| Finance (No. 2) Bill
|
|
The Chairman: Order. There is considerable post-prandial discussion at the back of the Room. If hon. Members wish to hold private conversations they may do so in the Corridor. Mr. Woodward: The Secretary of State said:
I hope that I am answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). The Secretary of State continued:
The Historic Houses Association represents 300 houses, 60 of which will be directly affected by the clauses; and 54 of those 60 houses are open to the public. The Secretary of State told the members of the association that it was the most effective and economic guardian of the sector. It is extraordinary that, within a few months, a clause in the Finance Bill will wipe out that sector. What does that mean? The Government now have an opportunity to say that they recognise that a real problem exists. From my conversation last night with Labour Members, I know that some Ministers in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport had no idea that such a measure was being introduced. The left hand and the right hand have not spoken to each other. I am not making a criticism, because I want the Paymaster General to admit that the issue is really important. It could affect our future heritage. In its meetings with the Inland Revenue, the Historic Houses Association was given the impression that only two options were being considered: an increase in notional values, or the scrapping of the concession altogether. An alternative approach, involving better targeting, goes some way towards recognising the importance of the intervention made by the hon. Member for Brent, North. We could amend current provisions and specify that heritage property--for example, grade 1 houses--should remain open to the public. I want to ensure that the public continues to enjoy access to such houses and to the art treaures and the furniture that they contain, which are crucial to the fabric of our nation and to the way that it evolved. Is there a way of continuing one estate election for the owners of grade 1 houses? Perhaps Ministers will reconsider the clause and say whether they feel that they should talk to the Historic Houses Association. I am well aware that the Financial Secretary received letters about various matters from that organisation. Its letters may not have always been properly focused--it might have been better if there had been a direct request about a single matter. Shortly before the Budget, that organisation wrote to the Financial Secretary and asked for a meeting on this matter but, unfortunately, officials did not grant it. I attach no blame to the Financial Secretary for that--such things happen. However, the clause, which will do historic damage to our culture, is completely contrary to the speech that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave at last year's annual meeting of the HHA. Some people will say, ``Surely those houses are eligible for grants.'' Grants are available only for major capital works, including one-off roof repairs. They are not available for routine, recurring expenditure, which the concession in the 1963 legislation assisted. Elton hall, for example, covers 44,000 square feet. It would be a nightmare, by most people's standards, to keep up the house and ensure that it was kept open to the public. There has been a house on that site since the Norman conquest. It has one of our finest libraries, which contains 12,000 books including a unique one--the prayer book of Henry VIII, which is signed and annotated by him and by two of his wives. It is a unique book in a unique library in a unique house, and all of it is open to members of the public. Next year, the house's owners face a repair bill of £360,000 including £240,000 for the roof. They are extremely grateful for the fact that they will receive a generous grant of £120,000, but they still have to find another £240,000 to keep the house open, not just for the public's benefit but to meet the statutory requirements that we placed on owners of those houses--they are required to upkeep grade 1, grade 2 star and grade 2 listed houses. They have to find that money, but if they do not have it in the bank, where will it come from?
9.15 pmThe removal of one estate election may mean that a family who has lived in a house for hundreds of years and who opened their home to the public for most months of the year may be forced to sell it, and it might pass into the hands of another family, who may be much wealthier and may have many gold bars in the bank, but who might not open the house to the public. Access would have gone and everything that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport praised at last year's HHA meeting would go out of the window. Another proposal is that other kinds of relief could be made available. For example, a proper commercial business could be established, but the only relief that would be available would involve a business deduction against the house-opening income. That would make house-opening activity uncommercial, thereby risking the loss of all reliefs. In most cases, such houses will never be commercial. People rely on the fact that the owners of a house are its custodians. A National Trust administrator earns somewhere between £11,000 and £15,000 a year, but owners of such houses do not get paid similar sums each year. They have the responsibility of running the house, which costs on average £50,000 a year to open to the public, and such money is not easily found. If the owners open their house to the public, they make it accessible and they can benefit from the 1963 provision of one estate election. In case some Committee members think that lottery money might be available to help those families, I assure them that it is not available for private individuals. The situation involves a curious irony. The Government strongly support public access; they talk about the future and they also wish to prize the past. However, the clause runs the risk of closing some of the most important historic properties, which contain furniture and art and which have gardens. It may remove the access that the public currently enjoy because that is a way of tidying up. If tidying up is required, the Government should target special help on those who have taken up that special duty. As the Secretary of State said, the Government should find a way of allowing those most effective and economic guardians to continue as such because there is no way that the Government could afford to run those houses. The Government should think carefully about the clause's consequences. It affects but a few families, but there will be very considerable effects on millions of tourists. Mr. Fallon: This is a mean and nasty clause, and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made a powerful and moving case against it. I have three brief comments to add to his speech. First, the explanatory notes suggest that the measure was transitional. The measure dates from 1963 so, as my hon. Friend said, it has lasted 35 years. No Government, Labour or Conservative, have so far sought to repeal it, not least because it has been successful in enabling an important amount of restoration to be undertaken. The second point is that the clause flatly contradicts clause 140 and schedule 25, which extend access to our heritage. If clause 39 is not amended, we shall restrict access to our heritage because, as my hon. Friend said, many of those houses will pass out of private ownership into foreign ownership or be closed to the public, and millions of people will be denied access to them. The Government seem to have something against heritage and historic houses because they do not seem to fit in with the Government's idea of a young, cool Britain--cool Britannia! That is probably why they have cut the funding to English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund. Pop stars can visit No. 10, but our historic houses will be further damaged. That will also damage the communities in which they are situated because jobs in the area will be hit. I suggest that the Government either withdraw the clause for further consultation of the sort that the Financial Secretary was unable to offer, for understandable reasons, in the run-up to the Budget, or consider the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. He has drafted it carefully and moderately and, as the hon. Member for Brent, North will discover, he has confined its eligibility to those homes that insist on public access. That is a moderate and reasonable improvement in the targeting of the relief, and I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr. Hammond: I should like to support what my hon. Friends said. This is a spiteful measure which will have a severe effect on a relatively small number of people. I should like to range a little wide, Mr. Gale, as I suspect that you will be minded not to allow a stand part debate following our extensive debate. The Paymaster General told the Committee at our previous sitting that wide consultation on the Bill had ensured that we have before us a better Bill. The Budget day press release--Inland Revenue 12--stated that arguments for the retention of one estate election had been put to the Treasury by those interested and went on to state:
Having acknowledged that the pre-Budget submissions made on behalf of the owners of the houses that would be affected had force, the Government have not had the courage to defend the retention of the one estate election. They have merely delayed by three years the implementation of the provisions. The amendment relates specifically to grade 1 listed houses that are open to the public, and it is obvious why my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has chosen to focus the amendment in that way. Perhaps he thought that the Paymaster General would respond to the debate--he has a close knowledge of the value of historic houses by famous architects because he is fortunate enough to own one--[Hon. Members: ``Two.'']--or two. He has two such houses, so he, above others, should understand the value of such houses and the cost of maintaining them to the requirements of English Heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney outlined very effectively the history of this matter.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 19 May 1998 |
