Oral Answers to Questions — National Finance – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 29 November 1973.
Hon. John Astor
, Newbury
12:00,
29 November 1973
asked the Chancellor of the exchequer what he estimates will be the amount of VAT payable in an average year by charitable organisations in respect of equipment purchased specifically for the purposes of medical research ; and how this figure compares with their liability to tax in respect of such purchases before the introduction of VAT.
Mr Terence Higgins
, Worthing
No estimates have been made.
Hon. John Astor
, Newbury
While my hon. Friend cannot make an estimate, does he agree that the liability to VAT on medical research equipment can be substantial? For instance, an electron microscope would be about £4,500. Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention to impose the tax on medical research equipment? Will he consider the matter again before the next Budget?
Mr Terence Higgins
, Worthing
I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. This is a matter which we debated at considerable length in the context of charities during the passage of the 1972 Finance Bill. I do not believe that discriminatory relief from VAT is a suitable means of promoting my hon. Friend's aims, no matter how desirable they may be in their own right. It is important, when considering the position of charities, to take into account not only the changeover from purchase tax and SET to VAT but the substantial changes which my right hon. Friend made in the treatment of charities in 1972 and 1973, at a cost to the Exchequer which is estimated to be of the order of £20 million for 1973–74. We must consider the overall picture and we must not single out individual items or the effect of individual fiscal measures.
Mr Lewis Carter-Jones
, Eccles
Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that that is a most unsatisfactory answer? Is he saying that the Treasury cannot find a way of giving tax relief to charitable organisations which are financing research? Is he aware that I sit on research committees which lack funds because the Treasury is so miserly? Will he reconsider this matter and apply a bit of common sense and practicality?
Mr Terence Higgins
, Worthing
The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to what I said. I said that the Chancellor has already made very substantial concessions towards charities, amounting to £20 million in 1973–74.
John Gummer
Vice-Chair, Conservative Party
In our debates on this subject, were there not considerable misgivings that the Government had not been able to make exactly the kind of estimates for which my hon. Friend asked? Is it not possible to look again at the whole question of VAT and charities, as many people feel that the Government have been a little unyielding when they could have been more helpful?
Mr Terence Higgins
, Worthing
We debated this subject at considerable length. Discriminatory relief of the kind suggested would have the effect of reproducing many of the anomalies and distortions which occurred with purchase tax. Therefore, my right hon. Friend thought it appropriate to give help to charities in other ways on a very substantial scale.
Mr Joel Barnett
, Heywood and Royton
Will the Minister re consider what he has said? He has effectively misled the House by saying that the Chancellor gave concessions to charities. Those are concessions on the tax that he himself first imposed—
Mr Anthony Barber
, Altrincham and Sale
indicated dissent.
Mr Joel Barnett
, Heywood and Royton
We on this side did not introduce VAT.
Mr Joel Barnett
, Heywood and Royton
The Minister spoke of not being discriminatory, but he has been discriminatory in giving help for hearing aids. Surely he can reconsider this matter in the light of giving increased assistance to medical research.
Mr Terence Higgins
, Worthing
The expression of support which the hon. Gentleman is getting from behind him is more an expression of sympathy than of encouragement. If he is seriously suggesting that the overall tax record and the concessions given by the Labour Government are better than those of the Conservative Government, no one could have more disregard for the facts. I repeat that it is important to look at the picture as a whole. The Chancellor has made considerable concessions in other ways which will have a dynamic effect inasmuch as they will encourage contributions to charitable bodies in the future.
The chancellor of the exchequer is the government's chief financial minister and as such is responsible for raising government revenue through taxation or borrowing and for controlling overall government spending.
The chancellor's plans for the economy are delivered to the House of Commons every year in the Budget speech.
The chancellor is the most senior figure at the Treasury, even though the prime minister holds an additional title of 'First Lord of the Treasury'. He normally resides at Number 11 Downing Street.
The Chancellor - also known as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" is responsible as a Minister for the treasury, and for the country's economy. For Example, the Chancellor set taxes and tax rates. The Chancellor is the only MP allowed to drink Alcohol in the House of Commons; s/he is permitted an alcoholic drink while delivering the budget.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.