House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jul 1992

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the 1970s, when the now Lord Healey proposed a wealth tax, there was an outcry in all parts of the House? It was realised that it would lead to treasures leaving the country, and the opposition was such that Lord Graham of Edmonton, as he now is, presented to this House an all- party petition signed by more than 1 million people. The all-party arts and heritage group was formed at that time, and claimed the allegiance of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House--as it still does. For once, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.

Mr. Banks : Well, there you go. I remember Denis Healey, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, saying that he would squeeze the rich "until the pips squeak". That is one of my favourite political sayings. I looked forward to that, but unfortunately it did not happen. I ask the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for whom I have great respect, how anyone could take land out of the country. One cannot pick up 3,000 prime acres and ship them abroad. Not even the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, for all his ingenuity, could do that.

Mr. Cormack : I remind the hon. Gentleman that a country house, with its parklands and treasures, must be sustained by income from some source-- and in many cases the income comes from the land.

Column 219

Mr. Banks : I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he was saying that valuables should not be shipped out of the country. I merely mentioned land as an example. However, the hon. Gentleman is on to something. To answer his point, I would like to be set up a national register of all items of heritage of great value that belonged to the nation. An export embargo should be placed on them so that people would not be allowed to ship them out of the country. Export licences are required in respect of some items designated as being of considerable artistic merit. A national register would prevent items from being disposed of by an individual, who may often have acquired them by some nefarious means in the first place.

I support the new clause, but I would like a Labour Government to commit themselves to getting rid of a tax loophole which is available to only a few privileged people, and which is obviously abused. The new clause attempts to end that abuse, and I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accepting it.

6.15 pm

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson) : It has been an interesting debate, and I have taken in a positive spirit many of the contributions made by Opposition Members on the subject of conditional exemption, which I will address later. I am, however, presented with a genuine dilemma. I do not mean to criticise the Opposition, because I am sure that their new clause was intended to do as they said, but in fact it has nothing to do with conditional exemption ; it concerns gifts in lieu. I will try to respond, but as a matter of form perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will agree that it would be more appropriate for me to answer specific points about the new clause, which is interesting in itself.

The only relevant comments on new clause 2 were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in his short intervention, when he gave the background to the in-lieu provisions. If the House is agreeable, I will make an initial reply to the points raised by the new clause, and then deal with conditional exemption. The clause seeks to restrict the provisions for the acceptance of works of art and land in lieu of inheritance tax to qualifying property to which the public will be given access free of charge. In the case of land, free public access would be required throughout the year. In the case of other property--mainly works of art--free public access would be required for at least 52 days in each 12-month period.

The acceptance-in-lieu scheme provides an effective means for museums and galleries throughout the country to acquire pre-eminent works of art and other objects. The special price paid for acceptances in lieu on behalf of museums or galleries will be less than the market value of the object, and the funds that are available for acquisitions by those bodies can therefore be used to buy more objects than in the open market. The scheme helps to protect our national heritage and to retain important works of art in the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said. It has enjoyed broad cross-party support. All acceptances in lieu are announced in reply to parliamentary questions.

The majority of acceptances in lieu are allocated to museums and galleries. Over the past five years, the

Column 220

amount of inheritance tax satisfied by acceptance in lieu of works of art and other objects was £31.9 million. About 96 per cent.--some £30.5 million of that--related to items that were allocated to museums and galleries open to the public. Many are open all year round, and all of them are open for more than the 52-day minimum referred to in the new clause.

Some--but not all--of those museums and galleries charge for admission. The decision on charging is for the board of the trustees of the individual institution, and the Government neither impose nor prohibit the introduction of admission charges. It would not be practicable for a museum or gallery that charges for admission to allow free access to one or two items that had been accepted in lieu of tax.

The reason for allocating an item accepted to a particular museum or gallery will sometimes be that it will augment an existing collection of similar items. It would therefore not be desirable to display the accepted item in some free-access room separate from the rest of the collection.

The Government are committed to maintaining their support for national museums and galleries while at the same time encouraging them to develop greater independence and self-reliance. It would be wrong to force a museum or gallery that received a work of art under the acceptance-in-lieu scheme to change its charging policy in the way that new clause 2 suggests.

Mr. Cormack : Will my hon. Friend confirm that some in-lieu items are in National Trust properties or even in private properties which are open to the public?

Mr. Nelson : That is certainly the case, but they are always well known cases and, as I said, they are subject to a parliamentary reply. Such matters are in the public domain.

A small number of acceptances of works of art and other objects are left on display in situ in their previous location. Public access is available to these items for not less than 30 days a year. Since 1980, 20 items have been accepted in situ, 15 in privately owned houses open to the public. The average opening period of these properties is 130 days a year, far in excess of the minimum requirement of 52 days proposed in this clause. In addition, a number of in-situ items historically associated with a property are in National Trust hands. These houses usually open from April to October, and a small number throughout the year. The owners of these properties will generally charge a reasonable entry fee which, in most cases, will be used to meet costs of public access and help towards the maintenance and preservation of the property. It would be unrealistic to suggest that these charges should be waived for at least 52 days of the year where an acceptance was made after 30 June 1992.

The acceptance-in-lieu scheme has mainly been used for works of art and other objects in recent years and little land has been accepted in lieu. Where land is accepted, it would be wrong to prescribe, as suggested in this new clause, a simple and all-embracing rule for all categories of land. The degree of access must depend on the property in question : what might be appropriate for open land will not be reasonable, for example, in the case of land immediately surrounding a house where access at night might have to be restricted. Even where land is open, it is accepted only if it has some special quality--in particualr, that includes

Column 221

land which is important for nature conservation. Access to such land has to be managed, which means balancing the access objective and the benefits of preserving its special characteristics. We aim to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of properties accepted in lieu of tax, but we will not achieve this by imposing an across-the-board condition to all land accepted.

Buildings and land do not maintain themselves. It has long been the practice to make a reasonable charge for admission to some buildings and land to help to meet the costs of maintenance. This is true whether the land is publicly or privately owned or placed with a charitable trust.

For the reasons that I have set out, I consider that there is already a high level of public access to items which have been accepted in lieu and that this new clause would be unlikely to add to the availability of public access to future acceptances in lieu. In the case of land which is protected for nature conservation purposes, the unres-tricted access proposed could be positively damaging. If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall comment on what I readily acknowledge to be the related issue of conditionally exempt lands and items. The issue was raised in a different way in Committee and has been commented on more widely this afternoon. In his advocacy of public rights of access, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was prosaic, a virtue which accords not only to his colleagues. There is a general welcome for the maintenance, improvement and increase of public rights of access where that is feasible and desirable.

However, it is important to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the cost of conditional exemption since it has been in existence. The annual cost of conditional exemption from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax of works of art alone is estimated to have averaged about £70 million from 1983-84 to 1991-92. There are sometimes significant fluctuations in the estimated cost from year to year.

The 1991-92 cost was £20 million, but the 1990-91 cost was £160 million. The annual cost of conditional exemption for land and buildings is estimated to have averaged £5 million to £10 million from 1984 to 1992. If one adds the two figures together and multiplies them by eight, one arrives at the figure of £800 million which has been mentioned and in a further two years--bringing the period to 10 years--the figure would be pressing the £1 billion mark. At least one hon. Member--it may have been the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)--referred to the equivalent cost of income tax. He said that it amounted to the equivalent of p on the rate of income tax. Of course, numerically that is correct in any one year, but we are talking about relief over a 10-year period, whereas p would raise £1 billion a year, so the two are not strictly comparable.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked how the criteria for relief would be determined. I acknowledge that that is an important issue. The hon. Member was referring not specifically to conditional exemption, but, I think, to the enhanced reliefs for inheritance tax purposes provided in the Bill.

Column 222

The tax authorities already have to make a judgment about what properties fall into the various categories for the higher and lower rates of inheritance tax relief, and, of course, that will not change. In future it will, as before, be a matter of fact as to what amounts to an agricultural holding in possession and whether it attracts the full100 per cent. rate of inheritance tax relief to be passed on as a family farming business from one generation to another. There may be problems and there may be contested assessments of whether such relief applies, but there will be no new problems because the existing definitions will continue to obtain. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) also raised that issue today and in Committee. He asked, among other things, what incentives there were for access to the prospective 25 per cent. of lands which it is estimated is not now likely to claim conditional exemption but which will instead claim the full 100 per cent. relief. It is acknowledged that in granting that enhanced relief for certain businesses there will be a disincentive--or less of an incentive--for some landowners to enter into conditional exemption agreements. Yes, that is the case, but the original fear was that it would be such a disincentive that there would be virtually no new conditional exemption agreements.

I hope that in Committee and in the House we have been able to reassure people that a substantial amount of lands will still have a very positive incentive to go into conditional exemption agreements because they will effectively obtain 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax, whereas if they did not go into conditional exemption agreements they would be liable for a lower rate of only 50 per cent. relief, or for none at all.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe was right to say that there is still a proportion of land--prospectively 25 per cent., and I stress that it is only prospectively--which will not now go into conditional exemption and will not be available for public access as it might otherwise have been. In terms of quantity, that will not be as material as the benefits which will accrue to the businesses and farming businesses of lands which are, after all, handed on. Much of the land that we are discussing, which will qualify for 100 per cent. relief, will be family-owned farming businesses where a large part of the land is, by its nature, farmed and therefore cannot be roamed across. Where there are rights of access to it, there are likely to be public rights of way which will continue to exist. While conditional exemption was in the past a valuable relief, the new 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax will also be substantial. In many cases--probably the overwhelming majority of cases--there will still be public rights of way over such lands. They cannot be regarded in the same way as unfarmed heritage lands which simply would not be open to inspection by the public.

Mr. Betts : Has the Minister considered the possibility of treating differently different types of land which, under the proposals, will automatically get 100 per cent. exemption ? Ordinary farming land may acquire exemption and automatically gain 100 per cent. relief. Would it be possible for SSI land to be treated in such a way that 100 per cent. exemption from tax would apply only if some form of agreement were reached ?

Column 223

6.30 pm

Mr. Nelson : That possibility was raised in Committee. We resist the idea because it would draw an arbitrary and improper distinction between certain lands which could qualify for the same amount of relief. It would mean, in effect, that a hill farm which had no special heritage value might, as a going family concern, be entitled to the full 100 per cent. inheritance tax relief, while another farm which had heritage features would not obtain that status without a condition being placed on it.

The hon. Gentleman may be in favour of that--indeed, other Opposition Members have spoken, some passionately, in favour of linking access to relief--but we have not sought to do that, and to the extent that it exists, it is provided through the conditional exemption and the in-lieu provisions. They are substantial and, as has been acknowledged, they have brought much land, chattels and items of heritage to the public for inspection.

We believe that it would be wrong to create such a distinction through conditionality on certain pieces of farming land and not on others. They are both farming, going concerns--businesses--to which we are trying to give relief. It would be wrong to give it in one case with substantial conditions attached and not to do so in the other. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) challenged me to give examples of conditional exemption. He knows well that I cannot do that, not because I do not wish to do so, but because I am not allowed to do so. The principle of confidentiality in Inland Revenue matters is absolute. It is an extremely important principle for the protection of the public that they should know that their affairs with the Inland Revenue are confidential.

I shall explain why, in respect of items that are made conditionally exempt, that is known and is public. The crucial difference is that it can be at the choice of the individual, because other options are open to him to obtain conditional exemption for a work of art, other than it being placed on the list. There are other ways by which he can continue to make it available, in a conditionally exempt property, for inspection to which the public already have access. It is important to maintain the fundamental principle that there should continue to be confidentiality in Inland Revenue matters.

Mr. Bennett : I question whether the Minister's logic stands up. Is there a difference between a piece of landscape and a picture? I accept that the person with a picture has a choice ; he can go for exemption, after which conditions apply. Similarly, the person with a landscape has a choice. He can sell the piece of countryside to raise money to pay the tax. It seems ridiculous to have what is an obscure list of pictures, yet it is claimed that there cannot be a list of pieces of land to which the general public are supposed to have access. How on earth can the general public benefit if they do not have the access details?

Mr. Nelson : The hon. Gentleman is right in his final point, and I concur with the sentiments that he expresses, but I invite the House to draw a distinction between the issue of access--on which we can have a positive discussion about what improvements might be sought--and the separate issue of the confidentiality of dealings

Column 224

with the Inland Revenue. It is not necessary to break that relationship of confidentiality to have, and improve, access. They are separate matters.

One is sometimes driven to the suspicion, as Opposition Members press the matter, that they are really talking about the identification of accumulated wealth and the circumstances of individuals-- [Interruption.] I am pleased if their reception of that statement means that I am wrong. Opposition Members--the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was vitriolic about it--do not like accumulations of wealth. They want all such matters to be exposed. The question of access is a different matter, and if we want to improve access for the public to heritage lands, buildings and works of art, let us try to improve the mechanisms to make that possible. But that does not require breaking confidentiality with the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Mandelson : I assure the Minister that I am not motivated by greed. I am motivated by a desire to see everyone, no matter how big or lowly, not given opportunities to cheat the public purse or wider public interest in disreputable and unlawful ways.

I ask the Minister the question that I had intended to put to him : how would he square his commitment to increase information to facilitate the access that he believes is so important with maintaining the principle of confidentiality which he believes must be upheld?

Mr. Nelson : I shall suggest some ways in which access can be improved, and discussions are taking place about that. But we need not disrupt the basic principle to which I referred-- [Interruption.] I shall return to the subject, but I am anxious to comment on other important matters to which hon. Members have referred.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked where the public benefit was in the relief. The public benefit in the inheritance tax relief in the Bill is not directed principally to the access of the public. It is directed mainly to the integrity and prosperity of family businesses and agricultural farming units. The judgment of the Government--opposed by Opposition Members, who voted against the clause--is that there is economic and employment benefit to be derived from the integrity of passing on from one generation to another the aggregation of businesses and of working family farming units. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also asked about the ability to roam freely, and I appreciate the sentiments that drove him to ask that type of question. The Inland Revenue takes expert advice from amenity bodies, local authorities and others concerned in setting up management agreements for such land with a view to ensuring that environmental management and access schemes have the proper balance of access for the public, with the right to see and roam but also to conserve the environment. I contest whether it is always better to allow people freely to roam rather than to keep to footpaths. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the Lake district and the identity of landowners there. I do not know which of us has walked more miles in the paths of Wainwright throughout the Lake district, but I have never found much difficulty there in gaining access to outstanding lands, though that is due more to the national parks than to conditionally exempt arrangements. For the

Column 225

same reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we must bear in mind the issue of confidentiality.

The hon. Member for Carlisle asked why his local councillors did not know about such matters. In the overwhelming majority, if not all, of cases, local authorities would be taken into consultation with the Countryside Commission and others on the management agreements that are set up to provide access. The planning committee ought to know about that. It is for the committee to determine the way in which the information is treated. It is unlikely, however, that all council members will know such confidential details.

Mr. Martlew : The information given by the Countryside Commission to the Lake District special planning board was so vague that the officers of the board believed--correctly or otherwise--that they could not pass it on to members. I tabled a question on the matter to the Financial Secretary, who answered it in a very ambiguous fashion. Is the Economic Secretary telling us that members of local councils' planning committees and national park authorities can be told the details of such agreements?

Mr. Nelson : I am saying that local authorities are involved, and have information about land that will be subject to management agreements. I cannot speak in detail about the specific constituency points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but, if he would care to write to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary or to me, we should be delighted to follow up his comments.

The hon. Gentleman complained about not being able to obtain information from the Victoria and Albert museum list. He complained about the state of documents, and about the lack of an index. I have taken his complaints on board, and I shall deal with the V and A list in more detail shortly.

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) asked how many tax inspectors were employed to ensure compliance. As I have already made clear, others are responsible for compliance with the management and access agreements, but the Inland Revenue must ensure that those arrangements are monitored effectively. We are satisfied that they are being examined as they should be, but it is not the Revenue's direct responsibility to ensure compliance with such argeements, except in the case of works of art.

The hon. Member for Darlington complained that relief was being granted to the rich, while others were receiving no privileges. He described the position as a racket, and raised questions about the Duke of Devonshire and his estates. I cannot comment on such matters, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that public rights of way cannot be removed under the agreements with which we are dealing.

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman's comments raised doubt about his motivation. It was not clear to me whether he was in favour of extending or of curtailing such reliefs. He seemed to have grave misgivings about the whole basis of conditional exemption. He nods, suggesting that he does not like conditional exemption--unlike most hon. Members, who have called for its extension and the provision of access in other ways. The hon. Gentleman will have to resolve that problem with his hon. Friends.

Column 226

In a characteristically colourful intervention towards the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked of wealth and plunder. Perhaps he, like his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, feels that no relief should be provided for such purposes. Presumably he would have applied the same principle to the GLC silver : banning exports of all such objects would be right up his street.

I promised to mention the conditional exemption arrangements relating to the Victoria and Albert museum list. Let me make it clear that works of art that are granted conditional exemption must be made available for viewing by the public. That can be done by displaying them either in a privately owned house or in a room that is open to the public. Publicity about the object may then be included in any general publicity. Alternatively, the owner can arrange for the object concerned to be on long-term loan to a public collection--again, publicity may be included. A third option is to allow public viewing by appointment, and to lend the object to a public collection on request.

Availability for viewing is publicised by means of an entry in the register of conditionally exempt property, which is held by the national art library in the Victoria and Albert museum--the V and A list. Copies of the list are also available in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The register is available for inspection by members of the public. Entries in it describe the object, and provide information about the county in which it is located ; they also give the name and address of a contact who can arrange viewing. In many cases, the contact will be an agent. That is an important way of providing the owners of the property with some security : the inclusion of a name other than theirs is entirely for security reasons.

The existence of the V and A list is known to art scholars and researchers, but other members of the public may well be unaware of it. Recent articles in The Observer will have helped to increase awareness, and I welcome that ; but I reject the criticism in the articles, which suggest that the system of allowing public access to conditionally exempt items is deeply flawed. The V and A list allows interested members of the public to arrange appointments to view such works of art, thus providing reasonable public access. I urge any member of the public who consults the register and encounters difficulty in contacting the person whose name is shown on the register, or who considers that unreasonable conditions are being placed on any appointment to view, to write to the Inland Revenue's capital taxes office with details. If reasonable public access is being denied, the capital taxes office will attempt to correct the position. If that is not feasible, a deferred inheritance tax charge will be raised on the owner, based on the current value of the object. That is a considerable penalty for those who fail to comply with the conditions.

6.45 pm

Let me tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the Government feel that there is scope for improving publicity for the V and A list and some of the more important items on it. The Inland Revenue, with the Department of National Heritage, is considering what can be done in that regard. In particular, they are examining the scope for regular press releases about additions to the list, and increasing awareness of the list among museum and gallery curators. The latter option could lead to feature articles about some items, with wider circulation.

Column 227

The review is at an early stage, and I cannot announce any decisions now ; but I am sure that the House will welcome that intitiative.

I assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that, in discussions with officials, I have posed many of the questions that he and his hon. Friends have raised about the working of the arrangements. I, too, believe that improvements can be made, but the way in which to achieve that is to consult the parties and authorities concerned. In that way, it will be possible to make improvements that will match the mood of the House.

Mr. Martlew : How does the existence of the list in the Victoria and Albert museum help my constituents, who live more than 300 miles away? Consulting it involves a round trip of 600 miles, and then the place may turn out to be closed, as it was last week. When will there be real public access for people all over the country? After all, the vast majority of people do not live in London. Why have the Government refused to place a copy of the list in the House of Commons Library? That is disgraceful. Why can it not be photocopied?

Mr. Nelson : I am not at all sure that the V and A list would be a best seller in the House of Commons Library. As I told the hon. Gentleman earlier, however, copies exist elsewhere--in Edinburgh and Cardiff, for instance. It is not intended to be a secret document, and, if there is a better way of promulgating the informaiton, we shall try to adopt it.

For all the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that even Opposition Members will wish to support the new clause, which refers to an entirely different matter. I believe that a warm and general welcome should be given to the assurances that I have provided, and to our genuine intention to improve access arrangements.

Mr. Chris Smith : We have got something out of the Government : they have acknowledged that the viewing arrangements at the Victoria and Albert museum are inadequate and need to be examined, and that awareness of the availability of access to works of art needs to be increased.

We have heard of the potentially tough penalties that will be imposed on someone who has claimed relief but who does not provide for public access. All that is welcome. The fact that the Minister said that he was approaching the matter in a positive spirit is also welcome. However, I am afraid that the spirit was not positive enough.

The Minister was wrong on one or two points. He was wrong when he claimed that our new clause simply addresses the question of in--lieu gifts. He has obviously not looked carefully enough at subsection (3). The new clause clearly applies to conditionally exempt transfers. That has been the nub of our debate. The Minister was also wrong when he said that Opposition Members were--I think I quote him correctly--calling for an extension of conditional relief. None of us is calling for that. What we want is to get something for conditional relief, and the "something" that we want is public access.

Mr. Cormack : There is public access. Will the hon. Gentleman be a little careful about what he is doing ? The policy for preserving the heritage of this country has been evolved with the help of Members in all parts of the House.

Column 228

Many members of the hon. Gentleman's own party have played a distinguished and constructive part in evolving that policy. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a former Treasury Minister, is in the Chamber. He was immensely helpful when we had a Labour Government in the 1970s. We have a bipartisan policy. The National Heritage Memorial Fund and all the strands in that policy have been built on all-party support. I implore the hon. Gentleman not to wreck it for the sake of a cheap laugh.

Mr. Smith : I am afraid that that remark was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect on many of these matters. I do not demur from what he says about the importance of ensuring that works of art of great quality are kept in this country and about the need to ensure that our tax provisions and our public policy are framed accordingly. However, where inheritance tax relief is made available in return for ensuring that works of art are kept in this country, we believe that there should be reasonable and genuine public access to view those works of art. It is a simple point. In no way does it destroy the consensus to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

The Minister acknowledged the disincentive effect of the new 100 per cent. agricultural relief, for which provision is made in the Finance Bill. He said, however, as though it were a great concession, that there would still be public rights of way across that agricultural land. But there would still be public rights of way whether or not relief was given, whether or not the Finance Bill goes through, whether or not the provisions of the new clause are put into effect. There is no great Government concession. A public right of way is a public right of way, and ever shall it be so.

The Minister also referred to the register in the Victoria and Albert museum. We welcome the fact that there are copies of the register in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Why, then, is it impossible to place a copy in the Library of the House of Commons? If it is possible to make copies available for three other locations, why is it impossible to make a fourth copy available for the Library?

Mr. Tony Banks : Can my hon. Friend give the House a clue as to where these additional copies are in Edinburgh and Belfast? They are big cities. We should be able to narrow it down a bit.

Mr. Smith : I should have to yield to the Minister in order to provide my hon. Friend with that information, but the Minister does not appear to be leaping to his feet to tell us. Perhaps we shall be able to pursue the matter further in the next few days by means of a parliamentary question.

Apart from the fact that there ought to be a copy of the register in the House of Commons Library, why are we unable to go to the Victoria and Albert museum and make photocopies from the register? Why do we have to sit there and write down anything that we wish to copy from it? Why is the register not regularly updated? Why are half the contact names in the register out of date? Why is the register not properly indexed, which would enable us to look up what works of art are to be found in Cumbria or in the vicinity of Hartlepool? All those questions need to be addressed in the Minister's review. The heart of the debate is about public information and proper public access. When pressed, the Minister said that

Column 229

he could not give examples of areas of land where access had been made available. He said that he was not allowed to do so because of the principle of confidentiality. Breathtakingly, he went on to say that this was for the protection of the public. No person who enters into a conditionally exempt transfer is forced to do so. It is his or her choice to take up that opportunity. In return for taking it up, that person commits himself or herself to make access available. None of us asks for details of the inheritance tax relief that any individual has secured in return for a specific agreement. All that we are asking for is information about where the access is available. That does not breach any tax confidentiality. All it does is to tell us what the benefit is to the public.

Welcome though some of the Minister's points may be, I am afraid that the concessions that he has given are far too few. Unless the new clause is passed, we shall still forgo £110 million or more every year in Exchequer income, in return for very little. There will be no information on what areas of land have been made available for public access. Inadequate and out-of-date catalogues of access to works of art will remain. Lady Clarissa Collin will continue to tell people that they cannot roam freely on her land on the North Yorkshire moors. The new clause is about public access to our heritage and our landscape. That access is not properly available at the moment. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put , That the clause be read a Second time :

The House divided : Ayes 263, Noes 308.

Divsion No. 53 [6.57 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashton, Joe

Austin-Walker, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Roger

Betts, Clive

Blair, Tony

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyce, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Burden, Richard

Byers, Stephen

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Cann, James

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ms Ann

Cohen, Harry

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Denham, John

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Donohoe, Brian

Dowd, Jim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Next Section

Home Page