| Finance (No. 2) Bill
|
|
Mr. Fallon: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the Paymaster General is in a different position in terms of his historic houses? He has resources that are not available to other historic house owners, not least his offshore trust? In one sense, he is already benefiting from a no estate election. Mr. Hammond: I shall not be tempted to go down that road, but I must confess that when my hon. Friend suggested earlier that all members of the Committee would have difficulty if faced with a £1.6 million repair bill, it occurred to me that perhaps one member of the Committee might be able to contemplate such a cost with equanimity. As my hon. Friend outlined, the rules changed in 1963 in a way that allowed people with one estate election to plan the future management of their estates to allow for the upkeep of a principal house. This is a matter of principle; those who were affected in 1963 believed that they had arrived at a deal with the Government--a deal that has held good for 30-something years. On the back of that understanding, long-term arrangements to let land producing Schedule A income, against which the maintenance costs of the principal property could be offset, will in some cases have been entered into. The Government have a responsibility to consider the bargain struck in 1963, and the possibility that individuals may find themselves trapped in arrangements made for perfectly legitimate reasons within the context of one estate election, but which might prove to be onerous and inappropriate in a changed situation. I will not recite all the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney presented so eloquently to the Committee. But it seems important to focus on the issues of the availability of land for tenant farmers. I do not have an agricultural constituency and I do not pretend to have a great knowledge of the current state of agriculture. It is my understanding, however, that a decreasing amount of land is available to tenant farmers--there is an excess of demand over supply--and that anything tending to reduce the supply of tenanted farmland should be greatly deprecated. The properties that would be most affected by the clause are the heritage properties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred, of which he gave a number of examples. As he has said, there are ready buyers for those properties in the market. Several substantial properties have been bought in my constituency over the past few years by one family who are not resident in the United Kingdom and who do not--by any stretch of the imagination--open their homes to the public; indeed, they have a tendency to build high barbed wire fences around them. I fear that if the clause passes unamended, increasing numbers of such important houses will fall into the hands of non-resident owners who use them occasionally and are not at all inclined to allow the British public access to them. The parties that have made representations to the Government on this issue have primarily sought an assurance that the three-year delay proposed in the Bill is to allow the Government to consult with interested parties on a scheme to protect the interests of the heritage property owners to whom my hon. Friend referred. The amendment that he tabled seeks to address that issue. Opposition Members will probably retire satisfied tonight, however, if the Government can assure us that the purpose of the three-year delay is to consult constructively on a scheme to allow owners of historic grade 1 listed houses that are open to the public to continue to offset maintenance costs against the income from let property and land within the same estate. I hope that the Financial Secretary can give us that assurance so that Treasury policy is in line with the policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and that we do not have the unfortunate impression that the Treasury is anti-culture, anti-history and anti-heritage. I look forward to the Financial Secretary's reassuring us that the Departments of Government are singing from the same song sheet. Several hon. Members rose--
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Witney moved the amendment comprehensively and with great eloquence. I hope that the argument does not now become circular.
9.30 pmMr. Clifton-Brown: Here we have it: the Government do not understand the countryside. Time after time we have made the same argument, but the clause is mean-minded and shows that the Government do not understand the impact of their actions in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has eloquently and tellingly moved the amendment and he has taken us on a great heritage and cultural tour of the greatest houses in the land. Tourists coming to this country--for example, the Americans--positively drool over what we have to offer. However, the Government are to restrict access to some of the finest houses in the country. Given that tourism will be the world's largest business by the end of the century, that is daft. Clause 39 repeals sections 26 and 27 of the Taxes Act 1988, which allowed a once-only collection whereby schedule A expenditure on vacant properties can be claimed against income tax schedule A and corporation tax. My hon. Friend failed to mention one point that has not yet been considered by the Committee. Hitherto, that concession has been able to be passed on from one owner to the next, but that practice will now be stopped. I have sat in Committee after Committee and I have heard hon. Members in opposition complaining about a range of schemes. Later we shall discuss clause 140, which allows heritage access in connnection with inheritance tax. Other countryside access schemes, such as set-aside access schemes and environmentally sensitive schemes, are designed to promote greater access to the countryside and to this country's great heritage. This clause, however, will restrict the access that those schemes seek to encourage. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney explained why the clause would restrict access. If we withdraw the allowances and concessions, the houses are likely to be bought by extremely wealthy people, many of whom are of a different colour--shall we say--from members of the Committee. Those people have plenty of oil money and would want to live in those houses. The first thing that they want is absolute privacy, and they would remove public access to those houses. Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South): On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Chairman: Order. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman was referring to political colour. I shall not allow racist remarks of any kind. Mr. Clifton-Brown: I had no intention of making a racist remark of any sort whatever. It was simply-- The Chairman: Order. I shall take the point of order. Ms Southworth: I wish to make the point of order, Mr. Gale. You referred to the matter before I had made my point, but may I ask whether it is in order for racist remarks to be made in the House? All hon. Members should abhor such comments. The Chairman: I have already made the view of the Chair abundantly plain. Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have made it crystal clear that my remark was not intended as a racist comment. It was simply meant to imply that foreigners may not wish to allow as much public access as some of the traditional families in this country have hitherto done. That is the damage that the clause will create. Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton): On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Let us clear the matter up. The hon. Gentleman said ``a different colour from members of the Committee''; he did not refer to different political parties. The Chairman: I am paying attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have already unreservedly withdrawn the remark once. It is a custom of this House that a remark, once withdrawn, is taken to be withdrawn. Perhaps Labour Members cannot hear a withdrawal when it is first made. The provision is likely to result in the withdrawal of public access from some of the finest houses in the country. It applies not only to the principal residence but also to all the environs, the estate cottages and the rest of the estate that goes with the house. The setting of those houses is what tourists, both from this country and abroad, find attractive. Many such houses have been in the same family for centuries. The measure that I am concerned about has been in existence for 35 years and I believe it to cost relatively little. Perhaps the Paymaster General will tell the Committee what amount of money is involved. The notes on clauses, press release and Red Book do not make that clear. It would also be helpful to know how many oneestate elections there are. Presumably in some circumstances the election is not transferred, and the number is reduced each year. The Government recognise the force of the response to consultation, as the press release, Inland Revenue 12, makes clear. With what will the Paymaster General replace the relevant provision? The press release states:
ESC B4 is the deduction for repairs and improvement to property that is not available to traders. It would be helpful to owners of the relevant properties to know what regulations the Government have in mind. Any suggestion that the Paymaster General could give would be welcome. We have had a long and spicy debate and I do not think that there is any need to prolong it. I hope that the Government will think carefully about how the affected houses can be maintained. While the amendment refers to grade 1 houses, the one estate election covers many much smaller--grade 2 and lesser--houses, that will equally be put at risk. Those are much less eligible for grant. Not only the greatest houses in the land, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, but a much larger number of secondary but nevertheless important houses could be placed at risk through being withdrawn from public access and starting to fall into disrepair. I do not have the figures to hand, but I know that a substantial number of houses are in that category. Indeed, many grade 1 houses were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s, simply because the owners faced crippling tax demands. The marginal rate of tax under the Labour Government in the 1960s was 98 per cent. Owners of some houses simply could not afford to repair them. It was cheaper to demolish them. I do not say that that will necessarily result from clause 39, because planning restrictions would probably prevent it. However, several houses in this country have, even in the past decade, fallen into disrepair. The decay of our heritage as a result of withdrawing the relevant provisions would be very unfortunate. The clause is a mean-minded measure by an urban-dominated Government who do not fully understand what they are doing to the great heritage of our country, which has been preserved for centuries. The one estate election has withstood some of the most tax-raising Labour Governments, and if it were abolished new Labour would have to answer to people who wish to have access to the houses in question.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 19 May 1998 |
