| Finance (No. 2) Bill
|
|
Mr. St. Aubyn: I have learnt through bitter experience that for every Bill that comes before the House and its Standing Committees, some sops must be offered to the old Labour left. A few ways must be found to assuage the still vibrant gut instincts of the party that is now in Government. Although the cult of Mandleson towers may have lobotomised most Labour Members, they still get a twinge of satisfaction when, through a clause in the Finance Bill, they can hit the nobs. In education we have had attacks on selection, which resulted in increased class sizes. The previous Finance Bill attacked health insurance, which resulted in increased waiting lists. Similarly, by attacking the few the clause before us will have an effect diametrically opposite to that which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is trying to achieve. Labour Members frequently play the game of asking us what interests we have to declare. I do not have a direct interest in the clause, because my family is in the fortunate position of owning a home that pays its way through the number of visitors it attracts annually. [Laughter.] Apparently, that is a cause of ribaldry among Labour Members, although we are told always to lay our interests on the table. A family home such as mine can create a sense of community that is by and large classless. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, as I knew they would. If one opens one's home to the world one invites everyone--every creed, race and colour--into one's drawing room. There is nothing more communautaire or more classless. Those who choose to do so are acting in the best, classless traditions of this country. Given that one of my grandfathers was a miner, and the other was the son of a policeman, I have never subscribed to the view that an ingrained class system exists in this country. Nevertheless, through their majesty and splendour such buildings put us all in awe of our heritage. The Chairman: Order. I fully appreciate the fact that provocative remarks invite a response. However, the hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard. Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope that the pleasant reaction of Labour Members indicates that they are gaining sympathy for the arguments advanced by the Opposition. We ask for sympathy not for those who live day in and night out in such houses, but for those who work in them and wish them, and for all those who treasure the heritage that such homes represent. We must not ignore the jobs that such houses create.--[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. There are many hon. Members present who have not made speeches. It is inappropriate for them to contribute from a sedentary position--especially those who have been here long enough to know better. Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney made clear, people throughout the country are interested in the outcome of this debate, and they feel strongly about the case that we are making. It ill behoves Labour Members to ridicule the matter, because in doing so they display the gut instincts that I mentioned earlier. Their behaviour is a betrayal of the established principle that the House should debate matters rationally and reasonably, and listen to the case of the minority. Such cases are sometimes ignored by the monolith of big government. However, we do so at our own cost.
9.45 pmIt is not only jobs and the sense of community that are at risk. Many generations have lived in the heart of the country with a sense of permanence and security. The Government's attacks on the countryside have stirred an anger throughout the nation that has manifested itself twice in a year in the parks of central London. Such attacks are of a piece with the Government's whole approach. Some of my colleagues have rightly noted the contradictory aims of clause 39 and clause 140. However, both clauses propose to tear up long-established agreements between individuals and the state. If the Government tear up such agreements to satisfy their own whims and prejudices, we will all have to pay the price. Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. St. Aubyn: I have finished. Mr. Gardiner: Has the hon. Gentleman given way to me? The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Guildford has taken his seat. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to make a speech. Mr. Gardiner: In that case I shall respond. The hon. Gentleman described clause 140 as contradictory. He suggested that it enabled the Government to tear up long-standing agreements at their own whim, and against the country's best interests--interests that he sought to advance by supporting the amendment. However, the extent to which clause 140 will expand public access to properties of historic interest is entirely consistent with the hon. Gentleman's position. Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: In common with others, I complement the hon. Member for Witney on moving the amendment so ably. I doubt whether he anticipated the hilarity that the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford provoked. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Witney that it will not influence the seriousness with which I shall approach the debate. The relief, which was first introduced in 1963, was always intended to be transitional, just as Pitt's introduction of income tax was a strictly temporary measure intended to help fight the Napoleonic wars. Combined with the three-year transitional period envisaged in the legislation, the measure will have been in force for 38 years. The amendment would provide relief for grade 1 houses and for houses with a one estate election that open to the public. Depending on how much research he has done, the hon. Gentleman may be able to help us with the figures. If the amendment were accepted, how many of the 700 houses that benefit from one estate election would be excluded? Would we still exclude the categories that we most want excluded, or which the hon. Gentleman wants excluded? The hon. Gentleman said a lot about hill farmers. Mr. Woodward rose--
Mr. Robinson: I will give way in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to perpetuate, refine and target an anomaly that discriminates against others. He made much of the farmer issue. We are prepared to receive representations on that, especially in the context of his amendment. It would be helpful if he could enlighten us on the subject. Mr. Woodward: As income tax, which was meant to be transitional relief, is still with us, I hope that either the one estate election will continue, or the Government will announce in next year's Budget the end of income tax, and the transitional relief with it. We do not know the answer to the Paymaster General's question because the work has not been done. Is it not something when the Government want to introduce legislation but have no idea who will be affected by it or how wide-ranging the implications will be? Would it not be appropriate for the Paymaster General to accept the arguments and agree that there is a case between now and Report stage to solicit representations from the Historic Houses Association? Would it not also be appropriate for his officials to give him the figures? With all due respect to the Paymaster General, it is dangerous for us to proceed down a road when neither he nor his officials are able to furnish the Committee with information about it. Mr. Robinson: I will say a few words that may go some way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I am not sure that we can entirely satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I cannot say that we will return to the matter on Report. The numbers are difficult to obtain, but we will make a more determined and in-depth effort to get them. We have a form of relief that is not well targeted. There is general agreement in the Committee on that. It was introduced as transitional relief, and we have granted a further three years to allow those who have to accommodate the new arrangements to do so. Although I intend to do justice to the hon. Gentleman's argument by avoiding the side issues, I cannot understand why we would wish to benefit all grade 1 houses. What would be the reason for that? We know that not all grade 1 houses benefit from one estate election. Why would we create that privileged category for just grade 1 houses? Houses often move into grade 2 and can become, like the hon. Gentleman's house, grade 2 star. The periodic reclassification of houses may then allow them to become grade 1. We should remember that architectural taste or judgment changes from year to year. There is no coherent principled logic in the hon. Gentleman's choosing to concentrate on grade 1 houses. Many of those are not open to the public although his grade 2 star house will be. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman's argument is unprincipled, but there is no logic to it. The problems of historic houses are well known to anyone who reads the newspapers. There is a problem, but arrangements in lieu of tax can be made, and the Budget greatly helped museums. There are solutions to the problems of huge houses whose maintenance outruns the means of their traditional owners. Grants are available. The hon. Gentleman was not right to discount the lottery's involvement, because we should discuss such solutions. Mr. Clifton-Brown: With respect, the Paymaster General has shown that he does not understand the effect of the measure. We want to preserve grade 1 listed houses in this country in good repair because they have particular architectural or cultural features of national importance. They deserve and need every bit of help that they can get. Mr. Robinson: With great respect, I do understand that. Why should grade 1 listed properties be so provided for, but not grade 2 star properties, which may be categorised as grade 1 listed next year? It does not make much sense, and many grade 1 listed houses are not open to the public anyway. Why should they be given preferential treatment? There is no principled justification for such a distinction. I am anxious that the Committee should make as much progress as possible, and I am restraining myself from indulging in following in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Witney on his grand tour of our fine houses. There is a lot more that I could say about such houses.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 19 May 1998 |
