All 2 Debates between David Amess and Chris Leslie

Thu 15th Jul 2010
Mon 12th Jul 2010

Finance Bill

Debate between David Amess and Chris Leslie
Thursday 15th July 2010

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie Portrait Chris Leslie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Is it in order for the Minister to withhold information to which she has clearly referred in the debate from the rest of the Members engaging in the discussion?

David Amess Portrait The Temporary Chair
- Hansard - -

That was not a point of order.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Amess and Chris Leslie
Monday 12th July 2010

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie Portrait Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move amendment 21, page 1, line 6, at end add—

‘(2) The main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2011 will remain at 28 per cent. on the profits of banking institutions as defined by section 2 of the Banking Act 2009.’.

David Amess Portrait The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
- Hansard - -

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 34, 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.’.

Amendment 50, page 1, line 6, at end add—

‘(2) This section shall not come into force until the Treasury has laid before the House of Commons as assessment of the impact of this section on—

(a) the banking sector, and

(b) all other sectors to which corporation tax applies.’.

Chris Leslie Portrait Chris Leslie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My amendment is quite simple. It does not seek to alter the rate of corporation tax suggested in the Budget, except in one respect: it should not apply to banks and banking institutions. Surely few issues can highlight the unfairness and injustice of the Government’s Budget more effectively than the suggestion that, of all the sets of institutions that should benefit from more advantageous tax arrangements, the banks should be given such a windfall at such a time.

I was prompted to table the amendment by a flurry of reports that appeared immediately after the Budget statement, suggesting that the banks would be net beneficiaries. Deutsche Bank analysts were reported as saying that the Budget was a “good outcome for banks”, and John-Paul Crutchley, an analyst at UBS, expected that Lloyds and HSBC would benefit by 2012 as a result of, particularly, the cut in corporation tax.

We must look at this measure in the context of the other Budget provisions. While the Finance Bill is, I suppose, substantial to a degree, it addresses only one short set of Budget measures that presumably will be brought before the House in different Bills at different times in the coming year, and it is a shame in a way that we will not get a chance to address this corporation tax measure in that wider context. I do not think any Members are opposed in principle to the banking levy that the Chancellor announced, although many might question whether it is tough and stringent enough.