20:15 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephen Timms
I think it would still be difficult, complex and cumbersome. A judgment will have to be made about whether it is the right thing to do—effectively, the benefit of reducing avoidance would have to be worth the additional complexity. I am sure that this debate is still to come.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Before responding to amendment 11, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for making his maiden speech earlier. He is rightly proud to represent that fine constituency, and I am sure that his constituency will be rightly proud of him. I hope he represents his constituency for many years to come. I will deal with the issues he raised about capital gains tax—as already noted, he shows great independence of mind on this point—when I respond to a later grouping of amendments.
I am very pleased to see the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) back at the Dispatch Box. It is good to see him returned here and I hope he is returning to good health. He is certainly a formidable person to face on the other side of the Dispatch Box, as he has great expertise and experience in this particular subject. He was a highly popular and effective Minister, performing the same role as I now perform. His are big shoes to fill and I am sure that there will be plenty of disagreements in the months ahead, but it is none the less a great pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman back, well and in good form.
Amendment 11 seeks the publication of a report assessing corporation tax avoidance and evasion and setting out measures to ensure the payment of tax before the reduction in the main rate of corporation tax can be applied. The Government are committed to a competitive corporation tax rate, which will show that the UK is open for business and encourage growth. The amendment is narrowly focused on the role of evasion and avoidance, so I shall explain later and in more detail our reasons for the more general changes proposed.
Terminology was a large part of the debate on the matter. As we have heard, tax evasion occurs when someone acts against the law. Tax avoidance involves compliance with the letter but not the spirit of the law, and it is right that the Government seek to minimise that. Tax planning is a case of acting in both the spirit and the letter of the law. There is a distinction, although there will be occasions when the line is a little blurred.
The Government are committed to tackling robustly avoidance and evasion, which undermine the effectiveness of the tax system, distort competition and increase the burden of taxation on those who do comply with the spirit and letter of the law. The emergency Budget clearly sets out the Government’s strategic approach to reducing tax avoidance and evasion. As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, some matters relate to how we make tax law, and to ensuring that tax law has as much clarity as possible. At the time of the Budget, we produced a well-received publication setting out a more deliberative and consultative way to make tax law.
There is also a strong case for a more simplified tax code. Too many allowances and reliefs and too much complication within the tax system provide opportunity for tax avoidance, which we seek to address. We will address long-standing avoidance risks, and I have announced an informal consultation on the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule. I appreciate that there are arguments on both sides, some of which we heard from the right hon. Member for East Ham. We will ensure that we make changes in the law in a way that prevents increasing complexity and reduces the need for frequent legislative revisions. We will also ensure that we build in sustainable defences against avoidance opportunities when undertaking policy reform. The Government have already closed specific loopholes to prevent the avoidance of corporation tax, and clauses 8 and 9 protect about £200 million of tax revenues per year.
The Government fully support the type of transparency for which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) calls in his amendment. As others have pointed out, that form of transparency already exists. The right hon. Member for East Ham pointed out that HMRC has published an assessment of corporation tax avoidance and evasion, although it deals with not just corporation tax but tax across the board. In December 2009, HMRC published the document, “Measuring Tax Gaps 2009”, which estimated the overall tax gaps across HMRC’s regimes for the first time. Alongside that statistical release, HMRC also published estimates of the tax gap by behaviour, including avoidance and evasion, as well as the actions being taken to reduce the gap. As we have heard, HMRC’s estimate for the tax gap as a whole is £40 billion, and the definition includes evasion and avoidance, debt and legal interpretation—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) pointed out, there are sometimes disputes between two parties, both acting in good faith.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend reinforces my point: avoidance covers a variety of different things. In this case, it seems to cover conduct that a Government are trying to encourage, as well as conduct that a Government are trying to repress or stop. That is why the House needs a little more humility instead of rushing into saying, “There’s all this tax being avoided.” Some of it is being avoided for reasons that the previous Government approved of.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who brings me to my next point.
The Government see the distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning, but those lines can be blurred, and sometimes use of the terminology is not as accurate as it might be. For example, I quote the “Missing Billions” report, produced for the TUC, which, after setting out a series of numbers leading towards the estimate for corporation tax avoidance, states:
“Much may be due to legitimate tax planning, but by no means all is. Some, undoubtedly, is due to tax avoidance.”
That seems to me to suggest a slight blurring of the lines. Again, I am sure that I will be corrected in Mr Murphy’s blog if I am wrong, but there does appear to be some confusion.
I am not suggesting that tax avoidance and tax evasion do not matter. The £40 billion figure is significant. However, it is also true that we cannot pretend that if we just address this problem, the deficit will go away. Although it is always tempting for a new Minister in a new Government to attack everything that happened before, I must point out—not purely out of fondness for my predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Ham—that, in international terms, £40 billion is not too bad as a percentage of tax revenue raised.
HMRC does not do particularly badly. Indeed, it tends to lead the field in this respect. Nor has it deteriorated during a period in which it has incurred substantial job losses, as a number of Members have pointed out. I believe that it employed 97,000 people in 2005, and the most recent figure is 69,000. It is a question of deploying resources as effectively and efficiently as possible.
None the less, to the extent that it is possible to go further in reducing evasion and avoidance, the Government are keen to do so, and I have set out some of the ways in which we intend to do so. I can tell the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that we already assess the amount of tax lost through avoidance and evasion, and that we are committed to reduce those losses as much as possible. We will also continue to publish the tax gap figures as frequently as possible, to provide a focus for HMRC and to ensure that our debate is well informed.
I hope that what I have said gives some reassurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Let me also remind the shadow Minister that HMRC introduced a banking code of practice in 2009, and HMRC’s annual report will provide anonymised statistics on the number of banks that have adopted it. We believe that the code encourages banks not to enter into, or be party to, avoidance arrangements, but we will of course continue to monitor and review its operation.
John McDonnell
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that information on the tax gap will continue to be published, but my amendment also deals with when it will be published, and asks for further information to be given on the measures that will be taken to tackle the problem.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman’s points have been noted. Today’s debate is the second on this matter in which I have taken part in my present post—the first was in Westminster Hall—and I am well aware that it is of considerable concern to Members on both sides of the House. It has also featured heavily in Treasury questions, which will take place again tomorrow. Who knows? There may be a question on this very subject then.
The hon. Gentleman is right to hold Ministers and HMRC to account in regard to how we seek to reduce the tax gap. The Government are taking the matter seriously, and, in the spirit of transparency in which we operate, we will provide as much information as we can so that our debate is as well informed as possible. In the light of that assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it.
John McDonnell
I think that the debate has been helpful to Members on both sides of the Committee. An attempt has been made to get out of the trenches, and to engage in a wide-ranging discussion of how we can proceed in a pragmatic way. I believe that this will become one of the key issues that people will expect us to address as the economic crisis continues. If they see public expenditure cut so that their local schools are not refurbished, and if they see a tax on welfare benefits, they will expect us at least to maximise the revenue from the tax that people and organisations should be paying. Justice and fairness in the taxation system will become critically important to more and more people.
Some of the arguments that we have heard today have been very helpful, and at times they have been entertaining. I am fascinated by the concept that reducing taxation reduces evasion and avoidance: that is almost an argument for no taxation at all, although it may not gain much purchase in the House. We all accept the arguments about simplicity, but the problem with simplicity is that it makes loopholes possible, and we then need complexity to tackle the loopholes. It is a circular problem. However, it is a joint venture for us to try to ensure that the legislation that we draft is appropriately simple.
Matthew Hancock
I shall keep this contribution extremely brief, given the hour. I was surprised by some of the arguments made by Opposition Members. I am not all that surprised that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the shadow Minister, does not support amendment 21, which was moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), not least because before the election he said we would need any bank levy to be globally agreed. Indeed, the current shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said:
“Countries can’t go it alone. It is very important that we do this internationally”.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats campaigned during the election for a unilateral bank levy, no matter what happened in the rest of the world, so it is not surprising that we do not listen to Opposition Members who argue that they are now in favour of one. They have performed a U-turn in an extremely short time.
Another point I want to make is that the shadow Minister said that his party’s policy is that corporation tax should be the lowest in the G7, but Italy’s corporation tax is now 27.5% and Canada’s is set to be reduced to 27.2%, which means that Labour’s policy is to reduce corporation tax, including on the banks, as he just confirmed, without the bank levy. A bank levy would more than offset the corporation tax reductions, so Labour Members are in all sorts of a tumble on this.
Everybody will note the difference between the Government, who argued before the election that we needed a unilateral bank levy and who are delivering it within seven weeks, and Labour Members, who argued that we should not have a bank levy, before performing a U-turn within 10 weeks.
Mr Gauke
Amendments 21, 34 and 50 relate to the impact of the corporation tax cuts on the banking sector. Amendment 21 would leave the
“main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2011…at 28%”
for
“banking institutions”, disapplying the 1% decrease, and amendments 34 and 50 ask for an assessment of the impact of the rate reduction on banks.
The proposals are helpful. Understandably, there is a frustration with the banking sector and a desire that it pay a fair share. The Government share that belief. We think that banks should make a fair contribution in respect of the risk that they pose for the UK financial system, which we have seen in the past few years. That is exactly why we announced in the Budget the introduction of a bank levy from 1 January 2011. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will announce a public consultation with a view to implementing the levy on that date, and the measure will be included in next year’s Finance Bill.
The levy is a surgical approach, intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles, and a contribution reflective of economic risk. A tax based simply on profits, such as corporation tax, is not related to risk and will not create the behavioural effect that we believe the banking levy will achieve.
The overall impact on banks of the proposed reduction in corporation tax depends on a number of factors, and I will provide some details in a moment. None the less, I should like to put it on record that it is entirely right that hon. Members ask such questions. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a thoughtful and probing speech, and I was also interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). However, I wondered, given his concern about the impact on the banking sector, precisely which angle he was coming from. Those who remember the debate prior to the general election will recall, for example, the remarks of the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) who, in an interview on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 21 March, argued against proposals for a unilateral bank levy, saying that he thought it could work only if there were international agreement, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) said.
Of the Conservatives’ policy of introducing a unilateral bank levy, which was also a policy of the Liberal Democrats, the then Chancellor said that we were taking a hell of a risk, given that the banking industry employs more than 1 million people in this country. He seemed to be somewhat concerned that we were going to far and too hard. I do not know whether the shadow Minister is worried because the proposals are too tough on the banks, or because they are not tough enough.
Chris Leslie
I thank the Minister at least for that recognition, but I wonder whether he could take some time to justify the fact that the proposed banking levy is so low in relation to, for example, the American arrangement. Does he understand the incredulity and frustration that banks should be given this cashback bonus in the form of the corporation tax cut at this particular time? I want to hear him justify that.
Mr Gauke
Let me turn to the heart of this matter, because we have had quite a lengthy debate on it. We have heard concerns that the corporation tax would cancel out the effect of the bank levy or offset it, and that there would be a cashback bonus, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase. The shadow Minister asked whether the banking levy will “far outweigh” the benefit to banks of the cut in corporation tax. Perhaps the easiest thing I can do in response—there is much more one could say about corporation tax, and I will in future debates—is to refer to my answer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who asked the
“Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from the financial services sector to be foregone by the Exchequer as a result of the proposed reduction in corporation tax in each financial year to 2015-16.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]
We have the numbers only until 2014-15, and I should point out that the financial services sector is somewhat broader than just banks. It includes insurance, pension funds and auxiliary financial services, so the numbers refer to the corporation tax cost not only for banks, but for other financial services. However, I will compare those with the bank levy yield. For 2011-12, the corporation tax costs will be £0.1 billion, whereas the bank levy yield will be £1.15 billion; for 2012-13, corporation tax costs will be £0.2 billion, compared with a bank levy yield of £2.32 billion; for 2013-14, corporation tax costs will be £0.3 billion, compared with a £2.5 billion additional yield from the bank levy; and for 2014-15, the corporation tax costs will be £0.4 billion, compared with a bank levy yield of £2.4 billion. Even in this last year, where the differential is at its narrowest, we can see that it has not been cancelled out or offset. There is no cashback, and the banks are not quids in as a consequence.
The test that the shadow Minister gave was whether the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefit of the corporation tax change, and the answer is clearly yes. Given that the proposal for a differential corporation tax rate in amendment No. 21 is not supported by the Front Benchers of the party to which the hon. for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) belongs, I urge him to withdraw it.
Chris Leslie
The Minister is saying that £400 million is a small amount to be given in cashback to the banks in this corporation tax giveaway, but that sum could offset the necessity to scrap the health in pregnancy grant. It could offset the need to reduce the maternity allowance to just the first child. Those are important for users of public services, and he surely understands that.
Mr Gauke
Our aim was to rebalance the tax system. We are requiring the banking sector to pay at least £2 billion more in tax as a consequence of these proposals. That is not a minor matter. Other sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but the banks will not benefit because we are introducing the bank levy. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 21, given that his Front Benchers recognise the difficulties of a separate corporation tax rate for banks. I believe that I have satisfied the tests set out by the right hon. Member for East Ham, because the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefits of the corporation tax for banks.
I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Benton)
Order. The background noise is a little high. Will Members please keep it down?
Mr Gauke
Beginning tomorrow, we will consult on the bank levy. The intention is to find a means of discouraging risk, and that is why the targeted approach of the bank levy is appropriate. It will raise additional revenue, and it is right to do so. We think that we have the balance right in raising additional revenue while enabling banks to lend more, and we are also taking steps to encourage that further.
In conclusion, I think that I have satisfied the concerns underlying the amendments and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Chris Leslie
Having heard what the Minister had to say, I am not convinced that he makes a case for giving away £400 million to the banks, especially as Members on the other side of the House constantly ask us where the money would come from and how we would reduce the deficit. That sum would offset the need to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. It would offset the need to reduce to the CPI the indexation of housing benefit. It would offset the need to scrap the maternity allowance for second children, and so on. I hope that my hon. Friends will remember the £400 million giveaway to the banks in this corporation tax reduction.
I recognise that the consensus in the debate is that it is important to test the right amendment this evening. I therefore wish to withdraw my amendment, but I hope that one of the amendments that would require the Treasury to justify and assess the impact of the corporation tax change on the banks will be tested. That is the least we should be doing.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 34, in page 1, line 6, at end add—
‘(2) Prior to this rate taking effect, the Chancellor will place in the Library of the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of this clause on the banking sector.’.—(Stephen Timms.)
Stephen Timms
I beg to move amendment 49, page 1, line 6, at end add—
‘(2) In section 2(2)(a) of the Finance Act 2010, after “companies”, add “not meeting the condition in (c) below”.
(3) At the end of section 2 of the Finance Act 2010 add—
“(c) 26 per cent. on profits of companies whose taxable profits will be increased by more than 1 per cent. as a result of changes in investment allowances.”.’.
It is a puzzling feature of the Budget that, on the one hand, the Chancellor is gambling on a big increase in investment, and basing his Budget arithmetic on the belief that investment will grow in each of the next three years at a rate that has been achieved in only one year in the last 40. That is an heroic assumption about investment growth, and if it proves to be untrue, the Budget gamble will fail. At the same time as banking on that huge increase in investment, he has announced that he will drastically cut the incentives for investment. The rates of capital allowances will be reduced from 20% to 18%, and the annual investment allowance will be cut by three quarters, from £100,000 to just £25,000. It is hard to see how the forecast growth in investment can be reconciled with such a big cut in investment allowances. The Budget was billed as Britain being open for business, yet it will clearly reduce the prospects for growth, as the Office for Business Responsibility confirmed in its two projections, before and after the Budget. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund, in its projections last week, also downgraded its growth forecast for the UK economy as a result of the Budget.
We have here a collision of conflicting objectives, which we highlight in the amendment. We propose a lower rate of corporation tax for companies that lose out from the reduction of allowances above a certain threshold. The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out before the election that the losers as a result of the Conservatives’ approach would be those making big investments and earning modest profits, notably
“in the manufacturing and transport sectors”,
and that the gainers would typically be in the financial sector.
We do not yet know what the legislation on allowances will say. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the change in the rate of capital allowances and the lower annual investment allowance would not take effect until 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the coalition Government are planning no reduction at all in investment allowances in the current financial year? Will the changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget be in the Finance Bill later this year or will they be delayed until next year’s Finance Bill? I hope that the Minister will also comment on the principles underlying our amendment. How can it make sense to reduce so drastically the incentives for investment in a period in which the Budget depends so heavily on an unprecedentedly large and sustained increase in investment?
Mr Gauke
As I have already explained, the Chancellor or the Exchequer set out a business tax package in the Budget that included rate cuts and reductions in allowances that are good for business and growth overall. Amendment 49 proposes that clause 1 be amended to reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 26% for those companies whose tax bill will increase by more than 1% as a result of the reduction in investment allowances. That is a somewhat complex mechanism, but it provides an opportunity to raise the matter of capital allowances.
As part of a package to improve the UK’s competitiveness, it was announced that from April 2012 there would be reductions in the rates of writing-down allowances for plant and machinery and a reduction in the annual investment allowance. The Government will reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 26% that year—2012—and by that reduction, alongside changes to allowances, we will achieve the results that the amendment seeks. Furthermore, by not implementing the changes to allowances for two years, but reducing corporation tax rates next year, we are giving companies a full year to benefit from the reductions in rates, alongside current levels of allowances. Further reductions in the main rate of corporation tax follow in later years and capital allowances remain broadly in line with average rates of economic depreciation. To answer the shadow Minister’s questions, no changes are made to the so-called investment allowances in this Finance Bill and none is planned for the next financial year.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Why does the Minister believe that, if the Budget begins to work and we see businesses begin to pull the country out of recession, that is the right time for the Government to take away the incentive for further investment in business growth? That seems paradoxical to us all and to damage the very prospects of the recovery that he claims he wants to aid.
Mr Gauke
As I said a moment ago, the changes to capital allowances will take effect from 2012, and we believe that there is a substantial benefit for the UK economy in reducing the corporation tax rate. Indeed, it is a direction of travel that our predecessors followed when they reduced the rate from 30% to 28%, but we do not think that that went far enough. The point was raised in earlier debates that the UK has lost its competitive advantage in having a relatively low rate of corporation tax, as a number of other countries have cut their corporation tax rates much further than we have over the last 13 years. We believe that the lower rate sends a very clear signal that Britain is open for business and it is a demonstration of the direction of travel in which we are going. Assessment of the impact of Budget measures on investment over the next few years suggests an increase in investment of £13 billion.
The Budget thus provides a set of proposals and a set of reforms to corporation tax that will encourage further investment. As I say, it is a sign that Britain is open for business and a sign to investors and businesses throughout the world that the UK is a good place in which to do business. We believe that the package as a whole is well balanced and that it will aid a private sector recovery, partly funded through reforms to capital allowances and partly through the bank levy, as we debated earlier. Legislation is not required for the changes in capital allowances in this Finance Bill or indeed in next year’s, but we have set out a clear sense of direction that has been welcomed by business groups as a whole. We therefore urge the shadow Minister not to press the rather complicated amendment 49. It will not make any difference, because we will legislate to this effect in any event—without the complicated mechanism in the amendment. I urge him to withdraw it.
Stephen Timms
I am disappointed by that response. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) did not get an answer to the telling point that he put to the Minister. There is a real issue about how this large increase in investment is supposed to be achieved at exactly the time that incentives for investment are being reduced. Nevertheless, I shall not press the amendment to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Leslie
I do not agree that the private sector is crowded out in that way. I do not think that there is quite the evidence to suggest that. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, had he been in government during the crisis that the credit crunch provoked, would have done anything massively different to underpin and insure some of the banks against their losses at that time, purchasing shares in various banking institutions in order to keep the banking system going. I understand the partisan nature of his point, but all parties would have had to create that safety net for the banks at that time. I do not want to dwell on these matters, because time is limited and it is important to make my speech as brief as I can.
I want to ask the Minister specific questions about the absence of the small profits rate cut from the Bill, a matter on which I tabled an amendment. It is important to know why on earth it is not included. Typically, large corporations with their multi-million pound profits are at the front of the queue as far as this Government are concerned, but the real engine of growth in this economy is small firms. When I asked the Federation of Small Businesses about this, Stephen Alambritis, the head of public affairs, said that he was surprised at the signal sent to small businesses by the way in which the Bill is framed. He told me:
“It is important that small business is recognised in discussions about the Finance Bill. There should be a reduction in the tax rate for small business as there is for larger companies. There seems to be some discrimination from the coalition government, in that they are favouring large companies at the expense of small business”.
The Minister might say, “Of course they will get their cut,” but can we really trust the Government to deliver that if they are not putting such a measure in the Bill, particularly if they are not putting in the future years of the main rate cut, too?
A number of questions on this clause are exceptionally important. I obviously do not want to talk for too long, so I shall let the Minister respond.
Mr Gauke
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a programme of measures aimed at improving the competitiveness of the UK economy, including four annual 1% reductions in the main rate of corporation tax, down to 24% in 2014, and a reduction in the small profits rate to 20% from April 2011, in contrast to the previous Government’s plan to increase it to 22%. That will reduce the tax rate for some 850,000 companies. The Budget also included, from April 2012, a reduction in the capital allowances main rate from 20% to 18%, a reduction in the special rate from 10% to 8% and a reduction in the annual investment allowance to £25,000. Despite that, investment allowances will permit more than 95% of businesses to offset completely their annual plant and machinery expenditure. As I said in our debate on amendment 49, by delaying these changes to allowances for two years but reducing the corporation tax rate next year, we are giving companies a year’s advantage.
We have been asked why we are legislating for the 1p cut in the main rate this year. This is the usual convention as the corporation tax main rate is usually set a year at a time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is right to say that there was an exception in 1984, when four years were done together, but the usual convention is to do these things a year at a time. A distinction has been made between the mainstream rate and the small profits rate. The right hon. Gentleman, who was a distinguished Treasury Minister for several years, may have forgotten that payers of the corporation tax main rate are within the quarterly instalments payment regime and so require advance notice of the rate, as they might be making payments of corporation tax liability before 1 April of the relevant year in which profits fall in the next financial year. Payers of corporation tax at the small profits rate do not require advance notice, as they have until nine months after the end of the accountancy period to pay their tax.
Both main and small profits corporation tax rates have traditionally been set in this manner, and what we are doing is consistent with the usual approach. The right hon. Gentleman asked about deferred tax assets, but they are not the reason why we are doing this; we are simply following the usual convention.
Opposition Members have asked whether business can have faith in what this Government do, but they should give us some time and they will see exactly what we will do: we will follow through on these promises. No great concerns about this issue have been raised with us. On deferred tax assets, when I was in opposition, I received representations not from a bank but from a major manufacturer who made the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but that is not what has driven our thinking regarding the timing in this area.
Stephen Timms
The Minister says that it is normal practice to do what the Bill does, but as far as I know, there has been only one occasion since this tax was introduced when a series of reductions was announced, and those reductions were all legislated for in the 1984 legislation. I am not sure what precedent he is referring to that suggests that the way things are being this time is the normal way, as that is not the case.
Mr Gauke
The usual approach has been that the Finance Bill sets the small companies rate in-year, just as it sets the rate for income tax; the preceding year sets out the large companies rate. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a precedent for doing it another way, but we do not believe that business has any concerns that we will fail to follow through on our promises. There is an argument for doing it the other way, but we are pursuing the approach that has been adopted for a number of years.
Why cut corporation tax? As I have explained in debates on amendments to the clause, this package of measures takes real strides towards restoring the UK’s tax competitiveness, and will support economic growth in this country. It does so in a sustainable way that provides business with a clear direction on our long-term aims—a 1% cut every year for four years clearly demonstrates our position in making the UK open for business. No other legislative changes are proposed in the Finance Bill, although the small profits rate of corporation tax will reduce from 1 April 2011 from 21% to 20%, instead of rising to 22%, as the previous Government intended. I find it somewhat strange that those who were proposing to raise that tax are now outraged that we are not legislating to reduce it, or are calling for us to reduce it even further.
Stephen Timms
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on my question about whether it is an explicit aim of the Government that the UK rate of corporation tax should continue to be the lowest in the G7?
Mr Gauke
Of course, our proposals go beyond that. The explicit aim of this Government is to have the best corporate tax environment within the G20. That is considerably more ambitious, and we think that it will help to lead to the UK developing a stronger private sector that will lead us to recovery. The Bill and the clause represent a step in the right direction that will benefit the UK economy very strongly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Rates of capital gains tax
Stephen Timms
I beg to move amendment 30, page 6, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
‘(3) The rate of capital gains tax in respect of gains accruing in a tax year to—
(a) the trustees of a settlement is 28%, and
(b) The personal representatives of a deceased person is 18% for the first £10,000 of gains and 28% thereafter.’.
The Government have decided to raise the rate of capital gains tax for people paying higher rate income tax. We are not going to object to that; indeed, we are interested to know why a higher rate has not been adopted. The rate will be left at 18% for people paying basic rate tax, but the higher rate of 28% will apply to all trusts. Some people with low incomes have their interests represented by trusts, and there is a case that it would be unfair for them to pay the higher rate. However, it has been agreed that the rate of income tax on discretionary trusts will be 50%, so I accept that it is logical to apply the higher rate of capital gains tax to them as well, although I have no doubt that that this is a question to which the House will want to return in future debates.
Amendment 30 applies to one specific situation that has been drawn to our attention by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group—that is, the position of so-called estates in course of administration, to which the Bill as drafted would apply, in every case, a capital gains tax rate of 28%. In the case of the majority of estates of people who have died and who paid basic rate income tax prior to their death, those people, had they still been alive, would have been entitled to realise at least some capital gains at the lower rate of 18%. The Bill, however, applies a rate of 28% to any taxable gain.
The most common problem that the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group had in mind was a case in which a house increases in value between the point of the owner’s death and the point at which it is sold. Under the Bill as drafted, the whole of any such gain would be taxed at 28%, even if there was no other income or capital gain accruing to the estate at all.
I acknowledge that this is a relatively straightforward problem to identify but rather more difficult to solve. The amendment suggests that to remedy pragmatically what could, as I hope I have set out, otherwise be unfair, the first £10,000 of gains in a year should always be charged at 18%, rather than 28%, with gains above £10,000 being charged at 28%. I accept that that is not an ideal solution, because wealthy estates would benefit as well as the estates of people with low incomes. If the Exchequer Secretary has a better solution, I would be interested and eager to hear it, but I hope that he will recognise that there is a potential unfairness in relation to the estates of people with low incomes that realise capital gains after the individual’s death, typically when the estate includes a property.
If the Exchequer Secretary feels unable to accept the amendment, will he agree to reflect on the matter and consider whether it might be possible to address what would certainly be an unfairness in some cases in the next Finance Bill later in the year?
Mr Gauke
The amendment would set the capital gains tax rate at 18% for personal representatives of the deceased for the first £10,000 of gains, while retaining the 28% rate for gains above that level and for trustees. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the explanation of the thinking behind it. As he said, the matter was raised by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales made a similar point, stating that it would be appropriate to tax the personal representatives of a deceased person in the same way as basic rate taxpayers because it is a completely different situation to that of a trust.
We believe that the treatment of personal representatives in the Bill is appropriate. The amendment would add complexity and could give rise to unfair results or avoidance opportunities. The function of personal representatives is very similar to that of trustees. They have a duty to realise the assets of the deceased person on behalf of the heirs or legatees, and it should be their primary objective to complete their duties as quickly as possible so that the assets of the estate are distributed to those people without undue delay.
The amendment could provide an incentive for personal representatives to hold on to an asset while it appreciated, so that they could sell the asset and pay tax at 18% on the gain, rather than passing the asset directly on to an heir or legatee with a potential liability of 28%. There is no reason to give that sort of incentive to increase the value of a legatee’s inheritance by reducing the capital gains tax due.
I appreciate the manner in which the shadow Minister raised the matter and identified the problem. Quite fairly, he was somewhat tentative about the potential solution set out in the amendment, which I appreciate was of a probing nature. As I understand it, it is possible for personal representatives to pass assets to the heirs, so they could pay at 18% on the gains if appropriate. I will reflect further on the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but as I believe he recognises, amendment 30 has its weaknesses. It could give rise to avoidance opportunities and some unfair results, and consequently I urge him to withdraw it. However, I am grateful for his comments on the amendment.
Stephen Timms
I am happy not to force a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am pleased that, unlike the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), he chose not to bait the Liberal Democrats tonight. At this late hour, it would perhaps not be a good idea to respond to the rather combative approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. I shall merely point out that the Labour party, which claims to be the champion of the working poor, created a capital gains tax environment in which the cleaners of wealthy bankers were paying a higher marginal rate of tax than the bankers themselves. That is no doubt a cause of great embarrassment to the previous Government, so I do not think the Liberal Democrats need take any lectures from Labour Members on this issue.
Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 40% to 18% had many unintended consequences for communities across the country, including my own, which sucked in a lot more second home ownership. The more advantageous tax environment enabled more people to purchase second homes, and this made the housing environment, particularly for affordable homes, a great deal worse in many parts of the country. It is worth responding to the right hon. Gentleman: if he wishes to bait, we can certainly fight back. As for the questions he asked, most were directed at those on the Treasury Bench. The intention behind the starred amendments—I cannot refer to those standing in my name—was to probe the Government about the purpose of and background to the decision to set the capital gains tax rate at 28%.
The Exchequer Secretary has done an excellent job of responding to the issues raised this evening. I previously put questions to him—about his Department’s economic modelling to determine the level of capital gains tax; what research or impact assessments he undertook before deciding to roll forward with the capital gains tax proposals; and the Department’s estimates of the revenue accruing to the Exchequer from capital gains tax if the income tax rates for those with an income above the higher rate threshold were set at a range of different levels—which he answered on 7 July. Unfortunately, I was not given the requisite information to make an adequate assessment of the likely impact of this particular measure in contrast to the setting of capital gains tax at another threshold.
I put questions to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary in the Budget debate—on 1 July, I believe, but I might have to check that. I asked him why the capital gains tax rate had been set at 28% and not a higher rate. The answer was that there is a law of diminishing returns. By the time that level is reached, the return to the Treasury would be significantly less, making it not worthwhile to take it beyond that particular level. Unfortunately, we do not have the statistical or factual basis on which to make that assessment.
Partly in response to the right hon. Member for East Ham, who commented on the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments in the context of the level at which the threshold should be set, we have to address ourselves to the lack of evidence and information that the previous Government provided. The information on which many policy decisions were taken might well have been unreliable Treasury estimates at the time.
In conclusion, I urge the Exchequer Secretary to provide a little more information in response to my previous questions, which I think would help us all to understand rather better why the capital gains tax rate has been set at 28% and not at some other level. That would help to reassure us that it is not going to attract those who would have had to pay income tax at a much higher level if they had not simply transferred their assets into capital.
Mr Gauke
Clause 2 and schedule 1 introduce the changes to capital gains tax from 23 June 2010, as we have heard. The coalition agreement involved a commitment by the Government to align capital gains tax to levels similar or close to those applied to income, while providing generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activity.
Within the Treasury team, we looked at various options as to how best to achieve that. The conclusion we reached, however, was that contained in the schedule. For individuals, the rate remains 18% when their income and gains for the tax year do not exceed their income tax basic rate band. Above that level, the rate is increased to 28%. Therefore, someone who is already paying income tax at the 40% or 50% rates will pay 28% on all their gains. As was mentioned in an earlier debate, the 28% rate applies to trustees and personal representatives, who will pay capital gains tax at that rate on all their gains. That ensures that trusts are not used to shelter personal gains from the higher rate of capital gains tax.
Mr Gauke
I believe that the overall effects for this period balance out, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the self-assessment return and guidance notes to help people to work out their final liability. For the tax year 2010-11, HMRC has worked to automate more of the online self-assessment processes in order to help customers with the changes. The software will be available for customers to use from 6 April 2011. The improvements will be conveyed to third-party software developers at the usual time, enabling them to modify their products in good time. Full guidance will be available in the self-assessment notes on HMRC’s website and through its helplines.
Andrew George
May I return the Exchequer Secretary to the subject of the “composition of income” behavioural impact that he described earlier? He referred to the tax yield in forthcoming years. Is the tax yield for every reduction of one percentage point assumed as a continuing line beyond the 28%? What happens to the behavioural change after that?
Mr Gauke
The assumption is that there is an ongoing gain—that we will gain more in income tax as a consequence of the rise in the CGT rate.
The reason why there is no yield this year has suddenly dawned on me. We do not get the receipts for capital gains tax through self-assessment immediately; it is only in future that CGT will be paid through the self-assessment process.
Stephen Timms
The Minister has made the point, however, that most of the gain is in fact income tax, which surely would score in the coming year?
Mr Gauke
I think we will see more of that behavioural effect as time goes by, but I am not sure that that will come through immediately. In some cases, it will depend on when the additional income will be crystallised or realised. I think that is the explanation, but if I have anything to add I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
There is a time lag, which is why the receipts are not shown for this year. There is also a bringing forward of benefit because, as opposed to the lock-in, there is an advance disposal of the assets which would not otherwise have taken place. Also, of course, there will be a release of income tax, rather than a waiting for a capital tax and putting off the delay that would come from the capital gain.
Mr Gauke
I will write to my hon. Friend to explain further why there is no yield in the current year, but I am very grateful for his expertise in this matter.
Questions were also asked about serial entrepreneurs who cannot claim entrepreneur’s relief and defer gains under the enterprise investment scheme. People can now choose between claiming entrepreneur’s relief and paying capital gains tax at 10% or deferring a tax charge by reinvesting under the EIS and paying 18% or 28% when the postponed gain comes into charge. If they claim entrepreneur’s relief they can still invest in EIS companies. The CGT deferral relief will not be available, but income tax relief under the EIS could still be available if the conditions are met. Serial entrepreneurs who have used up their lifetime limit of entrepreneur’s relief will be able to claim the EIS deferral relief on gains above the limit. Allowing individuals to claim both entrepreneur’s relief and deferred gains will be highly complex and is inconsistent with the aim of simplifying the tax system.
The right hon. Member for East Ham also asked whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is planning any extra education about the changes for customers and their advisers. HMRC will talk to representative bodies about what extra guidance is required. It will see what practical help it can give to agents generally through the “working together” agent network, and it will look at working with the media and interest groups to raise awareness among individuals who may be affected by the changes.
This is a reform that protects the Exchequer while ensuring that those on lower incomes are protected and the recovery is safeguarded. We have acted in a way that is in the spirit of the coalition agreement. I do not think any Member on the Government Benches would want to raise taxes beyond a level that would maximise revenue—revenue that is, after all, used to fund a substantial increase in the income tax threshold, taking 880,000 people out of income tax. If we had raised the level further, or if we had raised it by less, we would not have been able to do so much in that particular area. Consequently, we believe that 28% is the right level. We do not intend to return to this matter, and I ask that schedule 1 be agreed.
Stephen Timms
I do not propose to press this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr Newmark.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.