HC Deb 21 June 1948 vol 452 cc1084-92
Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move in page 10, line 15, after the second "a," to insert: borough, urban district or. This, with the next Amendment, in line 17, carries out an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend to consider sympathetically, in the light of what was said on the Committee stage, whether he could extend the rural parishes entertainments duty concession to urban as well as to rural districts and whether he could allow halls which hold more than 200 people to be included within its provisions.

Mr. Pitman

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the right Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Yes, this is the right Amendment. We are coming to the other Amendment a little later on. I am dealing with them together, although the Amendment which I am now moving deals with the words "borough, urban district or." As I was saying, we are willing to extend the concession to include not only rural districts but boroughs and urban districts where the other conditions are satisfied.

Mr. C. Williams

I think we should thank the Financial Secretary for what he has done to meet the wishes of the Committee on an earlier stage of the Bill. I am sure there are many people who welcome the fact that he has met us on this occasion, although one cannot help wishing that he had given a rather clearer explanation of what he is actually doing. However, perhaps it will come out all right in the end.

Mr. Stanley

On a point of drafting, why is it necessary to put in the words, as proposed in the second Amendment: being a borough, urban district or parish"? Why should not the provision read: … held in a building in a borough, urban district or rural parish within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1933, with a population not exceeding 2,000 …"? Why is it necessary to duplicate the words?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The draftsmen looked at this and advised us that the Amendments which are on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend are necessary to make the matter clear.

Mr. Stanley

But I am asking the right hon. Gentleman why.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

For clarity.

Mr. Stanley

In that case, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is clearer that way than the other way.

Captain Crookshank

Stumped again.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after "1933,"to insert: "being a borough, urban district or parish."

Captain Crookshank

Having had time to reflect, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now tell us why the words have to be inserted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, in matters of drafting of this kind, we rely on the experts and the Parliamentary draftsmen, and my right hon. and learned Friend has been advised that these words should be inserted in order to meet what I know hon. Members in all parts of the House desire should be the situation. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Stanley

I think this is rather unusual. It seems to be extremely clumsy drafting. I am quite prepared to be told that the draftsmen know best, but I think I am entitled to be told why it is that the draftsmen have accepted this particular form. To be told that the practice of Ministers is to accept from the draftsmen whatever they choose to put up as a drafted Amendment without even asking what it means, or why they do it, is asking people who served in previous administrations to believe a great deal. It may, of course, be true of the present administration, but, if so, I think we should put an end to what is an undesirable precedent and should return to an age when Ministers even had the effrontery to ask the draftsmen what their new Amendments meant.

Mr. Hollis

I wonder if the Financial Secretary would explain what he is now asking the House to pass. He is asking the House to pass: in a building in a borough, urban district or rural parish ‖ being a borough, urban district or parish. What could that possibly mean? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) should read on. It is: Being a borough, urban district or parish with a population not exceeding two thousand.…

Mr. Hollis

That makes no difference. What I said was perfectly true. A "borough, urban district or rural parish" must be a "borough, urban district or parish."

Mr. C. Williams

I would like to say that I cannot explain to my constituents what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Speaker

Has not the 'hon. Member already spoken?

Mr. Williams

I spoke on an earlier Amendment and I would not in any circumstances wish to speak twice on the same Amendment, but what is disagreeable to me is the complete and absolute failure of the Financial Secretary to explain what these Amendments are trying to do. As Members of Parliament we are expected to be able to explain these complicated details, if necessary, but how in the world are we to do so when the representative of the Government gets up time after time and says he knows nothing whatever about it and relies entirely on the draftsmen? This really would have not have passed on another occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in opposition he would have made a lot of trouble about this kind of thing.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He would have tried to."] Well, he would have tried to. I feel sure it is not right that we should allow a thing of this sort to go by without protest. The right hon. Gentleman may now have discovered what the Bill and the Amend- ment means and, if so, I shall be only too delighted to hear. As I know I shall not be able to speak twice, if by any chance his explanation is clear, I would like to thank him in advance.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I understand that this Amendment is a consequential Amendment. The first time the words appear the Subsection will read, borough, urban district or rural parish. As the words will appear the second time the Subsection will read, being a borough, urban district or parish. So apparently it is a rural parish the first time and a urban parish the second. Is this really consequential? What does it mean?

Mr. J. H. Hare (Woodbridge)

As one who represents a rural constituency, as opposed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

My hon. Friend is mistaken. I represent a county constituency.

Mr. Hare

I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend. I was under the impression his constituency was urban rather than rural. However, I should for the sake of my own constituents, like to press the point put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), because this is a matter which affects every single rural area, as far as I know. We should like to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman intends to put into the Bill. We have been watching this thing with great interest, ever since, in response to speeches made from these Benches, pledges were given that this matter would be considered by the Chancellor. We do want some clear indication as to where we stand, and we should be extremely grateful if the Financial Secretary could tell us at this juncture exactly where we stand.

Mr. E. P. Smith

I hope hon. Members on this side of the House will think again about some of the things they have been saying. These Amendments concern largely a suggestion which I personally put forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have in my constituency something like 100 village halls, and I can think of only three of them which will contain 200 persons or less. The majority of them—

Mr. Stanley

We are not talking about that. My hon. Friend is thinking of a later Amendment.

Mr. Smith

Then I am a little out of Order.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

Perhaps, I can come to the rescue of the right hon. Gentleman, though I am afraid I may land him in further difficulty. The Clause as now drafted reads: a rural parish … with a population not exceeding two thousand. Before the words "rural parish" we are to insert "borough, urban district or." Thus the Subsection will read: borough, urban district or rural parish.'

Hon. Members

Parish.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am speaking of the first insertion. The ordinary construction of these words, I think, is governed by the words parish not exceeding two thousand. I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding, and, therefore, I have in fact explained the reason for the first Amendment. But there is a discrepancy remaining which has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends. In the first case we find the words "rural parish" and in the second we find only the word "parish." Applying the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has just accepted from me we find that the new words are to be, being a borough, urban district or parish In other words, it is only an urban parish which is covered by the second Amendment, because it is only an urban district or parish. If the logic of my argument, which has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, applies in the first case it must apply also in the second as well, and, therefore, to make the thing perfectly clear we must retain the word "rural" in the second Amendment as well. For that reason I do ask the Government if they would accept a manuscript Amendment from me in order that the matter may be made perfectly clear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I do not know how much time we are going to waste—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have already, I think, given an adequate reply to the points which have been raised. The drafting is so plain that it appears to me that hon. Members opposite are not asking for information so much as having a little fun and games after their evening meal. What the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has said is the plain meaning which the words convey. The first insertion of these words governs the building, and the second insertion governs the population. The reason why we do not want to put in "rural" again is because the word "parish" connotes rural. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, it does.

Mr. Birch

Then why alter it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

We are not altering it.

Mr. Birch

You are.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

At the request of hon. Members opposite as well as of hon. Members on this side of the House, we are enlarging the scope of this concession; we are including certain urban districts with the rural parishes and the words which we have put down make the meaning clear. I can do no more than assure hon. Members that that is so. We have looked at this, and these words are necessary. I hope, therefore, that the House will now agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move, in page lo, line 20, to leave out "two," and to insert "four."

Mr. Eccles

We are grateful to the Chancellor for putting down this Amendment, but I do not think that it will cover all the cases we had in mind. I have been looking at a parish hall in the large village of Cricklade in my constituency; I suppose that in the past somebody must have given a large sum of money to have it built. There is a very fine village hall; the population of the village is, I think, 1,400, and the hall, if it were filled, would certainly take half the population. Now, it never is filled, but it seems very hard that it should be excluded because somebody happened to build an extra fine hall there. During the war, it came in very handy when there were R.A.F. camps near by, and dances could be held in the hall. Normally speaking we should never be able to fill that hall. Could not the Treasury exercise a discretion in a case like that, where the hall is not normally used for more than the 400, and allow the tax rebate to operate?

Mr. E. P. Smith

I do not know whether I am in Order in trying to repeat the speech which I began on a previous Amendment. I welcome the alteration of 200 to 400. I have in my division something like 100 village halls, and only three of them are capable of taking 200 or less, the others being considerably bigger. Therefore, I welcome the addition from 200 to 400. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said, there are peculiar cases, and I think the Leader of the Liberal Party gave an instance in his own division of a hall which would hold 800 persons, in a village with a population of only 800. There are exceptional cases for which some concession might conceivably be made; but, generally speaking, we who live in the country and understand the countryside and the problems of these village halls welcome this increase from 200 to 400.

10.30 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I hope the promise which the Chancellor gave with regard to this Clause during the Committee stage will be kept. He said on this particular point of the seating that he hoped to deal with it on Report. I did suggest 300 or 350 was a better figure than 200, and in so far as he has advanced that and made it 400 I am glad. But earlier on we did raise some other points and the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped we would let this run this year in order to have it looked at next year. I hope the Financial Secretary will indicate that that is intended because I do see some difficulties even now. The figure has been placed at 400 seating capacity, but it is necessary to look at the words in regard to this.

I think the words "cannot be provided in the building" may cause some difficulty. Seating cannot be provided perhaps for a variety of reasons. It cannot be provided perhaps because the place is not big enough to hold more than 400 persons; or perhaps not more than 400 seats are available for a place which is big enough for them. Or perhaps there is not seating capacity for more than 400 people because there is not money to buy more than 400 seats. These are difficulties which may arise. While we agree that this is an improvement on the previous figure it may bring rather nasty administrative difficulties. Will the Financial Secretary tell us that arrangements will be made for any complaints received during the next twelve months to be collated with a view to amendment being made next year?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Yes. My right hon. Friend will watch this during the year and see what, if any, amendment may be necessary next time. There are difficulties. The Clause has been tightly drawn deliberately because we felt that seating capacity might be construed as almost anything. Seats can be packed down aisles and so on. The hall has to seat normally—

Captain Crookshank

It does not say that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

That is the construction which we hope will be put upon it. But we will have to watch it during the year and, if abuses arise, the matter will have to be dealt with in succeeding Finance Bills. I am sorry that he had to make the limit 400, but we took into account halls which only had seats for 400 people, but were capable of holding a good many more. All sorts of anomalies and abuses in such cases might arise. If we had proceeded too far, we might even have found cinema proprietors taking large halls in semi-rural areas, where the density of population is not more than that stated in the Clause, and people coming from the towns to see films in that area, the proprietor of the cinema thereby avoiding payment of Entertainments Duty at the full rate. I think that we have in this Clause made a beginning in helping rural areas to deal with entertainment of this kind. We will watch the matter during the coming year to see what develops.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

May I ask the Financial Secretary whether, in the light of experience, average attendance will be considered as the best way to deal with this question. There may be in a village a large hall which will seat 600 or 700 people, but only 100 may perhaps attend on an average.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 37, at end, insert: Provided that—

  1. (a) in England, this subsection shall have effect in relation to any borough or urban district as if for the reference to the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, there were substituted a reference to 1092 the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-eight: and
  2. (b) as respects entertainments held, whether in England or in Scotland, before the said first day of August, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if for the words "four hundred persons," there were substituted the words 'two hundred persons'."—[Sir S. Cripps.]