CLAUSE 33.—(Repeal of Stamp Duties on certain honours and dignities.) (Hansard, 10 June 1937)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
I beg to move, in page 30, line 33, at the end, to insert: or upon any docket, or warrant under the sign manual of His Majesty, relating to any such grant, letters patent or warrant of precedence. This Clause relates to the abolition of fees in connection with honours and dignities. The Amendment deals with certain ancillary documents on which Stamp Duty is charged. The duty is only 10s., but in conformity with the principle which guided the removal of the fees chargeable, we have decided that this Amendment should be made in order to remove the small amount payable on these documents.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
I do not think that anyone on this side has any objection to the Amendment, but we would like to know why it was not foreseen. It seems to me that if the intention of the Government was to remit all these duties they could surely have foreseen this duty, and so have prevented us going through the process of carrying an Amendment.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
The right hon. Gentleman raises a small point. The Stamp Duties involved are very small. Inasmuch as they will continue to exist in other cases it was thought, when the Bill was prepared, that they might be left to be dealt with more comprehensively in the light of the report of the committee which is dealing with the matter. It appeared to us, however, that as these duties are charged specifically on documents used in connection with the grant of honours, we should include them in the Clause instead of waiting for the report of the committee which is dealing with the question. There is no mystery behind it.

§ Sir Percy Harris
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell us what loss of revenue we are likely to suffer from this new departure. Did these fees bring in any considerable revenue? I agree that in the case of some of the lower and minor orders it is rather hard that they should be taxed when they are honoured by the Crown, but in the case of dukes, marquesses and earls, it is not unreasonable that they should make a small contribution to the national revenue in return for the dignities bestowed upon them.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Baronet ought to raise that point on the question of the Clause standing part. It is outside the terms of this Amendment. I must ask the Committee to address themselves to the Amendment alone.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Could not other Stamp Duties which are still levied have been included in the Amendment? I think there is a Stamp Duty chargeable upon the appointment of a member of the Bar as King's Counsel, and is there any reason why that charge should continue as these other charges are to be withdrawn? If honours are to be dealt with in an Act of Parliament, could not they all be dealt with upon the same basis? I think the appointment of a Judge probably carries a Stamp Duty, although I am not certain about that.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
I think that point would be better dealt with on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill. I imagine the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring not only to the 2016 small point of duties on documents, but to the Stamp Duties generally.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Certainly. They could have been added to this Amendment, and I am asking why they have not been added.

§ Sir S. Cripps
May I repeat my question?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
This Clause carries into effect the decision which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May. The Committee will remember that in October of last year a committee was set up to inquire into the fees and duties payable on the grant of honours and dignities by the Crown, and its report, Cmd. Paper 5450, has, I have no doubt, been read by hon. Members. It is following on that report that this Clause has been introduced. The hon. and learned Member brought in other points which, no doubt, are of interest, but the purpose of the Clause is to give effect to the recommendations in that report. I was asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) what loss of revenue would result from this concession. It is estimated that it will amount to between£2,000 and £3,000 a year.

§ Mr. Foot
Could we know exactly what fees are paid in the cases mentioned in the Clause?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
The hon. Member's thirst for information is one which I am happy to be able to assuage. I cannot give him all the details, but here are some to be going on with. The payments vary from some £350 in the case of a dukedom to £100 in the case of a baronetcy. A duty of £30 is payable in cases where the honour of knighthood is conferred by letters patent. We thought, as the Committee thought, that the collection of these sums was a somewhat archaic survival, and it was decided to remit the duties.

§ Mr. Mander
I cannot help thinking that something further ought to be said on this subject. We all know that Members of this House and others are from 2017 time to time recommended to receive honours, and we realise that they thoroughly deserve them; their merits are outstanding. I am alluding there to a special class of case, in which there is no reason why the recipient of honours should be called upon to pay these heavy fees; but we all must have in mind that there are other persons who receive honours for no ostensible reason whatever; it is exceedingly difficult to appreciate why they have been picked out. I am not disclosing any secrets, but, to be quite frank, there are cases where these honours are recommended, I will not say because of, but coincident with, concurrently with, substantial contributions to party funds, or contributions to objects of public interest throughout the country, to hospitals or universities or things of that kind—and those, perhaps, stand in a class apart—but I submit that there are some cases in which it would be quite proper that the State should receive some recognition in the form of these fees.
There are members of the community who are desperately anxious to receive these honours, whether knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages, and if they have no outstanding personal recommendations I think they ought to be made to pay for them, not only make payments to their party funds but make a payment to the State as well. I can see no reason why persons in that, possibly very restricted, category but a category well known to us all—let us have no pretence about it—should be let off these fees. In the debate yesterday a good deal of use was made of the term "humbug." There is a good deal of "humbug" about the bestowal of these honours, and I am just calling attention to certain cases in regard to which I think the Government are very lax if they reject a source of revenue.

§ Mr. Herbert Morrison
There is a small and limited point which I have in mind, but nevertheless it is of some importance to clear up a misunderstanding which exists. The Financial Secretary has referred to the total loss of revenue as amounting to between £2,000 and £3,000 a year, but I have always understood from revelations in the Press that the price of a barony was something in the region of £50,000, and that the price of a 2018 baronetcy or a knighthood was a very substantial sum, and I cannot follow the small figure—

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to something which has nothing to do with Stamp Duties.

Mr. Alexander
I have one question about the yield of the Stamp Duties which I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer. There is no other Clause in the Bill dealing with Stamp Duties. A few weeks ago I gave to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer particulars of an alleged widespread evasion of Stamp Duties in the City—

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that argument will not succeed here. The Stamp Duties before us are the Stamp Duties on certain honours and dignities.

Mr. Alexander
I am asking how we can seek to recoup the Treasury for losses on this kind of thing when there are widespread evasions elsewhere.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that will not do.

§ Mr. Riley
Can we be told whether it has been the custom in the past to remit the payments of these duties in numerous cases? Has that practice been growing in recent years? I should like to know whether all persons who receive these distinctions pay the fees.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
So far as my information goes all have been required to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No "] I cannot without notice give any details to the hon. Member, but I think there has been no general relaxation of the provisions as to the payments of these duties.