HC Deb 12 June 1956 vol 554 cc488-90

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

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

I am sure that all those people who are purchasing houses, and particularly young married couples, will very much welcome this Clause. But it is regrettable that owing to the fact that Resolutions in Committees of Ways and Means do not have the effect of force of law regarding Stamp Duty, this concession is being put off for 3½ months, since the date that has been written into the Bill has been chosen as after the passage of the Finance Bill.

This Clause has put a virtual stop on all house purchases. No one is going to complete house purchases at present, knowing that he can save £30–£50 by putting it off for a matter of months, except in the case of a small number of people who, somewhat naturally, assumed that this Measure was taking effect from the beginning of the financial year. In that case, they have been "stung." I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would look at this point with a view to amending the Bill in this respect at the next stage. Would he perhaps see whether it would be possible to date this retrospectively, either from the beginning of the financial year or some such date? I do not think it would cause any great difficulty for a refund if the Revenue authorities had produced a form of contract with the Stamp Duty paid at the old rate.

Mr. H. Brooke

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have looked into this already. I raise no objection to his bringing forward the point, and I agree that it is something of a difficulty that the Provisional Collection of Tax Act, 1913, does not apply to the Stamp Duty, and, therefore, there is no means of making an alteration in the Stamp Duty take effect until the Finance Bill becomes law. For that reason I August is put in here as the date when these reductions of duty will operate.

My hon. Friend has suggested it would be relatively easy, in practice, if the Government were to amend this Clause and fix an earlier date, say I May, or what you will. We carefully investigated that possibility, but the difficulties are so enormous as to be insuperable. We cannot assume that the law is different from what it actually is, and, therefore, all instruments which are presented for stamping before the passing of the Bill into law must be stamped at the old rates, whatever date is put into the Bill. Then the excess duty paid on all those instruments would have to be refunded after the Bill became law.

A very large number of instruments would be affected—I am advised about 20,000 a month—and the mere work of reassessing the Stamp Duty on them all would be very considerable. In addition to that, the claimant would have to add to the instrument the appropriate certificate of value required by Subsection (1) of this Clause. He would also have to get the certificate signed by the other party to the instrument. Furthermore, he would have to produce evidence that he himself paid the original duty as that could not be confirmed from the document. Clearly, it would be wrong to refund money to the wrong man.

I must warn the Committee that these proceedings, which may seem simple when they are recounted at five minutes to four in the morning, would put a really terrifying additional amount of work on those who would have to administer these arrangements. For those reasons, much as I regret it myself, we cannot put an earlier date than 1st August for the operation of these new rates of Stamp Duty. I am very much afraid there is no alternative.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.