HC Deb 13 July 1988 vol 137 cc464-9

`. After subsection (5) of section 31 of the inheritance Tax Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(6) The Treasury shall prepare, and keep up to date, a register of land designated under subsection 1(b) above.

(7) The register referred to in subsection (6) above shall, in relation to each area of land so designated, contain—

  1. (a) a map on a scale of not less than 1:25,000 showing the boundaries of the land; and
  2. (b) a copy of the undertakings given under subsection (2) above for the maintenance of the land and the preservation of its character, and for securing reasonable access to the public.

(8) The register referred to in subsection (6) above shall be made available for public inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours, and so much of the register shall likewise be made available—

  1. (a) as relates to land in Northern Ireland, at a place in Northern Ireland;
  2. (b) as relates to land in Scotland, at a place in Scotland; and
  3. (c) as relates to land in Wales, at a place in Wales.".'.—[Dr. Marek.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Marek

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I think that the best thing for me to do is to read to the House a resolution which was adopted unanimously at the annual general meeting of the national council of the Ramblers' Association on 10 April 1988. The resolution is about inheritance tax and access and it will make the points for the new clause. It says: This National Council of the Ramblers' Association remembers that for many years the public were denied unrestricted access to some of the most beautiful parts of the country such parts of the Devonshire Estate in Wharfedale in North Yorkshire including Simons Seat and Barden Moor and Barden Fell. In recollects with pleasure its success in gaining access to those and other areas by virtue of its campaigns. This National Council has noted with concern that although relief against Inheritance Tax has been granted to the owners of the Estate the Association has not been told of any additional access to the estate although Section 31 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 specifically states that the relief is to be granted upon the owner securing reasonable access to the public. This Council therefore urges both Her Majesty's Government and the Devonshire Estate to make public details of the reasonable access that has been secured. In the event that no reasonable access has been secured (other than that which has been previously secured by Access Agreements or by permissive paths—for the former of which the public already pays and the latter of which can be withdrawn at any time) this Council urges that access be granted immediately. Furthermore having noted that the Devonshire Estate is not the only landowner that has secured relief from Inheritance Tax it calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish sufficient details of cases where relief has been granted to enable the public to know what reasonable access has thereby been secured. There can be no conceivable reason for withholding from the public details of the extra access that has been secured for them in return for concessions under inheritance tax. Surely it must be right for the public to know—by a notice which is displayed or is available at tourist information offices—that there is access to such and such a place at such and such a time. I do not think that confidentiality can arise. Just because the tax details are negotiated between the Inland Revenue and the person who pays the tax, that does not mean that the public should not be told about the extra access. The spirit and meaning of the legislation is that the concession is made for the public. Therefore, the public are entitled to know so that they can make use of the concession. If the public cannot make use of the concession, why should it be made for inheritance tax?

The new clause seeks to make the information available. A noticeboard with times of access would be useful. The Government should provide details of the extra access. I hope that they will not try to justify not doing so because of confidentiality. I do not think they could sustain that argument. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Brooke

As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made clear, the clause seeks to establish a public register of outstanding land that has been the subject of heritage tax reliefs. The register would include details of the undertakings that the owner has given as a condition of receiving the reliefs.

One of the conditions of the reliefs is that there should be reasonable public access to the land. It is right that the public should know that they have that access, but the proposal would go further. It would tell the public why access has been granted—that is, for tax reasons—and that would be wrong.

I wish to deal now with the defence of the principle of Revenue confidentiality, which is important to all taxpayers, although the hon. Member for Wrexham was a little dismissive of it.

11 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Will the Minister explain how people are supposed to know about access at present?

Mr. Brooke

If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall speak about publicity arrangements, but I wish first to enter the defence for confidentiality.

It is essential that we should guard against any creeping erosion of our right to keep our private affairs private. The publication of a register indentifying land subject to inheritance tax reliefs would be an unnecessary erosion of the privacy of the taxpayers concerned. The reason for the availability of the land is immaterial. What matters is that the land is there and that the nation has acquired rights to enjoy it and to ensure its proper maintenance. The proposed register would not help to increase those rights, and would involve an unwarranted and pointless breach of confidentiality.

That does not mean that we object to publicity about public access to heritage property. Indeed, requirements about publicity are built into the undertakings mentioned in the clause, but it is right that the publicity should take a form that does not reveal that the access is being given for tax reasons, unless the landlowner wishes to announce that.

Publicity about public access to heritage property which has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax is incorporated in the terms of the management agreement. The agreement is negotiated to give effect to the undertakings about preservation and public access that are required as a precondition of exemption. Requirements will differ from case to case, but, outstanding chattels apart, for which different arrangements apply, those will normally comprise various proposals.

First, the owner should inform the British Tourist Authority, and the relevant bodies in other parts of the kingdom, of the opening arrangements and subsequent changes. Secondly, the owner should advertise the opening arrangements in one or more suitable publications with national circulation. Thirdly, the owner should display a notice outside the property giving details of the opening arrangements. Fourthly, the owner should agree that the advisory body or bodies, or their agents, which confirmed the property's eligible quality and with whom the terms of the detailed management agreement will have been negotiated, can divulge the access arrangements to anyone who inquires about them. Finally, the owner should agree to such other publicity as the advisory body, or bodies, consider to be appropriate. That could include displaying a notice in some public place in the locality, such as the local post office, library, tourist office or town hall or in a local preservation society's newsletter.

The management agreement would also normally provide scope for additional measures to be agreed, if appropriate, between the owner and the advisory body or bodies at a later stage.

Dr. Marek

Herein lies the conundrum. I accept that tax affairs should be confidential between the Inland Revenue and the person concerned, but, as there is a concession for the public to have greater access, they should have no need to inquire about it. They should be told about it and the information should be publicly available. I should be interested to hear what the Minister says about that. If there is to be greater access, simply as a result of a concession in respect of heritage tax, I do not see how we can avoid saying that there will be greater public access because of inheritance tax. One can leave it at that; one does not need to give any more details.

Mr. Brooke

Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's preliminary question about whether further publicity arrangements are contemplated.

The machinery for publicising public access is kept under review by the Inland Revenue, in conjuction with other interested Departments and the advisory agencies, with a view to the improvement of publicity without compromising tax confidentiality. The Inland Revenue and the Countryside Commission are considering an arrangement for the commission to respond to queries about public access in particular localities by including details of designated land with land to which public access is available for reasons other than tax exemptions so that a mixture of relevant land would be identified.

The hon. Members for Wrexham and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked whether there was additional access in the event of there already being public access to the land. In many cases there may be reasonable access before inheritance tax exemption is claimed. I think that that was part of the resolution that the hon. Member for Wrexham read out. It is not a prerequisite that more access is always required in return for tax exemption, but the exemption can ensure with more certainty that existing access will be maintained and not reduced at the owner's whim without tax consequences. Therefore, by definition there is a greater assurance that access will be maintained.

The principle of confidentiality governs the Government's reaction to the new clause and I would encourage my hon. Friends to reject it.

Dr. Marek

What is the Government's position where, as a result of the concessions being made, there is an increase in access? Surely the only logical position is to say that the public need to know about that increase in access and, if necessary, people can put together two and two to make four if inheritance tax has just been paid. That is not an intrusion into matters that should be confidential. Has the Paymaster General any view on that point?

Mr. Brooke

In a quite different area of Government activity, I have a responsibility for the forthcoming Government data network, where there is extreme sensitivity about confidential details. All I can say is that once the principle of tax confidentiality of individual taxpayers begins to be eroded, one is on a slippery slope.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I am rather disappointed by the Minister's response. He does not seem to have grasped the problems that so often arise in areas of claimed greater access. Greater access is often not being conferred, but rather there is a reduction in access. In many instances there may have been a right of way or some other custom and practice use of the land; it is at the point that the tax deal is done, and that ceases to be a right of the tax arrangement.

Therefore, what was basically a statutory right, either a public right of way or an unregistered right of way that could have been claimed, is lost to the public. Unless the Government can demonstrate that the public will have a clear statement of what extra access they have, there is little way of judging whether the Inland Revenue or the public have been diddled by the landlord. Something that they had in the past will then be theirs only as a result of a tax concession.

In many areas, the Inland Revenue can simply look at the books and work out whether someone is paying the right amount of money. But it is a complicated and difficult business for someone from the Inland Revenue to check what has been the traditional access to an area, perhaps over the past 30 or 40 years. The only safeguard is to make public what extra access it is claimed is being given. If that is done, the people who usually use that land can turn round and say that that is no concession at all and that a tax concession is being made for no public benefit.

Unless that openness about the extra access takes place, it will be virtually impossible for the Revenue to enforce the matter fairly. In view of the problems that have occurred over access in recent years in many parts of the country where custom and practice access over many years have not been registered as public rights of way and have become permissive access which can be removed at any time, people should be very wary about what is happening. I am very disappointed that the Government are not prepared to go much further.

If the Government are considering ways in which the extra access can be publicised, I hope that they will ensure that the Ordnance Survey is informed of any new footpaths so that they may be shown on maps as rights of way or permissive rights. It should be automatic in the publicity provisions that the Ordnance Survey is notified so that the information appears on maps. The county council should also be notified so that the information may be incorporated on footpath maps and the councils can compare the details with footpath information that they have obtained when preparing definitive maps.

Mr. Brooke

My recollection is that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is, like me, a veteran of the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In that spirit, I will respond to his remarks.

There is a trade-off between the fact that the tax is to be given up and the public's acquisition of rights to a reasonable level of enjoyment of private land. The arrangements are negotiated by the Countryside Commission as advisers to the Revenue. They do not depend in any way on the amount of tax involved. They are either reasonable or they are not. It is for the Countryside Commission alone to ensure on behalf of the nation that the arrangements are reasonable.

The arrangements for monitoring undertakings have been reviewed recently and more systematic procedures have been devised to monitor the owner's performance in fulfilling the responsibilities set out in his undertaking. The undertaking now include a requirement to make an annual report. Where necessary, the Countryside Commission will arrange for a local government body to monitor the landowner's performance of his or her side of the agreement in terms of the maintenance of the land and of public access. There is a genuinely constructive effort on all sides to achieve the access to which hon. Members have rightly attached importance.

Dr. Marek

I thank the Paymaster General for responding to the interventions that have improved the communication between both sides of the House. We have had a better debate as a result. I am also grateful that steps are being taken to improve the position. However, I believe that the Paymaster General has got it wrong.

The Paymaster General's first duty is to the public. A tax concession is given to a particular estate on the condition that the public will have extra access or rights that they did not have before. Those rights must be made available to the public and they must be informed so that they know that those rights exist If someone wants to keep his tax affairs completely confidential that person or an estate does not have to apply for the tax concession. If he does apply for the concession it should be made clear that one of the effects will be not that the amount of money under consideration will be made known, as the Paymaster General has said, but that there will be extra rights which will be made known publicly.

The Government have got it wrong. The Opposition will not seek to divide the House, but we believe that the Government must do more. Perhaps the Government will have more discussions with the Countryside Commission and other bodies to discover whether a better system can be evolved in future.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to