HC Deb 11 July 1956 vol 556 cc486-7

7.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 44, line 14, after "merit", to insert "or historical value".

We now move rather swiftly from the Universal Grinding Wheel Company to works of art which the Inland Revenue may accept in satisfaction of Estate Duty. About 3 o'clock in the morning of 13th June, we were discussing Clause 31 and I promised to give careful and sympathetic consideration to the points raised in an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). As a result of that, I hope that the House will be happy to know that the Government are bringing forward an Amendment in almost the same words as his.

In brief, the point is this. The Clause as drafted would cover only works of art of an aesthetic merit. It was pointed out that there might be important works of which it could hardly be truthfully said that they had an aesthetic merit, although they were of great historical interest. I am not sure whether someone mentioned the Bayeux tapestry. There is no question whatever about the historical value or interest of the Bayeux tapestry, but it might well be open to question whether it was a work of art of aesthetic merit.

No one is offering the Bayeux tapestry to the Inland Revene, but I thought that that was the most striking example I could quote, which would be known to everyone. The Government now propose to meet this and to provide that the test shall not only be one of aesthetic merit but, alternatively, of historic value. I hope that in that way we have shown our open-mindedness and acceded to what appeared, at 3 o'clock in the morning at any rate, to be the general wish of the Committee.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I think that the right hon. Gentleman was putting his remarks on that occasion in the early morning in rather a favourable light. He produced one argument after another against our Amendment, but, none the less, we are very glad that, in the clear light of the afternoon, he has come to a different decision.

We cannot allow this to pass without saying that this is the only contribution to the Bill, or, shall I say, "non-Brixton" contribution to the Bill that has come from this side of the House. I think that I am right in saying that all the others came from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who has written two new Clauses into the Bill. If we were in the United States, it would be called the "Macmillan-Lipton Bill." This is a matter of some slight significance, and we have great pleasure in thanking the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend for this sensible concession which they have made.

Amendment agreed to.