New VAT cap puts Wells Cathedral in 'unachievable' position
According to government data, 94% of claims should be unaffected by the change.However Ms Watts said the cap will make a "really big difference".
Ms Watts said: "Historic buildings like these and historic churches are very expensive to maintain and look after."We don't want to lose them. So not having to pay VAT, saving that 20%, has been significant."The cathedral is looking to fully repair its lead roofs which were constructed more than 100 years ago, a project which Ms Watts said will need "a lot of money".Tessa Munt, MP for Wells and Mendip Hills, said she supports the schemes extension to March 2026 but added she is "worried" about the cost the cap could bring to places of worship."The daily cost of running the cathedral is absolutely staggering, but these are very beautiful places," she told the BBC."Taking the VAT out of the bill by allowing people to claim that would be very significant, it's going to mean a lot in some of our cathedrals in the country."She wants the government to give "leniency" at the end of March 2026 to allow people who have completed the works to be able to claim the VAT after that date.
A spokesperson for the department for culture, media and sport said: "Listed places of worship provide a range of services to the public regardless of faith or background. "Many of them are architecturally and historically significant."This is why the government has extended the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme until 31March 2026. "It will continue to enable religious organisations to claim grants covering eligible VAT costs paid towards repairs and renovations."It is unclear what will happen to the scheme beyond March 2026.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
JK Rowling ‘entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, says Sturgeon
Harry Potter author JK Rowling is 'entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, Nicola Sturgeon has said – but the former Scottish first minister suggested the writer should also be subjected to 'more scrutiny'. Rowling was a vocal critic of the gender recognition reforms championed by Ms Sturgeon, famously donning a T-shirt which branded the then first minister a 'destroyer of women's rights'. Ms Sturgeon said the T-shirt – which Rowling posted a picture of herself wearing on social media – 'brought more abuse on my head than almost anything else'. But she said she had 'never stopped JK Rowling having a view on anything'. Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Ulster she 'wasn't destroying women's rights', and added: 'Is it really the best way to elevate a debate, put a picture of yourself in a T-shirt with something like that? That is the point I am making.' In a review of Ms Sturgeon's newly published memoir, Rowling accused the former SNP leader of being 'flat-out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts'. Ms Sturgeon however has made clear her views on the issue have not changed, despite the fury that erupted when Holyrood debated proposals for her government to make it easier for trans people to legally change their gender. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood but it was blocked by Westminster, with the changes never coming into force. Speaking on Wednesday, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I don't believe – never have and I never will – that you have to choose between being a feminist and being a supporter of the rights of one of the most stigmatised groups in society. 'That's still my position.' While she added the debate on the issue had become 'deeply entrenched', with opposition to the reforms from people such as Rowling, some within the SNP and women's rights groups, Ms Sturgeon was adamant the 'fundamental principle and the issue is one I haven't changed my mind on'. Speaking about Rowling, she told the Nolan Show she is a 'huge admirer of her work'. Ms Sturgeon said: 'I have bought Harry Potter books for all of the kids in my life and I will continue to do so as long as they want to read them. 'I think she is an amazing talent and has done great things.' She added that Rowling is 'absolutely entitled to speak her mind', but added: 'I don't admire the way some people have gone from speaking their minds on this issue to, almost it seems, to be punching down on trans people who have never harmed anybody at any point in their life. 'I am not singling out one person in this, but a cruelty has entered this debate which I find really difficult, because we are talking here about a discriminated against, stigmatised minority. 'In every group in society there will be bad people, but they are not representative of the wider group and with trans we seem to take the bad apples and say 'that makes all trans people bad'. 'I don't agree with that and I don't like that. 'JK Rowling is absolutely entitled to her view, maybe putting herself up for a bit more scrutiny about her view would be helpful, but I don't criticise her for expressing her view. 'But I think I would like to see a bit less punching down on trans people to be perfectly frank.'
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Are British troops prepared to defend Ukraine?
The events of the last few days – the Trump/Putin summit in Anchorage, the visit of European leaders to the White House and the virtual conference of the 'Coalition of the Willing' – have felt strangely detached and surreal. It has been almost like the anxiety dream of a stressed European diplomat: full of famous faces and sententious words, none of it making much sense. Even summing up the status quo is a challenge. Thanks to President Trump, we know that the idea of a ceasefire in Ukraine is now off the table and branded unnecessary. He has also said that the country will not be admitted to Nato, while his special envoy Steve Witkoff talked about a 'land swap' between Ukraine and Russia and 'robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing'. President Putin has agreed to these guarantees, or perhaps he hasn't. The White House at least agrees that a peace settlement cannot be made without involving Ukraine, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that 'you can't have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agree to give up something'. As we pass the 80th anniversary of imperial Japan's unconditional surrender, one wonders what President Truman would have made of that assertion. There will be a bilateral meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy at some unspecified point, or perhaps there won't. Trump says Ukraine will have to resign itself to Russia's possession of Crimea, while Zelensky says there is no possibility of giving up its territorial rights. Most strikingly, there will be a 'reassurance force' deployed to Ukraine. President Trump explained: We've got the European nations and they'll front-load it and they'll have, some of them – France, Germany, UK – they want to have boots on the ground. I don't think it's going to be a problem, to be honest with you. A 'reassurance force' will require a 'combat mandate' but will not be responsible for enforcing a putative peace deal. The United States will not commit ground troops but it could provide support 'by air'. However, Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, has said that 'stationing troops in Ukraine would probably be too much for us', while the Kremlin has consistently said that the presence in Ukraine of troops from Nato countries is a red line. Not all of these propositions can be true. They reveal the dangerous and worrying extent to which individual actors are fixating on what they would like to happen, as if that somehow reifies their hopes. This level of disconnectedness in a complex strategic and military situation is a breeding ground for costly mistakes. Earlier this week, the defence secretary, John Healey, was giving the impression that a reassurance force was simply waiting for its command. He told the BBC last week: We're ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine. They are ready to go, they're ready to act from day one. The military plans are complete. Is that true? Above everything else, have planners at the Ministry of Defence been persistent enough in asking the question that matters above all other: 'And then what?' The windy rhetoric of politicians has its purpose but when the armed forces are being committed to operations, they need more than vague intentions and broad-brush aims. They need detailed plans, objectives and rules of engagement. Let us suppose, mirabile dictu, a peace agreement is somehow reached, and the Coalition of the Willing has managed to generate some kind of meaningful reassurance force of 15,000 or 20,000 soldiers. They are deployed on the Ukrainian side of an agreed border, while half a million Russian troops are on the other side. Vladimir Putin, whom we know we cannot trust, pushes his luck: Russian soldiers 'accidentally' cross the agreed border into Ukrainian territory. The reassurance force warns them they must withdraw, but they refuse. And then what? Do British or French soldiers open fire on Russian units? Refusing to withdraw, the Russians are reinforced and move further into Ukraine. They engage Ukrainian troops, and British personnel are injured or killed alongside them. And then what? If we are still not prepared to take military action, our presence is pointless and we have reassured no-one. That means we must be prepared to take military action. Now we are facing the prospect of British infantry and armour engaging their Russian counterparts. Bullets, tank rounds, shells and missiles are fired. There will inevitably be casualties, and the reassurance force will be heavily outnumbered. Do they request American air support? Is Donald Trump willing to authorise air strikes on Russian army units? Every one of these questions must already have been answered hypothetically before we could safely contemplate deploying troops to Ukraine. We cannot wait and see, or allow troops to improvise, when the outcome could be a full-scale kinetic war with Russia. Whatever happens must be the result of a clear, sober, considered decision. Have these conversations happened in the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street? Have we actually thought this through? If only we could be sure.
Rhyl Journal
15 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Gerry Adams donates to ‘good causes' after BBC pays 100,000 euro damages
The broadcaster lost a defamation case earlier this year after Mr Adams took them to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme and an accompanying online story. They contained an allegation that Mr Adams sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson. Mr Adams denied any involvement. In May, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euro after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. Johnsons Solicitors, which represented Mr Adams in his action, announced on Tuesday that the BBC has discharged the order of the court in relation to the compensation to their client. A BBC spokesperson said: 'We can confirm the BBC has now paid Gerry Adams 100,000 euros in damages as required by the court.' Mr Adams said he intended to donate any damages awarded to good causes. The law firm said donations have been made to 'Unicef for the children of Gaza', local GAA organisations, a support group for republican prisoners and their families called An Cumman Cabhrach, to the Irish language sector, to the 'homeless and Belfast based-youth, mental health and suicide prevention projects' and others. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs, potentially in the order of millions. However, it is understood the final amount of costs have yet to be determined.
