| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.30 pm
Of the sites surveyed, access was already available to 44 per cent. of them. One criticism of the scheme is that sites are difficult to find, but, when they are found, it appears that de facto access or access across a footpath is already available. Such schemes need to perform better. I estimate that the access element of the countryside stewardship scheme will cost £6 million over 10 years. To put it baldly, we are not getting value for money.
Another example of such a scheme is the conditional exemption from inheritance tax scheme under which the public are also allowed greater access to the countryside. The amendment is clear in seeking reasonable public access to land that is in a habitat scheme, but the conditionality of inheritance tax also has all the hallmarks of failure. I have raised this matter with the Financial Secretary before and I am very grateful for the interest that he has so far taken in it. I hope he will not find it churlish if I say that I have admired his interest but not what has been achieved.
Again, there is a loss of inheritance tax to the public purse in--allegedly--allowing the public greater access to the countryside. The problem with this specific scheme is that because of taxpayer confidentiality, sites cannot be identified. Therefore, the public are in theory being allowed greater access to the countryside, but taxpayer confidentiality means that no one is told where the sites are. That is absolutely crazy, and I do not believe that anyone can justify that situation.
The Countryside Commission administers the scheme on behalf of the Government. I know that the commission itself would like to see a change, and I hope that conditional exemption from IT and the habitat scheme will both be changed to allow greater public access so that people know where the sites are and can access them.
I said that the Financial Secretary had been extremely helpful, although some of the answers to my questions did not inspire me with confidence. On 29 March 1996, the Financial Secretary replied to a written question. I asked how many sites had been given
In answer to another written question, the Financial Secretary confirmed that the cost of conditional exemption in such cases was between £5 million and £10 million each year. We are talking about significant sums of money--£5 million to £10 million a year in loss of inheritance tax, £10 million over 10 years on countryside stewardship schemes, and lesser amounts for the smaller schemes that I mentioned.
It is imperative that the spirit of the amendment is accepted. If payments are to be made, either in cash or by the avoidance of inheritance tax being allowed, the public should get something back--they should have greater access. The central problem is that Departments, backed by Ministers, are unwilling to advertise the sites.
Also on conditional exemption, I asked the Financial Secretary what consultation had taken place. Again on 29 March 1996, he replied that tourist offices and town halls had been consulted. Since receiving that reply, I have written to every county council in England. With three exceptions, none could find any evidence at all of being consulted. To be fair, three did say that they were consulted but were not prepared to give details of sites in their county because of the prescription of taxpayer confidentiality. Some did not know, and a smaller group would not say. It was the same when tourist information centres were contacted.
I asked the Financial Secretary how he knew that the relevant tourist centres were displaying information telling people about access to the countryside. Also on 29 March 1996, he replied:
It is important that people who want access to the countryside--there is an ever-growing demand--should have the information to find the locations that they want and that there should be new public access. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is a long, hard road, but people will not give up easily. There is a tremendous desire across the United Kingdom for a better, greener landscape. We want to enjoy that landscape.
There should be a partnership between the Government and those who want to go to the countryside. The Government's policies have set up a series of misdirections, stiles and blocks on footpaths. That is not good enough. People will not tolerate it and there will have to be change. The amendment is a small step in pushing for that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury):
I should like to comment on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), whom I am delighted to follow, and his Front Bench colleagues. I oppose both amendments.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are debating only amendment No. 6.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Indeed. Amendment No. 6 was moved by the hon. Member for Sherwood and deals with
A description of what the habitat schemes in question are designed to achieve might be helpful. A pilot scheme was launched in May 1994, aimed at creating or enhancing certain valuable habitats by taking land out of agricultural production, or introducing extensive grazing, and managing it for the benefit of wildlife. The scheme targets three types of habitat: water fringes in six designated areas; farmland previously in the five-year set-aside scheme; and coastal salt marsh.
There is a philosophical divide between the two sides of the Committee. I believe that this country's extensive right of way system is not used to its fullest extent. If the system was already fully used, I could begin to understand the objections of the hon. Member for Sherwood, but it is not. There are a number of reasons for the lack of use, not least of which is the presence of one or two unco-operative landowners and farmers. I condemn those who block up proper rights of way. The Countryside Commission's target is that all rights of way should be open by 2000.
Introducing a public right of way over habitat scheme areas in a Finance Bill is not the right way to proceed. When a Government introduce an agri-environment scheme, they have to ask what that scheme is designed to achieve. I have already set out the nature of the scheme; it is designed to create better habitat. Many of the habitats that we are trying to create need peace and quiet. The Opposition's policy of a right to roam, with people wandering everywhere, would not work with this scheme. Permission to bring the scheme into effect will be granted only if the organisers believe that it will achieve the desired objectives. That will happen only with an out of the ordinary habitat, which would be impossible to achieve with people wandering everywhere. I strongly oppose the introduction in a Finance Bill of the right to roam over habitat scheme areas.
"conditional exemption from IT on the basis of public access having been granted."
He replied:
"The information requested about the number of locations which have been granted conditional exemption is not available."
That is not good practice.
"I am unable to provide the requested information about tourist information centres as it is not held centrally. And, in any event, providing such information may help identify individual cases of tax exemption, thus compromising the normal rules on taxpayer confidentiality."--[Official Report, 29 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 777.]
There we have it--a promise is being made that tourist information centres are consulted and have the necessary information but, at the same time, the Financial Secretary is saying that they are not allowed to display that information for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. To put it bluntly, it is a real mess--a quagmire. I have anxieties that the clause will lead to similar problems. Substantial amounts of money are being paid to farmers and landowners.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |