§ In the case of any person dying after the passing of this Act no estate duty or legacy or succession duty shall be levied in respect of any property which passes on the death of such person to the husband or wife of such person.—[Lien.-Colonel Guinness.]
§ Brought up, and read the First. Time.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I want just briefly to raise this Amendment. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with other grievances that he is looking into may feel disposed to do something in this matter. It is a new Amendment and the Committee may be more disposed to consider it in that it has never been voted upon on any former occasion and we all enjoy a blameless past in this matter. Up to 1910 legacies between husband and wife were altogether exempt from Legacy and Succession Duty. Since 1910 in the case at all events of large legacies, these duties were levied. There may not be any great grievance if the estates of husbands and wives were always treated separately. But as we have heard in the Debates this evening at an earlier stage that is not so. In the case of Income Tax the estates of married people are considered together, while in the case of Death Duties the whole claim for the tax depends on the fact that the estates are kept separate and the Treasury really is in the position of a wolf which says to the sheep one 2155 moment, "Give me your wool because you share it with your wife," and having levied a very heavy impost, then turn round and say, "Give me more because you are to be treated separately." That is absolutely unjust, and I ask the Government if it is too expensive to deal with this inconsistency from the point of view of Income Tax to take it up from the side of Death Duties. We have been told on the Income Tax Amendment this evening as applied to married people that there was a strong political argument, but it was overridden by the financial argument which the Financial Secretary says might involve a loss of about 11 millions a year. But I believe in this case the financial aspect is much less, and I appeal to the Treasury to try to deal with this grievance. At the present time they are taking up an attitude of heads I win and tails I lose.
Mr. GRAHAMIt is quite clear that my hon. and gallant Friend, a predecessor in office, does not expect us to accept this Amendment. The system of the Estate Duties is well known to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that it is simply a duty upon the aggregation of property without any preference to the destination. It will be very dangerous from many points of view to introduce the kind of principle which the hon. and gallant Member suggests. If the proposal of the Mover of the Amendment were adopted the cost would be approximately seven millions per annum. That being so, it is quite unnecessary for me to use other arguments that my right hon. Friend cannot afford that sum.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.