HC Deb 29 July 1932 vol 267 cc1974-83

Amendments made: In page 7, line 4, after the second word "or", insert the words: (except where an inquiry is not so required as aforesaid).

In line 10, after the word "report ", insert the words "(if any)".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I do not want to detain the House very long, but I am sure I am right in saying that there is a large volume of opinion among Members in this House who desire to say at the final stage of the Bill, "we are going to vote against the Third Reading." We shall at any rate be consistent in all we have done from the commencement. I will give, briefly, the reasons why I urn going to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. I think it is true to say now, even at the end of its chequered career, that if the Government did not put on the Whips in favour of the Bill it would not become law. That is pretty obvious from the- facts in the Division Lobby to-night. It is not necessary to deal with the history of the Bill at this late hour, except to say that I have objected to the method adopted by the cinema industry in promoting the Measure. They said years ago that they wanted to open the cinemas to provide money for charitable purposes, but as soon as they were sure of their right to open on Sundays they began to kick against giving anything to charity at all. If they had the least opportunity in this House of succeeding, they would have abolished the provision with regard to giving money for charity. It is assumed by some supporters of the Measure that it is necessary for the hospitals of this country that cinemas should be open on Sunday. They forget that the hospitals were run successfully before the cinema was ever heard of and that, in most parts of the country, hospitals are carried on where cinemas are not open at all. That argument of charity will avail them little. The Government have introduced a new Clause giving money away for certain cultural objects. I feel sure I am right in saying that there is no member of the House, including even the Under-Secretary himself, who is entirely satisfied with the details of that Clause. We have not had sufficient information to warrant us in passing it into law.

The main objection I have to this Measure is the one of which I have spoken so often. I am certain that the conception that the people of this country have of the seventh day of the week is that it is sanctified by religious custom and law. That in my view is a far more powerful weapon in favour of securing one day's rest in seven than all the power trade unionism can ever bring to bear. I have reason to oppose any measure that would open the door to more employment of labour on the Sabbath Day. If the House will bear with me, I will give an illustration. Shop assistants in this country are of some concern to us. Last week a Town Council on the East Coast of this country decided, if you please, that shops shall be opened for four months during the summer up to 10.30 every day of the week, except Sunday, provided that they shall not be open for more than 72 hours—meaning that employés should not he engaged for more than 72 hours a week. That is in the year 1932. This Measure is a part of that tendency. I think it was the Noble Lord for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who mentioned Ottawa, Lausanne, Geneva in this Debate. Although those conferences have little to do with this Measure, there is one thing which has passed my comprehension and that is why, with the greatest economic depression that ever confronted the people of this country, we should be spending days and weeks discussing a bill which will give them the utmost opportunity to spend their money on amusement. I have heard it said this evening that if the people want this Measure it is the duty of Parliament to give it to them. I am not so certain that the people of this country want the Bill. The cinematograph owners some years ago opened their shows in London on Sunday and, when they had packed them, they turned round and said there was a demand for them. They created the demand in certain places and then said that the people wanted the shows on Sundays everywhere. I am doubtful whether the people, even in London, would vote for opening on Sundays. In the North of England I am positive they do not want shows open on Sundays.

There is another factor to consider. I have been a little astonished at the attitude of the Home Office in this matter. These people who have been clamouring for this Bill—I think the statement was issued in print once upon a time—were prepared to lay down conditions of labour apart from one day's rest in seven, so that trade unions would have no objection to the opening of cinemas on Sundays. When we tabled Amendments for certain labour conditions and wages, for conciliation between the two parties and organisation between employer and employed, we were turned down by the Government. I say therefore that the arguments of charity and that they want fair play for the employés have been nothing but a sham in order to get this Bill passed into law.

The hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill will remember the argument I have tried to employ on more than one occasion, that if you open cinemas and places of entertainment on Sundays, you must also open boxing booths, allow dog racing: and there is not a single argument left why you should not open all the shops on Sundays. In fact, there is more reason for the nation to declare that food shops should open on Sundays than places of amusement. There are in this country 2,000,000 people employed in the distributing trades, and I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that they may live long enough to regret the action taken to-day. I do not want to be offensive towards him, but by the way he has conducted the Bill, one can imagine he is the best propagandist the cinema people have ever had. I stand here as one who has tried to alter the conditions of those employed in shop life. I know there are people in the country opposed to what is called D.O.R.A. They had a dinner the other day, and charged a guinea each for the dinner. They want to wipe out the restrictions on public-houses and shops and so on; but they themselves will not be required to wait on people if that is done. In the name of the 150,000 workers who are employed in the entertainment industry, I oppose the Measure because it marks a retrograde step.

Sir B. PETO

I want to add one or two words to the very powerful appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). If the conduct of the Bill had been entirely different, if we had seen any disposition on the part of the Government to give any adequate consideration to the Amendments on the Paper which, in spite of the use of Government Whips, have had such a large measure of support, we should have let the Third Reading go without a Division. That has not been so, and I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill for three or four perfectly simple reasons. The first and most powerful one is that, in spite of what we have tried to do, in spite of the definite offer of the Home Secretary upstairs, there is not in the Bill any limitation to the hours of Sunday opening of cinemas. As I am mentioning that let me take this opportunity of saying, that, whatever I may have said on that particular Amendment, I did not at all wish to imply in any kind of way that there was any reflection upon the personal honour of the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary. There is no question of personal honour entering into the thing at all. But what I feel strongly is this terrible precedent that has been set, without any reasons that are insuperable reasons, and that there should be any doubt when a pledge of that kind is given that it should be fulfilled.

There are other things that are not in the Bill. In spite of the fact that we have inserted an Amendment to carry out the undertaking to prevent people being employed for 7 days a week we have not in the Bill any protection against continuous labour on Sundays. In spite of what the country has said, and by the country I mean all sections in the country, there is no security in the Bill that the films that shall be shown on Sunday will be clean or moral films.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. Gentleman has been referring to things which are not in the Bill. Will it be in Order for me when I come to reply to deal with them?

Mr. SPEAKER

It is true that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) was referring to points that are not in the Bill, but he was rather using them as an argument against the Bill. At least, I took it so. I do not think it will be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to reply to them.

Sir B. PETO

I was only using them as the simplest and most direct arguments against the Bill. If we had succeeded in improving the Bill, we might have been justified in not voting against the Third Reading, but, because we have failed in all these matters, and also, because of the definition of concerts and in view of what the Under-Secretary said in Committee as to what would be allowed, there is nothing whatever to prevent them deteriorating into shows which are not now understood as concerts, such as cabarets, revues, operettas, and music hall turns. There is also no provision for any general contribution to charity at all. We have in the Bill, it is true, a provision that the local authorities may give a proportion, may ordain that a proportion of the profits shall be given to charity. We know that in practice hardly anything has been done, and that the total sum which has been received so far is utterly inadequate as a contribution in comparison with the gigantic sums which are going to America as profits from the industry.

1.0 a.m.

If we are giving this tremendous new advantage to the cinema industry, I think we have to consider that at the present time this country is suffering from unbalanced trade and it is nowhere to such an amount as in our relations with America. Here we have an industry that is sending to America £12,000,000, and it is proposed to give the industry facilities that will probably result in giving America another £2,250,000, while the House has refused a provision that a reasonable proportion of these gigantic profits from Sunday entertainments in cinemas shall be given to hospitals or other charitable institutions. This is the last point I wish to make against the Bill. We have been told that that must be left to the local authorities. I do not think that the House has adequately considered what the local authorities will do in different parts of the country in dealing with this question of charities. I ask the House to consider for a moment what the local authorities are told to do in respect of charities. These sums are to be paid to such person as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects, and they are to be paid to such person as is specified by the authority. We have always heard that it was the hospitals and other similar institutions that have benefited by these charities, but we have given no indication to the local authorities here that they ought to provide for the hospitals who have hitherto been the beneficiaries so far as the London area was concerned. I see in this Bill a mass of imperfections and loopholes of all sorts for future developments which I do not believe are intended at all. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton that we are starting now on a new career. We do not know where this is going to end. There will be a demand not only from entertainment industries but from every form of secular activity of every sort and kind to have the restrictions of Sunday entirely removed. On the precedent of this Bill, there is no logical reason why you should confine it to one form of entertainment or to entertainment alone. This form of entertainment too sends huge profits, which this country cannot afford, across the Atlantic to America. You cannot justify putting this one industry in a privileged position. Once you have done it you will be faced with an irresistible demand to go farther and to such lengths that the English Sabbath, as we have known it, will be a thing of the past.

Sir C. OMAN

I only desire to say this. I speak on behalf of some millions of Conservative voters who voted at the last General Election in favour of the Government because they believed it was a Government of righteousness. They will now find that it is a Government of opportunists. The Bill is opportunism, opportunism, opportunism, from beginning to end. I cannot congratulate the Government on having taken this step, above all others, to break up the English Sabbath.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. Member who has just spoken claims to speak for millions of voters. I was under the mistaken impression that he was returned to Parliament as the second choice of one of the smallest constituencies in England. The House, I am sure, will not expect a long reply to arguments which, after all, whether good or bad, have been advanced many times in this House. In any case, I speak under considerable difficulty, because a large number of the arguments adduced were with regard to omissions from the Bill to which I cannot reply. There is one point made by the hon. baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), which calls for reply, because it is such an extraordinary misstatement, though an unintentional one, that it throws some light on the difficulties with which the supporters of this Bill are met. The hon. baronet said that we must deal with the position of concerts and that, in view of the statements I made in Committee, there was nothing to prevent concerts deteriorating into cabarets, revues, and shows of all kinds. In the Committee stage an Amendment was moved excluding musical entertainments. In the course of my reply, I said: I was assured by my legal advisers that the definition was as watertight as any definition can be and excludes, as far as the wit of legal man can devise, any of the entertainments to which the hon. baronet has any objection. Let me now read the next page.

After the explanation of the Undersecretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I feel that it has served its purpose in getting a, clear statement from the Government." — [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B) 26th June, 1932, Cols. 166 and 168.] Though it was such a clear statement as to whether a concert would deteriorate into a revue, cabaret, or—

Sir B. PETO

Will the hon. Member read what he said about the use of dresses to illustrate Icelandic folk songs and the use of scenery?

Mr. SPEAKER

It would not seem to me to be in order if he did do so.

Mr. STANLEY

The fact is that, whatever I said about Icelandic dresses and scenery, the hon. Baronet withdrew his Amendment in those words. In conclusion, may I say that the Government do not pretend that this is an ideal solution of the matter. I myself supported, and still support as a preferable Measure, the earlier Bill which this House was not content to accept. We say that the problem is an urgent one. Something had to be done and done quickly. The Bill we are asking the House now to pass is a rather illogical and temporary Measure which will settle, at least for a time, a problem which in the last twelve months has occupied far too much attention which would be better devoted to matters of pressing importance. The vote

Division No. 268.] AYES. [1.2 a.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Goff, Sir Park Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Atholl, Duchess of Greene, William P. C. North, Captain Edward T.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur O'Donoven, Dr. William James
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Grimston, R. V. Palmer, Francis Noel
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Patrick, Colin M.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Petherick, M.
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.) Hales, Harold K. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Bossom, A. C. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Boulton, W. W. Harbord, Arthur Potter, John
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Harlington, Marquess of Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn a. H.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Harvey. George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n) Price, Gabriel
Bracken, Brendan Horobin, Ian M. Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Howard, Tom Forrest Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Broadbent, Colonel John Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rea, Walter Russell
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley) James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Janner, Barnett Runge, Norah Cecil
Castlereagh, Viscount Jesson, Major Thomas E. Salmon, Major Isidore
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Ker, J. Campbell Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Colman, N. C. D. Kerr, Hamilton W. Somorvell, Donald Bradley
Conant, R. J. E. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Cranborne, Viscount Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Crossley, A. C. Lawson, John James Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Leech, Dr. J. W. Sutcliffe, Harold
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Lindsay, Noel Ker Tate, Mavis Constance
Curry, A. C. Lloyd, Geoffrey Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lockwond. John C. (Hackney, C.) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) McEntee, Valentine L. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Denville, Alfred McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Donner, P. W. Macmillan, Maurice Harold Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Duckworth, George A. V. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duggan, Hubert John Marsden, Commander Arthur Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Martin, Thomas B. Weymouth, Viscount
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wills, Wilfrid D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Moore-Srabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Womersley, Walter James
Fox, Sir Gifford Morgan, Robert H.
Fremantle, Sir Francis Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Glossop, C. W. H. Muirhead, Major A. J. Sir Victor Warrender and Captain
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Munro, Patrick Austin Hudson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hart land, George A. McKie, John Hamilton
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Aske, Sir Robert William Hepworth, Joseph Magnay, Thomas
Blindell, James Hirst, George Henry Milner, Major James
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) Holdsworth, Herbert Moreing, Adrian C.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Daggar, George Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allen
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) John, William Procter, Major Henry Adam
Dickie, John P. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Drewe, Cedric Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Edwards, Charles Leckle, J. A. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Liddall, Walter S. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Fermoy, Lord Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Robinson, John Roland
Ganzoni, Sir John Lunn, William Rothschild, James A. de
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Savery, Samuel Servington
Grundy, Thomas W. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

of the House to-night will release the energies of hon. Members for more important and, I hope, less contentious matters in the future.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 56.

Spencer, Captain Richard A. Tinker, John Joseph
Stones, James Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. Wells, Sydney Richard Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Rhys Davies.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.