HC Deb 06 July 1949 vol 466 cc2180-204

(1) Entertainments duty within the meaning of section one of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, shall not be charged on payments for admission to any entertainment which is held on or after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, and consists of one or more of the following items, that is to say—

  1. (a) a stage play;
  2. (b) a ballet (whether a stage play or not);
  3. (c) a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental);
  4. (d) a lecture;
  5. (e) a recitation;
  6. (f) an eisteddfod;
where the Commissioners are satisfied that the entertainment is provided by a society, institution or committee which is not conducted or established for profit and that the entertainment is an amateur one.

(2) For the purposes of this section an entertainment shall not be deemed to be an amateur one if any payment is made or reward given for the appearance of any of the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment or any part of it, or for any person's services in connection with the entertainment as instructor, producer, manager or conductor or in any advisory capacity.

(3) This section shall be deemed always to have had effect and where entertainments duty has been charged on any payment made before the said thirty-first day of July, being a payment which by virtue of this section is not chargeable with duty, the person by whom the duty was paid shall be entitled to repayment of the amount of the duty.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1946, it is provided that Entertainments Duty shall not be charged, on certain types of entertainment where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that it is given by a society, a committee, or an institution, not conducted for profit and whose main objects are partly educational. Experience has shown that amateur societies sometimes find it difficult to get exemption on charity grounds under the Finance Act, 1924, because their takings are insufficient to allow them to provide an adequate sum for charity, or on educational grounds under Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1946, because the production is almost purely entertainment and technically cannot be considered to be partly educational.

The proposed new Clause provides as an alternative condition that those taking part in the performance shall not be paid. The matter has created a good deal of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who is a neighbour of mine, is very anxious that something should be done. Other hon. Members in whose constituencies amateur societies are growing in number, will be aware of the difficulties. Parliament should, if possible, assist those societies to carry on without having the burden of Entertainments Duty thrust upon them. It is my belief, which I feel sure is shared by other hon. Members, that in agreeing to the Clause we shall help the societies and be fulfilling the wishes of a great majority of hon. Members. The cost is not expected to be large. We estimate it at no more than about £10,000 a year.

Mr. E. P. Smith

It is most satisfactory that any concession should be given to the purveyors of dramatic entertainment, and I particularly welcome the remission of tax in respect of wholly amateur entertainment. Some people might say that the fact that it is an amateur show is a sufficient strain upon the audience without the Treasury mounting the camel as well. Most amateur performances are educative, both as regards the audiences and the players; and they are generally designed to benefit some charity or some good purpose as well as to brighten social life in the rural and urban areas. I am sure that the amateur societies in the country will welcome this measure of relief, and are very much obliged to the Chancellor. The cost of the Clause may be very much greater than £10,000, because there are about 10,000 amateur societies. I very much suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to dip more deeply into his pocket than for a mere £10,000.

The wording of the proposed new Clause is, however, peculiarly clumsy and unhappy. If we look at subsection (1) we find certain types of entertainment specified, including stage plays and ballet. I would very much welcome a technical explanation from the Chancellor or from the Financial Secretary as to when a ballet becomes a stage play and when it does not. What is the point of putting such a definition to a ballet? Amateur ballet performances are rare, and we should be pleased to see more than we do. The Clause goes on to mention, after stage play and ballet: (c) a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental); (d) a lecture; (e) a recitation; (f) an eisteddfod; What is the position of a mime? There are a number of miming societies in the country. What is a mime? It is not a stage play, nor a ballet, nor a performance of music, nor a lecture nor a recitation, and it is most certainly not an, eisteddfod. What is the position of a puppet show? There are amateur puppet societies. Is a puppet show to be subject to tax when everything else named is exempt? The possibilities of this implication have not been fully explored.

4.45 p.m.

We find in subsection (2) that "for the purposes of this section" the entertainment shall not be deemed to be amateur if any payment is made or reward given for the appearance of any of the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment or any part of it"— I agree with the subsection on this point, but it goes on to say: or for any person's services in connection with the entertainment as instructor, producer, manager, or conductor or in any advisory capacity. Now it is well known that the best amateur companies employ for a small remuneration a professional actor to produce them. That is one of the advantages of amateur acting. Why are they not to be allowed to have one? It will reduce the educative value of the performances, and it will deprive the professional, often in need of it, of a certain amount of employment, and that must be wrong. There can be no sense in that. What has it to do with whether the entertainment should pay a tax or not?

When professional companies were exempted from Entertainment Tax it was because they were non-profit making and partly educational; and now the Financial Secretary has said that amateur societies will be excluded only if they are nonprofit-making and amateur. Yet the provision of a professional producer or coach clearly in itself would give them a partly educational value also. This prohibition in subsection (2) of the Clause should be omitted. Otherwise, on behalf of the amateur stage, I welcome the Clause.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I am a tiny bit surprised—not piqued, but surprised—that the Financial Secretary, in introducing the new Clause, did not mention that I have a rather similar new Clause on the Paper. As the Government's Clause was not put down until the eleventh hour I cannot help thinking that my Clause had something to do with it. I do not want to look a gift horse—in so far as it is a gift horse—in the mouth. To the extent that the Government's proposed new Clause goes, I welcome it.

The present rule, that a society, in order to get exemption from tax, must be partly educational, or that its performances must be educational, has given rise to absurd anomalies. A society in Torquay was refused exemption for its performances of the new "Vagabond King," but a neighbouring society was granted exemption. I hope that I am not stealing the thunder of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). Perhaps I may pat him on the back: thanks to his representations the Torquay Society was eventually exempted. Again, exemption was granted to a London Society for its performance of "The Geisha" on the ground that it was educational, but another society could not obtain exemption for the same work. A London bank society obtained exemption for "Goodnight, Vienna," but a different London bank society failed to obtain exemption for "Merrie England." The new Clause, where it applies, will be free of such absurdities.

There are, however, two faults in the new Clause. The first is that only six classes of entertainment have been specified and several deserving ones have been omitted. My Clause sought to give exemption to those six and to two others, one being a film. If a stage play and a ballet, why not a film? My Clause also sought to give exemption to exhibitions. If a lecture, why not an exhibition?

The second fault is more serious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has pointed out, subsection (2) bars from exemption any entertainment where any payment is made or reward given to an actor, producer, instructor, manager or conductor. It is a very frequent custom for an amateur theatrical or operatic society to bring in and pay a conductor or producer or even a star. The fact that such people are brought in immensely increases the educational value of the entertainment and it does not in any way destroy the essentially amateur nature of the performance.

I suggest that the Government take back this Clause and, before the second day of the Report stage of the Bill, bring it in with a very simple alteration; or they might prefer to accept a manuscript Amendment now. I suggest that in line 16 of subsection (2), for "performers" should be substituted "members," and in the following line for "any person's services" should be substituted "any member's services." That would bring this Clause into line with what I suggested in my Clause, and the effect would be that a society would be free to bring in one or two professionals for the essential purposes of the performance but would not be permitted to pay any of its own members.

Owing to heavily rising costs which they are unable to meet by putting up the prices of the tickets, some societies are having a very hard struggle for existence, and I cannot believe that the Government wish them to die, but some of them certainly will die unless provision is made on the lines I have indicated, for persons outside the societies to be employed for specific purposes.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)

It would not be fair to allow the Clause to pass—I hope it will pass and will not be withdrawn at this stage—without a word of thanks from this side of the Committee, particularly as this Clause virtually accepts a Clause standing in my name. [Laughter.] I do not know why there should be so much laughter when I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a Clause in my name dealing with this matter stands on the Order Paper. It is a good deal in advance of that in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I would certainly have called attention to the fact that he had put down a Clause and given due credit for initiative. No one wishes to deprive him of the occasional bits of glory he may earn in the midst of many matters with which I disagree.

I am sorry that the acceptance of the Clause by the Opposition has been a little grudging. The Clause is drawn in very wide terms and it makes it possible for an amateur society to apply for repayment of tax already paid if it can establish its case. There is, however, a very real point to be raised. I am not concerned about societies who want to employ stars. I see no reason why they should have exemption or why they should want their stars. I do not see why an amateur society performance should not be an amateur performance. We want to encourage small societies in the villages where the annual operatic performances are part of the local life and provide very real enjoyment and social opportunities and thus do very useful work.

The Clause leaves out the many amateur societies in the large towns who have been in the habit of employing coaches. The object of the amateur operatic society is to raise money for charity, provide an annual entertainment for the people and give families an opportunity of seeing their friends and relations taking part in these sometimes very fine performances. Oldham has a quite exceptional society—probably the Financial Secretary will know it—which gives most magnificent performances yearly in which the standard of acting—I emphasise this to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith)—compares very well with the standards of professional acting which I have seen in many areas. In order to do that, the Oldham society normally engages a professional coach, and it is good that it should do so. One of its objects is to provide training to improve the standard of dramatic or operatic presentation, and the professional coach is part of the machinery normally used by the society.

There are now to be two tests, and we are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary for what they have done. This very important concession will be welcomed on all sides of the Committee. Even if a society has a coach, if the production is educative it is exempt. If one has a coach for Strindberg, presumably one is exempt, and to take an example from my side of the Committee, if one has a coach for George Bernard Shaw one is equally exempt.

Mr. E. P. Smith

The hon. Member has missed the point. I said that the employment of a coach by an amateur society was in itself an educative thing to its members.

Mr. Hale

I fully agree. I am trying to differentiate between the cases put by the hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Twickenham. I believe that the employment of professional actors is going too far. I think that the employment of a professional coach should not make it impossible for the Oldham Operatic Society this year again to produce "Rio Rita," which, I gather, might not be regarded as educative by some authorities but which I found to be instructive, morally beneficial and artistically presented. As the employment of a coach is a matter of opinion, perhaps the Financial Secretary will consider giving effect to this point of view administratively where one obviously has a bona fide amateur society desiring to employ a professional coach for the presentation of a bona fide amateur performance.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. O. Poole

I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to satisfy us before I spoke. I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith). I have some slight personal interest in this matter in that I am a governor of the Old Vic, and one of our main but lesser known activities is by touring companies to encourage an interest in the living theatre. We want to encourage people all over the country to visit the theatre in places where normally they have only been accustomed to go to a cinema, where in many cases the films are of no great artistic merit.

I wish to put an additional point. I agree entirely with the remarks which have been made that we ought to do, nothing to discourage paid producers, most of whom receive quite small remuneration. If professional producers are engaged the standard of the performance given is so much higher that those who attend will be more encouraged to come and see the living theatre. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough places in the country to which the Old Vic and Young Vic touring companies are able to go, and where the people have to rely on amateur companies, many of which, as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has said, reach a very high standard. They would not reach anything like that high standard if they did not engage paid producers. In view of the great support which the Government are giving to every activity of the drama, and particularly to what we of the Old Vic are doing, I hope that they will reconsider this matter.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Heston and Isleworth)

I, too, would like to add my plea to those which have already been made in this matter. I shall make it in a twofold capacity. I do so firstly because of the tremendous activity which is going on in my constituency of Heston and Isleworth in the field of drama, art, music and community association work. In order to perfect the amateur producers in the respective arts it is necessary on occasion to bring in the professional man or some professional men to whom some fee has to be paid in order to ensure a production of the high quality and high standard which the society concerned desires to present. I feel sure that my constituents would regard it as very unreasonable if, by utilising the services of one or perhaps two professional conductors of music or coaches or trainers or perhaps an instrumentalist in a particular performance, that would of necessity put the entertainment outside the scope of this Clause. So far as my constituency is concerned, and having regard to the activities which are going on there, it would be a harmful thing if -the Clause were approved in its present form.

I wish to refer to the part of the country where I was bred and born and brought up, and where possibly as much has been done in the past, and is being done at present, in connection with amateur performances as in any part of the country. I was bred and born in Carnarvonshire, and from my earliest days I have most pleasant recollections of the great work which has been done in connection with oratorios, musical and dramatic performances, eisteddfods, etc., and in later years in connection with the drama. I doubt whether any part of the country has progressed more rapidly in regard to the dramatic art in recent years than has the Principality. In all these activities it is essential, in order to perfect the respective arts, that the organisations concerned should utilise the services of one or perhaps more professional men.

I remember that when I was a boy we were trying to build up a good musical society, which included a brass band. For many years there was a tremendous struggle to make that band into a decent unit and then someone had the brain-wave of asking a noted cornet soloist from Manchester, Angus Holden, to come along and train the band. In a short time there was a tremendous improvement in its performance. The same kind of thing is going on in these days in some of the small villages around the quarries of Carnarvonshire. I am sure that it is not the desire or wish of the Chancellor to discourage that form of perfection in these various arts by denying to these small societies the right to have a specially skilled and trained assistant or coach.

I remember, as no doubt other Members of this House who have connections with Wales will remember, the oratorios performed there from time to time. Welsh singers and their choral attainments were second to none but it was usual, and I think it is still the usual practice, for the soloists to be engaged from some of the academies and for payment to be made to them for their performance. That has not only added to the achievement of the society but has been something to which the choristers themselves have looked forward as enabling them to hear how these great musical works should be performed. With all these considerations in mind my right hon. Friend may wish to communicate to the Chancellor the general desire in the House to do everything possible to encourage the true amateur society to have the assistance of professional or semiprofessional people.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

I think that, by now, the Parliamentary Secretary may be conscious of the fact that this Clause is not altogether as polished as it might be. He only introduced it at short notice last night, and I suspect that he now probably acknowledges the source of inspiration as being my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). All the same, he should have given the matter deep thought and brought before the House a Clause which completely covered the subject. I find deficiencies of substance in each of the subsections; reference has been made to many of them. The list of entertainments is not sufficiently comprehensive. It should include exhibitions, mimes, puppet shows and anything else of that kind.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

But not political speeches.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Certainly not those by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I should have liked to find in the Clause a definition of the word "profit." Apparently any organisation which is conducted or established for profit is not to qualify. All of us would agree that if there was an elaborate financial structure, with directors, expenses, shareholders, etc., and the organisation set out to make a profit, we should not want it to be associated with this remission of Entertainments Duty. But what is the position of an amateur society which has at the end of the year a balance in the bank of some hundreds of pounds in excess of the balance in the bank at the end of the previous year? Is such an organisation not to qualify? It might be quite genuinely amateur, and have a little pool or fund for expenses. Has it to distribute that somehow to its members, or not charge so much, so that it has no finance of any kind, or has the the same amount of floating balance at the end of each year? These are matters with which the right hon. Gentleman should deal in saying whether such an organisation is to be regarded as a profit making one or not.

In regard to subsection (2) I support the views which have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams), that some aspect of professionalism is important. Like other hon. Members I have in my constituency a very remarkable organisation—in Weymouth—whose activities were noticed in "The Times" the other day. Seven or eight different societies all collaborated in a very big week-end festival under the auspices of the municipality—an operatic society, a gramophone society, and so on, all of which did some remarkable work. Many of these constituent elements employ the services of professionals to improve their technique. Here is a genuine amateur organisation, admittedly on a large scale, but which is rather important, now doing just the kind of work the Financial Secretary has praised, and in respect of which he has brought in this Clause to assist, but yet, because of this professional aspect, they are not to be allowed to remit Entertainments Duty.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not concentrate this Clause upon the little village organisations which carry on their work entirely unassisted. We do not want to concentrate entirely on what might be called the completely amateur, the arty-crafty type of show, but to give people who witness these spectacles some uplift, some interest and some genuine entertainment. If the assistance is to be given only to the very small and inexperienced village organisations, I do not think it goes far enough.

Finally, I ask the Financial Secretary whether he does not think that subsection (3) is entirely out of line with other legislation of the same kind? It provides that any past entertainment expenses can be reclaimed by any society which can prove it falls within the purview of this Clause. That is retroaction in excelsis. We might well find Victorian pageant organisations, still with some nucleus committees, seeking to claim back from the Government tax paid for many years past, so that the Treasury may well become involved in difficult and technical investigations. I think there ought to be a limit, perhaps of seven years, in respect of which people may make claims. Perhaps a limit applies automatically, in which case I shall be glad if the Financial Secretary will indicate it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Burslem)

I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having brought forward this new Clause. There is much to be said for the point of view of Members on both sides, who are asking my right -hon. Friend to provide that where an occasional visit is made by a conductor a society or organisation will not be precluded from the benefits of the Clause. It is a good thing in these times of artificial entertainment to encourage people to provide entertainment for them-selves as far as possible. I assume that the Government want to give some help to the small societies, not the arty-crafty people mentioned by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in the large industrial areas who find it very pleasant to do some dramatic, choral work, or instrumental work. If that is the idea, then I think it is worthy of support.

In the area from which I come, North Staffordshire, we have many amateur choral societies where people from factories come together week by week and produce, in due time, a magnificent performance of choral singing or an oratorio. For that purpose it has been found useful from time to time to have the services, which have been readily forthcoming, of distinguished musicians, for example, Sir Malcolm Sargent and other distinguished artists, to advise and occasionally to conduct a performance. It would be a pity if artists who are willing to come forward in circumstances where, for the most part, the work of producing a musical concert or a dramatic performance is principally a matter of occupation for working-class people precluded societies or organisations from the benefits of this Clause, although there may be some difficulty in providing suitable words to draw a line between the amateur and the professional.

On the question of profits, suppose that working-class men and women decide for their own entertainment to produce a play or choral concert in support of a charity or hospital. Obviously, they will aim at making a profit as well as covering their expenses. They will hope to raise a substantial sum of money. Are they, in these circumstances, to lose the benefit of this Clause? These, I suggest, are reasonable proposals we are making, and I hope that if it is possible my right hon. Friend will meet us; if he does I am sure he will be doing a service to the country as well as responding to the requests which have been made from both sides.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

There is little doubt that the Government have made a great effort here to do the right thing, but, as so frequently occurs in the House of Commons, discussion has uncovered certain obvious defects in the drafting of the Clause. I am not going to follow those who have stressed some of the difficulties of educational definition. The Financial Secretary will recall that when the Finance Act, 1946, was passing through the House we found some very curious results, the fact that "Charley's Aunt" was educational and "Julius Cæsar" was not. I want to pass from that, and come to what might be described as the schedule in subsection (1), which is not sufficiently extended. One obvious omission is that of historical pageants, for which in the boyhood of many of us there was a great vogue. I notice that one or two pageants were held during the summer, such as the one in the City of St. Albans. Here is something which might well be brought within the scope of the Clause.

The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and others have very properly stressed the importance of making provision for the professional coach or producer so often employed by amateur societies in bringing forward their productions. But there is another aspect of the matter which also should be considered. I imagine, for instance, that in Oldham, which is a large town, they have very little difficulty in casting a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, but in smaller towns one frequently finds that the amateur operatic society cannot cast from its members one of the important characters. What frequently happens is that they advertise in magazines read by people interested in this sort of thing to the effect that there is a vacancy in such and such a production for such and such a character.

I remember that a society in one small town which was producing "The Yeomen of the Guard" failed to find from among its own members anyone properly qualified to take the important part of Jack Point, around whom the scene so largely revolves. So the society advertised in a magazine and found an enthusiastic gentleman from Staffordshire who was prepared to travel every week for three months to Somerset to take part in rehearsals. He was an amateur in the truest sense of the word, but the society thought it proper to pay his railway fare for the rehearsals, although he received no remuneration for his performance when the play was produced. Yet the fact that the railway fare had been paid would exclude the society from subsection (2).

Mr. L. Hale

He seems to have been playing not "Jack Point," but "Jack Point-to-Point."

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

That was the point of my remarks, that there was no payment or reward. The railway fare would be a payment as opposed to a reward if he received some sort of emolument from appearing in the production. I suggest that there is another obvious anomaly here which the right hon. Gentleman might look at.

I want to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that this discussion has revealed a case for a revision of the wording of this Clause, and as we do not take the Report stage of this Bill again until next week, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, with the aid which I am sure will be readily forthcoming of his skilled and learned Law Officers, he should have another look at this Clause in the light of this discussion. There is no doubt in my mind as to what the Government desire to do, but the discussion has disclosed that the Government are failing to do it in this Clause.

Mr. C. Williams

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that this Clause is helpful but ill-drafted. There are several points I would like to see covered. For instance, the Welsh word "Eisteddfod" is used. My name has been borrowed largely from Wales, and I am glad to do anything to help that country, but I am also interested in Cornwall where they have what is called a Gorsedd. We have had this matter raised on the Floor of the House before, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) will support me when I say that it should be included here, for it is the same kind of entertainment and is of high educational value. The only difference is that, naturally, it is much superior in every way to the Welsh form. We are in some difficulty because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) is ill. These festivals often take place in his Division, and we are unfortunately represented in Cornwall by two Socialist Members who do nothing here.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)

The hon. Gentleman must keep much closer to the Clause.

Mr. Williams

I was about to say, Sir, that I would have asked for their support if I had had any hope of getting it, as I have asked for support in what I hope will be an Amendment to this Clause from my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. However, I certainly will not pursue that point, because they are leaving that county at the end of this Parliament.

My next point deals with the words "performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental)." I am not sure what is the technical definition of "instrumental." For instance, are wind bagpipes included? Undoubtedly they should be as music. I want to know if that definition includes wind instruments of that kind, since I know what the Treasury can be and I know what lawyers can be? If there is a wrong combination of Treasury officials and lawyers they may interpret this phrase to mean that a fiddle is included but that all wind instruments are not included because they are not instrumental—since one can hardly say that blowing is instrumental. So, I want the Financial Secretary to be quite certain that "instrumental" does include all wind instruments such as bagpipes.

While the right hon. Gentleman is considering the Cornish and Welsh institutions, I hope he will also consider whether Highland games should be included as well. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who has interrupted must not prevent me from trying to reduce what I have to say on this occasion. May I go on from that to the last subsection, which was objected to by my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)? I had noted this subsection some time previously, and I want to know how far back we can claim. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said, the Clause probably referred originally to certain Torquay, Paignton and Brixham Societies—three societies in my constituency that are well known—about which I have had a volume of correspondence with the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor.

I welcome the concession made today because previously some have been taxed and others not, for absolutely no reason. There should be a reasonable limit within which they will be able to claim repayment. Indeed, I hope that the Treasury will write to the societies concerned and say that they are entitled to claim a rebate and that it will be made quickly because there have been hard days for some of these societies. I see from the smile which has crossed the face of the right hon. Gentleman that I have now gained his approval, so I hope he will look carefully into the point about Cornwall and the other point about what are musical instruments. The difficulty about having a new Clause at this stage is that one cannot follow up these matters and is dependent, unfortunately, on the fact that the Financial Secretary can do very much what he likes.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) very rightly referred to bagpipes as musical instruments. That may be a perfectly good description of them, but I think he would get more assistance for his performances in Cornwall if he did not go out of his way to insult Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Williams

I have never insulted Wales. I said that their performances were not as good as those of Cornwall. Everyone cannot be at the top, but I think that Wales are at least the second or third best.

Mr. Birch

I think we had better leave the matter there. I should like to support what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) was saying. He spoke about musical performances in Wales, and I think I am right in saying that he once lived in the town of Mold, in Flint. I should like to give an example of what might happen under the Clause. In Mold last week there was a music festival, which I attended for three days. Part of it was an eisteddfod and part of it an oratorio. I have no doubt that in the eisteddfod the accompanist and adjudicators were paid. In the oratorio the soloist and accompanist were certainly paid. On the other hand, it was in effect a completely amateur performance.

In events of this kind there is almost bound to be some form of professional assistance. I may be wrong, but I should imagine that under the Clause the eisteddfod would not be penalised because of this. On the other hand, as the Clause specifically mentions "an eisteddfod," there must be some doubt about it. By a strict interpretation of the Clause it would be very difficult to apply it to include an eisteddfod, because so long as any payment is made to the accompanist or to the adjudicators it could not be claimed to be free of Entertainments Duty.

Mr. W. J. Brown

The House is in such a state of happy unanimity about the Clause that I do not want to disturb the delightful atmosphere which prevails. I join, therefore, in the praise of the Government for the concession they have made, and I join with other hon. Members in asking them to improve it. There are three points, it seems to me, upon which the Clause could be improved. The first is that we do not want to subsidise the unentertaining entertainments while we penalise the good entertainments; and if, in fact, we say to a society, "If you are helped by a professional you shall not get the relief, but if you come on in all your crude amateurishness, unrelieved by any sort of professional assistance at all, you will get relief," we are subsidising, probably, the bad performance and penalising the good. That is absurd and we ought not to do it. That is the first point.

On the second point, we ought to be clear about the question of profit. We are inclined to get into a muddle on this subject. Very often Members talk in this House as if anybody who makes a profit is a rapacious capitalist, but that if anyone makes a loss it shows how inefficient private enterprise really is. Subsection (1) of the Clause refers to: a society, institution or committee which is not conducted or established for profit.… What happens if by accident the body concerned makes a profit? Does it then exclude itself from the provisions of the Clause, or is the difficulty here to depend not upon what happens but upon the purpose of what happens? In that case, the words "the purpose of" had better be inserted to make the Clause perfectly plain, because it is not plain as it now stands.

As regards the third point, there must obviously be some limit to the retroactive effect of subsection (2). I was reminded the other day that the Royal Exhibition of 1851 has not yet been wound up. It still has offices in London, nearly 100 years after the exhibition was held. I do not know, without some little research, whether any form of entertainment tax was in vogue in 1851. I think it is improbable, but if there did happen to be some form of entertainments tax, then, under the Clause, the ghost of that defunct exhibition of 1851 may arise and confront the Treasury of 1949.

Mr. Hale

It would be worse still if the Window Tax had been in force.

Mr. Brown

I rather think it was repealed before 1851. There is a real point for saying there ought not to be indefinite retroactive effect. Whether the right period is five or ten years I do not presume to say, but plainly it ought not to be indefinite. I suggest that the Government put right the Clause in the three respects I have mentioned. I shall then be happy to assure them of my support when it comes back in the proper form.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

I rise to make only three points, one of them in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I am glad to see that the Chancellor has now returned. The first point concerns the inclusion of the gorsedd in the same way as the eisteddfod. In our discussions about two years ago the Chancellor at that time immediately agreed that these two were one and the same thing for the purpose of taxation, and he should have no difficulty in taking the same line on this occasion.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) mentioned the question of the historical pageant. That rather worried me, for I cannot think that the intention of the Chancellor in drafting the Clause would be to exclude the historical pageant. There are many hon. Members who will share my view that such a pageant plays a great part and can be of great importance in the village or town by which it is staged. I can almost say that I declare a personal interest, for I have always wished to see a historical pageant at Restormel, which is near where I live.

My last point, which concerns subsection (2), has been referred to already by several of my hon. Friends. Any hon. Member acquainted with rural areas and their different operatic and dramatic societies knows perfectly well that from time to time a professional singer or other artist may take part in the entertainment, but only for quite a short interval between scenes, and for only a small fee. I cannot imagine that because of this the Chancellor wishes to exclude that kind of show from relief from taxation simply because one person makes an intervention as part of the show and happens to be paid. That would be a great pity and not within the spirit or the intention underlying the Clause. I sincerely trust that the Chancellor will take note of these three matters and give us his assurance that they will receive his sympathetic attention.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

I should to sum up our views on this side of the House. The Clause is a distinct advance, and all credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Teeling) and to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). The position as we see it is that the Clause ought to be withdrawn and reviewed in the light of the constructive criticism which has been made. This constructive criticism has been put forward by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) and by other hon. Members. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to still all the anxieties that have been expressed, but if not, the best thing to do would be to recommit or submit the Clause again at our next session, so, that we may be satisfied that this considerable advance does, in fact, meet the needs of the situation.

The difficulties we have seen are, first, that the list in subsection (1) is not necessarily complete. It does not cover, as has already been mentioned, such things as mimes, puppet shows, pageants, films or exhibitions. I should like to ask a further point: are we satisfied that the opening words of the Clause— Entertainments duty within the meaning, of section one of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916"— limit the type of lecture which may be given? It would be very damaging if the Commissioners had to decide upon a society which otherwise satisfied the conditions of this new Clause but proceeded to put on amateur lectures which were highly controversial and yet, according to law, were susceptible of being relieved of Entertainments Duty. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to that point and see that only such a lecture as is non-controversial and is entertaining can be relieved, he would satisfy us.

The next point is the question of having assistants, producers and others, and the words of subsection (2) say "in connection with the entertainment." I want to be clear whether if the society has a normal course a producer or, in a separate category, a secretary not actually in connection with the entertainment, it would be possible for the society to have such a person attached to it, if that person's services were attached to that particular entertainment. Those words leave a certain ambiguity and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear them up because amateur societies will study this very closely and they will be puzzled by these words in regard to people permanently associated with a society running an entertainment not for profit, but as an amateur venture.

On the question of retroactive effect, I think the words This section shall be deemed always to have had effect give a sort of perennial tone to the Clause which is attractive, but alarms those of us who exist as M.P.s to look after the needs of the taxpayer. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to the arguments addressed to him with a view to allaying our fears that an undue burden shall not fall on the taxpayers by this new Clause. I hope he will give serious attention to what has been a constructive Debate and that he may decide to improve the Clause, in which case we shall always be indebted to him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but I understand that the House would wish me to deal briefly with the main points which have been raised in what has been, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said, an interesting Debate. I am sorry if I did not pay due tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). It is true that he had a Clause on the Paper and that I mentioned the Clause my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) had on the Paper. That was partly because my hon. Friend was sitting near me and I could see him and also, and more important, because the latter proposed new Clause is the one which my right hon. and learned Friend has more closely followed.

The hon. Member for Twickenham complained—and that complaint was taken up by other hon. Members—that we have not included films and exhibitions in subsection (1) of this new Clause. We excluded both for obvious reasons. This Clause aims at helping amateur performers, and a film cannot be said to come within that category. It would be quite inappropriate in a Clause which was to help living performers if we included films. Exhibitions are provided for in previous Finance Acts and I can assure the hon. Member that they are covered. There is no point in providing for them here in this new Clause.

The hon. Member suggested that we might get over the provision we have inserted for a very good reason—that no one taking part should be paid—by inserting words indicative of the fact that, provided a person was not a member of the society, he could be paid. The difficulty there would be that a member would only have to resign temporarily from the society to be able to be paid and, when the performance, or performances, were over, he could rejoin and in that way he would drive a coach and horses through the provision. If we are to do anything in the way of permitting certain kinds of payment, the suggestion made by the hon. Member would not be the appropriate method.

5.45 p.m.

The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) dealt with an instance known to him where someone in the Midlands travelled all the way to Somerset at weekends to help in an amateur dramatic performance and the hon. and gallant Member asked whether under this new Clause that man would be permitted to have his fare refunded, or if he would have to bear it out of his pocket. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the wording of this Clause would not catch a man who undertook to make such a journey. He would not be having his income increased in any way, but would simply be getting a refund of out-of-pocket expenses. I have taken advice on this point and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is the view held by the Customs and Excise.

A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, indicated that in their view the Clause is too tightly drawn in that no one can get payment in any way for helping a performance which might take advantage of the Clause. I tried to make it clear when introducing this Clause that we have had to take into account, as I hope the House will, the fact that there are already on the Statute Book fairly wide provisions for helping organisations of all sorts and here all we are doing is to close a gap and to help the small society in a village or small town.

We are not here trying to help the bigger societies in large cities or towns who are financially able to employ a leading actor to take part in a performance, or to get a coach from London to oversee the performance. We are dealing with the small dramatic society and I want the House to realise that under existing provisions an amateur operatic or dramatic society, even in a small village, which got an actor from London, or wanted to pay a coach, could take advantage of the present provisions of the law. In most cases they would be giving what is known as a cultural entertainment and the present conditions are very wide for an entertainment which could be described as partly educational.

Nevertheless, I realise the strength of feeling which has been expressed, and my right hon. and learned Friend is very anxious to make the Clause worthwhile if it is accepted by the House. During the coming year, or whatever period may be necessary, he is very willing to watch the situation to see whether the Clause is of any real help, or whether the very stringent conditions to which attention has been called prevent the Clause helping societies which he desires to help. At the moment I think the House should accept the Clause as it stands. It is one more provision to help the small cultural society in the provinces to provide entertainment for their own members and friends without feeling that the Entertainment Duty prevents them doing so.

The hon. Member for Ashford was quite wrong when he suggested that a mime or puppet show would not be caught up in the definition of subsection (1). The definition is not new. We have lifted it—not altogether, because certain categories have been left out and the hon. Member for Twickenham drew attention to them and I have answered him—apart from films and exhibitions and things like that, from the provision in the Finance Act, 1946. The wording is well understood by those who watch these things, and are interested. The kind of entertainment to which he has drawn attention has always been considered to be covered. Where the present provisions on the Statute Book have been called in aid, they have covered entertainments of that kind. In addition, the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) mentioned historical pageants. If an historical pageant is staged for charity it is covered already. If it is done in order to show a town its history, again it is cultural, and already covered. If, however, it is put on as a commercial venture, say at Olympia, then it should and ought to pay Entertainment Tax.

Mr. E. P. Smith

I do not wish to delay the right hon. Gentleman, but as he did refer to the specific things which I mentioned, namely, mimes and puppet shows, would he tell me, from (a) to (f), under which definition they come?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

They come, quite definitely, under the definition of a stage play.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wished to know the definition of the word "profit" and drew attention to the wording: … not conducted or established for profit … There again these words, by long usage, are well understood by those who have to interpret these particular Clauses in Acts. This form of wording goes back at least to 1923, and has been administered up to now without any difficulty. I think therefore that the House will agree that we all know what we mean by those words. The plain meaning and construction put upon them, which will be continued to be put on them, is not that a dramatic society ought not to make a profit, or aim at making a profit. The test will be whether the performance is put on as a commercial venture, aiming at the making of a profit. If it is not so put on it will be caught up under the Clause and can benefit under it.

A point made by several hon. Members was what is actually meant by subsection (3) of this new Clause. It has been assumed that anyone who at any time has paid Entertainment Duty for a performance which is caught up by this Clause can now, straight away as soon as this Clause becomes law, reclaim the Entertainment Duty which was paid. That is not so. All we are doing here is to use a form of words common in provisions of this kind. We are providing, as we have to do, for what is known as advance bookings; where someone has paid for a ticket in advance and the performance will not take place until after this Clause, if accepted, becomes law. It will then permit those who organised the entertainment or performance to refund any Entertainment Tax which has been levied. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the actual wording of the subsection. They will see that it refers to a payment: which by virtue of this Section"— that is the Clause we are discussing— is not chargeable with duty … I think it is plain that we are limiting the refund of Entertainment Duty to cases in which duty may have been paid and should not have been paid because of the bringing into operation of this Clause.

Mr. Keeling

If that explanation is correct, and if that is the only meaning of subsection (3), why does not the right hon. Gentleman leave out the first few words: This Section shall be deemed always to have had effect. Why does not the subsection merely say: Where entertainments duty has been charged on any payment made before the said thirty-first day of July, being a payment which by virtue of this Section is not chargeable with duty, the person by whom the duty was paid shall be … entitled to reclaim it? What is the virtue of the sentence: This Section shall be deemed always to have had effect and why does it not mean what it says?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

It does mean what it says. I am not the author of the words. They go back well beyond my time, and previous Governments have found them quite efficient and sound. I think it would be a pity if now, when by long usage both the courts and those who have to implement these Acts have found these words good and sufficient, we should attempt to alter them; because that kind of thing very often leads to more difficulty than we are trying to cure.

Mr. C. Williams

Would the right hon. Gentleman mind answering my point about a Cornish gorsedd, because it is an important one; and also whether wind instruments are technically covered?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As I think the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) said, this matter was considered when we were dealing with the Finance Bill of last year, and I think we did come to the conclusion that a gorsedd was definitely covered just as an eisteddfod is covered. In the same way, so far as wind instruments are concerned they are musical instruments within the terms of this section.

Mr. D. Marshall

The Financial Secretary has said that we came to that conclusion before, but I should like him to assure the House that he has come to that conclusion now. I should like him to use the present tense, and say it is included in this Clause as well.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.