SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (Hansard, 30 March 1955)

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)
My Lords, this Order and the other three Orders standing on the Paper in my name, are in the usual form and content; there is nothing in them, I think, to which I need especially draw your Lordships' attention. Accordingly, I beg to move that the first Order be approved.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this matter. We have before us to-day four of these Orders, and the other day we passed a considerable number more. I have taken occasion to ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost to the ratepayers of these Sunday Entertainments Act Orders. The noble Lord gave me the information that the poll required by the Act before a draft Order could be made cost the ratepayers between £300 and £400 per 50,000 population. That means that in a City like Birmingham, one of these Orders would cost something between £7,000 and £10,000. Moreover, the cost of these Orders does not end there, because the cost to the film promoters is in the nature of four to five times as much. So that for a city the size of Birmingham one of these Orders would involve an expenditure amounting to £40,000 or £50,000. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he can ascertain what percentage of the voters vote when this matter is canvassed locally, because I think that information would be of interest. I should also like to ask him 244 whether it is not possible to find some simpler way of deciding this question because I believe that it seldom happens that these Orders fail to be accepted locally.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, the amount spent by film promoters on contesting and arguing this matter does not, of course, fall strictly within the purview of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, but I do not doubt for one moment that the figures given by my noble friend are correct. The trouble is that the question of whether or not cinemas should be opened on a Sunday causes considerable local controversy, and feelings run high. When feelings run high lobbying is strong; and, as your Lordships know, lobbying is not one of the cheapest of activities. The noble Lord also asked me the percentage of people who take part in the poll. I cannot, of course, give him any generalisation, but I can refer him to two of the Orders that we are considering to-day. In regard to the first, to which we are now speaking, that relating to the Urban District of Aireborough, something like 11 per cent. only of the electorate took part; on the other hand, in regard to the Minehead Order, which is to follow, nearly 50 per cent. of the electorate took part. Fortunately, it does not fall to my right honourable friend to argue the pros and cons of the case; it is merely his duty to see that the poll is carried out in accordance with the terms of the Act; and that he has done.
The terms of the Act are admittedly fairly complicated. I will certainly inquire whether the procedure is as simple as we should like it, but it is definitely laid down in the Act of 1932 how this procedure should be carried out. When the noble Lord questions whether this procedure is worth while, I think I ought to tell him that there are many cases where application is made for an Order under this Act which fail in the first place and those interested have to have another attempt. For instance, the Swadlincote Order, which follows on the Order Paper, was first contested in 1948, and was not successful. The matter has since been reopened and has now been proved successful. I mention that fact only to let your Lordships know that the matter is still of considerable local controversy, and I think we must still certainly see 245 that the terms of the Act are carried out to the letter. Whether they are overcomplicated or not is a different matter, and I will look into it.

§ EARL JOWITT
Can the noble Lord say in how many cases an Order has been refused where it has been submitted to a vote? Is that very exceptional or not?

§ LORD MANCROFT
So far as I can remember, an Order has never been refused because it would have to be refused by both Houses of Parliament, and I cannot recollect that happening.

§ EARL JOWITT
I do not mean that; I mean, as a result of the vote have the citizens of the area declined to give their consent?

§ LORD MANCROFT
Yes; that has happened on more than one occasion. I am afraid that I have not the figures in my mind of the occasions, say, since the war, where the local citizens have refused it, but it is certainly within the region of a dozen. I will find out accurately, but it is certainly a considerable number.

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