Retail trade body AIR urges UK govt to reinstate tax-free shopping
The association wants the tax-free shopping programme to be part of the new Visitor Economy Growth plan, being drawn up by the department for culture, media and sport.
AIR has urged the UK government to reinstate tax-free shopping, which was cancelled in 2021 after Brexit. It wants the tax-free shopping programme to be part of the government's new Visitor Economy Growth plan. Reinstating tax-free shopping would bring £3.7 billion (~$5.02 billion) to the economy annually, benefit high streets and make Britain the global shopping capital, AIR argues.
Reinstating tax-free shopping would bring £3.7 billion (~$5.02 billion) to the economy every year and turn Britain the global shopping capital, AIR argues.
In a submission to the Visitor Economic Advisory Council, AIR asked for creating a 'world-beating' new value-added tax (VAT)-free shopping scheme that would favour all international visitors.
It also argued that Britain could be the only large European country offering VAT-free shopping to the 450 million EU residents, now that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the EU.
Such a decision could also turn Britain as the top choice for retail investors, it observed.
Britain's high streets would benefit, with additional foreign spending and investment helping to revitalise town and city centres across the country at a time of increasing costs and competition, AIR added in its submission.
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump vs Powell puts spotlight on central banks' independence: How does RBI score?
The very public friction between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has once again thrust central bank independence into the spotlight. The underlying question is both simple and consequential: should elected leaders have a say in how central banks set interest rates? This tension isn't new. Trump repeatedly criticised the Fed's rate hikes during his earlier term. European leaders were unsettled by the European Central Bank's aggressive tightening in 2022. And back in 2018, India witnessed its own showdown between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the finance ministry. Still, the consensus among economists is clear: independent central banks are critical to maintaining macroeconomic stability. To measure the independence of central banks across countries and time, researchers have created an index based on some core criteria. Each criterion is assigned a score, and then these scores (with or without weights) are used to arrive at an index value, ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the highest level of independence. Common central bank parameters assessed in these indices include rules of appointment of the governor and the monetary policy committee, freedom to formulate monetary policy, norms for conflict resolution, primary policy objective, rules for lending to government, financial independence, and reporting and disclosure norms. A recent index assigns India's RBI a score of 0.59, indicating moderate independence. RBI's report card The RBI scores high on several key parameters of central bank autonomy. It has a clear inflation-targeting mandate, operates with an independent budget, and adheres to sound reporting and disclosure standards. However, its overall independence is moderated by structural constraints, most of them stemming from its ownership and governance structure. These can be grouped into three categories. First, while the six-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) includes three external members and three RBI representatives, all are appointed by the government. The RBI governor, also a government appointee, holds the casting vote in case of a tie. Second, in the event of a policy disagreement, the government retains the final say. Both these rules are seen as a lack of independence in monetary policy. Third, under the RBI Act, the central bank is required to transfer its surplus to the government after meeting expenses and provisioning. This is viewed as a lack of financial independence. Despite these limitations, the RBI has largely delivered on its core mandate. Between August 2016 and June 2025, inflation exceeded the official upper tolerance band of 6% in just 28 of 107 months. Inflation volatility has also declined significantly since the adoption of flexible inflation targeting (FIT). Through the turbulence of the last five years, when RBI shifted from covid-era easing to post-pandemic tightening, inflation fluctuations were still lower than in the pre-FIT years. Importantly, the RBI has built credibility as a steward of price stability. Its consistent emphasis on the 4% inflation target has helped anchor public expectations, even though households tend to overestimate inflation by 3-4 percentage points, their expectations remain stable over time. Independence and co-operation If India's central bank, despite being government-owned, manages to do its job well, should it still aspire to greater independence? Perhaps. Research shows that greater central bank independence is associated with lower inflation and more effective monetary policy in the long run, especially for developing economies. However, India's situation is different for two reasons. One, the scope for conflict on monetary policy is slightly lower. Conflict is most likely when inflation is on its way down: the government would prefer lower rates to boost growth, while the RBI may want to wait until inflation is stamped out. But given that inflation is as much a political hot potato as a monetary headache—elections have been lost on the price of onions—the government is more sensitive to inflation, and less likely to demand rate cuts until inflation is under control. Two, the present government is committed to reducing its fiscal deficit and debt. Therefore, it is unlikely to push for lower rates just to reduce debt servicing costs. When governments are fiscally profligate, monetary policy has to compensate by printing money or keeping interest rates at artificially low levels. In contrast, fiscal prudence frees monetary policy from the pressure of propping up budget deficits. Central bank independence in itself does not guarantee effective policy. The US Fed has full independence in setting monetary policy, yet hasn't escaped criticism from the White House. Turkey has a high independence score of 0.8 out of 1, but President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's policy interference has led to runaway inflation. The takeaway? Independence is necessary but not sufficient. What matters most is whether fiscal and monetary policy can work in sync. Price stability is best achieved when governments and central banks act as partners, not adversaries, in managing the economy. The author is an independent writer in economics and finance.
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
A bad trade deal: US-EU pact offers a template, which India is keen to avoid
As US President Donald Trump's new set of tariffs takes effect from August 7, there is a question that is resonating in New Delhi's policy circles: What does a bad trade deal look like? The new trade deal signed by the United States with the European Union perhaps qualifies. Critics of this pact, including politicians in EU member countries such as France, are now openly lambasting the US-EU trade agreement, claiming that 'while one side got a deal, the other side got a bill!' There is a growing sense within sections of India's government that rushing in to sign a deal on Trump's terms has its perils, and could lead to such a lopsided trading arrangement. Also, in the Trumpian scheme of things, the countries that have been called 'friends' have gotten it worse than others. Being soft has been construed as a sign of weakness by the US administration. From New Delhi's perspective, it might also be better to wait out till China signs on the dotted line, to discern in comparative terms if India is getting something favourable out of the headline tariff numbers being offered as part of a deal. Lopsided EU deal What the EU deal effectively does is that it forces the 27-nation bloc to pay a 15 per cent baseline tariff on most of its exports to the US. In exchange, Washington DC gets more access to the EU market at far lower tariff rates, and has pretty much made no concessions for that access. On top of that, Brussels has promised to ramp up investment in the US to the tune of 600 billion Euros, alongside a promise to buy more energy from America to the tune of 750 billion Euros over the next three years. How did the EU end up with this deal? This surrender has a predictable build-up to it, which is typical of the tactic that the US administration has followed with most others who rushed in to sign up early, including South Korea and Vietnam. At the start of negotiations, Brussels was offering zero-for-zero tariffs, and then at some point, it looked like they sweetened the deal by pitching zero-for-10 per cent tariffs, with some exceptions for certain sectors such as automobiles. Then came the letter last weekend from Trump, threatening a 30 per cent tariff if there was no deal reached by August 1. That seems to have been the final trigger for this final deal, which Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, said was the best agreement under the given circumstances. When Trump's tariff action started in March, it was widely believed that the US President had only had one thing in sight – a headline tariff number being thrashed out with each country. Progressively, the deals signed closer to the August 1 deadline have been broadbased to include investment commitments such as in the EU deal. Japan too has committed to invest $550 billion, and the UK has pledged to adopt a 'structured, negotiated approach' in investments, while South Korea has committed to investing $350 billion in the US in projects 'owned and controlled by the United States' and 'selected by President Donald Trump'. All this while agreeing to let in most American goods duty free into each of their countries, in return for the 15 per cent tariff. The build-up too has been predictable in all these cases – concessions being offered by the respective side, followed by a threat of a big tariff number as a deadline loomed, and eventual capitulation. According to Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, while some 'napkin deals' were locked in headline rates of 15 per cent, others were less successful. Even with a deal, Vietnam got 20 per cent and an additional 20 per cent on trans-shipped goods, while others in ASEAN with no deal got 19. Switzerland had early agreement but got whacked with 39 per cent while the UK, despite its trade deficit with the US, got tariffed at 10 per cent. 'All rates can be changed at any point, so this doesn't really ensure stability'. What is striking is that those without a deal in ASEAN got a better tariff deal as compared to those who signed early, such as Vietnam. Then there is the practical aspect of these deals: beyond the headline tariff number, there are question marks over whether the other provisions included in the deals will ever come to fruition. The detailed text is not out for most of the deals signed so far. Even when the details trickle out, there is a chance that these terms will be fiddled with, tweaked and rewritten, to make them implementable. Trade deals typically run to thousands of pages and take months, if not years, to negotiate. This fast-tracked method of signing up multiple deals over a span of weeks is really mind boggling. The only deals where some degree of actual negotiations have taken place so far seem to be the one with China, and the extended talks with India. Implementation woes, legal challenges Then there is the question of the legality of what Washington DC is doing, and the implication for its trading partner too. The US threatening to, or imposing additional tariffs forcibly on goods from another country, are a violation of Article I of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, apart from being in contravention of its own bound tariff commitments under Article II of GATT, which entails an assurance that tariffs will not exceed the rates mutually agreed upon by the two parties. On the other hand, the concessions that the EU has given to the US could be up for challenge from other countries, if these sops are not in line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) trading rules. This is because under WTO rules, if the US has now been given some sort of preferential access to the EU market, Brussels needs to offer the same terms to others or could be deemed to be violating international trade laws. Then there is also the domestic legal challenge that Trump's trade-linked executive orders are facing in the US. Lastly, there is the practicality aspect. Do the EU member countries really have the scope to ramp up energy imports from the US by 750 billion Euros over the next three years? And, can the Commission guarantee that 650 billion Euros of investments into the US, given that much of this is not public spending, but private sector spending by individual companies. Then there is the big question mark over the ability of American customs department and trade officials being able to effectively monitor, police and implement these multiple country-specific provisions. The reason why the rollout of the July 31 tariffs have been delayed till August 7 was to ostensibly give time for the American Customs department to prepare for these new tariff rates. It is unlikely to be a smooth process at major US ports, given the short lead time. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Gold price prediction: What's the gold rate outlook for August 4, 2025 week - should you buy or sell?
Technically, Gold on COMEX was not able to breach the important $3280 mark on the lower side, hence some upside could be seen from these levels. (AI image) Gold price prediction today: Gold prices have been volatile amidst ongoing uncertainties on the global trade front with US President Donald Trump announcing tariff rates for almost 70 trading partners. Manav Modi, Senior Analyst, Commodity Research at Motilal Oswal Financial services Ltd shares his outlook on gold prices and strategy for gold investors: Last week, gold prices started the week on a lower note and fell to a near two-week low as the US struck a framework trade deal with the EU, reducing safe-haven demand. The agreement, echoing a similar one with Japan, imposed a 15% tariff on most EU goods—half the threatened rate—easing fears of a broader trade war. Meanwhile, the US and China held talks in Stockholm, aiming to extend a 90-day tariff truce, though any decision on extension rests with President Trump. The dollar index surged from 97 to 99, pushing USDINR above 87, capping some losses for the bullion domestic front. The Fed held rates steady at 4.25%-4.50%, with Chair Powell suggesting no immediate cuts, pending further data. US economic data showed mixed signals: better-than-expected GDP, ADP payrolls, inflation—PCE rose 0.3% in June, consumer confidence also rose slightly towards 100 mark. However, US non-farm payrolls data at the end of the week was reported quite lower than expectations triggering sharp recovery from lower levels in Gold and Silver prices. Amid ongoing tariff uncertainty, including Trump's fresh levies on Brazil, South Korea, and India and mixed economic update gold is hovering in a broad range, while silver remained weak, reflecting industrial metals' broader decline. A move in USDINR will be important to keep an eye on as any further upside could support further rally on the domestic front. The economic calendar is fairly light this week, however US factory orders, PMI data from major economies, trade balance from China and RBI and BOE policy meeting will be in focus. The deadline of August 1 is over however, there is still no clarity on major trading partners. Technically, Gold on COMEX was not able to breach the important $3280 mark on the lower side, hence some upside could be seen from these levels. Stance: Buy on dips - Rs 98,000 - Rs 1,01,000 Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
