HC Deb 05 July 1965 vol 715 cc1243-58
5 (1) A gain accruing on the disposal of an asset by way of gift, or accruing on a disposal on death of an asset devised or bequeathed by the deceased, shall not be a chargeable gain if under section 40 of the Finance Act 1931 (which, as amended by section 27 of the Finance Act 1936, section 31 of the Finance Act 1937, section 31 of the Finance Act 1949, section 33 of the Finance Act 1951 and section 54 of the Finance Act 1963, affords relief from estate duty in the case of land given to the National Trust or for certain other public purposes)—
(a) the asset is exempt from estate duty which is or might have been leviable by reference to the gift, devise or bequest, or
10 (b) the Treasury remit estate duty so leviable or where (as in the case of a gift or in the case of an asset exempt from estate duty) remission under that section would have no effect for the purposes of estate duty, if the Treasury determine that the gift, devise or bequest qualifies for relief under that section.
(2) A gain accruing—
15 (a) on a disposal of assets forming part of a property deemed under Part III of this Act to be effected by a deceased person on his death, or
(b) on a disposal of assets forming part of settled property deemed to be effected in accordance with section 24 (3) of this Act in consequence of the termination of a life interest by death,
20 shall not be a chargeable gain if and to the extent that under section 31 (3) of the Finance Act 1937 (which, as amended by section 31 of the Finance Act 1949, section 33 of the Finance Act 1951 and section 54 of the Finance Act 1963, affords relief from estate duty in respect of settled property to which the National Trust or some other public body is entitled subject to one or more life interests) exemption is to be granted as to the estate duty (if any) leviable on that death in respect of those assets.
30 (3) This section shall apply in relation to estate duty leviable under the law of Northern Ireland as it applies to estate duty leviable under the law of Great Britain with the substitution for the estate duty enactments mentioned in this section of the corresponding enactments forming part of the law of Northern Ireland and subject to any other necessary modifications.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacDermot

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

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It will be in order to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in line 25, at the end to insert a new subsection (3).

Mr. MacDermot

This new Clause has been put down in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee to grant an exemption from Capital Gains Tax for the benefit of the National Trust and similar bodies. As I undertook in Committee, the exemption has been coextensive with the exemption from Estate Duty. It is modelled upon it and follows it exactly. The result is that the exemption will apply, first, to gifts or bequests to the two National Trusts of land or buildings and of chattels kept with the buildings and maintenance funds for the upkeep of the land, buildings or chattels if given by the donor of the land or buildings either at the time of the original gift or later.

Secondly, it applies to gifts or bequests to a Government Department; a local authority or non-profit-making preservation body of either buildings of outstand- ing historical, architectural or æsthetic interest; chattels going with the building or maintenance funds for the upkeep of the building or chattels if given by the donor of the building either at the time of the original gift or later; and to land of outstanding scenic, historic or scientific interest and objects going with the land. Finally, to an out-and-out gift or bequest of an ancient monument to the Minister of Public Building and Works, or a local authority.

As we are on Report, perhaps I should refer briefly to the Amendment which we are discussing with the new Clause. All I need say at this stage is that, as I indicated in Committee, we do not feel able to extend this exemption beyond the Estate Duty exemption. I fully appreciate the reasons which motivated the hon. Member in putting down the Amendment, and will listen carefully to what he has to say.

It may seem in some ways illogical that the exemption applies to maintenance funds which are provided by the donor of land but not to maintenance funds provided by other persons. I am afraid that the short answer is that if we were to accede to this Amendment we should find ourselves inexorably driven to grant a similar concession for all gifts for charitable purposes. It would not be possible to make any valid distinction in principle. The result of extending the exemption in this way would be so wide that it is unacceptable.

As it is, the National Trusts and similar bodies fare better in many ways than other charitable organisations under our Estate Duty law and they are fortunate to be able to carry over the same privileges into Capital Gains Tax. As we have the clear precedent of Estate Duty law, we thought that it was right to follow it.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I wish to speak on the Amendment to the proposed Clause, which I have on the Paper; namely, in line 25, at the end to insert: (3)(a) Far the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, where a person gives property to the National Trust as a sources of income for the upkeep—

  1. (i) of any land which is at the time of the gift inalienably vested in the National Trust; or
  2. (ii) of any objects which are then vested in the National Trust and ordinarily kept in a building forming part of any such land, having been given to the National Trust with a view to their preservation or use in that building;
such property shall be deemed to be an asset which is exempt from estate duty under section 40 of the Finance Act 1931 within the meaning of paragraph (a) of that subsection notwithstanding that he did not give or join in giving to the Trust its estate or interest in that land or those objects and notwithstanding that he did not give or join in giving to the Trust its estate or interest in the building in which the objects are ordinarily kept at the time of the said gift. (b) For the purposes of this subsection expressions to which meanings are assigned by section 33(5) of the Finance Act 1951 have the same respective meanings. It is rather difficult to speak to an Amendment to which the answer has, apparently, already been given. I shall attempt to deal with with the substance of my Amendment and with some of the points in the answer which the Financial Secretary has already given. I am grateful to him for moving this new Clause, and I freely admit that it fulfils the pledge which he gave in Committee, although that pledge did not go far enough. It is for that reason that I sought to move this relatively small Amendment to widen the scope of the relief for the National Trusts. In his reply in Committee, the Financial Secretary talked about adhering to precedent, and he reinforced that tonight by saying that he was determined not to create any wider precedent than that granted by the Estate Duty reliefs.

He has limited the extent of the concession to Capital Gains Tax to gifts of land given or bequeathed to the Trust indefeasibly which is vested in the Trust inalienably to the public benefit; secondly, to objects ordinarily kept in the building forming part of such land; and, thirdly, maintenance funds given to the support of that land. Those gifts are exempt only if they are given by the donor of the original property or by one who has joined with the donor in giving it. I agree with the Financial Secretary that this minutely follows the Estate Duty exemptions to which he referred. In Committee, I pressed him to include shares in other property given for the support of land by other persons and, in his wisdom, he declined to accept that concept.

The only reason he advanced and the only one he has advanced tonight is that he declined to diverge front the precedents already set in this matter. I cannot help remarking in passing that it is odd for a Government of the colour we have now to be frightened of departing from precedent in any matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Reactionaries."] I hope that he will not think it unreasonable or ungrateful of me if I press him to include all gifts of property whether given to the Trusts by the original donor or by some other person, income arising from such property to be used for the maintenance and upkeep of land held inalienably for the public good by the National Trust. The Amendment which I move is to extend this not only to the original donor but to other donors who may later wish to help the work of the Trust by giving them a capital asset.

The Financial Secretary will note that this does not apply to shares or blocks of stock. There is some case for his maintaining that he must raise Capital Gains Tax from them. We have at present the odd position that, if a house and its property is given to and accepted by the trust as inalienable then further land given by the original donor would be exempt from Capital Gains Tax. If, however, a neighbour or other person were to give adjoining property or property elsewhere, the income from which was to be used for the maintenance of that historic house or piece of countryside, that gift would be subject to Capital Gains Tax whereas that of the original donor would not. This is surely illogical.

9.30 p.m.

Secondly, if a person were to give a picture, a work of art or chattel to the National Trust to put in one of the houses which it already possesses, I assume that that picture would be subject to Capital Gains Tax. Suppose that there was a set of furniture and one piece was missing. If a well-wisher were to find the missing piece and give it to the Trust, would it or would it not be subject to Capital Gains Tax upon gift to the Trust? It is the Trust, which is not in a strong position, which would have to find the tax on that gift. It is illogical that this position should apply.

Hon. Members are well aware of the immense cost of upkeep of these historic houses and of the backlog of repair and modernisation which confronts both the Trusts. It is significant that the Trusts, which have always insisted upon taking an adequate endowment before they accept a property, have had to start public appeals to support inalienable land. I am certain that it would help enormously if this further small concession were granted whereby people would not be inhibited from giving property by fear of the Capital Gains Tax.

I acknowledge very much the great contribution which the Historic Buildings Councils have made to the work of the Trusts, but this contribution is available only to be spent upon the repair of buildings and is not available for the upkeep of land. As all concerned with agriculture know, modern farming consists almost entirely of an endless injection of fresh capital to keep up with modern farming practice.

I know that the Amendment goes slightly beyond the exemption for death duties, but I do not believe that it would lead, as the Financial Secretary suggested, to wide pressure for the extension of the concession to other fields. I cannot see to which other fields the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring, nor do I believe that it is necessary for him to give way to that pressure. The National Trusts already possess in law a special position because of their special function for preserving these houses and the countryside, which no other organisation, either Government or private, could possibly do so well. I do not believe that any other organisation would be justified in pressing for the special position which I seek on behalf of the Trusts.

"Wide pressure" is an odd phrase for the Financial Secretary to use. In scientific terms, it is nothing like the same as strong pressure. The wider the area over which the pressure is exerted, the weaker it is. That can be said to apply to the Amendment, which has not been selected, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and others, although I make no comment on their desire to extend this concession; it is neither in order nor relevant to my argument. I believe that the Trusts have this special position which can be singled out and pressed upon the Government because nobody else is in the same position and no one else could do the same sort of work anything like as successfully.

I should like to know from the Financial Secretary whether the title "National Trust" in his new Clause applies both to the National Trust for England and the National Trust for Scotland. There is a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench and I am glad to welcome him, because he is certainly concerned in this matter. I hope very much that we will have it confirmed that "Trust" applies to both the Trusts and not simply to the National Trust for England.

The National Trusts are unique organisations. They are typically British, pragmatic and have become the envy of most other nations because of the extraordinarily successful way in which they have steered clear of the political rocks and have managed to preserve the inheritance of famous buildings. They have no Government subsidy and if they were subjected to these taxes—Estate Duty, Capital Gains Tax or any other form of taxation—they would begin to be in the same position as the private landlord.

Sooner or later private owners of these houses will be squeezed out. I am not arguing on that score now, because it is not relevant to the discussion. However, if these private landlords are to be squeezed out we must allow organisations of this sort to take their place, to hold these houses and keep them up—but they must have sufficient funds to do this work in future. If it is part of the policy of the Labour Government to destroy the means whereby private individuals can do this work, they must ensure that the National Trusts, which are the only possible alternatives, have the means to do it.

While I welcome the new Clause, I urge the Government to accept the Amendment, which would slightly widen its scope. I do not believe that it would create a precedent which would be difficult to accept. It would be of immense benefit to the unique organisations, the National Trusts.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary for the concession which is made in the new Clause. It is always difficult for a Government to make concessions because they can be sure that applications for further concessions or for the ones which have been made to be extended are bound to follow. I have every sympathy with the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (M r. Ridley), although I appreciate the difficulties which my hon. and learned Friend may face in its acceptance. I am sure that the National Trusts would be pleased if the Government found themselves able to make this further concession, for the reasons adduced by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

I understand that the request came from the legal advisers to the National Trust and I agree that there would appear to be an anomaly in the present situation, as has been pointed out. This is perhaps all the more true now since the Trust is being used as the instrument for preserving the coastline, an object which we are all anxious to achieve. We are grateful that the Government have made a direct contribution and we are aware that the Chancellor has shown a great personal interest in this matter.

I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will find it possible to go this little way further and accept the Amendment, although I appreciate that, from the National Trusts' point of view, half a loaf is better than no bread. Indeed, the Trusts are sincerely pleased with the concession the Government are already making.

Mr. Robert Cooke

If some of what I have to say includes some words of criticism I should perhaps make it clear at the outset that I have absolutely no quarrel with the National Trust, an organisation without which Britain would be poorer. I always strive to do all I can to support it in its work and I had the pleasure recently, with a number of hon. Members of both sides of the House, of visiting National Trust properties. The Trust keeps closely in touch with Parliament so that we know the sort of work it is doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had a good point when he drew the distinction between lands given by the original owner of the house for its support—and, I imagine, also from the amenity point of view—which would be exempt, and lands given by an adjoining landowner, which would not. That would seem to be a ridiculous distinction. One could conceive a case where a house had practically no land with it at all, and an adjoining landowner wanted to make a splendid gift which would make the whole property, if not economically viable at least protected from undesirable development—because we have not yet got all the legislation that is needed there. The land might be available, but there might be difficulties; the National Trust might be caught with Capital Gains Tax.

My hon. Friend also spoke quite validly on the subject of contents. An owner might have something of unique importance to a particular property, and if we are really anxious to do all we can to help the National Trust in its work surely this sort of concession should be made.

The Financial Secretary, in explaining the Government's Clause, frequently spoke of "the National Trust or other similar bodies." My only quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is that he is asking for a further concession for the National Trust alone, and I quarrel with the Government because they would seem to be giving a special concession just to the National Trust. I would have no quarrel if the new Clause gave the same concession to any body doing similar work.

Mr. MacDermot

Perhaps I might be permitted to assist the hon. Gentleman on that point. I spelt this out rather precisely at the beginning of my speech, but there was a lot of noise in the Chamber at the time and some hon. Members may not have heard what I said. The concession follows precisely the Estate Duty exemption which extends, for the second class of which I spoke, beyond the National Trusts to gifts or bequests to a Government Department, to a local authority or to non-profit-making preservation bodies of buildings, chattels and land of the appropriate kind. It has to be subject to Treasury direction, but it was to those that I referred, rather loosely, as "other similar bodies."

Mr. Robert Cooke

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for once more saying what was drowned by the noise of the previous Division. I am grateful for that clarification, and I hope that such will be the case, as I am sure that the National Trust would not want to be in any special and somewhat invidious position. I do not think that the Trust would go as far as to say what my hon. Friend in his enthusiasm said—that nobody else could do its work. That would be to come dangerously near to a nationalised trust; the sort of idea that perhaps in the future some body, not even privately organised, should be responsible for all our historic buildings and all our places of national beauty. That is a dangerous thought. My hon. Friend also said that the National Trust was a completely English institution. In so doing he contradicted what he said earlier, because it is half Scottish.

That leads me to my next point, which is that there are very definite individual requirements in some parts of the country, and private individuals have their part to play, because a historic building is nothing if simply preserved in its landscape as a museum. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend nods his assent. If we are to encourage private individuals to go on with the healthy struggle of keeping historic buildings as living homes, surely the private individual and the private trust should receive the same sort of concessions as the National Trust. I hope that that will be the case.

9.45 p.m.

Perhaps because of the difficulties of our procedure I may have said some things which seemed to my hon. Friend somewhat unkind. I ought to conclude by saying that not only have I had my mind to some extent put at rest—and I hope that I speak for hon. Friends who have put their names to an Amendment to be discussed later—but I am also glad to know that the Government view with favour other bodies working in this field in which the National Trust will not be in an extraordinary and invidious position. I am sure that it would not wish to be in such a position.

I hope that I am right in thinking that the Government, with all their enthusiasm for preservation and enjoyment of historic buildings and countryside, are well aware that as well as the National Trust in England and Scotland others are striving in this field and that they merit just as much consideration.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

On the basis that it is always unwise to "look a gift horse in the mouth" whether in political or other walks of life, I express gratitude to the Government for the concession they have made in this new Clause, coupled with the earlier concession in respect of works of art of certain quality being exempt from Capital Gains Tax provided that they are not sold.

I support my hon Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in the Amendment he has placed on the Paper on behalf of the National Trust. I am sure that the Financial Secretary knows what are the problems of the National Trust. He knows that it will not accept any property as a gift in lieu of Estate Duty or for any other purpose, unless accompanied with the gift of the property there is a sufficient endowment to cover the maintenance and upkeep of the property in question.

The problem has been that the National Trust in years past, very properly, has accepted houses with endowments which then were sufficient to cover the maintenance and upkeep but which, in the light of subsequent rises in costs, are now insufficient. The Trust, therefore, is in a great dilemma, because it has to maintain properties for which, in many respects, it has insufficient income with which to do so.

What happens when a National Trust house needs urgent and perhaps very expensive repairs and there is an insufficient endowment in relation to the house to cover the cost? The National Trust asks the Historic Buildings Council to help to defray the cost. Here, I must declare a personal interest, although certainly not a financial one, I am the only Member of the House who is a member of the Historic Buildings Council. My colleague from the party opposite is Lord Faringdon. I pay my tribute on behalf of the Council to the great experience and advice from which we benefited for many years from Lord Chuter-Ede and latterly from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), whose illness we all deplore and for whose speedy recovery we express good wishes. At the moment, I am the only Member who is a member of the Council, so I declare an interest in this matter although it is not a financial one.

I will illustrate to the Financial Secretary what happens. The National Trust approaches the Historic Buildings Council stating that a certain house needs £40,000 spent on essential repairs—perhaps the eradication of dry rot. We have to assess this request with the other demands up on our resources. The only resources we have are the funds allocated by the Government. We administer Government funds annually and make a report. The demands made by the National Trust have to be taken into consideration with all the other demands upon the Historic Buildings Council.

Thus, at one and the same time, the National Trust's problem is partially the headache of the Historic Buildings Council and—because the Council can only dispense funds granted by the Government—partially the Government's headache. Merely on the basis of arithmetic, surely it would be cheaper for the Government to accept the Amendment rather than be faced with what might well be a demand for increased funds by the Historic Buildings Council.

It also seems odd that the Financial Secretary should resist an Amendment that would seek to increase the funds available to the National Trust. It has been in the experience of all of us concerned—I can think of 15 or 20 instances—that houses are sometimes bequeathed to the National Trust after a substantial part of the furniture has already been sold. Thus, on the death of the owner, when the property is transferred to the National Trust in lieu of death duty, the Trust receives a house that is half empty and for which no tenant can be found.

It is not easy to find tenants for National Trust houses. Very often, one of the reasons for this is that few prospective tenants will go into a large house and furnish it properly. Most have not the resources to do so. Now if a neighbour or any other person who is interested in architecture or furniture, wishes to help by bequeathing some property to the house, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government should accept the gift or bequest without its being subject to Capital Gains Tax.

The more such bequests, whether in land or chattels, are subject, on transfer of ownership, to Capital Gains Tax, the greater the disincentive to make this kind of bequest and that in turn means that the burden falls more hardly on the National Trust, making its task doubly difficult. We all have a great admiration for the task which the National Trust is trying to perform, and all that the Amendments seek to do is make their task marginally a little easier.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

It is quite clear that the House welcomes the initiative of the Financial Secretary in bringing forward the new Clause to honour the promise made in Committee. It is also clear that the sympathy of the House is with the Amendment spoken to so persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Not only has it had verbal support from both sides, but it is clear from the interest shown in the debate and from the sympathetic expressions on the faces of those facing me that there is a great deal of support for the Amendment. One the whole, it seems a very logical thing to do.

The arguments are basically that it is against precedent and that, to quote the Financial Secretary's own words, the Government would be driven inexorably to giving similar concessions or gifts to other charitable institutions. It is said that every concession given by the Treasury leads to other concessions, but the Treasury has shown remarkable skill in resisting pressures when need be. It is said that it would diverge from precedent, but that is not a strong argument. After all, the Government have been diverging from precedent very rapidly over the last few months, so they cannot call that in aid to resist the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) produced very powerful arguments in support of the Amendment, particularly when drawing attention to the difficulty which arises when the original endowment proves, through the passage of time, to be quite inadequate. We know that the National Trust is faced with great problems arising out of that very fact. I am certain the Financial Secretary is sympathetic to this Amendment and that he would like to extend the Clause to include it. I think he appreciates the logic of the arguments deployed on both sides, and I beg of him not to look at the proposal purely from the rather formal Treasury approach, not be bewildered and bemused, but to look at it anew. However, I am certain he will prepared to accept it, because it is a comparatively small Amendment to make and is doing what both sides want. For that reason alone, the Financial Secretary must accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot

May I first thank the hon. Members who have spoken on both sides of the House for the favourable reception they have given to the new Clause, and for the timely remarks about my right hon. Friend's interest and support for the work of the National Trust?

If I may begin by answering one or two specific questions, I confirm what I said during the noisy period in my original remarks, that the new Clause does apply to both the English and the Scottish National Trusts, as well as to the other bodies who may benefit from the estate duty exemption.

The main question has been whether we can extend this relief beyond the scope of the Estate Duty exemption in the way that is suggested in the Amendments. I am afraid we cannot, in spite of the very persuasive arguments to which I have certainly listened sympathetically. I willingly confess that if I had been able to see my way to accept these Amendments, I would have been glad to do so. I tried to indicate at the outset that I was sympathetic with their object, but, as hon. Members know, it is important in framing our tax laws to give them a structure which is based on an adherence to principle. We must have logic in our tax system. That is why we have felt it imperative to adhere to the precedent of the Estate Duty exemption, because in one sense that exemption is itself, if not anomalous, exceptional. It is in recognition of what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) described as the special position occupied by the National Trust's and the other bodies which do similar work and which benefit from this exemption.

10.0 p.m.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) urged me as a matter of arithmetic to accept the Amendment because of what it costs the Treasury indirectly through the Ministry of Public Building and Works in grant by way of support for the costs of maintenance of the buildings of the body which he devotedly serves. The fact which he left out of his sum was what it would cost the Treasury if we accepted the Amendment and then had to extend it to other gifts to charitable organisations, as I suggest we would. It would then become a very expensive Amendment.

I am asked why it would lead to spread. If one imagines a charitable person who is the supporter of two charities, one the National Trust and the other a quite different kind of charity, say, medical research; if he knew that if he were to make his gift to the National Trust it would be exempt from Capital Gains Tax while in the other case it would not be, not many hon. Members would hesitate to see that he would lean to give it to the National Trust. This at once would lead to all other charitable bodies saying, "This is quite unfair; you have created a built-in inducement to people to make their gifts to the National Trust". These are ordinary cash gifts resulting from the realisation of securities or other assets.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to argue that the Capital Gains Tax Clauses are not already so plastered with anomalies that one more or less would be noticed.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not accept that. I am trying to answer the main ease, which is the suggestion that it would be easy for the Treasury to accept the Amendment and then hold the position without it leading to further spread. I am trying to demonstrate what sort of arguments, which would be unanswerable, would be addressed to us if we were to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be costly to the Treasury if it had to give way over other charitable gifts. Presumably that was based on some estimate. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what is the estimate of the cost to the Treasury of doing it altogether for other charitable bequests?

Mr. MacDermot

I do not have a precise estimate, but hon. Members will see that if all gifts to charitable organisations were to be exempt from Capital Gains Tax the result would be something quite beyond what is contemplated by those who are asking for this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley

We are not asking for shares or money to be exempted but only property. The idea of giving 2,000 acres of rural England to the Medical Research Council is one which would not appeal to anyone. It is a matter of giving land or property only and surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the National Trusts are the only bodies which would be concerned with property as opposed to shares.

Mr. MacDermot

Property can be realised and this would be property given for the purpose of providing funds for maintenance purposes and it would be a gift in order to put the Trust in funds. Two hon. Members, in the course of their remarks, suggested that the effect of rejecting this Amendment would be that the liability for Capital Gains Tax, in the case of gifts to the Trust would result in the liability falling upon the Trusts. That is not right. In the case of a gift the liability, in the first instance for Capital Gains Tax, falls upon the donor.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I do not think I said that. I did not mean to convey that meaning. The point I made was that the liability to the Capital Gains Tax falls upon the donor of course, but the liability for the upkeep of the National Trust properties is still on the National Trust. To the extent that any property or chattels bequeathed to the National Trust subsequently attracts Capital Gains Tax, the increased burden still remains, to an increased extent upon the National Trust.

Mr. MacDermot

The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) argued his case perfectly logically and I was not referring to him. I am sorry but for these reasons I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.