Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between Mark Reckless and Anne Main

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who has set a superb example to those on the Treasury Bench of how to extol this policy. She also secured a Westminster Hall debate, which was useful in pressing the arguments for it.

Notwithstanding today’s procedural issues, the Treasury deserves credit for introducing this measure. It has taken four and a half years of this Government, but the previous Government had 13 years and the one before that had 18 years without introducing this overdue but incredibly important and beneficial reform.

The hon. Member for St Albans has done a lot to push the argument forward and so have other Members. I recall having a conversation with the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—at that stage at least, he was my friend—in which I made the case for reforming this tax, and he said very clearly that, if we were to do it, it would need to be revenue neutral. However attractive the reform might have been, the number of losers would have made it difficult without the £700 million or £800 million a year that the Treasury is putting in, so there has been a change. If that money oils the wheels of a reform that gets rid of substantial distortions, such as those under the previous tax system, that is a good use of it, and I believe that the Treasury has made the right choice.

My constituents will benefit. Much of our housing stock has been around the £250,000 mark, with rather less around the £500,000 mark. At both levels, the fixed charge of £5,000 once people move past those points has been a significant problem for the housing market and, as the hon. Member for St Albans has said, a lot of the subsidiary industries based around it. That has never been more the case than with the mortgage market review and the general reduction in appetite for some of the riskier lending among banks that has made it difficult for young people and those on the early steps of the housing ladder. They are often capital-constrained and having to find the extra money for the stamp duty almost invariably means that it cannot be spent on something else. It actually often leads to those transactions not happening.

I would criticise, not the Treasury, but the Office for Budget Responsibility for the lack of detailed workings and the lack of comprehensiveness in its forecast for the housing market and how that relates to its estimates for the cost of the stamp duty measure. The OBR has estimated that transactions would rise by 1.1% on account of the reform; I am sure that is a great underestimate. Similarly, the OBR has made an assumption—or a forecast—of a 0.2% increase in residential investment relative to GDP, yet it has assumed that that will be offset by reductions elsewhere in the economy, which it fails to particularise or explain.

I am not impressed, in this area or in others, with the three-men-and-a-dog approach that the OBR has often taken. No wonder it cannot be expected to take on the Opposition spending proposals as well, not least because it just looks at parts of them, casts its eye over them, scans them a bit and says, “That sounds reasonable,” and nods them through. On the housing side, it has not come anywhere near to taking into account the positive impact that the stamp duty reform will have on the economy, in freeing up transactions and increasing labour mobility, especially around the £250,000 and £500,000 pinch points.

I think that the reform will be very significant. The cost estimates are £365 million for this year, £760 million for next year and £840 million the following year. An assumption has obviously been made of a rise in transactions that leads to the annualised costs falling off once we get into the next fiscal year, because there will have been time for the lags to work through and we will be witnessing a rise in transactions on account of the reform. My strong suspicion, however, is that that rise in transactions will be quite a lot more than the OBR has stated, and as the hon. Member for St Albans said, there will be significant add-ons to other industries that depend on the housing market. In my view, as a result of getting rid of the significant distortions that we have had, there will be dynamic, positive impacts on the economy, which the OBR and—as so often—the Treasury have not taken into account. Such thinking has held back good reforms of taxes in these areas.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that labour mobility would increase. People have told me that they were deterred from moving into higher house value areas because they would not only have to take on a higher mortgage but find the tax—almost a tax on their ability to find a job—if they moved to a place where there were more job opportunities but higher house values.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that requirement comes when people are most capital-constrained, especially in the current mortgage market. So charging the tax in that way restricts mobility, restricts spending on moving home and leads to fewer transactions.

I have had constituents who have moved from St Albans to Rochester and Strood, attracted by our better-value housing stock. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a forecast that my return to the House as the UKIP Member for Rochester and Strood would lead to falls in house prices across my constituency. I am not sure that that will happen, and in any event, I strongly welcome this real supply-side reform. When the Government do the right thing, particularly in an extremely sensible supply-side reform that should free up the market and lead to significantly greater economic activity around the housing market, I am happy to support that reform, for my constituents and for my party.

Infrastructure

Debate between Mark Reckless and Anne Main

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Given the new time limit and the scope of the Government’s activities in the infrastructure field, I shall limit my remarks to the rail sector.

It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I must say, however, that the second most absurd comment in his speech—after the one about the Thames estuary airport—was when he invited the Minister to recognise that HS1 was the achievement of the last Labour Government. I thought he was about to make an appeal by saying that infrastructure was a long-term thing and that both parties had been involved in it, but no. Perhaps even more striking was the comment of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), when he said that we had Lord Prescott to thank for the preservation of the wonderful façade of St Pancras station. That might have been news to the late Sir John Betjeman.

HS1 certainly has better branding than the channel tunnel rail link, and I congratulate Labour Members on that, but the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was passed in 1996, and it included outline planning permission. The then Government decided as part of that to have the station at Ebbsfleet, and very serious redevelopment in north Kent flowed from that. HS1 cuts through my constituency and there was significant opposition to it at the time. To a degree, the community’s view of it has settled down; certainly the noise and interference from those trains has not been as great as I feared. We have very significant benefits from having Ebbsfleet, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich should recognise the cross-party impetus that was behind HS1.

As for HS2, Opposition Members have spoken of it as it were just some little add-on. We have heard that great things are being done in Brazil; some project worth about £5 billion has been mentioned. However, the scope, scale and ambition of the HS2 project, and the vision shown by the Chancellor in driving forward that project from his time in opposition until now—despite the state of the public finances that we were left—are hugely impressive. That £35 billion project is basically inventing a high-speed rail network for this country.

Opposition Members complain that trains will not stop in certain places or will not go to others, but the fact is that even places that will not be on the new line and will not be given new stations will gain significant benefits from HS2. I am thinking particularly of the link that will go all the way to Wigan, the link that will go almost as far as York, and the link that will allow trains to come on from Crewe. All those will provide huge benefits for Newcastle, Liverpool and Scotland, which, as with the cities actually on the network, will see substantial reductions in travel times. The Government deserve to be given a measure of credit by Opposition Members for pushing ahead with HS2, particularly given the finances with which we were left.

I am happy to give credit to the Opposition when it comes to Crossrail, and I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give credit to us for keeping it. I think that particular credit is due to us in view of the financial circumstances in which we have proceeded with Crossrail. If he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to visit his constituency on 27 February, I look forward to seeing the handover of the Woolwich station box to Crossrail. Berkeley has done an excellent job, and it will be a real gain for his area and for south-east London in general. I am an Eltham boy of old myself. I also think that there will be huge benefits for north Kent. Crossrail will go through Woolwich to Abbey Wood, and the connections with Dartford, Gravesend and the Medway towns will be much improved.

A Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted could serve as a tribute to, and be a legacy of, the current Government. We are seeking to have infrastructure projects that can be proceeded with quickly. The Davies commission is due to report in 2015, but an interim report is expected this year, which will consider how existing runway capacity in the south-east can be better used. The single best answer to that must be Stansted, because it has one runway which is only half used. It has the capacity for a further 18 million passenger movements per year, but it does not have good links with central London. If we had the Crossrail spur, it would.

The former aviation Minister Steve Norris is doing fantastic work in promoting that idea. He proposes a six-mile tunnel from Stratford to Fairlop Waters, and for the railway to run along the M11 all the way to Stansted. As a result, the journey from Stansted to Liverpool Street would take only 23 minutes, and it would take only half an hour to travel to the west end or to Ebbsfleet. What a legacy for the Government that would be! What better way could we find of kick-starting the construction industry? I would expect the Liberal Democrats to support it: they may not want any new runways ever to be built in the south-east, but at least they believe in improved rail connections, and they are working with the Conservatives to deliver that.

I hope that Treasury Ministers will allow Steve Norris, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and me, to put the case to them. I think that it would be more than a short-term—perhaps a longer-term—solution to the aviation issue.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument for the joined-up thinking that I stressed in my speech. I hope that he continues with it, because the more we can marry areas that want development with the benefits that result from it, the better the position will be for all concerned.

[Mark Reckless]

I think that the Stansted Crossrail spur could provide an answer to that, from not just a local but a regional and a national perspective.

I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, was encountering a difficulty in regard to the freight terminal that is planned for the lovely area of Radlett. In my constituency, the infrastructure is being put where we want it. Only last month, the Government announced that we were to be given a brand-new railway station in Rochester, which will be built exactly where we want regeneration to happen, in the area around Rochester Riverside. It will hugely assist us in making the case to developers, and in encouraging people to visit and to move to Rochester. It will improve the transport times to London, it will be immediately open to the whole of Rochester high street, and it will link the high street with the regeneration area. This Government have worked very closely with Medway council, through Network Rail, to get this announcement and to get these funds, for which I am very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

That is exactly the point I was making about Sundon quarry. That area wants the regeneration, while St Albans, thankfully, does not need it. I believe that these projects should take place where they are needed.

[Mark Reckless]

I agree. I am a localist in these matters. I had the privilege to serve under the Financial Secretary when he ran the Conservative party’s policy unit, and he probably did more than any single person in our party to push that localist agenda. What he has achieved in planning, and in getting agreement for a planning system that boosts the economy and regeneration in this country yet allows local needs to be reflected and gives proper powers to the local democratically elected councillors, has been exemplary. The more we can work to get the economy moving through investment in infrastructure where both communities and the nation want it, the better.

I ask the Financial Secretary to take this agenda forward and to look in particular at giving a further boost to the economy with an extension of Crossrail. I urge him to ensure that the Treasury, as well as the Department for Transport, looks at the case that has been made for a Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Mark Reckless and Anne Main

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

No; the hon. Gentleman has made many speeches and many interventions, and I am sure that as the lone representative of the Liberal Democrats today he has had more than his fair share of the debate. I shall not take interventions from him.

I am extremely concerned that we will find ourselves dancing on the head of the same pin as we did in the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was a Member then, so he will remember the Liberal Democrats saying, “We need to have a full EU in/out vote on this, and we will give you a genuine vote,” whereas the Conservatives, in opposition at the time, said that we needed to have a vote because there was a treaty. We were assured, “Oh, no, no, it is not a treaty. It is just something we don’t need to have a referendum on.” Such dancing on the head of a pin is what most of us on the more Eurosceptic side of our party find worrying about this particular treaty-that-is-not-a-treaty, into which we supposedly do not need to have any form of input.

[Mark Reckless]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the difference between our commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and the Liberal Democrat commitment to an in/out referendum is that theirs is still possible?

[Mrs Main]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As we know, Liberal Democrats tend to change their minds, so they can always change their minds and retain that possibility. He is absolutely right—

European Council

Debate between Mark Reckless and Anne Main

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is not currently in his seat. I first met him 18 years ago as a UK economist for Warburgs, where we argued for Britain staying out of the euro. Warburgs invited my hon. Friend, who was then a new MP, to address a lunch of clients. He explained that we would be better off outside the euro. When a client asked, “But wouldn’t that push up gilt yields, and wouldn’t there be a risk premium for being out of the euro?”, he said, “No. There would be more risk inside the euro. If we stayed out of the euro, in due course, gilt yields would fall below those of German bunds.” That has now happened, and I pay tribute to him for his perspicacity on that issue.

My hon. Friend quoted from a TaxPayers Alliance piece that I found very helpful. It refers to a paper from 2004, which says that we should

“Change our relationship with the EU so that crucial powers are brought back”

and

“take back powers over trade, work and civil rights.”

It states that the British people believe that:

“Giving away power in the hope of influencing the EU has been tried for decades and the EU just gets more power over British life and uses it badly. We should be taking back power, not handing more over.”

Who was the author? My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). Yet, going into the summit this weekend, we now hear that we can ask for only so much back—perhaps not much at all—because our priority must be to save the euro. Then we are told, rather contradictorily, that we cannot ask for too much back, because if we do, they will do it as 17 rather than 27. It cannot be both. In the short term, the only institution that can keep the euro ticking over—I fear it will be no more than that—is the European Central Bank, by printing money and buying Italian and Spanish bonds. Everything else is mood music for German public opinion, but what about our public opinion?

If the euro is to continue, the fundamental issue is competitiveness. Within the euro, the only way to deal with Germany’s overvaluation on competitiveness—it is 30% or 40% better than Italy or Spain, perhaps even more compared with Greece—is to have a significant and sustained period of inflation within Germany. If Germany will not accept that, the only way that peripheral Europe can be priced back into competitiveness with Germany is by a break-up of the euro. I believe that it would be better for that to happen sooner rather than later. It is 18 months since we saw that Greece could not pay its debts, yet it has been patched up, and we now risk throwing good money after bad to keep things going, when it is the euro that is preventing growth in Europe.

I do not dispute that a break-up of the euro will be damaging in the short term, but within two or three years, I believe that growth within Europe will be stronger after a return to national currencies than if we try to keep the euro going. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) discussed Germany repatriating its profits. The individual German company can repatriate profits, but Germany as a whole cannot, because Germany has used the euro as the latest manifestation of a system—it started with Bretton Woods, then the snake, then the exchange rate mechanism—to keep its currency artificially low, so that it exports vastly more than it imports. As a result, Germany must recycle its assets into sub-prime US mortgages or Greek Government debt. Only after Germany stops depressing its currency through that system will we come back into balance, and countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy will be able once more to compete with Germany. We should focus on that during the summit.

The Prime Minister is going to the summit, and we will see what powers, if any, he seeks to bring back, but it is clear that there has been a fundamental change in the UK-EU relationship. Page 63 of the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that in such circumstances, there should be a referendum of the British people to decide whether we should stay in on those terms or whether, as I would like, we should again be an independent country trading with Europe but governing ourselves.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I have a correction. I will call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 5.12 pm.