Results 181–200 of 2083 for speaker:Mr Maurice Macmillan

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: The Arts Council has provided £24,000 for the Centre up to 31st March, 1964, and has allocated a further £31,500 in 1964–65. The sole purpose of the Centre is to provide teaching.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: About half the Centre's grant goes on account of maintenance, about 27 per cent. on teaching salaries and the rest on administration, including the warden's salary. I deeply regret, as I am sure we all do, the personal difficulties it involves, but the Arts Council is the arbiter of where the moneys provided by the Treasury for it should go and the detail of how they should be spent.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: The building and maintenance costs are shared between the London Opera Centre and the Royal Opera, Covent Garden. As to future policy, the school has been going only two terms and there have been difficulties, and I think it would be wise to wait to allow the teething troubles to be overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: The Troxy Cinema has not been bought, but is held on lease. About £120,000 has been spent on the building to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question raises the difficulty of trying to get arts matters out of direct political control and handled as far as the artistic and technical side of an opera school are concerned through a council; and it makes differences of this sort a little harder to deal with. But the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Treasury is just as concerned as anyone else...

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I do not think I should under take to put any political or other pressure on the Arts Council in this direct way. Naturally, the Treasury is concerned that moneys provided by the taxpayer for the arts through the Arts Council should be spent as wisely as possible. As I have explained, I can assure the hon. Member that the Department is interesting itself in this and similar matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I am sure that my hon. Friend has a wide and deep personal experience of the sort of personal difficulties that arise in artistic matters and I do not think that it would be pro- per for me to comment on the personal aspect that she raises.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: The administration of the London Opera Centre is a matter for the Board of the Centre, in which the Arts Council has confidence. I see no reason to diminish the Exchequer grant to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, which in any case does not provide the funds for the London Opera Centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I see no reason to change the answers I have given so far. My hon. Friend knows that the present trouble arises from a clash of personalities between the two ladies to whom she referred and the administration of the new school. Although my hon. Friend may be willing to adjudicate on this issue, I am not prepared to make any statement now as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance: London Opera Centre (5 May 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I cannot answer that without notice.

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) will not think I am proving his point that Treasury Ministers, even junior ones, have thick skins when I say how grateful I am to him for introducing the important—although slightly side element in the Finance Bill—question of the incidence of lung cancer and the dependence of the Treasury on the Tobacco Duty. Before I deal with that...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out when discussing a similar argument which developed on the whisky, beer and wine duty increases, industrial earnings have gone up by about 99 per cent. and retirement pensions by about 125 per cent. The hon. Member for Gloucester quoted some figures from the lower end of the income scale. I will quote some more from the same table from...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I was only saying that I personally regard the taxation of necessities as tending to bear more hardly on the great run of the population than taxation of what might be classed as luxuries. As indirect taxation, Purchase Tax is neither regressive nor progressive; technically, it is neutral, on most forms of analysis. Tobacco Duty is certainly regressive. On the other hand, Income Tax is...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: No. The key to it is that we tax expenditure, and provided we have an obvious adjustment of rates of taxation to balance out the economic system, what expenditure is taxed is irrelevant. It is the amount that is raised. I do not say that other considerations do not come in, because they do—

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: With respect, the hon. Gentleman says that the Tobacco Duty is ineffective economically, and I was saying that, if a tax on expenditure raises the same amount, for fiscal purposes what that money is spent on is irrelevant. This is really the clue to our problem, tee to think that I was taking lightly because I should not like the Commit- the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, or those of the...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I made that point earlier and I emphasised that it would make our balance of payments situation considerably easier. The hon. Member asked why we have not attempted to make any differentiation between filtered and unfiltered cigarettes and various forms of smoking which are less harmful medically than others. The hon. Gentleman explained this later himself when he said that there was little...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 4. — (Tobacco.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I think that this matter is sufficiently important for me to try to reply to the last point made by the hon. Member. I hope that he will forgive me if I deal only with vested interest in so far as it is alleged to concern the Treasury. If people stopped smoking overnight it would, of course, cause great administrative difficulty, let alone the question of longterm economic or fiscal problems....

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 5. — (Hydrocarbon Oils: Increase of Excise Duty.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I have very little to add to what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said. This is purely a consequential Clause to meet our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners to abolish the preference. The only point of detail which I think the hon. Gentleman did not mention was the reason for having to put the increase on the home duty rather than to do it the other way round. That, of...

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 6. — (Hydrocarbon Oils: Reliefs.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: Do I understand my hon. Friend to refer to the use of the gases after they have been burnt in the furnace for other purposes? I am not quite clear. Is he referring to a byproduct rather than the direct product?

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill: Clause 6. — (Hydrocarbon Oils: Reliefs.) (2 Jun 1964)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: I much regret having, to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands because its effect, as I see it, would be to exempt from duty petrol used as an ordinary fuel for engines. This, of course, would go extremely wide. Like my hon. Friend, I am no technician in these matters, but, as judge the point, his argument is that the...


<< < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.