§ 33. Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in accordance with his pledge of 6th May, 1952, he has now reviewed the probable effect of higher Entertainments Duty on cricket during the coming season; and whether he can now announce that the higher duty will not be imposed for the 1953 season.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) on 29th January.
§ Mr. ChapmanWhy is the hon. Gentleman so unhelpful? Is he not aware that Warwickshire, whose case is typical of other counties, suffered a fall of gate receipts from £20,000 to £12,000 even on the reduced rate of tax? Since the Chancellor has adjusted subsidies and Purchase Tax between Budgets why cannot he make a simple administrative decision in this case before the Budget?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThose are just the kind of factors which, as it was pointed out in my answer, will be considered.
Mr. J. T. PriceMay I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a Question similar to Question No. 31. which has just been answered was submitted by me to the Table this week and was refused on the ground that it had been answered previously?
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall have to look at the Questions. They may have looked similar, but there may have been some distinction.