§ 35. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why refund has been refused in respect of the Entertainments Duty, amounting to the sum of £5 17s. 2d., which was levied on the Islay, Jura, and Colonsay sheep-dog trials on 5th August?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am informed that no claim for exemption was made before the trials took place, notwithstanding the fact that the person responsible was well aware of the legal position. In the absence of a certificate of exemption, duty is payable under the law, and there is no power to grant a refund retrospectively.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs it not the case that these dog trials are not entertainments, but merely an examination of the dogs for the benefit of the dogs and also of the shepherds who employ them, and is it not the case that if the promoters had given notice a fortnight beforehand this would not have been exacted from them? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect people resident in these remote Highlands to be acquainted with the method of tax collection and these traps that are set for them?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am quite sure my hon. and learned friend is not desirous of making himself responsible for the proposition that the intelligence of the population declines in the more remote parts of the Highlands?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is not a question of intelligence, but that these gentlemen are not ready to believe that the Government set such traps for them as have been set in this case?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe only trap is that the law says you must give notice beforehand and ask for exemption.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENHow are these men to know that, unless it is put timeously before them?