SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932. (Hansard, 8 May 1933)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking)
I am sorry to intervene for a few moments in connection with this Order. A poll was demanded in connection with the application, and was held on the 11th March. The voting was 3,359 in favour and 1,736 against, the majority in favour being 1,623. The point which I desire to bring before the attention of the House is the fact that there was one small technical irregularity, of which I think the House is entitled to an explanation. Although the council complied with all the requirements set out in the Schedule to the Sunday Entertainments Act, they failed to comply with Regulation 7 of the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments Order, 1932, an Order made by the Home Secretary, providing that, at least two clear days before a poll, the returning officer shall publish, in a newspaper circulating in the area, a notice in the prescribed form calling attention to the day, the place and the hours of the poll. The reason for the omission in this particular case is that the Home Office circular which gave to local authorities full advice regarding the procedure to be followed in these cases had not reached the clerk of the urban district council of Grays Thurrock. By some mischance—nobody knows what the mischance was—this copy has never been delivered, or, at any rate, if it has been delivered, it has been mislaid.
The poll at Grays Thurrock was held on the 11th March, and this notice should have been published in the local Press on the 8th March. It was not so published—in fact, the clerk was not aware of the requirement. The formal notice was not published actually until the 10th March, so that technically there was an irregularity. The clerk, however, has pointed out to the Home Office that, although the formal notice was not published until the 10th March, references to the poll, 1334 actually giving the date, the place and the hours of the poll, had appeared in the local Press in the form of news. They appeared as early as the 4th March, and, in addition to that, the formal notice was published in accordance with the regulation of the Home Secretary, but it was not actually published until one day late. Another point which the clerk of the council makes is that the canvassing cards drawing attention to the poll were circulated well in advance to all local government electors by agents of the cinema trade.
I am only saying these things to show to the House that the electors were well aware of what was going on, but there was this technical irregularity, and it is the duty of the Home Secretary to decide whether the Order can properly be laid before Parliament as having been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Act. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary has decided that he would not feel justified in refusing to lay this Order on account of this purely technical irregularity, and, in these circumstances, he has presented the Order to Parliament. The present Motion is being moved in order to give to the House an opportunity of deciding the question in the light of the explanation which I now give.

§ Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS
May I ask whether the opponents of the Order have raised any objection to this—whether they think that the voting might have been different if the instructions had been carried out?

§ Mr. HACKING
I have tried to make it clear that this poll was advertised in other ways; it was advertised in the news columns of the papers on the 4th March; and I think it is clear that the majority, if not the whole, of the electors did realise that the poll was to take place. There was simply the small irregularity that it was not advertised in the prescribed form; that is the only thing that has gone wrong. In any event, in view of the very large majority, I do not think that, if it had been advertised in the prescribed form at the right moment, the majority would have been affected very materially.

§ Mr. EDWARDS
I have not been told whether the opposition raised any objection.

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
The same question occurred to me and I should have put it if the hon. Member had not done so. I know nothing of the circumstances of the case and I do not think that those of us who took a certain line in the Debates on the Bill would seek to rest our case at all upon a technicality. If there has been a fair test of local opinion, we are prepared to abide by the result and it would be ungracious to cavil at it or to use any advantage that might arise from a mere technicality. But there is one point I should like to be assured upon, whether any grievance is felt in the locality by those who were in a minority in as much as the full technicalities were not complied with. If the hon. Gentleman says, here is a technicality which he is obliged to explain to the House, but as the result of the technicality not being observed no one has been put to a disadvantage, I think that ends the matter, but if in the locality any objection has been raised we should like to be informed of it.

§ Mr. HACKING
As far as I know, there has been no objection raised at all. In any event, I acquainted the Member for the constituency that it was being brought up to-night and, if any communication has been sent to him, he has had 1336 an opportunity of expressing it in the House.