Hot Takeaway Food (VAT)

Debate between Stephen Gilbert and Julian Sturdy

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Gilbert]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the Treasury’s intention, but I will demonstrate that the negative effects of the measure make it unlikely that any net additional revenue would be raised, when the damage to jobs, business rates and so on is taken on board. He is right to say that the Government expect to raise money from this measure—their impact assessment suggested that £50 million would be raised in the first year, rising to £120 million annually in subsequent years—but at what cost would that be to the baking industry in particular? I am afraid that it will cost jobs and investment in an industry that we want to see more of, not less, on our high streets.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Surely there has been unfairness in the takeaway industry, with the fish and chip shop up against the supermarket selling hot chickens, as he has already mentioned. There has to be a clear definition of what constitutes takeaway food, because that is lacking at the moment.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. There needs to be a level playing field. I shall say how I seek to achieve that for the Government, but with a simpler test. He is right to say that there is confusion between different takeaway outlets and types of takeaway food. That is also reflected in planning law, in which takeaways selling fish and chips are in a different category from bakeries.

It has been estimated that some 2,000 jobs throughout the UK are at risk and 300 bakeries on our high streets are at risk of closure. With the impact of the ongoing recession and the significant supply side inflation of recent years, the baking industry is unable to absorb the imposition of the standard rate of VAT, and price increases are inevitable. Research from YouGov shows clearly that this proposal is unpopular with the public—69% of people have said that they do not support it—and that is also demonstrated in a petition signed by more than 50,000 people, which hon. Friends and I gave recently to Downing street. That research also suggests that the measure will change people’s behaviour, with up to one in three people saying that they will stop buying baked savouries. Consumers being able easily to swap to cheaper zero-rated alternatives will impact on the entire supply chain, but with no net additional receipts to the Exchequer.

As I said, the National Association of Master Bakers estimates that some 2,000 jobs will be lost nationally, many hundreds in Cornwall. Bakeries will close on our high streets, creating more empty units at a time when, through the Portas review and other measures, the Government are seeking to boost the high street. The overall economic costs created will undermine any additional tax from the baking industry.

Cornwall Food and Drink estimates that at least 100 businesses in Cornwall contribute to the production of more than 170 million Cornish pasties each year. The total turnover of the industry is thought to be more than £280 million, double the estimates of 2005. It is a growing industry. At least 25% of the turnover is spent in the local economy; the industry is thought to be worth £72 million indirectly, with £15 million going to Cornish farmers.

Pasty production produces other socio-economic benefits as well as purely economic ones—supporting village shops in rural communities, for example. It is a vital part of the Cornish economy, which still languishes on European aid.

In 2011, the university of Exeter showed that keeping retail prices down while suffering strong increases in input costs, particularly fuel and other costs, would seriously affect margins in the Cornish food and drink sector. The industry is clear that it cannot afford to absorb the potential increase in VAT, which will be passed to consumers.

What does that mean for my constituents? The impact will be devastating. The producers, retailers and suppliers will lose more than £100 million a year, an estimated 1,100 jobs will be lost and scores of high street bakeries will close. These proposals come at a time when retailers, including food-to-go shops, have already been hit by an additional £350 million business rate bill this year and when the sector overall already contributes £5 billion a year in VAT—some 9% of the total VAT take—despite accounting for only 5% of gross domestic product. The British Retail Consortium tells us that consumer spending is falling and household incomes are shrinking.

Sadly, there is no evidence that HMRC has considered the impact on the cost of welfare payments resulting from job losses, the reduced amount of corporation tax that the Revenue will receive, the loss of income tax and national insurance revenue as a consequence of the bakery industry’s contracting, and the high street supply chain’s being hit, including the loss of business rate revenue to local authorities.

There is also the socio-economic consideration, pointed out by the Association of Convenience Stores, among others. This change will hit the least well off the most. The poorest households spend almost one fifth of their net household incomes on VAT, but the richest spend only 9%. The measure will compound that, hitting the lunch of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country.

What is the alternative? The Cornish Pasty Association, the National Association of Master Bakers, Greggs, the West Cornwall Pasty Company and others have suggested in their responses to the Government’s consultation that we need to return to the original intention. VAT was first extended to hot takeaway food in 1984 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who said in his Budget speech:

“Most food is zero rated, but food served in restaurants is taxed, together with a miscellaneous range of items including ice cream, confectionery…Takeaway food clearly competes with other forms of catering, and I therefore intend to bring into tax hot take-away food and drinks”.—[Official Report, 13 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 303.]

That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) ably made about the need for a level playing field.

The then Chancellor elaborated that statement in a written response to the former Member of Parliament for Leeds South, Merlyn Rees:

“The VAT extension to hot take-away food which I announced in the Budget applies to food and drink which has been deliberately heated so that it can be consumed whilst still hot. It does not apply to food and drink which has cooled to room temperature by the time it is sold, or to things like pies and pasties which are sold warm because they happen to be freshly baked, and not to enable them to be consumed while still hot.”

I could not have put it better myself. That is the fundamental difference between a meal cooked to order in a fish and chip shop—or a curry or a pizza—and a baked product, which is simply hot as a result of its production, but cools naturally over time. The former Chancellor recognised that baked products are hot or warm by virtue of being baked, not because they are made to order and hot for consumption in the same way as curry or fish and chips are. His position has not been challenged by subsequent Governments and it is my view, and that of my hon. Friends, that it should be upheld while we seek to clarify the additional anomalies that have arisen since 1984.

To put it crudely, we can hit the £280 million rotisserie chicken business and provide the level playing field with fish and chips, but we must maintain the additional principle of food being hot at the time it is provided to the customer, recognising the differences that the former Chancellor recognised many years ago. The additional principle should be that baked goods are zero-rated, except where they are kept hot for consumption.

In short, we seek to amend the Government’s proposals to include the provision that VAT on baked goods should be charged only if they are kept in heated cabinets or if other paraphernalia are used to keep them hot for sale, in the same way that battered fish and chips are kept hot for sale in a cabinet in fish and chip shops. That would not interfere with the Government’s proposals to charge VAT on hot food cooked to order and provided hot to the customer for consumption.

I am sure that the Minister will want to consult Treasury counsel on the exact wording of any change and that he has a mountain of responses from the consultation to wade through. However, my view is held not only by me, but my hon. Friends and the industry. In practice, our suggestion would mean that a pasty sold in a fish and chip shop that is currently standard-rated, because it is kept hot for sale alongside some pre-cooked fish or a battered sausage, would be on the level playing field sought by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The alternative would mean that any pasty kept hot for sale in a bakery would also be standard-rated, achieving the level playing field that the Government want in a way that is enforceable by HMRC. By closing the loopholes exploited by the supermarkets, the measure would raise at least £56 million per annum, which is equivalent to the vast bulk of the Government’s expected revenue from the changes.

The alternative provides a simple test for business: VAT on baked goods that are kept hot artificially, and no VAT on those that are hot simply as a result of their cooling process. It avoids the legal uncertainty and likely challenge to HMRC, it delivers to the customer a clear and understandable difference in pricing—VAT on a product that is kept hot, no VAT for a product that is not—it allows flexibility for businesses to adapt their models accordingly and, crucially, industry suggests, it would have none of the damaging effects that I outlined earlier.

My view and that of my hon. Friends is that the Government’s proposals are unenforceable, are undeliverable by business, replace one set of anomalies with another, are likely to be heavily contested and will do significant damage to the Cornish economy and to high streets throughout the country. By contrast, the alternative proposal put forward by me and my hon. Friends is clear and consistent, is enforceable by the Revenue, closes the loopholes exploited by the supermarkets—therefore raising the vast bulk of the revenue that the Treasury wishes to obtain—and creates the level playing field with the fish and chip shops that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly demands. It is deliverable and would be publicly welcomed by the baking industry. I hope that the Minister will say in his remarks that he is actively considering our alternative as the consultation proceeds.