House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jul 1992

Column 193

The House will be aware that the whole structure of VAT, particularly the fact that we have a zero rate on a wide range of items, means that repayment is a large feature of VAT. Many traders never actually pay VAT. They are registered for it and they receive repayments each month because essentially they are in a zero-rated business.

Customs receives and processes almost 2.5 million claims for VAT repayment each year, with an overall value of some £23 billion in tax. The repayment of tax is therefore an important matter ; hence the importance of the repayment supplement. More than 90 per cent. of the claims are authorised for payment within 10 days of their receipt at the VAT central unit in Southend, which handles the administration for Customs and Excise. That reflects both an efficient system and a high desire to act promptly in the interests of claimants. Less than 2 per cent. of all claims need further inquiries before verification of repayment, and that is when the clock stops for a time during the 30-day period. Those are the claims which carry the greatest potential risk to the Revenue, which is why it inquires into them--and it is the inquiry time referrable to those cases for which the amendment seeks to provide.

At the same time, we were anxious to ensure that, while there is the necessary protection for the Revenue, the individual claimants and taxpayers should be in a fair position vis-a-vis Customs and Excise. Apart from the new clause, Customs and Excise is producing a code of conduct relating to its processing of claims for repayment. It will say how claims are received and dealt with and the points at which the repayment supplement clock stops and starts.

In particular, the code will describe how, on stopping the clock while verification inquiries are under way, due regard is given to any unreasonable delay that might occur. It will also make more visible the safeguards that are built into the system to ensure that such time will count against Customs and towards the 30 days that would qualify a claimant for repayment supplement.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : If 30 days must be defined more generously to give Customs reasonable time to deal with these matters, is not seven days a little unreasonable for everybody involved to digest the new clause and to determine whether it will work satisfactorily?

Sir John Cope : I agree, but I shall return to that point. Apart from the code of conduct--this is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's point--Customs and Excise is already undertaking a review of the repayment supplement regime to determine whether changes should be recommended in addition to the introduction of the new clause. As before, there will be a full consultative process, starting, I hope, in September or October, at a similar time to the production of the code of conduct, with the aim of reaching conclusions before the end of the year. Customs will also be seeking time further to strengthen its procedures.

Mr. John Watts (Slough) : As there has not been an opportunity for consultation on the new clause, is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider consultation on the code of practice when it is published? If there are helpful

Column 194

suggestions from those interested in these matters, they might then be taken into account in a way that they cannot be in the consideration of the new clause.

Sir John Cope : Yes, Customs will discuss the draft code of practice with those with whom it is in touch, but initially there will not be public consultation. The idea is to publish the code of practice as soon as possible, together with the review, so that both can be considered together. If necessary, the code can be modified subsequently.

As both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend have said, we tabled new clause 1 quickly, in response to the High Court case. That was important, because substantial repayments are involved. It is also right, however, to proceed with the code of conduct and the review, to give an opportunity for further comment.

4.15 pm

The new clause continues the existing practice into the future. We must also consider whether we ought to seek to give the new clause retrospective effect, so that the procedure followed by Customs and Excise since 1986, when the repayment supplement was introduced, can be retrospectively endorsed. We decided not to do that, because it would be inappropriate. Instead, we are accepting the High Court's interpretation of the law in respect of retrospective claims and claims made up to the date that the Bill receives Royal Assent in a few days' time.

The recent High Court judgment will be applied retrospectively. Customs and Excise will publicise the conditions that must be met to qualify for the new repayment supplement under the new interpretation, and will invite traders to apply for such repayments. Claims will have to be considered right back to the days when the supplement was first introduced, in 1986. That is a considerable administrative task that will take some time to complete, but it is right that it should be undertaken.

There will be some cases which have not come to full effect in the tribunal or the courts, as the Rowland case has, but which are nevertheless pending. They are easy to spot and to deal with. There will be other cases that Customs does not know about, where we shall have to rely on traders to submit claims. We will publicise as much as possible the opportunity to make claims under the new provision, so that we can put right any payments and bring them in line with the High Court's interpretation.

I hope that the House agrees, given the large sums of money involved, that we are right to move quickly, and not retrospectively to appeal against the High Court judgment of the law as it was first formulated in 1985. I commend new clause 1 to the House.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : I sympathise with the plight of the Paymaster General, in that an unfavourable judgment was made against him, and there is perhaps a case for acting quickly to put matters right-- especially as the Finance Bill is before the House. Among the representations I received, however, is one from the Institute of Directors. I will quote from a letter dated 7 July that it sent to the Paymaster General :

"Indeed, when the New Clause was drawn to the attention of the Joint VAT Consultative Committee yesterday afternoon, Customs were unable to comment on the grave concern raised immediately by the business and professional representatives, because they said that they could not pre-empt your statement"--

that is, the Paymaster General's statement--

Column 195

"in the House".

As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) implied, time has not been allowed for debate and careful consideration. Although there has been a problem as a result of the recent court case, the Opposition believe that the new clause swings the balance very far in the direction of Customs and Excise and that Customs and Excise will be able to decide almost as it wishes when the clock will stop and when it will start ticking again.

The Opposition raised the issue in a previous debate on 16 May 1991 in Standing Committee B. During our deliberations on clause 16, entitled "Interest of Overpayments etc.", I said :

"I do not say that Customs and Excise would deliberately take weeks or months over an investigation, but this is not a perfect world. No interest would be paid while an investigation was in hand. There should be a clear provision as to the date from which interest should be paid. If Customs and Excise has received money from a taxpayer which earns interest in a bank, why should that interest be kept if there was an error?"--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 May 1991 ; c. 67.]

During the passage of the Finance Bill in 1985, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, who I think was the then Financial Secretary, said during a debate on clause 20 :

"if we get it wrong one year, and experience shows that changes are needed, we can seek to put it right the following year. Indeed, large chunks of each year's Finance Bill put right the mistakes or errors of judgment of our predecessors."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 May 1985 ; c. 185.]

If so, this is a considerable error and misjudgment, because it will cost about £100 million or £150 million for the past six years. The new clause should be got right in the first instance. I do not pretend that the Opposition's amendments (a) to (d) would put it right, but they would redress the balance which favours the Customs and Excise should the clause be passed unamended. They would impose a requirement on Customs and Excise not to act with unreasonable delay. It would have to be expeditious and not say that it might want to institute an inquiry so the clock should be stopped. It does not even have to tell the person into whose accounts it is inquiring whether it has stopped the clock.

Under the new clause, the Government are aggregating to themselves all the power to be master and disposer of the issue. The Opposition believe that that is wrong and that the customer, client or person who pays value added tax should know that his or her affairs were to be run properly, that any investigation would be undertaken expeditiously and that there would be no unreasonable delay. There are other issues which should be explored, but I want to be expeditious myself. If there is not to be 30-day statutory period, why should it not be 40 or 50 days? The subject should be discussed with the various interests involved. There should be a review and a right of appeal, but the new clause makes no such provision. We cannot discuss all the issues on Report, but they should be discussed with the interests involved.

I accept that it is not of the Government's making that the court case happened so recently, but because it did happen so recently, the issues have not been discussed with the appropriate interests. Perhaps it would be best for the Government to withdraw the new clause, and bring back later an agreed statutory instrument, if that is possible. As it is, they will have to pay claims for five years. If the

Column 196

Government were to withdraw the new clause, and if there were general agreement between the industry and the Government, the Opposition would expedite the progress of any legislation which would have to be introduced.

However, that is unlikely to happen, and the Opposition believe strongly that, if accepted, amendments (a) to (d) would go some way towards redressing the balance which undoubtedly needs to be redressed in favour of the consumer, customer or person who pays VAT.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : I can best put the clause in context by contrasting it with what would be the position the other way round. If I, as a VAT payer, was due to pay some VAT and informed Customs and Excise that I was doubtful about the amount, or indeed about the legality, of my liability and I therefore wished to stop the clock for an indeterminate period while I investigated whether there was a liability, I can imagine the size of the raspberry that I would get from Customs and Excise.

There has always been a disparity between the right of the taxpayer to receive compensation for the fact that his money is being held by the Treasury, and the duty of the Treasury to compensate the taxpayer for the fact that his money is being held. That disparity is being strengthened, and even made wider, by the clause.

The Paymaster General referred to substantial sums at stake in the clause. I hope that he will be more specific. We are not talking about the overall cost of repayment supplement in relation to VAT overpayments. We are talking about the cost of repayment supplement which is currently payable because Customs and Excise has not made inquiries and has delayed matters beyond 30 days. In all other cases, the clause will not affect the issue. How much does my right hon. Friend believe will be saved by rushing through the clause, when the process of consultation which he is proposing, and which is welcome, for the latter part of the year would enable a fairer and less disputed clause to be introduced ?

My right hon. Friend referred to a recent legal case as being the occasion for the clause. It is fair to point to tribunal decisions which were reported last year and which should have given an indication of the need for further legislation. I refer my right hon. Friend in particular to the decision concerning Anthony Albert Aston under the reference MAN/90/499 in VAT Tribunal Decisions. In that case, a claim was made by Customs and Excise that it should not have to pay repayment supplement because it had spent some months investigating whether it had ordered a cheque to be issued. Rightly, that claim was objected to by the tribunal. May we be assured that the new clause, and code of conduct resulting from it, would not give rise to the denial of repayment supplement in a case such as that ? The review of the working of the clause will be welcome. After all, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, in a minority of cases it will be open to Customs and Excise to be judge and jury in its own cause. I hope that, as part of the review, an option to be considered will be a return to the Keith recommendation of an absolute time limit--of 60 days or what other time may be considered appropriate--within which no repayment supplement will be paid and after which repayment supplement will automatically be paid. By that means, the taxpayer will at least know where he stands.

Column 197

Mr. Beith : We are faced with a paradox. The provisions that we are discussing relate to Customs and Excise taking too long to deal with complaints from taxpayers and needing the capacity to adjust the start and stop of the 30-day period to avoid being landed with repayments. Yet that part of Customs and Excise concerned with the introduction of legislation can work to a far stricter timetable. Indeed, there does not appear to be any time limit on that. Within 20 days of the High Court decision, it saw to it that a new clause was slapped on the Order Paper, and seven days later we are debating it. That is well within the 30-day limit. Perhaps that section of Customs and Excise could transfer some staff to the department that deals with VAT payers' inquiries. That would ensure that they were all dealt with within 30 days, and the clause would not be needed. We are witnessing an incredible amount of haste. That haste is justified by the Paymaster General on the basis that tremendous sums of money are involved. But our understanding, from Customs and Excise information, is that the vast majority of cases are considered within 10, not 30, days. Surely only a small minority of VAT cases will risk falling foul of the procedure if the new clause is not accepted. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), various bodies, including the Institute of Directors, are extremely concerned about the way in which the matter has been handled. The institute writes :

"We can understand that Customs should find the decision in the Rowland case unpalatable, but we regard it as totally unacceptable that the Government should table a New Clause ... on the 1 July Order Paper a mere 20 days after the High Court decision and without any kind of prior warning for the Report Stage debate today 7 July. This is exactly the sort of practical matter which does not involve large sums of revenue but which requires detailed consultation with the representative bodies of taxpayers and their professional advisers."

4.30 pm

The Law Society has made similarly strong representations. In the society's opinion, the proposed new legislation will render it unlikely, in most cases in which Parliament thinks it appropriate for Customs and Excise to pay repayment supplement or interest, that that supplement or interest will be paid. That is partly because it would always be open to Customs and Excise to claim that, in its opinion, an inquiry was necessary, even if it subsequently changed its view and decided not to make any inquiry into the claim. Another reason is the fact that, although a taxpayer may have provided complete and satisfactory answers, time will start running only once the commissioners have satisfied themselves that they have received a complete answer to the inquiry. The inquiry may have to be taken all the way up the line to headquarters ; all kinds of factors may have caused problems.

Many people who deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis feel that the new clause is not urgently needed. They believe that it will cause severe difficulties, and that it may well defeat Parliament's intention of providing restitution for the taxpayer in cases that have involved unnecessary delay. The Paymaster General tried to offer a way out by telling us that a code of conduct was being produced, but I gather that even that will not be subject to consultation initially, so that it can be implemented quickly.

The fact that the code of practice is being produced at the same time as the review implies that, once the review

Column 198

begins, the code of conduct already brought in will fall to be considered along with the new clause as a whole. That is a rather backwards way of dealing with the matter, and I do not think that the Paymaster General has convinced us that the present scale of risk to the Revenue justifies such proceedings.

Sir John Cope : Both the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the letter from the Institute of Directors, which mentioned the speed with which the new clause had been tabled. I gave the reasons for that earlier.

Let me reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that I did not table the new clause in a half-hearted way. I consider it an important measure : some £30 million a year would be involved without it. At yesterday's meeting with the Institute of Directors and others, Customs and Excise found themselves in a slight difficulty. They had a good idea of what I was likely to say today--particularly about the code of conduct and the review, which we have been discussing ever since the High Court case. Indeed, we had discussed our possible course of action to some extent before the completion of that case. We were able to move as quickly as we did partly because of contingency planning. I hope that the House will consider that wise, in the circumstances.

The Customs and Excise officials were unwilling yesterday to pre-empt what I would tell the House. The House has a right to know things, and sometimes becomes rather upset if they are leaked rather than presented to it first. It is a difficult balance to achieve immediately before a ministerial statement, although in many cases we are keen to consult widely, and usually do so.

Dr. Marek : I understand that, but can the Minister say something about the review and whether he will try to reach an agreement with the industry and the interests involved about how Customs and Excise will stop and start the clock? If he could assure the House that the review would take these matters into consideration in order to arrive at least at an unofficial method of procedure to be followed by Customs and Excise that was satisfactory to the interests involved, it would go a long way towards helping hon. Members on this side of the House and, I suspect, a lot of Conservative Members.

Sir John Cope : Yes. I mentioned earlier that claims are initially sent to the VAT central unit in Southend. During the initial checking process, some of the claims--about 2 per cent.--are selected for further inquiries. The rest have a smoother passage. If the VAT central unit decides to make further inquiries, they may be inquiries either with the local VAT office--that is, local to wherever the trader happens to be--or with the Customs and Excise investigation branch or an outside agency. It is at that point that the clock stops. It is when the points that have been raised that cause the clock to stop in that way have been cleared up that the clock restarts.

A number of hon. Members have suggested that there is no way in which Customs and Excise is accountable for its management of this system. From time to time it has to justify to the VAT tribunal, to Members of Parliament and, through Members of Parliament, to the parliamentary commissioner its actions in this respect. Customs and Excise is, therefore, subject to the checks that I have just mentioned.

Column 199

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North -West (Mr. Stern) is concerned about the disparity between the taxpayer and Customs and Excise. If the taxpayer has reasonable excuse which Customs accepts, the clock stops for the taxpayer, too. My hon. Friend asked whether there should instead by an absolute timetable of 60 days or another period, as was originally suggested by the Keith committee. That is one option. Nevertheless, if we can arrive at a code of conduct and if the results of the review are satisfactory to most people who are involved, I think that the 30-day period, plus a clock-stopping system that is generally acceptable, is the best approach. That is the way that I should prefer to approach it, if possible. I accept, however, that it may not be easy to achieve.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed criticised the order of events. I accept his criticism in some respects. I refer to the timing of the Finance Bill relative to the timing of the High Court case. We thought that the High Court case would not be heard until the autumn, but, somehow or other, the High Court succeeded in clearing its in-tray faster than it normally does and got round to it. It seemed to me that it would be wrong not to use the opportunity that that presented in the interests of taxpayers at large--that is to say, of revenue to the Government.

The code of conduct will to some extent be an interim one while the review takes place. I have no doubt that we shall want to refine it in some ways, or certainly consider doing so, during the review process.

I have some information on the tribunal case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred. That case had to do with the actual date of payment ; it was not a reasonable time inquiry. The case was not appealed by Customs and Excise, which might have to consider appealing if there were another similar case. But I do not think that it is on all fours with the case with which we are dealing in this new clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West also asked about the cost. The cost would be about £30 million a year if we did not pass the new clause.

Incidentally, the Institute of Directors also drew attention to the fact that the clause inserts into the Finance Acts similar provisions about the stopping of the clock in interest cases. That is dealt with in the second part of the clause. These cases are related to official error. It is, of course, a much smaller matter, because it is a question of interest at an annual rate for a few days while the clock is stopped. However, I think that it is sensible to keep the wording of the two parts of the Finance Acts in line with one another, and that is why we have introduced the second part of the new clause, which I commend to the House.

Dr. Marek : I listened with interest to the Paymaster General who made some encouraging noises to the effect that there will be a review and a code of conduct. I know that he will carry out that review to the best of his ability and I hope that he will try to reach agreement with the interests involved. It is a matter which we can come to again on next year's Finance Bill ; there is no problem about that. We will have to keep an eye on it.

I had intended to ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby, because we believe that there is an important principle at stake here, but I think that we should be charitable to the new clause. We shall wait and

Column 200

see what happens, reserving our right to come back to the matter on the Finance Bill in a year's time ; and we shall not press our amendments to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

Inheritance tax and access

The following section shall be inserted after section 230 (acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984--

"230A.--(1) The provisions listed in subsections (2) and (3) below shall not apply unless the conditions set out in subsection (4) below are met.

(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above comprise the following sections of this Act--

(a) section 230 (acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax) (b) section 231 (powers to transfer property in satisfaction). (3) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above also comprise section 26A (potentially exempt transfer of property subsequently held for national purposes, etc.) of this Act if any transfer is an exempt transfer under section 26A only by virtue of the phrase (b) has been disposed of in pursuance of section 230 below'.

(4) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) above are that any property that would, apart from this section, be dealt with under the provisions listed in subsections (2) and (3) above must

(a) if consisting of property other than land, be available for public viewing free of charge at regular intervals and for periods of reasonable duration throughout the whole of the year ;

(b) if consisting of land, be available for reasonable public access free of charge on clearly defined access routes or rights of way throughout the whole year.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the words in subsection (4) above, property other than land shall not be regarded as available for public viewing at regular intervals and periods of reasonable duration throughout the whole year unless these periods total at least 52 days in each and every continuous twelve month period, commencing the first twelve month period for these purposes no later than a date fifteen months after the date of the Board first accepting property in satisfaction of tax in anticipation that the conditions referred to in subsection (4) above will be met. (6) Property shall not be regarded as meeting the conditions set out in subsection (4) above unless full details of the public access are readily available, and the Board is empowered by this subsection to set out such criteria as it sees fit for this test to be met. (7) This section shall apply in relation to all acceptance and transfers of property after 30th June 1992.".'.-- [Mr. Chris Smith.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with what are known as conditionally exempt transfers. They represent a procedure under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which originated in the Finance Act 1976, where relief, originally from capital transfer tax but subsequently from inheritance tax, is given where works of art or areas of land of special quality remain in the ownership of the original owners in return for their agreeing to maintain the land properly and provide public access to either the land or the works of art.

Column 201

Substantial sums of money are involved. In relation to land, the latest information that we have been able to obtain from the Treasury is that there has been a total of 149 cases since 1983 of access agreements over land being made to escape inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, and that the cost to the Exchequer has been between £5 million and £10 million in each year. So we are talking about something like £100 million in a 10-year period.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Can my hon. Friend give one or two examples of where this has occurred throughout the country? These figures sound impressive and I should like to know where I can walk now, as a result of this measure, where I could not walk before.

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend, who is well known in the House for his support for the work of the Ramblers Association and for issues of access to the countryside, puts his finger precisely on the problem. We know of one specific instance, which has been publicised, and I will come to that in a moment. But, apart from that, there is no public information about where the access has been provided. Indeed, in the parliamentary answer that I obtained from the Treasury on 2 June, which told me that there had been 149 cases of access granted and that this had cost £5 million to £10 million a year over the 10-year period, when I asked as part of my question where this access had been made available, the answer from the Financial Secretary was :

"I regret that statistics of new public footpaths and permissive paths, or of land over which there is a right to roam, resulting from conditional exemption are not available."--[ Official Report, 2 June 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 399. ]

We are talking about public money forgone--£100 million over a 10-year period--yet, even from the Treasury, which has granted the relief from inheritance tax, or from any other Government Department, information about where the public access is available is simply not available.

4.45 pm

The situation with regard to works of art is similar, although the amounts of money involved are even greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has been pressing this matter for some time. He was told, in a parliamentary answer just a few days ago, that the average amount of inheritance tax relief in return for supposed access to works of art has been £70 million per year over the past 10 years.

In all, therefore, we are facing expenditure from the public purse, effectively, of some £800 million over 10 years, in return for supposed access to areas of landscape quality and superlative works of art.

I have no objection to the principle of relieving inheritance tax in return for gaining public access to important parts of our countryside and important works of art, but the additional access that is given in return for inheritance tax relief must be clearly available and information about it must be readily to hand. I believe that even the Economic Secretary realises this, because, in Committee a week or two ago, in the debate on some of the changes to inheritance tax which the Government are bringing in in rejecting our argument that the Government were being foolish with regard to areas of

Column 202

high-quality landscape, in going for 100 per cent. agricultural inheritance tax relief, thereby skirting round the present system of 50 per cent. tax relief with the possibility of 100 per cent. relief in return for conditions, the Economic Secretary said :

"It is a more profitable line of inquiry to consider whether conditional exemption agreements are working properly in relation to signposting and so on than it is to explore whether sufficient land is being entered into such arrangements." [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 June 1992 ; c. 419.]

Those are the words of the Economic Secretary himself.

It seems to us that the agreements are not working properly. Our new clause seeks to set very clearly on the statute book the requirement that agreements must work properly if inheritance tax relief is to be gained. The new clause provides that information about the rights of access that exist must be made readily available to the public, and it requires that access be free of charge. In relation to land it requires that access must be available throughout the year, and in relation to works of art it requires that reasonable access must be available at least 52 days in every year, on a regular basis such as a day a week.

I want to discuss access to land. Perhaps I should own up to a keen personal interest, as I have roamed the wild and remote parts of our country and hope to be able to do so for many years to come. Public access to land is extremely important. If access is available to the public but no one knows where it is, what is the purpose in having it ? There is only one publicly documented case, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment. For the past few years details are supposed to have been lodged with the Central Council of Physical Recreation. On being asked about the matter, the council told us that no details of any arrangements had been lodged in the past few years. We know that in 1990-91 there were 17 cases of the granting of access, and that in 1991-92 there were 16, yet these were not recorded with the CCPR as they should have been.

I appreciate that there is an Inland Revenue rule about the secrecy of the affairs of individual taxpayers. But we are not asking how much relief, in terms of money, has been granted in individual cases ; we are asking simply where access has been granted in return for relief.

Mr. Bennett : I understand the taxation principle, but does my hon. Friend accept that if, for example, a farmer in the Peak district enters into an access agreement with the national park, people can find out how much money is involved and can judge whether it represents value for those being provided with extra access? Surely there ought to be some relationship between the sums of money forgone in tax--the amounts appear to be huge--and the number of acres of land or miles of footpath secured. I understand the argument for confidentiality in respect of individual cases, but the House ought to know whether the Government are getting value for money.

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A few weeks ago I asked a question about the number of acres that had been made available for the right to roam, the number of additional miles of footpath had been made available, and the overall cost in each year. The answer was that no information was available. But the provision of that information would not contravene the Inland Revenue's secrecy rules.

There is an additional problem. The Government seem to believe that where access is made available some sort of additional right is granted if the access is by rights of way

Column 203

or what are called permissive paths. But rights of way are precisely what their name suggests. They are rights of way, and whether or not a conditionally exempt transfer agreement is entered into, they will remain so for time immemorial. That must be so. No additional right of access can be granted in the case of a right of way. What about permissive paths? Suppose a permissive path is made available so that people may walk in the countryside. In view of the way in which permissive paths work, I fear that the permission could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore, it is simply not good enough to say that access in return for inheritance tax relief shall be over rights of way and over permissive paths. In terms of additional rights for the public, that does not add up to very much. I said that I would come to the one specific instance about which we know. I refer to the Bransdale Moor estate in the North York moors. It is known also as the Nawton Tower estate. It is a remote area of moorland of about 15,400 acres and was the subject of a conditionally exempt transfer in 1978. The land in question is owned by Lady Clarissa Collin, who is the granddaughter of the late Earl of Halifax, the Conservative Foreign Secretary from 1938 to 1941. Lady Clarissa Collin entered into a conditionally exempt transfer in 1978. As that took place under a Labour Government, the information was made public. The North York Moors national park, in its information bulletin of the winter of 1978-79, told us exactly what had happened in return for inheritance tax relief for the Bransdale Moor estate. There was an agreement for the maintenance of landscape character ; there was a provision that any proposals involving ploughing and reclamation of moorland had to be agreed ; there was agreement that there would be a management programme of moor burning ; and there was agreement that scientific interest would be looked after. All of that is good conservation management. But, in addition, the undertaking provided that

"The Trust"--

that is, the trust of the estate--

"would agree to ensure that within the context of good estate management and the securing of farming and sporting objectives, there will be reasonable access to members of the public for walking and horseriding."

The undertaking went on :

"Public access shall be normally along existing rights of way. The Trust would accept the principle that access off these routes would be permissible".

There are set out a few conditions about walkers being asked not to leave rights of way during the nesting time in April and May and during grouse shooting in August and September, but otherwise the undertaking says very clearly that access off the existing rights of way shall be permissible. That agreement was signed by Lady Clarissa Collin in 1978 in return for relief from capital transfer tax. But what happened in March 1990? Twelve land owners in the North York moors wrote to the national park officer, saying :

"Access to the highly important and vulnerable upland heather moors must be restricted to an improved footpath system where that is appropriate."

The signatories included Lady Clarissa Collin. So in 1978 Lady Clarissa Collin entered into an agreement in return for relief from inheritance tax- -and the agreement provided that access would be available off rights of way--yet in 1990 she joined other land owners to write to the national park officer saying that access should not be available off the rights of way.

Column 204

What is happening on the ground follows that letter. There is a notice saying that walkers must keep to the established footpaths and there are gamekeepers wandering around to reinforce the message. In other words, in return for being relieved of inheritance tax, Lady Clarissa Collin has given the public nothing. In her letter of 1990, along with others, she was clearly showing her intention to renege on the agreement that she had made in 1978. Our new clause challenges such practices.

5 pm

One might ask why this is important. Access to the countryside and enjoyment of the open air are extremely important to millions of our fellow citizens. Back in 1934, G. H. B. Ward, founder of the Sheffield Clarion Ramblers and a fighter, throughout his life, for public access to open country, wrote about this matter, putting it better than any of us ever could. He said :

"Rambling is also a culture and a craft an intense love for one's own country, the innermost and the most remote parts of it, the sweetest as well as the wildest, a love for the wind and the rain, the snow and the frost, the hill and the vale, the widest open spaces and the choicest pastoral and arboreal retreats."

That is what the new clause is all about.

In 1884, James Bryce, then Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, South, introduced a Bill to provide unrestricted public access to uncultivated mountain or moorland. We have been waiting 108 years for such a measure to pass through the House. I long to see the day when we legislate to ensure that ordinary people can have access to the wide open spaces as of right rather than having to beg and scrape for it. While such a system exists and while we rely on arrangements such as inheritance tax relief to ensure it, we must make sure that those arrangements work properly.

Let us deal with works of art. If one owns a valuable painting or a piece of sculpture, one can record it as being in one's ownership and, in return for saying that one will grant public access to view the work of art, one can gain relief from inheritance tax. Although there is no list of access to land, there is a list of access to works of art. Held in the Victoria and Albert museum, it runs to 13 files, some of which are an inch thick. There are 10 items on each page and there are probably, although I have not counted them personally, 30, 000 to 40,000 items in all. They include paintings, sculpture, furniture and jewellery.

Last year, three members of the public, one of whom was an Inland Revenue inspector, inspected the list. For each item, there is a rough description, an approximate location and a contact name. Normally, the contact name is a local solicitor or someone of the kind. The Observer, which has been running an admirable campaign on this issue in recent weeks, noted names and tried to contact five of them. Two of the names were no longer the correct contact names and those people could not say who the right person was. One of the names was the correct contact, but had no idea of the procedure to view the item. One other asked for a request in writing and the fifth, who was the owner of the painting in question, said, "Viewing is difficult." This is hardly "readily available public access". I understand that some of the owners charge for viewing, and that should not happen. Not only are many of the contacts out of date, but much of the information about the contents of the list is as well. For example, a painting by Miro that is recorded as being in private ownership in

Next Section

Home Page