HC Deb 28 January 1943 vol 386 cc716-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Stoke-on-Trent, a copy of which was presented to this House on 26th January, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. MacLaren (Burslem)

I am sorry to detain the House after it has exhaustively covered the question of the. Civil Service, but the line I am obliged to take as regards this Order puts me in rather a difficulty. I do not know how long ago it is since anyone opposed an Order of this kind in the House, but I am obliged to do so because of the opinion held locally and because of the opinion I myself hold on this matter. On two occasions before, I think, the Council of Stoke-on-Trent rejected this proposal. The Order which has been placed before us was advanced to the Home Secretary under rather interesting circumstances. The Council was addressed, I understand,—I am speaking purely on instruction here—by a member of the military Forces. There was strong opinion in the City and in the Council against the opening of cinemas on Sundays, but a representative of the Armed Forces, holding rank, addressed the Council, I understand, and pleaded with it to open the cinemas on Sundays in order to give some form of entertainment to the soldiers, who had no other attraction except walking about in the dark and rather dreary streets of a very depressing town called Stoke-on-Trent. The only place that lights up in Stoke-on-Trent occasionally is within the vicinity of the town hall owing to a very interesting character we have there. The mind of the Council was swayed by the intervention of an officer making an appeal on behalf of the Armed Forces, but even then the vote in the Council was pretty strong against the opening of cinemas on Sundays. On top of this, I understand that the private cinema owners are all against opening the cinemas on Sundays.

I am speaking on behalf of this public opinion in the city and also pointing fair criticism against what I think an unfair practice. To ask a member of the Armed Forces to address the Council was immediately to prejudice, or at least to sway, the opinion of members of that Council. It would be tantamount to asking a man who was promoting a public house to address the J.P.s before they gave their decision on his application for a licence.

There is a very strong opinion in Stoke-on-Trent against the opening of Sunday cinemas. It is the birthplace of what is called Primitive Methodism, so there is a very strong Sabbatarian outlook, but it would not be fair to say that the opposition is entirely and strictly Sabbatarian. In my opinion the time has long passed when there ought to have been some public opinion stirred throughout the country to do something in the way of entertainment on a Sunday evening. The fact has to be faced that to a large extent the Churches are not attracting the youth of the district, and it does not make a very impressive sight to see the people walking about with no possible chance of proper entertainment. Some of the Councillors, in order to meet what was put forward as a demand on the part of the Armed Forces, before this Order came before the House, have actually taken possession of the five town halls. Concerts have been given, and those who promoted them took a census of the soldiers who attended, and they were surprised to find that soldiers were conspicuous by their absence, so that the major reason advanced, and the reason that swayed many members of the Council, was not substantiated. The concerts are still going on. I have been associated with the public life of the city since 1912 and have a pretty fair gauge of the feelings of the people. Although I represent Burslem, I am the senior Member for the entire city of Stoke-on-Trent.

I have for many years tried to appeal for some public action to be taken to make Sunday brighter and, if possible, to provide opportunities—I am not saying this in a priggish sort of way—for doing something to elevate the minds of the youth of the district. I have had a strong feeling for years—and I am sorry to say that my apprehensions have been fulfilled by the facts—that this country of ours has been degenerated by visitations to picture houses where people have had to absorb visually what I call the poison and indecencies poured out from the American Hollywood. It is no laughing matter. It is a thing to be regretted that the youth of this country for the last 20 years have had to gaze on some of the things I have seen in those places. The net result of it has been marked by an absence of the interesting things that really matter among the youth of the country. That goes on during the week. When it comes to Sunday, if cinemas are to be opened, there ought to be at least some power, exercised if you like through the medium of a civic committee, that will have some say in the nature of the exhibits in these theatres. It is to be regretted that those marvellous inventions of mankind, the wireless and the picture house, should be to such an extent debauched and debased. I and many members of the Council of Stoke-on-Trent and many people in the city feel strongly, although we are not opposed to theatres and cinemas being opened on a Sunday, that there should be some control of or some say as to the nature of the exhibits on that day so that something may be done to repair the damage that has been wrought during the week.

I have told the House the methods adopted in order to get this matter placed before the House to-day. I know that I could perhaps press it to a Division, but I would rather appeal to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office to suspend the Motion and give us a fortnight or three weeks to review the situation, so that a regular form of appeal can be made to the Home Office and so that the public in the city can have a greater chance of expressing their will on the matter. I understand that 26 petitions have been put in against the opening of Sunday cinemas. I can never understand why those petitions are asked for and never reviewed. It would be advisable to consider them in full. That was not done in Stoke-on-Trent. The petitions were received, but nothing was done about them. The Motion on the Order Paper was speeded on forthwith. I am appealing again to the Under-Secretary to suspend this Motion. He would have me at a disadvantage if it came to pressing the House to a Division. I will not do that in any case. I would rather appeal to him on broad grounds. There is a strong feeling of resentment in the city at the way this matter has been carried on, apart from the deep-seated aversion to Sunday cinemas, in which I do not wholly participate. I do not believe that we can continue in the closing of every form of mental exercise or entertainment on Sunday and do nothing about it. Therefore, I make an appeal to the Under-Secretary to withdraw the Motion and give those in Stoke-on-Trent who have strong feelings on the matter another fortnight or three weeks to review the situation and enable a more regular and decent process to be adopted in petitioning the Home Office.

I make this appeal, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will meet me. I cannot resume my seat without mentioning that my attention has been drawn to the fact that a Member of Parliament has put a Question down asking whether an unofficial deputation can approach the Home Office. I would like to tell that Member that any citizen of any city has a right to come to any Department of State, on behalf of his city, and lay a petition before the Minister without being looked upon as unofficial. The more the citizens of this country take an active interest in their powers of representation and of appeal before the State, the more I will support them, but it just shows the length to which the engineers of this Motion will go in putting down a Question upon the Order Paper. I make my final appeal, and I hope that it will be met.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

This is the first time for many years that a Sunday Entertainments Order under the Act of 1932 has been opposed in the House. There is, as we know, strong feeling on this matter in Stoke-on-Trent, and has been for a long time past. Twice last year this proposal was defeated by a narrow majority in the Council. It was carried, on 24th September, by, I think, 48 votes to 43; and at a later stage, on an amendment to rescind that decision, there was equal voting, and it was only the casting vote of the Mayor that defeated the amendment.

At the same time, I must remind the House of the procedure laid down by the Act of 1932, after a very long controversy. The system is one of local option, in this matter of the Sunday opening of cinemas, with a Parliamentary safeguard. If the local authority decides in favour of Sunday opening, there must then be a poll of local government electors. If that results in confirming the decision of the local authority, the draft Order is submitted to the Secretary of State, who has to present it to Parliament. There then has to be an affirmative Resolution in both Houses. The purpose, no doubt, of those who framed the Act of 1932 in providing for the Parliamentary procedure was to provide a safeguard against possible abuse, corruption or malpractice on the part of the local authorities, or of the cinematograph interests who were thought to be interested in promoting these Orders.

The duty of the Home Secretary in these matters is clear. If he is satisfied that the appropriate Resolutions have been passed by the local authority, it then becomes his duty to lay the draft Order before Parliament, and if hon. Members will refer to paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the Act of 1932, they will see that the Home Secretary has no option in this matter. That paragraph reads: A draft Order duly submitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with the foregoing provisions of the Schedule shall be laid by him before Parliament. The Home Secretary therefore has to satisfy himself that the formalities have been properly complied with, and it then becomes his duty to lay the draft Order before Parliament. The hon. Member who has appealed to me to postpone the passing of this Order in fact asks the House to review the decision of the local authority. It was not the intention of the Act, nor do I think this House would desire, that we should act as a court of appeal in these matters from the decisions of the local authorities.

The hon. Member and the opponents of Sunday opening in Stoke-on-Trent have fought this matter to the very last ditch, and I do not think anyone can complain of the terms in which the hon. Member has opposed this Order to-day. At the same time I would remind the opponents of this Order that it is brought under the emergency procedure, the war-time procedure, and this Order will lapse automatically when the Emergency Powers Act comes to an end. Therefore, the question of the Sunday opening of cinemas in Stoke-on-Trent may be fought once again when peace-time comes along, and perhaps my hon. Friend and his supporters in Stoke-on-Trent will have better luck on that occasion than they have had on this.

I am afraid I cannot respond to the hon. Member's appeal, because he has not shown any grounds on which it would be proper for the Home Secretary not to put the Order before the House and ask the House to approve it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Stoke-on-Trent, a copy of which was presented to this House on 26th January, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to