Furnished Holiday Lettings: Taxation

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly, and I intend to develop some of those points.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Aldous]

I will give way one more time at this stage, after which I will have to make some progress.

[Anne Marie Morris]

On the basis of the contributions that have been made, does it not seem obvious that what we need is a proper impact assessment of the reform? We need to look at the impact on the economy, the impact on housing and the impact on the tourism sector. I am sure my hon. Friend will also come to the expected impacts on gross value added and on jobs.

[Peter Aldous]

I agree wholeheartedly. I had planned to raise a lot of the points that have been made; let me now get on to back them up with the evidence.

Since the Budget, I have been contacted by many constituents highlighting their concerns. I am grateful to them for their feedback, as well as to PASC, the Short Term Accommodation Association and the National Farmers Union for all their briefings and advice.

In some ways, I have a sense of déjà vu, in that the proposal mirrors in many ways those put forward in the 2012 Budget to tax Cornish pasties and static caravans. In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated that he had concerns that the current tax regime for FHLs is distorting the market and that there are not enough properties available for long-term rental by local people. Therefore, to make the tax system work better for local communities, he plans to abolish the FHL regime. In the accompanying Red Book, the proposals are described as having the advantages of tax simplification, creating a level playing field and supporting people to live in their own areas. I have concerns that the proposals will not fulfil those objectives, and I hope I can illustrate why.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated that the measure, along with the abolition of the multiple dwellings relief, will raise £0.6 billion of additional receipts by 2028-29. That figure pales into insignificance compared with the potential loss of value added and local jobs, which I shall outline shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further observation; he is right.

As I was saying, my second point is that it should be emphasised that furnished holiday lets are a long-standing economic lifeline for many coastal and rural areas. The regime supports micro and small businesses that are the cornerstone of many visitor economies. Abolishing it would hurt those businesses—including farmers who have diversified into tourism, as well as other businesses such as pubs, which rely on the lets for trade—and PASC estimates that even a modest 20% reduction in furnished holiday lets could result in the loss of £1.9 billion GVA and 46,000 jobs. The former figure is considerably higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the additional tax that will be generated.

Thirdly, furnished holiday lets are not the cause of the housing crisis, as I think colleagues have mentioned. PASC estimates that a total of 197,000 properties in the UK fall within the FHL regime. Due to planning restrictions, 39% of those holiday let properties can only be used for holiday purposes. That means that 76,000 furnished holiday lets could not be used as residential dwellings, and only 121,000 furnished holiday lets have planning permission to be used as residential dwellings. The context is important: those 121,000 dwellings without planning restrictions have been established not in the past three or four years but over many decades; however, they represent 0.4% of the 30.1 million total UK housing stock and just 40% of the annual house building target of 300,000 new homes. Although there might be anecdotal evidence to suggest that private rental landlords are moving into the short-term let sector, PASC can find no quantitative data to support that conclusion. Indeed, less than 2% of traditional short-term let businesses had previously rented their properties out as a long-term let.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Is it not also clear, following the Renters (Reform) Bill, that there has been a haemorrhaging of landlords who do not wish to be in the private rented sector? As a consequence, they used to go to holiday lets, so holiday let individuals are hardly going to be going back to the private rented sector, which they wanted to leave and are leaving in droves.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that reinforces my arguments about the unintended consequences of this proposal.

My fourth point is that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that furnished holiday lets have a disproportionate impact on house prices. As part of the consultation on the proposed introduction of the new planning use class for short-term lets in England, the Great British Holiday campaign commissioned an economic impact study by Frontier Economics on the size, growth and economic importance of traditional holiday lets in rural and coastal communities—unfortunately just in England, but I am sure that is equally relevant to Scotland and Wales. Frontier Economics found that there was no relationship between popular holiday let areas and the growth rate of real house prices between 2015 and 2022.

My final home truth is that there would be unintended consequences of a change to this taxation regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising this issue today. It is a topic that I have discussed previously with him and with many hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I am happy to continue to discuss it. I should say up front that there are no plans for a consultation, but that does not mean that hon. Members cannot engage with me.

At the moment, there is broad recognition that the current system is contributing to some distortions. My hon. Friend mentioned having a bit of déjà vu. In my former capacity as Tourism Minister, I travelled around the country and stood in this Chamber discussing the issue. I had colleague after colleague and industry after industry making claims for and demanding the exact policy that we are introducing, so hon. Members need to recognise that there is another side to the argument.

Although my hon. Friend outlined a different pattern in his part of the country, there are parts of the country where the current regime, with beneficial rates for FHL properties, creates an incentive for a disproportionately large number of properties to be FHL—short-term rentals, rather than long-term rentals—which is causing problems. I have heard hoteliers and owners of B&Bs say that the current system is not fair and reasonable. I have heard owners of pubs, bars and restaurants complain that the large number of short-term lets and FHL properties is undermining their value proposition.

I gently say to hon. Members that we all have colleagues from different parts of the country and there is another side to the argument, although I understand the vehemence and strength of feeling in the Chamber today. I know the pattern is mixed across the country, but the problem is that we cannot do tax treatment, such as income tax relief, ward by ward or constituency by constituency. As hon. Members know, we have a whole range of other initiatives to encourage the supply of housing more broadly and limit the impact, including through local taxation and restrictions on housing.

We are proposing not to abolish FHLs, which play a vital role in our tourism ecosystem across the country, but to change their tax treatment to put them on an equal footing and create a level playing field with long-term lets. The problem is that if I were an investor thinking of buying a property in a certain area, it would make pure economic sense for me to get a short-term let rather than a long-term let. Therefore, in certain communities across the country, when a new property becomes available, there is an incentive for an investor to straightforwardly go for a short-term let rather than a long-term let because there is beneficial tax treatment. We are not eliminating the tax incentives but levelling the playing field so that the perverse incentive no longer exists.

[Anne Marie Morris]

If the Minister is unwilling to undertake a consultation, is he willing to look at a carve-out—an exemption—for properties that cannot be used in the private rented sector because of covenants on them? That was discussed by the Office of Tax Simplification. Will he look at that seriously?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which she has raised with me previously. I should put on the record that many hon. Members in the Chamber have raised concerns about the implementation of this proposal with me. The challenge is that one of the goals is simplification, and when we start moving into the area of carve-outs and exemptions, it opens up the system to challenges and potential abuse. I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. She will always hear from Ministers that we keep tax policy under review, but as soon as we start moving to an exemption here and an exemption there, it causes great difficulties. I also thank PASC for its constructive engagement with me on this issue and for giving me information.

I have had lots of correspondence and have engaged with colleagues, and I want to make this very clear. There is a belief that when we said we were abolishing the FHL tax regime, that meant we were abolishing FHLs. No, of course we are not. As I said, they play a vital role in the visitor economy, but we want to change the tax policy. The intention is for the tax reform to apply to all properties.

There will continue to be benefits. After the abolition of the FHL tax regime, a higher rate paying landlord with mortgage interest costs of £12,000 per year would still get up to £2,400 taken off their income tax bill through the relief. If they spend a further £8,000—for example, on insurance, letting agent fees and replacing domestic items such as sofas, fridges, washing machines—they could save a further £3,200 in income tax by using the reliefs that are available for all landlords. It is about levelling the playing field. There will still be tax incentives, but we do not want that distortion. When somebody buys a new property or an existing property, there is a false incentive that is causing some problems, because human behaviour that naturally seeks a better return on investment leads them towards short-term lets, rather than long-term lets. That is what we are trying to correct.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

What do we mean by the cost of living? Well, we really mean the cost of housing, utilities and food. The argument has been put that they are all out of the Government’s control because they are driven by international pressure, but housing is a domestic competence.

I am concerned that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has missed an opportunity. Certainly in my part of the south-west in Devon, finding affordable housing is well neigh impossible and social housing is almost invisible, and that is because there is nothing in the planning system to, first, ensure that “affordable” really means affordable—there is no regionalisation of the term —or, secondly, stop the argy-bargy between the developer and the planning authority, which means that the sum set aside for affordable and social housing is, in effect, tiny. Local authorities need more power, and they need to be able to hold the line so that we get the affordable property we need, not what the developers want.

Of course, we also have to deal with those problems that, while not generated by domestic drivers, none the less affect every man and woman on the street, and we have to provide help and support, as the Chancellor did very effectively during covid. The support that has already been provided to the poorest in society is very welcome, but I sometimes think that the Treasury does not recognise that everybody is hurting. We need only look at the statistics provided by the Office for National Statistics to see that everybody needs some support. Pensioners on fixed incomes and those who have done the right thing and invested in a home cannot just move or change their mortgage and utility supplier; they are struggling with the same issue of trying to meet the costs of housing, utility and food bills. They need some help. We should not reject solutions just because they impact on and benefit more people than just the poorest.

I am not a great believer in increasing tax; I am a great believer in reducing it. As I have said on a number of occasions, we could move forward by cutting VAT on energy bills. Now that we are renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol and looking at talking to Brussels, it cannot be right that the VAT on residents across the United Kingdom is not under the Government’s control. That would be a sensible way forward. Tinkering with having MOTs every second or third year, rather than every single year, will not really cut it.

There would effectively be a windfall on the Treasury, which is more appropriate than a windfall on those who provide productivity and general growth in our country. However, the Government need to make ends meet, so there needs to be a thorough look at the various spending commitments and projects. We talk about HS2, but it is only one of many projects in which there is so much vested interest. I recommend that the Government ask the National Audit Office to set up a commission specifically to look at which projects we can and should cut. They may be nice, but they are not necessary.

There is one area that we have not touched on, which is causing a lot of grief. We rightly say, “Isn’t it wonderful that unemployment is at a low level?” But there is a reason for that: the fundamental reshaping of the labour market that has caused a number of people to fall out of employment. In Devon, a number of people in their 40s and 50s are out of the market, meaning that we have a 25% shortfall in that age group. Something is not working. I have talked to employers in my constituency. Unless we fix the issue, we are not going to help them to survive, and we need them to survive in order to carry on paying wages.

We need to look at what is causing the problem. There are at least two things, but there might be more. One is our benefits system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) did a grand job and the Government have implemented much of that work, but the market has changed, so the system needs to be reviewed. It seems that what is stopping people is the challenge of losing housing benefit and childcare. We have addressed this to some extent, but there is more work to do. I suggest that the Government ask my right hon. Friend to set up a taskforce to look at that issue, at the whole structure of employment and at how we can attract people from overseas to work in our markets.

The Gracious Speech has many factors to commend it, but addressing the cost of living is not one.

Health and Social Care Levy

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

There is, without doubt, agreement across the House that funding is necessary for health and social care. The challenge is in how we fund that, how we spend it, and how we ensure that the Government are held accountable for their promises. I will not repeat the powerful words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). They spoke truth to power, and I hope the Government were listening. They raised a second issue—indeed, this has been raised by others: is there a proper plan? We have a document; it is called “the plan”. For me, a plan is something that sets out clearly not just ambition—that is there aplenty—but specifically what will be done, when it will be done by, who will be doing it, and how the Government in this case, and the NHS, will be held accountable. What will be the reporting mechanism? I fear I see none of that. If I am asking taxpayers to pay a very substantial sum, I think that is the least we owe them.

Under this proposal, 80% of the pot will go to the NHS backlog and 20% to social care, which will be split between sorting out the woeful provision that we have now and the cap. I suggest that our priorities here are wrong. Yes, there is a backlog, but social care should not be second class. It should not be dealt with second, after the backlog is fixed; it needs fixing now. To be honest, to talk about fixing the mechanism by which we share the cost between state and individual as the priority seems wrong. If we do not have a social care system that actually delivers, there is nothing to pay for, and there is nothing to debate about how we fund it. I believe that the Government must change that priority.

What, then, could the Government do? With regard to the backlog, they could look not just at longer-term plans—we do not have time for that when it comes to recruitment—but at how we are going to get retired doctors and overseas-qualified doctors back. The Government could do that; they could change the bureaucracy that stopped that happening during the pandemic. They could look at how we can change the way we work flexibly across the different specialisms. That can be done, it has to be done, and it should be the focus.

The Government will not like this, but we also need to look at the immigration rules. I know that there are already exemptions for highly skilled doctors and nurses, but we need more than that across the whole health sector, and that help will come only through immigration. What about targets? Constituents deserve to have specific targets set. We need to know how those are going to be triaged according to need, as I assume they will be, and how they will be reported on.

Then we have social care—what are we going to do there? Can we really afford to wait for a White Paper? No, I do not think we can, but what could we do? We could legislate now. We could mandate proper pay—pay that is fair for the quality of work and the professionalism provided. We could develop a proper, professional system. We could fund local government properly. We could police the quality of the commissioning, as we might under the new Health and Care Bill, which is going through Parliament. Again, we could change the immigration rules, and we could also look at properly supporting carers who are looking after relatives at home, removing extra burden on the NHS.

All this is possible, but without a plan and without accountability, how can we look the taxpayer in the eye and say, “If you pay, we will deliver”?