DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL. (Hansard, 28 August 1914)

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend and vary, as respects the present War, the relief from Death Duties given by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900."
I explained to the House yesterday that we propose to deal with the case of the Death Duties where men have been killed in the course of the War. I have nothing to add to the explanation which I gave yesterday, and I therefore beg leave to move.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a case which, I think, was omitted from those cases which he provided for yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman deals with lineals only. I think it would be in consonance with the feeling of the House if he could see his way to extend his concession in its present or modified form to the immediate collateral. I am thinking of the case of the brother, and I simply want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not think that quite the same class of consideration applies in the case of the brother as in the case which I propose to provide for. I must say that I dislike to say anything apparently harsh or ungenerous, but still, in a case of that kind, the brother comes into a succession which he had no right to expect, and probably never would have come into had it not been that his eldest brother died very young, and consequently he became the inheritor of the property. I do not think that is quite the same case, and I think there is a much stronger case in regard to the lineal ancestor—in the case of the mother especially. We are considering these questions, and for that reason I do not propose to ask the House to proceed with the further stages of the Bill to-day. But I should very much like to get the Second Reading, so as to enable 294 Members of the House to put down any Amendments which they would like to put down for consideration on Monday. If the House will accept that course, I should very much like, if it can possibly be done, that the Bill should be read a second time.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the expediency of not charging in the case of these estates the additional Death Duties proposed in the Finance Act of this year?

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is some difficulty in taking out probate in certain cases? The Stock Exchange is closed, and the executor will have to give security if probate is to be taken out. He cannot cash dividends until he gets pro-bate, because the banks will not give the money until that is done. In that way a great deal of hardship, I am afraid, is likely to be caused. As I understand, the executor has to give personal security, but what I would suggest is that the Government should provide that the stock at a particular time should be treated as cash in the ordinary way. It is really owing to the absence of a market that these difficulties arise in the way of taking out probate. Perhaps some means can be found to facilitate matters.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think there is a good deal to be said for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, and I shall consider what is to be done in those cases, and, if any fresh powers be necessary, I shall not hesitate to ask the House for them. It is desirable in bringing in emergency measures to prevent hardships from pressing unduly in particular cases.

§ Mr. PETO
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on one point. I understand that in the case of larger estates the Death Duties would be calculated on the remission calculated, on the 3 per cent. basis. May I ask him not to regard that as a final calculation, because I think it is quite clear, as these Death Duties occur during the War or immediately or soon after, that 3 per cent. is not really an adequate rate, and does not represent what will probably be the value of money in the near future? I understood from the 295 Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not the desire o£ the Government to impose on those estates any burdens due to the patriotic action of persons serving their country. Therefore I would ask him to make the reduction in the Death Duties on such a scale as will really represent the loss to the estate. As to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), may I ask the Chancellor, when he is considering the question of collaterals, such as brothers, that he will bear in mind the effect op the estate as well as the effect which he referred to of a brother coming into a succession which he would not otherwise have come into at so early a date—if, perhaps, at all? In the case of brothers it means frequent payment of Death Duties where there are no children, and therefore the effect on the estate and on all connected with the estate is far worse in the case of succession by a brother than it would be otherwise. If the Chancellor would look at the question from that point of view as well as from the other, then I think we should get a fairer decision in this matter.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that there are cases where there are several brothers in the Army, and they may be members of a family who have some large landed property to which they are sentimentally attached. It would be a great hardship in such a case if a place of that kind had to be sold, as there is a sort of corporate interest.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I will consider how the provision as to Succession Duty will operate in cases of that kind.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question. The case I put forward was as to landed estates: Whether any extra duties charged on estates under the Finance Act of this year could be remitted, and whether the duties could be levied solely on the basis antecedent to this Budget?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I will consider that point. I do not think it quite appeals to me. For instance, all the estates under £5,000 are exempt altogether. With re- 296 gard to the other, I think the provision we make is, on the whole, very adequate, and especially in some cases where the person is very young the relief will be very considerable under these tables.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Landed estates will suffer heavily.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I should want to consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has put.