Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I would look at it in terms of opening up the market, creating more churn and momentum that allows all participants to be able to get on the housing ladder.

The Government’s cutting stamp duty land tax in this way will mean that nine out of 10 people buying their main home will pay no stamp duty at all, and buyers can save up to £15,000. In my own constituency, the average family looking to buy a home worth £349,000 will go from paying £7,450 in stamp duty to absolutely nothing. Indeed, this Bill will take most properties outside of London and the south-east out of stamp duty entirely.

The Bill is the latest in a long line of measures from this Government designed to support current and prospective homeowners in this country. Historically, stamp duty has been charged at a single rate on the whole purchase price of a property, with different rates for different value bands. The same rate of tax was charged irrespective of the number of properties owned by the buyers. In 2014, the Government reformed stamp duty land tax on residential properties, cutting the tax for 98% of buyers who pay it, unless they are purchasing additional property. In 2015, the Government introduced the higher rates of SDLT, which apply on purchases of additional residential properties such as second homes and buy-to-let properties. Finally, in 2017, the Government introduced first-time buyers relief. This increased the price at which a property becomes liable to pay stamp duty, for first-time buyers, from £125,000 to £300,000, with a reduced rate between £300,000 and £500,000.

Together, these reforms have made the tax system fairer and more efficient. They have cut the cost of home ownership for first-time buyers, helping more than 500,000 families to secure a foot on the housing ladder. This Bill will cut the cost of home ownership further, at a time when personal finances are under considerable pressure. In doing so, it will inject new momentum into the property market, protecting thousands of jobs in both the construction industry and the wider economy.

This stamp duty cut is one of several measures in the Government’s plan for jobs that will benefit families and businesses across the country. From September, homeowners and landlords will be able to apply for a green homes grant of up to £5,000 to make their homes more energy efficient. For low-income households, we will go even further, with vouchers covering the full cost up to £10,000. This, too, will support local jobs, as well as reducing carbon emissions and cutting energy bills for hard-pressed families.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I wonder if the Minister could clarify a couple of points. On the 31 March date, we all worry that this will end up being a cliff edge, as the date approaches. Will that be the date of exchange, which is usual, I think, in these matters? Is he not concerned about that cliff edge? For some people, for no reason of their own, late finishing of their property will mean they fall the wrong side, very expensively?

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are in a situation where, if the transaction is substantially completed by 31 March, it will be able to qualify for the relief.

Almost four months ago, the Government took the extraordinary step of ordering businesses across the country to close for an extended and unspecified period of time. Millions of people put their lives on hold for the greater good, but now that the virus is under control, the time has come to reopen our economy. Providing infection rates remain low, people should be able to get on with their lives, wherever possible. There are few aspirations more important to the British people than home ownership, and this Bill will ensure that those looking to buy a family home will see their stamp duty bill disappear altogether. It is part of our plan to turn our national recovery into millions of stories of personal renewal. In doing so, it will stimulate the housing market, safeguarding many thousands of jobs and helping Britain to bounce back stronger than before. For all these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I warmly welcome this reduction in stamp duty land tax as part of the covid-19 stimulus provisions. The Minister has outlined very ably the stagnation that we have seen in the housing market over the past few months, with lockdown viewings obviously impossible. That has led to a very serious situation for conveyancers, solicitors, removal companies and all those involved in the supply chain of getting houses sold.

I very much welcome what is, actually, a simplification. We have gone down from six rates to just four. It gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves what is stamp duty land tax for and what is it doing to the residential market. We levy taxes in this country broadly for two reasons. Obviously, the first is to fill the public purse so that the public services that we all know and love—the defence of the realm, our policing, the NHS and everything else—can be paid for. We all realise that that tax cake has to be made up across myriad taxes, allowances and complications—a fairly mind-boggling number of them—and I am not sure that our 23,000 pages of tax legislation are much to be proud of. None the less, SDLT has proven itself to be a useful fill-up to the public purse, and it has been increasing in recent years. The residential market for the last four quarters has provided £8.4 billion in SDLT receipts for the Treasury.

We often use nudge theory—the second arm of tax if you like—to change behaviour. We use taxes to change behaviour, and we saw that with the £300,000 threshold for first-time buyers, which was introduced in November 2017 to help and encourage people into their first homes. We have also used SDLT with the 3% surcharge that came into place under the higher rate for additional dwellings rules that was introduced in April 2016. It is difficult to see exactly what the effect of that higher rate has been because we do not have the equivalent data from before that change happened in the second purchase market. None the less, it was imposed for good reasons and we can discuss that. It was used to dampen down the potential buy-to-let market, allowing more properties to be available to those genuinely seeking owner-occupation. Of that £8.4 billion raised in SDLT over the past four quarters, £3.8 billion has been in that 3% higher rate charge.

The Government have also introduced other tough tax measures, such as limiting the higher rate tax relief for landlords on their interest payments. That has come in over a phased period from 6 April 2017. There has been a restriction of lettings relief, operative from April 2020, for those who used to live in their own home and have now rented it out and it has subsequently been sold. There has been a number of red tape increases, so, for many small landlords, the pursuit of having rental properties has been somewhat dimmed over the past few years—so perhaps these measures have had the effect. There is no doubt that the £300,000 first-time buyer limit has been beneficial in many areas.

We have therefore used SDLT, as a nation, to flex behaviour—to encourage what we perceive to be good behaviour and discourage what is perceived to be bad behaviour, and that is not uncommon across the tax system. We see high rates of tax on alcohol and cigarettes to try to discourage bad behaviour, but then we enter that debate about what is fair. What is fair in capital taxes? We have capital taxes on inheritance tax, capital gains tax and, obviously, SDLT. Are they simply measures to fill the Treasury pot? Are they designed to be penal measures? Are they designed to be redistributive measures? Obviously, there is a wide debate to be had about the suite of taxes that we have, and we probably have 650 different views in the House about what is fair and reasonable.

The reduction in SDLT, with the first £500,000 at 0%, has “nudge” written all over it, because it is deemed a good thing to encourage people to keep the housing market rolling round. The rates that were in effect have obviously been perceived as an impediment to the normal functioning of that market, so, very thankfully, SDLT has been removed for most people until 31 March.

I do not think it even needs stressing that property transactions create a lot of business activity. That is taxable business activity: the conveyancers; the estate agents; the builders; the VAT on DIY sales. Commonly, the kitchen or bathroom gets changed as one of the first measures, and the lids come off the tins of paint that are purchased elsewhere.

But have we created fairness? Is the progressive SDLT banding system, which is continuing, fair? Is it fair that someone who buys a certain type of property in Kent pays more than someone who buys exactly the same type of property in, say, County Durham or elsewhere? They obviously face a higher charge because the value is greater, but then they are penalised for the property price because they enter a higher band. That unfairness is simply due to what could be called national and local planning failure over many decades. That extra SDLT has to be paid out of net salary that has been saved, or perhaps out of additional loans—or, for those lucky enough, from the bank of family.

Labour mobility will be really important in the future. I do not think we will see how important until this period of crisis with covid-19 is over. Employment will change and opportunities will change, and there will be a need for people to pursue jobs elsewhere. SDLT restricts their choice, because someone has to be not just a bit sure but very, very, very sure that the purchase they are making, with the incumbent SDLT, is really the right one. We dare not make a mistake when there are potentially fives or tens of thousands of pounds at stake.

I encourage the Chancellor, in his Budget later this year, to ensure that job mobility forms part of the tax system. Someone may have to rent a property elsewhere to test the area and the market, and they may have to rent out the old property that they leave elsewhere. Surely, there should be a tax relief on that new rent that they pay, against the rental income on the property that they had to leave to seek employment elsewhere. That could certainly be used elsewhere to help to nudge behaviour.

If we are going down the route of nudging through the tax system, let me suggest something that I have often proposed: downsizing relief for the elderly. Far too many elderly people are stuck in a property that is far too big for their current needs. They might have lost their partner, and they are now residing in a property that is simply too big. However, faced with the potential for a big SDLT charge if the rates come back into play after March, many older people will say, “Well, I’m simply not going to pay it. I don’t want to pay £5,000 or £10,000 just to move.” They will stay stuck in an inappropriate property, effectively blocking the bigger properties that many families are crying out for.

My message to Ministers today is that the new rates for SDLT should become permanent, for regional fairness, for job flexibility—that will be really important—and to encourage property transactions. We all know that property transactions create positive taxable work into the future, through either VAT or profits that are taxed through self-employment or a corporate regime.

My concern is that we are now creating a cliff edge. I think that, in the first weeks of April next year, we will all face stories of people who just could not quite get the job done before the cliff edge of 31 March, perhaps because a house that was meant to be built had problems or the builder was delayed; myriad issues could emerge. I feel very sorry for those who, for reasons not of their own making, will find themselves on the wrong side of that cliff edge date that we are creating. So I sincerely welcome these changes, but please let us make them permanent.

VAT (Listed Properties)

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered VAT on listed properties.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I apologise again to the Minister, whom I seem to drag to Westminster Hall on a fairly regular basis on tax issues. This debate is about VAT on listed properties, which come in all shapes and sizes. They can be modest country cottages, terraced houses, farmhouses and former industrial buildings being brought into some other type of use. They are spread across the entire UK.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

To that list, I add churches, which are also listed buildings. Does my hon. Friend think that the grant scheme is adequate and properly replaces VAT in the way that it is carried out?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The listed places of worship grant scheme has been in place since 2001. It has been taken up by 89% of churches; one third take up the scheme every year; and most churches, over the cycle, have used it six times. It is working quite well, but obviously it is not as clean as a pure exemption. I will come on to analyse that further.

Listed properties are owned by the normal cross-section of the population. The beautiful town of Sandwich in my constituency is home to more listed properties than any other town in the country. It is one of the best-preserved medieval towns in England. I want to do everything I can to help to preserve it and the other great medieval towns across our country.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate for those of us who represent areas like Sandwich that have a high preponderance of listed buildings. There are more than 3,000 in my constituency. They are often in rural areas where properties are remote, isolated and, in many cases, hard to heat. I hope that he will talk about the opportunity to reduce VAT to, say, 5% on renewable energy initiatives in listed properties, which the Minister might want to take into account in the forthcoming Budget or the comprehensive spending review later this year.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point for people who have older properties, which are expensive to heat. We have ambitions to be carbon neutral by 2050, so the current regime of charging full VAT on trying to do the right thing for the Government’s other ambitions seems somewhat perverse.

[Philip Dunne]

My hon. Friend will remember that it was introduced by the EU. We had to reduce the previous concession as a result of an EU directive. Now we are free from EU directives, we may be able to be more liberal in our interpretation of VAT laws.

[Craig Mackinlay]

We are branching into another area, but my right hon. Friend is correct. Just a few months ago, we were forced to raise the rating on small renewable units from 5% to 20% because we lost a European Court of Justice judgment. That is quite perverse in the current environment.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a missed opportunity in 2008, when the ECOFIN conference in Helsinki agreed that VAT could be reduced to 5% on labour-intensive industries, which include building repair and renovation? Despite the best efforts of hon. Members, successive Governments have refused to take advantage of that opportunity, which would have been of great benefit to areas such as his constituency and mine, where there is a high concentration of listed buildings, very low incomes and a reduced ability for people to renovate their houses.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I was not aware of that ECOFIN conference. Any country under the EU VAT regime has always had the ability to reduce VAT to 5% on items, but the problem is that it is a ratchet, so once VAT has been implemented on something, it can never return to zero. That has been a feature and problem of our VAT membership. We have had various discussions about that in the main Chamber on the so-called tampon tax.

[Hywel Williams]

That particular dispensation was for labour-intensive industries and, at that time, certain countries reduced their VAT. For example, France reduced VAT on restaurant meals; Italy reduced VAT on building renovation and repair; and Belgium reduced VAT on bicycle maintenance and repair. The reduction in Italy was an alleged example—a rare or perhaps unique example—of the Laffer curve in operation in that, when VAT was reduced, receipts to the state increased massively as people moved out of the dark economy.

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Member shows his great wealth and breadth of experience of international VAT matters, and I stand educated.

I want to do everything that I can to help preserve our great medieval towns. Listed properties are not grand ancestral piles; a huge majority are very modest properties that are owned and loved by normal people. Private listed property owners are protecting the vast majority of Britain’s built heritage out of their own pocket, but the costs for doing repairs and renovations have risen sharply in recent years.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges with climate change and pollution is tackling some of the problems with the heating and insulation of such properties? If they are listed, there are features that have to be protected in the process, so it is an expensive business. It is very much in the national interest that these changes should be made, and it is only right that the Treasury should consider whether previous concessions could be reintroduced.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been certain schemes over the years for wood pellet-type boilers, and grants have been available, but he highlights the unique features of older properties. It is often not feasible or possible to put in a cheap, efficient gas boiler, which other property owners might be able to do.

I turn to the obvious desire to insulate homes and make them more energy efficient. It is a very reasonable desire, because a lot of listed properties are draughty and old and do not have modern insulation. They are expensive to heat, which adds to the costs of being a listed property owner.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend will be aware that North East Hertfordshire is one of the constituencies that has a high number of listed properties, many of them modest. Does he agree that the situation in urban areas is different from that in rural areas? If someone lives in a rural area with a significant number of listed buildings, there has to be some sort of level playing field to try to help them make the relevant changes.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point about country living, as opposed to living in towns, because cheaper piped gas is often not available. People might have Calor-style units in their garden, or they might rely on solid fuels such as coal. We had discussions, dare I say, with the Government last week and advanced various measures that I cannot say I fully agree with at this time.

In 2012, we got to the point where the zero VAT rating for authorised alterations to listed properties was removed. The owners of 500,000 listed buildings across the country, 98% of which are privately owned, then suffered a potential increase of 20% in anything that they do to keep their properties in a good state of repair. As listed property owners often say, an individual never really owns a listed property, but is merely borrowing it.

Before the 2012 Budget, the zero VAT rating was available as long as people had applied for the proper listed property consent with the local authority. As hon. Members know, such consent is often costly to obtain and requires input from specialists, including architects and building control, the navigation of the local planning system and a variety of interpretations by conservation officers. All of that is on a scale that is wholly different from that of people who do not live in listed properties, and such requirements all add costs—even before having the bespoke works required.

The all-party parliamentary group on listed properties, of which I have been the chairman, is currently being re-established. It has evidence that the addition of VAT reduced the number of recorded works being carried out to protect and maintain listed properties by some 30% in the first four years, between 2012 and 2016. There was a notable and recorded drop in applications for proper conservation works. One can only guess what was happening. Were people simply not bothering to go through the process? Owing to the extra cost, were they simply deciding to make do with where they were? There was a full 75% drop in applications over just three years, subsequent to the change in the VAT rules.

These works will be of ongoing economic benefit, often creating a new home where one did not exist before or converting an older property into a business premises. They are positive goods that would perhaps take pressure away from new builds on green spaces. I have spoken to many listed property owners who face financial hardship. Many have been forced to sell their home as a result of costs increasing by 20%. It has to be said that a tax on listed buildings is not a tax on the wealthy, but a tax on attempts to protect our cultural heritage.

I secured the debate to join thousands of listed property owners in calling on the Government to introduce a form of VAT relief. Preferably, let us go back to where we were: a reduction from the 20% rate back to zero, which would be a great place to be. That will be possible in the post-Brexit world, but we are currently in our implementation period, so 5% could be achieved at the Budget next week.

Maintaining listed buildings has a lot more in common with other kinds of building work that has a lower rate of VAT. Some energy-efficient measures qualify for the 5% rate—obviously a restriction was introduced recently, which seemed rather perverse. Converting houses into flats, and renovating empty properties that have lain empty for two years qualify for a lower VAT rate of 5%. The Government and Treasury quite rightly want to encourage bringing such properties into use, and that nudge effect is advanced through the lower VAT rate.

Of course, the biggest anomaly of all—a correct anomaly, in my view—is that we have had a zero VAT rating on new builds since we became a member of the EU. There is a long history to this type of debate, going back to the 1940s. We had the Town and Country Planning Acts 1944 and 1947, which implemented the listing system that we know today. Even back then, the Government knew that they were imposing upon listed property owners a new range of probably unwelcome regulations, and that they had to give something in return. The something in return was a zero VAT rating or, before 1972, sales tax exemptions for this type of work. It is essential that we have a lower rate of VAT on listed properties, because we want to give people the opportunity to make the necessary improvements to this country’s built heritage.

In the 2012 debate—that year’s Budget did not go down too well, because there were quite a few VAT measures in it—the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the reason for the change was to prevent an exemption for a

“big swimming pool in a listed Tudor house”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 319.]

That was a fairly thin argument, because I do not think it was taken up by too many of the 500,000 listed property owners. If such behaviour was going on, we could have exempted that from the zero VAT rating in isolation.

[Hywel Williams]

Perhaps I can reinforce the hon. Member’s point by declaring an interest. When I bought my listed house some 20 years ago—very cheaply, I should say—it came with a name from my children. They called it the pizza house, because it came with added mushrooms growing out of the walls. It certainly did not have a swimming pool, but I, like everyone else, had to pay 20% VAT on the renovation. I think that strengthens the point that he is making.

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Member makes that point well. Such properties need significant renovations that are not the norm when buying newer-type properties. We need to make listed buildings properties that people want to own, to spend money on, and to do the right thing by maintaining them. Maintenance costs for those properties can simply huge, so offsetting some of that cost would make a meaningful impact.

What is VAT there for? It was always designed to be a tax on consumption. Painstakingly maintaining a national heritage asset should not be considered consumption, but action in the national interest. Not only is the economic cost of the work often more expensive than other work, the VAT is an additional tax for doing the right thing. Removing the VAT does not give money back to the owners; it simply means that the Exchequer does not gain a little bit from the maintenance of the fabric of the nation.

Across the country, the built environment of our great towns and cities drives tourism and the continuation of many historic building skills. Government policy in the national policy planning framework, as well as guidance from Historic England, state that heritage protection must enable buildings to stay in active use and alterations can support that. If owners make changes to their properties without any impact on historic features that is considered a positive outcome, as it enables the continued use of such properties. The old way of removing VAT by zero-rating the renovation was simple, easy and reasonable. There is no reason not to return to that pretty simple scheme.

Hon. Members have mentioned energy efficiency. The type of energy efficiency required of older buildings is vastly different from more modern buildings. Materials are likely to be different, and the skills required to make such properties more energy efficient are different. We do not want those listed properties to fall out of use, and support would help to keep them in use. As has been accepted within other parts of the VAT code, renovations can be at a lower rate of VAT if properties have been out of use for two years, so reductions are not unusual.

Works on listed buildings are often carried out by tradesmen who specialise in conservation work. They are often small local businesses, rather than big corporates, so a reduction in VAT would increase correspondingly the amount of activity and would be a boost to a small and declining sector. Cutting VAT would encourage investment in skills in those types of artisanal works, and could encourage more young people into a sector that struggles to recruit. The increased taxable profits in those businesses would benefit the Treasury in corporation tax and income tax receipts. Cutting VAT would prime the pump in that whole area.

It is estimated that, through tourism, heritage across the country contributes £31 billion of value added to the economy. Those homes make our towns desirable places to visit, whether they are in Sandwich or in the constituency of Bath, which is represented in the Chamber. Who benefits from that tourism? Local businesses. There is not much in it for the public, who are busy maintaining their own properties rather than attracting tourists.

An interesting example is the Isle of Man, which has been through a similar process, following an argument similar argument to one that I am advancing. The Isle of Man has reduced VAT on such repair work to 5%, but only for the labour element. Some 96% of the Isle’s construction firms have reported increased workloads; 43% have reported taking on more staff; and 40% reported that their clients were having work done that they would otherwise have put off or not had done at all. There was a significant move away both from the owners having a go and carrying out work with which they are not fully conversant, and from rogue traders and cash-in-hand deals, which are not too far away from most street corners. The Isle of Man scheme was meant to be an experiment but, owing to its success, it is now permanent.

The Listed Property Owners Club keeps vast records on activity in the listed property market. There has been a drop in listed property applications to local councils and in works being undertaken. Figures from Historic England show that cost was one of the biggest reasons for works not being carried out. The numbers are significant: in 2017, 30% of people said it was just too costly and that they were not going to do the work at all. Another reason is that specialist local skills are dying out. In 2017, 17% of people could not get works done because they simply could not find a qualified trader. Historic Houses suggests that £1.3 billion of outstanding work to listed properties is being put off or not carried out at all. That is money that people would want to spend if they could afford it and if VAT were reduced.

I have not been quiet on this topic. I corresponded with the Minister just a few weeks ago, and I can anticipate some of the arguments that he may make in response. He might say that the rationale for the removal of the zero rating was to restore or to address a VAT anomaly, but we already have anomalies, with zero-rated new builds and the two-year lower VAT rate for bringing a property back into use. He might say that it was unfair that some people got a relief, while others did not. We are not talking about normal properties, however. We are talking about unique skills, because very expensive bespoke repairs are often required.

Getting new PVC windows done is VAT-able, but there are a vast number of companies that can do that and it is a cut-throat industry. The approach to a listed building is different, because it will often need bespoke wooden frames made at three or four times the price. That is an anomaly, and I am asking for an exemption from VAT on those bespoke works. Even without the VAT, those bespoke works would still be far more expensive than most standard products that are taxed at the 20% rate.

The old VAT relief used to nudge people towards the painful experience of applying for listed property consent, because saving 20% on a repair bill was seen as a good thing. That made sure that conservation works were up to the proper local standard, because there was an incentive. A worry is that people are undertaking inappropriate repairs to their properties to save money and, because enforcement by the local authority is highly unlikely, they are willing to take that risk. That is not a good place to be; I want to encourage people to do the right thing with their properties.

Another scheme that has been running for a very long time is the listed places of worship scheme, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Through Government grants, the scheme pays for the VAT that listed places of worship suffer—that could be implemented in lieu of a full zero rating. The scheme seems to work, and 89% of such places have used it. Over the period, many churches have used it five or six times, and a third of all churches use it annually. The Treasury might say, “It’s complicated and cumbersome”, but 13,000 applications have been managed effectively. It seems to work—if that is a method HMRC will consider—but the simpler method would be to go back to what we had before, which was zero rating if the proper listed property consent had been granted by the local authority.

To summarise, we can achieve what I would like to achieve by two means: either we go back to where we were before the 2012 Budget; or we go to a scheme akin to the listed places of worship grant scheme—so by means of a grant, which might make it targeted and would certainly prevent the swimming pool in the Tudor mansion. Now we are not so bound by rules on VAT, we have an opportunity. We can create our own framework that is right for our country, and I would like the Treasury to be part of people doing the right thing—improving, maintaining and repairing their properties. I have heard no great reason why the perceived anomaly was an anomaly at all, given that many charitable institutions receive VAT relief and other building works have a variety of VAT reliefs. We could push training, skills and profits into declining trades, and unleash a lot of pent-up expenditure into a market that is part of the good fabric of the country. Next week, I will be delighted to hear about some movement of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank all Members who took part in the debate. I want to clarify one area: the Minister said that a lower rate of VAT applies to certain energy-saving measures, but, according to my understanding of the types of properties under discussion, that is available only to those in receipt of a broad range of benefits. I understand that the lower rate is not available to those not in receipt of benefit.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My understanding is that there is still a reduction but it relates to the labour-materials ratio in the cost of the overall installation. There is a question about how many schemes fit within that, and the answer is possibly not very many.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank the hon. Member, who has clarified that it is a complicated area. I thank the Minister for his comments. Dare I say it, but I think I will be disappointed next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered VAT on listed properties.

Motorhomes and Vehicle Excise Duty

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that succinct and clear point. He does it so much better than I could. Why are we penalising those who will not see their incomes grow or those who have stable incomes and have planned accordingly for their futures? They are entitled to holidays, and the Government should not make it difficult for them. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) take that point seriously and have made it over recent months. We now have a Government with a solid majority who are looking to their first post-election Budget. I am sure the Chancellor is busy across the road as we approach 11 March, but I remind the Government that they have no more excuses for inaction. They have a clear majority in this House, so they can act if they want to.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this powerful and important debate. She has made the point that it is often elderly, retired people who enjoy such vehicles, but quite a big lump of younger families also enjoy motorhomes. The clear point is surely that these are not vehicles for personal transport, but leisure vehicles. Has she ever seen such a vehicle in a supermarket car park? I never have.

[Ruth Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As I said earlier, these vehicles are not designed to be used as cars because they are not used to transport goods and people as cars are. He is quite correct in that.

I urge the Minister to listen to the industry, to Members from all parts of the House and to the thousands who enjoy using their motorhomes, and to get this mess sorted out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

We are trying to standardise the way in which we deal with VED. There is a particular grievance at the moment that it applies to motorhomes but not to vans, for example, as the hon. Member for Newport West mentioned. In the 2018 Budget, the Government confirmed that vans would move to a CO₂-based emissions system, which will apply from April 2021. At that point we will have at least ended the imbalance between the treatment of one sector and another. Clearly, we need to look very closely at how we move forward, in order to ensure that the operation of VED does not penalise people who use such vehicles relatively infrequently. I understand the distinction between vehicles that are on the road every day or every week and those that may be on the road for only a month or two in any given year.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank the Minister for being generous. The heart of the nonsense is that the Euro 6 engines, which many of these vehicles will now have, are low on particulates. Let us put CO₂ aside; particulates are what are important with diesel engines. We are actually encouraging the continued use on the road of older vehicles to the detriment of new ones that are, in the round, better for the environment. We are creating the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. Reducing particulates is a major aspect of Government policy in terms of air quality as well. It is not solely a question of CO₂. As I remarked in relation to a question from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), we are trying to address the matter in a way that does not lead to retrospective taxation of people who have already invested in a vehicle. However, I recognise the point that, were we to create a situation in which it was unviable to buy new vehicles, we would effectively lock them in in perpetuity.

I close by emphasising that we really are listening to the remarks of hon. Friends and Members across the House. We understand the centrality of the sector to jobs and the tourism industry, and the pleasure that people derive from going away in caravans and motorhomes. The Government reformed VED because we believe that tax rates should reflect environmental impact. Although ultra-low or zero-emissions motorhomes may not yet be available, the Government are seeking to incentivise new motorhome purchasers to make the most rational low-emission choices that they can. However, like all taxes, VED remains under review. Any tax changes are considered and announced by the Chancellor as part of the Budget process. As all Members know, the Budget will be on 11 March. Thank you very much, Sir David, and thank you to everyone who contributed.

Question put and agreed to.