The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (May-Jun 1923)

8 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. OR more than two hours on Monday night the attention of the House of Commons was given to consideration of the Entertainments Duty, an amendment to the Finance Bill proposed by Lieut.-Com. Kenworthy providing the oceasion. Its text was: ‘* Sections one and two of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916 (which relate to Entertainments Duty), as amended by any subsequent enactments, are hereby repealed.’’—[Lieut.Commander Kenworthy] The mover described the tax as the most unpopular tax in the country, and reminded members of their specific pledge given at the time of their election to vote for repeal of the tax. The loyalty of members to the Government did not absolve them of their pledge, unless a very large concession, at all events, was obtained, The tax question was not a party question. A ‘'Total Abolitionist.”’ Seconding the amendment, Mr. Heminerde recalled his opposition to the tax when originally proposed, and reminded the Government Chief Whip of his opinion that abolition should come at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Hemmerde’s speech dealt almost entirely with the effect upon the theatres and, although Sir Walter de Frece (who had an amendment. down for a later stage) mentioned the position of kinemas, his speech was based upon the incidence of the tax as it affected all kinds of indoor amusement. He wished to say candidly that he was a total abolitionist himself, but, realising the difficulties of the Chancellor, asked for a modest concession this year in the hope that next year it would be removed altogether. He emphasised the fact that his scale benefited solely the cheaper seats. Taxation in the entertainment world had driven people to avoid theatre-going. Lower the tax and you increase the revenuc, and thus help the industry. The Customs estimate of loss which would accrue by a suggested reduction allowed nothing for increased entertainment revenue which would follow reduction in prices. Ono penny on the price of certain seats might fill or empty a section of the house. Sir Alfred Butt remarked that he had given no pledge because he did not think it proper for the kinema industry to intimidate any member of the House. He believed, however, that if the entertainment industry did not get some relief many places would close down. Deadly Figures. Captain O’Grady’s speech, although comparatively brief, was direct and telling. It was not accurate to say that the kinema industry, being powerful, impressed its power upon other sections of the industry to agree. He gave figures relating to twelve houses in Leeds for the five weeks of the last financial year, which supported his contention that profits were on an almost negligible scale and contrasted with the amount taken in Entertainments Duty (£3,658), the total profits of £480 18s. 4d. on a capital of £150,000. He quoted, too, from the ‘ Yorkshire Post,"’ ‘a reputable old Tory paper,”’ figures of the closing of halls in Yorkshire, 42 of which had gone into liquidation, 10 of which had entirely closed, and 19 of which had changed hands. The Chancellor was not getting the result from the duty that he thought. The return from the duty in 1921 was £11,500,000, the total this year was possibly £9,500,000. They had 10 consider the loss in income tax which the Jack of prosperity occasioned. The duty was closing a safety valve and preventing people going to the kinema as a relief from drab conditions. fe aks Poy ads if Ute hd 3 A ‘Luxury’? Tax, Sir W. Joynson Hicks, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, resisted the amendment, and came fortified with figures and arguinents against any concession whatever. He felt that the ills from which the entertainments industry was suffering had nothing to do with the tax. He met Captain O’Grady's argument that the tax was producing less by a question whether the Captain appreciated the fact that the new Irish administration made a difference. He urged further, that although the tax June 23, 1923. The Debate On Proposals for Abolition M.P’s)s WHO VOTED FOR AND: was a war tax, it was a tax upon luxuries, and that the repeal of the duty would be unjustifiable so long as the tax on beer, sugar, and other things was retained. He combated Mr. Hemmerde’s contention that if the tax had not to be paid there would have been a profit instead of a loss by the contentiou that the tax should be put on both sides of the account, as the tax was something paid in addition to the actual price of admission. Mr. Hemmerde crossed swords on this point with Sir W. Joynson Hicks, and the duel closed with Sir Alfred Butt’s assurance that if the tax were taken off the public and the consumer would benefit, as would the whole industry. The Government's Appeal. At this point Sir W. Joynson Hicks adopted the familiar method of cancelling out his opponents, and quoted Mr. Newbould's statement in the House last year when speaking ot behalf of the trade, that ‘‘long ago the public, owing to industrial depression, lower wages, and unemployment, passed this duty on to us.’”’ It was not true that over-taxation was destroying the industry, for on April 1 this year there was a inerease in the seating capacity of music halls of 112,000 and of kinemas of 66,500. A trade which was said to be nearly dead could afford to provide 66,000 new seats last year and recenstrucl 55 existing kinema houses. He contended that not the Enter tainments Duty, but bad trade, depression, and lower wages has reduced the patronage, and that unnecessary halls, enormous sums paid for American films, and the out-of-proportion salaris paid to artistes were responsible for the trouble. He noticed that a well-known actor had just been engaged by a kinem producing company at £700 per week, a salary equal to that af seven Secretaries of State, and yet hon. members said the kinemt trade was being destroyed by the tax. Sir William having urged that pledges were given by M.P.sin ignorance of the true facts of the case, Captain O'Grady contested this, and stated that the figures quoted by the Financial Sccretary could and would be disproved. Sir Willian Joynson Hicks closed with an appeal to members to support the Government, their pledge to do this being of over-ridivs importance. \ Telling Arguments. Mr. Hilton Young claimed that a false issue had bee presented by the Financial Secretary on which he had ridden off with great success. He believed that the tax was a tax up the people—a tax upon their incomes, and it was unfair and unscientific to supplement one large income tax by additions. Mr. Robert Young, as one of the 420 members who pledged ' support to proposals for abolition or repeal of the tax express’ himself as frankly disappointed with the statement of the Financial Secretary. He thought that gentleman had proved too much. Notwithstanding the 66,000 new seats, the retun! from the tax had diminished. That reduction proved how the industry was suffering. He had found when visiting kinemas inining and agricultural areas that the larger priced seats were practically empty. People were going less frequently aud