HC Deb 21 January 1985 vol 71 cc729-30
24. Mr. Freud

asked the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will publish a value for money table in respect of works of art accepted by Her Majesty's Government in lieu of tax.

Mr. Waldegrave

No, Sir. Acceptances in lieu depend upon valuations based on market prices and a tax position which is private to the individual concerned. It would not be appropriate to publish details.

Mr. Freud

Does the Minister agree that in his reply on 17 December, in which he said that the criterion was value for money, he was being plainly absurd, in that the only proper criterion should be the importance of a piece of art? Will he bear in mind that with the rising dollar and the falling pound it is becoming ever more difficult to compete with American institutions such as the Getty museum? Will he therefore attempt to get a slightly more realistic total with which to bid for works of art that we wish to retain?

Mr. Waldegrave

The later point about the dollar is extremely important. The hon. Member is quite right. We have to recognise that the monetary value of a work of art bears some relationship to its importance. That is what was meant by the phrase "value for money". What is saved for the taxpayer obviously depends upon the exact tax position of the individual concerned. That is why I gave the hon. Member my initial answer.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does little for the reputation of the Treasury in getting value for money if it declines to accept a certain work of art in lieu of taxation and subsequently it is auctioned for very much more money?

Mr. Waldegrave

The other matter which must be taken into account is the shape of what is already in the national collections. For example, in relation to the Duke of Devonshire's old master drawings it was necessary to consider what the British museum owned already. That is a significant factor to take into account.

Mr. Cormack

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the £2 million limit that has been referred to in official pronouncements is adhered to many treasures will go, particularly from the houses that I mentioned earlier—Nostell priory Kedleston and Weston park? Will my hon. Friend reflect on the enormous tourist earning potential of these places and have urgent discussions with our right hon. and noble Friend?

Mr. Waldegrave

I do not think that it is any secret that very difficult decisions must be faced in the time ahead. I am always a little unwilling to defend the retention of works of art on the ground of their tourist attraction, although that is one factor to take into account. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend is well apprised of what my hon. Friend warned me about — the mounting pressure in this sector.