§ Mr. HUGHESI beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 10 and 11 and to insert instead thereof:
2218 I should like to recall the Chancellor's proposals in his Budget Statement. It will be remembered that they covered the abolition of the taxes up to 6d., and a partial revision of the taxes from 6d. up to 1s. 3d. My Amendment will carry the partial revision from that point up to, and including, 2s. 6d. It may be thought that this will double the amount taken off the tax, but such is by no means the case. We know the sums apportioned to the various stages of the scale vary very greatly. It appears from the basis of our present total tax, that is, £9,500,000 per annum, that the higher you go in the scale the lesser the amount that accrues to the Treasury. The proposals I have to make will not involve a very great loss to the Treasury. It will be observed that there stands in the Schedule a very big jump between the 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. A difference of 3d. in the price of admission makes a difference of 2d. in the tax.
Rate of duty. exceeds 1s. 1d. and does not exceed 1s. 6d. 3d. exceeds 1s. 6d. and does not exceed 2s. 4d. exceeds 2s. and does not exceed 2s. 6d. 5d. exceeds 2s. 6d. and does not exceed 3s. 6d. My Amendment has a tax of 3d., 4d., 5d. or 6d., graduated instead of a jump of 3d. and 4d. and then to 6d. If my proposal be adopted that big jump will be 2219 avoided. In addition to that, my proposal will admit of a very popular price of admission. Such a price, inclusive of tax, does not exist at the present moment. One has to pay either 2s. 4d. or 2s. 7d. My Amendment will allow the popular price of 2s. 6d. The partial remission of the tax only affects the cheaper houses of entertainment, and leaves the higher priced class of entertainment untouched. This Amendment will do something towards ameliorating that state of affairs. The Chancellor's proposals came into effect on the 2nd June and I realise it is quite impossible to make my proposal retrospective. It might, however, come into force conveniently on the 1st August or September, or at such date as may be convenient. These are the four reasons on which I submit to the Committee and appeal to the Chancellor that the Amendment in my name should be adopted.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIn the Ways and Means stage of the Budget this Entertainments Duty was discussed at some length, and some criticism was made of my proposal on the ground that it left the duty on the higher priced seats untouched. When I made the proposal for the reduction of certain Entertainment Duties I said I was concentrating on a reduction of the low priced seats. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment said quite truly that the position would be that the Entertainments Duty is to be found in the returns from the lower priced seats. That is my difficulty in dealing with the matter and proposing an all-round reduction. I find it quite impossible to do that without sacrificing practically the whole of the income from this tax. When this question was debated the Financial Secretary expressed his view on the matter, and I do not think I can do better than read what he said:
Suggestions have been made that, within the limits of what we propose to concede, there might be some readjustment of the scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to any further consideration or any further concession which he may be able to make. In the first place, we cannot agree to any modification of the complete exemption up to 6d. In the second place, it is quite impossible for my right hon. Friend, with his other commitments, to agree to anything which will cost him more than the £3,400,000, or the £4,000,000 in a full year. Those two points are for us beyond a shadow of doubt. My 2220 right hon. Friend is willing to consider whether in practice it would be possible so to delay the introduction of this change as to confer a benefit by way of reduction rather higher up the scale, but he has come to the conclusion that he must adhere to the date suggested, namely, 2nd June, with this proviso on his part—that subject to those considerations, he is willing to consider any modification of the scale which can be suggested, although I, personally, take the view that it wilt be hard to discover a method of dragging out the remission more equitably and generously than that which we have devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1924; col. 1048, Vol. 173.]I saw the entertainments people two or three times and said that within the limits of the sacrifice I was prepared to make I was ready to consider any suggestions they might make upon improving the proposed scale. They have done that. What they have proposed is an extension of relief; and to accept the Amendment now before the Committee would involve a further sacrifice of £100,000. It will be remembered that we had an interesting incident in the Committee stage of the Bill last week in connection with exempting certain charitable institutions from the incidence of the tax. That Amendment meant a sacrifice of £100,000 a year. If the House of Commons on Report uphold that decision I should have been compelled to make a larger sacrifice than I intended, and it is quite impossible that I can accept the responsibility for this further addition which would be involved by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member who has just moved it. I very much regret it.
§ Mr. HUGHESIn view of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have no desire to press the Amendment to a Division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.