CLAUSE 5.—(Entertainments.) (Hansard, 8 August 1940)

§ Mr. Denville
I was saying that there was a Committee set up in this House under the chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead and on which there were 400 signatories, hon. and right hon. Members. They were ignored, and the only thing we have learned about this tax is that when it goes on it will never come off. It is rather disconcerting and lowers one's pride when one feels that a large body of Members of this House are treated like school children and are not consulted at all. One realises that there is a war on and that certain taxation must be put on to win that war, but why put it on something that will do more harm than good to the war effort? In other words, if this tax had not been put on, and the Treasury had accepted a scheme put forward by certain hon. Members of the House and those connected with the theatre industry, a much larger sum would have been raised than the amount of £250,000 which will be received from the tax on horses, dogs and actors. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind what I mean when I say that the industry approached him 471 to show how no less than £3,000,000 could have been obtained out of the theatres and living entertainment, but instead of getting any encouragement there was no reply whatsoever, and the whole scheme was dropped.
To-day we have a big theatre, the London Hippodrome, giving two weeks' takings to the Treasury for the war effort, and that is a point I have tried to make. Large theatres can find the money, but the smaller ones cannot. The little theatres, by this increase of £4 or £5 a week, will be put out of commission altogether. This is a rotten tax, and I am sure the majority of the Members of this House agree. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but I do not think he will get 5 per cent, of Members here to say they are not in favour of the tax being taken off altogether. But this is war-time, and we are not pressing for it. We want to help the Government, but in the right way, and I make the offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, here and now, on behalf of one or two managers of theatres, that we could raise no less than £3,000,000 without this tax. We raised, in a small theatre not far from London a week or two ago, between £300 and £400 as a trial trip, but despite this the whole scheme has been abandoned. All we can hope for is that this is not a permanent tax, although an official said it would not be taken off, and I would like to know who gave him the authority to say that. I beg the Chancellor to temper justice with mercy and think of the little man whom he will crush out of existence. Why should we let the large theatres in London get away with a small tax which will not hurt them and the little theatres in the provinces suffer?
I said in this House a few years ago that if the Entertainments Duty was reduced, new theatres would be built and old ones reopened. That has happened, but now along comes this iniquitous tax and out of business they go again. The Committee will hardly believe it when I say that in towns like Chesterfield and Wigan, and other places of that description, this extra £4 or £5 a week will make a great deal of difference. In many cases it will mean the difference between profit and loss and between keeping open and shutting. I hope the Chancellor will be 472 able to tell us that this tax is a wartime measure—that is all I am asking to-day—and that when the war is over the duty will be taken off. The tax on the living stage must be a small proportion of the receipts from dog racing, horse racing, football matches and so on, and I would suggest to the Chancellor that he ought to devise a scheme by which theatres taking a certain amount of money should pay the larger tax. I say: Let all theatres pay their salaries and their expenses, and let the Government take the lot afterwards. All we want is a fair crack of the whip. All I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman is, Shall we have it?

§ Mr, Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnock)
I am not going to press this at the moment, but I should like to know what the figure is out of the £250,000, and I should like to ask this: The Treasury at present are subsidising, through an organisation known as the Committee for the Encouragement of Music and Arts, and the Board of Education, a sum of money given originally by the Pilgrim Trust. One of the activities of that committee is a touring company in which Miss Sybil Thorndike and others will be acting, and I think they are proposing to go to South Wales and some of the industrial districts with Shakespearian and other performances during the autumn and afterwards. Will these be exempt from tax, because otherwise the Treasury will be subsidising with one hand and taxing with the other?

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood)
We all know my hon. Friend's interest and long standing in connection with this matter, and I can quite understand his anxiety as regards the effect of a tax of this kind. The increase in the Entertainments Duty will produce altogether about £4,000,000 in a full year and about £2,000,000 during the present year. The full scale of duty will fall on cinemas, horse racing, motor cycle racing and other sports, and the reduced scale applies to certain entertainments defined by Act of Parliament. The only matter that I have been asked about today is as far as the lower rate of duty is concerned in connection with what is called the living theatre. No Chan- 473 cellor of the Exchequer could say that certain taxes would be remitted after the war. Equally no Chancellor of the Exchequer could say—I think my hon. Friend misunderstood the position—that they are to remain on for all time. I hope conditions may be such that we may in due course be able to mitigate taxes of this kind, because it is a matter of regret that the theatre particularly should be affected in this way. I should like the Committee to know that we did consult, confidentially with a very representative body of the living theatre, the Stage and Allied Arts League, and that incorporates the Society of West End Theatre Managers, the Theatrical Managers Association, the Entertainments Protection Association, the Association of Touring Managers, the British Actors' Equity Association, the National Association of Theatrical Employés, the Musicians Union, the Old Vic and Sadlers Wells Theatres, the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, and so on—a very representative body of people. They have recently communicated with me and have said, after careful examination, that they agreed to the new scale, and the representative acting on my behalf was told by them that the industry would accept the scale and they raised no objection at present in view of national needs. That is the way this body approached the matter. Others are contributing, and in present circumstances it is right that they in their turn should make their contribution, and they have made it in that spirit. So far as Miss Sybil Thorndike's tour is concerned, I am not quite aware of it.

§ Mr. Lindsay
They are charging 3d.

§ Sir K. Wood
I will inquire into the position. This is regarded by the theatres as the contribution that they are making to the national need. In the circumstances the Committee may be content to accept that contribution in the spirit in which it is made.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)
The Committee is accepting this proposal in view of the national need, but I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take it that, because there is no opposition in the form of a vote, that gives him an indefinite right on future occasions to go on putting up the tax during the war.