SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (Hansard, 23 June 1955)

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)
My Lords, the five orders made under the Sunday Entertainments Act which stand in my name on the Order Paper have the usual form and content and I think there is no particular point to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. But on the last occasion on which we had Sunday Entertainment orders before us I was asked two or three questions by various noble Lords, notably the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, about this Act, and I have tried to find out the answers, I hope to their satisfaction.
The first question I was asked was, is this procedure not unduly complicated and may it not be unduly costly? I have inquired into this and I am afraid there is no doubt but that this procedure is complicated. It was not what was originally intended. The original intention was that the decision whether or not cinemas should be opened on Sunday should be taken upon the initiative of the 310 local authority. But after debate in both Houses it was decided that since this would make the local authorities responsible for taking a decision on a controversial and intricate matter, it would be better that a procedure should be introduced in the Act under which the local authorities would no longer take the decision but the matter would be put before the electorate as a straight question of content or not content; and as a final stage, the order would come before Parliament on an Affirmative Resolution procedure. That has been the practice ever since, and on the whole it has worked well. The general feeling, I understand, is that it would be undesirable to throw these highly controversial matters back on the table of the local authorities. As to expense, there is no getting away from the fact that these procedures can be a little expensive but not. I think, unduly.
The second question which was asked by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was whether I could tell him what percentage of ballots taken since the war had resulted in majorities against the opening of cinemas on a Sunday. The figures are net precise because local authorities are under no obligation to report these cases to the Home Office. But, so far as I can find out, it is about 10 per cent. of the ballots held since the war. Another question I was asked was, how much longer are these Orders to appear on our Order Paper? This is difficult to tell, because the controversy still rages in some parts of the country. In rural districts, particularly, people feel strongly about the opening of cinemas on a Sunday. Two of the biggest towns which do not allow it yet are Merthyr Tydfil and Tynemouth, but there are many areas where I am quite certain the proposal would be hotly resented and keenly debated. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot promise a day in the near future when we shall see our Order Paper free from these Sunday Entertainments Act Orders, the first of which I now beg to move.

§ EARL JOWITT
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the care he has taken in answering the questions I put. I quite agree with him that the fact that there are 10 per cent. refusals is sufficient justification for going on with the present system. Of course, had it been the fact that in virtually every case the Order was approved, then obviously there would have been a case for doing away with this rather expensive and cumbersome method. But the Home Office will be in touch with the public about that, because the Home Secretary is a Member of another place and knows exactly what is the feeling about this matter. If there does come a time when it is unnecessary to resort to this procedure, then I think we can rely upon the Home Secretary to take the necessary steps.

LORD REA
My Lords, may I ask whether there is any hope of further simplification, or is it necessary for these matters to continue to come before your Lordships' House?

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, I should like to join with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in his thanks to my noble friend, Lord Mancroft. The only remark I feel inclined to make is that the expenses of the promoters in these cases are probably much greater than the expenses of the local authorities.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord another question, which he may or may not be able to answer now? If he cannot, perhaps he could answer it the next time he presents one of these Orders. If a vote is once taken and decided upon, is that final, or can the residents of an area at some time in the future change their minds and have another poll?

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary what he has said. Arising out of the noble and learned Earl's remarks, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party asked whether we could simplify the procedure under the Act. I am afraid that the answer must be "No," because whilst a ballot is still held, it must be held in this way. It is the way laid down by law; to simplify it by going back to a procedure such as that which the Government of 1932 originally proposed 312 and Parliament refused to allow would require further legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked whether the ballot is final. It is final if the ballot is in favour of the opening of Sunday cinemas; the decision is then put into law by means of one of these Orders which your Lordships are now being asked to approve. To upset such an Order would be a complicated procedure. If the ballot is negative, however, there is then nothing to stop those who wish to open the cinemas on a Sunday from trying again at a later date.

§ LORD SILKIN
But it is possible to upset an Order.

§ LORD MANCROFT
Upon that I should have to take advice on the constitutional difficulty. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would know much better than I would how to upset an Order made by both Houses under an Act of Parliament. Clearly, it is not an easy matter.

§ EARL JOWITT
I should refer it to the Lord Chancellor.

§ LORD MATHERS
The information the noble Lord has given about the disabilities attaching to minorities is rather disquieting. It is gratifying to think that, even in these days of lack of regard for Sunday, the objectors to its further desecration amount to 10 per cent. But to think that people have no recourse to any means for changing their minds after an Order of this kind allowing Sunday performances has been put into effect and they have seen it in operation is rather disquieting.

§ LORD MANCROFT
I do not think that there is absolutely no recourse open to them. They can always go to the length which I was suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of upsetting the Order by some such procedure as a Private Bill. But that would be an extreme and complicated course to follow.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, in conclusion, I beg to move that this Order be approved.