HC Deb 09 June 1937 vol 324 cc1867-71

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Crossley

There is a very brief question that I wish to ask my right hon. Friend about this Clause. It is, I understand, a Clause which will enable the Treasury to help those people who may wish to bring sculpture and so on into this country for the purposes of public exihibition, and it will enable the Treasury to lay down a condition attached to an order by which one of the keepers of the national galleries or museums will inspect these works of art and issue a certificate in respect of them as being works of art. I know that the great difficulty is to distinguish between monumental sculpture, where it is quite right that there should be a duty, and works of art, which I thing the consensus of opinion in the Committee would regard it as undesirable to tax, but I want to know whether this provision will enable the Treasury to do anything for those artists who, because of the uncongeniality of the British climate, choose to go out of England during the winter months and bring back with them in the springtime their own works of art, and who at the present moment are liable to be taxed, and often are taxed, on what is often an entirely speculative value and might never even be sold. I may be partly under a misapprehension in this matter, but I ask for purposes of information.

8.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

Before I answer the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), I should like to give a brief word of explanation of this Clause. It is designed to allow the admission into this country, free of duty, of certain classes of works of art, in particular sculptures and etchings, which it has not been found possible to deal with under existing legislation. Apart from the general considerations in favour of generous treatment for works of art, this proposal will be welcomed by British artists who produce works abroad and bring or send them home. That, I think, meets the point raised by my hon. Friend, with the proviso that they have to be genuine works of art approved as such by the director of a museum specified in the Order. Not only will artists abroad benefit, but dealers in this country are in favour of this proposal, and artists in this country, who, it might be argued, might suffer from increased competition by the import of these works of art, have not objected and are, generally speaking, in favour of it.

The procedure contemplated under the Clause is that the Treasury, upon a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee, shall make an order under the Import Duties Act, 1932, which will provide that certain works of art can be exempted from a duty if, and only if, they are given a certificate by or on behalf of the director of a museum or gallery specified in the Order. There is a provision to pay any expenses incurred by the director of the museum or gallery when engaged on this work, and a Resolution was passed by the House for that purpose. It is not anticipated that the expenses will exceed £100 a year. I hope that the Committee will agree that this proposal is a wise one. It has the approval of all the parties concerned.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Thurtle

Do I understand the Financial Secretary aright in saying that British artists may go to Italy, a country which is governed by Mussolini, may live there for a large part of the year, spend a great deal of money in that country and assist in its prosperity, and then come back to this country, bring the works of art which they have produced during their period of residence in Italy, and sell those works of art in competition with British artists who are living here all the time and contributing to the upkeep of the services of this country? If that is so, this Clause has an undesirable aspect.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren

I cannot understand what my hon. Friend means. I cannot imagine an artist squandering his money in Italy or anywhere else, for most artists I know have not any money to squander. Most artists who go abroad are a liability on those who send them. I am glad that this Clause has been put in because of the amazing situation which arises in connection with students who go abroad. They go, say, to Rome, and they must of necessity do their sculpture and bronze casting in the studios there. They have found that when they come home with their works of art they are met by a barrage of Customs and Excise Duties. This Clause will do away with the strange anomaly of people paid by the State, as they are, because many of these students are paid for out of public funds, going abroad and not being able to bring their works back into this country unless they pay Customs Duties. There is one difficulty which, I hope, will be met. These pupils often come back with little or no money, and I hope that they will not be put to any expense in the examination of their works for the purposes of this Clause. Will it be within the discretion of the curators who examine the works to define what is a work of art? I hope that the Government will give them a wide field in deciding what a work of art is, because in these days of modern art it is a wide field. I hope, too, that they will act as expeditiously as possible in allowing works of art to be transferred into this country so that they will not, as heretofore, be hung up.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. David Adams

I am glad to support this Clause and I am astonished that any hon. Member should take exception to any English person living abroad to study art. The Clause is, at all events, a movement, even if it is only in the realm of art, towards the freer admission into this country of the products of a foreign country. The world is suffering very materially from the restriction of trade, and if this Clause means that the outlook of the Government in this direction is being relaxed, we are very grateful for it. I hope that we shall have much less parochialism in outlook with regard to travel or study abroad. I have found that complaints have been made that there are a few Italians in this country studying here and gaining the advantage for their country and the world generally of ascertaining what we have to give in the realm of education. I hope we shall have less of that narrow outlook on this side of the Committee, at all events, where it is relatively speaking unknown.

8.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

The speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) cancel each other out. The hon. Member for Shoreditch objects to the proposal because he objects to the form of government in the country where artists sometimes go. The hon. Member for Consett takes the view, which we on this side share, that this is a desirable step. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) asked whether students returning to this country with their works of art will have to meet extra expense in connection with the examination of their works. Payment is being made from the funds of the State to meet the cost of this examination, as it would not be proper that those for whose benefit it is being undertaken should have to make some form of payment. I can reassure the hon. Member on that point.