EXPENSES OF MANAGING LET PROPERTY (Hansard, 16 July 1980)

§ Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lonsdale)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I move the Second reading of the clause in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page). It is an elegant and worthy new clause. I shall be brief in commending it to the House, because its objects are clear. It would enable owners of property who let the property to claim the travelling expenses that they "wholly and necessarily" incurred, if they managed that property from their home, in visiting it in connection with letting it.
When the clause was first shown to me by my right hon. Friend yesterday evening I thought that such expenses must clearly be allowable. Under section 72 of the Taxes Act expenses in respect of maintenance, repairs, insurance or management are allowed. However, I understand that in most cases the Inland Revenue does not consider that travelling expenses of the kind that I have described come reasonably under the heading of "management".
I represent a constituency in the Lake District with many second homes, holiday homes, which are let part of the time. It might be suggested that there would be room for abuse in permitting such an allowance against the taxable income from the property, because people could use it in order to visit their holiday homes. I comment only that the words "wholly and necessarily" are the magic words in the clause.
It seems logical that this concession should be made where people manage property from their home. It cannot be said that they are travelling from their home to a place of business, because the home would be the centre for the management of the property. Therefore, it is reasonable in those circumstances to allow such expenses to be deducted.
This is a simple matter. The clarity of the clause is apparent from the wording, and I need say no more.

§ Mr. Lawson
I am not at all surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that this was a worthy new clause, because my right hon. Friend is very 1555 persuasive. However, I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend that it is not as reasonable as he thought.
The whole question of allowability of travel-to-work expenses against tax is very big. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that if we were to give tax relief to landlords on expenses incurred in visiting their properties, visiting particular investments, it would not be easy to justify denying it to other people, including employees who feel strongly that the costs that they have to incur to travel to work should be tax-deductible.
Moreover, the man who wishes to invest in property has considerable choice as to where he will make his investment. He can make it nearby or a long way away. It is up to him, and that will determine the travelling costs when he has to oversee the property.
I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that I am being brief with no wish to be discourteous, but simply because we have a great deal of progress to make on the Bill. One final argument is that there are people who invest in other forms of investment than property—real investment, not portfolio investment—and who may wish to inspect those investments from time to time. It is difficult to say that a landlord is more deserving of tax relief when travelling to oversee his investment than someone who has made another type of investment—perhaps in a small factory—and who wants to visit it.
To introduce this benefit would create an anomaly that I could not accept. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend will feel that it is not one that he can accept either

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I do not wish to pursue the matter, but no doubt there will be an opportunity to press it on another day. Although I am not wholly convinced by what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.