HC Deb 14 June 1951 vol 488 cc2612-27

The following tax reliefs shall be given to the owner-occupiers of houses listed under the Town and Country Planning Acts or scheduled as national monuments or designated by the National Trusts, the Georgian Society or otherwise as buildings of historical or architectural importance provided that such houses are open to the public on reasonable conditions:

  1. (a) relief from income tax and surtax in respect of such expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the designated house and contents as may be approved by the Treasury or by any body appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose and entrusted with the duty of furthering the preservation of houses of outstanding historical or architectural interest;
  2. (b) suspension of the payment of that part of any death duties due in respect of the house, listed contents and amenity land so long as they are not sold;
  3. (c) exemption from entertainments duty on the admission fees charged for visits to such houses;
  4. (d) suspension of death duties on any property assigned to trustees for the sole purpose of maintaining a designated house out of the income of that property.—[Mr. Colegate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause arises out of the Report made by the Gowers Committee on Houses of Outstanding Historical or Architectural Interest, appointed by Sir Stafford Cripps. To those who are interested in matters artistic and architectural, this Clause deals with one of the most serious questions facing us today. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than I can help, but I must just put this in some sort of perspective and refer to how the matter has arisen and how it stands today.

I, like many others, was profoundly moved by what I had seen happening all over the country with regard to the vast heritage of historical and architectural treasures that really belong to us all, and during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in 1950, I put down two or three Amendments dealing with the question. The Gowers Committee had not then reported.

Between the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill in 1950, the Report of the Gowers Committee was published, and on the Report stage I put down a new Clause dealing with the matter in a rather different way from that in the Amendments I had put down in Committee, and rather, but not quite, on the lines of this new Clause, which, as those who are interested in the subject will know, is, with the exception of the preliminary words, practically taken direct from the Gowers Report.

I was pleased to find that Sir Stafford Cripps was extremely sympathetic. He naturally said—and, of course, one quite understood—that the Gowers Report had only just been received, and that the Government must have time to examine its recommendations before they could put forward to the House their recommendations on how the policy recommended by the Gowers Committee should be followed or modified.

Perhaps it should not be out of place if I quoted one or two of Sir Stafford's words. He thanked me for raising the subject and said: I think it would be a very bad thing if we were to hurry forward with a partial solution of this matter…This is a matter in which, as the House will appreciate, everybody does not necessarily take the same view, yet it is very important that if we are to do something it should be something which is generally accepted as being the wise and proper way of dealing with the matter. He then gave me this assurance: I am very anxious to go ahead and to complete dealing with what is undoubtedly a great and, I think, an urgent problem. He could hardly say less in view of the grave language used by the Gowers Report, to which I shall refer in a moment. Sir Stafford went on to say: It is because I wanted everybody to have an opportunity of examining the problem that we appointed the Gowers Committee, and I want now to allow time for the Report to be studied and discussed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 285–6.] He then undertook to bring forward legislation "next year"—that is this year—and, in view of that statement, I withdrew my proposed new Clause.

But that was not the end of the matter. I was delighted to find in private conversation that Sir Stafford had got this matter very much at heart. I disagreed with him on many subjects, but I was delighted to find that he was really interested. Later on, he asked me first of all to go to see the present Attorney-General, then the Solicitor-General, and we had an hour's talk together. I came away again extremely pleased at the very sympathetic reception I had had, and it looked as though there was a very good chance of the Gowers Committee's recommendations being carried out.

Later I met Sir Stafford again in one of the most historic houses in London when he sought me out and told me that he had this matter very much at heart, and I need not worry too much about it because he thought that a satisfactory solution would be found. Naturally, I was very pleased. He asked me one further thing. He said, "You are connected with rural district councils and other things; will you do as much propaganda as you can in favour of the recommendations of the Gowers Report?" That, to the best of my ability, I have done.

I am not an extremely prominent person who can go to the B.B.C. to express my views but, in my own way, I have done my best, and it is very natural that I believed, in view of Sir Stafford's assurances, there would be legislation which would give effect to the proposal. In the meantime, there was a reference in the House of Lords to this matter, but it did not carry it any further, because I think that the noble Lord dealing with it explained that it was a matter which must be dealt with mainly through the Finance Bill, and he could not, any more than could the Chancellor himself, anticipate the Budget.

What was my astonishment to find tucked away in a written answer in reply to a Question, which appears to have been clearly arranged, a statement by the present Chancellor which hitherto there has been no opportunity of questioning and no opportunity to debate, and which, in its material particulars, goes entirely against the recommendations of the Gowers Report.

This is not a party matter. Those of us who are interested have never treated it as such, and to do full justice to Sir Stafford he dealt with it on artistic and aesthetic grounds. In this written answer, which, I gather, most Members have failed to notice, we find the present Chancellor agreeing that these historic buildings and their grounds to which I am referring are important national assets of substantial aesthetic, historic and educational value… He goes on to say The chief measure proposed by the Committee to deal with the situation was a series of exemptions from taxation… which are set out in the new Clause to which I am now inviting the Committee to agree. He then goes on to say: The Government are unable to accept this proposal… and gives a number of reasons why they cannot, adding: This does not imply any opposition to the private occupation of these houses, on which the Committee set store;…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 86–7.] The Committee will realise that, except for losing these houses altogether, the next most fatal thing that we can do is to turn them into a series of dead and dreary museums. This idea is seized upon with great imagination, which one might not expect from a Royal Commission, which points out that if people are to see these houses and visitors from abroad are to enjoy visiting them, they must be owner-occupied. They must see them as they exist today and as they existed in the past and not stripped of all that gives life to them and left as a series of dead relics on the sea of time.

I pass to another subject which I can only mention in passing. I shall not attempt to develop it because it would be out of order. The Gowers Committee Report recommended that an Historic Buildings Council should be created with executive powers. I must not deal with that, because it would involve legislation, but that important recommendation has been completely rejected by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as indeed have other recommendations. The work of that Committee—one of the most brilliant Reports that has been produced in recent times, to which seven people of great talent and ability gave a great deal of time and in connection with which they travelled widely in this country—has been swept aside in a written answer. We have not had the opportunity of discussing it or even of asking a question.

I venture to think that that is not the way to deal with a Report of the importance of this one. Surely, when we appoint people as members of a committee and ask them to give us the best advice in these matters, we should at least have a full-dress debate before we modify or reject their conclusions. Far be it for me to say that, because a Royal Commission recommends a proposal it should be adopted, and that it should not remain with the House finally to determine what measures should be taken. Of course, a Royal Commission can only be an advisory body. It must be the duty of the Government to act on the Report, but this one throws a very serious burden upon the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Let me remind the Committee of one or two reasons why the Gowers Report lays such emphasis on taxation. First of all, I must pay a tribute to Sir Stafford Cripps. He appointed the Committee with terms of reference which included the following: …where desirable, the preservation of a house and its contents as a unity. In effect, that means a living thing. The Report stated that a house and its contents in the hands of the owner was far better for the public and they added that what they called the "amenity land" should be available and accessible to the public. As is known, these grounds are where in the ordinary village country district the British Legion fete, the Red Cross fete, and so on are held, the place being often referred to as "the big house." The Report says: Now, owing to economic and social changes, we are faced with a disaster comparable only to that which the country suffered by the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century. It is no use the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), shaking his head. I am entitled to quote from this Report, and the hon. Member might think that these experts, who gave so much time to it, might perhaps know a little more than he does about the subject. There is nothing controversial in what I am saying. This is a quotation from the Gowers Report, the Committee responsible for which was appointed by Sir Stafford Cripps, and it says that: … we are faced with a disaster comparable only to that which the country suffered by the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century. The Report is referring not to spiritual changes, but to the great bulk of architecture which was despoiled and ruined in those times, as anyone knows who has read the history of the time. Those monasteries were sold to speculators, and the Committee repeat that what is happening now is only comparable to that event.

8.30 p.m.

What does the Report say? It says in paragraph 130: The essence of the trouble is that the owner is not left with enough money, after paying Income Tax and Surtax, to maintain his house. No foreseeable general reduction of taxation is likely to provide a solution. Then the Report goes on to show that in addition there are Death Duties which almost always, in a generation or two, lead to the breaking up of the house and the estate. I am not dealing with the estate but only with the house and its amenities. Already many beautiful houses, some of which are illustrated in the Report, have been sold to speculators, and some have been transported stone by stone to the United States of America.

Consequently, I put forward in my proposed new Clause the tax reliefs recommended by the Gowers Report. They were: that owner-occupiers of designated houses should be entitled to certain reliefs from Income Tax and Surtax in respect only of approved expenditure; relief from Death Duties on houses, listed contents and amenity land, so long as they are not sold, and in both cases subject to the condition that they are reasonably accessible to the public. Then, further; relief from Death Duties on property assigned to trustees to maintain the house, and the amenity land. The other recommendation which I have put into the proposed new Clause is that Entertainments Duty should not be levied on the admission charges to designated houses.

Those are reasonable proposals. They involve the Treasury in very little money. They could maintain the whole of these houses with the tax reliefs recommended by the Gowers Report for perhaps less than half the money that was spent on the South Bank Festival, for a trifling sum, far less than has been spent on many a foolish experiment in Africa. We should not get some temporary exhibition for the money but houses which people will come from all parts of the world to see, and which are widely used by the ordinary populace; I have seen charabanc after charabanc rolling up to enjoy Chatsworth and its beautiful park which is freely open to the public.

The Chairman

I rather understood that the hon. Gentleman would be short in his speech, but the speech has gone a little wide already. To go to Africa is certainly going wide.

Mr. Colegate

You must remember. Major Milner—of course, I bow to your Ruling—that I had to justify the proposed expenditure. If I am told, as I have been in effect in this written reply, that the Treasury cannot afford this money, despite the fact that it is a trifling sum, I think I am entitled to point out that the Treasury can find much larger sums for what strikes me as much less worthy purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The new Clause which I am proposing is not just some personal opinion of mine. It is an opinion of men and women who worked on this Royal Commission, have seen the houses, and have inquired into the circumstances. They can only find this way of preserving this fine heritage of beauty and architecture, which has no parallel in any part of the world today.

I urge the Chancellor to reconsider this matter. It is not too late. He has put forward a proposal of his own, but he has not given us an estimate of the cost. I take it on a rough guess that he is going to save very little money indeed and it will turn these houses into dead things. Under the proposed new Clause they would be living realities. I urge the Chancellor to look into the matter again.

Owing to the rules of order, in my new Clause I could not refer to houses designated by the Historic Buildings Council, which was the intention of the Royal Commission, and so I had to suggest the National Trust, the Georgian Society and other bodies who might designate such houses. That is not an essential part of the new Clause. The essential part is that the houses which are to have this privilege, if privilege it be—many owners do not feel that it is anything more than a mere help towards the maintenance—must be designated in some way or other. I leave that entirely to the Treasury and to the regulations which they will make if they are to create a Historic Buildings Council. The Office of Works and various other departments are quite capable of judging whether or not a house comes within the ambit of the Gowers Report.

I hope the Chancellor will consider the matter very seriously. Today the Philistine is rampant in many fields, and if there is one field in which at comparatively little cost the British Government can save so vast a heritage of beauty, surely nothing should stand in the way of their taking the necessary steps and introducing the necessary legislation. I beg the Government to accept the Clause as a first step.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

I wish to say, lest silence on this side of the Committee be misinterpreted, that I hope that the Chancellor will not accept the Clause. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has made a very eloquent case for the recommendations of the Gowers Report, and in certain circumstances those recommendations might be acceptable to the Committee, but we are continually being told by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends about the burden which is being imposed on our people by rising prices and other circumstances. What would be the reaction of our constituents if we went to them now and said that although the position in regard to the cost of living was difficult we had a proposal to subsidise the owner-occupiers of these houses?

The word "subsidy." has not been used before. The position has been put the other way round as a relief from taxation, but it is in effect a subsidy. This is entirely the wrong time to bring such a proposal before the country. I know what my constituents would tell me if I went to them at the weekend and told them that I had supported such a proposal. The least they would say would be that it was ill-timed.

I find it difficult to believe that the owners of these houses are in such difficult circumstances as have been described. They may not all be shareholders in the firms which are making increasingly huge profits, but neither can they be described as the worst off section of the population. Mainly for that reason, I hope that such a subsidy as this will not be considered seriously by the Committee at this time.

Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

It is only necessary for me to support this new Clause in a few words because my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) moved it with such cogency. Whatever difference of opinion there may be in other parts of the Committee or throughout the country about the essential need to preserve these historic houses as national monuments, we need not waste much time in arguing the point because there is no difference of opinion on the Treasury Bench.

My hon. Friend has shown that there is no one who has spoken with more warmth on this subject than Sir Stafford Cripps. And I remember a speech made by the Prime Minister on some public occasion outside this House in which he referred in equally moving terms to the importance of the preservation of this national heritage. So the Government, at any rate, are committed on the desirability of doing something about it.

Nor do I think that the argument of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), that we should do nothing about it because of the effect on his constitutents, is particularly edifying. Democracy will not survive very long in this country if hon. Members give their votes solely on such a consideration. The hon. Member also said that the people who live in these houses are not the most badly off people in the community. Nobody has suggested that they are. What we are discussing at the moment is not the matter of their personal fortunes or whether these people shall have to apply to public assistance, but whether they will be in a position to go on living in these houses which, it is argued, is desirable, not so much for their private pleasure as that they are rendering a public service by doing so.

It is on that basis we must argue, and are arguing, this Clause. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but I want to lay down two propositions which are clearly pertinent. The first is that a thing of beauty should, if possible, be used for the purpose for which it is created. That has nothing to do with politics. It is a principle of art and a very sound and important principle. It is possible to use a cathedral as a garage, it is possible to use Carlton House Terrace as a set of offices, it is possible to turn an ancient mansion into a lunatic asylum—all these things are possible, and sometimes it is inevitable to do those things, for we cannot always do the best thing. But it is undesirable. If a thing is created for one purpose it is desirable that it should be used for that purpose if possible. That is a proposition of artistic criticism; it is my opinion for what that may be worth. More important, it is emphatically the opinion of the Gowers Committee which was set up by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I would remind the Committee of the history of this problem. It so happened that the report of the Gowers Committee more or less coincided with the Finance Bill last year. Therefore Sir Stafford Cripps very reasonably said that he could not give a sudden answer as to what precisely he would do about this problem, but he considered it an obligation of honour to do something about it, an obligation which we have no doubt he would have honoured if unfortunate circumstances had not taken him out of public life.

So I do not think the Chancellor can deny that he, too, has inherited an obligation of honour to find a solution for this problem. There are these buildings of historic importance. Some are not in private hands, and therefore there is no problem of Death Duties. Others are in private hands and have to face the problem of Death Duties. On purely artistic and historical grounds it is desirable that these houses should remain in private hands. They can remain in private hands only if either this Clause is accepted or something of a similar nature is put forward by the Government.

The second principle I would lay down, which answers the point of the hon. Member for Accrington about these houses being private possessions, is that an Englishman's house is his castle except when he happens to live in a castle. That is to say, if one lives in a house of unique importance one has no moral right to treat that as a private property in the ordinary sense that we can treat our own small houses. The owner has an obligation to the community at large to use that property in such a way that the community can share in the enjoyment of it.

8.45 p.m.

Whether or not under the different circumstances of the past the owners of such properties always fulfilled that duty is neither pertinent nor in order to discuss, but it is quite obvious that that is a duty that is laid upon such people today and it is a duty which is entirely provided for in the Clause, by which they would get these advantages not merely from the fact of occupying these houses but only provided that such houses are open to the public on reasonable conditions. Therefore, it seems to me that the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend is based, as he said, on the highly expert artistic advice of the Gowers Committee. It is ridiculous for an hon. Member opposite to speak about bias as if the Gowers Committee were a gang of politicians; to talk in that way introduces an argument which is below the level of ridiculous. I quite agree that the Chancellor has no moral obligation to accept the precise wording of the Clause or the precise recommendation of the Gowers Committee. If he is able to accept the Clause, we shall be delighted. But if he is not, if he would take the opportunity of showing in what other detailed way he is going to solve this problem, that would be entirely satisfactory to us.

Like my hon. Friend, I was profoundly disturbed and puzzled by the written answer which the Chancellor gave on 26th April. As we know, Sir Stafford Cripps was thinking over the solution to this problem when he unfortunately had to leave public life. I then asked the new Chancellor a Question, which I think was reached as an oral Question, a short time afterwards as to whether he had yet made up his mind what policy he would pursue towards the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. He answered that he had not yet made up his mind, which was reasonable in view of his newness to his office, but it was profoundly disturbing to find this reply in the written answer on 26th April. We have not had an opportunity of debating that answer, and I still cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for a number of years, and we have fully understood one another, means that he is going to do absolutely nothing about this.

I hope that if the Chancellor is not able to accept the Clause in so many words, he will not content himself merely with negative criticism of this or that phrase in it, but will take the opportunity to give some indication of how the Government propose to solve this problem, to which I am sure he must agree that not only are the Government under a profound moral obligation to find a solution, but that it is to the artistic interests of the country that a solution should be found. Nobody has spoken more strongly than the Prime Minister and Sir Stafford Cripps of the necessity of preserving these buildings. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us tonight some indication of the Government's policy.

Mr. Gaitskell

I must confess to considerable surprise at the speeches of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who introduced the Clause, and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who supported it. I readily agree at least with one thing which the hon. Member for Devizes said: that there certainly is some misunderstanding. Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that either of the hon. Members can have read the written answer to which they refer. I will return to that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Burton referred several times to Sir Stafford Cripps. I really must make plain, in view of what he has said and in view of the implications of his statement, that there was, or would be, a complete difference of opinion between Sir Stafford Cripps and myself on this matter. In fact, Sir Stafford, with whom I discussed this problem before, unfortunately, he had to resign, was not in favour of the taxation proposals of the Gowers Committee. He was much concerned with the problem, and so am I. We have proposed, as I thought the Committee would be aware, a different and, we think, much more satisfactory solution to the problem.

The statement in the written answer is, I think, perfectly clear, and I cannot understand the apparent resentment that it was contained in a written answer, which is a usual thing to do. It has, in fact, been debated in another place, and it was referred to with some approval by the Leader of the Opposition, I think at the Royal Academy Banquet. I cannot understand the two hon. Members in their apparent ignorance and, indeed, opposition to our proposals.

Mr. Colegate

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that when a very important Royal Commission reports it is not usual for the Government of the day to tuck away their suggestions on the matter in a written answer to a Private Member's Question. I should naturally have supposed, and I think most people would, that the House would have been found some opportunity to debate the attitude of the Government, but there was no opportunity of debating the Question.

Mr. Gaitskell

Whether or not there is a debate in the House is not my responsibility; as to asking Questions, it is open to hon. Members to ask Questions any week. I must reserve the right of any Minister to decide the exact form in which he announces the views of the Government on a matter. This was a rather lengthy statement, and there was a large number of oral statements at that time. It was given in a written answer and certainly got a certain amount of publicity in the Press, and in the main favourable publicity.

What is the proposal we are considering? It is a proposal under certain conditions to exempt owner-occupiers of specific houses. I will deal right away with one of these tax exemptions, the exemption from Entertainments Duty. It happens that the Gowers Committee were mistaken in supposing that Entertainments Duty is levied on the visiting of historic houses and amenity grounds so long, that is, as there are no fun-fairs or objects of that kind in the grounds. Therefore, it is not necessary to have any exemption. As to the rest, it is proposed that, once a list of houses has been drawn up, there should be automatic exemption on a wide scale for those who happen to be occupying the houses.

Of course, the Gowers Committee was concerned to do this not because they had any particular regard for those who were occupying these houses, but in order that the houses might be preserved. We all understand that and know it. The fact remains that their proposals would have involved automatic tax exemption without regard to the needs of the persons occupying those houses. They would have created, whether we like it or not, a privileged class of person. I think that would have been a completely unique feature of the British tax system, and I am bound to say I do not think it would have met with very much support from the majority of the citizens of this country. At the best, one could say it was liable to grave misunderstanding, and incidentally, all these tax exemptions would have been granted automatically without any Parliamentary control whatever.

Nor, indeed, under the Gowers Committee proposals, or the proposals of this proposed new Clause, would there be any opportunity for the Government, the House or anyone to say who should, or should not, enjoy the benefit. It would be a list drawn up by the Historic Buildings Council, according to the Gowers Committee Report, or some other body according to this new Clause, and that is contrary to our constitutional practice.

Mr. Colegate

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. We already have arrangements for suspension of Death Duties in quite a number of cases, particularly on works of art.

Mr. Gaitskell

That is a rather different point, and I was coming to it in relation to the particular proposals to which we have already given general blessing in Clause 29. Those proposals arose out of the Gowers Committee Report, and I think the Committee approved them and realise that we have not ignored that aspect.

If I may return to the main point, the question was how we were to achieve the object which, as the hon. Member for Devizes said, is not in dispute. I hold the view that by drawing up a list and saying that any one who owns and lives in any of these houses could have exemption, would not be the right way of achieving what we want to achieve. It would have meant an automatic benefit, very substantial benefit, to those living in those houses which they could have capitalised, because although it is true that the proposal to suspend Death Duties applies under the provisions of this Clause if the house is not sold, that does not apply to the relief from Income Tax and Surtax, and that would have been a very substantial advantage.

Mr. Colegate

It would be a mere matter of regulations by the Treasury.

Mr. Gaitskell

It is not a mere matter of regulation. We are discussing the Clause as it stands and the proposals of the Gowers Committee. There is no doubt that the tax exemptions they propose would have made it possible for those who happened be living in those houses to sell them at considerable profit. I am not saying whether that might be a good or bad thing, but it is certainly liable to great misunderstanding. [Interruption.] The argument I have advanced is perfectly clear, and I think it is unassailable.

The proposals that have been made cannot be discussed, and I am at some disadvantage in trying to explain to the Committee exactly what we have in mind. I would, however, say that I think it is far better that we should deal with this problem in a way which gives us greater flexibility and at the same time a greater degree of control over the expenditure that is involved. It is surely far better that we should—I hope I am not getting out of order but it is difficult to deal with the subject except by mentioning it—approach the matter in the way we propose.

We propose that the Minister of Works, who already has in his Department considerable responsibility, should have power to make grants and loans, and even do the repair work himself, in these houses in appropriate cases. There is no suggestion that before he steps in the house has to be empty and that it has to become a museum. We have not said that. This is not the occasion on which to discuss the full details of the matter. We shall be having legislation in the autumn and there will be every opportunity of looking at the question then, but I must correct the impression which the two hon. Members seem to have, that we have decided to do nothing about this and that we are content to let these houses go to rack and ruin without lifting a finger.

That is not so. We accept that further responsibility which must be placed upon the State in order to deal with this matter. We think that it should be done by a Minister of the Crown, and we propose to give him powers to do it. The amount it will cost is a matter which we must regulate according to the financial situation. There again, that is a far better way of dealing with the matter than by tax exemption which might cost say £3 million or £4 million a year, or whatever the sum would be, according to the number of houses involved.

I must be forgiven if I say as Chancellor that I prefer this way—that I should have the right to say to my right hon. Friend, "You can only be allowed a certain sum this year but when things are better we may be able to let you have a little more." That is why I suggest that our proposals are much better designed to meet the need, which is certainly recognised and acknowledged by us all. On these grounds, I suggest to the Committee that they should reject the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.