CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT TRANSFERS (Hansard, 15 July 1976)

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I beg to move Amendment No. 225, in page 49, line 41, after 'made', insert: '(before or after such transfer)'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we are taking the similar amendment, No. 226, in page 50, line 1.

§ Mr. Cooke
This amendment is non-controversial and has support from both sides of the House. It is aimed at letting the owner of heritage property know in advance of a transfer whether his property would qualify for conditional exemption.
In Committee the Chief Secretary undertook to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who tabled this amendment. We were not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply at that time but there was not then proper opportunity to explore the matter. The Chief Secretary said in his letter to my hon. Friend that he was not yet in a position to accept our proposition. That suggests that the Government were thinking about it.
It would be a great help to the owners of heritage property if they could have some assurance in advance that buildings, works of art or nature reserves would qualify for conditional exemption at the time of transfer. Nature reserve interests are particularly concerned about this matter. If the owners knew that the reserves would qualify provided that they were kept in a reasonable state, they would be more likely to continue as reserves. But we need some clarity in this situation.
1097 I challenge the remarks of the Chief Secretary in Committee about the present system. He said that it had worked for a long time to the total satisfaction of heritage bodies. I have been informed from a number of quarters that this is far from the case.

§ Mr. Farr
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) said. It is essential to landowners and others who possess sites of special or outstanding scientific interest that they should know before the transfer takes place whether these exemptions will be permitted. They should know exactly what is the position before the transfer is undertaken, as that may have an important effect upon, for instance, the management procedure of a site of special scientific interest.
There is undoubted evidence that sites which are of value to the nation, and which should be preserved for scientific and other special reasons, may be lost unless adequate notification is given, before the transfer takes place, that the relevant sites will qualify for this exemption. It is important that Parliament should make that clear tonight.
The Government have been helpful over this matter. The Minister sympathetically answered questions which I asked on 7th June. He gave another sympathetic answer to a question which I asked on the same subject on 9th June. I have had correspondence with the Secretary of State for the Environment. From the information I have received from him, I know that he is concerned about the preservation of these valuable sites. On this occasion, will the Minister be clear and forthcoming so that there may be no doubt about the future position?

§ Mr. Robert Sheldon
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) was ingenious. We knew about it in Committee although we did not have the opportunity of debating it. It seeks to obtain the right to claim exemption in advance of the transfer. I understand the interest of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). He is concerned about sites of special scientific interest. We understand the reasoning behind this proposal, which is aimed at the proper preservation and management of these sites.
1098 A difficulty arises when we try to look at the problems involved in seeking the clearance arrangements so that those concerned may seek to establish the nature of the site in advance of the transfer. A considerable period of time may elapse between the time when we look at the nature of the site and make an assessment of its position, and the transfer. During that time the nature of the site and other matters might materially alter. This kind of promised exemptioin would not be applicable at the time of the eventual transfer.
I understand the interest of those Members of the Opposition who are using the amendment to express their interest in the preservation of sites. However, I am not wholly convinced that the use of financial procedures is the best way in which to undertake the preservation of such sites.
The amendment affords the Opposition an opportunity to discuss this matter and to extend the range of people who may become interested in it. However, I do not think that the provisions which apply to estate duty may be easily overridden. Although I am obviously prepared to look at this matter from time to time, I do not think that the case has been wholly made out at present.

§ Mr. David Howell
I do not think that that was either an elevating or a devastating answer. The Minister thought that there was a case. He said that he would look at it, but not now. I am not familiar with specific cases as are my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but I have no doubt that there is a potential threat to areas of great scientific and natural importance.
1.45 a.m.
It would be a pity if, as a result of the delay which arises from the Financial Secretary's postponement of consideration of this matter, the full rigours of capital transfer tax applied and the property were dispersed, ploughed up, if it had some particular qualities connected with a nature reserve, filled in, built upon, or developed and the whole thing was lost for good. That would be very sad.
My hon. Friends will expect more from the hon. Gentleman in the way of an assurance that he will do something about 1099 this matter, and not merely that he will look at it in due course.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I think that rather than have the House negative the amendment, which is a somewhat unsatisfactory situation, I should ask leave to withdraw it, but only with misgivings and in the hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. We have had a poor reply by the Minister. It was rather like a kind of nature reserve—a bog with mist rising up from it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.