HC Deb 17 June 1953 vol 516 cc1117-22
Mr. E. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 29, line 28, to leave out "ordinarily."

Whatever we may think of the unsympathetic and unromantic attitude of the Chancellor towards the Scilly Isles, I am sure we all appreciate the object which he had at heart in including this Clause in the Bill. This provision is directed to the preservation of objects of scientific, historic and artistic value to the country. It is designed to ensure that a great many of these objects of national importance will not be sold abroad.

My purpose in moving the Amendment is to ask the Chancellor to remove what seems to me to be an unnecessarily severe limitation on the scope of the Clause. It will be appreciated that for a long time it has been possible for the Treasury to accept, in appropriate cases, if they approved, land in lieu of Estate Duty. The Clause gives the Treasury the further power of accepting in lieu of Estate Duty chattels where they are the contents of houses that are so accepted.

This is a notable concession to people who have historic houses and chattels of national importance. It not only enables them to use those objects in payment of Estate Duty but it also saves the value of those objects from being aggregated with the remainder of the estate for the purposes of calculating the rate at which Estate Duty is charged. In view of that I appreciate that unless there were some limitation a concession of this kind might be susceptible to abuse. But there is an overriding provision which ensures that no representative of a deceased person can require the Treasury to accept either land or chattels. It is always for the Treasury to decide whether they will accept goods of any kind in lieu of Estate Duty.

As this is purely an enabling provision it should not be unnecessarily limited by the introduction of the word "ordinarily." I can imagine cases in which there have been objects which have been for a long time associated with buildings of national interest now vested in the National Trust but which have for some time been in one of the national museums. There are, for example, a good many pictures which were formerly in houses now belonging to the National Trust but which are now in national museums. In cases of that kind I should have thought that it would have been appropriate for the owners, if they so desired, to have tendered those objects in payment of Estate Duty.

I merely ask the Treasury to widen the scope of the Clause to provide even larger enabling powers than they have given, appreciating that in any event they will have the final word when deciding whether or not to exercise their powers.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

As the hon. Member has perfectly correctly stated, the word "ordinarily" which his Amendment seeks to delete from the Clause is a limitation upon the power which the Treasury have to accept these objects. He is quite right in saying that the final responsibility in deciding whether to accept or not rests with the Treasury. Therefore all the Amendment would do would be somewhat to widen the power which we should obtain. In the circumstances it seems to me the hon. Gentleman's proposal is a reasonable one, and I am quite prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I do not think we should leave this Clause until I have expressed on behalf of the National Trust, on whose Executive Committee I have the honour to serve, their gratitude to the Chancellor for granting this concession, which they have been seeking for a number of years. I think that the provisions in an earlier Finance Act which enabled the Commissioners to accept buildings and land in lieu of Death Duties have been of great benefit to this country.

There are cases in which the contents of those houses have become an integral part of them. In the past the contents have been dispersed, and there are existing cases where houses are vested in the National Trust and the contents are on loan, and but for this concession there would always be the risk that they would be dispersed on the death of the owner. We are very glad indeed that the Chancellor has found it possible this year to make this concession. We realise that the point of this Clause lies in the Treasury's discretion. We hope that that discretion will be exercised generously, and wisely, and I think that the whole plan will be of great benefit to the country.

Sir Edward Keeling (Twickenham)

I should like to add from this side of the Committee my thanks on behalf of the National Trust, and to stress what is not always appreciated; that all these things, the National Trust's houses themselves and the things which are at present on loan, but the loan of which now under this Clause, can be vested in the Trust, are on view to the public. I think this is a good Clause.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

It is very pleasing at the end, as I hope, of our discussions tonight to be able to congratulate the Treasury and to say "Thank you" for having accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) to leave out the limiting word "ordinarily," and for having brought this Clause forward at all. I should like to ask how the Treasury will seek this advice. In this Clause we have another limitation, for it says: where it appears to the Treasury desirable for the objects to remain associated with the building. I should like to know who would be the expert adviser and where the advice would be sought. I am not so much concerned with pictures of international fame or works of art which might be called of planetary significance. I do not think it is of the greatest important whether a Rembrandt is in Chicago, London or Paris, because they belong to the community of the world, for they are works of such great importance and unique value.

But there are other things we own, or used to own, in large numbers, and which we find in all types of houses, namely tapestries which are essentially British, and of course furniture. I wish to remind the Treasury—for it is their concern, and will be more their concern in a fortnight's time when we are discussing an allied subject—that these fragments of furniture, tapestries and objects of that kind, of which there are a fair number left, are as much a part of our national heritage as are the very trees, mountains and valleys.

These are national and not international things. Their significance to us is of the very greatest importance, because they were created here. I should like the widest possible interpretation by the Treasury in connection with this type of contents of these historic houses, if they be worth keeping, and that we should do all we can to keep them in this country.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

I should like to join other hon. Members in warmly welcoming this Clause, but I want to ask about one thing which was not made clear in the reply given to the question of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Is it quite clear that valuation of these objects is not to be aggregated with the rest of the estate? That is a very important question. If so, it is quite clear that a very valuable collection might have to be sold if it were to be aggregated with the rest of the estate, when the difficulty of finding the increased amount of duty required might, as I say, result in the sale of the objects concerned. I should be very glad if the Financial Secretary would tell us what will happen with regard to the valuation of these objects.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

First, let me express my right hon. Friend's appreciation for the kind and courteous things which have been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about this Clause.

There are two questions which I must answer. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked whether we would seek advice in deciding which chattels to accept. As he no doubt knows, there are many sources—official, semi-official and unofficial—from which advice can be obtained in these matters. If I listed one or two of them it would appear to exclude others, but I can assure him that we have the advantage of a great deal of advice, including that of hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) asked about the effect on the tax. This Clause does not affect the pre-existing tax position in respect of aggregation or otherwise. All it does is to enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to accept these articles in settlement of tax liability. It does not affect the pre-existing position. It merely provides that instead of paying £x one can offer an article, which the Inland Revenue are required, with our permission, to accept.

Mr. Colegate

Under what valuation would that be?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It would be under the ordinary valuation for Estate Duty purposes.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I think we should clear up this matter, because this is an important point. Would the Financial Secretary be good enough to look at subsection (3)? As I understand it, the whole object of that subsection is to extend the present operation of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1930. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong but, pursuant to Section 40, certain objects of national, historic, scientific and artistic interest are at present altogether exempt from Estate Duty unless and until they are sold otherwise than to the National Gallery, British Museum or some other approved institution.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), the Financial Secretary said that the whole object of subsection (3) is to extend the present operation of Section 40 of the 1930 Act, and to provide that if, in future, any of the objects governed by that Act— being contents of a building—are offered to the Treasury and are accepted for Estate Duty, they shall come within the terms of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1930, with the result that if they are accepted in payment of Estate Duty they are not considered as a sale and are not aggregated for the purposes of Estate Duty with the rest of the estate. That is the interpretation which has generally been given to this Section, in professional circles, at any rate. I think it is important that we should know from the Treasury that they accept that as being the position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think that the hon. Member misunderstood what I said. The Clause does not in general affect the tax position. As I think the hon. Member said, there is a provision in respect of goods and chattels that Estate Duty is payable on these when they are sold. Apart for such a sale, a sale which results in duty becoming payable, there are exempted sales to the National Gallery, the British Museum, and, I think, one or two other national bodies of that character. Subsection (3) provides that acceptance of these chattels in this way in lieu of Death Duties shall not count as an ordinary sale so as to attract Estate Duty which would be attracted by an ordinary sale.

Mr. Fletcher

With the result that the values of the objects are not added to the rest of the estate for the purpose of calculating the duty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

With the result, as I prefer to put it, that the tax position remains undisturbed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.