HC Deb 12 June 1956 vol 554 cc476-88
Mr. Roy Jenkins

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

The Amendment is designed simply to extend in a very small way the scope of the works of art which may be taken over by the Treasury in payment of death duties. It is designed to cover a set of circumstances in which it might be valuable to bring articles into the possession of the State. They might be of use and value to museums but might not strictly be of aesthetic merit. It is possible to imagine objects of historic interest in this category—letters, manuscripts and other matters of that kind which could usefully be acquired and handed over to museums. I hope that the Government can accept the Amendment.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Grimond

I support the Amendment. It will be of value. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that when objects, whether or not of pre-eminent merit or preeminent historical value, are accepted, considerable care is taken about where they are put. There has been a tendency, I think, to accumulate them in London or Edinburgh. There is a considerable number of objects and pictures hardly ever shown to the public at all. It would be a pity to overcrowd the main collections, and at the same time it would be of great value to other collections in the country if the objects were to be fairly freely offered to them, especially if the objects have some connection with a town or district where there is a collection in which they could be exhibited.

Mr. H. Brooke

Before I deal with the Amendment, I think I should say a word about the background of the Clause. Of course, it is perfectly possible for the national institutions to purchase objects of historical interest quite apart from this Clause, but the Clause represents a widening of the power given in the Finance Act, 1953, which, as the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will recollect, is confined to objects which were or had been associated with a building of a certain character and could be retained in that building. Here we are seeking to use the National Land Fund for financing the acquisition of works of art which the Treasury is satisfied are pre-eminent for aesthetic merit but which it may not be possible or appropriate to retain in that building where they have been.

The Amendment asks that we shall extend this National Land Fund procedure to works which are of historical value and not keep it merely for works of aesthetic merit. I have considered this very carefully, and I am doubtful whether this really would be an effective extension. If the work is pre-eminent for its historical value, almost certainly it will be pre-eminent for aesthetic merit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] I am not saying that there would not be doubtful or borderline cases, but I am thinking of medieval manuscripts, for instance, which may be of great historical value but which quite possibly have high aesthetic merit, too.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Possibly, but not necessarily.

Mr. Brooke

I am quite ready to examine this further, if that is the wish of the Committee, and it would be helpful, in that case, if the hon. Member for Stechford would bring to my attention—not this morning but before Report—any examples of the sort of articles he would seek to include by his Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Wellington's boots.

Mr. Brooke

I must stress that already the national institutions have purchase grants which they can use for the purchase of articles which are not of exceptional value. The National Land Fund is needed when a work of art—and the hon. Member will bear in mind that it is confined to works of art—would cost a great deal of money to acquire. My own judgment is that these words which we have now will, in conjunction with the general power of the national institutions to acquire through their purchase grants, cover anything that is likely to be needed to be acquired. I have quite an open mind about it, and if I am wrong I invite the hon. Member to give me evidence of that.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I think, without holding up the Committee for more than a minute or two, that I might give the Financial Secretary some clear examples of what I have in mind. Let us suppose that one is dealing with a valuable collection of nineteenth century letters which it was desired should go to the British Museum, or some other collection. One might, in those circumstances, argue about whether there was any aesthetic value; but, in the case of nineteenth century letters, I do not see that the aesthetic merit enters into the argument.

One might think of some memento of value. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has suggested the Duke of Wellington's boots. They might very well not be of aesthetic value, but they are of great historical value; but what I have primarily in mind is the collection of nineteenth century letters.

Mr. Brooke

When the hon. Member mentions Wellington's boots, neither he nor his right hon. Friend can argue that they are a pre-eminent work of art. His Amendment does not alter the words, "works of art," and I must advise him that his Amendment is ill conceived. But perhaps we can investigate this matter further and arrive at some understanding before the Report stage.

Mr. Mitchison

The things which in the past have been accepted in common with houses in which they were placed could be regarded partly as works of art of aesthetic merit and partly, to use a neutral phrase, of other merit. One good way of looking at the matter would he to think of the kind of thing which was acceptable in the past. A work of art may be of some aesthetic merit and be of some historical value, but it may be only pre-eminent in the one. The plate which is kept at Lloyd's and which belonged to Lord Nelson is—and this is entirely a personal opinion—certainly a work of art in one sense but not of exceptional merit. I do, however, regard it as of exceptional historical value.

The same might apply to a number of portraits of Queen Elizabeth the First. They are works of art, but my personal view is that they are not of outstanding aesthetic merit. Since that lady did not have many portraits of outstanding historical value, the rarer the portrait the worse it is likely to be, but the greater its potential historical value. I do hope that we shall reconsider this matter because it is, I think, clear that the words in the original Clause were too narrow and not suitable for covering articles in landed property such as might become publicly owned.

Mr. C. Howell

I do not think it is quite fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) to use as an example something which has not been purchased. Obviously we have to be concerned with hypothetical case, and I have in mind a painting of an historical occasion. It is, perhaps, a poor example of the artist's work; it is of no aesthetic value, and some people may say that we have examples of his work in the National Gallery and so on and there is no need for this picture. It might, for example, be a painting of the Battle of Bannockburn and, therefore, be of great historical value to the people living in the area, although to the Sassenachs only a portrayal of some incident with which we were not very cognizant when at school.

It is feasible that something which artists or people with an artistic temperament would say had no aesthetic value might be felt by people across the Border in Scotland to have real historical value. Something which had immense value in, say, Carlisle might have no value whatever in London, although for some part of the British Isles it had great historical value. I think that this aspect should be included.

Mr. H. Wilson

I hope that the Financial Secretary, who indicated that he might think about the matter again, will give it thought before the Report stage and not rely exclusively on evidence supplied from this side that the Amendment might prove to be of value.

One or two possible cases have been mentioned, but I do not think this is the best time of the night or day to think of the best illustrations to convince the right hon. Gentleman. It might be that a little postage stamp could come within the definition of the Amendment. If it were a work of art, it might be of great historical importance yet have relatively little aesthetic value. It might be worth while that power should be given under the Clause for it to be acquired. One might think of, say, a map or chart used by a great general or admiral in some historic encounter in the past which could be regarded as a work of art-the right hon. Gentleman has already interpreted the phrase "works of art" liberally—which would be of great historic value and might, therefore, be appropriate for acquisition.

Under the Clause, it may be possible before long to acquire some of the Conservative Election posters of 1951. They are becoming very rare now. We cannot get hold of them even to look at. They spoke of bringing down prices and they are rapidly becoming of great historical interest.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Lord Woolton is buying them up.

Mr. Wilson

They are being suppressed. They are of little aesthetic value but of great historic value. The only doubt is whether they would count as works of art.

If the right hon. Gentleman applies his imaginative mind to the problem, he could think of a number of probable cases within the scope of the Amendment. Even if he does not feel able to accept the Amendment now, I hope he will approach it in a friendly spirit and see before Report stage whether it is possible to accept its intention.

It will not have escaped attention that we have now gone through thirteen Clauses without a single debate arising on any Amendment proposed from this side of the Committee, until we came to the present Amendment. The past five or six hours have been spent in debating Amendments moved from the other side. Since we have at last reached an Amendment moved from this side, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be as accommodating as possible and will tell us whether he accepts it in principle or will look at the matter to try to find examples to justify his accepting it.

Mr. H. Brooke

I gladly undertake to look at this matter carefully and sympathetically. There is no party issue in this. The best thing would be if the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) would have a talk with me about it later today and see whether we can clear it up.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Howell) is under a misapprehension. If an item is one of those interesting historical objects which can continue to be associated with the building where it has always been, there is no difficulty about its acquisition under the 1953 Act. Similarly, if it is an article of historical value which one of the national institutions or museums would like to acquire, again there is no difficulty. That institution can acquire it; it is perfectly free to acquire it out of its ordinary purchase grant. What we have particularly in mind here is the great work of art of exceptional financial value which would be far beyond the scope of an ordinary purchase grant, and where it might be entirely suitable to use the National Land Fund, even though the work of art cannot be retained in the building with which it has been associated.

Mr. Howell

I do not think I am under a misapprehension. Surely Clause 29 deals with the powers of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to accept it, not for institutions to purchase.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Brooke

The institutions have that independent value, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read this in conjunction with Clause 30, I think it is, of the Finance Act, 1953, which will indicate to him the very wide power that there is already to acquire objects of many kinds, provided they are to be retained in a building which is under public control.

The whole situation is slightly more complex, I think, than perhaps some hon. Members of the Committee appreciate. I should be delighted to have a talk about it afterwards with the hon. Member for Stechford and any other hon. Members who are interested.

Mr. Ross

Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it may well be that one of these works of art to which my hon. Friend drew attention, whose value rests not on their aesthetic value but rather on their value with historic associations, might be equally costly and therefore would be outwith the buying powers of these institutions. Surely from that point of view it would be desirable to cover them in this Clause when we have the chance.

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. Gentleman's last observations disclosed one very obvious thing. A recent report, which he will remember, about the insufficiency of purchase grants for public museums and public galleries, is very well illustrated and reinforced by the observations he made just now. I am all in favour of the National Land Fund, or any other fund, being used to purchase valuable works of art, but it is really no substitute for what was asked for in that report, as regards which he has a departmental responsibility, and I hope he will bear in mind on some more suitable occasion the possibility of increasing the purchasing resources of public museums and galleries.

Mr. Gordon Walker

For reasons of order we had to limit this to works of art, but really what we are after, quite clearly from what we have been saying, are objects of historical interest which it might not be desirable to keep in the place to which they belonged when the building was handed over; say, a copy of Magna Charta. Of course, the Government are not restricted in this way by the rules of order in the same way, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consider what we were trying to get at, that it should be works of art of aesthetic merit and objects of great historical value, I think there is something of importance in this.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

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

Mr. H. Wilson

Clause 29 is, as my hon. Friends have pointed out in the debate on the last Amendment, very, very limited indeed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has just said, it is limited to works of art. We welcome this very limited widening of the existing powers of the Land Fund, but it will have been noticed, even though an Amendment my hon. Friends put down was not called, that we feel that the definition of the words "work of art" should be considerably wider.

My hon. Friends had on the Order Paper an Amendment suggesting that the phrase "work of art" should be deemed to include the equity shares of any company. I should probably be out of order in pressing the point in any detail because, for some reason which I have been unable to understand, the Amendment was not called. However, when the right hon. Gentleman is considering the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), I hope he will give consideration to a possible widening of the Clause in this context. It may be that the reason why the Amendment was not called was that it was considered redundant. The definition of the Clause may already cover the phrase "work of art" being deemed to include equity shares.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone as far as he should on that.

Mr. Wilson

We have not been told, Sir Rhys, whether "work of art" can be taken as meaning these shares, but I will bow to your Ruling in this context and content myself with putting a point to the right hon. Gentleman.

This is a very important, though limited, new development. It extends the powers of the Treasury to acquire objects of aesthetic or, it may be in due course historical value in settlement of death duties. What we are not clear about with the Clause as drafted is how they are to be valued. As we understand it, this will presumably depend upon an agreed valuation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of our greatest difficulties in getting proper death duty revenue arises from the problem of valuation. There is a great deal of under-valuation. I refer to the purpose of probate, not the purpose of payment of death duty.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that the question will be fully looked at in the operation of the Clause. I hope that when he looks at it he will not weary in well doing but will ascertain how far the Clause can be extended to cover a far wider range of national property than is covered by the phrase "work of art."

Mr. H. Brooke

On the point of valuation for death duties, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will appreciate that the Clause makes no fundamental change anywhere, although subsections (1) and (2) are slight widenings of existing statutory powers. I do not think that the question of valuation is really raised afresh by the Clause in any way.

We have used the words "work of art" in the Clause because, from our practical experience, we think that what is in subsection (1) will meet the one type of case which is not already covered. For the reasons which I gave, we do not anticipate that there will be any serious difficulty in acquiring for national purposes the other kinds of articles which have been mentioned in the debate. I will not weary the Committee by going over that ground again. I will willingly discuss the matter in practical terms with any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on either side of the Committee who is interested.

We do not want to take enormous new powers here if they are never going to be needed except for the type of work of art here mentioned. Having said that, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that my approach is sympathetic and that we are trying to find a satisfactory solution.

Mrs. White

I find it difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his argument that it is in some way preferable that articles of historical value should be obtained by purchases from the very limited grants, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), instead of their being acquired by the other method.

If there is an opportunity of obtaining something which one of the institutions to which we are referring would like to have, and which is of great historical value, I do not see what objection there is on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to obtaining it by this method, instead of by purchase. Perhaps it is the late hour of the morning which makes me a little stupid, but I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has made out any case for objecting to acquisition by this method. He says that these works of art can be purchased, and so they can, but the funds available are so extremely limited that they should be used for the other articles which will not come into the possession of institutions by these means.

Mr. Ross

I think we are entitled to have a little more light thrown on this matter. It is all very well to say that these things can be purchased by these institutions, but whenever an institution goes into the market to buy one of them the Treasury has to produce a Supplementary Estimate. I can remember asking for an explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the expenditure of the sum of £25,000, which turned out to be an additional grant to one of these Scottish institutions for the purchase of a work of art. The same thing could have applied to some of these objets d'art, and we are not entirely happy about the narrowness of the definition of the phrase "work of art," or the other qualifications thereunto.

Can the Financial Secretary give us any more definite information about the way in which the valuation will be carried out? The Treasury will carry out these transactions by way of settlement of Estate Duty, but what valuation will be placed upon these pre-eminent works of aesthetic merit? Will some value be suggested by a hypothetical purchaser from overseas? Or will it be related to some previous transaction, with a reference to the actual work of art being purchased? We should be given some assurance that the Treasury is not going to be over-generous with the taxpayers' money.

If the matter were not settled in this way it would be settled with hard cash. Upon whose judgment will the Treasury rely in connection with the question whether or not something is worth accepting? Will it be an historical judgment? Will it rule out any reference to a modern work of art which a certain dominant set of critics has not yet recognised for its aesthetic merit? We should be given some idea of the extent to which the Clause will work.

Will it apply only to a very narrow section of these works of art? I got the impression from what the Financial Secretary said that that really would be the case. I hope that there are some more venturesome spirits in the Treasury, with a little more interest in art, and that we shall try to obtain other objects, besides the more historic old masters, which could not otherwise be purchased by institutions. We are entitled to some indication from the Financial Secretary of the scope of his interpretation of the phrase "work of art," the method of valuation and the skill of those who will judge the pre-eminence and aesthetic merit of these works of art.

3.45 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Question is—

Mr. Ross

I have put a special question to the Financial Secretary, and I think I must insist that he should at least attempt to answer, even if it is late—[HON. MEMBERS: "Insist?"] I can request that. I do not think that I put my points in an antagonistic way, and I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to reply.

Mr. H. Brooke

If the hon. Member requests and does not insist, I will willingly try to answer him.

So far as the valuation is concerned, he will appreciate that in the last resort it has to be a valuation acceptable to both parties; because the Treasury, advised by its expert valuers, will not enter into one of these agreements to take over articles in satisfaction of death duties unless it is satisfied on the point of value. And the owner of the article will not offer it in satisfaction of death duties unless he is satisfied that the price is reasonably fixed. There is no compulsion here on either side to enter into a bargain.

Mr. Ross

There may not be compulsion in respect of this, but very often the owner cannot sell it outside the country where the most likely purchasers would be found, and from that point of view there is a certain amount of compulsion.

Mr. Brooke

There is no compulsion on a man to sell or dispose of the article at all.

As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I can assure her that we already have considerable powers and that this is simply a slight increase in them. I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was under the impression that our present powers were limited. He suggested that whenever one of the national institutions wished to purchase an object of historic value it went to the Treasury for a Supplementary Estimate. That is totally untrue. Each institution has its annual purchase grant and accumulated and trust funds. No question of a Supplementary Estimate arises, except when it is an article of exceptional value.

By this Clause we are seeking to provide a new method whereby works of art of outstanding aesthetic merit could be acquired with the help of the National Land Fund. The hon. Lady asked what would be the objection to putting wide words in here. One practical objection might be that, knowing that the National Land Fund had more than £50 million in its coffers, owners might rush to offer all kinds of things to take advantage of this Clause. The whole machinery would break down were we to become cluttered up with innumerable offers, when all we are trying to do is to make it possible to acquire some works of art of such outstanding value that it would be difficult to get hold of them without this special provision.

Mr. Mitchison

Would not the owners, if I may use a rather Irish expression, have to die before they made an offer?

Mr. Brooke

The representative of the owner, whoever it might be, responsible for finding the death duty would be the person to make the offer. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that. Normally, it would be the heir.

Mr. Mitchison

I was wondering what would induce a rush of deaths of owners of pre-eminent works of art.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.