HC Deb 31 August 1909 vol 10 cc329-35

(1) Where the premises are premises licensed by the Lord Chamberlain the powers of the county council under this Act shall, as respects those premises, be exerciseable by the Lord Chamberlain instead of by the county council.

(2) Where the premises in which it is proposed to give such an exhibition as aforesaid are premises used occasionally and exceptionally only, and not on more than two days in any one calendar year for the purposes of such an exhibition, it shall not be necessary to obtain a licence for those premises under this Act if the

serted in other Bills in reference to other important corporations and have received the Royal Assent. I certainly believe the clauses in the Bill are in the interests of the ratepayers. In these circumstances I hope my hon. Friends will not persevere in their opposition to the Bill, and if they do I hope the House will pass the Bill by a large majority.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 11.

occupier thereof has given to the county council not less than seven days before the exhibition notice in writing of his intention so to use the premises, and complies with the regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act, and with any conditions imposed by the county council and notified to the occupier in writing.

(3) This Act shall not apply to an exhibition given in a private dwelling house to which the public are not admitted, whether on payment or otherwise.

Mr. G. J. COOPER

moved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "used occasionally and exceptionally only, and not on more than two days in any one calendar year," and to insert instead thereof, the words, "connected with a church or chapel or mission hall or public elementary school, and are not used more than one evening in any week from the first day of October to the 31st day of March in the following year."

On Saturday nights large numbers of temperance and religious bodies give entertainments, at which a very large number of people attend. No charge is made at all in some cases; in many cases only a penny is charged, and at most only twopence is charged. The entertainments are very attractive and innocent, and they draw large numbers of people away from the public houses. A part of the entertainments is a cinematograph show, and, if the Bill is passed with Clause 7 as it stands, they will have to be closed. They are only to be allowed to have two entertainments a year, and then they have to apply to the licensing authority and carry out the regulations they make. The licensing authority may impose such stringent conditions that it would be impossible to have these entertainments. I hold in my hand a letter from a prominent gentleman in South London, the pastor of a church. He has on Saturday nights entertainments in connection with his church. Thinking he would see what the practice is going to be, he asked the London County Council what the conditions would be if he applied for a licence. They came and saw his place, and saw he had a wooden gallery and wooden ceiling. They told him they could not license the hall unless he did away with the wooden gallery and wooden roof. It will be simply impossible, if they are to be compelled to make large and expensive structural alterations, to carry on these entertainments.

I can assure the House that there is very little danger at all in these exhibitions; the regulations laid down are so strict and the precautions for the protection of the machinery are so great as to render it practically impossible for any serious fire to happen. Only one celluloid apparatus comes before the light at a time, and the film is simply of the size of a postage stamp. It does not catch fire except through bad and careless handling. The real danger is not one of fire. The only person in any danger is the operator in the iron chamber. I know of no case in England where a person has been killed by fire from one of these cinematographs. In Mexico, where fatalities have occurred, they had in use apparatus of a very ancient date, but the machinery is now brought to such perfection that it is very difficult for a fire to occur. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to deal with these places without insisting on considerable structural alterations, I am sure he has no desire to deprive places small in size of these opportunities for entertainment, but if the Clause goes through in its present form undoubtedly this class of entertainment will be effectually killed because the promoters will not be able to carry out the necessary structural alterations. All I ask is that where entertainments are given once a week in a church, chapel, mission hall, or public elementary school, the promoters shall not have to apply for a licence but shall merely be required to carry out the regulations laid down by the Home Secretary which, I believe, will be most effectual in preventing fire.

Mr. LARDNER

seconded the Amendment. In many districts there are no public halls, and the only chance the people have of an entertainment is when the local clergyman arranges for a cinematograph. As the Bill at present stands, that would be absolutely impossible. According to Clause 2 the County Council may grant a licence to such persons as they think fit—being the owners or occupiers of the building. I should like to know if the clergyman would be held to come within the meaning of the Clause as the owner or occupier of the church for the purposes of this Act. So far as I can understand, the effect of this question of the ownership of churches, the clergyman is neither the one nor the other, and that being so, it would be impossible as the Bill stands for any one of these entertainments to take place in a building belonging to the church in Ireland. The consequence would be that the people, where there was no public hall, would be precluded from having any entertainment at all. I beg to second this Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone)

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The object of the clause, as the House will see, is to provide for occasional, as distinct from regular, performances, which are dealt with under Clause 2. My hon. Friend proposes to strike out the occasional form altogether and to substitute other words which would authorise regular performances on one evening a week for six months of the year. Performances of that character come under Clause 2, and it is right that those who permit the entertainment should pay the fee of one pound. It is a small matter. My hon. Friend not only extends the casual performances to six months in the year, but he proceeds to limit this proposal to performances connected with a church, or chapel, or mission hall, or public elementary school. The hon. Member who seconds his Amendment, has drawn attention to what he thinks will be the rigour of the Bill, but I would point out to him that the Amendment which he is seconding makes it much more severe from his point of view, because it does interfere with those casual performances which we, under this very Bill, and under this very clause, are trying to safeguard. Therefore, I hope he will not persist in seconding the Amendment. My hon. Friend seems to think he is acting on behalf of certain bodies of people, but they have made no representations to me, although this Bill has been introduced for several months, that they have a great deal to fear from the drastic regulations of the County Council. Does my hon. Friend contend that County Councils are not to be trusted with this somewhat easy and humble task. Surely they can look after the safety of the people in these small places in various parts of the country. My hon. Friend says he has had representations made to him, and so have I. The London County Council and 14 of the Metropolitan Boroughs have made most urgent representations to my Department on account of the danger of these performances. To show how unfit the County Councils are to perform these duties, the hon. Member instanced a case in which they interfered to stop a performance in a wooden building which was unsuited in every way. I do not deny that when you have a cinematograph exhibition properly regulated it is not a dangerous thing in itself, and though a film may take fire there is no danger of the fire spreading. But there is in many places no existing power of enforcing the use of an iron box. It is not only that there is a danger from fire. A film may flare up and cause a panic, which is so dangerous. We wish to see that wherever these performances are given the arrangements shall ensure safety. It is not in the least the intention of the Department to insist upon unreasonable or unnecessary regulations.

Sir DANIEL GODDARD

I think there is a great deal in the right hon. Gentleman's answer with regard to the regular performances which are mentioned in the Amendment, but could he not consider in- creasing the number of casual performances? Two in a year is rather an absurd limit. I have used a cinematograph constantly myself, and know what accidents can happen with it. But under the present circumstances I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying there are no regulations. In my own town the local authority has made regulations, and has insisted on me having an iron box. I know a place where a children's party is given once a month throughout the winter, and it is a common form of entertainment to have a cinematograph. That will be quite cut out by this Bill. It would not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill to increase the number, and it would maintain the usefulness of the entertainments.

Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH

I do not think the Home Secretary has quite met the point that under the Clause as it stands the county council will not be able to grant licences in the cases raised by the Amendment. The Clause is perfectly clear and says the county council may grant as they think fit licences to such persons being owners or occupiers of the premises. In a large majority of cases clergymen do not come in under either description. They are neither owners nor occupiers of the premises, and therefore the county councils could not be empowered to grant licences to them at all. We are in some little difficulty to-night for there is no Law Officer of the Crown present to tell as what would be the likely construction put upon the Clause by a court. With every respect for the opinion of the Home Secretary on other matters, I do not know that he himself would pose as a legal authority. As the Clause stands it seems to me that a licence could not be granted to a clergyman for the use of a church for this purpose.

There is a second matter which I think deserves consideration. In Ireland county councils only meet quarterly. [An HON. MEMBER: "A committee can act."] committee meetings are held more often, and if committees have authority to grant licences that would, of course, meet the point. I am in favour of some Amendment being made. While I admit the reasonableness of the point made by the Home Secretary, I think he should agree to have Amendments introduced in another place in order to minimise the inconvenience to people who will come within the scope of the Act. I make that suggestion especially in view of the fact, which I think has been strongly urged, that this Bill begins at the wrong end altogether. It is not the building which should be licensed, but the operator. The danger does not come from the building at all, but from incompetent operators. If the Home Secretary would confer with the cinematograph firms throughout the country, he would find that they themselves, for their own protection and for the advance of this industry, decided to hold examinations for operators with the view to the issue of certificates to those persons who were found to be competent. The manufacturers were obliged to reject 50 per cent, of those who came forward to be examined, and the very men who were rejected are giving demonstrations in the working of the cinematograph practically every night in the year. I think that is a strong point as showing that the danger does not come from the buildings but from incompetent operators. I know there would be difficulty in regard to the granting of certificates to cinematograph operators. I know that the Home Secretary does not see his way to make arrangements for the granting of such certificates, but surely with the large staff of factory inspectors in connection with the Department it would be possible to devise some scheme under which certificates could be given to operators who were found to have some scientific knowledge, and to exclude men who have no scientific training and no knowledge of the work in which they engage. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will confere with the Law Officers in order to ascertain what will be the exact position of clergymen who are neither owners nor occupiers of churches.

Mr. GLADSTONE

I do not think these particular words are necessary, but, of course, I will consider the point which has been raised. As regards the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Sir D. Goddard), I agree that two would be rather too small a number for this purpose. If he would move that the number should be five or six—[An HON. MEMBER: "Six"]—I would accept the Amendment. As regards the other point raised, I will also consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) to omit the word "two" ["on more than two days"] and to insert instead thereof the word "six."—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]