Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between John Stevenson and Anne Main

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

There are other exorbitant charges. For instance, mobile owners buy their fuel through site owners, who can rack up charges all over the place. This is just another opportunity to milk some rather poorer members of the community.

[John Stevenson]

That is an interesting point. Although I have concentrated on just one aspect of mobile homes, I think that the 2017 review should consider the issue holistically, across the board, rather than focusing on one or two specific issues.

My new clause would reduce the maximum commission to 5%. I accept that there are counter-arguments. Site owners suggest that the commission forms part of their investment calculations or business models, and can make their businesses viable. They also suggest that a reduction in the commission could result in increased pitch fees or service charges. The Select Committee considered the issue during the last Parliament, and concluded that the commission should remain at 10%. I would ask, however, whether it is right for site owners to benefit from an increase in value when they have not actually done anything. I do not believe that it is.

There are a number of possible solutions. We could gradually reduce the percentage—by, say, 1% a year over five years—to allow site owners to adjust their business models. The commission could be charged only on the difference between the original purchase price and the subsequent sale price. Alternatively, there could be a straight reduction from 10% to 5%, as my new clause suggests. I accept that there could be an increase in pitch fees, but arguably that would reflect the true costs of running a site. Site owners cannot guarantee that they will receive income from any sales because they do not know when those sales will occur.

The new clause is intended to achieve three things. It is intended to highlight the issue in the House, and to remind Ministers that there are different forms of home ownership and that this is one of them. Most important of all, however, I seek confirmation from the Minister that the Government will properly and comprehensively review the issue of mobile park homes in 2017, as previously promised.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Debate between John Stevenson and Anne Main

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am delighted with the changes to stamp duty; I have been campaigning for them for a significant period of time. It is worth observing the old adage that success has many parents, but failure is an orphan, as it could be relevant to the campaign. When I was claiming a bit of a victory on this, having campaigned for it for so long, I was amazed to read that the Liberal Democrats had campaigned equally long for the change. Surprisingly, though, not a single Liberal Democrat turned up to the Back-Bench business debate that I secured on the matter on 4 September. Perhaps lobbying is more in the mind than in the actuality.

Let us not be bitter today, as I welcome the proposals. It was good to follow the shadow Minister, as she was raising some of the concerns that I have about a differential tax system. It will have to be addressed, because altering the designation of a property from commercial to residential, or residential to commercial, could provide a way of avoiding tax, as one situation may be seen as more beneficial than the other. To have a dual system running may well cause problems.

I also worry that in areas where it is hard to keep small commercial operations going, the temptation to flip a property’s designation to residential, rather than trying to maintain it as a commercial property, will be even higher if there is also a tax advantage in doing so. I urge the Government to keep that under review, because if the slab system was hated—and it was—it was hated not just for its effect on homes.

[John Stevenson]

Does my hon. Friend therefore suggest that commercial and residential properties should have the same rates and thresholds?

[Mrs Main]

I do suggest that. I am sure that budgetary constraint is the reason that has not been done, but I am concerned that that slice system, which will not apply in Scotland and will apply in England only to residential properties, could result in complicated reasons why commercial properties might end up being vehicles for tax avoidance, which would not be good. The slab system was roundly denounced by all parties and all commercial commentators, so I think that is something we should look at.

I welcome the moves to get more young people on the property ladder. In St Albans, the Help to Buy scheme was not utilised at all because, as has been widely observed, if people cannot save up a deposit in a very expensive area, how on earth can they save for the tax to be paid to the Chancellor? The reform is therefore very helpful in that regard. However, we must ensure that we do not allow the properties that we are trying to help—those targeted by lower and middle-income buyers—to be dragged further into the higher levels. In 2003 only 10% of properties were caught by the 3% rate, but just prior to these reforms the figure had risen to 25%. It is important that the Government do not sit back and wait for too long following these reforms, because too many of the families that they have sought to help will be dragged into the higher rates.

According to Savills, which I was talking to today, people in St Albans have already benefited. The amount paid under the previous regime was, on average, £17,273 per transaction. Under the new regime it will be £16,020. That is still very high, but of course that is an average, and the average house price in St Albans is over £500,000, but there are still many houses that fall well below those transaction levels. My constituents are hugely grateful that they can at least start trying to get on to the property ladder without having to pay such an enormous burden to the Treasury. That is welcome.

There are two points that I would like some clarity on. Why have we decided to keep a dual system going when the previous regime was agreed to be so demonstrably flawed? It might be unaffordable, but I think that is almost indefensible. If it is a bad scheme, it is a bad scheme. I do not want business owners and people who wish to aspire to own their own business feeling that they are labouring under a bad scheme that has been roundly denounced, and quite rightly so, by all parties in the House.