§ 2.52 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD WILLIS
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is eighteen months since we had an exhaustive discussion in this House on the Crathorne Report on Sunday Observance Laws; and that Report, with certain modifications, has provided the basis for the Bill which is now before your Lordships. I should like at the very beginning to pay a tribute to Lord Crathorne and the members of his Committee, and to say that in this respect I 9 am rather like the page-boy in "Good King Wenceslas", in that I am only treading in the master's footsteps, because the Crathorne Committee's Report and recommendations were generally welcomed by both Houses of Parliament and the public, and, as I say, have provided the basis for this Bill.
I think the most remarkable feature of that Report was the general warmth with which it was received. In the past this issue of Sunday observance has generated a great deal of heat, if not very much light. I would remind your Lordships that it is only 70 years since you turned down a move to allow lectures and musical performances on the Sabbath; only 35 years since the law allowed museums and picture galleries to be opened and lectures to be held on Sunday; and even then, in 1932, proposals to allow stage plays to be performed were defeated. It is only twelve years since Mr. John Parker, M.P., introduced in another place a Bill to reform the Sunday laws, and it was heavily defeated on Second Reading, after fierce discussion. In the light of all this, it is to me quite remarkable that the Crathorne Report received such widespread acceptance, and I believe it to be a tribute to the sound common sense and reasonable way in which that Committee tackled this thorny subject. Moreover, I believe it reflects a basic change in public attitude of which Parliament has to take note.
Before coming to the actual details of the Bill, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two about the background and to deal with some of the general arguments which have been raised whenever this question of Sunday entertainments is raised. The mish-mash of ancient and hoary Statutes which govern our Sundays were brought in after the Reformation. Prior to that time—and I am now quoting the Crathorne Report:church attendance was formally observed but there was considerable freedom in the way the rest of the day was spent.Thus we have to remember that we are not dealing here with a situation which has been with us from time immemorial. These old laws themselves changed the traditional character of the British Sunday. They were often imposed on a reluctant public which resisted them bitterly. As one writer of the period put it: 10Sunday has become as ball between two rackets".These old laws, designed for a different age and a different period, are still in force. The Acts of 1625, 1627 and 1677 have largely fallen into disuse, it is true, but they have been used from time to time to curtail certain activities on Sundays. The Act of 1780, however, still largely governs us in the matter of Sunday entertainments and amusements.
These Acts were based on two basic propositions. The first was that it was possible to encourage and even force people to go to church by limiting the other activities available to them. No one, I think, would support that proposition now, and it was made quite clear in the Crathorne Report that this was not the view of the churches. Church attendance cannot be compelled by law, and no one to-day would ask that it should be. Indeed, the proposition falls to the ground in another way. Limiting other possible activities on a Sunday has not had the effect of filling the churches. On the contrary, in other countries which do not have the same restrictions on Sunday sport and entertainment as we do church attendance is as high as it is here in Britain, and in some cases notably higher.
The second proposition on which these old laws were based was that all sport and entertainment are undesirable at any time, and are particularly wicked on the Sabbath. Again and again in the Acts themselves, or in the arguments put forward by their sponsors, one finds phrases which describe Sunday sport and entertainment in terms such as "abuses and profanations", "profane exhibitions", "liable to corrupt good morals", while a Sabbatarian of the period said:The less pleasure men take on a Sunday the better".That was the spiritbehind the Acts. It was seriously suggested then, and widely accepted by people, that to break the Sabbath by playing bowls, or even walking in the fields, was as great a sin as adultery or murder. That is actually in writing in a pamphlet which was issued during the period. In 1861, for example, the Crystal Palace, in order to get round the Sunday laws, was thrown open without charge to 40,000 people. "Organised gigantic wickedness" was how one writer described what went on. 11 What went on? Pole climbing, leapfrog and jumping over handkerchiefs.
Your Lordships may feel that all this has little relevance to the present day, and I would agree, and I have dealt with this matter only because we are still to some extent governed not only by these old laws but by the attitude behind them, the attitude that suggests entertainment is wicked and sinful. We may not agree with these old laws or with the thinking behind them, but they are still there on our Statute Book. The song has ended but the dirge lingers on.
The Crathorne Report summed up this issue of Sunday entertainment in a way which I feel reflects the sensible attitude of most people to-day. Even those witnesses who were opposed to Sunday entertainment on other grounds said,there was no objection to these forms of entertainment in themselves, and that there was no theological or ethical reason why they should be prohibited. The modern view appears to be that if an entertainment is improper on Sunday it is just as undesirable on weekdays.That is a most significant development, because in all previous debates on Sunday observance up to Crathorne the weightiest objection was made on moral grounds.
The opponents of reform in this field raised the terrible spectre of the Continental Sunday. I have never been quite clear what this meant. This phrase has a smug insular ring about it, a suggestion 'that the people on our side of the Channel are somehow superior to those who allow sport and entertainment on Sunday on the other side of the Channel; that we are rugged, decent, God-fearing people and they are a mass of sin. There is an undertone about the phrase "Continental Sunday" which suggests vice and promiscuity. But I do not think that any serious person to-day would suggest that the French, the Swiss or the Dutch are less moral than we are, or that they have been corrupted by the so-called wild life they are said to live on Sunday. Certainly, as I have pointed out, the church attendance figures do not suggest this; and, of course, those of us who have been to the Continent, as I am sure everybody here has, will know that the Continental Sunday is just as much a family day there as it is here. I was glad to see that in your Lordships' debate on the Crathorne Report there was no 12 opposition to Sunday sport and entertainment on moral grounds, for this is clearly indefensible.
What other grounds of opposition are there? The main concern expressed in our earlier debate related to the traditional character of Sunday, and some fear was expressed lest this traditional character should be changed. I share this feeling. I believe that Sunday should be a special day and that it should be different. Nevertheless, I think we have to be realists about this; we have to grasp this nettle boldly. The character of the British Sunday has been changed in the last fifty years, and in the last ten years the change has been quite extraordinary. We should be fools and ostriches if we overlooked this. The coming of the motor car to almost every family in the land, plus comparative affluence in relation to the pre-war years, has changed the pattern of life in these Islands, mainly for the good, on seven days of the week, including Sunday.
The Crathorne Report expressed the fear that a substantial relaxation of the restrictions on spectator sports would mean large crowds and cause disturbance in certain neighbourhoods. But this is already happening, as we know. The sun has only to show its reluctant face in this country, and enormous crowds descend on the coast, on the countryside, on towns and on villages outside the main metropolitan centres. I know of one man living in the country who has bought himself a weekend flat in London so that he can escape into some peace. So we already have these crowds, and this is, in fact, the result of what has happened in the last ten years.
In this matter of the character of the British Sunday, the British people, as always, have anticipated Parliament and have voted with their feet. They have torn great gaps in the fences put up by our present Sunday laws, and where the law could not be defied they have bent it or twisted it. This summer, for example, we have had for the first time professional first-class cricket. This has attracted bigger attendances than for midweek features. But it was a subterfuge. The promoters found a way around the law. The spectators did not pay for admission: they paid for sitting down. They did not pay to get into the ground; they paid for their cars to be parked. And 13 all other kinds of excuses were found by the promoters to get the equivalent of the gate money without actually breaking the law. The public response proved that there is a demand for first-class cricket on Sundays, and certainly the counties need the right to play on Sundays. It may well be that no appeal I could make to your Lordships, or to the British public, on behalf of this Bill would be more likely to go home to your hearts than if I say that if this Bill becomes law, British cricket may well be saved.
There is a growing number of instances where the law is being mocked at by the public. At Brand's Hatch, for instance, they can get 40,000 spectators at a Sunday meeting. That is a big enough crowd, and 75 per cent. of the audience are young people. The organisers do not charge for admission; they charge for the use of the facilities. I believe that this kind of subterfuge is all wrong. I think it is bad when the law falls into dispute, when ordinary people are turned into law-breakers because the laws are no longer in accordance with the needs and the spirit of the time. To me, this is one of the most important reasons why these laws should be repealed or changed drastically, and why any new law we make should be in keeping with the needs and the spirit of the times.
Perhaps the most significant change about Sunday in the past ten years has been the advent of television on a nationwide scale. This has highlighted the anomalies of the present situation. Jack Warner or Max By graves can appear on television in make-up and costume on a Sunday evening at the London Palladium and be seen by 15 or 20 million people, but they may not put on the same makeup and costume and appear in a theatre before five hundred people, even if the proceeds of the show are for charity. Sir Laurence Olivier or Dame Peggy Ash-croft may appear in a Sunday night play on television, but they may not appear in their own theatres. If the law was absurd before, television has made it ridiculous. Most important of all, I think, is that television has tended to change people's thinking on these matters. They now regard it as normal and reasonable to watch a play or a variety show on Sunday, and they do not understand 14 why it should be right to do so at home, in an armchair, and wrong to do so in a theatre, from the stalls or the circle. We all want to preserve as much as possible of the traditional family character of Sunday, and I have tried to do this in the Bill. But we shall not do so if we ignore change or oppose change, or if we are too timid. As I say, in this matter, I believe that the public are ahead of us.
So far I have referred to the moral issue of Sunday observance and to the question of the traditional character of Sunday. There is a third line of opposition to change on which I should like briefly to comment. It is the argument that to have sport and entertainment of any kind on a Sunday is direct contravention of God's will as expressed in Holy Scripture. This is a view which has been advanced for over a hundred years by the Lord's Day Observance Society. I do not feel competent to comment on the spiritual side of the matter and I will leave it to others who are more qualified than I.
I should like to say one or two words about this Society itself. In our previous debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to the Lord's Day Observance Society as an anachronism and detached the churches from the point of view that this Society puts forward. I think that this sums it up. But anachronisms, like old soldiers, die hard. This Society is most active and in the past has played a leading part in frustrating any efforts to liberalise the Sunday laws. I have met the Secretary of the Society on several occasions recently and I have the greatest respect for his sincerity and integrity. He is also a most capable organiser. Although they are a tiny minority, they have been able to give the impression of strength, and I know that in the past this has influenced Members of Parliament.
I have with me a copy of a circular letter which they have sent to all their supporters, asking them to write to their Member of Parliament and to urge him to oppose any reform of Sunday. One paragraph of the letter reads as follows:Please do not send any part of this letter…for it is very important that your letter should not bear evidence of our having asked you to write.15 All this may be quite usual in a political campaign. I mention it merely because noble Lords and Members of another place may get the wrong impression from their mail. Supporters of Sunday reform are not organised and seldom think of sending in their views. Those who oppose Sunday reform are highly articulate and they can give a completely false balance to one's mail bag.
I think it is fair to say that the Lord's Day Observance Society is not against the reform of a British Sunday: only they would reform it backwards, by some three hundred years. They have conducted campaigns against children's playgrounds in parks being open on a Sunday. They have stopped innumerable charity concerts. By laying information, they have forced the police to stop table tennis matches, and even exhibitions of bee-keeping. Some time ago they took advice as to whether it was legal for television to be transmitted on a Sunday. As I have said, I admire their sincerity, but sincerity can be no excuse for bigotry. Their zeal frightens me. These are the sardine men who would force all humanity into a tin of their choice. I hope I have said enough to explain my reasons for introducing the Bill and to cover some of the arguments against the reform of our Sunday laws.
The Bill itself is a fairly short and simple one compared to some your Lordships have had to deal with, and I will not take up your time by a detailed recitation of the object of the various clauses. In its broad aim—namely, to rationalise and liberalise the law while seeking to preserve in some measure the special character of Sunday—the Bill is consistent with the declared objects of the Crathorne Committee. But in some respects the means adopted to achieve these ends are somewhat different. I think that I should point to your Lord ships where we differ.
The first area of difference is on the proposal that all spectator sports be prohibited on Sunday mornings, which is Recommendation 7 of the Crathorne Report. We have qualified this so as to apply the restriction only to spectator sports that the public have to pay to watch, because in fact the Crathorne Committee, in this one instance, was more restrictive than the existing law. I 16 know that great concern was felt by many people who play amateur football on Sunday mornings, matches where supporters and friends turn up to watch but where there is no charge for admission. They were very concerned that if the Crathorne Committee recommendation was embodied in law it would interfere with their playing. This could have caused great hardship because there are no pitches, or very few pitches, which are available on Sunday afternoons. Under this Bill, they will not only be able to continue as before, but their position will be safeguarded. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham will be able to give them further reassurance on this point.
The second point of departure from Crathorne lies in the matter of time. The Crathorne Report suggested that the close season, if I may use that term, for Sunday sport and entertainment should be from 2 a.m. until 12.30 p.m., or to put it the other way round, that nothing could begin until after 12.30 on a Sunday. I have been a little more restrictive on this matter and I have put the time at 2 o'clock. The reason for this is that I was very impressed by the argument which was put forward in our previous debate by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, a view which was echoed by other noble Lords. He spoke of the Sunday mid-day dinner as being a great family bond. I must say that I have great sympathy for this point of view, and I agree that it would be a pity to loosen that bond. Therefore, because a 12.30 start might do so, I have made the time in the Bill 2 o'clock.
The Bill also differs on the question of Sunday employment. Crathorne recommended that the provisions of Section 22 of the Shops Act 1950 should apply to employees in cinemas, theatres and places licensed for music and dancing. I have not been able to adopt this recommendation, mainly because it is difficult to graft the provisions of the Shops Act on to entertainment. You will note that I have left the complicated issue of Sunday trading out of the Bill altogether and concentrated entirely on entertainment. I believe that the Government are studying the situation in relation to Sunday trading with a view to modernising and rationalising the law, but that is outside the scope of my Bill and of this discussion.
17 The final point of difference between the Crathorne recommendations and this Bill is on the issue of professional sport on Sunday. This is one of the most important questions. I believe that the time has come when we must make a proper job of the law and not pass a measure which by restricting certain activities will force the public to find a way around its provisions. We ought to stick by the principle that if a thing is bad on Sunday, it is just as undesirable on weekdays, and vice versa, and follow that through logically. Cricket is a case in point. If there is nothing wrong in paying to watch a first-class cricket match on Saturday, there ought to be nothing wrong in paying to watch a similar match on Sunday. It would be wrong to place those people in charge of cricket in a situation where, in order to continue playing professional cricket on Sunday, they have to resort to the kind of subterfuges I mentioned earlier. It would be wrong, in my view, to legislate so that a man who enjoys first-class acting can follow his interest on Sunday by going to the National Theatre, while a man who equally enjoys watching first-class professional sportsmen should not be allowed to do so on Sunday. And equally wrong to pass a law which would encourage people to wangle a way round its provisions, as in the case of cricket and Brand's Hatch.
I have already mentioned the fear that sporting events will attract large crowds and create a disturbance on Sunday afternoons. There is no evidence—and there was no evidence presented to the Crathorne Committee, and none that I have been able to gather since—that the Football Association, the Football League, or Rugby Union, would want to stage their matches on Sunday afternoons. I believe that in this matter the pattern has been pretty well set over the years and that they are finding that Friday evening matches under floodlights are more profitable than they would be at any other time. But we get disturbance in any case without these events, and it may well be that the attraction of some first-class games will help to spread the load and lighten the traffic on some of our coast roads.
Concern was expressed about professionals working on a Sunday. Well, many of them do so now. Most cricketers play seven days a week during the season; 18 many actors work six days a week in the theatre and do a concert or a television show on a Sunday. In fact, the number of people involved in employment on a Sunday, if this Bill were passed, would be very small. At a very rough estimate, if all the people employed in sport and entertainment were to work on Sunday the number would amount to about 200,000 people, or less than one per cent. of our working population. As for transport, I am told that this would involve only a slight increase in station staff and some increase in train crews. And since everybody involved in transport is already used to the idea of working some Sundays in turn throughout the year the problem there would not be a very difficult one. Of course I am not suggesting a seven-day week. I have not provided any material in the Bill about this, for the single reason that the trade union movement feels quite capable of protecting the interests of its members, both in the matter of compensation for Sunday work and in the matter of time off in lieu of Sunday work.
The most powerful argument in favour of the proposal in the Bill that professional sport should be allowed after 2 p.m. on a Sunday is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction between amateur and professional sport, and certainly difficult to draw a distinction in their ability to draw crowds. To impose a restriction on professional sport would merely be to create another anomaly, and we should have yet another law through which the public would drive a coach-and-horses. That is why I have suggested that we should be bold on this matter and that all restrictions after 2 p.m. on Sunday should be abolished. There is one further point to which I must refer. In common with other professional sport the Bill would allow horse-racing on Sundays. However, the existing restrictions on betting and gaming are not affected by the Bill, and so it will still be illegal to open a betting shop on Sunday or to bet with a bookmaker or on the Tote. Race-horsing without gambling may seem like Hamlet without the Prince, but I think it is right to retain these restrictions. Therefore, I have done nothing about them.
May I, in conclusion, make one personal point? As many of your Lordships know, I am a humanist. I am not a follower of any particular religion, and the 19 suggestion has been made in at least one quarter that my purpose in putting forward this Bill is to destroy the Christian Sunday. I am quite sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, or his Committee, when they put forward their recommendations, and it is certainly not mine. This is a matter of conscience on which many people feel strongly and keenly, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I indicate briefly what my own conscience is in this matter. I may not agree with my Christian friends on many things, but I share with them my hope and deep belief in tolerance, kindliness, democracy, respect for human dignity and freedom. My own philosophy might be summed up in the words of the prophet Micah:And what shall be required of thee? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly according to the light in thee.That seems to me to be an admirable philosophy of life. It is in the light of those beliefs that I could not be a party to any move to limit or restrict anyone's right to worship, or to believe, or to spend his days as he sees fit.
I am not connected with any commercial interest which would benefit from the changes which this Bill would bring, nor am I aware of any commercial interests who are campaigning for reform of the Sunday law. Certainly I have not been approached. My only purpose in intro-during this Bill is to rationalise the law and to enrich Sunday, so that it may be a day of true relaxation and pleasure.
A great deal has been said about the character of Sunday, but in one sense we in this House are in a privileged position. We see Sunday in one light. I ask your Lordships to remember that for thousands of people, especially young people, Sunday can be a day of unutterable, ghastly boredom. A recent survey taken by a B.B.C. programme, showed that two out of four young people whom they approached were bored with Sunday, and three out of four people whom they approached were in favour of some change and relaxation of the present laws. It is not so bad in a metropolitan area like London, but if you go into some small towns, villages and even big provincial towns, Sunday is still a day of gloom. So when 20 we talk about the character of Sunday let us remember this. The police will tell you that a great deal of vandalism takes place on Sunday, when groups of people with little to do roam the streets looking for an outlet for their excess energy.
I believe that a reform of the law would bring great relief to these youngsters and to the authorities. I believe it is long overdue. I believe the character of the British Sunday is in some ways special and unique, but this character is not really enshrined in law and it cannot be preserved by Statute. It stems from the nature and common sense of the British people themselves. Whatever we do, they will ensure that Sunday keeps its special flavour, and it is in this spirit that I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willis.)
§ 3.22 p.m.
§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for explaining in such detail what the Crathorne Report set out to do, and for explaining what his Bill sets out to do. I, at any rate, am grateful, because it will enable me to give a general blessing to the Bill and to concentrate on those parts of it which I do not like.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, this Bill is based on the Crathorne Report, the Report of a Departmental Committee of which my noble friend Lord Crathorne was Chairman. Before we consider this Bill, there is one fact which we ought to bear in mind on this very difficult subject on which people hold strong views one way or the other; that is, that the Crathorne Committee published a Report which was unanimous. In view of that fact, I suggest that we should think twice before we depart from their recommendations. It was a most able Report, and very well argued. It also had the great advantage of being written in English which we all understood. We ought not to depart from that Report unless somebody can prove to us that it is wrong in certain particulars, but I am going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that in one or two respects the Report is right and he may be wrong.
21 I am sorry that the more important part of the Crathorne Report, the part dealing with Sunday trading, is not covered in this Bill, but I appreciate, as the noble Lord implied, that that is really a Government matter. As the noble Lord Stonham, is shortly going to speak, I hope that he will be able to let us know how far Her Majesty's Government have got in bringing in a reform of the Sunday trading laws, because that is very important. There are certain matters which I suggest need amending in Committee—and I, at any rate, shall try to do that—and they are all to do with sport. It would appear from the Report that the Crathorne Committee had more trouble making up their minds on this subject than on anything else.
May I first of all refer your Lordships to paragraph 119 of their Report? This is the paragraph which deals with the times at which events may start on a Sunday. The Committee recommended 12.30 p.m., and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said 2 o'clock; and this is the one instance when I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has chosen better than the Report. It seems to me that 2 o'clock is probably a better time. I am drawing your Lordships' attention to this paragraph, because the wording shows exactly what was in the minds of the Committee when they made their recommendations. The Committee were talking in this instance about the timing, and they said:We do not agree that any secular activities should be prohibited in order to encourage church attendance, but we think that the suggestion has merit on other grounds, namely that of preserving the special character of Sunday as a day that provides at least a measure of freedom from compulsory work.The first point was mentioned by the noble Lord. That was behind all of the Committee's recommendations. The other point behind their recommendations was that Sunday should be different, and that if people wished to be quiet they should be able to be quiet, in so far as modern crowds allowed.
May I next refer your Lordships to paragraph 116 of the Committee's Report? They divided the types of sports into spectators' sports and players' sports, and they contemplated arriving at the definition of calling "spectators' sports" those sports for which an entrance charge was made for spectators, and "players' sports" those sports where no charge was 22 made for the spectators. But they came to the conclusion that that would be quite unfair, because in Rugger clubs, and so on, the main benefit of the Sunday game is derived by the players, although to help the club funds there is a charge for entrance.
The Committee then went back to this question of the special character of Sunday, and in paragraph 116 they said:From the point of view of preserving the character of Sunday, we think that there is a real difference between a professional contest organised to attract large crowds and the local club games organised primarily for the players' recreation but which attract some spectators.In the paragraph before that, they said:From the evidence we received, it appeared that a substantial relaxation of the restrictions on spectators' sports would do more to alter the character of Sunday than a relaxation in relation to entertainments. The crowds would usually be larger".—and this, of course, deals with the point about other people having a restful day—and cause more disturbance to the neighbourhood and a good deal of extra employment would result, not only from the sports themselves"—the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—but also from the need for transport, catering and other facilities.—including, I might add, extra police on duty. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made far too little of this question of extra employment. I believe that it is of the utmost importance. I agree that the amount of extra employment given to people taking part in the sport would not be large, but I suggest that the number of those in what we might call the ancillary services who would be affected would be very large indeed. For that reason, I consider that the Committee were right in trying to divide sport into these two classes, and that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, may be wrong.
The Committee then went on to say, in paragraph 117—I am skipping whole lines, but I am not taking things out of context:Generally speaking, we believe that sports in which the participants are not remunerated do not lend themselves to commercial organisation and do not regularly attract large crowds of spectators on a scale to interfere with the character of Sunday.Then, my Lords, they went on to say that there may be one or two cases where the purely amateur sport will attract large 23 crowds—tennis, for example—but that they will be few and far between. But to have an exception to a rule does not make that rule a bad one, and, anyway, the exceptions will be few.
Going on to their recommendation on this matter, the Committee said:We recommend that the promotion of spectators' sports should be prohibited if the participants receive either directly or indirectly any reward in money or kind for taking part.That was the criterion they produced to differentiate between what would cause disturbance, large crowds and extra, ancillary employment, and what would not matter on a Sunday. If those taking part were paid directly or indirectly, then it would be a spectators' sport and should not be allowed on a Sunday. I do not see any difficulty in putting that into the law, and on balance—and we are here talking about things on balance—I believe that to be right. It is the professional sport that will stop Sunday being a different sort of a day from the rest of the days of the week, and will above all—and, as I say, this is most important—cause much extra employment on a Sunday. Those are my views, my Lords. I believe the Crathorne Committee were right and that we ought to try to amend this Bill in Committee to coincide with what that Committee recommended.
May I say just one word about the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as regards racing? He said that under the rule that was suggested by the Committee concerning professional sport, horse-racing would be impossible and would not be worth carrying out as this would involve amending the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, which has not been done in this Bill. Of course, he is quite right. But there is another form of racing which creates large crowds and which I mention merely because he did not; that is, greyhound racing. The greyhounds, of course, are not paid for running—they are the participants in the sport—but they would be covered by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, and it would not be worth running greyhounds on a Sunday if betting was not permitted. So I do not think we need to be worried about those forms of sport being outside this particular Bill.
In conclusion, may I repeat that I think the Committee were right on this 24 particular matter of sport, and that that differentiation ought to be made. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and also that your Lordships will support us in the Amendments that we shall put down on the next stage.