§ 39. Sir H. Williamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the hon. Member for Croydon, East, was required to pay entertainment tax for seeing "Ring out the Bells" at the Victoria Palace while being allowed to see "An Italian Straw Hat" at the Old Vic free of such tax.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterBecause while the latter production was provided by a society not conducted or established for profit which has partly educational aims objects and activities, and which was, therefore, eligible for exemption under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, the former production was not so provided.
§ Sir H. WilliamsWhy should the more vulgar performance pay less tax than the less vulgar? Why is it to the advantage of the Welfare State to subsidise an institution which provides no revenue in the form of Income Tax?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe test of exemption is not whether the particular performance was calculated to educate those attending it, but it is related to the nature of the society itself.
§ Mr. FernyhoughCan the Financial Secretary say whether any entertainment tax was paid by those who were fortunate enough to witness the publicity-seeking 605 performance of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) at a recent function in Croydon?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterNo doubt if the hon. Gentleman thinks that is a serious question he will put it down.