HC Deb 29 July 1932 vol 267 cc1965-73
Mr. KNIGHT

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "for," to insert the words "stage performances."

I ask the indulgence of the House because at this late hour I have to bring to its notice several Amendments, which I propose to deal with together in order to save time. We have given attention to gallant little Wales, and I ask the House now to give a few minutes to a great institution in the State. These Amendments are in direct line with the principle of the Bill, which is accepted. The Bill is believed to give effect to a widespread desire throughout the country for the provision of legitimate Sunday entertainments, and the safeguards embodied in the Bill satisfy all reasonable requirements. No entertainment is permitted under the Bill unless it is authorised by a local authority, which must act in accordance with local desires. Further, the industries affected must work under two special conditions—a limitation of days of labour and some diversion of profits. I tell the House frankly that there are certain commercial interests connected with the theatre who strongly resent a restriction to six days' labour and any interference with the profits they may reap as a result of enlarged opportunities. These Amendments are moved with the single desire of asking this House, even at this late hour—and I deeply regret that this duty should have to be discharged at such a time—to consider what reason there is for excluding the theatre from the ambit of Sunday entertainments. It was said upstairs that Sunday theatres would involve considerable Sunday labour. I think it would be difficult to discover that it would involve a larger addition to Sunday labour than in the case of cinemas. An hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but I do not think the facts are anything like so clear as they appear to be to his mind. If we compare the mammoth cinemas of these days with the smaller houses which would operate, and, in fact, are now operating, as theatres, I think it will be realised that the labour involved in the theatre would not be greater than in the cinema.

Again, it is said that certain interests connected with the cinema fear that Sunday opening would threaten them with a seven-day week. The Bill itself prohibits any such extension of labour. But at this hour I do not stress these points. I make this general statement to the House: The question of Sunday entertainments is one of public importance not to be determined by any sectional interest, whether commercial or industrial. If the public desire to have Sunday entertainments I suggest, with all respect to the industries concerned, that they must accommodate themselves to the new situation, and, as far as I know, they are prepared to do so. Communications have been addressed to certain Members of this House—they have not reached me, but I have heard of them—stating that considerable commercial interests connected with the stage are averse to this proposal. That is not so. Those Members who attended the gathering at the House the other day saw there not only distinguished actors and actresses, but also two men who have had as large a commercial interest in the theatre in this great city as anyone.

Therefore, it is really a matter of prejudice to suggest that there is any considerable opposition to this proposal within the profession. I admit that there are differences of view, and those differences I respect; but on the main con- sideration I suggest that there is considerable support within the profession for the extension for which I am asking. But I make the same observation as I made just now with regard to the industrial interests supposed to be affected: Whatever may be the attitude of the commercial interests, if Parliament, in its wisdom, and in response to a widespread public demand says on a revision of these matters, "We are going to include the stage," it is business and common-sense for those interests to recognise the situation.

12.30 p.m.

The question remains: "Is there any demand for this extension?" It is easy enough to say there is not. One must be guided by one's own observation and experience, and I do not hesitate to say, rash as it may be—and this is an hour for rashness—that if the opinion of this land were collected we should find very few people outside devoted religious communities who would not say, "If in response to public necessities the cinema must be opened on Sundays, the stage must be opened also." I want to say this finally—and I am deliberately curtailing what I desire to say, in deference to what I know to be the wish of the House—that the business here must be conducted in such a way as will commend itself to the intelligence of the public. If legislation sets up a discrimination it must be founded on reasons which the country can appreciate. I have had opportunities of consulting a large number of people outside, and there appears to be no reason which justifies this differentiation between the cinema and the stage with regard to Sunday performances. I am told that the large theatrical association, known as British Equity, which is not favourably disposed to Sunday opening, is united in the demand that there shall be equality of treatment between the cinema and the stage. I have no doubt that, in promoting Sunday entertainments, the stage will play its part. There is an expectation outside that an early review of these arrangements will take place. I accept the description repeated again and again by the Under-Secretary, who has so efficiently and splendidly conducted this Bill, that many years will pass before another opportunity will recur. It is a formula that he has applied to a number of demands, and I am satisfied that we are dealing with a matter which, when it passes from this Floor, will not return for years to come. In that case, I would suggest, feeling strongly as I do on the matter, that a great British institution like the stage should have its rightful place in the revision of these arrangements.

Mr. HARTLAND

It seems very strange that one who is, like myself, totally opposed to this Measure, lock, stock and barrel, should be rising to support an addition to the extent of its operation, but that is not the only strange thing about this Bill. There is another remarkably strange thing about it which will probably appeal more particularly to those who are now to this House, and that is the undoubted conviction that must impress anybody who has heard the Debates, that the Bill is not popular, and that it does not represent the feelings of hon. Members or of the people throughout the country. That is proved by the fact that this is the third Measure that has been before the House. On a free vote it was defeated, and, if it were not for the fact that the Government have taken it under its wing, and that the Division Lobbies to-night are packed by forced cohorts, their are many Amendments which would have been defeated, and it is very doubtful whether the Bill would have had a renaissance from its final defeat. [Interruption.] Well, something equally significant. If the Sunday rights and privileges of the people are to be invaded, and if the Sabbath is to be desecrated, let it be desecrated fairly. If there is anything to be got out of the desecration of the Sabbath —and it is very amusing to notice the title of this Bill, the "Sunday Entertainments" Bill—and we have heard nothing to-night except about cinemas, then in Heaven's name let it be done fairly and let it not be done by giving a privileged position to one particular industry which is very little use and very little good for this country. If we are going to give privileges—and these people would not so strenuously demand these things if they were not privileges—to the American cinema combines, why should we not give a thought to the thousands of English actors and actresses who are out of jobs? If the Sunday performance is worth so much to the cinemas that they can get more time spent on it in the House than was spent in considering coal, or iron and steel, it is worth some consideration on behalf of British people who want employment.

I am sure that Members of the House cannot have failed to notice the number of ex-theatre musicians and orchestra workers who to-day are parading the streets outside cafes and so on, trying to keep themselves from starvation because their own jobs have been taken from them by the cinemas; and I say that it is quite time this British Parliament stopped supporting cinemas, or, at least, if it is going to support them, did something to support the theatre. Sunday opening may be a small or may be a big thing, but the effort that is being made by business people who know their own business forces one to the belief that it is worth something to them. Sunday opening might be a valuable perquisite to the British theatres. It might perhaps enable plays to keep on that now have to go off after two or three weeks; it might keep our people in employment; and that is my only reason for almost violating my conscience by supporting an extension of the operation of a Bill which I loathe from start to finish. [Interruption.]

I am not speaking with a view to creating laughter; this is not a matter for laughter. I should not be standing here doing something that I do not like if I did not think it was very serious, and there are many British people to-day who think there is something very serious, not only in the particular point that I am now putting, but in the whole Bill, and' there are many Members of the House who will have something to answer for when they go back to meet their constituents. I cordially support this Amendment on two grounds: first, that if we are going to desecrate the Sabbath, we must desecrate it for our own benefit— [Interruption]; and, secondly, because I desire to second the appeal, which has been made in greater detail by my hon. and learned Friend, for justice to British workers.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

There are a great many reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted, but I propose almost literally to follow the example of the Psalmist, and keep silence even from good words, though at this hour of the night that will not give pain to me or to anyone else in the House.

Over and over again in the course of this controversy we have been told that we ought to put the theatres on the same footing as the cinemas. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) actually said that this group of Amendments was directly in line with the principle already accepted in connection with the Bill; but, if he will permit me to say so, his Amendments are in direct conflict with the principles which have been accepted. It is a cardinal principle of this Bill with regard to cinemas to reproduce the status quo.

Only those districts in which Sunday licensing has been the practice are to be allowed, without coming to Parliament for further powers, to give Sunday licences. These Amendments would permit theatres in any district to be opened on Sundays for the performance of stage plays.

12.30 a.m.

It is a cardinal principle of the licensing of cinemas on Sundays that there shall be imposed conditions safeguarding the workers against a 7-day week and insuring that there shall be, out of the profits, a contribution to charity. Both those conditions are compulsory in the case of cinemas. If this Amendment were carried, they would be merely voluntary in the case of the theatres.

Mr. KNIGHT

If the Solicitor-General will look at the second Amendment on the following page he will find the same conditions attached.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am aware of the group of amendments with which we are dealing. What the hon. and learned Member does not appreciate is that his Amendment would only give power to the licensing authorities to attach these conditions. In the case of cinemas it is compulsory that they shall attach the conditions. Therefore, it is quite untrue to, say that this is following a principle already laid down. On the contrary, it is introducing an entirely revolutionary principle in regard to an industry never in the scope of Sunday opening at all. The hon. and learned Member takes exception to the suggestion that this Amendment would increase Sunday labour. Cinemas, as far as the staff in front of the curtain is concerned, may employ as many people as the theatres, but no one can deny that in the theatre where the cast consists perhaps of a hundred people, you are employing more people than in the merely mechanical performance at the cinema. I do not propose to elaborate the matter beyond saying that diligent readers of The "Times" yesterday will have seen that the Society of West End Theatre Managers, the Society of Theatrical Managers,, and the Entertainments Protection Association— three very responsible theatrical bodies —have decided not to associate themselves with this Amendment for this, among other reasons, that there is no chance at this stage of the Government accepting it. That reason still holds good, and I invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. DENVILLE

I rise to oppose the Amendment on the ground that it is a wrecking Amendment. I also oppose it, because I really believe that it has been brought forward, not with the object of doing a good turn to the theatres, but of doing them an injury. What the Solicitor-General has said is quite correct. The West End Theatres Association with their president, the Theatrical Association with their president, and the touring managers of this country with myself as chairman, the Entertainments Protection League, and the Stage Guild which comprises the whole of the theatrical profession, waited on the Secretary of State as a delegation, including the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). After listening to the Home Secretary, we held a meeting at which all present resolved, owing to the difficulties in which the Government would be placed if the managers pressed this Amendment, which might mean the destruction of the Bill and would in any case create discussion making it awkward for the National Government, to drop the Amendment.

Mr. KNIGHT

I hope the hon. Member will not suggest that I was any party to that decision or that I was present. He will agree that the arguments put to the Home Secretary were the very arguments I repeated this evening.

Mr. DENVILLE

The Under-Secretary was also present and will remember the composition of the delegation. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member that strong commercial interests and other supporters of the theatrical profession approached him, or rather that he had a meeting at which various members of Parliament attended and put their case. I assure the House that that case was so bad that the members of Parliament present were not allowed to get up and say anything at all. In fact, the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham, who was the chairman, muzzled the whole lot of us. At that meeting one member—one of the vested interests of whom the hon. and learned Member speaks—actually issued to the Press a notice in which he advised all the theatrical managers of this country to open their theatres on Sunday and to defy the law. One or two of the important actresses at that meeting whom I met and with whom I had a chat— [Interruption.] As a matter of fact, I specialise in actresses, and when I pointed out to them the position of the theatre managers and their desire to assist the National Government they agreed that we were in the right.

Mr. KNIGHT

Names?

Mr. DENVILLE

I can give their names, but is there any need to advertise them? The hon. and learned Member heard me talking to them, and he also heard one of them declaim a short time afterwards that she was sorry she had come to the meeting. I wish to assure the House that this Amendment is not brought forward with any authority from any of the members of the Theatrical Association or the Variety Artists Federation—which comprises the whole of the music-hall artists of this country—who were in favour of Sunday opening at one time. They withdraw their opposition to the Bill. That is quite sufficient for this House to judge whether the theatre or the music-hall require to be open on Sundays. We do not—not at present. We want to wait until public opinion and, possibly, the good opinion of this House say: "We will give the theatrical and music-hall professions those little things they ought to have and which we do not give them to-day". This is a question of pique among half-a-dozen people wallowing in their own conceit, and I hope the House will turn away this Amendment which is unwanted, uncalled for, and not sought for.

Amendment negatived.