HC Deb 06 November 2000 vol 356 cc18-20
31. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

What recent representations the commissioners have received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs. [135366]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)

The Church continues to make representations on that issue to the Government at the highest level. A survey will shortly be published giving up-to-date figures for the total VAT burden borne by the Church, particularly in relation to the on-going repair bills payable for the maintenance of churches

Miss McIntosh

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure that has been put on the cost is £40 million per annum, which is £40 million more than the churches receive in grants from the Government? Is he aware that, today, The Daily Telegraph gave what could be the contents of the Budget statement? Is there any truth in the story that churches will receive a reduced rate of VAT? Will the hon. Gentleman continue to support my campaign to have a lower VAT rate?

Mr. Bell

I had thought it was my campaign, but I am happy to have the hon. Lady as a joint campaigner on this issue. I have read today's newspapers and what might or might not be in the pre-Budget report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday. I will hold my breath on that—it is somewhat bated—as will the House. I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Lady and all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the campaign over many years.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

My hon. Friend is very persuasive and I am sure that he will have another go at the Chancellor, as we are getting to the point where small communities are expected to carry very large debts in relation to their churches. I hope that he will be able to get a response from the Government. They must be sympathetic, particularly to rural areas, which are faced with frightening debts.

Mr. Bell

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. As I said, I have read the newspaper reports. The campaign has been a long one. The imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent. on church repairs absorbs a large amount of locally raised resources—and for no local benefit. A great injustice will be righted if the Chancellor makes the statement on Wednesday that we hope he will.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us have been campaigning for a reduction for nearly 30 years, and Minister after Minister has given us a dusty answer? Will he try to persuade the Chancellor that he would earn well-deserved brownie points if he made the announcement that has been forecast this morning? It is a monstrous scandal that churches are paying back in VAT more than they receive in grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue since 1972. He and I have attended Ministers of the Crown as part of delegations. I am grateful for his support. I have said that Church Commissioners questions is a non-partisan occasion, I would add that, if the Chancellor listens to us, and I think he will, he will be the first Chancellor to have done so in 30 years.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Is it not important that the Treasury recognise that such a move would win widespread support; that churches throughout the country perform not only a religious role, but, increasingly, a community role; and that, in many parts of the country, they are an important part of the tourist industry? It is important that we get the concession—I hope, this week.

Mr. Bell

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing support for the campaign. He makes several valid points. One is that the churches play an important role in communities in rural areas. Church repairs are to uphold and to maintain our traditions and heritage in local churches, which are a tourist attraction. I hope that those arguments alone will be sufficiently persuasive for the Chancellor on Wednesday.