§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere are a large number of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), and they all hang together.
§ Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEYI beg to move, in page 31, line 37, to leave out the word "pass," and to insert instead thereof the word "passes."
I did not anticipate that the Clause would come on so soon, and I expect I shall be the only one here of the hon. Members who put down this Amendment. What we want to persuade the Government to do by this Amendment is to remit Death Duties on such properties, buildings of historical value, that are left to the National Trust. I put my name to this Amendment because I happen to be interested in a particular way, from the point of view that my father left two very beautiful castles to the National Trust and the Trust had to pay fairly heavy Death Duties. The value put on these buildings for Death Duties was not anything like as high as the real value. They had to pay in the case of one castle on £5,185, the value put on it, and in the other case on £1,500. The total Death Duties were £1,731 on the one and £501 on the other. It does not sound very much from the point of view of what the country got, but from the point of view of the National Trust it was a fairly excessive amount, and if it had been any higher these buildings would have had to be given back, and, therefore, the country would not have received any benefit. I quote only these two cases, because they are cases in which I am interested, but there are many buildings of great historical interest and places of great beauty that have been given to the National Trust. We would like to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when these buildings are bequeathed to the National Trust they should be exempt 1248 from having to pay Death Duties, and the Trust should be treated in the same way as if the buildings were left to the State. I only want to put in a personal plea to explain why I put my name to this Amendment, and I very much hope that we can persuade the Government to accede to this small demand. It would not make a very great difference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it would make a great difference to the National Trust, if they were not called upon to pay Death Duties when these buildings were left to them.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI pointed out that all these Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) hang together, and consequently I must save the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan).
§ Mr. EDEThis series of Amendments is designed to place real estate left for national purposes in exactly the same position as is now occupied by artistic objects and matters of personal estate. There appears to be no sound reason for differentiation between these two classes of bequest, and it has been a matter of very great difficulty to the National Trust when they have had left to them estates which have involved the payment of substantial sums in these Duties. The effect has been that the very trifling income that this great society enjoys has been almost entirely absorbed in trying to pay to the Exchequer the sums that were levy-able upon the real estate that which has been given to the nation. The case mentioned by the Noble Lady is an outstanding case and one which it is hoped will be followed by others who have similar property that they desire to bequeath. In order that they should be encouraged in this, and that the National Trust will be encouraged to receive such gifts, it is highly desirable that, if possible, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make this concession. It cannot cost very much in the way of revenue, but it means that there will be available for the general enjoyment of the people objects of beauty and historic interest which, in other circumstances, might never be fully available for the public enjoyment. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENI have a good deal of sympathy with the object that is aimed at in the Amendment, but it is not quite so simple as might appear. The Noble Lady referred to the National Trust, but the Amendment would extend it much further than that. A few months ago a memorial was sent to the Prime Minister urging what is sought in the Amendment, and we considered it quite sympathetically, but on examination we found that there would be repercussions and extensions which would require very careful consideration. We propose to give that full consideration to the matter. In fact there has been a committee sitting for some time past, under the chairmanship of the new Minister of Agriculture, which considered the matter, although perhaps it is not strictly within their terms of reference, and they found that it was not quite as simple as might appear. I would ask those who have put forward the Amendment not to insist upon it this year, and between now and next year we will give it full consideration, and I hope we may then be in the position to give a favourable answer.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us what kind of committee is considering this? Is it a departmental committee or is he going to get some of the Members who have put their names down to this Amendment, for instance, to help him?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe committee, as I say, is presided over by the present Minister of Agriculture, and they found certain difficulties that they referred to me. I gave them what practically amounted to an understanding that we would go further into the matter. All the points that are involved in it can be considered by the Departments themselves.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKBy the Treasury?
§ Mr. SNOWDENYes.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDMany of us have a great deal of sympathy with these Amendments, and there are difficulties which those who put them down naturally did not realise at the time, but surely business is passing sufficiently quickly to enable the right hon. Gentleman to think over the matter now. We were prepared to vote for them quite apart from any party considerations. 1250 Personally, I am quite willing to assent to the withdrawal of the Amendment, if necessary, but we are asked to accept rather blindly the statement that there are difficulties.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI cannot go into details now as regards the difficulties which came under the notice of the Committee, but they were mainly concerned with the kind of purposes that were to be included within such an Amendment as is now proposed, for instance. The object sought to be obtained by the further consideration was to give more definiteness, so that the Clause would not apply to bequests which it was never intended should enjoy the benefit.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI hardly like to press the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he could indicate this. Did the Committee take into account the form of words which have been devised in the Amendment?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThey could not have done that.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKIt was before the Amendment was put down?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI should think it would be about three or four months since the Chairman of the Committee came to see me and we had a long talk about it.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKSince then, the Amendment has been put down which seems to cover the case the Noble Lady had in mind, but the Chancellor is not prepared to say it would cover the case, and it wants further investigation?
§ Mr. SNOWDENindicated assent.
§ Mr. EDEWe are grateful for the consideration the right hon. Gentleman has given to the matter. We recognise that it may be difficult to devise a form of words which does not allow things to slip through which no one would desire to slip through, though we have gone to some very considerable trouble to get a form of words devised by agents who have frequently advised Members whose Amendments on similar matters have been accepted by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. Relying on the promise that it shall have sympathetic consideration during the year, and that an endeavour will be made to include it in the Finance Act of next year, and realising that the right hon. Gentleman 1251 will be there to redeem his pledge, I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Major NATHANI beg to move, in page 32, line 10, to leave out from the word "leviable" to the word "and," in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
so however that such objects shall not be aggregated with the said estate but shall form an estate by themselves.This is a business Amendment which will not give rise to very mach passion or feeling in any part of the Committee. The object of putting it on the Paper is to obtain an explanation as to what precisely is the object in view. The whole question of relieving objects of national historical and artistic interest from Estate Duties to a greater or less degree has a history behind it. As one follows the history through, one observes that there has, over a long period of years, been a growing appreciation shown by Parliament of the importance of works of national, historical and artistic interest. By Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1894, the Treasury was, for the first time, given power to remit Death Duties in respect of articles of national and artistic interest when they were the subject of a bequest to the National Gallery or to some public institution of that kind as defined in the Act. Under the Act of 1894, the Treasury had power to remit the whole of the duty. In Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, the exemption was extended, with a modification, to settled objects of national and artistic importance. It was in a modified form, because in the case of settled objects on the death of a person competent to dispose of them, and only then, they became liable to Estate Duty.As long as the use of them was enjoyed by a beneficiary under a settlement they were liable to no duty at all. It was only on disposal that duty came to attach, and then it only came to attach to those objects and articles considered as a separate estate. It is a matter of great importance as affecting the rate of duty attaching. In 1910, by Section 63 of the Finance Act of that year, the exemption from Estate Duty was extended still further so that it came to 1252 relate not merely to objects of national and artistic interest bequeathed to national institutions or to settled articles as long as they were enjoyed by the beneficiary, but to the whole of those articles as long as they remained unsold. When they were sold they were to form an estate by themselves. In other words, the value of these objects was not to be aggregated with the estate of the deceased and thereby the rate of duty increased.
It is a little difficult, in some respects, to follow Clause 35 in the Bill now before the Committee. I observe from the Schedule that it is proposed to repeal the three Sections of the three Acts to which I have referred, but under this Bill the discretionary power reposed in the Treasury still remains. I think that my Amendment is one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept whatever his answer may be to the question which I am about to ask him. I want to ask him whether this Clause is a consolidation of the three previous Sections or whether it alters the law previously obtaining as to aggregation? If it is merely consolidation I do not see the purpose of repealing the existing provisions merely to insert another Clause into this Bill more convenient in form. I am rather troubled by the words in Sub-section (2) which defines the rate payable in respect of the objects of national and artistic interest and all the rest of it when sold as being
at the rate appropriate to the principal value of the estate passing on that death upon which Estate Duty is leviable"—these are the words which trouble me—and with which the objects would have been aggregated if they had not been objects to which this section applies.I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the object of those words is to secure aggregation with the principal estate. If it is so, I must press my Amendment because not only would there be a very startling change in the law as it has gradually developed since 1894 but it would open up a question of very grave public policy as to whether objects of national, artistic and historical interest and so on should or should not be exempted from aggregation, and therefore the paying of a higher rate of duty than would attach to them if they were considered 1253 as an estate by themselves. This Amendment has been put by me upon the Paper as a result of practical experience because the question has been put to me. I have, in fact, been asked to advise as to whether the operation of this Clause would or would not be to involve aggregation. I would like to have that difficulty cleared out of the way. I rather suspect that it does not involve aggregation and that the real object of the Clause is—and I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will inform me whether my understanding of it is correct—to ensure that the rate, instead of being, as in the past, a rate which would attach if the objects in question were considered a separate estate taken by themselves, shall be the same rate as was applicable to the principal estate upon the death of the last deceased. I suspect that that may be the real object. I entertain some apprehension that it may possibly be directed at securing aggregation and I consider that aggregation should strongly be resisted.I believe that in these times, when articles and objects of historical, national and artistic interest are becoming rarer and rarer in this country and are making their way more and more readily abroad, it is desirable to give owners an inducement to retain them in this country, and that aggregation would be a step in the wrong direction. If, on the other hand, the object of the Clause is to increase the rate of duty so that it may be a rate applicable to the principal estate, the chancellor of the Exchequer ought to opine forward with a strong reason for producing this proposal which varies substantially the practice of the last 30 years or so.
It has to be borne in mind that the value of pictures, for instance, may in these days, when they are growing dearer and dearer, be vastly in excess of the value of the principal estate of the deceased, and in that event, under the provisions of this Clause, if my last interpretation of them re correct, the Revenue may obtain a great deal less than it would obtain by taking the pictures or whatever they may be as a separate estate. It is a toss up whether the Revenue will benefit or not, if I have correctly interpreted this Clause, according 1254 to the relationship in value between the principal estate and the articles of artistic interest, and so on; but if it is aggregation that is aimed at, I must press my Amendment. If it is to bring the rate of duty into line with that on the principal estate, then I suggest that my Amendment might be accepted, because it will do no harm and will clear up the situation.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELI have been a museum trustee for a number of years in my native city and take a great interest in this matter. From what the Financial Secretary told me at an earlier stage, I thought that my fears had been put at rest. He gave me an answer which made me hope that we were receiving an advantage from the Exchequer, but I am not so sure since reading the Clause and listening to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). There is a suspicion growing in my mind that owing to some ambiguity in drafting the Clause or that I did not understand that there was a catch in it, there may be something about the aggregation which I did not suspect at the time, If that is not so, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put our fears at rest. I am not taking any hostile action about this Clause but am trying to find out how it will operate. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking back some of the little advantage that the law gave to the owner of beautiful things whose possessions were not sold at his death?
When works of art are not sold at the death of the owner I understand that in future they are not to be valued for duty to be paid upon them if they are kept in the owner's possession, but when they are sold I understand that they are to be valued at the price they realise, and that duty has to be paid upon that price. When they are sold, and the value upon them is the figure which they fetch, what is the rate of duty? Is the rate of duty payable the same rate as the rate on the rest of the estate of their last owner, under whose will they passed? Supposing that an estate pays upon so many thousands of pounds at 16 per cent., and that the money has been paid, and six months afterwards the pictures are sold and fetch a certain sum. Whatever they 1255 fetch, would 16 per cent. be paid on their value, or are they to be aggregated, thereby increasing the value of the estate and bringing about a higher rate of percentage to be payable as a result of the aggregation? I assume that their value has not to be agregated to the other part of the estate of which they formed a part, and upon which duty has been paid.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)Under the existing law, without this Clause, works of art form a separate estate. They are valued at the time of the death of the owner, but they do not pay duty until they are sold. With the Clause as it will be, assuming that we carry the Clause, a different procedure will be adopted. All the different works of art are not aggregated but when one particular work of art comes to be sold, and only then, the price which it fetches will be the price attributed to that work of art and then and only then will duty be paid upon it. The rate of duty will be calculated in this way. Let me say that the rest of the estate, exclusive of works of art, paid the fictitious amount of 16 per cent., which was suggested by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). 16 per cent. will be the rate charged on the amount realised by the sale of the picture, and not an additional rate. If the work of art fetched, say, £5,000, that amount will not be added to the whole value of the estate, so as to bring the amount of duty up to, 17 or 18 per cent. What will be paid on the work of art when it is sold will be the rate which the estate paid, exclusive of works of art.
The Committee will see that it could not be done in any other way which would be fair to the Exchequer and reasonable to the taxpayer. So long as the taxpayer retains his works of art, the law recognises, and the Clause continues to recognise, that he pays no Estate Duty, but if and when he actually realises cash on the sale there is no reason why that cash should not be liable to the same rate of duty as the estate has already paid. This really is a concession in that it does not increase the rate, and I think it meets the points that have been raised. If I understood the hon. and gallant Member for North-East 1256 Bethnal Green correctly, he asks that when a work of art is sold it should itself form a separate estate and should pay duty as a separate estate. That is an unreasonable suggestion and could not be accepted. You must take each work of art as it is sold, and the fair rate to be paid is the rate which has been paid on the estate, exclusive of the works of art.
§ Major NATHANI hope the Financial Secretary will not misunderstand me. I did not suggest that each article should be taken as a separate estate by itself. I was asking for an explanation, which the Financial Secretary has given to us, but I should like to press the point that in my practical experience the question of aggregation has arisen for discussion and consideration. I mean aggregation as between the whole or any of the objects of art and the principal estate. It is clear from what the Financial Secretary has said that there is to be no aggregation, but as the case has arisen in my own professional experience I would suggest that, for the purpose of clarity, he might see his way to accept my Amendment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDWhat exactly happens at the present time? He mentioned something which surprised me. I thought that at the present time objects of art were valued as a separate estate.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEYes, they are valued at the time of death, but that has proved a very great inconvenience to the testator. It is very undesirable that the value at the time of death should be taken and then it should be dealt with seriatim as the articles come to be sold. In the proposed way no valuation need be made at the death, so long as the articles remain in the possession of the estate. If the articles are not sold their value is not questioned at all. It is only when they come to be sold, and then the value is the value that is realised at the sale.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI know that at the present moment they are valued at the time of death, but supposing that subsequently they come to be sold, at what rate is the Estate Duty payable? Are they taken as a separate estate or do they pay at the rate of duty which is applicable to the estate as a whole? Suppose there is an estate 1257 worth £100,000 which would pay 20 per cent. duty. The pictures at the moment are valued. Suppose they are sold under the present law, do they have to pay at the rate of 20 per cent., which is the rate payable by the rest of the estate, or do they have to pay the rate of duty on works of art valued as a seperate estate?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEAll works of art are valued as a separate estate, and it is on that basis that the duty is paid.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe real effect of this Clause is this—I hope the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) will note it. Take the hypothetical case of an estate which, apart from works of art, is worth £100,000. The pictures may be worth £20,000. Under the present practice they are valued at the time of the death of the owner, but when they come to be sold subsequently they pay Estate Duty at a rate applicable to a separate estate of £20,000. Under this Bill each one of these pictures will pay at a rate applicable to the whole estate of £100,000. The effect of this Clause will be that in the majority of cases the amount of duty paid will be very much larger than it is at present. I can conceive cases in which the value of pictures may go down, but the general tendency of works of art is to increase in value, and the fact that they will pay Estate Duty at the same rate as the principal estate means in the great majority of cases that the amount of the duty will be very much higher than it has been hitherto.
§ Sir BASIL PETOThe point which has been raised expresses precisely the difference between the Amendment and the Bill. The Financial Secretary has made the position in regard to these duties on works of art so clear that even I can understand it, but he did not deal with the justification for the words in the Bill as against the words of the Amendment. The Amendment seems to make it clear that the value of these objects of art will not be aggregated with the whole estate, but form an estate by themselves. Take the hypothetical case referred to by the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), which is worth £100,000; and the works of art, £20,000. The Amendment says that these works of art shall form an estate by themselves. That, obviously, means that the 1258 rate of duty shall be the duty appropriate to an estate of £20,000, not to an estate of £100,000. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks this is a reasonable proposal, there is no reason why these words should not be inserted in the Bill, At the death of the owner these works of art are priced and the Treasury knows precisely their value. If their value is £20,000, and one of them is sold for £5,000, then the Amendment provides that the £5,000 shall pay Estate Duty at the rate appropriate to an estate of £20,000 and not at the rate appropriate to an estate of £100,000; which is what the Financial Secretary says is the purport of the Clause.
There is a perfectly clear issue between the Amendment and the Clause. The question the Committee have to settle is which is in the interests of the country as a whole. The Government should offer every reasonable encouragement to people to keep works of art in this country and to transfer them as often as possible to the nation. Anything which means that they have to dispose of them rapidly in order to provide in advance for Death Duties, sell them for what they will fetch during the lifetime of the owner, is a positive disadvantage. We are constantly hearing protests against all our works of art going oversea and I suggest that this is an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to temper the wind to the shorn lamb by making Estate Duty applicable only to the value of that part of the estate which is incorporated in these works of art.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELThe spirit and intention of the Financial Secretary no doubt meets my case, and if the law is carried out on the lines he has suggested I should be satisfied; but the Clause itself does not convey that intention. If he cannot accept the Amendment I would suggest an alternative form of words, and that on line 8 of page 32, after the word "at" we should insert the word "same."
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot do that now. We are now on line 10.
§ Mr. SAMUELIf I cannot go back I would suggest to the Financial Secretary that on Report he should put in after the word "at" the word "same" and after the word "rate" the words "as is." That would clarify the matter and 1259 the intentions of the Financial Secretary would be expressed by the Bill. The rate on pictures when sold would be the same as the rate on the estate. That is what he wants to carry out.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt says so in the Clause. It says:
at the rate appropriate to the principal value of the estate passing on that death upon which Estate Duty is leviable, and with which the objects would have been aggregated if they had not been objects to which this section applies.What the hon. Member wants is set out almost precisely in the words of the Clause. The intention is really quite clear, but I am prepared to look into the matter and see if there is the smallest doubt about it. The hon. Member may rest assured that the intention is that objects of art which come up for sale shall pay at the rate which was paid by the whole estate of which they would have formed a part if they had not been kept out of the estate.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSThe discussion is being confined to pictures, but there are other objects of art. Will the proposal apply to Chelsea figures or Derby figures or Worcester china or Swansea china?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENI know that my hon. Friend is very much interested in Swansea and Chelsea china, and his intervention may have been prompted by something of a personal interest in the matter. I can set his mind at rest at once. The proposal is not confined to pictures. The wording relates to pictures, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections and so forth.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI would like to make a final appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to the present time, when an estate has been valued, the works of art, whether pictures or Chelsea china, have been valued separately and, if and when sold, have been subject to a rate of duty which in most cases has been on a sum much lower than that at which the works of are were valued. For instance, take an estate worth £100,000. It would pay a duty of 20 per cent. There may be works of art
§ belonging to the same owner and worth, say, £8,000. At present, those works of art will be subject to a comparatively slight charge for Estate Duty, because it would be only the rate attaching to the £8,000, namely, four per cent. But if this Clause passes, those articles will be subject to the whole 20 per cent. duty. Though there may be some cases where it will be different, as a rule they will pay the much higher rate of duty. There is a change also as to the date of valuation. We know that certain works of art, pictures for instance, might go out of fashion and be worth less five years hence than they are worth to-day, but on the whole the tendency is for the value of works of art to rise.
§ What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really doing is very largely to increase the rate of duty that will be payable on these works of art if and when they have to be sold. There may not be sympathy in many quarters with those people with estates large enough to pay these Estate Duties. Take the case of estates which have been in the hands of a family for many generations. Such estates might very easily have to be broken up under present conditions because of the weight of the Death Duties, and what will almost certainly happen in a number of cases is that the old family pictures will have to be sold. It will mean the dispersal of collections which are most highly prized possessions. Does that do any good? The sum of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive will not be very great. The owners of these pictures are not drawing an income from them. I know that if the pictures are sold to the British Museum or other public bodies they are relieved of Death Duties, but in all probability the majority of the pictures will be sold to buyers abroad. In the cases that I have in mind the pictures are now open to the public to see on many occasions. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the existing alleviation to continue.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 133.
1263| Division No. 389.] | AYES. | [9.5 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Aitchison. Rt. Hon. Craigie M. | Arnott, John |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Alpass, J. H. | Attlee, Clement Richard |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Ammon, Charles George | Ayles, Walter |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hoffman, P. C. | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Barr, James | Hollins, A. | Potts, John B. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hopkin, Daniel | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Herrabin, J. F. | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Bennett, Capt. sir E. N. (Gardiff C.) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Richards, R. |
| Benson, G. | Johns William (Rhondda, West) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Johnston, Thomas | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Ritson, J. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Jowitt, Rt. Hon Sir W. A. | Rowson, Guy |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kelly, W. T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bromfield, William | Kennedy, Thomas | Sanders, W. S. |
| Brothers, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lathan, G, | Scurr, John |
| Burgess, F. G. | Law, Albert (Bolten) | Sexton, James |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Lawrence, Susan | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Cameron, A. G. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawson, John James | Shield, George William |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Chater, Daniel | Leach, W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sinkinson, George |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lees, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Cove, William G. | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Daggar, George | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Dallas, George | Longden, F. | Snell, Harry |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lowth, Thomas | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Day, Harry | Lunn, William | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Dickson, T. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Sorensen, R. |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Dukes, C. | McElwee, A. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Duncan, Charles | McEntee, V. L. | Sullivan, J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | McKinlay, A. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Edge, Sir William | MacLaren, Andrew | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | McShane, John James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Tillett, Ben |
| Egan, W. H, | Mansfield, W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Fergan, Dr. Robert | March, S. | Tout, W. J. |
| Freeman, Peter | Marley, J. | Townend, A. E. |
| Gardner, B. w. (West Ham, Upton) | Marshall, Fred | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Mathers, George | Turner, B. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Matters, L. W. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Messer, Fred | Viant, S. P. |
| Gill, T. H. | Middleton, G. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Gillett, George M. | Mills, J. E. | Walker, J. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Montague, Frederick | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gould, F. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Morley, Ralph | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rnondda) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mort, D. L. | Wellbek, Wilfred |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Moses, J. J. H. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | West, F. R. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Muff, G. | Westweod, Joseph |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murnin, Hugh | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Harbord, A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, G. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hardie, George D. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Oldfield, J. R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Palin, John Henry | Wright, W. (Ruthergien) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Paling, Wilfrid | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Palmer, E. T. | |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgew) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Perry, S. F. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley. |
| Herriotts, J. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Balniel, Lord | Birkett, W. Norman |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Blindell, James |
| Atkinson, G. | Beaumont, M. W. | Bourne, Captain Robert Groft |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Braithwaite, Major A. N. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bird, Ernest Roy | Brass, Captain Sir William |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Iveagh, Countess of | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Butler, R. A. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Christie, J. A. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Cowan, D. M. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Savery, S. S. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lymington, Viscount | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macquisten, F. A. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Millar, J. D. | Train, J. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Ferguson, Sir John | Mond, Hon. Henry | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Foot, Isaac | Nathan, Major H. L. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Penny, Sir George | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Pybus, Percy John | |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ramsbotham, H. | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Major the Marquess of Titchfield. |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Viscount WOLMERI beg to move, in page 32, line 23, after the word "such," to insert the word "buildings."
This Amendment is somewhat analogous to a point which we have been discussing earlier, though not quite the same. I am not asking for any particular drafting, but I want to put this point, because it is one of real importance Under the law as it is and as it will be amended by the right hon. Gentleman, pictures and other objets d'art will not pay duty until they are sold, but in quite a number of cases the houses in which they hang or stand are of quite as much historic interest as the pictures, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really wishes to force the owners of these historic houses to sell them. It is quite easy for him to do that, and if the law is not amended in the direction that I suggest, that in most cases is what will happen.
I want to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether anybody will be benefited by these beautiful historic houses being sold to American millionaires or plutocrats. I am not personally affected, but I know several such 1264 houses, and there is one in my constituency which is very famous and certainly comes in this category. In most cases the owners of these houses are old families who have been located in that part of the country for a long time and whose fortune is, generally speaking, wrapped up in agriculture, and they have felt to the full, during the last 100 years, the depression in agriculture. For the most part, the owners of these historic houses are not millionaires, but they were able to pay Death Duties until the crushing scale of Death Duties arose.
Some of these houses, such as Bramshill, have a value, from a Death Duty point of view, which must run into many thousands of pounds. In many cases the owner is making nothing out of it, but is trying to keep the estate together and to do his duty by his neighbours and his tenants. On a death, the State comes down and says, "This is an object of tremendous value"; and it is, and you have to pay full duty on it. It means that that family goes out, and you get some plutocrat, some American millionaire, or some profiteer coming in instead. Do hon. Members opposite think the 1265 people in that neighbourhood or anybody in the country is going to be benefited by the acceleration of that process? What differentiation can you really make in principle between the pictures and the house in cases like that?
I quite admit that there is a very small number of these houses, comparatively speaking, but there is quite a definite number of them, and they are just as historic and just as famous as the pictures and other objects of art which are in them. All that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to keep them exactly on a parallel with the pictures inside them. If the owner sells the house and gets a fancy price, he ought to pay Death Duty, but if he does not sell the house, and if he does not make money out of it, but lives in it, he ought not to be asked to pay Death Duties on something which brings him in no cash, any more than the right hon. Gentleman is asking him to pay Death Duty on the pictures. I am aware that the Treasury might say that these houses are actually yielding income because they are assessed for Income Tax, but I submit that that is a technicality. They are not bringing in any cash to the owner, and therefore they ought to be treated on the same basis as the objets d'art. I believe that many hon. Members opposite have sympathy with such an appeal.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThis Amendment falls somewhat along the same lines as that which was discussed earlier in the Clause. My right hon. Friend expressed the view that he had considerable sympathy with that Amendment; he could not see his way to incorporate it in the present Finance Bill, but he said he would consider it between now and next year. My right hon. Friend has already promised, so far as the other matter was concerned, to give sympathetic attention to it between now and next year, and on the strength of that, the other Amendment was withdrawn. I am afraid it would not be possible for me, on his behalf, to promise more than the same with regard to this particular Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERI think some of my hon. Friends were not present earlier when the other Amendment was discussed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then explained that a special committee was sitting to inquire into cases of this 1266 sort. May I have the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be considered exactly on all fours with the matter that was touched on in the other Amendment, and will be dealt with by the same committee and treated with the same sympathy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he promised in the previous case? If the hon. Gentleman can give me that assurance, I shall be perfectly willing to have this matter adjourned for a year and for the Government to consider it sympathetically.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think I can give the undertaking that the same committee which is considering the other matter will also consider the question of buildings.
§ Viscount WOLMEROn that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in page 32, line 26, after the word "then," to insert the words:
after consultation in any case in which they may be in doubt with persons appointed for the purpose from time to time, one by the trustees of the British Museum, one by the trustees of the National Gallery, one by the president of the Royal Society, and one by the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund.The object of this Amendment is to give the Treasury some kind of competent committee which may advise them on the subject as to whether any important work of art is really an object of national, scientific, historic, or artistic interest. The Clause, as it stands, does not provide any expert advice for the Treasury at all, and although I know perfectly well that members of the Treasury are very able gentlemen indeed, they have got an immense number of duties to perform, and I do not think that they can possibly be required to pass an expert opinion in regard to works of art. It is clearly ridiculous to suppose that the Treasury or a committee in the Treasury could pass an opinion as to whether a picture was by Raphael or only by one of his followers, or whether a manuscript was really in the handwriting of John Milton. I think that this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. Under the Clause, the Treasury are asked to answer this kind of question: If a picture is by one of Raphael's followers, it is obviously worth 1267 practically nothing as compared with what is would be worth if it were by Raphael himself.All I suggest is that the Treasury should have at its command a committee of experts who in every case would be able to say whether such an object was of national and historic interest. I propose in this Amendment that they should take the advice of persons appointed by the trustees of the British Museum, the trustees of the National Gallery, the president of the Royal Society and the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund. I think those four bodies would cover the ground completely. I am not in the least committed to the particular form of words, but I think the principle I advocate is the right one, and I very much hope the hon. Gentleman Will be able to accept it.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe object of the Amendment is, of course, one which must appeal to every Member of the Committee, but I suggest that the insertion of the actual words proposed is really unnecessary. Of course, the Treasury does not attempt to form a judgment without consultation with just the kind of people whom the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I think it is not only unnecessary, but rather unwise, to specify a particular panel of people of this kind belonging to certain institutions who shall be consulted. It is much safer to allow the Treasury to consult particular authorities. In the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
§ Mr. J. JONESNot being exactly an art expert, I am interested only in the financial side of the Clause. I cannot for the life of me understand why a picture by Carnera should not be included in this case. We have got various organisations mentioned to give expert opinions on the subject. Lately in the Press we have read of certain pictures of outstanding notoriety, if not ability, being forged. What guarantee have we that some of the great masterpieces may not be copied by some expert forger? Is the expert forger going to get away with it? Is the gentleman who bought a pup going to be sold a dog? And is the Treasury going to bear the responsibility? I venture to suggest that, in addition to the organisations 1268 already mentioned, we ought to have Madame Tussauds. The directors of that world-famous institution ought to be allowed to have a voice in saying whether these things are real or not. Of course, I understand the serious nature of the proposition. The gentlemen who own great castles in this country, of which they are gradually getting rid, form limited liability companies and try to avoid their taxes in every possible direction. People are leaving the West End flats, and we in the East End are the biggest flats to stand it. They are doing everything they possibly can legally to avoid taxation. They are the people who say they are bleeding for their country. They have never bled for anything except for bleeding the people. Therefore, I say the Amendments which have been moved have gone too far. The Chancellor has accepted too many Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must keep to this Amendment.
§ Mr. JONESI will stick to it hard. The only people who are capable of sticking to this Amendment are the artful dodgers who are responsible for it. They have got the pictures, and we have got the results. They have got the estates and all we have got is the consequences of their misdeeds. I think it is nearly time that they paid up and looked pleasant.
§ Mr. FOOTI hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to press the Amendment, because it is really unnecessary. I have had to deal with some of these cases, and I know from experience that the revenue authorities are most ready to consult the very best experts in the matter, whether a collection of pictures or other objects of art are concerned. They have invariably sent down people who are thoroughly trustworthy to inspect. I really think that by setting up this unnecessary committee, drawn from a somewhat limited sphere, we should only be creating machinery which would clog the wheels of valuation in regard to these collections. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, who is interested in this matter and desires to safeguard the Exchequer, would wish to adopt machinery which would only be a complication and not a help.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI never had any intention of trying to divide 1269 the Committee on this Amendment, and in reply to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) I would say that this Amendment is merely proposed with the idea of protecting the Treasury from people who sometimes act in that way. It is in order to meet the case of forgeries which are not real works of art that such a committee would be useful. I understand from the Financial Secretary that the Treasury before making up their minds, do consult whether a work of art or manuscript is of national importance. Do I understand there is a committee? Are there certain persons selected to whom the Treasury can apply when they want to find out?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI am not sure that there is an actual committee, but the Treasury do consult appropriate persons as the cases arise. I think that is better than having a committee, because it would be an entirely different set of persons. The Treasury select appropriate persons to consult.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIn view of the Financial Secretary's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.