School Children's Clothing and Footwear (Value Added Tax) (Hansard, 16 December 1997)

§ Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the zero-rating of the supply of items of clothing and footwear for use only as part of an approved school uniform. I have sat here patiently for almost two hours listening to ministerial statements on exotic subjects from pollution and hot air to the people's sewage. Those will be difficult acts to follow, but I will give it my best shot.

I start by declaring an interest in that I have three children, all of whom are likely eventually to be wearers of school uniform. It therefore came as a surprise to me to learn—because of a campaign by a local school outfitter, in Worthing—that those uniforms may be subject to the full VAT rate of 17.5 per cent., even before my children are teenagers. It came as a surprise also to many of my colleagues who are supporting my Bill, as they were under the impression that children's clothing, and particularly school uniforms, were zero-rated for VAT. It certainly comes as a surprise to many parents, who find that they are faced with the surcharge—on usually compulsory school uniforms—at a very expensive time, when bringing up young children.

The Bill would affect literally millions of families throughout the country—thousands in each hon. Member's constituency. As such, I hope that it will receive the support of the whole House. I believe that it addresses an anomaly in VAT law that was never intended.

The problem stems from the fact that there is no definition of the term "young children" in VAT law. Consequently, VAT relief is subject to a schedule of maximum sizes for clothing and footwear that is based on the children's average size to their 14th birthday. In detail, that means that children with a size 14.5 in collar upwards or wearing jumpers with a 34 in chest upwards, trousers with a 28 in waist upwards or skirts with a 26 in waist upwards will be subject to 17.5 per cent. VAT on the value of those items of clothing.

Alas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many schoolchildren today do not share the svelte Adonis-like proportions that you and I enjoy. It is a medical fact that children today are larger than when the so-called average figures were devised. Worse still, those outdated schedules positively discriminate against larger children, who may already be suffering from weight problems through no fault of their own. Moreover, today's fashion is to wear baggier outfits.

School outfitters are constantly faced with the absurd situation in which two children of the same age, say 13, are fitted out with the same type of uniform for the same school, and in which one child with a size 14 in collar will enjoy zero VAT on his or her uniform whereas the other, with a size 14.5 in collar—only half an inch more—will be clobbered for the full 17.5 per cent. VAT. There are worse anomalies.

One of the few reliefs is for garments that can be shown as intended to be worn only by members of organisations that cater exclusively for under 14-year-olds. In the case of school uniforms, a prominent crest or logo must be worn. Under 14 means that the relief can apply only to 160 private prep schools, which cater typically for children up to the age of 13. They will attract no VAT. The uniform for typical state secondary schools in my constituency, catering for 12 to 16-year-olds in Worthing and, by definition, usually for less well-off parents, will be subject to full VAT at 17.5 per cent., even when dealing with children of identical size and age.

There are other extreme cases such as that of a firm of hat producers in Nottingham. It produces bonnets for babies which can be liable for the full rate of VAT because it is possible to stretch them across the head of an adult. That is the anomaly in the law.

Last week, I visited one of the outstanding schools in my constituency—Worthing high school. The cost of a uniform at that school is as follows: a jumper is typically £16 or £16.50; a shirt is £9; skirts or trousers are £16; rugby shirts are £17; sports socks are £3.50 and shorts are £7. That adds up to at least £70 before taking account of blazers, shoes and other parts of the uniform. That is £70 or more per child, per kit, as well as the cost of replacement when the uniform wears out.

The outfitter for that school does not stock jumpers of 34 in or below simply because all the children in that school qualify as above the average size and will, therefore, be subject to VAT. There is no choice because the uniform is compulsory. Virtually all the schools in my constituency have compulsory school uniform.

I fully appreciate that the current VAT laws were fashioned to prevent adults from taking advantage of general items of school wear such as plain shirts and trousers. My Bill seeks VAT exemption on those items of school wear that are clearly identifiable as part of a recognised school uniform. I am talking about stripy jumpers made to particular specifications and often involving specially commissioned dyes, jumpers or sports kit bearing the logo or name of the school prominently, those classically dull grey or delightful maroon blazers made famous by the girls of St. Trinian's or those particularly troublesome thick, scratchy football socks guaranteed to bring the wearer a rash on the back of the ankles—I am sure that that brings back fond memories, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As my trip to Worthing high school last week and many other schools in my constituency have confirmed, such items of school uniform are fine and are accepted for school, but by no stretch of the imagination can they be regarded as fashion accessories. No self-respecting pupil in my constituency is likely to be found strutting his or her stuff in one of Worthing's many hot night spots regaled in any of the items I have mentioned.

The law can easily be amended to exempt from VAT those elements of school uniform clearly identified with a particular local school, regardless of the age and size of the children. It could be policed by the production of a school identification card, or the uniform could be ordered through the school.

I hope that the House agrees on the benefits of a school uniform. The Prime Minister has spoken in favour on many occasions. It engenders pride in the school and a sense of identity and discipline. It has been shown that a uniform can lead to better results in schools that have taken it up. A uniform is useful against truancy, it is a good security measure against strangers coming on to school premises and it cuts down the emotional blackmail 161 that children use on their parents because they want the latest designer gear. It also avoids peer pressure about who is the school fashion icon.

The Bill seeks to encourage further the welcome trend back to school uniform. It seeks to correct an anomaly in VAT law which I am sure was never intended and which has placed extra burdens, particularly on the less well-off families who are already faced with the spiralling costs of bringing up young children. It seeks to help less well-off families with several children, particularly prone to wear and tear on their clothes. It seeks to address the absurd advantage implicitly given to children at private prep schools over state secondary schools from the ages of 11 or 12.

My Bill is anti-sexist, anti-agist, anti-sizeist and anti-elitist. As such, I am sure that it will find support from all corners of the House, even from the most politically correct zealots on the Government Benches. I commend the Bill to the House.