HC Deb 08 July 1953 vol 517 cc1320-9
Mr. Speaker

I think that the first three Amendments to this Clause can be considered together.

Mr. Rhodes

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, after "capacity," to insert: or as a conductor or member of the orchestra taking part together with other persons in the entertainment. As you suggest, Mr. Speaker, I propose also to deal with the two following Amendments. The first is in line 11, to leave out from "section," to the end of the subsection, and to insert: the words 'other than a conductor or a member of an orchestra taking part together with other persons in the entertainment' shall be inserted after the words 'any of the performers '. The second is in line 11, to leave out from "section," to the end of the subsection, and to insert: the words 'other than a conductor or a member of an orchestra taking part together with other persons in the entertainment' shall be inserted after the words 'any of the performers': Provided that no person shall by reason of this subsection be liable to pay any more tax than he would have been liable to pay if this subsection had not been passed.

These Amendments are intended to enable amateur operatic societies to pay a conductor and an orchestra. We have discussed this matter and been through all the arguments before, and I do not think that we need repeat them now. I should have been very diffident about putting the Amendments on the Order Paper at all if we had not had any fresh evidence by means of which we hope to persuade the Chancellor to give us the little more that we want now.

The Chancellor mentioned concessions last year, and that was after the disclosure to the House that the amount of tax that the Chancellor was receiving was only £10,000. If the concession meant anything at all in the way of tax it came out of the £10,000. So if we give the Chancellor the benefit of £2,500 there is only a sum of £7,500 now between us. We have some fresh evidence. I have submitted it to him and so has the Musicians' Union.

The argument has always been put forward that somehow or other there would be difficulty about those who work in the professional theatre, but the Musicians' Union is one of the strongest unions in the theatrical profession, and they have set out their views in a letter which their general Secretary has sent to the Chancellor. The letter states: Having had an opportunity for studying HANSARD (19th May) on the Commons debate on Entertainments Duty as it affects Amateur Operatic Societies, we thought it might prove of some help if we submitted our views on the subject. Many of our members are accustomed to being engaged by amateur societies, either as instrumentalists or conductors, and it will undoubtedly be to their disadvantage if it is made financially impracticable for the societies to continue employing them, or, at least, financially advantageous to employ amateur musicians and conductors in their stead. Furthermore, a widespread change of this kind, in the musical backing given to amateur societies, would result in a detrimental effect from the cultural point of view. It must be appreciated that very few amateur instrumentalists or conductors achieve the standard of professionals. We think that to differentiate between professional producers and conductors will be quite unfair to the amateur societies, because there is no fundamental difference in the importance of their respective responsibilities. Each of them is in charge of a 'department' that can really be managed adequately by an amateur. In the orchestra itself there are a number of instruments that are seldom played by amateur musicians, consequently, if an adequate musical performance is to be provided by the amateur societies, they are compelled to employ professionals. It would indeed seem unjust if, through no fault of their own, the societies were penalised for this reason. We are aware, of course, that this point was well covered during the Parliamentary debate.

There goes one of the last remaining objections to what we have been contending.

I appeal to the Minister to give us that little extra and to wipe out this tax altogether. It only means about £7,500. It does not take the pay of many civil servants to cost £7,500 a year. Throughout the whole length and breadth of the country the Government will be thanked if they make this concession and I appeal to them to help the amateur movement in this way.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has said. In reply to the earlier debate on a new Clause the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that there was really nothing new to say about that matter, but I feel that it is constant dripping that wears away the stone. There is little left of the stone in this case and we hope that this last drop tonight will wear it all away.

It seems to me that since the last concession was made we have placed the operatic side of the amateur world in a difficulty. The amateur drama side receives the concession even though the instructor may be a professional. Throughout Scotland, and England and Wales, there is a great deal of amateur drama and every village is alive to what is happening. The amateur dramatic societies are entitled to the concession and it is they who make a profit. Amateur opera performances, on the other hand, are much more expensive. Those connected with them are very enthusiastic but they do not receive the concession and they make a loss. I hope that the criterion is not that if one makes a profit one receives the concession but if one makes a loss one has to pay the tax. That is certainly what is happening.

I have been in correspondence with the Financial Secretary with regard to the Helensburgh Amateur Operatic Society in my own constituency. They have been attempting to obtain relief of tax on educational grounds, but every time they put forward a claim they find that the Income Tax authorities shift their ground, and so far they have been unsuccessful. The experience of this society is one which can be repeated all over the country. Helensburgh is a beautiful place. Unfortunately it has only a small hall with a seating capacity of 480. An admission charge of 5s. is made, which is a fairly large sum for people to pay. But this year the society feel the price must be increased.

The enthusiasm of the society can be gathered from the fact that the members pay a yearly subscription and many of their own expenses. Each year the society has a deficit and would not be able to survive except for the proceeds of jumble sales and dances and events of that kind. Last year the deficit was £250, which so far the society has not been able to meet. Under the Act as it stands, because the society has a professional conductor and one or two professional members of the orchestra, it is not entitled to a concession. It is difficult to get the orchestral parts until shortly before the performance and it would be asking too much for amateurs to be ready to perform in such a short time, the society says.

I reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend about the Professional Musicians' Union. Previously the society employed 12 professional musicians but this year they will be employing only six. I hope that we shall have a favourable reply from tie Economic Secretary and be able to inform amateur societies throughout the country that at long last they are entitled to this small concession from the Treasury.

Mr. Maudling

I am sorry that I have once more to disappoint the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). The discussion in Committee was followed by a Division, in which the Government majority fell even lower than the previous time when I replied to a discussion in the House, so I broke my previous record.

As has been said, there is one new development, about which I would say a word. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) referred to a letter from the Musicians' Union and it appears that there has been some misunderstanding on the part of the union. In their letter they refer to the fact that their members are engaged by amateur operatic societies and expressed concern that it is now to the financial advantage of the societies to employ amateur musicians and conductors in their stead. It seems as if the union have the impression that a change has been make in the tax conditions. In fact, no change has been made. That is the objection of hon. Members opposite.

The position is that amateur societies can gain exemption from tax either under the charitable provisions or the partly educational provisions, both of which are extensive. This provision was designed to enable the purely amateur society to gain the benefit of tax exemption without having to go through the more complicated and difficult conditions attaching to the partly educational and the charitable schemes. If it is proposed to give a special position to amateur societies we must define what is an amateur society and the conditions which distinguish an amateur society from a professional society.

As I explained in Committee, we felt that the only clear distinction in logic was between a society which had professionals in the performance and the society which had no professionals in the performance, though they might have professionals to assist in putting on the performance, as producer, and so on. But once professionals are engaged in the actual performance we cannot see how we can arrive at a satisfactory dividing line between the amateur and the professional performance.

Stress was laid on the position of the conductor. I think hon. Members would agree that while some societies are short of conductors other societies may be short of performers. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred to a local society which employs a certain number of professional musicians. In Committee my right hon. Friend said: I cannot give an undertaking that I can find the solution before the Report stage. I should be deluding hon. Members if I told them there was an easy way out. We considered this question fully before the Committee stage. I will undertake to study the speeches that have been made and that I know have been made sincerely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 1999.] We have considered this again, but I regret that we do not, at the moment, see any way of laying down clearly what qualifies for amateur exemption other than saying there should be no professionals in the performance itself.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Steele

What we are saying, in effect, is that the conductor is not in the same category as performers on the stage.

Mr. Maudling

It would be difficult to distinguish between the conductor and a performer on the stage or a performer in the orchestra pit. Once we admit any professional performer it would be difficult to draw the line.

We are trying to meet this point, but we do not see how a satisfactory distinction may be drawn. We are prepared to go on examining it, with the advice of hon. Members, in the hope of being able to find a satisfactory solution. But at present, despite the further consideration which we have given to this matter since the Committee stage, we do not feel that we can accept this Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

I am very disappointed with the reply of the Economic Secretary. Most amateur societies in the country perform a useful educational and cultural function and they, too, will be disappointed.

The Economic Secretary said that an amateur society may receive exemption from entertainments tax if it satisfies the condition imposed by the Treasury as either part-educational or part-cultural. What he failed to say was that few amateur societies managed to satisfy the Treasury in this way. There is the curious anomaly, which has never yet been explained, as to why there should be exemption from entertainments tax for a purely professional theatre performance of a non-profit making kind and yet an amateur performance, in which one professional takes part in the person of a conductor, should be taxed.

It is possible for a wholly professional cast, with a full orchestra led by a professional conductor, to obtain relief from entertainments tax because their performance is classified as educational and non-profit making. In this guise a performance of J. B. Priestley's "Music at Night" may be given with an orchestra on the stage. It is possible to go further and present either a semi-or a wholly salacious play in London under the same conditions. The nonprofit making concern of Tennents put on "Forever Amber" and it is possible to present, "No Orchids for Miss Blandish" or "Tobacco Road" or some such salacious play.

While plays of doubtful morality may be presented as educational plays and escape the tax, amateurs, supplying a cultural need who happen to engage one professional, have to pay tax. An amateur concern, such as one of the famous amateur choirs that we have in various parts of the north of England, who regularly employ one paid conductor and perform most of their work from a cultural aspect to satisfy the needs of the district, is charged Entertainments Duty, whereas the fully professional theatre gets away with it.

I want to make it clear that I approve of the Treasury provisions for semi-educational, wholly educational and cultural pursuits, but I believe that although that is right, it is wrong then to deny this exemption to the amateur stage, operatic society or choir which is so popular especially in the north of England. I bring these matters to the attention of the Economic Secretary, and until he answers these questions that I have put I believe the amateurs of this country will be disgusted with the attitude of the Government.

Mr. Mitchison

I propose to say very little because I am not good at music. I have, however, been to operas and I have found no difficulty whatever in distinguishing between the operatic artists, whose names, incidentally, are so well advertised, and those people who sit in the orchestra pit and play a very necessary part in the performance.

An hon. Friend of mine is reputed once to have said to an audience that somebody or other was clinging by his eyelashes to the last crevasse of Tory reaction. That was, I am sure the Economic Secretary will agree, a magnificent phrase, although I do not for this purpose accept "Tory reaction" as quite the appropriate phrase. But he is very near to clinging by his eyelashes to the last crevasse—

Mr. Maudling

I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been considerable Tory progress from what was the state of the law two years ago.

Mr. Mitchison

I am very glad to hear it, and I welcome it, but I do suggest that the Economic Secretary has now got into a position of trying to defend the last small concession which would complete the picture.

After all, the only real point about this is to avoid being unfair to the professional element. In this case the professional element wish this to be done, and I think they are perfectly right in their own interests to wish it. We are really coming to this, that simply because this last point cannot be conceded, a number of operatic societies, amateur in essence—the kind of body which ought to be protected and encouraged—will be unable to give their performances without attracting this tax.

I ask the Economic Secretary to look at the matter broadly and to consider what one wants to do. What one wants to do is not merely not to penalise this kind of thing, but to encourage it. That has been said again and again from the Treasury Bench and I entirely accept it. Indeed, the Economic Secretary said much the same just now. I accept that, too. But why not let them have the last little point which would make an enormous difference to them, and which, in terms of revenue, would make practically no difference to the Treasury?

This is really only the kind of obstinacy which one sometimes gets from people when they have been holding ground and have given in; in this case they have given most of it, and somehow or other human frailty is such that they just will not give the last concession which would make the real difference. We have had few concesssions during these discussions on the Finance Bill. It is a time of night and a time of the proceedings when one might gracefully be made. Very little could be lost.

I would point out to the Economic Secretary that he has the dignity of the Treasury to consider. Look at what will happen if he does not make a concession. In Helensburgh and in other places Her Majesty's Treasury with all its majesty and resources will be depending on the proceeds of jumble sales, bazaars, and so on. It is a pity to be driven to that sort of thing. I suggest that there is no importance or large question involved except the general question of encouraging this kind of performance. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might think again. It would not lose any money worth speaking of, and it would do a little bit to encourage these amateur activities which are a good thing for the country.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

I share the disappointment of my hon. Friends at the Economic Secretary's reply. I must say that, in view of the fact that the Government only won the Division in Committee by four votes and, therefore, there were clearly a large number of abstentions on the Government side, no doubt deliberate, in favour of the amateur societies, I had hoped that they would have brought some pressure to bear on the Government and that we should have had a more satisfactory answer. But there it is. The Government still take the view that they must draw the line where it is drawn at present.

The Economic Secretary will realise that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter. My hon. Friends, if I may say so, have presented the case with great ability and obvious experience. They are not speaking from a brief. They are speaking from their own personal knowledge of these societies and the work that they do; and we all want to encourage them.

I doubt very much whether the particular line drawn by the Economic Secretary and the Treasury is one that can be held. What does the hon. Gentleman say? He is saying, in effect, "This is all right so long as the professionals are kept in the background, so long as they are not on the stage and are not taking part in the performance." But I can see all sorts of difficulties here. Suppose we have a professional making noises off. Would he be taking part in the performance or not? Suppose the orchestra is hidden away, as they very often are, and is playing only now and again. In some plays—indeed, in some of Shakespeare's plays—there are a few songs and there may be a professional orchestra playing the music. Will the Treasury insist that tax has to be paid on such occasions?

I think that this distinction between who is and who is not taking part in the performance is one that will not stand up to experience. But there it is. The Government have at least said, as I understand, that they will continue to study this question. We hope that they will not be entirely unresponsive to representations that will, no doubt, continue to be made to them. In view of that, although we are extremely dissatisfied, I do not think I would advise my hon. Friends to press this matter on this occasion to a Division, but I must tell the Economic Secretary that we shall certainly, if we possibly can, raise the matter again if the present Government are still in power, which is very doubtful, on next year's Finance Bill.

Amendment negatived.