Sunscreen won’t be made VAT-exempt, says Financial Secretary, despite MP’s campaign

Amy Callaghan’s VAT Burn campaign asked for sunscreens with an SPF rating of 30 or higher to be VAT-exempt, along with an awareness campaign launched around the risk of skin cancer caused by exposure to the sun.

However, Financial Secretary Victoria Atkins said VAT brings in vital public funds and any decisions to change this for individual products involve a “trade-off”. She added that sunscreen is available to some via doctors’ prescriptions, which are exempt from VAT, and encouraged supermarkets to lower the price of their own-brand sunscreens to absorb the cost of VAT. Tesco has already done this, while Morrisons had agreed to reduce its prices if VAT is removed.

Leading a debate in Westminster Hall, Callaghan, who has twice survived melanoma, said despite skin cancer killing 2,300 in the UK each year, it receives “only a fraction of the political attention it deserves”, with sunscreen products treated as cosmetics or luxury goods for VAT purposes. She said other countries, including the USA and Australia, have already made sunscreen exempt from VAT-style taxes and following suit would be “an important step to demonstrate the UK Parliament’s commitment to sun safety and send a clear message to the public about the importance of sunscreen”.

She said: “This common-sense approach to zero rating sunscreen can help everyone. It almost feels daft that I have to stand here today and make a case for it. Let us agree to work together to make this simple change for the benefit of all our skin.”

Callaghan said only a “tiny amount” of people are prescribed sunscreen by a doctor, while her constituents in Scotland already get free prescriptions. She added that removing VAT on sunscreen would cost the public purse around £40 million a year, just 0.03% of the total received.

Other contributors

Conservative Maggie Throup, who had a melanoma removed in 2019, backed the motion, saying while the Government cannot stop people going out in the sun, it can help protect them by making sunscreen more affordable and readily available.

She said: “We need to remove every possible barrier that could stand in the way of people buying a life-saving product. At the same time, such a measure sends out the message that the Government are serious about tackling all types of cancer.”

However, Throup also called for personal responsibility, adding: “We should be taking the same preventive measures during the hot summer months here that we would if we were on holiday abroad. That includes seeking shade, wearing a hat and loose clothing, and keeping out of the sun when it is most prevalent.”

Jim Shannon said removing VAT on sunscreen would “incentivise” people to wear it, especially those with fair skin, like many of his constituents in Northern Ireland. He highlighted the cheaper price of the product in the USA and welcomed the decision by Tesco to reduce its costs.

He said: “Public polling indicates that many people find the cost of sunscreen too high, and with the current cost of living crisis deepening, that cost is likely to deter increasing numbers of people from buying sunscreen. Some 57% of respondents said that the product was too expensive, and 29% claimed that they would wear it daily if it were a little bit cheaper.

“We need to stop seeing sunscreen as a luxury, like a nice moisturiser. We should instead see it as an essential, like good nutrition or drinking water.”

Shannon added that the UK’s exit from the European Union has given it the opportunity to revisit the application of VAT on certain products which would not have been possible under EU rules. He said: “We certainly encourage the Government to take advantage of opportunities to promote better health as a result of leaving the EU.”

Labour’s Matt Rodda joined Shannon in highlighting that the cost of living crisis was seeing families “paring back” on some products and services “because they are under such severe pressure”. He said sunscreen was likely to be a part of that cost, especially ahead of the summer, and called for the Government to consider the campaign as an issue of public health.

The SNP’s Patricia Gibson questioned why sunscreen was classified as a cosmetic product when it is “strictly regulated” to provide protection from ultraviolet radiation. She said: “I am not aware of anybody who wears sun cream for cosmetic purposes; they wear it because the consequences of exposing themselves to the sun without sunscreen are extremely serious and potentially fatal.”

Labour’s James Murray added that extreme weather over the last year “has demonstrated how susceptible we are to heatwaves and the intense periods of direct sunlight they can bring to the UK”.

Minister responds

Responding for the Government, the Financial Secretary said VAT is charged on almost all goods and services bought “over the counter”, including most medical supplies and medicines that are not prescribed by a doctor.

She said: “Doctors can prescribe sunscreen, which will therefore be provided without incurring VAT, to people who suffer from certain skin conditions characterised by extreme sun sensitivity, including porphyria. In addition, it can be prescribed to patients who have an increased risk from UV radiation because of chronic disease, therapies or procedures.”

She added that, while she was “really proud” that VAT was removed from period products in 2021, there is evidence that these reductions are not being passed on to consumers, and there are “no plans” to do the same for sunscreen.

She said: “I cannot change the fact that VAT is one of the main forms of revenue for the UK Government. In the year 2022-23, VAT is predicted to raise some £157 billion. To put that into context, that it almost the entire cost of our NHS.

“One of the best things that the Government can do is, of course, to cut inflation. Inflation lies at the heart of many of the issues that we as a country are facing.”

Pressed by Callaghan on how small and independent businesses could absorb the cost of VAT, the Financial Secretary said she had to “weigh up the trade-offs” for any changes to the current system and make “difficult decisions as to which items are VAT-exempted or VAT-free and which are not, and that is why those products are so small in number”.

“Each and every time I get asked to exempt a product from VAT I have to conduct this trade-off,” she added. “It is incredibly difficult.”

The Financial Secretary said that the House should “tread carefully with international comparisons”, and that Australia had particular problems with damage from the sun, due to the “horrendous damage” done to the ozone layer.

She said: “I do not think that anyone would suggest that Scotland has the same strength of sun exposure all year round as the sunnier parts of Australia.”

The Financial Secretary did support the principle of an awareness campaign, though she said it “should not just be the Government working on this”, with schools already instrumental in raising the issue with parents on sunny days.

Atkins added that individuals can also help protect themselves by wearing appropriate clothing in the sun. She said: “I think we all accept that sunscreen is but one part of our protection against the damage that the sun can do to us.”

Read the full debate here.