Skip to main content

1-20 of 30 results for subject:Taxation

Department X
Department of Trade and Industry
Subject X
Concessions

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Concessions (30)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords—

Member
Lord Luke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1154
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for my noble friend the Minister, so I regret supporting this amendment but I feel that I should do so. First, I declare an interest. I am a director of, and a shareholder in, Waddington Galleries, which deals in modern and contemporary art. Because of this interest, anything that...

Member
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1153-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords—

Member
Lord Dubs (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1154
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am not sure what interests I should declare. My wife and I are occasional purchasers of works of art. I have a son who is an art dealer and a daughter-in-law who is a well known artist. I was astonished to listen to the opening speech by the Minister. I am even more...

Member
Lord Jopling (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1151-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this is a perfectly dreadful set of regulations and I very much welcome the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to make them slightly less bad. I have absolutely no interests to declare, although my late father-in-law was quite a well-known artist; had he not died tragically young, I somehow doubt...

Member
Lord Monson (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1152-3
House
House of Lords

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ““but this House regrets that the regulations go beyond the requirements of the European Union directive implementing the regime for the payment of artists and calls for the regulations to be replaced within six months by...

Member
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1146-51
House
House of Lords

My Lords, when the Minister started his speech and talked about concessions, I thought he was going to come clean with the House and explain the massive concessions he has made in agreeing to this regulation and this directive. But the truth is that this is yet another massive cave-in to...

Member
Lord Willoughby de Broke (Conservative Independent)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1157-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville on securing this debate on an issue of such crucial importance to the art market. I join with my noble friend Lord Jopling in remarking on the brilliance of his speech. This droit de suite directive has been described to...

Member
Lord Luke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1155-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall be brief and, in contrast to other speakers, support the Government. The information that surprised and shocked me most was that 40 per cent of British artists earn less than £5,000 per annum. If we want flourishing art in our country, where we have, and encourage, creativity, we must look...

Member
Lord Dubs (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1154-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I do not think that we have a total figure, but it obviously depends on what the spread of the figures is. Everyone can do their own calculation on this. There is a tariff and you can apply that to any figure within it. That will give you the...

Member
Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1172-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this good debate. I shall do my best to conclude by 10 o’clock. Three departments look after the art market—the DTI, the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to whose Select Committee inquiry the Minister gave his famous original answer. This is...

Member
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1173-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I still cannot see that the provision in this context prejudices that; that is the legal view that has been taken. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in what I thought was a rather objective assessment of the regulations. So far as other European competitors are concerned, it...

Member
Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1171-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten me before he leaves that point? The decision to go for €1,000 rather than €3,000 will produce some extra revenue for the artists concerned. What is the Government’s estimate of the annual revenue per artist who will fall into that category—the additional money that they...

Member
Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1172
House
House of Lords

My Lords, on that basis, obviously the fact that a sum of money is deducted for buyer’s premium could be said to be derogatory to the property rights as well.

Member
Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1171
House
House of Lords

My Lords, with all due respect to the Minister, that is not correct, because the buyer’s premium is deducted as the result of a contract. This is deducted as the result of a piece of legislation.

Member
Lord Inglewood (Conservative; Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1171
House
House of Lords

No, my Lords. I was saying very clearly that I still think it is closer to £1. I did not say that it was £1; I said that it is in that order of magnitude. I have not just been saying that it is £28. I said that even if you think that it is £28,...

Member
Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1170-1
House
House of Lords

My Lords, surely what has happened here is that, as the law stands, the owner of a work of art owns the entitlement to the entire proceeds of sale of the item in question. After the legislation comes into effect, he will own only an entitlement to part of the...

Member
Lord Inglewood (Conservative; Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1171
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the regulations and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for giving us the opportunity to debate these regulations so vigorously. I and my honourable friends in another place have considered very carefully the various reports, including that of a Select Committee of the other place,...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1165-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Arts Council thinks that there are 96,000 artists. In a submission to parliamentarians, DACS suggested that there might be 130,000. We are talking about a figure of less than 1,000. How does the Liberal Democrat Party make that 50 per cent?

Member
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1166
House
House of Lords

My Lords, that is the evidence that has been put forward by a number of bodies, and it is what we rely on. That, surely, must be the right way forward. It is clear that the Government have changed their mind in terms of where the threshold should lie, but...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1166-7
House
House of Lords