Budget Resolutions

Susan Murray Excerpts
Thursday 29th October 2026

(1 day, 15 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). The Chancellor has said that his Budget carries through the Prime Minister’s vision, but that there is still much to come, in his 10-year plan and in next year’s spending review, so there is still an opportunity to change fiscal policy in a way that could help the Government to achieve their housing targets, and help councils, developers and communities to revive town centres and bring derelict and long-term empty buildings back into use.

I start by congratulating the Friends of Campsie High Kirk, the first group in Britain to take ownership of an A-listed heritage building through the ownerless property transfer scheme run by the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. The work of that group has led me to raise this issue today, and I am incredibly proud to have it in Mid Dunbartonshire. It has taken ownership of a derelict A-listed church, with plans to renovate it for community use, but nearly every piece of work that it carries out on the site will be subject to VAT at 20%. Until recently, Scotland’s historical churches could claim back VAT on repairs through the listed places of worship grant scheme, but that scheme has closed, and the fund that has replaced it covers England only. The UK Government say that Scotland’s share of the money has gone to the Scottish Government, yet no fund has been set up to spend it, so even the buildings that could once claim that 20% back are now caught. Will the Minister take this issue up with the Scottish Government, and press for a fund to be created?

It is not just community groups that face this hurdle to restoring our historical sites. Should a developer wish to restore a similar historical building and make it into housing, they would pay VAT at 5% if the conversion qualified, or at the full 20% if it did not. Meanwhile, if it were to demolish the building and start anew, it would pay no VAT on the new homes. The Government’s explanation is that the zero rate on new homes is there to

“stimulate the construction of new homes”,

but it should not matter whether or not a home is new; if any building is lying long-term vacant or derelict, bringing it back into a habitable, eco-friendly condition gives us the same benefit as building a new house. On top of that, restoring a building preserves the character and heritage of an area, saves carbon by reusing existing materials rather than making and transporting new ones, and often meets less local opposition. We all know how difficult it can be to get permission to build a new home, and we all know the impact a derelict property can have on a street.

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has told my office that it does not hold figures on how much VAT it raises from building repair and restoration. Before ruling anything out, the Treasury should be able to tell this House how much that tax brings in. With that in mind, I have three asks of the Treasury. First, I urge the Minister to investigate and publish how much VAT is raised each year from the renovation and repair of historical buildings. Secondly, will the Treasury assess the case for treating renovation, repair and conversion in the same way as new build? Thirdly, will it confirm that Scotland will benefit from its fair share of the derelict buildings fund?

Our historical buildings help us make our communities what they are. The tax system should help people to save those buildings and bring them back into use, not charge people more to repair than to build new.