Tourism Industry and VAT

Debate between Nick Harvey and John Pugh

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) not only on securing this debate but on having campaigned vigorously for years on this theme.

I have only one point to make. I was standing in Strangers yesterday holding up a placard about VAT and tourism while pointing at a screen. I chanced to ask the person who had asked me to do that, when he put his camera down, how long the campaign had been running for. He said that it had been running for about 18 years, to his knowledge. Hon. Members can imagine people from the industry trooping into the Treasury during those 18 years to speak to stony-faced mandarins, who find reasons for inaction. Ministers will have come and gone during that time, but the Treasury’s line will be familiar to the people lobbying it.

I am sure that, in those discussions, the Treasury will have heard good words, such as “growth”, “expansion”, “development” and “jobs”, and phrases it does not want to hear, such as “forfeit of revenue”, “loss of income” and so on. However, a counter-argument has always been put, which I could put in terms of a Laffer curve if I actually understood what a Laffer curve was. In simple terms, the counter-argument is that if there is development and growth, there will be more taxpayers, and more business will be done, so there will be more revenue and other gains, such as regeneration, which other Members have spoken about. The real choice, as far as the Treasury is concerned, is between getting more tax at a lower rate from more people, and getting more tax at a higher rate from fewer people.

That seems to be the hard choice the Treasury faces, and it is at best cost-neutral. I am not sure that it is cost-neutral in the short term—no one has suggested that, I think—but it certainly is in the long term, and it has other benefits, including regeneration and reviving areas such as the south-west and north-west.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

With five visits being made outwards from the UK for every two incoming visits, would there not be an additional benefit, of improving the balance of trade?

[John Pugh]

Indeed. Many persuasive arguments would suggest a net benefit to the Treasury from what we propose.

Treasury scepticism is not wholly unreasonable, but it can be allayed. I do not think that international comparisons console the Treasury especially; perhaps the thinking is that such comparisons relate to foreign places where the world functions differently, and tax regimes and people’s behaviour are different, and therefore the Treasury is not satisfied by ample international evidence. Certainly it will not be satisfied by research, however good, commissioned by the industry.

There is a way forward, however. The solution is not simply inaction. The Treasury could commission its own independent research, on a basis agreeable to the industry. That would be a huge step forward—some progress in relation to the past 18 or 19 years. It would be a step along the path of evidence-led policy—a good step to take. We would all be amazed if tomorrow the Chancellor said that he had decided to cut VAT for tourism. We would fall about and do more than wave our Order Papers—we would go into paroxysms. However, he could, if he wanted, do something that would cost nothing and might attract a great deal of good will: he could say, “We will have some independent research commissioned on this very difficult subject on which Parliament has occupied itself for some considerable time.” That would lay the ghost to rest and bottom out the issue.

Why should the Chancellor not do that? It would be an intelligent reaction to the plausible and effective argument that has been put by a crucial industry employing many more people than is ordinarily to be expected. If the Chancellor does not do that, he could be embarrassed later by someone moving an amendment to require the exact same thing. I have little doubt that it would be carried, as there is widespread support in the House for such research.