House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jul 1992

Column 205

Sussex is in the Scottish National Gallery for Modern Art and has been there for some years. These are not minor paintings. They range from paintings by Leonardo to paintings by Picasso, from Turner to Canaletto. They are part of our vital artistic heritage. We should know where they are and how we can go about seeing them because we, the taxpayers, have effectively paid for doing so.

Arcane and archaic viewing arrangements, inadequate and out-of-date information and no public knowledge at all of land is not good enough. It is high time that we ensured that, where public money is yielded up, proper public access is made available in return. The superb works of art and the finest and most remote of landscapes should be there for the ordinary citizen to enjoy. At heart, that is what the new clause is all about.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : Before most major changes in legislation, we have the most elaborate consultations within and outside the House with national and local organisations. There are Green Papers and White Papers and so on. One of the curious anomalies of the Budget process is that, as soon as the Chancellor goes into Budget purdah, there is no such dialogue. Therefore, it is fair to say that the new inheritance tax exemptions have not been digested anything like as thoroughly as, for example, new legislation setting the framework for agricultural and environmental law or that on recreation.

Therefore, we find ourselves in the curious situation that the exemptions that we have had since 1976 in several formats have been assumed to continue until the Budget. As soon as the Budget proposed changes, organisations of the stature of the Countryside Commission, English Nature, the Ramblers Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, farmers and landowners and their respective bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all wondered what the impact would be on the work that they do on behalf of the Government and the nation.

It may be that the other Departments that have responsibility in this subject were caught napping as well. When I tabled a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week, his answer was at best a holding one and at worst a neat passing of the buck. He seems to have no view of what the impact of these changes will be either in financial and environmental terms or on farming practice. In Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reassured us. He said that he did not wish to undo all the good work done by successive Governments by the use of exemptions. By inference, we have to take it that he believes that the success of past policies and the continuing success for whole categories of land that will not otherwise be exempt is such that they will want to boast of their success. One wonders how one can boast of success if everything is kept secret.

It is surely a maxim of Thatcherite economics--if we dare still mention them in this place--that one should know what one is paying for. It is surely a matter for open government that the public, having effectively subsidised a particular asset, should know what they are getting for their money. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, there are already some curious anomalies. It is possible to obtain some information about works of art that have been subject to the concessions.

Column 206

Today's Hansard contains written answers which include much detailed information about works of art. The information includes reference to :

"A drawing, A wild boar at bay', Frans Snyders (1579-1647)".--[ Official Report , 6 July 1992 ; Vol. 211, c. 21 .]

The written answers contain much detail and a long list. However, there is no schedule showing what areas of the country and great heritage items of landscape and recreational access have been bought with our money. There is obviously a curious anomaly.

The new clause is obviously very well intentioned and we support it. However, as worded, it avoids the curious problem which we always have to overcome of the criteria by which a judgment should be made--in this case, for reasonable public access. I am not sure that empowering the board of the Inland Revenue is the best way to ensure that the sharpest minds on that particular issue will be used to produce the right criteria.

The crucial issue in the new clause is the criteria. If the criteria are very detailed, there will be considerable confusion. The issue will be very complex, bureaucratic and possibly litigious because large sums of money will be involved. Whether or not a farmer will receive relief will be of considerable concern to him, his family, his tax advisers and his lawyers.

For example, over what period would the farmer need to have cared for the land in question and ensured that there was public access before the death that triggers inheritance tax liability? What will be taken as proof? Who is to be judge and jury in the matter? Conversely, if the criteria are very scanty, they could surely be met so easily that the new clause would be worthless.

We hope that the proposal can be made to work because it is of considerable interest to landowners, to farmers and to the public. In many areas of tax legislation and administrative criteria, there is already a balance which must be struck. We can only hope that the board or professional advisers from the appropriate national statutory bodies can find the right balance.

We support the new clause and hope that the Government mean what they said in Committee upstairs and in their manifesto about the public interest in future policy for the countryside. We hope that that wider Government interest will prevail against the narrow interests of the Treasury.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : I wish to address my comments to tax relief on land. It might seem slightly strange to people with a false impression of the city from which I come and which I have the privilege to represent to learn that, contrary to some opinions, Sheffield contains a great deal of moorland and open countryside of considerable beauty. One third of the city lies within the Peak district national park and rambling is an extremely important local hobby for many people in the city. Much of the land lies within the Sheffield constituencies of Hallam and Hillsborough. As well as having older industrial areas, my constituency contains important areas like the Moss valley which are important to my constituents, as is the whole issue of access to the open countryside.

The Government might argue that the current arrangements for tax relief on land are not working. They might argue that the expenditure of £5 million to £10 million a year of public money over 10 years, when the public have no details about what land that expenditure

Column 207

refers to and when the supposed benefits of access to the countryside cannot be realised because the public are unaware of that access and to which land it applies, is a waste of public money and cannot be justified.

It is difficult to understand precisely what benefit the public are receiving. The Government could argue that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) explained, because some of the agreements apply to permissive paths as well as to public rights of way, the public are not getting a very good deal. The Government could argue that, because the management agreements often relate to the maintenance of land in its existing state rather than to the addition and enhancement of new land and improvements to management services, the public are not getting a very good deal. 5.15 pm

The Government may even argue strongly that the whole scheme has been a sham, abuse and waste of taxpayers' money since its inception. Those are reasons not for the Government to change the law as they propose, but for the Government to begin to enforce the provisions properly and to make the information about the agreements open so that the public can receive the benefit of the money that has been expended on their behalf.

In Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government's proposed changes applied only to 25 per cent. of the land in question. Only 25 per cent. of the land would receive 100 per cent. tax relief automatically. For the remaining 75 per cent. to receive 100 per cent. tax relief, the current agreements on access and management would have to apply.

We must ask whether the Government's proposals will provide equality in respect of that land. I believe that the new clause provides a much better arrangement. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury accepted that there would have been instances in the past when agreements had been reached on access and management of land to obtain the 100 per cent. tax relief. However, according to the Government's proposals, in exactly the same circumstances the tax relief in future will be available automatically without the need for agreements. In other words, because of the timing of the death of the landowner, similar land would be treated in very different ways. There was no proposal to terminate the previous agreements on land even though similar land will be treated differently in future. It was accepted that in respect of the 75 per cent. of land for which agreements would still be needed for owners to claim 100 per cent. benefit of tax relief, that land in respect of scientific interest, beauty and benefits of walking over it, would be no different from other land which, in future, will gain 100 per cent. tax relief without the need for agreement.

There seems to be an inequality of treatment there and between the 25 per cent. of land for which 100 per cent. of tax relief will be available automatically and the 75 per cent. of land for which agreements on management and access will still be required to secure such relief even though there is no difference in scientific interest, beauty and access between those two cases.

There is a problem. Either the Government are claiming that access and management are not important because tax relief will now be given automatically on some land or, if they are important--and they must be because

Column 208

the agreements are to be maintained for 75 per cent. of the land--how will the Government secure access and proper managment for the 25 per cent. of land unless other inducements and tax reliefs are to be introduced in future at further cost to the Treasury? We pushed that question hard in Committee but we did not receive an answer from the Minister. The matter continues to worry me, and I hope that the Minister will explain why his arrangements are better than the new clause, which would resolve the problem.

The kernel of the argument is that the Government have not thought through the implications of their proposals. One can understand that some arguments about the need for agricultural holdings to be kept together on the death of an owner are relevant, and why the Government have put them forward. However, they have pushed the arguments without considering the important implications for management and access.

Whatever happens when we vote on the new clause, the Government must accept that, in respect of agreements that have previously been reached and new agreements that are reached in future, there will still need to be agreements on management, and access information must be made public so that taxpayers will benefit from the considerable sums that they are forgoing.

Mr. Bennett : I support the new clause. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on the new clause, and I congratulate The Observer on its campaign in respect of the issue. I also congratulate the Ramblers Association on its work, particularly its document on public access to the countryside and the inheritance tax. I am not quite so sure whether I should congratulate it on its rather corny title, "Give us Some Quo for Our Quid", but the association still produced a worthwhile document.

It is absolutely amazing that the Government have not come up with any information about benefits to the public as a result of the tax concession. I hope that the Minister will set out some good examples of areas in which access is working and where people benefit from the provision, otherwise hon. Members will feel that there has been a gross fraud such as that which my hon. Friend described. People were given tax benefits, but they appear not to have given the public any access.

I am not one of those who believe that we should pay for access. There should be a right to roam on all mountain land, moorland and open land, and there should be no attempt to charge for that. I do not believe that people walking on land cause any problem, therefore there is no justification for a charge. The only reason for making a charge would be to provide extra stiles or, in a few popular areas, to stop erosion. People should be able to roam freely. If we are to pay from the public purse, it is important to produce fairness across the board.

In large areas of the Lake district and of north Wales, some tenant farmers and owners have always allowed free access. I fear that if those farmers discover that large landowners have been paid to provide what they already provide freely, there will be restrictions on many areas where access is already available. I plead with the Government at least to demonstrate that by making those tax concessions we will have something of outstanding value in return. So far, I can see no evidence of that at all.

Column 209

Instead of improving access, it will be more difficult to achieve in areas in which no one has thought of making charges.

I press the Minister, if there are to be access agreements and conservation, particularly in areas such as the north Yorkshire moors, to consider the argument that it is far better to let people roam freely rather than encourage them to stay on footpaths. Inevitably, if people must follow footpaths, those footpaths become worn and it becomes difficult for small animals and insects to cross from one side to the other. That does far more damage than allowing people freely to roam across the land. Some landowners represent shooting interests and have fought very hard against the right to roam, but, on conservation grounds, it is far better to let people have open access rather than restrict them to footpaths. In areas in which access agreements have been negotiated, particularly in the Peak district, and where people have roamed freely, there are far fewer problems than in areas where they have been restricted to footpaths, some of which are eroded.

I strongly support the new clause. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to G.H.B. Ward. I was able to go with the ramblers when they dedicated a memorial to Mr. Ward. Admittedly, it was one of those occasions when there was a chance to harangue a large assembly of ramblers. The only aspect that was disappointing was that it was pouring with rain and, in the circumstances, extremely difficult to make a speech. However, Mr. Ward, who was from Sheffield, was a very important fighter for the rights of access.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that we will have a public statement on what new access is to be created as a result of what payments.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : We are talking about a scandal--giving £800 million of taxpayers' money to some of the wealthiest people in the country. Although I support new clause 2, it is rather generous. History over the centuries has proved that those who have received tax relief have managed to keep all their wealth anyhow. There is a feeling that £800 million could have been better spent. That is the exact amount that is needed to upgrade the west coast main line railway from Carlisle to Glasgow, which would ensure that my constituents had an effective railway service. That might not happen because the money will not be available.

The scandal is that landowners have received money for very little. I was told in a parliamentary answer that there are six such landowners in Cumbria. Shortly after that, the Government stopped naming counties in which such landowners live. I cannot understand the reason. However, there are six such landowners in the county of Cumbria. We are refused information on who they are, what access is available and how much it costs. We are told that that is because of confidentiality. That is nonsense.

If those landowners wished to remain anonymous and not have their tax matters discussed, they should not have opted for the tax exemption. They decided that they wanted hundreds of

thousands--perhaps millions ; we are not to be told--in tax relief from the Exchequer. Surely, by doing that, they forfeited the right to confidentiality. They should have told my constituents, "We have made a deal"--we do not need to know how much it has cost--"for this

Column 210

piece of land, and there is now open access to that land", but that is not the case. It is even worse than that. Not only are the people of the county not told, but representatives of local planning committees and the Lake District planning board--elected representatives--are not told. I recently spoke to the former chairman of the Lake District planning board, Councillor Phizackerley. He had no knowledge that that was happening in the Lake district, even though Lake District national park officers were acting as agents of the Countryside Commission to monitor what was going on. The members of the authority were not told.

I tabled another parliamentary question on the matter and received an ambiguous answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was not telling us anything. The scandal of money for access to land is nothing compared to the scandal of money for access to works of art. Some £700 million has been given in the past decade to various people in return for making their works of art available to the general public. Of course, that is if people can find those works of art. That is not so easy.

5.30 pm

I went to the House of Commons Library as my first port of call. The Library rang the national art library at the Victoria and Albert museum and was told that information was not available and photocopies could not be made of the records at the national art library. That is nonsensical, because public money is involved and Parliament passed the legislation.

Then I tried to find the information personally. Last Friday I rang the V and A and was told that, due to staff shortages, unfortunately the library was closed. So I rang on Saturday and was told that, due to staff shortages, unfortunately the library had an extended lunch break and was closed from 12 to 2 pm. As I had tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister to put a copy of the document in the Library, I decided to sit back and wait until it arrived. Surprise, surprise, I received an answer from the Minister that he would not place the document in the Library on the ground that it was a big book. As it cost £700 million to compile the book, it is no wonder that it is a big book.

Undaunted, my research assistant went to the V and A today to have a look at the document. She is a former librarian and she was appalled at the state of the document. It is not even indexed. Unless one knows what one is looking for, there is no point in looking at the document.

Perhaps the position is simply part of a muddle. Perhaps the Government have not taken the matter seriously. But I believe that the Government did not want people to know where to go to see the art treasures. Comments have been made that some well-known parliamentary names from the past appeared in the document. I will not go into those names. [ Hon. Members-- : "Go on."] Hon. Members will have to go and look for themselves. Obviously, names of noble Lords from another place appear in the document.

Perhaps we have now come to the crux of the matter. The Government have dealt with public access in this way. It is a way of maintaining wealth and power in Britain. We see it in the Chamber and in the other place. But how does that compare with the open government and classless society of the Prime Minister?

Column 211

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : The application of inheritance tax legislation to allow conditionally exempt transfers to attract substantial tax relief is a Kafkaesque exercise in secrecy and obfuscation. Property, land and works of art can be exempted from inheritance tax where undertakings are given which purport to guarantee public access to the property, such as that land should be managed for the benefit of the public and works of art should be available for public view and inspection.

New clause 2 sets out to define the circumstances in which public access should be made available. It defines what in practice public access should mean. It states, first, that details of access rights should be available to members of the public ; secondly, that access should be available on a regular basis ; and thirdly, that access should be free of charge.

New clause 2 will therefore provide a practical guarantee of public access rights. That is not unreasonable because members of the public pay for those rights through the tax system in the form of tax relief and tax forgone. So why should new clause 2 be necessary? As has already been said, substantial sums of public money are involved and between £5 million and £10 million per year are relieved in return for access to land alone. That is about £100 million in the past 10 years. That raises some basic questions about the land. Where is the land? What public access rights have been granted over it? Are they new rights or have existing rights of access been confirmed? Moreover, what is the point of granting rights of public access if no one knows precisely where the land is and which land is being considered?

Exempt transfers are important because the landowner is required not only to guarantee public access but to keep the land in proper condition. He is required to maintain the land and preserve its character. That is crucial because many of the transfers involve land in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks or cover sites of special scientific interest. Again, if no one knows precisely what land is covered, or the nature of the access granted to the public, how is it possible to determine whether the land has been properly maintained or its character properly preserved? It is possible for the landowner to take his tax relief and his money and run to the safety of the badly maintained hills.

The same principles apply to works of art. To qualify for inheritance tax relief it is necessary to lodge with the Victoria and Albert museum details of the nature of the work of art--whether it is a painting, sculpture or piece of furniture--together with information on how the public can exercise their right of access. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) graphically demonstrated, the practical exercise of that right is frustrated by the administrative nature of the system operated at the museum. Even though a rough description is required for each work of art, together with its location by county, in practice it is impossible for the public to gain access to a remarkable range of public assets. They include paintings and drawings by Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, Rubens, Titian and Hogarth ; sculptures by Rodin, Degas and Henry Moore ; and thousands of antique rugs, tapestries and items of jewellery and furniture.

As the Government have made train-spotting so difficult by running down our railways, perhaps I could recommend a new public pastime of public access art-spotting. Treasure hunts are popular at weekends. This

Column 212

would be a real treasure hunt. People would be able to draw up lists of property that they had spotted. I am sure that enterprising publishers could publish helpful guides such as "I Spy a Masterpiece".

Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Would not we need to know which land we could cross on the treasure hunt before we could find the works of art?

Mr. Hoon : That would be part of the challenge. Indeed, it would require only a modest addition to new clause 2 to make the treasure hunt competitive. If we knew how much tax had been forgone, points could be awarded according to the value of the pieces of art spotted by enterprising members of the public. The more valuable the item, the more tax relief, and the more points would be awarded. I am confident that the Secretary of State for National Heritage will seize on that modest suggestion and that the ministry of fun will encourage it as part of its attempt to encourage public access to our national heritage.

It follows from what I have said about both land and works of art that land and property owners are technically in breach of the law. They are certainly in breach of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the law. Given that, under the rules, a property owner forfeits the right to tax relief if the land or property is no longer available to the public, clearly he or she should, in such circumstances, be liable to repay the tax forgone.

Perhaps the Government might like to tell us precisely how many tax inspectors are deployed to ensure public access to the works of art or pieces of land in question. I suspect that the Government might be embarrassed by the modesty of their answer to that question. Yet, taxpayers are carefully followed up by tax inspectors, and small businesses face questioning by tax inspectors. I wonder whether the Treasury, which oversees the deals, is allowing substantial amounts of money to escape the Revenue, without a proper investigation into the right of public access.

I recommend new clause 2 to the House. Is it so unreasonable to ask the Government to ensure in practice the largely theoretical rights of public access, enshrined in the tax legislation? That is the purpose of new clause 2, and it is difficult to understand why the Government should resist it.

Mr. Alan Milburn (Darlington) : The new clause seeks to put to rights a clear abuse of the tax system. The lax operation of the law puts the interests of the very wealthy--landowners and owners of great national treasures--above those of the public. It confers privileges on the owners of land and art treasures, without any payback for the taxpayer--the people who financed the privileges out of their pockets in the first place. To coin a phrase from The Ramblers, the law is supposed to give the taxpayer

"Some quo for its quids."

In return for offering public access to land or works of art, an owner can keep it and be relieved of inheritance tax. All that costs a pretty penny. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that it is costing the taxpayer and the Exchequer about £10 million per year for land, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that costs for art treasures are way in excess of that figure, at about £70 million per annum. Normally, we are not privy to the deals negotiated between the Exchequer and owners of land or art

Column 213

treasures. The Observer has managed to track down the only case where a known sum of money has been attached to access to land. The land is owned by the Duke of Devonshire--a man who is not known to be short of a bob or two. He owns the Bolton abbey estate in the Yorkshire dales. According to The Observer, negotiations are under way at this moment with the Treasury and with the Countryside Commission. It is understood that the Duke of Devonshire is demanding about £12 million in return for keeping open existing public rights of way--they are not new rights of way. The taxpayer and the Exchequer are expected to pay £12 million for the privilege. The Economic Secretary has an opportunity to confirm whether that is the case and how the negotiations are progressing.

It is as well to remember that the Government are anxious to damp down public expenditure, to ensure that we get good value for money and that the taxpayer gets a good deal. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary will confirm that he thinks that the deal being concluded with the Duke of Devonshire fits all those criteria. I think that it probably does not.

In the past decade, handouts from the Exchequer have cost approximately £800 million. Before too long we shall hit the magic figure of £1 billion. As my hon. Friends know only too well, £1 billion is equivalent to p on the standard rate of income tax. We are paying through the nose to maintain the privileges of wealthy landowners and the owners of art treasures. Perhaps that would not be so bad if the public were getting some value for money, or at least some knowledge of value for money, but clearly they are not. 5.45 pm

The law states that when inheritance tax relief is given, full details of access rights must be readily available to the public. We know, from contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and from my other hon. Friends, that those details are simply not forthcoming. We know that a substantial amount of land--about 315,000 acres--is covered by such arrangements, including many sites of outstanding beauty or of special scientific interest. They are the jewels in the crown of this country, and the lax operation of the present tax laws means that those 315,000 acres are being subsidised out of the public purse for the private use of the wealthy.

The public, who are supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of deals concluded between the Exchequer and landowners and owners of art treasures, are being kept in the dark about where they can exercise the rights being bought on their behalf. Worse still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there is clear evidence that there has been direct infringement of some deals. If anything, the situation is even worse as regards art treasures. When The Observer contacted the National Art-Collections Fund, which helps museums to buy works of art, and the Museums Association, the umbrella body dealing with museums, neither knew of the existence of the register of works of art kept at the Victoria and Albert museum.

As we have heard from some of my hon. Friends, the works concerned are treasures indeed. One such work, Canaletto's view of Old Horseguards, was recently bought for the nation for £10 million. It was previously on the

Column 214

register, although few people have seen it. The owner, Viscount FitzHarris, had avoided paying inheritance tax on it amounting to about £4 million at today's prices. The public got a raw deal and I suspect that Viscount FitzHarris got a good deal.

Who does all that benefit? It certainly does not benefit the taxpayer or the Exchequer, the rambler or the art lover. Their rights of access are denied to them, yet we are talking of national treasures which the public have effectively funded. The sole beneficiaries are the very wealthy.

If the Government fail to accept the new clause, which brings public rights out into the open, and defines access in precise terms, we shall be left with the impression that Ministers are more concerned to protect the interests of the very rich than those of the public or the taxpayer. However, that should come as no surprise to my hon. Friends. After all, for about 13 years it has been Conservative party policy to defend the interests of the very wealthy against those of the public in general. I do not say that from any party political or prejudiced point of view, as my hon. Friends will know.

The Financial Secretary, who sadly is absent, told one of my hon. Friends on 29 June that the principal beneficiaries of income tax reductions from 1979 have been those earning more than £80,000 a year. That small group of just 150,000 people gained some £7,200 million in income tax cuts--an average of some £46,000 each per annum. By contrast, the 3 million people who earned less than £5,000 per annum received a total reduction, thanks to income tax cuts, of just some £500 million--a paltry £150 a year each. As always happens under the Conservative party, the gainers have been the most privileged in our society and the losers have been the least privileged. It is time that the Government accepted that they should govern in the interests of everyone, not just a tiny few. After all, in recent months we have heard many claims by Conservative Members about the need for a classless society and open government. The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate both their commitment to a classless society and to open government by ending what has become a racket in inheritance tax exemptions and by accepting new clause 2.

Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) : It is difficult to understand why the Government might resist the new clause, because it does not alter, but, rather, strengthens the principle that underpins inheritance legislation and assists in enforcing the conditions that the Inland Revenue seeks to oppose. Moreover, the Government should not resist the new clause on grounds of effectiveness and efficiency. It is obviously of wide benefit to the people whom we represent and would not cost the Treasury a penny to implement.

If the new Secretary of State for National Heritage were present, he would probably embrace the new clause enthusiastically because it goes to the heart of the role that the Prime Minister has given him. In one deft move, its acceptance would help to tear away the dust sheet from significant parts of our national heritage and allow the padlocks to be removed from areas of scenic beauty and hitherto unexplored delights in our countryside. The acceptance of the new clause and the more efficient operation of that part of inheritance tax would lift the Heritage Secretary's horizons considerably. Rather than

Column 215

seeking new photo opportunities for himself, which seems to be what his new post has consisted of so far, it would enable him to create new opportunities for the people of this country to enjoy the national heritage, which the Minister has been appointed to serve. There has never been disagreement about the objectives and virtues of the relief from inheritance tax. Those objectives are to open up what has hitherto been hidden and provide access to what has been closed or at least unknown or undiscovered in the past. The objectives have never been questioned by Labour or Conservative Governments. The new clause deals with the lack of diligence in the operation and application of the provisions and the lack of thoroughness in extending the benefits of the inheritance tax relief provisions to the public at large. Because of that lack of diligence and thoroughness in the provisions' implementation and operation, a good and fair system has gone badly wrong. Indeed, that fair and reasonable system to defray inheritance tax, which was meant to operate in the public interest, has instead turned into a racket and a rip-off.

The lack of diligence and thoroughness with which the provisions have been implemented has resulted in such abuse of the system and generated such contempt for the authorities that, were it present in the operation of the social security system of welfare benefits, it would produce howls of outrage and demands for a crackdown from Conservative Members.

Recently I was subjected to an intervention by the hon. Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether she planned to act against what he termed "social security scroungers". He said in his characteristically unattractive--some would say obnoxious--way :

"Is she aware that many of the long-term unemployed are layabouts? They should have to do community work before receiving benefit. The taxpayers are sick and tired of financing these layabouts."--[ Official Report, 9 June 1992 ; Vol. 209, c. 139.]

Why should not the same standards that apply to those who enjoy benefits from the social security system also apply to those who are considerably better off and enjoy similar benefits from relief in the operation of inheritance tax?

I am reminded of a story that appeared a couple of weeks ago in The Sunday Times by Mr. Andrew Grice, political correspondent and respected member of the reporting staff in the House. He said that the Secretary of State for Social Security was going to order a crackdown on dole fleecers.

Why do the Government operate double standards? If the report is accurate and the Social Security Secretary is preparing to order a crackdown on dole fleecers, why should not the same standards be applied to those getting away with an abuse of the inheritance tax system? They are enjoying the benefits and relief to which they are entitled under the legislation to which the new clause refers, but are not giving back what they are obliged to return under the agreement that they have reached. What is the difference? What is regarded as an abuse of the social security system is treated with a benign shrug in the case of inheritance tax and the relief that is offered to people to defray it.

The harsh punishment that many would like to see given for what they call "scroungers" should not be blindly ignored in the case of rich landowners and art collectors who are taking advantage of the relief under inheritance

Column 216

tax law. Is that not a clear example of double standards? Are not the Government saying that the rich should be given more while the poor should have it taken away?

Abuse of the system allows the well-off, with land and priceless artefacts, to hold on to their wealth without subsequently meeting the obligations into which they have freely entered.

However, for those without such land and artefacts, the abuse of the system denies them access to what it is their right to view, to walk upon or otherwise to enjoy. It is not hard to understand why the system is going wrong and why it is open to such abuse when, upon the death of an enormously rich person, his heirs seek to defray tax payable on the estate by exploiting the available relief.

6 pm

Let us consider the interesting and purely theoretical case of Princess Diana and the Spencer family treasures. What alternative is there to those treasures coming under the hammer to pay the huge death duties that arose upon the tragic death of Princess Diana's father, Earl Spencer? The new Lord Spencer inherited not just an earldom, but the need to find £4 million out of the estate to pay the death duties. The new lord inevitably wants to retain as much of his inheritance as possible. Some people might argue that those magnificent treasures should instead pass in their entirety into public ownership for the benefit of the nation.

To defray those death duties, it is open to the new earl to negotiate a conditionally exempt transfer. That would enable him to keep the treasures in his ownership--his exclusive private ownership--but in exchange he would have to provide assured public access so that those treasures could be viewed by members of the general public. That is the principle at the heart of the provision that is addressed by the new clause.

In the words of the Ramblers Association, there must be a public quo in return for the earl's quid. Instead, we have what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) described as a treasure trail, but with almost no clues available to enable members of the public to embark on the treasure hunt with any reasonable expectation of success, so that they might view and enjoy treasures that remain in private ownership but which, under the operation of the legislation, are meant to be available for the enjoyment and satisfaction of ordinary members of the public.

I do not doubt the earl's good intentions, but just consider the hoops through which members of the public must go to view the pictures, the furniture and the artefacts--the priceless, stupendous treasures--in the great Spencer collection. My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) have already referred to the hoops, hurdles and obstacles that any member of the public might have to go through, over or under to have sight of treasures that are available for public viewing.

Mindful of the fact that the Bill and its prolonged proceedings--in which I have been pleased to play some little part over the past almost incalculable number of weeks--are coming to an end, I thought that I might spend my weekend near my constituency walking through scenes of great beauty near Hartlepool in the county of Cleveland. As has already been said, there is no point going to the Countryside Commission, to the Central Council of

Column 217

Physical Recreation or to the Ramblers Association because none of them can tell me what rights of way, what sights of scenic beauty or what natural landscapes I can enjoy under the provisions of our legislation near to my home in my constituency of Hartlepool--because there is no land, there are no walkways and there are no scenes of beauty recorded by any of those organisations that would enable me to make my choice.

In the absence of a nice walk, I thought that I might instead use the time available to me, after we have completed a successful constituency barbecue that is to be held this weekend, looking at some nice pictures--

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Are there any spare tickets?

Mr. Mandelson : Yes, there are spare tickets.

I thought that I would look at some nice pictures and some nice furniture. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I asked my office to contact the Victoria and Albert museum and the national arts library. However, the problem is not that there is any dearth of pictures, artefacts or fine pieces of furniture listed in the locality--on the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there are between 30,000 and 40,000 such objects, pictures and items of fine furniture from which I could select ; the problem is that they are not broken down geographically. I would have to pore through thick books listing between 30,000 and 40,000 items before I could come upon that picture, that fine piece of furniture, that treasure located near Hartlepool that I might visit this weekend after the completion of my constituency barbecue. The practical problem is that what is available is not accessible ; what is listed is impossible to divine in any simple, practical way that would allow ordinary members of the public, or even ordinary Members of Parliament celebrating the conclusion of the Finance Bill, to benefit from the sight and enjoyment of those items that are listed by the Victoria and Albert museum.

I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Economic Secretary will reflect on the strength of argument that has supported the promotion of the new clause. It is needed to ensure that full details of art and land are readily available to the public, that access to them is free, and that such access is either regularly available during the year in the case of art, or permanently available in the case of land. The new clause is a practical, sensible proposal and I hope that, on reflection, the Economic Secretary will be minded to accept it.

Mr. Tony Banks : I hope that the constituency barbecue of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is enormously successful. The only thing that he did not tell us was the price of the tickets.

Mr. Mandelson : They are £4 each.

Mr. Banks : That is an excellent bargain. I hope that anyone within a coach ride of Hartlepool will find his way to the barbecue. My hon. Friend is lucky to have rural idiocies to enjoy in his constituency at a weekend. I do not have very much in the London borough of Newham. Last Sunday we had a walk along the northern sewer outfall-- [Laughter.] I knew that hon. Members would laugh, but it is quite beautiful if one likes sewers. It is a grassed-over embankment and it is pleasant to walk along it. When I

Column 218

think of all the wealth and opportunity that some have in our society and then see the deprivation that so many of my constituents have to endure, it is easy to become angry. I could never believe that a scheme that allows people to set aside their tax liability by pledging paintings and land while continuing to enjoy them is anything but a total con. It is an absolute rip-off. The obstacles that are placed in the way of the public when they want to see such treasures make it an absolute sham.

I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for bringing that abuse to the public's attention. It has been going on for years, but until someone tells us about it, we remain ignorant. Few people in Newham have hereditary land and artefacts of great beauty that they can pledge to the nation to avoid taxation. They have nicked a few in their time, but have never been able to offset them against tax because the Inland Revenue is not too enthusiastic about the acquisition of property in that manner. The people of Newham cannot take advantage of the scheme, so it makes them feel that much more cheated.

The more that I think of the scheme, the more monstrous it becomes--the idea that people can say, "I will set these paintings against my tax liability, but continue to keep them." What if I were to tell the Inland Revenue," I know that I owe you some money. I will leave it in the bank so that you know that it is there--but you cannot have it." That would never be allowed. It might be a nice try, but one would not be permitted to get away with it.

Artefacts represent accumulated wealth that should be taxed. Many of those wonderful items and much of the land were originally stolen--given away by kings and queens to acolytes who had done them a favour. We all know the favours that used to be done for kings and queens.

Next Section

Home Page