Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
best sales growth for three years.
Helen Dickinson, head of retail at KPMG, said:
consumers are remaining resilient to the prospects presented by a gloomy economic outlook.
Mr. Gauke: Does the Financial Secretary acknowledge that the BRC also stated that the April numbers should be treated with caution because of the weather and Easter?
Mr. Timms: Of course, but they are a data point in a growing and increasingly clear picture about what is happening to retail sales. That is in sharp contrast to what happened to retail sales in the 1990s recession, caused by the policies of the Conservative party, when there was a very different trajectory. In the first quarter of 2009, quarter-on-quarter GDP growth was minus 1.9 per cent., but retail sales growth was plus 0.9 per cent, which is a remarkable phenomenon. How is that remarkable performance to be explained? In part, of course, it is because of the cut in VAT.
Those who argued when the announcement was made that it would have no effect on retail sales were clearly mistaken. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), whose contribution I enjoyed, took the view at the start of his speech that the VAT cut would have no effect. I say to him that if that is his view, he should simply examine the clear evidence from retail sales. To be fair to him, at the end of his speech he said that it was not possible to know whether the VAT cut had succeeded, so I suppose that that is at least progress in the right direction.
We can examine retail sales, and we can examine what Goldman Sachs said a couple of months ago about some earlier figures. It stated:
With clothing and footwear...making the biggest contribution, it appears that the VAT cut was instrumental in driving this strength.
There is also the more recent report, which I am pleased that Conservative Members have now had the chance to have a look at, by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in the name of an adviser to the Conservative partyor a former adviser, I am not quite sure whichwith the title, Credit where credits duethe VAT cut is working.
When the VAT cut was introduced, it was roundly condemned by the Opposition parties. But speaking of credit where credit is due, I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, who in their amendment at least acknowledge that it is right to look at the evidence before drawing a conclusion. I welcome that progress, and I hope that even the Conservative party might in the end not prove impervious to the evidence that is mounting, and will continue to mount, in the coming months. Todays data are another significant piece of evidence.
To be fair to the Conservative party, the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform always recognised the likely effectiveness of a VAT cut in boosting the economy. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) declined to dissent from that view, so I take it that he agrees, although he was not able to say so. Certainly the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) both endorsed it in their remarks. I hope that in the end, other Opposition Members will come round.
Mr. Gauke: The point is that all of us on these Benches, and certainly the shadow business Secretary, made it very clear that we could not afford the VAT cut.
Mr. Timms: I hope that that shows the hon. Gentlemans implicit acceptance that the VAT reduction has boosted retail sales, as the shadow business Secretary said that it would. If the hon. Gentleman can confirm that, I will be most grateful.
Mr. Gauke: I am explicitly saying that we could not afford it.
Mr. Timms: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has declined so pointedly to endorse his right hon. and learned Friends viewpoint, but other Conservative Members agreed with it. I suspect that, over time, it will gain currency on the Conservative Benches, given the evidence that is becoming clearer and clearer.
We can say with certainty that retail sales and the condition of the economy would be worse without the temporary reduction and that it is benefiting all businesseslarge and small, VAT-registered or notby supporting the whole economy and increasing demand to higher levels than would otherwise be experienced. Of course, the VAT cut is especially beneficial to those on low incomes because it is worth 1.6 per cent. of gross income to households in the lowest income decile, compared with 0.5 per cent. to those in the highest decile.
To those who suggest that it would be a good idea if the change took place on 1 December, I emphasise that that date is immediately before the busiest retailing weekend of the year. It would be a much worse date on which to make the changethat was clear from our discussions with the British Retail Consortium. There is not much support for that.
I want specifically to tackle one point, which was raised in todays debate and on Second Reading. Indeed, I was surprised that an amendment had not been tabled about the difficulty for the many businesses that will remain open beyond midnight on 31 December in coping with two different VAT rates in a single trading day. Her Majestys Revenue and Customs will allow a few hours grace for businesses such as pubs and clubs, which will serve customers over midnight on 31 December, to enable them to charge the same 15 per cent. for a session that goes beyond midnight into the early hours of 1 January. HMRC will work with businesses on the details, but I think that that will address the concern.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Taunton that we have taken steps to secure the objectives that his amendment would deliver, in so far as they are achievable, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: Thank you, Sir Michael, for giving me an opportunity to speak at the conclusion of this helpful debate. Many hon. Members will appreciate the modest but none the less welcome concession that the Financial Secretary made at the end of his remarks about the specific arrangements at the end of December and into 1 January. Never let it be said that we do not achieve anything through our endeavours on the Liberal Democrat Benches to put pressure on the Government.
My party has said all along that the VAT reduction has undoubtedly had an impact. It would be odd to maintain that the Government could spend £12 billion to £13 billion to no effect. The question is whether the impact is as profound as the Government wished for that amount of expenditure. We have had a useful discussion about that, but I hoped that the review that I envisaged, or any other review, could draw the matter out.
The timing, which is effectively the stand part dimension of the debate, is relevant. We should consider whether there needs to be an additional stimulus for consumers to go out and buy items in December, of all months. The VAT cut costs roughly £1 billion a month, but, in December, one would expect the cost to be much greater because expenditure is so much higher.
The amendment provided a useful opportunity to debate the subject in the round and, despite being urged by some hon. Members to press it to a Division, I will not. However, I will seek to vote on clause stand part. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: I beg to move amendment 10, page 5, line 35, at end insert
(6A) No further amendment may be made to section 5 of ALDA 1979 within three years of the commencement of this section, unless the condition set out in subsection (6B) has been satisfied.
(6B) The condition referred to in subsection (6A) is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall have compiled and laid before the House of Commons a report containing an assessment of the impact of the increases in alcohol liquor duty on
(a) the competitiveness of licenses premises, and
(b) the level of employment in alcohol-related industry,
and the House of Commons shall, by resolution, have approved that report..
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, page 5, line 37, at end insert
(8) The Treasury will, prior to the 2009 Pre-budget statement
(a) publish an assessment of the level of revenue yield anticipated from alcohol liquor duty based on it being levied on the rates of duty in this section, and
(b) publish an assessment of the level of alcohol liquor duty required to be levied on each type of drink on an equitable basis based on the alcohol content to generate the same level of revenue yield..
Mr. Browne: Amendment 10, which has been tabled by me and by some of my hon. Friends, seeks to prevent increases in alcohol duty for three years unless or until a report on its impact on the pubs and industry sector is undertaken and approved by the House in the meantime.
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Browne: I will, although I have hardly started.
Mr. Hands: I am slightly confused by the amendment. It states
Next Section | Index | Home Page |