SUNDAY CINEMAS, AUDENSHAW (Hansard, 27 March 1952)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)
Orders of this kind are always affirmative Orders. Nobody ever takes them up. Possibly it is a mistake to have them as affirmative Orders, but as we have them as affirmative Orders perhaps we might make a spot check on this occasion and ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to tell us the percentage of people who voted at the poll at Audenshaw, whether the usual statutory formalities were complied with, what date the inquiry was held, and what were the actual figures in the vote.
Obviously, if the House is to exercise any jurisdiction in these matters we ought to know whether this is a mere decision of a minority of people of the town in question, or whether there was a considerable number who bothered to record their opinions one way or the other. It is of some importance that the House 1063 should know these things, because when we have Orders like this it makes nonsense of our procedure if we are not in a position to have the information which, obviously, the House ought to have if it is to proceed with matters of this sort.

§ Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)
I take it that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the 1936 Act?

§ Mr. Bing
Yes.

§ Mr. de Freitas
Under the 1936 Act, as the Under-Secretary of State so well knows, not only is this procedure to be followed but—and this is a point which has been of interest in recent years—in some cases, immediately after the war, polls were taken which went against Sunday cinemas. In the last year or so, however, it was decided to hold further polls and the decision went in favour of Sunday cinemas. That is why the Home Secretary has laid this and other Orders before the House.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will follow the practice of recent times in letting us know whether there has been a change in the opinion of the people in the communities concerned. If, a few years ago, they voted against Sunday cinemas and are now in favour of them, we should know what has been the passage of time between the two votes and any other relevant matters.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth)
The decision of the meeting held at Audenshaw under the Act was in favour of the proposal. A poll was, however, demanded by more than 100 voters, and was taken on 3rd December, 1951. There were 933 votes in favour of the proposal, and 466 against. The total number of local government electors of the urban district is 9,340, of whom only about 15 per cent. voted. I think that that is a full answer to the questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
As regards the question of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), this is a case where there was a previous poll which went against the making of 1064 the Order. In fact, the previous poll was taken some two years ago, and the result is now reversed by the figures which I have quoted. There is no precedent in this case. There is nothing in the Act which provides that any period must elapse before the machinery can be put into operation again. There have been a number of instances in the last few years in which a previous negative has been subsequently reversed. This creates no precedent, and I think that the House will be fully satisfied that everything that is necessary has been done.

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) suggested that it was unusual to challenge an Order of this kind, but I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will recollect that on one occasion he challenged me, when I was Home Secretary, in connection with the City of Peterborough which had applied for one of these Orders. We therefore have a most exalted precedent for the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend. I congratulate the Under-Secretary upon the clarity with which he read the brief that is usually provided by the Home Office on these occasions.

§ Mr. de Freitas
Was it not in connection with an Order for Pontefract that the noble Lord challenged my right hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Ede
No, it was Peterborough, because the noble Lord asked me which way the Deans of Peterborough had voted, and I had to assure him that there was only one Dean and that he voted by ballot.