§ The Entertainments Duty imposed by the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall not, after the first clay of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, be charged on payments for admission to any agricultural show the whole of the profits of which are devoted to agricultural or educational purposes, notwithstanding that admission to the show may include admission to entertainments in regard to which, but for the provisions of this Section, Entertainments Duty would be payable.—[Major Sir Archibald Sinclair.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
157§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment is extremely simple, palpably just and inherently sound. Everybody who is acquainted with agricultural life, both in England and in Scotland, knows that these local shows perform a real and almost indispensable service to agriculture.They are very difficult to organise, especially in scattered districts such as are to be found in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Committees of hardworking men go round whipping up their people to organise the various competitions. This tax is a tremendous hardship to them. It clogs their efforts enormously if they have to pay Entertainments Duty merely because they allow some little competition, such as foot racing, and give a prize for it. If they merely give a prize for a foot Dace, it puts them at once within the grasp of the Inland 'Revenue. This question was discussed last year. Everybody realised, even the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the difficulties under which these hard working committees of these local shows labour. The expenses nearly always exceed the receipts and the gap has to he met by voluntary contributions. The only way in which there shows can be put upon a prosperous basis is by enlisting the help, enthusiasm and interest of all sections of the community. We want them all to come to these shows, not only the people who are engaged in agriculture, but the women and children, in order that they may help to swell the gate money and make the shows financially independent. Unless they can have little things like sporting competitions and unless they are permitted to give prizes for these competitions it makes it extremely difficult.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury last year, who is now the Minister of Agriculture, said that it was had that an. Entertainments Duty should fall upon what are not entertainments but shows, where the entertainments are not the prime object. That, I think, defines what we have in mind. It is the fact that in these cases entertainment is not the prime object. It is just the means of attracting people to take an interest in these shows. It is a hardship that they are not allowed to have these 158 entertainments, or that if they do the whole of the receipts are subject to Entertainments Duty. If there is anything wrong in the drafting of this Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman will consider it before Report stage, I will willingly withdraw it and accept anything he suggests which will carry out the object which was defined by his predecessor of relieving cases which are not entertainments but shows from this duty. Lastly, one great merit of this Amendment is that it will cost the right hon. Gentleman nothing. These shows are not paying the tax now. All he is doing is to blanket a certain amount of activity and energy by threatening these people that if they do organise little sports competitions and give prizes for them to attract the crowd then the Treasury will descend on them. They cannot afford to do that, with the result that they have to suffer in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, or suggest something on the same lines, he would bring substantial relief to poor and struggling societies in the rural districts of this country, particularly where population is sparse and the spirit of the farmers and smallholders is progressive and they want to rally to their support all sections of the community of both sexes, and also those not directly engaged in agriculture, whose support would be of immense value in carrying on these shows for the benefit of the industry.
§ Mr. McNEILLThis proposal of the hon. Baronet is another example, though perhaps not quite so strong an example, of what we had an hour or two ago with reference to schools and colleges. We have a proposal to relieve from taxation some body with which we were all in sympathy, and we, who are responsible for the taxation of the country for the moment., are confronted with this sort of case presented to us, "Are you not in sympathy with this? Are you not in sympathy with education? Are you not in sympathy with amateur sport? Are you not in sympathy with agriculture? Are you going to penalise a bona fide agricultural show merely because inside its gates you happen to have a foot race for boys? Is that the sort of thing you are going to do? Cannot you relieve us from this vexatious taxation?" It is very easy to say that. But this matter, 159 after all, has been very carefully considered by Parliament. In 1921, 1923, and then in 1924, the whole matter of this application of the tax to agricultural shows was carefully considered.
May I remind the Committee what the present conditions for exemption are? It is not only agricultural shows. The hon. Baronet must not be under any misapprehension. It would be quite impossible to do for agricultural shows what we are not equally prepared to do for industrial shows, and therefore he is not quite correct when he says in such an airy way that it would cost nothing. We have to consider not merely what the hon. Baronet has in his own mind, but what the actual effect would be if his proposal were accepted. As regards agricultural, industrial, art and craft, health exhibitions and so forth there are two conditions by which, if they are fulfilled, they can escape taxation. The first is that the show is provided by a society which is not conducted or established for profit, and the second that it consists entirely, apart from hand music or exhibition work or displays of skill, of products of the industry, material, machinery or appliances used in their production or displays of skill by workers in the industry. If those conditions are observed the tax is not payable. The hon. Baronet, in the case of agricultural shows alone, wants to remove both those conditions. May I point out, as a mere matter of drafting, one effect this Clause would have? All the profits must be devoted to agricultural or educational purposes. But there are a good many agricultural shows—I know some within my own knowledge—where the proceeds are given to local charities, local hospitals and matters of that sort. Why should a show of that sort be deprived of the benevolence of the hon. Baronet when others, which are devoted entirely to educational purposes, for example, are to be exempted from taxation?
Then there is another consideration which he appears to have left out of account. An agricultural show is not to be disqualified for exemption by having foot races or any such shows, and he takes an extreme case at one end of the scale. He pictured to us a bona fide agricultural show for the benefit of the agriculture of the district and he laughed 160 at the idea of the exemption being lost because there is a little boy's race inside the grounds. Let me take a case at the other end of the scale. According to the hon. Baronet's proposal you may have a great fete with sports, horse racing, foot racing, merry-go-rounds, punch and judy, ice cream, all the luxuries of the season gathered there and all you have to do is to bring in a few mangold wurzels and call it an agricultural show, and the hon. Baronet and his Clause step in and say "There is no entertainment here. This is merely an agricultural show."
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThe right hon. Gentleman will admit that the proprietors of the punch and judy show, the ice cream establishments, merry-go-rounds and so forth would have to be prepared to give the whole of their profits to agricultural purposes.
§ Mr. McNEILLThe organisers of a well-conducted school treat might very well manage something of that sort. If the hon. Baronet uses his imagination to construct a case which makes the imposition of taxation look ridiculous it is quite as easy under the Clause he proposes to suggest conditions under which it would be really absurd that the Entertainments Duty should not be levied. We may amuse ourselves by taking imaginary cases but they are useful in this way, that they illustrate the great difficulty of drafting a Clause to put into an Act of Parliament which shall do one specific thing and nothing more. I entirely sympathise with the hon. Baronet's object if we could really get an exemption which will apply to a bona fide agricultural show, but I really do not see how it is possible to draft a Clause which will do that without doing a great deal more than he intends or than the Government could accept, and it is because I do not see how that could be done, and having regard to the great care with which all these matters were no doubt considered on the three previous occasions when it was reviewed by Parliament, I am afraid I cannot accede to the request to accept the Clause now.
§ Colonel GRETTONIf by some effort of ingenuity or expert knowledge a suitable Clause can be drafted on the Report stage, will the right hon. Gentleman give it his benevolent consideration?
§ Mr. McNEILLIf the hon. Baronet or my hon. and gallant Friend chooses to put the Clause in an amended form down on Report, of course we will again give it consideration, but I cannot give any pledge as to how we shall treat it.
§ Sir WALTER de FRECEI have no objection to the Clause as far as it relates to agricultural shows, but I agree that the concluding lines give an enormous scope of opposition to entertainments in towns which are paying Entertainments Duty, rates, taxes, etc. It would be possible to give a circus or a music hall or theatrical show calling it an agricultural show. If it were possible to draft a Clause whereby agriculture could be helped and the people who have vested interests in the towns in providing amusement were not interfered with I should have no objection, but as the Clause stands it would be impossible and it would be opposed greatly by the entertainment industry.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.