17:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:54 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
New clause 1 and new schedule 2 seek to provide additional tax relief for companies producing video games. The measure was announced, but not implemented, by the previous Administration. As the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget statement, this tax relief for the video games industry is poorly targeted, which is why we have decided not to introduce it.
The United Kingdom’s video games industry is recognised as a world leader, having produced hugely successful games such as the “Grand Theft Auto” series, and has led to innovations in industries as diverse as defence and health care, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) pointed out. All that has been achieved without specific Government intervention for the sector through the tax system.
We estimate that the relief proposed by the Opposition would cost some £40 million to £50 million a year—that was the costing for the previous Administration’s proposal—and we believe that without strong evidence of a market failure in the games industry, it is difficult to justify spending that amount of money on such an intervention, particularly given the state of public finances.
Jim McGovern
At a recent meeting with the Minister, I told him that before the Budget that announced the intention to promote tax breaks, there were at least six ministerial visits to Dundee, which included the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Chancellor. There was a lot of consultation before the then Chancellor eventually announced the decision on tax breaks. Will the Minister tell the House how many visits were made to Dundee before this Government’s decision to withdraw them?
Mr Gauke
The circumstances facing us in the run-up to the June Budget were such that we wanted to introduce a more fundamental reform of corporation tax. In that Budget on 22 June, we announced a reduction in the main corporation tax rate from 28% to 24% over the next four years. In doing that, we wanted to show a sense of direction, to ensure that Britain was open for business, and that we were providing lower rates. Our approach is to have a broader base but lower rates rather than targeted intervention, unless there is clear evidence that intervention is the right approach.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister is being generous. He is paraphrasing the Green Book, which says that the Government will
“prioritise spending which supports private sector growth and investment”.
Various forms of those words have been used since his party and the Liberal Democrats took office. Surely tax breaks that would cost perhaps £195 million and would deliver £415 million in tax receipts are precisely the sort of investment in precisely the sort of industry that would meet the Government’s objectives.
Mr Gauke
We have heard the figures quoted by TIGA, but we do not accept the validity of that analysis because we feel that some of the assumptions underpinning those estimates are erroneous. The research commissioned by the industry implicitly assumes that the investment incentivised by the subsidy is entirely additional to the UK economy. In reality, it is likely that the relief will displace investment from elsewhere in the economy, so the net impact on total UK investment could be limited. For example, it is possible that such a tax subsidy would divert investment from more productive sectors to the detriment of the productivity of the UK economy as a whole.
If Opposition Members are making the case that lower taxes always result in growth in the economy, I would listen with great interest and it would—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made this point—be an interesting conversion to supply-side economics. I do believe, however, that the strongest economic case can be made for lower tax rates as a whole, across a broader base, as opposed to targeting some sectors, unless there is a strong case that there is some kind of market failure. We have not yet heard such a case being expressed in a way that we find persuasive, and that is why we decided not to proceed with video games tax relief.
That is not to say that we do not wish to support British businesses—far from it; we do. It is vital that we have a strong private sector to drive the recovery, but we must support that growth in the right way. In the emergency Budget, the Government announced a major package of reforms to the business tax regime with the aim of creating the most competitive corporate tax system in the G20.
Mr Mark Field
The Minister has twice referred to the concept of market failure. Did not the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) make a compelling argument when he spoke about the very nature of this market? Perhaps we should be talking not about market failures but about the way in which the video games industry operates and the fact that its nature makes it susceptible to the kind of tax relief that we are looking for. The Minister is understandably, and rightly, sceptical about some of the figures being put out by TIGA, but a multiplier of nine seems pretty high. What level of multiplier would be so unacceptable as to allow this kind of relief to be put in place?
Mr Gauke
The TIGA analysis makes the assumption that everything achieved as a consequence of the relief would be additional to the economy. It does not appear to recognise that there would also be displacement, and that highly skilled graduates would not remain unemployed if they did not find work in the video games industry. We are therefore sceptical about the TIGA analysis. My hon. Friend makes his point well, however, and the nature and profile of the video games business clearly have some significance for his constituency, but we are as yet unconvinced of the necessity for the tax relief that was proposed by the previous Government, and that is proposed in the new clause.
The Government’s focus must be on providing a strong business environment for sectors across the board, including video games. Our reforms will reduce rates of corporation tax by four percentage points over the next four years, which means that the UK will continue to have the lowest main rate in the G7. This will improve our relative position significantly, compared with that of our competitors, after the years in which we have fallen behind. This will benefit companies across the economy, including those in the video games industry.
Stewart Hosie
My party welcomes the reduction in corporation tax; we believe that it is a good thing. However, some of the businesses that are creating video games are not big enough to pay corporation tax. Many of them are dependent on the annual allowances, but some of those have now gone, and one has been halved. So although I welcome the reduced corporation tax, the overall package will not necessarily help the start-up studios and small studios as they develop their games.
Mr Gauke
We have also reduced the small profits rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20%, when it was set to go up to 22%, and we have effectively reversed the jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions that would have hurt start-ups. We are also offering start-ups, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, a national insurance contributions holiday for the first 10 employees, so there were plenty of positive policies for start-ups announced at the time of the Budget. Indeed, given the state of the public finances, it was a very pro-business, pro-growth Budget in the way that it set up proposals for lower taxes.
On tax simplification, the Office of Tax Simplification earlier today announced the list of reliefs and exemptions within the tax system. When its work began in the summer, the general expectation was that there would be about 400 reliefs and exemptions; the total reached is 1,042 such reliefs and exemptions. Many play an important role within our tax system—I do not wish to decry that—but we have to think carefully about introducing new areas of complexity and new reliefs and exemptions, unless there is a strong case for doing so. Members have already made the case for video games, but the Government remain unconvinced.
Jim McGovern
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He talks about hearing what has been said in the Chamber, but as far as I am aware he has not yet met Richard Wilson of TIGA. Like everyone else who mentions the organisation, I originally referred to it as “teega” but Mr Wilson continually refers to it as “tiger”, and I assume that he knows better than I do. I believe the logo resembles a tiger, so there is a connection with the pronunciation there. Will the Minister agree to come to Dundee and I will arrange for Richard Wilson to be there? If figures are to be bandied about, with the Minister saying they are erroneous and Richard Wilson saying they are correct, it would be better if those two were in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for that invitation. I am sure it will be small comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but I will accept the pronunciation “tiger” and concede that point. I am not sure that it would be terribly helpful if we were all in the same room to discuss these particular numbers. As I say, we are not convinced by the case made on these numbers. Of course, Members with constituencies that have a concentration of video game companies will want to make that case, but it is right for the Government to look at the economy as a whole and to bring forward policies that benefit all parts of the country and all sectors, including the video game sector. As I said in the meetings I have had with the hon. Member for Dundee West, there is no sense in which the Government are in any way anti-video games or think it is an antisocial issue or anything like that. It is a question of economic efficiency and where we believe the role of Government can be best used—and that is in providing a favourable climate for businesses.
I appreciate that the new clause and new schedule proposed by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) are probing measures, but I would like to touch on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). This relief is targeted at a specific sector and it would be considered to be state aid; as such, it would require notification to and approval from the European Commission. The new clause and new schedule would be effective from Royal Assent. As the Government would not be able to secure approval in such a short period, the provisions would create an illegal state aid. As I said, I understand that the amending provisions are probing, but the same issue applies to the previous Government’s proposals—and they, too, would have required state aid approval, which is worth putting on the record.
The new clause would create unjustified distortion and complexity in the corporate tax system. We do not think that such an intervention would represent good value for money for the Exchequer or be conducive to providing a simple and competitive tax system. The UK needs a tax system that supports all businesses, because it is the private sector across the board that will drive the recovery. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause and new schedule.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of the Government’s response. If we take into account the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is clear that the Government are not in favour of the principle of this type of tax relief rather than the practicalities of the suggestions in the amending provisions. I am disappointed about that. I remind the Minister again of what the Under-Secretary said. When asked during the election campaign whether the Conservative party was in favour of a games development tax break, he answered:
“emphatically, 100 per cent in support for game tax breaks. No ifs, no buts.”
That does not appear to be the Government’s position today, which disappoints me.
Perhaps at this point I should declare that PricewaterhouseCoopers helped me to draw up the new clause. I shall register that in due course.
Mr Umunna
No doubt the Government will consider my hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion and comment accordingly.
One of the main problems with the new measure is that people fall off a cliff edge when they hit the higher rate. Have the Government considered introducing a taper mechanism to prevent that anomaly from occurring, because obviously that is where the unfairness shines through?
Mr Gauke
The new clause would link the future withdrawal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers with the principle of independent taxation. The payment of child benefit is clearly a spending issue and is not directly linked to the Bill. I therefore shall not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important to set out the background to the change.
The spending review set out how the Government will tackle the deficit that they inherited from the previous Administration. Given the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition—I congratulate him on becoming the recipient of another child benefit payment, and wish him and his family well—as well as by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and several other Labour Members today, I take it that the Labour party remains opposed in principle to our reform of child benefit and believes that it should continue to be paid to all households.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the Minister agree that this is a case of reforming in haste and repenting at leisure? However tempting it might be to put in place something that sounds simple in principle, the complexity of the proposal should have been examined. The Government could have acted differently, such as by making child benefit part of taxable income. I do not necessarily suggest that that would be the best solution, but it would mean that several issues around independent taxation would not apply. If the Government wish to reduce child benefit to some households, there are other ways of doing it.
Mr Gauke
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I am not clear about whether her party’s position is to say, “Something should be done, but we don’t like the way it’s being done,” which, I think, is the position that she sets out, or to say, “We don’t think anything should be done at all,” in which case we must include the £2.5 billion that the measure will save the Exchequer—that is an estimate from the Office for Budget Responsibility—as part of our assessment of the Opposition’s fiscal policies.
Mr Umunna
The Minister cites savings of £2.5 billion, but will he estimate the likely cost of administering the new policy, which will have an impact on those savings? John Whiting has said that the extra burden associated with administering the change in the way it is envisaged will make a fairly big dent in the expected savings.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but I will not give him a precise number because that is something that we continue to consider. The implementation of any policy clearly involves a cost, but I assure him that this cost will be small when compared with £2.5 billion. I am keen to ensure that the policy does not place an undue burden on HMRC. He made a fair point about HMRC. It faces a budget reduction, even though the Government are protecting it by ensuring that it has more resources to tackle evasion and avoidance, but we are keen to ensure that the burden of administering the policy will not cause it undue difficulty.
We have to take tough decisions and make tough choices, and this is one of the decisions that the Government have taken because we believe it is the right thing to do. We do not think it is fair to tax people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning much more. We cannot afford to continue providing financial support through child benefit to better-off households where there is a higher rate taxpayer. From January 2013, the Government will therefore withdraw child benefit from families that contain a higher rate taxpayer. Despite the noises from the Opposition, the British people understand that this is a tough, but fair, decision.
Geraint Davies
Can the Minister explain why the proposal to tax higher rate taxpayers in that way was made and announced before the comprehensive spending review? I put it to him that the reason for that was to warm up the audience and to make out that the comprehensive spending review would be fair and balanced, as opposed to the IFS’s conclusion that it hit the poor two and a half times as much as it hit the rich. Was not the timing of the announcement entirely cynical?
Mr Gauke
The policy underlines the fact that the Government are looking to address our deficit in a way that is fair, and to ensure that all parts of society play their part and those with the broadest shoulders make the biggest contribution. That is what we are doing. It is remarkable that it is Opposition Members who appear to be trying to prevent that happening, though I am not sure whether they object to the way in which it is being done or whether they intend to fight in the last ditch to defend the principle of universality as it applies to child benefit.
We wanted to avoid creating a complex new means test for household income. To do so would fundamentally change the nature of child benefit and come at a significant cost to the taxpayer. This policy has therefore been designed to avoid affecting the vast majority of the population—some 80%—who are basic rate taxpayers. It also avoids additional systems being developed, as the measure can be delivered within existing pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment systems.
Let me deal with the issue behind the new clause—the principle of independent taxation, which was introduced in the Finance Act 1988. It is a great pleasure to hear Opposition Members applauding the 1988 Budget. If I remember rightly, proceedings in this place at the time were interrupted as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was shouted down by some Opposition Members. Section 32 abolished the provision that a wife’s income was income of her husband for income tax purposes. That remains the case, and none of the proposed changes to child benefit alters it.
Child benefit is provided for a child within a family and it is therefore necessary to consider the family as a group. The policy merely withdraws child benefit from a family to whom it is difficult to justify paying it. Furthermore, the withdrawal of child benefit from families containing a higher rate taxpayer will not affect the personal allowance or rate band applicable to an individual. The changes apply a simple test to ensure that child benefit is not provided to those who need it the least.
Of course, the House will have the full opportunity to debate the changes to child benefit when they are legislated, ahead of implementation in January 2013. That would be a better time to discuss the various specific issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. Although I understand that Opposition Members may wish to draw a link between child benefit and independent taxation in order to have this debate today, it is clear that the two systems remain separate and independent.
Chris Leslie
I am trying to follow the Minister’s logic. Does HMRC envisage child benefit continuing to be paid to all mothers, but that higher rate taxpayers will have a sum equivalent to child benefit deducted from their income, on top of taxes?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman, who has been somewhat ingenious in tabling the new clause, again seeks to draw me into a wider debate about the implementation of child benefit. He sets out one way in which it could work; in other circumstances, claimants might seek to stop receiving child benefit. However, I must stress that, although he has been somewhat ingenious in raising the issue in the context of the Finance (No.2) Bill, the new clause has nothing to do with independent taxation, so I ask him to withdraw it.
Chris Leslie
I am astonished by the Minister’s blinkered approach in sticking to the robotic text, “This has absolutely nothing to do with independent taxation,” when it patently does. If a higher rate taxpayer is being asked to pay for income that their partner or spouse receives, that clearly breaches the principle of independent taxation. The hon. Gentleman would not be drawn into the mechanism by which the scheme would be set up, but, given the great fanfare with which the policy was announced at the Conservative party conference, I would have thought that by now the panic stations at the Treasury might surely have subsided, and that he would be able to share with the House exactly how the measure would work.
Chris Leslie
I will come to deferred tax in a moment, because the corporation tax questions require much greater scrutiny. That is one reason we tabled the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby, should we divide on this issue—unless the Treasury concede it—and that he agrees that we should have a review of the level of tax the banks are paying. If they are paying too much, which I doubt, I will be happy to look at the evidence and the facts. However, there is opacity about these questions, and given the hit falling on the shoulders of families and children in this country, it is incumbent on us to ask whether the banks will be paying their fair share. That is all we are asking this evening.
We think that the Government’s banking levy has been a limp effort so far. Given some of the corporation tax changes, there is a bit of a cashback arrangement for some of the banks. I would like to touch on three areas of corporation tax that I think require more serious and rigorous review. The first is that cashback boost for the banks resulting from the reduction in corporation tax rates announced in the Budget. The Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer that over the lifetime of the spending review the Treasury expects that the cut in corporation tax main rate from 28% to 27%, and eventually down to 24%, will return £1 billion to the banks—specifically to the banks:
“£0.1 billion in 2011-12, £0.2 billion in 2012-13, £0.3 billion in 2013-14 and £0.4 billion in 2014-15.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]
Mr Gauke
It is dangerous to intervene given that I do not have the answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in front of me, but my recollection is that the answer to that parliamentary question was in the context of financial services companies as a whole, including insurance firms, not specifically banks.
Chris Leslie
It might well be that in that written answer the Exchequer Secretary’s definition of “financial services” extends slightly beyond the banks. I am happy to concede that point. Of course, we framed the new clause in order to explore the tax burden not just on the banks but on financial services more widely. However, even the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that the banks will probably be the principal beneficiaries of the corporation tax cut that he is choosing to give them at a time when he is taking money from young, pregnant mothers—the health in pregnancy grant, to name one example of an incongruous decision that might be questioned by our constituents.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused about the written answer, so I want to clarify it for him, as I have a copy of it. The figures he gave relate to “financial sector” companies, so does he accept that he got his figures wrong when he said he was talking specifically about the banks?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady has several thousand civil servants—for the time being, at least, before they are made redundant—in the Treasury to help her with the costings for such questions. I can only go with the facts published in Hansard. Perhaps she could save me the trouble of tabling a further written question to find out what the bank cashback arrangement will be on corporation tax. I will give way to her if she has to hand the precise figures on what the UK banks will be gaining from the corporation tax cut. Can she tell us what those figures are? If not, I will table a written question. If she can swiftly answer that, it will be for the benefit of the House. I am pretty sure that it will be a net gain for the banks.
Mr Gauke
Let me deal with this directly. The Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures that we have look at hits by sector—in this case, the financial services sector, which includes not only banking but insurance and financial auxiliary services. The hon. Gentleman quoted his figures and suggested that they represent a net gain. In fact, by the time we get to 2014-15, the bank levy will be £2.4 billion. At the same time, the corporation tax cuts in 2014-15 will benefit the financial services sector by £0.4 billion. However we divide £0.4 billion, it is hard to see how it will ever be higher than £2.4 billion.
Chris Leslie
Were those the only two relevant factors, that might be the case, but of course they are not. There are other tax changes through which the banks will more than benefit from the arrangements. If the Exchequer Secretary had had the patience to wait, I would have elaborated on that. I will come to that quicker.
It is important that the Exchequer Secretary listens to those experts who have talked about the benefit to the banks from the corporation tax change. Lloyds Banking Group plc could gain more from a cut in corporation tax than it loses under the new banking levy, according to analysts at Redburn Partners legal practice. Lloyds, 41% of which is owned by the British Government, might see a 3% rise in its earnings per share in 2012 as corporation tax begins to fall to 24% from 28% over those four years, according to Redburn analyst, Jon Kirk. There will therefore be a net positive for Lloyds. That is one example of a net gain for the banks.
Secondly, the banks have already found a way of minimising their corporation tax liabilities. A report published only last week by the TUC on the corporation tax gap showed a gap between the headline rate of corporation tax paid and the actual or effective rate of corporation tax paid. The TUC’s analysis of data on UK corporate returns showed that the larger a company is, the better it tends to be at reducing its effective rate of corporation tax, which fell from 28% in 2000, when the headline rate was 30%, to about 23% in 2009, when the headline rate was 28%. On that basis, the TUC’s economists predict that by 2014, the largest companies will be paying corporation tax at a rate of no more than 17% on average, while small companies will still be paying corporation tax at 20% or more.
Justine Greening
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Labour party supports a financial transactions tax?
Chris Leslie
We want to review it. Does the hon. Lady? Is she interested in looking at the proposition, or is she ruling it out completely?
Justine Greening
I note that the hon. Gentleman failed to answer my question. I will respond to him broadly when I have heard the rest of the debate, and when I have a chance to respond to his new clause.
Chris Leslie
I thought it was a simple question. I thought the whole point of a debate was to exchange views. I am happy to review the financial transactions tax. It is an important proposition, and it deserves serious consideration. The Minister does not seem to know whether she is allowed to review it. Perhaps some inspiration has come down from on high. There is scurrying around, and I see that the Chancellor has been paging her officials. I am sure that inspiration will come to her shortly.
Will the Minister say whether there should be a change in tax policy to rectify some of the loopholes, such as those in corporation tax? Should there be a further review of, for example, the bank payroll tax? Should banks have their right to carry tax losses forward limited so that they expire after a specific time, or would that be detrimental? Clearly, the Government’s feeble attempt to recoup something from the banks through the banking levy alone is barely denting their balance sheets and is dwarfed by, for example, the deferred tax assets that the banks are wielding according to the report.
Ministers should concede that the whole matter needs clearing up urgently if they are to have any hope of preventing widespread public cynicism, discontent and anger. In short, as things stand, all we see from the Government is a puny banking levy, banks still using corporation tax loopholes at taxpayers’ expense, promises on bankers’ bonuses unfulfilled, promises on banks’ net lending targets more distant than ever, and inaction on reforms to the banking taxation system. The taxpayers of this country deserve better.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My right hon. and hon. Friends have asked a number of questions that deserve detailed answers. The new clause calls for a review of the total level of taxation on the banks and the financial services sector before the setting of the 2011 Budget, and at its heart is the simple question of accountability, transparency and openness. It must be made clear to the people of this country that the banks are paying their fair share. It was, after all, the banks that got us into this situation. At a time when this Government are taking so much away from honest, working people—particularly those with families—it is crucial to demonstrate that we are all in this together and that the banks are paying their fair share.
People are facing an increase in VAT, students are facing a trebling of tuition fees, the education maintenance allowance is being taken away, and child benefit is being capped, frozen and even taken away from many people. With all those massive cuts in public spending, it is crucial that we should know for certain that the banks are paying their fair share. That is all that the new clause endeavours to achieve. We want to make it clear that the banks are not continuing with their present bonus culture, and that they are making a fair contribution to the country. After all, it was the taxpayers who delved into their pockets to keep the banks afloat. This is a simple proposal, simply put, about openness, transparency and accountability, and I can see no good reason not to support it. It would give the people of this country great confidence in the Government if they were to accept this proposal tonight.
Justine Greening
The new clause relates to the taxation of the banking and financial services industry, and proposes that the Treasury publish a report before the 2011 Budget examining the level of taxation on those sectors. Before I discuss the new clause directly, I think it would be helpful to set out some of the background and context relating to the Government’s approach to taxation of the banking sector. The Chancellor set out clearly in the recent spending review the Government’s objective in taxing the banking industry. We inherited the largest peacetime deficit in UK history, and, during these difficult times it is only right that steps are taken to ensure that the banks pay a full and fair contribution.
I listened with interest to Opposition Members, who appear to have a very blinkered perspective of regulatory issues. They skimmed over their own Government’s part in the regulatory failures that led to the banking sector crisis. It is worth going back to some comments made by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I know he is now making speeches in the House again, but it might have been helpful if he had participated in this debate, given his own involvement in these matters. When opening Lehman Brothers’ new European headquarters in 2004, he said:
“I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain”.
He also said that Lehman Brothers
“has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential.”
The last Government clearly had a huge role to play in that the regulatory system they brought in during their term in power absolutely failed the British public.
Justine Greening
I will give way. I see that Labour Members have now perked up from when they were skimming over their past, as they were so clearly intent on doing. It is more difficult for them, is it not, to hear the failures of their Government being set out so clearly? Let us not forget that the last Prime Minister, back in 2007, described this as a golden age. He obviously felt that the regulatory system he had put in place was a great one, but that was subsequently proved not to be the case.
Mr Umunna
Does the Minister not accept that there was a move towards a light-touch regulatory model across the entire political system? I am well aware of this because I used to work in the industry myself, and I do not recall the Economic Secretary or any of her colleagues jumping up and down when the Financial Services and Markets Bill went through this House, complaining that it did not introduce stronger regulation. Secondly, did she, like me, hear the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, at the Treasury Committee this summer? He was asked whether, if the new regulatory model championed by the Minister had been adopted, the global financial crisis would have been averted—and he said no.
Justine Greening
If the hon. Gentleman checked the Hansard of our debates on the original tripartite regulatory system, he would see that we did raise concerns about the nature of that system. We were told that our warnings were wrong. It is not acceptable for Labour Members simply to wash their hands of the regulatory system that they now clearly feel absolutely failed.
In fact, we have to respond to the regulatory failures of the past by returning the role of supervising the banks to the body charged with the overall monitoring of the economy—the Bank of England. That is why we have also set up the Independent Commission on Banking to advise on the reforms necessary to ensure that we are better protected against another banking meltdown in the future.
Stewart Hosie
On that point, I entirely agree with the Minister. A fundamental part of this is the new capital requirements under Basel III—some 7% higher for at-risk banks. Does she not agree, however, that a review of bank taxation, along with the Bank commission and the new Basel III regulations, would be sensible to ensure that we have the balance in the round between taxation and capitalisation, risk and regulation, and supervision both at the UK level and with respect to this rather complicated European structure?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is right that the bank levy itself needs to be viewed in the context of overall policy. He is right that it is not just about the bank levy; we have to look at it in the light of the broader changes around regulatory reform and the work of the Independent Commission on Banking. I will shortly come on to explain what that means for new clause 3.
We know that we have to tackle the regulatory failures of the past. We also know that it is right that banks make a contribution in respect of the risks they pose to the UK economy, but there is no benefit in taking action that would simply drive banks abroad. As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) pointed out, hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK depend on Britain being competitive in this industry. For the financial services sector as a whole, as of June 2009, it had 1 million employees. The jobs are not just in London and the south-east, as there are nearly 100,000 people employed within the financial services industry in the north-west, while there are between 69,000 and 70,000 people employed by that industry in the east of England and about 90,000 in Scotland. Although there have been serious failures in the past, we also have to remember that many of the jobs that are part of this overall sector do not bring in high incomes, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
Chris Leslie
I am following the hon. Lady’s logic. She is saying that we do not want to do anything that would drive the banks away—that old chestnut again—but is she seriously saying that the proposal in the new clause to have a review of the level of taxation would be enough to frighten them all offshore? Is she really saying that?
Justine Greening
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is following my comments closely. I was setting out the context for the situation in which we find ourselves. I have pointed to serious regulatory failure, which needs to be sorted out, and the fact that we have inherited a huge fiscal deficit, which also needs to be sorted out. In that context, we should recall that the previous Government had said that they would not introduce a bank levy at the national level and that they wanted international agreement before any such levy were put into place. At that time, we argued that we should get on with that, as a Government, and not necessarily wait for international agreement. The Labour Government rejected that.
In our first Budget, we decided to introduce a permanent levy on banks, which we expect to generate about £2.5 billion of revenue each year. The levy reflects the potential risks that banks pose to the UK’s financial system and the wider economy, and it will ensure that banks make an appropriate contribution to deficit reduction that balances fairness with the competitiveness of the UK banking sector. It is also intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models that threaten the stability of the financial sector.
We were the first country in the G20 to take such action—the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) talked about leadership, and I think this is leadership—and we have been joined by France and Germany, which made announcements on bank levies in June. Germany’s plans for its bank levy have been before Parliament there, while France outlined the details of its bank levy at its budget in September. Hungary, Portugal and Austria have since also outlined plans to introduce bank levies, while Sweden has already introduced a levy. Our bank levy is a permanent one and a regular source of revenue—unlike the one-off bonus tax of the previous Administration.
Mr Umunna
What does the Minister say to the International Monetary Fund? I have already mentioned the IMF’s views on the level at which this levy should be imposed. Conservative Members are fond of quoting the IMF to us time and again, yet the IMF takes the view that at least £6 billion a year can be raised from this levy. Does she agree with the IMF and, if not, why does she think it is wrong?
Justine Greening
The IMF has expressed its own views around levels of taxation. In the broader international context, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned, there are questions about the introduction of a financial transaction tax and a financial activities tax. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s party, we were prepared to introduce a bank levy nationally, but there are also discussions taking place about international measures that might be taken.
In fact, over and above the bank levy, the Government are taking a tougher approach to tackling tax avoidance by the banks. Prior to the spending review, only four of the top 15 banks had adopted the previous Government’s code of practice. We have asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with banks to make sure they adopt and implement the code by the end of this month, thereby making the commitment to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law, and not to engage in or promote tax avoidance.
New clause 3 provides:
“The Treasury shall publish a report before the 2011 Budget examining the level of taxation on the banking and financial services industry.”
We have had some sort of rationale for it, but I have to say that I see little merit in making such a report in isolation. The report itself would be no substitute for the overall strategy for improved regulation and the complementary bank levy ensuring banks make a contribution in respect of the risk they pose to the financial system and wider economy. As set out in the spending review, the Government will continue to monitor tax receipts from the banking sector to ensure that banks make a fair and growing contribution to the public finances as the economy recovers.
In addition, there are, of course, already statistics available on the amount of tax revenue derived from the financial services sector. Historical figures for corporation tax receipts paid by several broadly defined business sectors are regularly updated and published on the HMRC national statistics website. To improve predictability, it is important that the Government provide clarity on the direction of tax policy, and the vehicle through which that is best delivered is the Budget itself. The new clause would require the Government to produce a superfluous report in advance of the Budget and therefore in advance of any announcements that the Chancellor might wish to make about tax policy generally that might impact on the banking and financial services industries.
The Opposition want a report on the banking industry. What the Government want, and what we have, is a strategy to ensure that the financial services sector pays its fair share. We have been clear about what we want to achieve, not only through the bank levy but through the code of practice, and by fixing the banks’ ineffective regulatory system—the system established by the last Government, who let our country down so badly. The new clause does nothing to support those aims, and I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East to withdraw it. If he is not willing to do so, an apology to the British people for the mess of a regulatory scheme that he left behind would not go amiss.
Chris Leslie
What cheek the Minister has to start claiming, in that revisionist way, that her party was always saying that it wanted heavier regulation of the banks in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the Labour party was always advocating the lightest of light touches.
The Minister has completely failed to address the substance of the new clause. We were not even arguing for a change of policy, although I think that we may deal with that on another occasion; we were simply asking for a review of the levels of tax paid by the banks. The Minister did not address that. Nor did she address the issue of bankability. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) rightly distinguished between lower-paid employees in the banking sector and the high-rolling, highly paid bonus recipients who are in a league of their own.
The Government have taken no action on banker bonuses, despite all their rhetoric. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out, although the Government had claimed earlier that they wanted to see the banks paying their fair share, they were quite happy to set the banking levy at a puny level. It was interesting to note that the Minister body-swerved the point about the IMF’s suggestion that the levy should be higher, and I think that we should examine that methodology on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) rightly observed that new clause 3 simply seeks transparency and accountability, which must be an important part of proving that we are genuinely all in it together, as the Government like to claim. The Government are going to hit the public generally, cutting services, abolishing education maintenance allowances, taxing child benefit and raising VAT; yet they are unable to do anything about the banks.
We accept that the Independent Commission on Banking is investigating the matter and that regulatory reform is needed, but why can we not have a review of the level of taxes? That is all that we are asking for. What are the Government scared of? They have not given us an answer, and I think that we should divide the House.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 takes us into completely different territory from that of the previous debate, and it picks up on a discussion we had in Committee about the legal definition of incapacitated persons. Committee members were concerned by the outdated nature of some of our tax law, under which antiquated terminology can often still find its way into our tax regime through extracts from statutes simply being cut and pasted into today’s legislation.
One such anomaly concerns a definition in the Taxes Management Act 1970, which I am told is still very much a cornerstone of our tax law. It defines an “incapacitated person” as
“any infant, person of unsound mind, lunatic, idiot or insane person”.
Those terms of reference are clearly insulting and demeaning to people who would be regarded as incapacitated. Not only is it out of date for those terms of reference to be extant in our legislation, but it is hurtful to those individuals who may suffer from incapacitation to be categorised and described in such derogatory terms. That definition derives from the 19th-century lunacy Acts and today appears grotesquely at odds with modern terminology, and this insulting state of affairs ought to have been reformed many years ago. That definition relates to section 72 of the 1970 Act, which says that an incapacitated person’s tax liabilities should apply to their
“trustee, guardian, tutor, curator or committee”
as if to a non-incapacitated person.
In Committee, we pressed Ministers to concede this small and surely non-controversial reform. We did not feel that it was a matter of party politicking; after all, it should not be a dividing line between the parties. The new clause is simply and straightforwardly about replacing and modernising the definition of an “incapacitated person” and aligning it with the meaning in the more modern and more appropriate Mental Capacity Act 2005, whose far more flexible and sophisticated definition is less hurtful in tone and more precise in its interpretation. It states:
“For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”
That is a far more appropriate definition.
By updating the definition, we would also update provisions to encompass new arrangements relating to trusteeships. For example, the new arrangements would also modernise those of donees of powers of attorney, who would be properly included in the legal definitions, as well as those of Department for Work and Pensions appointees. I should like to thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group—LITRG—for highlighting the issue consistently. It has been championing this minor technical change in the law for at least seven years and has been promised on numerous occasions that, “A tax law rewrite is just around the corner”, “More time is needed for consultation” and so on. I gather that it has been having discussions with officials, following our discussion in Committee. Although LITRG may have cause to trust the Minister’s officials, I believe that time is running out for this change to be made. When the Minister was unable to concede on this point in Committee, I said that we would try to have this debate on the Floor of the House because of the importance and urgency of making this reform.
It is a pity that the Minister has not tabled a Government new clause on Report, but I shall wait to hear what he has to say. We did try to reflect on the points that he raised in Committee. The provision that we had tabled then did not refer specifically to children and we have rectified that by making the appropriate change for the Report stage. As far as I can see, this new clause has no revenue implications and there is no clear reason for any Member to dispute the need to modernise this terminology. There is clear evidence that people are hurt and insulted by the terminology from a bygone age. It therefore seemed sensible to put this point again on Report, and I urge the Minister to accept the new clause.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, new clause 5 seeks to change the definition in the Taxes Management Act 1970 of an “incapacitated person”. I appreciate that the purpose of the new clause is not to change the scope of the definition, but to ensure that it better reflects the modern understanding of an “incapacitated person”. Members of the Committee will recall that we debated a similar proposal at the end of the Committee stage. As I explained then, a definition is required to ensure that the obligations of the 1970 Act properly fall to those acting for children or for those with mental health problems. The existing definition can be traced back to at least 1880, and I reiterate that I agree that the wording used, such as “lunatic” or “idiot”, no longer feels appropriate, belonging as it does to the Victorian age, rather than to today’s times.
Sheila Gilmore
Earlier today I made the point, on another matter, that it may be unwise to reform in haste and repent at leisure. I am very pleased that the Minister has now decided to agree with me.
Mr Gauke
I am delighted if that is how the hon. Lady interprets my remarks, and if that pleases her, it pleases me.
In June, we produced our paper on the making of tax policy and we believe that it is very important to adopt a deliberative and consultative approach and, wherever possible, to consult thoroughly. We wish to avoid the experience of making reactive and piecemeal policy announcements that have been insufficiently thought through and result in unexpected consequences—we saw too much of that under the previous Government. Instead, we believe that appropriate consideration should be given to changes, thus providing an opportunity for those affected to comment and have certainty about our decisions. Any change on this matter should go through that process to ensure that we can come to this House with legislation that will work as intended.
Let me be clear that I agree that the wording in the current definition is outdated and that I am committed to delivering change. As I have said, my officials have already started to work with LITRG and will work with other groups that have the expertise to ensure that we get this right. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has alluded to the fact that LITRG is happy to work with Treasury officials and accepts the need to get this right. I believe that it will be possible to deliver change to the definition in the next couple of years along the timetable that LITRG accepts.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause to a vote, but I hope that he will engage with us on how to make the change behind the clause that we both agree is necessary. I am grateful to him for raising the issue in Committee and today. I agree that this should not be a matter of party political dividing lines and we will seek to address it. It has been of long-standing concern, but the Government are determined to address it, so I ask him to withdraw the clause.
Chris Leslie
I am impressed that the Minister has taken the time to encourage his officials to meet LITRG. I am pleased that he agrees about the outdated nature of some of these archaic terms: “idiot”, “lunatic”, “insane” and so on should not be part of our modern legislative lexicon. I am interested that yet again he manages to find a flaw in the drafting. It is almost like one of those circular nightmares: no matter what point any Opposition party makes to any Government, there is always a desire to resist by pointing out drafting and terminological problems. I think that the Minister accepts the spirit in which we have been trying to raise this issue.
I agree entirely that it is important to take whatever time is necessary to frame the definitions correctly in law, but we are not talking about designing a whole new regulatory regime for financial services or some convoluted way of taxing child benefit. We are simply talking about a minor change to modernise the terminology in tax law. I am still slightly sceptical about the argument that we need to take another couple of years to do so.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move amendment 1, in page 7, line 40, leave out clause 4.
In Committee, we discussed the implications of clause 4, which I am happy to discuss again. It seeks to extend to seafarers resident in the European economic area the same 100% deduction from income tax of their earnings from employment as a seafarer wholly or partly outside the UK during an eligible period. I know that this is something about which many Members of the House will be very concerned.
At present the tax relief is available only to those seafarers who are ordinarily resident in the UK, but there are clearly seafarers resident in other EEA states yet not ordinarily resident in the UK who might also warrant the seafarers’ earnings deduction. The measure is listed in the Budget Red Book as costing the Exchequer £5 million annually and we debated the technical details of the clause, such as the navigation of waters beyond the UK continental shelf, how long would be spent away from the UK and how many seafarers are involved in the concession. The Minister said that it was in the order of 16,000.
The Minister also helpfully explained that the clause was brought forward as a result of the European Commission’s decision to challenge the compatibility of seafarers’ earnings deductions with the UK’s treaty obligations and to comply with our EU and EEA associations. It is welcome that the Conservative party is rushing to legislate to comply with these European arrangements. I know that some hon. Members—including the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite—will be more pro-European than others, but he seems to be persuading the Conservative party towards the pro-European stance. It is interesting that there is no dissent from that interpretation.
In Committee I raised in particular a specific and contemporary issue that has been a subject of some controversy: the impact on the mackerel fishing dispute between UK and Icelandic fishermen. The clause is highly relevant and might have a significant bearing on that dispute, because if enacted it would grant to the Icelandic fishermen—and the Norwegians for that matter—a set of tax relief arrangements that would be very useful to them. I asked the Minister a series of questions on that, but he merely asserted in his indomitable way that the clause was “not relevant” to those discussions. So, I want to try again.
Will the Minister say what discussions have taken place between the Government and the Governments of Norway and Iceland in the drafting of the provisions and in what respect they will be reciprocated for UK-resident seafarers in those countries? Has the Minister spoken with his counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive—I know that some hon. Members will be interested to learn about that—and the FCO regarding the impact that the change might have on the sensitive negotiations between the EU, Norway and Iceland over the mackerel quota? I gather that the practice of the Icelandic fishing community unilaterally to declare a larger catch quota for valuable fish, risking the sustainability of fish stocks and disrupting previously settled agreements, has caused consternation in some quarters. Is it therefore appropriate for the Treasury to grant this tax concession to Icelandic fishermen while there is such great sensitivity?
On Friday, I understand that the Icelandic ambassador to the UK, Benedikt Jonsson, met the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and others to discuss the mackerel dispute at a meeting in Aberdeen organised by the Icelandic consulate. I gather that “frank views”, as they are often called, were exchanged about what constitutes responsible management of that mackerel quota. Iceland continues to assert its right to catch a significantly increased quota this year outside the bounds of the international agreements. What are the UK Government doing to bring the dispute to a sensible conclusion? Would it not be wise to pause on the gifting of the seafarers’ earnings deduction to the Icelandic fishing community until such time that the question over the fair fishing of mackerel stocks is resolved?
Other issues might be relevant, too. Are we, for instance, still confident that the relationships between the UK and Iceland are ensuring that our fiscal position is protected? For example, the UK ought to be getting money back from the collapse of Icesave and other Icelandic banks, but there have been recent suggestions, particularly resulting from protests in Iceland, that there might be some delay in repaying foreign creditors with the priority that is deserved. Is it sensible to be offering tax concessions to Iceland when such negotiations are going on? I understand that there are also some question marks over whether the EEA treaty arrangements necessarily require such a tax concession to be ceded to the Icelanders.
I have asked a number of questions and I wonder whether the Minister can address them. They are not necessarily at the top of people’s minds in every constituency in this country, but there are some corners of the country where this is a big issue. I would be grateful for the Minister’s attention to it.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 4 on the seafarers’ earnings deduction from the Bill. Doing so would prevent the extension of seafarers’ earnings deductions to EEA resident seafarers. By way of background, it is worth pointing out that in November 2008 the European Commission sent a pre-infraction letter on this matter. The Commission stated that the rules for seafarers’ earnings deductions are incompatible with the EU rules because the deduction is available only to seafarers who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. After due consideration of the Commission’s letter, the previous Government decided to respond by enacting a change in the law. Consequently, last year they said that they would legislate to extend the rules for this deduction, enabling European economic area resident seafarers from outside the UK to claim. The previous Government committed to implementing the change from April 2011.
Mr Gauke
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We find ourselves in the unusual situation of having considered three Finance Bills this year. The first, as usual, was introduced following the May Budget, but was curtailed by the election. The second allowed this Government to enact measures that were deemed necessary to address the financial mess that was left to us. This third Bill has allowed this Government to take forward those technical and uncontroversial measures set out by the previous Administration. The nature and timing of this third Bill are a product of both the economic position and our commitment to improving future Finance Bills.
The enormity of the challenges facing Britain was one of the catalysts for a brief, focused Finance Bill in the summer. As my right Hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, private sector-led growth is at the centre of the changes that this Government need to make to avoid the mistakes of the previous Government. The first part of providing that must be macro-economic stability, which is why it was necessary to enact in the summer those policies that would quickly tackle Labour’s deficit. Doing so restored the confidence in the economy of both the financial markets and the British people. Stable public finances are the only way in which to prevent higher interest rates, rising inflation and more taxes.
Alongside such policies was the need to show that Britain is, once again, open for business. We have taken such steps and committed ourselves to more. In so doing, we have been opposed by Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly on our measures for growth. I am sure that many hon. Members will remember the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) invoking Lord Kitchener on Second Reading. I am more drawn to the words of Churchill, who contended that a people taxing themselves into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself by the handle. That is why we are reducing the rates of corporation tax for large and small companies and removing nearly 1 million people from tax, and why we did not go ahead with Labour’s jobs tax.
It was because of the need to take such steps in the summer that a short, focused Bill was required, which meant that an additional Bill was needed in the autumn. However, this Bill has also been an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate how we will improve tax policy making. On 12 July, the clauses in the Bill were published in draft for consultation. More than 60 comments were received and resulted in changes to nine clauses. The publication of the clauses in draft followed the commitments set out in the June Budget. The changes will ensure greater predictability, fewer changes and better consultation. We have already made a good start on the first of those. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the date of the Budget, four and a half months ahead of time. This evening, I can confirm that we will be publishing the majority of the clauses for the Finance Bill 2011 later this year. We will set out the draft clauses on 9 December.
I have discussed the foundations of the Bill and the process that we will undertake for future Bills, but we should not forget the important measures before us. Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 16 will provide for fairer tax treatment for carers. Clauses 5 and 6 will assure the future of venture capital schemes, which have supported more than £10 billion of investment. The support to real estate investment trusts under clause 10 will allow them to meet their regulatory requirements more easily. The changes in clauses 19 to 22 ensure EU compliance on several technical but necessary issues. I shall not press this point, but I remind hon. Members of the important action that we are taking against long cigarettes and the tax avoidance connected with them.
The Bill is a result of necessary action that was taken earlier in the year and of the greater scrutiny and consultation to which all future Bills will be subjected. Although it is not packed with headline measures, it will help many groups. It assists businesses and individuals, supports investment and benefits those in need. The Bill will make a real difference in the real world and I commend it to the House.