should be preserved from these activities in the same way that Sunday morning is preserved. There are at least two sufficient reasons why we should accept 7 p.m. instead of 2 p.m. on Sunday. By limiting the provision to 7 p.m. we would ensure that only one performance of an entertainment would take place.

I tabled an Amendment the effect of which would have been to make it illegal to have more than one performance on Sunday, but that was not selected, with the result that if the Amendment to substitute 7 p.m. for 2 p.m. is carried, it would, as a practical matter, achieve the purpose which I had in mind, although my Amendment was a little more limited in scope.

If we take the view, as most people do, that we must look with care at what is involved in Sunday employment as a result of this Bill, we should consider the hours during which people will be compelled to work. I am against the Bill in all its main assumptions. I wish to minimise the employment of labour to the greatest possible extent during the whole of the 24 hours of Sunday. But if we accept that some concession must be made to those who support the Bill, we still have a duty, if we cannot entirely protect from Sunday employment those who will be involved if the Bill becomes law, to seek to reduce as much as we possibly can the number of hours during which they will have to work.

If the cinemas are to be opened on Sundays—as occurs in many parts of the country as a result of local polls—and if now, for the first time, the theatres, with the larger number of people who are employed in them compared with, for example, the cinemas, are to open on Sundays, it is not unreasonable to say that there should be only one performance during the day, which means that if there is a 7 p.m. start there will be ample time for that performance to occur. On the other hand, if the time of 2 p.m. remains in the Bill, there will be nothing to prevent there being a matinée on Sunday afternoon with a later performance in the evening.

Remembering that most of the people engaged in the theatrical business—whether they be actors or those employed in running theatres—must work hard and for long hours during the six weekdays, it is not unreasonable to say that if they are to be compelled to work on Sundays in addition, the period of their labour should be confined to one performance, and this would be accomplished by substituting 7 p.m. for 2 p.m.

The promoter of the Bill has explained that he made the starting hour for Sunday entertainments 2 p.m. in view of representations made to him that these entertainments should not overlap morning worship in churches and chapels. While that concession did not satisfy me and many others, we appreciate that it was sincerely made from a good motive and from a desire to meet the deeply held convictions of many people. In many parts of the country Sunday afternoons are occupied on a large scale in churches and chapels by those who attend Sunday schools, which normally meet at about 3 p.m.

Sunday school attendances as well as church and chapel attendances may not be as great as they were 50 or even 25 years ago, but they are still, particularly in some areas, very large indeed. What-ever views hon. Members hold about religion and its place in human life—and these are basically matters for individual judgment—it cannot be denied that the influence of the Sunday school movement in the past 100 years has been profoundly significant for good. The influence of Sunday school attendance on those who have attended has been a good one for the remainder of their lives.

We know that today the temptations for young people are infinitely greater than they were when most hon. Members were children. The counter attractions to the Sunday school did not exist on the same scale 50 or even 25 years ago. If, because of a desire to avoid infringing the morning hour of worship, it be logical to exclude the Sunday morning from the period in which these activities are to be legalised, it is equally reasonable to argue that the afternoon should be avoided because of the interference with the Sunday schools that would result if these great sporting events and other entertainments were then available.

I hope that it will be thought that I have advanced with moderation solid and reasonable argument which will appeal to the promoter of the Bill who, in some other respects, has not been unsympathetic to representations that have been made to him. What is, perhaps, more important, I hope that they may appeal to the House as a whole.

It might help the House if I were now to intervene in order to prevent those who have tabled this Amendment and Amendments 6 and 10 from being the victims of their foolishness. I hope quietly and moderately to show how absurd these Amendments are.

The Crathorne Report recommended that 2 a.m.—and 3 a.m. in the West End of London—should be the start of the close season for entertainments, but that the start of the close season for sports should be midnight on Saturday. The Bill adopts the same close season for both days, since that does away with any need to distinguish in borderline cases. It also avoids the risk of anomalies becoming apparent as between Clause 2 and Clause 3.

The Amendment would make the present situation even more restrictive. Cinemas in the West End of London at present open quite frequently at mid-night on Saturday and remain open until Sunday—the same thing applies to dances. I frequently go to dances on a Saturday night in my borough which do not finish until after midnight. The Amendment would prohibit that state of things and would lead to even greater restrictions than we now have. At the same time, it does not, and cannot, place these restrictions on drinking clubs, on strip clubs, and on licensed premises.

It seems odd that a Baptist should seek to limit reasonable and wholesome entertainment yet permit these other places to continue unhindered. It seems very odd for a Nonconformist to say that in future, in places such as the West End of London, all one can do between midnight on Saturday and 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. on Sunday is booze or sex—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think this is rather amusing, but it is not. Thousands, perhaps millions, of tourists come to London every year from overseas. They seek reasonable entertainment on a Saturday night. At the present time they can obtain facilities for wholesome entertainment after midnight—perhaps until 3 o'clock on Sunday morning. The Amendment would drive them into a very restricted set of entertainments and pursuits.

Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that because a man cannot go to a theatre he will automatically resort to drink or sex?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend understands how young people enjoy themselves in the west of London on Saturday night. Many of them go to dance halls which do not close until after midnight. They say, "We are seeking to enjoy ourselves." If the dance halls and the cinemas are closed and they have to seek entertainment elsewhere, where will they go? They will go into drinking clubs, and perhaps into other places that you and I, Mr. Speaker, might not visit, and which some hon. Members quite clearly do not know exist. But those places do exist.

We must protect our young people from this kind of discrimination. The Amendments would prevent all reasonable sport and entertainment—

On serious reflection, does not my hon. Friend think that this is a most outlandish and serious castigation of young people who go into London without any such bad thoughts in their minds?

My hon. Friend quite clearly does not know what goes on in the West End of London—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you?"] I have teenage daughters—[Interruption.]—

Order. We had a pleasant debate last week: today let us have another.

I am very anxious that hon. Members should understand the pursuits that young people follow these days. A great many quite decent young people frequently stay out in the West End until after midnight. Some hon. Members may think that shocking—

I appreciate and respect my hon. Friend's views on the West End of London, but this legislation does not apply only to the West End of London but to England and Wales.

That is so. One can think of Liverpool up to 2 a.m. on Sunday—my hon. Friend knows that I come from Liverpool. I also know Green's Playhouse in Glasgow, where I have frequently danced on Saturday until turned midnight. The Amendment would prohibit that but would allow drinking clubs to remain open. I am surprised at hon. Members who, recognising the facts, say, "We shall not do anything about this, but we shall prevent whole-some pleasure."

In the winter months, we often have indoor professional tennis at Wembley—quite a reasonable entertainment and spectacle. I call it an entertainment, although it might be classed as a sport. The Amendment would forbid that, yet those who have tabled it seem to accept without much fear—not knowing the real world in which we live—that much less desirable sports and entertainments would be open.

Hon. Members should understand the folly of this sort of Amendment. If it were accepted, it would mean that in London and the other big cities the only entertainment available after midnight on Saturday would be drinking clubs, striptease clubs, and the like. I am astonished that Nonconformists should put that point.

I now turn to the second group of Amendments, which are equally foolish. They seek to prevent sports—including amateur sports—and entertainments up to 7 p.m. in cases where the spectators pay. There is a good deal of amateur sport in respect of which payment is made at the gate and which would be permitted quite openly under the Bill although it is at present carried on through fiddles. The Amendments would forbid the carrying on of such sports.

The great argument against the Bill is that it would make Sunday more commercial. But what are the supporters of these Amendments trying to do? The Amendments would not prevent the big commercial sports or entertainments from being held; on the contrary, they would prevent the small ones, which ordinary people go to see on Sunday afternoons. They would prevent amateur football, and certain county cricket, being played on Sundays. If anyone thinks that county cricket is a great commercial undertaking he has not studied the accounts of the Lancashire County Cricket Club, which I support. That is not a vast commercial undertaking.

Dance halls and cinemas could carry on after 7 p.m. The only kind of entertainment and sport which would be permitted on Sunday if these Amendments were carried would be the very commercial ones that their supporters seek to prevent.

Nonsense.

The hon. Member says "Nonsense", but he should understand the logic of his argument. It is no good his calling my argument nonsense; he must understand the logic of his case; and the logic of his case is that very reasonable amateur sports, such as the Badminton Horse Show, would be forbidden. I do not know whether he regards that as commercialism—or whether he regards county cricket, amateur football or amateur cricket as commercialism, but the commercialism which the Amendments would permit is that which seeks to make money out of sport and entertainment in the evening.

The hon. Member has referred to amateur cricket. How would that be affected in any way?

Any amateur cricket match at which money is taken at the gate—[Interruption]. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ever watches Blackheath play cricket. That club charges at the gate for people to watch. It is not possible to watch Blackheath play cricket without paying at the gate. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living for the last 20 years.

Order. We are drifting from this group of Amendments, which seek to extend the prohibited times.

Under these Amendments this kind of amateur pursuit would be forbidden. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would. The intervention was directed to pointing out to me that this kind of amateur cricket would not be covered, because no charge is made at the gate. I was trying to rebut that argument. It is a relevant point.

The fact that hon. Members seek to intervene from a sitting position in this way indicates that they have not understood the Bill or the implications of these Amendments. They should do their homework before they take part in these debates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 95 per cent. of all the amateur cricket that is played on Sundays is played without admission fees being charged at the gate? If he is not aware of that where has he been living for the last 20 years?

I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figure of 95 per cent. Admission charges are made to see a good deal of club cricket. Certainly a good deal of amateur football cannot be seen without the payment of an admission fee. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows anything about the Isthmian League, the Corinthian League, and similar leagues, but it is not possible to see teams in those leagues play without paying an admission fee. I am sure that the hon. Member will not say that Dulwich Hamlet or Walthamstow Avenue is a professional football club. I have already mentioned Blackheath, which is the club that I watch.

Does the hon. Member agree that the vast amount of cricket played in villages throughout England is played without any fee being charged? It is played by amateurs who get together just for the joy of playing.

I agree, but nobody can say, in respect of admission charges, "Amateur cricket—no; professional cricket—yes." It is not possible to draw a close distinction like that. The hon. Member may live in Northern Ireland—I understand that he does not. He lives in England, in which case he ought to know better. Many amateur clubs who take part in all sorts of sport charge admission fees. The Amendments would bar that sort of sport being played on Sundays, although it would permit the very kind of commercial entertainment or sport to which hon. Members opposite so strongly object.

The hon. Member talked about employment. Large-scale employment on Sundays is brought about by commercial entertainments which these Amendments would not seek to control. They would seek to control only those spectacles and entertainments for which the least amount of labour is engaged. I hope that hon. Members will try to understand the logic of the argument put forward in support of these Amendments, and will withdraw them.

I want to draw special attention to Amendment No. 18, which has particular reference to Wales and Monmouthshire. I raise this matter because of the differences which exist between Wales and England in respect of religious services. In England the most popular service is that which takes place in the morning; the Welsh tradition is quite the opposite. Most members of congregations try to attend the three services that take place in Wales on Sundays. I do not suggest that they are all able to go to all the services on every Sunday—but the leastattended service is that which is held in the morning.

In the afternoon in Wales we have our Sunday school, which never has been an infants' Sunday school. It has always been for adults, with the result that most members of chapels go to Sunday school in the afternoon and also to the evening service, which is the most popular. Consequently, most members of chapels go to services in the afternoon at 2 p.m. and in the evening at 6 p.m.

That is why I support the proposition that the time should be changed from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. so that, if sports take place, they take place after the evening service in Wales.

I want to make a brief comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I was a little disappointed with him because of the vehemence with which he sought to denounce Amendments which have been put down in good faith and with a view to achieving something acceptable to everybody. The hon. Member's present attitude is uncharacteristic of him. By nature he is a friendly and tolerant soul, but on this occasion he spoke with great vehemence when one would have expected all the vehemence to come from those who are digging in on religious grounds. On the contrary, they have been most constructive and moderate in their approach. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West will allow that customary smile to appear on his face a little more regularly.

The reason why I denounced the Amendment with such vehemence is the very severe implications which they could have on the morality of our big cities.

I appreciate that the hon. Member feels strongly about this matter but he, for his part, must appreciate that there are hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have nothing but the most constructive and humane objectives in view and who feel very strongly about the fact that he is not able, apparently, to make a constructive and positive approach to what I believe to be very reasonable proposals. We feel strongly that he was in error in his vehemence in Committee upstairs that he could not meet us at all on the rather narrow point.

I have met the hon. Member.

The hon. Member has not met us on the Crathorne proposals. He has not taken steps to see that there will not occur on Sundays great events in which large numbers of people will be involved.

On a point of order. We are discussing Amendments which are very limited in character. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the point which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) is making has already been covered, particularly in new Clause 2 with which we dealt last week.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) must allow the chair to decide what is in order.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, for your help. I must tell the hon. Member for Woolwich, West that that kind of attempt to run the debate with an iron hand is precisely the sort of intervention which loses him sympathy. We are trying to be helpful.

No.

I appreciate that there are many difficulties and that the hon. Member has tried fairly to point out some of the objections which he sees which would arise from the limitations proposed in the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones). From the point of view of those seeking a Crathorne solution, the Amendments represent half a loaf which is better than no bread at all.

Originally 12.30 p.m. was proposed and in fact 2 p.m. was adopted. Surely that is a reasonable concession.

I acknowledge that that was a genuine and, I believe, helpful and constructive change which Lord Willis made in another place in response to the Archbishop of York.

Order. We must leave the Archbishop of York, and return to the Amendments.

I acknowledge that the Amendments are unsatisfactory in many respects—and I am glad to see the smile back at least temporarily on the face of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. But even though they may be unsatisfactory in many respects, from my point of view they are the half loaf which is better than no bread at all in an attempt to keep down employment on those occasions.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West is, I acknowledge, the great expert on the Bill. He can claim to know every jot and tittle of the Bill, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down. But may I turn to his suggestion about people at dance halls on a Saturday night—people who paid for their admission before the hour of midnight. In most of these dance halls they would have entered before the magic hour and would have made their payment before the magic hour. If hon. Members turn to Clause 2—and I am not certain that I shall carry the lawyers with me on this point—they will see that it imposes a restriction on those who "enter". I see that both the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science shake their heads. But the Clause reads:

"If the occupier of any premises permits them to be used on any occasion for enabling members of the public to enter on them"—

I suspect that if one has already entered the premises and paid for entry before the magic hour—I see one or two hon. Members who are lawyers shaking their heads. Perhaps I am on the wrong ground.

Surely if the hon. Member were standing at the wicket and shaking his head he would be very much more popular than if he had put up his finger.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate if I said that I could reasonably rule most hon. Members clearly off-side on this matter.

Fortunately the hon. Member has not the whistle on this occasion. That is with you, Mr. Speaker, and you have not been blowing it. It is arguable that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has been a little too sensitive about the impossibility, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon were accepted, of those who were in dance halls at midnight being able to go on dancing until the natural conclusion of that entertainment.

It seems to me to be odd that he should suggest that entertainment which would be described as healthy entertainment would be ruled out under the Amendment, as it would all stop at midnight, and then the gullible, sheep-like youth of this country would take part in all sorts of less desirable entertainment in clubs for which licences have to be obtained, or which have a restricted membership, where they could drink. It seems to me inconsistent for him to say that there would be that kind of entertainment which could get past the law and which could still carry on and that innocent, wholesome and straightforward events in the sporting world could not use exactly the same method of getting their membership and their support on a Sunday afternoon by subscriptions to the club, not involving payment for the event, which would enable them to carry on their activities, subject to Clause 2, which he kindly accepted. The law would provide the same opportunities for the county cricket clubs to get money other than by charging for admission.

The difficulty is that the hon. Member for Woolwich has not been able to find a method, which I believe it would have been possible to find under the much more constructive and limited approach of the Crathorne proposals. It is a matter of great regret to me that I shall find myself supporting the Amendments. I fully understand the difficulties which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West explained, but, on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread, I shall support the Amendment put down and argued briefly and succinctly by the hon. Member for Wrexham.

We are dealing with three different types of Amendment, one which would introduce a new restriction on entertainment after midnight on Saturday, the second of which would bring into conformity the provisions under Clauses 2 and 3 so that sporting functions would also be restricted at midnight and the third of which deals with the suggestion that the close season should be extended until 7 p.m. It should be recognised that in two of these sets of proposals, rather than moving forward to liberalise our laws and regulations, we should be proposing additional restrictions.

I take, first, the question of entertainment and whether it should cease at midnight or proceed until 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. in the West End. Under the present law, dancing and functions of that kind may continue into Sunday morning until 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. in the West End, where liquor is sold under the Licensing Act, 1964. It is suggested that, even though such functions are permitted under that Act, other forms of entertainment should be restricted.

The House will recall that there are other forms of entertainment, midnight matinees, for example, held not only in London but in other parts of the country, which may start at 11, 11.30 or midnight. Charitable functions would in some cases be hit by a requirement that what may now proceed till the early hours of the morning should hereafter be prohibited.

The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that all would be well if people had paid to come in before midnight. I am advised that the Clause as drafted would not have that effect, but would require the cessation of functions if this group of Amendments were carried. I hope, therefore, this being a restriction cutting back on certain functions which are now permitted, that the Amendments will not be accepted.

Now, the second group of Amendments would apply a different rule to sports and spectacles. It may be asked whether there is any good reason why, if the cinema may continue till 2 a.m., a wrestling match should stop on the brink of midnight. I do not suppose that many wrestling matches go on until the early hours of the morning, and I imagine that we would not wish to encourage them to do so, but there are some sporting functions in which it is necessary to reach a conclusion and in which extra time is granted until one side or the other is the victor.

For the purpose of clarification—the main purpose of this Measure is to bring clarity and conformity into a situation which is at present very confused—there is much to be said for having conformity in regard to the functions covered by both Clauses 2 and 3. For example, there is the question of deciding whether a variety entertainment consisting of an acrobatic display is or is not

"a demonstration of prowess in a sport or game"

under Clause 2 or is an activity covered by Clause 3. Difficulties of classification cannot be avoided, but the greater the measure of consistency achieved, the more is the legislation to be generally understood and observed without resentment.

My hon Friend said that wrestling matches do not take place after midnight. Does he not recall that, unfortunately, several wrestling matches have taken place after midnight within this Chamber during the past three years?

Very rarely after midnight on a Saturday. Thank heaven, even with the battles which we had in former days on the Finance Bill, we were not still at grips with the nation's economy up to 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning.

I follow the argument which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State advances about charity performances which take place after midnight. In Bristol, there is shortly to be such an occasion at a cinema in aid of the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund. Very often, these functions cannot take place until after the normal cinema performance has finished.

But now comes the point I want clarified. If we write in another time—midnight, 1 a.m. or whatever it may be—shall we take away from the local licensing bench, where such questions at present come under local option, the right to permit a midnight performance? Should we take away from local licensing justices the right to grant an extension of time? The system seems to work perfectly well at present.

I am advised that it would do just that. That is why I said that, if we were to carry that group of Amendments, we should be turning the clock back and stopping a number of functions which, I imagine, hon. Members on both sides would be content to see continue.

This is an important matter. May we be referred to the provisions in the Bill which repeal parts of other Acts and thus take away that right from local licensing justices?

I can only say that the advice from my legal advisers is that the terms of the Bill would carry that consequence. I should like a little notice of the question about the precise reference, and perhaps I might intervene later to give the answer.

Perhaps I can assist. I understand that the answer is that the licensing justices have no power to license something which is otherwise illegal. The Amendments would make it illegal.

The advantage of having a lawyer behind me is apparent. I am most grateful.

Now, the third group of Amendments which propose that what one might call the close season for sports and entertainments for which an admission charge is made should be extended till 7 p.m. on Sunday. The practical effect would probably be to prevent the staging of most commercial open-air sporting events, since most of them must take place in daylight, but it would allow indoor commercial sport and entertainment which could start after 7 p.m. Thus, most admission-charged cricket and football, amateur or professional, unless on flood-lit grounds, would effectively be prohibited on a Sunday, but boxing, wrestling, indoor tennis and swimming would be permitted in the evening.

There seems little logic in that, and, once again, we have to recognise that we should be imposing restrictions on events which now take place. Many hon. Members know that, by devious means, cricket matches take place on a Sunday afternoon, a form of charge being made by a programme charge, parking fee, or the like. It is precisely that sort of tacit evasion of the law which we are seeking to avoid by introducing a law which is clear and precise. If this group of Amendments were carried the effect would be not only to discourage and stop many quite modest open-air functions which cause no disturbance to the public and which people enjoy but also to encourage evening football matches on grounds equipped with flood-lights, thus involving ground staff in evening rather than afternoon work.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was particularly anxious that we should not cause more work for workpeople on Sunday than necessary. This is an understandable point of view. But it must be appreciated that, if we say that these activities must not take place during the afternoon and may take place only in the evening, the effect will be to concentrate more work in a Sunday evening than would otherwise be the case.

I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept the three groups of Amendments before us.

The hon. Gentleman took a rather snap decision on the legal question put to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), because the answer was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer). This is an important matter. The answer may depend on whether certain other Statutes are repealed, or would subsequently have to be repealed, under this Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman take advice from other sources and have the answer given to us later?

By leave of the House, because I had sat down, may I say that I have now taken other advice than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), whose views I greatly respect. The wording of Clauses 2 and 3 is absolute and, therefore, they have an over-riding effect which up to now has not existed. Justices grant licences on certain conditions and could not do so if the Amendment were carried. Therefore, there could be no entertainment after midnight if the first group of Amendments were carried. This is the advice of my legal department.

The hon. Gentleman has made a cogent case in saying that the Amendments would impose new restrictions, which I would not wish to do. But neither he nor the sponsor have met the real purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), which was not to produce further restrictions. The fact that the legal interpretation supports the Under-Secretary's view does not destroy the validity of the case that the Bill should not make legal between midnight and 2 a.m. anything which is not now legal.

With great respect to the sponsor, his argument against the first group of Amendments does not hold water. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked, why seek to make legal certain things which are not now legal? The hon. Member said, passionately and sincerely, that it was to keep young people out of strip clubs, drinking clubs and dance halls. If he thinks the only way to achieve that is to make certain new things legal, that is a curious argument.

My Bill does not make legal after midnight anything which is now illegal, but the Amendments seek to make illegal what is now quite legal.

Therefore, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do what he so generously did on Clause 2 and accept the first Amendment, perhaps improving it in another place so as not to impose further restrictions but to make it plain that nothing in the Bill makes lawful something which is not now lawful between those hours—[Interruption.] Of course it is. If I am wrong, I should like to hear now arguments about it, which I have not heard yet. Without such arguments, I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) made a very fair case for the protection which the sponsor has already conceded with regard to the interference with Sunday morning services. In some parts of the country it is the Sunday evening service which many people think is most important. If the hon. Gentleman could devise some protection for that, even without accepting the second group of Amendments, we might look at the matter differently. But I cannot see the logic of accepting a "close period" until 2 p.m. for that purpose without extending it to other parts of the country. Some form of local option might be the answer.

The hon. Member has not made the case against this group of Amendments. The case put by the Under-Secretary has to be met, but the right way is for the sponsors to accept the Amendment and, in another place, to put it in a form which will give this protection.

rose—

On a point of order. We are discussing together a great number of Amendments, some of them quite different. Could you, Mr. Speaker, tell us now on which it would be possible to have a separate vote?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I have been listening very carefully to the debate with the same object in mind. I can tell the House now that I will allow a Division on Amendment No. 4 as well as Amendment No. 3.

The longer we consider the Bill, the greater insight we get into its full iniquities. My original opposition was not severe and related only to professional sports. I now find that my hon. Friend is seeking to establish a "midnight marauders' charter", I have known and admired my hon. Friend for many years, but he has been angry this morning and I must confess now to being angrier still. It should not be said in this House that people who are out after midnight are out to do something which they should not do. To malign our young people as he did was an injustice not only to himself but to the young people and to the House of Commons.

12.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he would have ruled us offside. However, I think that hon. Members have been tripped up in the penalty area this morning. In considering this Amendment, we have been placed in a cleft stick. Even if they are out after midnight, well-behaved young people are not news. But hon. Members do not come to this House without having a great deal of knowledge of the frailties of human nature and of young people particularly. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West has been rather arrogant in trying to suggest that he understands the full implications of his Bill, whereas other hon. Members are not so wise. But we do our best. We do not lightly give up a day to come here which might be spent doing useful work in our constituencies. We come here because we take a very serious view of legislation passing through the House. I must say to my hon. Friend that, although he may not be very pleased with me, there are some who are not particularly pleased with him.

It is not my intention to attempt to pour oil on troubled waters, but one knows from one's own experience of introducing a Bill into the House what a difficult and responsible task it is, particularly if the Bill goes on for a very long time. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was a little short-tempered this morning, he is not the first hon. Member introducing a Bill who has found it difficult. As this is a Friday and many others have come to hear the serious arguments involved in this matter, I think that we should get on with our debate on the Amendment rather than argue whether the temper of the hon. Gentleman is good. That is immaterial.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) says that he is anxious to get on with the Bill, but his was a very long intervention. The sponsors of the Bill have been most censorious, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not the only hon. Member to have had the privilege of introducing a Bill.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to go out of order but will come to the Amendments, which are about prohibited hours.

I am not greatly concerned about the extra two hours. It is the introduction of professional sport into the Bill which concerns me and about which I know that I can speak at a later time. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

I was not able to be present last Friday, but I have had the pleasure of reading HANSARD and, quite obviously, one outstanding feature of the debate was the good-natured and efficient way in which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) introduced his Bill, although I take exception to his suggestion in reply to my intervention about cricket that I have been nowhere in particular for the last 20 years.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) has just said, it is quite out of character for the hon. Gentleman to be other than thoroughly pleasant to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that remark of his is best forgotten.

However, I regretted the way in which he referred to this group of Amendments. I detected the feeling that, when young people want to continue their fun and games on a Saturday night, the only place for them to go is a club if the Amendment is accepted. That is what he implied.

He is wrong in his supposition. At the moment, if an ordinary group of people want a party in the West End or anywhere else in London on a Saturday night, they go to a restaurant. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents them from continuing their evening's supper or party together in a restaurant after midnight.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many working-class young people go to West End restaurants?

I knew that the hon. Gentleman would seize on that point, and that is why I went on to say "or anywhere else in London". I was not referring specifically to the West End, although, when the hon. Gentleman referred to strip clubs and drinking dens, he implied that they were all in the West End. I agree that I mentioned the West End, but then I enlarged on it.

People who want a party on a Saturday night tend to go to a restaurant or hotel anywhere in London. If the Amendment is accepted, they will be able to continue their activities.

Has the hon. Gentleman thought of the implication which might follow from the acceptance of the Amendment? If the House were to say that it does not want entertainments or sport after midnight, increasingly it might become the custom of licensing justices, who are entitled to grant licences up to 2 a.m. or, in the London area, 3 a.m., to decide that, if the House had indicated that it did not wish to have entertainments, they would not grant licences. This might have the further effect of diminishing the opportunities for people to enjoy themselves after midnight.

I am grateful for that observation, which is an eventuality and possibility which those of us who support the Amendment have borne in mind.

Another point that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West made was that amateur cricket would suffer because admission charges could not be levied at Sunday games. One of my activities in the past 20 years has been to play amateur cricket on Sundays. Amateur club sides are the base upon which our national game of cricket rests. However, the number of games on Sundays which depend upon admission charges is minimal. I have said before that probably 95 per cent. of amateur cricket is played without gate money, with village green cricket and club cricket up and down the country. Practically every club exists on the enthusiasm of a group of young people who contribute together—

Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but we are talking about prohibited times.

Then may I refer to the Amendment, which I support? It was introduced in a very able manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who expressed his desire to see professional sport finishing at midnight on a Saturday rather than continuing until 2 a.m. on Sundays. I support him in what he says. I cannot think of any sports which are widely supported that need to continue after midnight on a Saturday.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West may be a boxing fan—I do not know—but a year or two ago I went to High-bury Stadium to see Cooper and Clay fight their world heavyweight professional boxing contest. There were 30,000 or 40,000 people at Highbury. The match, unfortunately, terminated in the figth or sixth round. Had it gone on until the end of the final round, every one of those 35,000 people would have been clear of the stadium by half-past ten at night.

Would my hon. Friend agree that both Cooper and Clay are two good men?

I fear I might be out of the bounds of order if I replied to my hon. Friend. However, they are as good as any who have come from Northern Ireland.

I am interested in the point about professional boxing never going on after midnight. If things never happen, why introduce Amendments to prohibit them?

The hon. Gentleman's logic is getting a little tangled. I am seeking to prevent an entirely unnecessary change in the existing law which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce in the Bill.

One other example of mass spectator sport on Saturday evenings is ice skating. There are many fine stadiums up and down the country. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry) is not here today. He was here last Friday and made a most impressive contribution. He pointed out that there were two league football clubs and the Notts County cricket ground in his constituency. He could have added a fourth spectator sport which is very active and prominent in his constituency, namely, professional ice hockey. Nottingham has a fine ice hockey stadium and on Saturday nights—

Order. If the hon. Member wishes to debate sport, he must link his argument to the prohibited hours which are suggested in the group of Amendments we are discussing.

I am going on to show that the people who participate in ice hockey and ice skating at Nottingham's fine stadium finish at ten o'clock on a Saturday night, chiefly because there is no transporation system to get them away from the city centre. If there was such a city transporation system available, in my view there would still be no demand by people to go skating through to the early hours of Sunday morning. Therefore, the time proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, midnight on Saturday, should be inserted in the Bill. I support his Amendment in that respect.

I now turn to the time of 2 p.m., which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has put in his Bill, and the time of 7 p.m., which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has tabled in yet another Amendment.

I was impressed by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham). He supported this Amendment largely because, if it was adopted, evensong or Sunday services would not be affected. He is right in what he says. Most evening services in the summer commence at 5.45 or 6 p.m. and they are generally over well before 7 p.m. This Amendment would enable those services to be conducted in reasonable tranquility in a church in a vicinity where professional sport is indulged in.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if professional sport begins at 7 p.m. a vast amount of traffic and movement of people and preparation would go on long before that time?

There always is traffic near a football ground. However, I maintain that it will not affect the conduct of church services so much as the roars and cheers when goals are scored. If what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says is true, he has a real case for putting a further Amendment in another place making it 8 p.m.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has not appreciated the logic of the case I tried to present when I intervened. If certain events—particularly sports—can only start after 7 p.m., this would mean a concentration of activities starting before 7 p.m. The transport facilities for people moving towards that particular area would coincide with the time when, as far as my church is concerned, Evensong is held, which is at 6.30. The effect of the Amendment would be to interfere more with the evening service than the situation envisaged in the Bill.

One thing that we learn in this House is to live in the greatest friendship with those with whom we disagree. I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but his answer would be to ask his church to conduct evensong at 6 p.m. which it will still be able to conduct in peace and tranquillity. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the Bill as it stands, he will not be able to enjoy evensong in peace and quiet, because there will be the rumble of traffic and roaring and cheering from 2 p.m. onwards.

My hon. Friend's Amendment, proposing 7 p.m. instead of 2 p.m., will have an effect on certain professional sports. There will be nothing to prevent professional football matches being held under artificial lighting or in daylight after 7 p.m., but it will prevent the conduct of long-time running spectator sports such as cricket matches, motor racing and horse-racing.

I have had a lot of correspondence from county cricket clubs and many others interested in cricket, asking me to support the Bill. They tell me that cricket is dying, that it needs the money, that the only way it can live is by getting people to pay for admission on Sundays, and that the present game of sending the blanket round for people to throw money in is not satisfactory because they do not always pay up. My answer to these people—an answer which I sincerely believe to be true—is that I think cricket is too good a game to die. It is a wonderful game if played in the right spirit.

I wish to refer to a short article in The Times today which refers to the opening match of the season at Lords. The headline is, "Monotony at Lords".

Order. With respect, I am as keen on cricket as is the hon. Member—I have been all my life—but he must talk about the hours of opening. We cannot discuss the future of cricket in general.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I know full well your enthusiasm for the sport. I am not seeking to talk about cricket in general. I am merely explaining that it is not necessary for people to pay to watch cricket on Sundays for the game to survive. That is the argument put forward in letters I have received from those who seek to allow the Clause in the Bill permitting the payment of admission on Sundays. I am seeking to show that the game can flourish and survive without Sunday gate receipts. I trust, therefore, that I may be considered in order in referring to this article which explains why the game is in a state of collapse.

The hon. Member can discuss ways in which cricket might survive other than this one on some other debate.

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation for your tolerance, and I trust I shall have an opportunity to take part in a later debate. I conclude by saying that I support the Amendment.

I would not have intervened had it not been for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). He said that those who supported the Amendments had no idea how young people lived, and that we expected young people to visit the vice spots of London. I have no experience of strip-tease shows and so on, but this is not a London Bill. It is a Measure which will affect the whole of England and Wales. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's sensational remarks will be reported in the Press tomorrow, but that my comments dissociating myself from what he said will not be reported.

I regret that my hon. Friend did not give a proper explanation for rejecting the Amendments, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the information that he gave. If my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West wants to deal with the licensing laws, he should introduce a Private Bill to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) talked about Sunday schools being held before 7 p.m. I ask the House to remember that in addition to Sunday schools, churches in Wales hold services which include a sermon at 10.30 a.m., 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. In addition, the churches hold rehearsals for singing festivals. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West may not agree with the Amendments, but I think that he ought to be more reasonable in his outlook.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins). If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was a little more temperate, we would make better progress. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that these were absurd Amendments. Many hon. Members who did not take part in the Committee stage of the Bill are here today. The hon. Gentleman may think that the Amendments are absurd, but many of us do not.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that those who supported the Amendments did not understand the world in which they lived. That is an extremely arrogant assumption. The hon. Gentleman then went on to condemn young people and added that we did not know what young people did with their time. I suggest that the young people of today are very much the same as we were in days gone by, and very much the same as our fathers were in their time.

The Minister said that if we accepted these Amendments the justices might feel themselves restricted and would not grant licences when otherwise they might have done so. That is an extraordinary argument, because I think that the justices will do what they think is right in the circumstances. I do not think that they will be restricted in any way in exercising their normal jurisdiction.

I do not think that the Amendments are absurd. I think that hon. Members are seriously concerned about the problems facing us. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West wants to make progress with the Bill, he had better be more accommodating and less arrogant.

I would have been more impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) if he had omitted some of his comments about Baptists, Non-conformists, and behaviour in the West End. Those who have religious beliefs recognise that they are living in a secular, and, to a large extent, pagan society, and they are very much in a minority in the views that they hold about Sunday. Nevertheless, there are powerful arguments for having one day of the week on which normal commercial activities are not practised, or at least are subject to severe restriction.

I am not persuaded that Amendment No. 3 is necessary. I think that it will create a new situation which will be at variance with what has been our social practice for a long time. The 2 a.m. rule is liberal in the context of the Bill, and I am not disposed to support the Amendment.

Amendment No. 4 represents a much more significant and serious proposal. I cannot accept that it will make no difference to the possibility of employing people if we have a period of five hours from 7 p.m. to 12 midnight rather than a period of 10 hours from 2 p.m. to

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

We come now to Amendment No. 16, with which it is suggested that we discuss also Amendments Nos. 14, in page 3, line 2, at end insert 'with normal rates of pay'; and 15, in page 3, line 3, after 'of', insert not less than'.

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 1, to leave out Clause 4.

Is that official Government advice?

If I may finish my sentence.

—or to the specialist machinery provided by Statute in special cases. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene now?

It is quite all right, thank you.

There is no good reason for providing statutory protection for people required to work on Sundays because of the Bill when others, who are already required to work on Sundays, have no such protection. The only field in which any provision is made for time off in lieu of Sunday morning is in relation to shops, but there is no similarity between the situation in shops and that in entertainment.

The possibility of an employee being dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays should be considered as part of the general problems of unjust dismissal, and I understand that that is being discussed, or has been under consideration by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. There is no reason why an employee who has agreed to work on Sunday should not be required to stand by his agreement even if he later establishes a religious or conscientious objection to doing so. Furthermore, the Clause as it stands provides no protection for an applicant for employment who has religious or conscientious objection to Sunday work when he is in competition with other applicants who have no similar objections.

They are the objections in principle. But there are some technical objections. As drafted, the Clause applies to any contract of employment and is not limited to employment under the Bill. The Clause reads:

"Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay."

I repeat that it begins,

"Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays".

It does not refer only to a worker affected by sport or entertainment in other parts of the Bill. It is a general consideration relating to everyone. It relates to transport workers. It would refer to journalists. It would no doubt refer to ministers of religion if they were members of a trade union—and I understand that some of them are. It would refer to Members of Parliament, possibly, who are also members of trade unions and who worked on Sundays. It would apply to power workers and to process workers in continuous process industries. In fact, the Clause would cover such a wide field that this is hardly the kind of Bill in which such a general provision should be included.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Clause applies only to those who work under a contract of employment. It would not apply to hon. Members.

It would certainly apply to the servants of the House. No procedure is provided for establishing religious or conscientious objection. I understand that the Ministry of Labour would be strongly against creating any formal procedure comparable with that for conscientious objectors to military service.

Nor is it clear how the proviso would be enforced. The proviso reads:

"Provided that no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing."

Would an employee be entitled to reinstatement if dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays? What would happen to a man employed only on Saturdays, say, to assist in a spectacle which is transferred to Sundays, or to a man employed only on Sundays—and there are some people who are employed only on Sundays and not during the week. They would not be covered by the Clause.

I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) privately, and I do so in the House, that I am very sympathetic to the Clause. I should like to see it included. But I am assured by all the experts, for example the Ministry of Labour, that they do not think that the Clause could be worked, and that they think that it is too general. I am. therefore, rather reluctantly asking the House to support my Amendment to delete the Clause.

Do I gather that the Ministry of Labour advised my hon. Friend that the Clause would not work? Did they give a reason?

May I repeat what I said? I am advised that the Ministry of Labour are opposed to the Clause. That is the advice which I have received. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) will listen to the speech in the debate from the Front Bench. I used simple words: I am advised that the Ministry of Labour is opposed to the Clause. I have not spoken to the Minister or even to his private office, but that is the advice which I have been given. I am sure that my right hon. Friend understands, for he has been on the Front Bench and he has also been on these benches.

Some of my hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee thought earlier that I was being a little impatient. I was certainly impatient. I tend very often to be impatient with those who I think cannot see things as clearly as I think that I see them. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Ore) who comments that that is a very common fault in the House—and it is a very common fault elsewhere. But I assure the House, as I have indicated by my actions if not by my words, that I am a most reasonable man.

I have accepted all sorts of Amendments, sometimes—if I may say this behind my hand—to the discomfiture of the Government Front Bench. But I want to see the law made sensible and clear, and it is very much with that in mind that I am asking the House to delete Clause 4, because I am advised that it would not work and that it certainly would not make the law clear.

The question before the House is important. On Second Reading, I said that I was authorised to say that actors, as represented in British Actors Equity Association supported the development envisaged in the Bill, in other words were in favour of being allowed to perform on Sundays. They have a tradition of being servants to the public and they recognise that society has changed and that the public now regard Sunday as a day of leisure and as a day on which they would seek normal entertainment if they had the opportunity to do so.

The view, therefore, taken by the Association—and I was, before I became a Member of the House, a member of the delegation which went to the Crathorne Committee on the subject—was that they were in favour of the proposal, but they said to the Crathorne Committee and to me, and I said on Second Reading:

"They do not regard that as an imposition upon them"

—referring to the requirement to work on Sunday—

"but they would require—and the House should make sure that they get—a provision that in the event of work taking place on a Sunday it should be obligatory for actors to have another free day. Such a Clause should be written into the Bill".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1923.]

In Committee, I felt that perhaps on Second Reading I had confined myself too closely to one section of the community who would be affected by the Bill. When, in Committee, we moved a Clause to give effect to the suggestion made on Second Reading, it was worded to provide that

"Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay"

Since then an Amendment has been tabled to insert the words "not less than" before "double-time rates of pay." If that Amendment is acceptable to the House, it will be acceptable to me.

It has been suggested that there is something impractical about the Clause. I cannot understand that view. I accept that, generally speaking, the reaction of any Government Department faced with a Private Member's Bill is to try to restrict it as much as possible and to make sure that the impact of the Measure on the Department is minimised. This is the natural reaction of the civil servant. While I can understand it, there is no reason why we should accept it because we are concerned with the establishment of correct principles and not with the administrative inconvenience which sometimes the establishment of those principles involves. I am, therefore, not persuaded that there is anything impractical or impossible in the administration of the Clause.

The second part of the Clause states:

"Provided that no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing."

All hon. Members, whatever their religious persuasions, or if they have none, will be in favour of that. We should say in the Bill that a man may be entitled to say, "You cannot ask me to do this because it says in the Act that I may not reasonably be asked to do it". The obvious answer is that if a job necessarily requires work to be done on a Sunday, it will not be open to that individual. This is an unfortunate fact of life, but we need not make the fact harder. Indeed, the Clause would make it easier for the individual to exercise his religious or conscientious objection. I do not share such an objection, but that is no reason why we should not try to provide for somebody who has.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some major industries require employees to work on Sundays but that workers are permitted to object if they have religious or conscientious reasons for not working on Sundays?

I am grateful for that intervention. The Clause would merely write into the law what is already being done in some places and that would become general. Perhaps it therefore removes in advance any objection which may be raised on that ground by the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that employees with deep religious affiliations might, out of loyalty to their employers—and perhaps out of loyalty to the country in view of the present economic situation—agree to work on Sundays even though it would, to a large extent, be against their religious consciences to do so?

Nothing in the Clause would prevent such a person from deciding whether or not to work. The Clause provides that he shall not

"…be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays…"

if he

"…establishes that he has a religious or conscientious objection to so doing."

He may say, "I object to so doing, but I have no objection to this being written into my contract because I feel that, on balance, I will have to do it". How-ever, if he says, "I am not prepared to work on Sundays in any circumstances", his employer will have to strike out that clause from the contract of employment. That is all that the Clause provides and it is a reasonable proposition.

It has been suggested that this matter should be left to the trade unions. As a general principle, the trade union movement at present is having rather less and less left to it. There is a strong tendency for the Government to say that it is the job of the Administration to intervene more and more in questions of industrial relations. Perhaps there is a strong argument for such a proposition. In any event, it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say, "Where we have intervened, that is right and we support it, but where it might be inconvenient, we will not have it at any price". That is not a tenable proposition and I hope that the Government will not advance it because it will not wash.

There is a long tradition of legislative protection for trade unions. How would the trade unions operate effectively without this framework of legislation, such as the Factories Acts? What would the mineworkers do without the legislation within which they work? The general proposition that trade unions do not need or do not want legislation does not stand up and I hope that it will not be advanced.

All trade unions welcome legislation when it backs them and is in their interests. It is natural that they will resist legislation which is seen to be oppressive to them but as for the general proposition that trade unions do not like legislation as such, no trade union or even Transport House would accept that argument. There is, therefore, no general objection.

Is there a particular objection? I suggest that there is not either a general or a particular objection. Certainly the Crathorne Committee was not so satisfied. After referring to the restriction on the number of Sundays on which shop-workers may be employed, that Committee's Report said:

"The conditions in (27)"—

that is, the clause referring to shop workers:

"should apply to a person employed in connection with an entertainment licensed under the Cinematograph Act 1909, the Theatres Act 1843…"

In other words, it said what the Clause seeks to do; that the legislative protection which is desirable and which is applied already to shop workers should be made applicable to workers in entertainment.

In resisting the Amendment, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said about moving it reluctantly. I suspect that he had something of a pistol at his head and that he found himself in the position of having little alternative but to move an Amendment for which, I suspect, he has little enthusiasm. If the Minister replies, "We have nothing against the principle but we do not like some of the words of the Clause", we might possibly seriously think about the matter. On the other hand, if he says that the Government are opposed to the excellent principles contained in the Clause, we will have to resist any attempt to delete it.

I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I have been subjected to pressure. I have, perhaps, been subject to influence or to advice. I am not a lawyer. On many subjects I am a layman, and that is certainly the case in the drafting of Bills. That being so, one must lean very heavily on professional advice.

Further, as trade unionists, my hon. Friend and I must agree that we seek the least possible intervention of law in trade union matters.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has shown his genial self in this discussion and we are delighted to see it, but I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). It is quite out of character for the hon. Member for Woolwich, West to seek to remove a provision enshrining protection for those who for religious or conscientious reasons do not want to work on Sundays. It may be that, as the hon. Member for Putney suspects, the advice referred to has come from Government sources, and no doubt the Minister will tell us what they are.

I cannot see why the very simple sentence which comprises the second part of the Clause should be deleted. It may be, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, said, that many of these protections are provided through normal negotiation between worker and employer, but one can well imagine people who are represented by a very weak or small union, or not represented in that way at all, being forced into contracts which do violence to their conscience. The majority in a union might be unwilling to give the necessary protection, and that is another reason why this provision should be written in.

The second part of the Clause does no violence to anything. It is not interference with trade union practice to require it. It does not prevent an employer or a union from doing anything of which we would approve, but it shows that Parliament takes the view that no man should be forced into any kind of contract which does violence to his conscience on religious grounds. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about the objection to this part of the Clause—I certainly cannot see any.

If the Bill goes through—and the House knows my views on that score—this Clause is essential. Sport and entertainment is an area of industry in which trade union organisation is weak in any case. The Clause provides that even in this kind of employment there shall be conditions relating to Sunday work. Some of us have fought for what is contained in the first part of the Clause all our lives. I have always done all I could to keep Sunday work to its lowest level, and in all our agreements we have been particularly determined to see that where it is essential it is made as expensive as possible to the employers. We wanted to preserve for ourselves at least one day of the week, and we also wanted to put some penalty on the employer requiring his men to work on Sundays.

The first part of the Clause reads:

'Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sundays if so required shall provide for a free day in lieu or alternatively for the payment of double-time rates of pay…"

My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) says that he has been advised by someone that it is unworkable. Do the Government say that? A lot of trade union agreements contains precisely the same provision in regard to double time, and so on. In addition, spectacles and sports involve special kinds of employment, and there are those who object to them. If men and women have a strong conscientious objection to working on Sunday, are we to be told that it is impracticable to protect for them? I do not believe that it is.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend seeks to remove the Clause. If he gets his Bill—and he knows my view—such a provision is essential because we shall be creating an enormous amount of Sunday employment that does not at present exist. If the Bill is enacted, can we be told how many people will be employed on Sunday who are not now compelled to do so? In all industries, including coal mining, we see the man being pressed to the service of the machine.

What is called the "Continental" week, which includes Sunday, means working cycles of shifts. To do that may be necessary for our economic well-being, but it is a tremendous price for the workers to pay. It will disturb our social life. In some places where there is a cycle of 26 shifts each week it is almost impossible to carry on any organisation because one cannot get the men together. It is a price that we may have to pay, but it is a very heavy price.

There are machines in industry which, if they are not worked continuously for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, cannot show a proper return on the capital invested—or such is the argument. That sort of employment may be essential in industry, but sport, entertainment and spectacle does not come into that category of employment. I therefore hope that we shall keep the entire Clause.

I hope that my right hon. Friend has read this Clause aright. It does not refer to entertainments and spectacles. The Clause will affect every industry and every service.

My hon. Friend has a copy of the Bill. Will he look at the rubric? It says:

"Employment for the purposes of providing spectacles, etc., referred to in sections two or three".

My right hon. Friend is more experienced in law than I am—

No, I am not.

He is a former Minister. He will recognise that rubrics have nothing to do with the law.

Then what is the point of putting these words in? I read the Bill as it is and presumed that the words applied. If they do not apply as stated, they apply generally to industry. If the Clause is not included what protection will the men be given? Are we to rely entirely upon trades unions?

Has this question been put to the Trades Union Congress, or the C.B.I.? If the Clause were omitted would there be any protection other than by trade union agreement? I am not familiar with this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is much more familiar with it. Nevertheless, I have an impression that many people are employed at football matches and that those employees are not well organised. Since the House is to provide that they shall be employed on Sundays it has a duty to protect them. That is why the Clause is essential.

First, I must point out to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that it is not a question whether or not we think that people who work on Sundays should be granted a rest day in lieu, or be able to look forward to not less than double pay; the question is whether the provision should be in the Bill in this form. My hon. Friend mentioned the Crathorne Report, but referred only to one part of it. If he will look at paragraph 227 he will see that it says:

"The recommendations in Part II"— dealing with sport—

"will also have the effect of increasing slightly the number of persons employed in connection with Sunday sport. They are not at present subject to any statutory conditions of employment and we received no evidence to suggest that statutory conditions could or should be applied to them."

In Committee I said that the Crathorne Report was right and that it would be a difficult thing to define by statutory means what is done either directly or indirectly in consequence of this Bill.

I want to say a word about my relationship with my hon. Friend. It is true that from time to time I have advised him, as I have the House, and during our debates in Committee upstairs I have intervened. Normally the purpose of my advice has been to ensure that when the House or the Committee upstairs votes it knows what it is voting about and what the consequences of its vote will be.

There have been times when I have advised my hon. Friend to accept what seemed to be the general consensus of the House, but it must be recognised that my hon. Friend's main desire is to get his Bill through, and I sympathise with him in his attempt. My desire, and that of the Government, however, is to see that if the Bill gets through it is a workable Bill. Whenever I feel that a Clause is liable to produce difficulties it is my bounden duty to advise the House, and I shall do so.

Is my hon. Friend saying that his advice is always the right advice?

No; I would never have such arrogance as that. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend when he says that he always thinks that his advice is right. I would not give advice if I did not think it was right, but it is for the House to decide whether or not to accept the advice.

The only advantage that I have is that the advice I give has no copyright, and is an accumulation of the advice of those who have gone deeply into the Bill. This applies to the Ministry of Labour as it was—now the Department of Employment and Productivity—and to the Law Officers. I shall give their advice shortly.

Can the Minister help those who were not Members of the Committee? Did he give advice to the Committee on this point? If so, why are we discussing the Clause?

I am sorry to have to laugh. I did give advice in Committee, and the Committee was unwise enough to reject the advice both of myself and my hon. Friend the sponsor. The Committee did so in its wisdom. It was a small Committee, and we are a large House. I am pointing out the lack of wisdom of the Committee in including the Clause. It was a lack of wisdom, not a lack of foresight.

As has been said, the Clause is open to objections both in principle and in drafting, and I shall go into those objections in detail. In this connection the deficiencies of drafting are not technicalities to be put right with the aid of skilled draftsmen; they are not the sort of thing in respect of which we can say, "We can pass this, and perhaps in another place the defects can be remedied."

First, the Clause does not relate to the Bill. I pointed this out in Committee, when I said that the side note could not be construed by the courts as being part of the Clause and, secondly, that the Clause related to the whole field of employment whether or not it had anything to do with the activities referred to in the Bill. That advice is from the highest legal circles, and it must be accepted that the inclusion of the words in the side note cannot be accepted by a court as part of the Clause.

If that is the case a simple Amendment can be made in another place. After the words "Any contract of employment" there can be inserted the words

"for the purposes of providing spectacles".

If the Clause is amended in that way it will apply only to the purposes for which the Bill was introduced.

Even if we accepted what my right hon. Friend has put forward there are other cogent arguments against including it. For instance, it would be wrong, or illogical, to make special provision for people who happen to be working because of the provisions of the Bill, and put them in a different position from that of persons who are working for some other reason. To draw a dividing line between those without statutory protection and those with it would be extremely difficult.

I suspect that my hon. Friend has been wrongly advised on this point. No Clause is allowed by the Parliamentary draftsmen or Mr. Speaker to go into a Bill unless it is within the terms of the Long Title. The Clauses within the Bill are limited to the terms of the Long Title.

If my hon. Friend is saying that Mr. Speaker was out of order it is for him to raise the point with Mr. Speaker.

It will also be recognised that the Clause was injected in Committee; it was not drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen. As I understand it, it was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. It was accepted in Committee against advice, including the legal advice of the spokesman for the Government, namely, myself.

My advice now is the same advice that I put before the Committee—and now the matter has been gone into carefully, not only by those involved in the Department of Employment and Productivity but also by the Law Officers.

The Clause would render null and void any contract of employment which did not contain certain things.

The Clause seeks to interfere with the ordinary law of contracts of service. The hon. Gentleman leads me on to a point. The law of contract is basically very simple and consists of three propositions—that people should be free to make all the contracts they like; that, having made them, they should abide by them; and that, if a party does not abide by a contract, the other party to the contract should be free of it, if he wishes. If we are to interfere with any of these principles, we must set about it with great care, because we shall be interfering with a matter with which of its nature lies wholly between one person and another and so falls to the civil courts to enforce if, but only if, proceedings are brought by a party to the contract.

There are any amount of contracts which cannot be entered into in that simple way and which contain provisions taken from Statutes preventing certain aspects of them from being against the public interest.

There are any amount of contracts. The Clause applies to

"Any contract of employment which states that an employee shall work on Sunday if so required".

The vast majority of contracts of employment are silent on this matter; they do not refer to the question whether a person shall work on Sunday. Does the Clause apply to an ordinary typist? Typists do not generally work on Sunday. If one wants her to do so on a special occasion, one asks her if she is prepared to do so. If she says that she is, does the case fall within the Clause? No one could say with any confidence if the Clause were included, but is she entitled to a day off in lieu or to double pay? If so, who is to say which, whether it is to be one or the other? If she is to receive double time rates for her Sunday work, what is the rate which is to be doubled, bearing in mind that she is paid by the week? If we are to write this into our legislation, these are matters which must be taken into consideration.

In view of the many Bills which are passed, in view of the many promises made by Ministers, in view of the many statements made by back bench Members about Bills, and as the courts often interpret Bills in a completely different way from that which was understood from a Minister's undertakings, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that, if the Clause remains in the Bill, the rubric will be retained so that the courts, if they are called upon to interpret the Clause, will take it to refer only to Clauses 2 and 3, as set out in the margin?

I could not give any such assurance. Even if I were to seek to do so, it would have no validity in the courts. It has been said today that assurances are given in the House and the courts interpret them differently. This is something we must be careful about. My advice is that whatever assurances a Minister were to give to the effect that a Clause means this rather than something else would have no validity in the courts. We are not passing a Front Bench speech. We are passing a Clause. When passing a Clause, it is important to ensure that it will stand up to every examination by the courts without their having to refer back to a Report stage in the House of Commons. We are passing legislation. We must be responsible about it.

This is an important point. The Minister is arguing about a contract between two individuals. Does he not agree that the whole tendency in the House has been to impose limitations on contracts between individuals? There is nothing wrong with that in particular cases. There is nothing wrong with it if we are to protect the individual from working on Sunday against his conscience.

This is a matter for debate. An earlier exchange concerned the question whether it is a good thing increasingly to provide statutory protection, or whether it is best to leave these matters to normal negotiation between trade unions and employers.

It seems from the rubric, in which there has been some interest, that the Clause is intended to be limited to employment stemming from the activities mentioned in Clauses 2 and 3, though there is nothing in the Clause so to limit it. Even if the Clause were so limited, this would create new difficulties. Is a policeman, a doctor, or a nurse, whose attendance is required at a Sunday entertainment, within the Clause? If so, why should the policeman in the football ground qualify and not the policeman directing the traffic outside? If both are qualified, why not the coach driver who brings the spectators?

An attempt has been made to persuade me to say that the purposes of the Clause are limited to those involved in employment, because of the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. If we adhere to that, we immediately create a dividing line between a policeman who is on duty that day because of a spectacle or sporting activity under the Clause and another policeman who may be on point duty for quite different reasons. One may be on double time and the other not. One may have a day off in lieu and the other may not have a day off in lieu. I submit that either to write into a Bill a provision that is all-embracing or to write into a Bill a provision that creates divisions between those who are in employment because of the provisions of the Bill and those who are in employment without the provisions of the Bill is not logical.

The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is concerned about the conscience point of the Clause. There are two objections here. First, it is not a proviso at all. A proviso is a provision which makes some exception to what has gone before. There is nothing in the Clause saying that someone who makes a bargain should keep to it. It is the ordinary law that says that. Therefore, it is not a proviso to the Clause to say that a person who makes a contract need not honour it on Sundays if he has religious or conscientious objections to doing so.

Quite why and on what principle a person who makes a contract should be excused from performing it the Clause does not make clear. Many privileges have been given by the law—for example, to trade unions—qua contracts. But no one has ever suggested that these privileges should extend to absolving a striker—even a one-day striker—from the consequences of his strike, however conscientious his motives.

No one can be compelled to perform a contract of employment. If a man chooses not to perform it, or not to perform it on Sundays, the other party has certain rights in the matter, of which the most fundamental is the right to say, "If you will not honour your side of the contract, I shall not honour mine."

But what is said here is not concerned with performance of the contract. It is directed to what can be contained in the contract—

"…no person shall be required by his contract of employment to work on Sundays who establishes that he has…"

and so on.

The Under-Secretary of State said that it was not a proviso. Very well. Let us leave out the first two words, "Provided that", so that it reads, "No person shall be required…". Can he see any objection to that?

I should have to give some thought to a different form of words. On my feet at this moment, I should not like to commit myself to a form of words. In any case, it would be for my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) to take responsibility for that.

If a person objects to working on Sundays, he has the remedy in his own hands. If he finds it difficult to secure employment of the kind and on the conditions he wants, there is nothing in the Clause to assist him. No one is obliged to engage a man who is not willing to do what the employer wants him to do. There is nothing in the Clause to alter that, and neither could there be. If a man contracts to work on Sundays—whether or not on other days also—he must work on Sundays or risk being dismissed.

The problem of unjust dismissal cannot be looked at in the isolated context of Sunday work, let alone the isolated context of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said, the question of unjust dismissal is one of the general problems now being considered by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. I do not agree with it and, if there were time, I could shatter it. But I put this point to him now. By this Bill, we shall provide that work may be done on a Sunday which is not legal now. It will be a new situation. As we are deciding that work shall be done on a Sunday which is not legal now, the House of Commons has a responsibility to ensure that those who are so compelled are protected.

I submit to my right hon. Friend that the person who may be obliged to work on a Sunday if the Bill becomes an Act is in no way different from the person who may be obliged to work on Sunday for quite different reasons. There is a whole range of people—the milkman, the power station worker and the rest—who are required by the very nature of our society to work on Sundays. It is true that the Bill will slightly—I say slightly—broaden the range of people who will be involved in work on a Sunday. It will sometimes call for some extra policemen or some extra transport workers. But I can see no argument for distinguishing a certain category of persons working on Sundays because of what might flow from the Bill rather than the broader category of persons who in any case, for quite different reasons, work on Sunday.

I have said that it would be extremely difficult to draw the line between the person who will work on Sunday in consequence of the Bill and the other person who works on Sunday for reasons unconnected with the Bill.

Most workers who work on Sundays now have either double time or a day off in lieu. This happens now. Nothing more is asked.

Of course it happens now, but it is not done by Statute. It is not written into an Act of Parliament. It is the result of proper negotiation. These are matters for negotiation by the normal negotiating machinery.

There is all the difference in the world between the two categories. The man who works on Sunday now took up his employment knowing that, by the nature of his employment, he would have to work on Sundays. He accepted that requirement when he took the job. On the other hand, to take two classes, the actor or professional footballer follows a calling in which, as he knew when he went into it and has known until now, he would not be required to work on Sunday because the law made it illegal. We shall now impose on him, in the mid-stream of his career, a duty which he could never have foreseen when he entered upon it.

That would apply to a number of categories, I agree. It might apply to those involved in certain types of sport which could now take place but hitherto could not. But there is a whole range of other categories of worker—I have instanced the policeman and the transport worker—who may be called upon to work, so it is said, as a result of the Bill but who equally expected to have to work on Sunday in any case. The nature of their work is such that they are from time to time required to put in duty on a Sunday.

My hon. Friend is under an illusion here. I take the example of the police. Wherever there are sporting events calling for extra policemen, in nearly all cases they are off-duty policemen who are invited to come in to do a tour of duty, for which they are paid. The same would apply to bus drivers and the like. It may be their normal day off, but, because some spectacle is staged which requires a good deal of additional transport or other services, these people are invited to come back to work.

The whole essence of trade union negotiation and agreement about Sunday working is that there shall be a sanction put upon the employer who causes a man to come in to work on the Sabbath day. This applies throughout the trade union movement. The separate categories to which my hon. Friend has referred cannot be invoked as a reason for deleting the Clause.

It seems to me that my hon. Friend is arguing my case.

We think that my hon. Friend is arguing ours.

If there is a Division, hon. Members will have to decide which Lobby they go into. It is true that, when employers bring people in to work on Sunday, there are usually contracts of employment laying down certain conditions in terms of extra payment or time off. This will apply just as much to transport workers driving buses to take people to a cricket match as to others driving buses simply as part of the ordinary Sunday services. One cannot say that one group of people are working because of something passed in an Act of Parliament. I do not accept for a moment that that could be so. The provisions which hon. Members wish to write into the Bill will emerge as a result of the normal contracts negotiated between employers and workers just as they have emerged over our history.

The last point of difficulty which I raise is, again, directed to the conscience clause. Many people would have some sympathy with this provision, at first sight. As I said in Committee, I have some personal sympathy with the motives behind both parts of Clause 4, and my hon. Friend the sponsor of the Bill said the same. But as responsible Members passing legislation we must look beyond the feelings of our own hearts and at the effect of Clauses.

When one looks at the Clause closely one sees that it is a non-starter. It is difficult to see how such cases could be brought before the ordinary courts, and we should probably need nothing short of tribunals similar to those which were set up to decide whether people who objected to military service had a conscientious objection. To try to write such conscientious objections into a Bill to which criminal penalties are attached would be irresponsible.

Therefore, whilst understanding the motives of those who brought the Clause into the Bill, hope that they will accept its deletion.

We hear a lot of nonsense in the House from time to time, and we heard a great deal from the Minister. I found his speech most unconvincing. I believe that many people do mind working on Sundays. There are times when one must, and I have to do it myself—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but if they came down to Yendon farm, Ashwater, every Sunday they would see me in my dungarees and working gear feeding the stock and the pigs. I am a practical working farmer, which is a lot more than other people on either side of the House can say.

I am not a practical working farmer, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if he were not prepared to do the work which he undertakes on a Sunday he would not have become a farmer?

That may well be so. I was not getting at the Minister but at hon. Members who were laughing at the fact that an hon. Member does practical work.

There are times when one must work on Sundays, but on my farm we do not make work. We do not do things just for the sake of doing them, but cut everything to the minimum so that my men can enjoy a day's rest. If they wish, they can go to church. If we deleted the Clause it would be permissible to make people to do more work on a Sunday, and I am opposed to that. We want only to do the essential things on a Sunday and not to force other people to work as well. I feel strongly about this.

We come to the question of double pay. If people must work on Sundays they should receive double pay for that extra burden. I have received a letter from a Devon policeman which sums up what I am trying to say and puts the view of the police very strongly. I did not ask him to write it. The letter says:

"Writing as a police officer, I can see that we shall in the police be required for crowd control at all Sunday sporting sessions. Why should we have to be deprived of resting with our families on Sundays? We shall already have been away from them on the previous day's sport and through other necessary duties. This is unnecessary work for the police. The spectators do not care. They can shout their heads off and throw bottles, fight and cause scenes. Surely, having experienced this on a Saturday, the police to a large extent should be able to look forward to some rest on Sunday and to be quiet. After all, the type of work during the other six days is such that most of us are glad to get home and shut the door on it all. We shall not even be paid doubly for our extra labours. We shall be ordered to be there, and that's that.

"Politicians might think they are popular by going with the crowd, and even doing this sort of thing, by doing away with Sunday as a national day of rest. One day, perhaps, they will regret it."

Those are the simple words of a constable.

The Minister has disappeared—

My hon. Friend has been called out to take a very urgent telephone message. He will be back fairly shortly.

I accept that, of course. For a horrible moment I thought that my words had driven him out of the Chamber.

There are many other classes of people who must work on Sundays, and I do not see why we should impose an extra burden. I fear very much for the person providing services at one of the big Sunday entertainments. One can imagine what will happen to waiters or waitresses if they tell their employer, "I am sorry, I will not work on Sunday. I have never done it here before." He will reply, "You have to work. This is your job." For many such people it is not easy to find jobs if they are given the sack because they object to working on a Sunday.

These are important matters. I assure the Minister, who has returned from his urgent telephone call, that the police are concerned. They have enough to do during the week. They have enough trouble looking after some of the unruly crowds at football matches, and so on. There will be very strong resentment if they are forced to do even more without getting double pay.

I have to work on Sundays, because livestock cannot be left unattended. I have never forced any of my men to work on a Sunday if they feel that they cannot; I have done the job myself. It would be absolutely wrong to force people to work on Sundays. Very strong pressure will be brought to bear on people in all sorts of jobs to do so. I hope that the Minister will at least bear in mind the letter from a policeman which I read.

The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) seemed to take exception when some of us laughed at him when he said that he must work on Sundays. We thought that he was going to talk about his constituency employment and not his other work. Most of us work on Sundays doing our constituency work as well. When he said that he must feed the stock we wondered at first what the stock did the rest of the week. Then he said that he was letting his men off. I hope that when they have to stay they get double pay on Sundays.

I support the inclusion of the Clause, because every time constituents wrote to me expressing concern about the Bill I said that I would support it on two conditions. First, there should be adequate protection for any person who felt on conscientious grounds that he or she would not work on a Sunday. Second, that there should be proper provision and protection for people who do not have any religious objection to working on a Sunday in the way of double pay and a day off in lieu. That is what the Clause seeks to do.

In arguing for the exclusion of the Clause, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that there were objections on technical grounds and to the principle behind it, although he was inclined to agree with it. That seems to be a dangerous argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) made a very powerful point when he said that people would be made to work on a Sunday when before it had been illegal and, therefore, that there is a distinction between them and anyone else.

Listening to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, one would think that we were still in the nineteenth century, when any State intervention in industrial relations was considered to be wrong. We cannot argue consistently that one sort of intervention is right and another sort wrong, and, by throwing up all sorts of strange guys to knock down himself, the Minister did himself a disservice.

Any transport worker, for example, knows when he is put on to work to take a crowd to or from a local football match and when he is dealing with an ordinary Saturday afternoon shopping crowd. In the same way, he will know on a Sunday when he is put on to work to take people to or from a sporting event and when he is dealing with an ordinary Sunday crowd.

We have a situation here in which we are proposing to call upon individuals to surrender the weekends that they would like to spend at home with their families, and, whether or not they have religious objections, they should be compensated. Sunday is not the same as any other day of the week, and to give a man a weekday off in lieu is not good enough.

People working on the periphery of the entertainment industry are generally covered by works councils. By definition, they include some of the lowest paid and badly organised people in industry. It is no good our saying that theirs is a case for negotiation. We as a House have a duty to see that they are protected.

My hon. Friend said that he wanted a workable Bill, and that there were drafting objections to the Clause. However, his Department could easily surmount those objections if it was prepared to do so, and suitable Amendments could be introduced in the other place. There is no point in saying that something suitable could not be introduced in another place because it would not stand up to criticism. He knows that it could be done, and it should be done if we intend to impose any extra burden on people.

As a result, without the undertaking that we seek from the Government Front Bench, regretfully, I cannot accept the deletion of this Clause from the Bill.

Arising out of what the Minister has said, there are three points that I wish to make. As I understand it, his first point of criticism of Clause 4 is that it is much too wide and would cover a great number of other forms of employment. If that is so, it could be limited by inserting, after the words "any contract of employment", the phrase

"arising out of the terms of this Act".

Those may not be the right words, but the hon. Gentleman has legal advisers who will be able to find suitable phraseology and, in that way, limit the provision to the terms of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was that a great number of people work on Sunday already and receive higher rates of pay for it which are arrived at by negotiation and, as I understand his argument, we should not, therefore, make it statutory. However, we are making something legal which has been illegal until now, and I see no reason why an employer should not be compelled in the Bill to have to pay extra money for Sunday work.

The third and possibly most important of all was his point about it being a conscience clause. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman said that he had sympathy with it, and he went almost as far as saying that he agreed with it in principle. He added, however, that it would be impracticable to work and quoted the wartime example of the tribunals for conscientious objectors.

If people have a religious objection to working on Sundays, surely that is a good case for setting up such tribunals. It may be that only a few people will be involved, but Parliament has always been anxious to protect people from being forced to do something against their consciences.

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he give the House some information? In the Amendments to the Race Relations Bill which have been tabled by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—

Order. Interventions always ought to be brief, but they must have something to do with what we are discussing.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, it has. Those Amendments include religious discrimination and, as a member of the legal profession, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can say—

Order. Even in an intervention, we cannot discuss the Race Relations Bill. We are discussing whether Clause 4 should be in this Bill.

I listened with rapt attention to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who, for a large part of his speech, spoke against a background of dissent from both sides of the House. Nevertheless, he spoke honestly and in a straightforward manner in pinpointing many of the difficulties implicit in the Bill. I feel that we will disregard much of his advice at our peril.

Undoubtedly, a lot of what he said was unpalatable to hon. Members on both sides, but the truth hurts on occasions, and he was pointing to many of the weaknesses in the Bill—

Order. We are not concerned with weaknesses in the Bill. We are concerned with the weaknesses or excellence in Clause 4.

Yes, and that is the matter about which I wish to speak.

My hon. Friend referred a great deal to double pay for Sunday work, but man does not live by bread alone, and, even if he received treble pay, it would not compensate him for the loss of a Sunday's rest.

We are discussing whether this Clause should be in the Bill. Sport and other entertainments of different kinds on Sundays inevitably involve people having to work. As a result, an unendurable strain will be placed on them. It will not benefit the country in any shape or form and it will certainly not enhance our economic advance. Very often sports people, athletes and players, in the course of earning their daily bread, are taxed beyond endurance. There are certain employers who, in their endeavour to bolster up entertainment and sport, never fail to hold inducements before the people who are to participate. Sport and entertainment in this country seems to be becoming a religion.

Order. We can discuss sport and entertainment in some other debate, not this one. This debate is concerned with whether workers who work on a Sunday shall get double pay and shall have a conscientious right not to work on a Sunday. The hon. Member must address himself to the Clause.

I am trying very hard indeed. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you would bear with me, because people who participate in professional sports are workers in the real sense of the word, whether they are being paid normal time, double time, or any extra inducement. With respect, we cannot conduct this debate on a narrow aspect.

Order. We can conduct a debate only on what we are debating. This is not a question of narrowness.

The Clause is concerned with whether a person does or does not work on a Sunday and whether, if he does, he is paid double time.

Or whether he has any conscientious objection to working on a Sunday.

Unfortunately, there are many implications. I hope I shall not be ruled out of order, but one of the big implications is that of conscience. This concerns many people. People of all shades of opinion, naturally enough, want to fill in their time. They can please themselves whether they stay at home, work, or attend a sporting event on a Sunday. Many people call upon workers for more than they are capable of giving.

People who participate in entertainment are human beings—they are flesh and blood—but those who do not participate in sport often ask them for endeavours beyond their endurance. I am concerned about the professional foot-baller who is on call for six days a week. If the Bill becomes law, he will be on call seven days a week.

Order. This is a matter which can be gone into on Third Reading. For the moment, we are deciding whether a Clause, which would give workers called upon to work on Sunday double pay and reserving to them the conscientious right not to work on a Sunday, should be put into the Bill. This is what we are debating at this moment.

Unfortunately, I followed in the same trend as many other hon. Members who have spoken during your absence, Mr. Speaker, and I am ranging wide of the mark. I am now under your jurisdiction and I will conform. How-ever, the point which you have outlined so admirably and succinctly is what has been worrying me. I feel that the trade unions have a right to be concerned and the Minister has a right to be concerned about what sort of place it will take in the Bill, because he is responsible for the drafting and working of it, according to the advice which he receives from his advisers. I understand his perturbation in the matter. I had great fellow-feeling for him when he was trying to convince the House that this was something we should not overlook.

I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) because of his great sincerity in this matter. I would only differ from him on one point. He said that he listened to the Minister with rapt attention. I confess that I did not listen to the Minister with rapt attention. I listened somewhat sorrowfully, because he put the Government's point of view more or less in direct contradiction to everything that the Labour movement stands for. We are discussing Sunday, and Sunday preserves the distinctive character of the day. Not only that, it preserves the workers' day of rest.

I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend say this. Is he aware—

Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair or the reporters will not hear him.