SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932. (Hansard, 9 November 1932)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)
I beg to move That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Maidstone, which was presented on the 4th day of November, 1932, be approved. This is the first Order under the Sunday Entertainments Act of last year. The functions of the Home Secretary on an Order of this kind are strictly limited. He has no discretion. He has not to comment on the merits of the Order. All he has to do is to satisfy himself that all the provisions of the Act have been complied with and, if he is so satisfied, the Sunday Order is submitted to both Houses of Parliament for their approval. It is according to that duty that I now move this Resolution. This particular Order is presented on the application of the borough of Maidstone. The provisions of the Act require, first of all, an advertisement, then a public meeting, and finally a poll. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has satisfied himself that the appropriate advertisements were inserted in two newspapers, that a public meeting was held, and that a poll was demanded and has been taken, and that the votes were properly recorded, and that the result of the poll ended in a majority for this application. All the provisions of the Act have therefore been satisfied, and in accordance with the terms of the Act, he has signed the Order and submits it to the House for confirmation.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the provisions of the Act have been complied with. He will know that in one part of the country in particular the provisions of the Act have been interpreted in a different way from what Parliament intended. I wish to ask him a question on this specific point. I do not intend to object to the Order at all if I am satis- 476 fied on this point. It is understood that in one town in the country the provision of the Act is carried out provided the employés are not paid wages on Sunday. That is to say, that if they are not paid wages they are not legally on contract of service and not employed under the law. I wish to know if the Home Office is absolutely satisfied that the interpretation is correct on that score.

§ Mr. STANLEY
I am afraid that the hon. Member could not have been in his place on Monday nor have read the OFFICIAL REPORT Of that date—

§ Mr. DAVIES
I have done so—

§ Mr. STANLEY
—or he would have seen that the answer which was given then made it quite clear that the particular circumstances to which he referred were special in character and did not in any way alter the interpretation which the House had put upon the Act when it was passed and which still stands to-day.