NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief from Entertainments Duty.) (Hansard, 12 July 1922)

§ Sir R. HORNE
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
1274 This Clause is one which has been put on the Paper in response to a pledge which I gave to several hon. Members who sought to have excluded from the duty an art exhibition, including exhibitions of sculpture, or rather, that they should be free in the ordinary way from Entertainments Duty. I have put down the Clause in a shape which I hope is agreeable to all Members of the Committee. That covers the first part of the new Clause. The second part deals with another pledge I gave in the course of discussions in Committee. It was represented to me that, at the present time, the amount of allowance which is given for expenses before an exhibition may escape the Entertainments Duty, when the exhibition is given for the purposes of charity—that the amount of 20 per cent. was not sufficient to encourage such exhibitions being given. I agreed to increase the limits from 20 to 30 per cent. of the receipts, and the Clause which I now move expresses that change.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting me on the proposition contained mainly in the first part of the new Clause. I may say, however, that I received this morning from the Arts League, which really promoted this Clause, a letter which says that they have taken advice and are not sure whether the phrase "graphic art" has ever been included in an Act of Parliament before, and they wonder whether the Treasury were satisfied that graphic Art included certain things. I would put a case to my right hon. Friend. They were afraid, with the Clause so drafted, that if you had, say, a mixed exhibition of oil paintings, water colours and sculpture, that those, not being graphic arts in the legal sense of the word, it would mean that the whole exhibition would have to pay Entertainments Duty. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get out of that difficulty by the inclusion of the words "or arts craftsmanship," after the words "art of sculpture," which is, apparently, a term known to the law, I do not like pressing this, as it came to me only this morning, but I think the words "graphic art" may be given a limited meaning, and stained glasswork and things of that kind may be cut out. I gather that the words have a very nar- 1275 row definition. They rule out all arts called reproduction work. The only difference between art craftsmanship, as opposed to craftsmanship, is the original design. The original design of an etcher is "arts craftsmanship," but if this is sold to a photogravure firm it ceases to be art craftsmanship when they reproduce the design. It would put the minds of artists at ease if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could include after the words "art of sculpture" the words "or arts craftsmanship." Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General can be satisfied that all the bona fide, artists' exhibitions are covered, and, if so, I, naturally, shall not wish to raise an objection.

§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHS
I should like to know if this Clause deals with all cinema entertainments that are not conducted for profit. There is one case which I explained last year, but up to the present we have had no satisfaction. It is an entertainment run by workmen, and there is a library and various other things. They hold a cinema performance about four nights a week. The profits are not distributed. They are used for the purpose of recreation grounds and various other things, and simply because they employ four artists during the week, these people have to pay Entertainments Duty which involves them to the extent of over £1,000 per annum. They are not making a profit in any way. If a performance of this kind is not conducted for profit, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider them. They are running it with their own committee and everything else. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could satisfy me on this matter.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Is it intended to take in all these Amendments on the duty now?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have received only one Amendment. It is in order.

§ Mr. MYERS
The duty will still remain for a large number of people in this country. One claim put forward in connection with this matter was to the effect that all entertainments which are got up for charitable purposes should be exempt from the Entertainments Duty. We are all acquainted with the attempts which have been made during the last few years 1276 to run entertainments, such as concerts, for the purpose of making provision, let us say, for a discharged soldier who has lost a limb. The intention was to set him up in business, to provide him, perhaps, with a horse and cart and various other things, and we know from experience cases where this has been attempted and where the benevolent spirit manifested has received a rude shock when it was discovered that a considerable proportion of the receipts of the entertainment had missed its object altogether, and had been roped in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are having now a wider field for the benefit of the hospitals of the country, and it is conceivable that in some of our industrial areas attempts will be made to run some similar functions for our local hospitals. Artiste ought to be engaged to ensure success, and if it is established that the whole of the receipts go for charitable purposes, I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look upon such events with a kindly eye, and where it can be established that all the proceeds go to a charitable object, that he should keep his hands off the receipts of these entertainments.

§ Sir R. HORNE
I quite appreciate what the hon. Member says with regard to entertainments given for the purpose of charity, but if he knew as much of human nature as the Exchequer does he would see that such a provision as he suggests leaves a very large loop-hole for abuse. A large number of people under these circumstances would be very agreeable to giving entertainments ostensibly for a charitable object, but from which in the end practically nothing goes to the charity because everything is taken up by the expenses. I am afraid long before I was at the Exchequer I was familiar with charity being used to cloak such entertainments as these, and to attract people to entertainments which really were being run lot the amusement of the actors and actresses giving the entertainments, and when nothing appreciable went to the charity. In order to meet cases of that kind we were bound to make arrangements by which only such charitable entertainments should be recognised as those in which not more than a certain proportion of the receipts went to the expenses. At firs: we fixed it at 20 per cent. We have now fixed it at 30 per cent., and I believe that leaves a 1277 sufficient margin. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), the Clause really covered everything he is asking for at the time we first put it forward, and at this moment I am of opinion that as it stands it will cover the case he has stated. If it does not, we shall be able to deal with it next year if it is regarded as technically not within the precise terms of the Clause. I do not think he will have any reason to disagree with the operation of the Clause as it stands.

§ Mr. ORMSBY - GORE
Has the Treasury power to define graphic art so as to cover subordinate arts of the kind I have mentioned?

§ Sir R. HORNE
I have not the power to define. Only the Law Courts have that. But at the Treasury one has the power to say which are evading the law and which are not.