SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (Hansard, 16 December 1969)

§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make, in place of certain statutory provisions relating to Sunday observance and the playing of games, provision, in relation to Sunday, for preventing, in the case of certain spectacles taking place during certain hours, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of watching them and, in the case of public dancing so taking place, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of participating therein; to exclude certain acts from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1677; and to make provision for, and in connection with, the winding up of the Cinematograph Fund. This is a very limited Bill. It is not a Sunday Trading Bill. It does not seek to alter the hours for opening pubs on Sunday. It deals with Sunday entertainments. It excludes Scotland and Ireland, which have different laws on the subject—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let us have a bit of Sabbath day quiet.

§ Mr. Parker
I should like to draw attention to the fact that a similar Bill has passed through Committee three times during the last three years: in 1967 through the Lords; in 1968; and 1969 through Committee in this House. It failed to become law through filibustering on both occasions in 1968 and 1969, the first occasion on Report and the second occasion in Committee.
I draw to the attention of hon. Members the fact that in going through the Committee stage last summer we had 19 sittings of a total of 60 hours, which must be a record for filibustering.
Unlike the subject coming up for discussion later today, on this matter the country is ahead of opinion so far expressed in this House. We here have not yet made any substantial change in the law on this subject, but reputable Gallup and other polls have shown substantial support for changes of this kind in the country as a whole. The last Gallup Poll shows that 64 per cent. of the adult population in England support the principles of the Bill and 62 per cent. in Wales.
The present law is in a complete mess. It is based on obsolete Statutes of 1625 1145 and 1780. The majority of these statutes have fallen into disuse, although some are enforced sporadically. However, much of the law is got round by subterfuge of one kind or another. The most important obstacle to Sunday entertainment is the need to charge for entry when people or organisations embark on any kind of entertainment.
County cricket has been saved in the last year or two because of Sunday play. That Sunday play has only been made possible by subterfuges for getting round the law by charging either for programmes or for parking to see Sunday cricket. Otherwise, Sunday cricket would not be possible. The same is true of Rugby Union football and polo. The theatres get round the law by creating theatre clubs. It is only a question of time before theatres have charges for programmes with numbered tickets for people to enter on Sundays.
Brands Hatch is another example of how the law is got round by charging for programmes and for parking. After the Lord's Day Observance Society succeeded in winning a case to ban it legally, it got round the difficulty by charging for programmes and parking.
I suggest that this kind of subterfuge brings the law of the land into disrepute. A change in the law is backed by all the major sports organisations in the country: the Football Association, the Football League, the British Amateur Athletics Board, the M.C.C., the Rugby Union Football Association, the R.A.C. and all the other major organisations.
Many theatres would like to open on Sunday and close on other days of the week. Many West End actors would not be too enthusiastic about that change, but the great mass of young actors and actresses and veterans like Dame Sybil Thorndike and Dame Edith Evans believe that it is in the interests of the theatre that it should open on Sunday and flourish instead of not opening on Sunday and not flourishing.
The great problem we are up against is noise, particularly regarding football matches. But it is unlikely that major football matches will take place on both Saturday and Sunday. They are likely to be on one day or the other. Discussions have taken place on this matter and, with 1146 the assistance of the Home Office, a Clause has been drawn up with the agreement of the local authorities and the magistrates association which should deal with the question of noise on Sundays.
This is not an anti-religious Bill. It is supported by many reputable leaders of all Churches. It is opposed by a small fanatical group of sabbatarians. Nobody objects to sabbatarians having the kind of Sunday that they wish, but almost all in this House strongly object to having forced on them a way of behaviour on Sunday which we do not believe in. We demand the right to behave and act as we wish on Sunday. The majority want to choose for themselves how they will spend their Sundays.
I suggest that it is high time that the law was brought into line with the needs of the present day so that we can get rid of these subterfuges which bring discredit on the law of the land.

§ Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)
I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute or two, because I realise that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate which is just about to begin.
I do not feel that any prolonged discussion of this matter would serve any useful purpose. I think that hon. Members are well acquainted with the arguments on both sides.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred to his Bill as having gone through various stages in the last two Parliaments. I must point out that the same Bill was not debated in the last Parliament as in the earlier Parliament. We do not know in any detail what will be contained in the Bill which the hon. Gentleman is now asking leave to introduce. It may differ substantially from either Bill No. 2 or Bill No. 1 that he introduced on the previous occasions.
This is a matter on which both the House and the country are greatly divided. I had in mind today, if the circumstances were different, to make a speech on the merits of the case. I am deeply conscious, however, that it is undoubtedly the wish and the mood of the House that the maximum time possible should be available for the important debate that follows. If it is acceptable to those who 1147 are like minded with me on this matter, I would be willing to afford to the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of having his Bill published so that it may be considered. He may have been able to improve it materially as a result of discussions. At any rate, we should like to look at it.
I am trying to save the time of the House. If this course commends itself to the House I will be satisfied.