Finance Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let me start by declaring an interest in relation to clause 15, as I believe I am one of the Members who managed to discriminate against themselves via pension changes a decade ago and therefore will benefit from the tax changes in this Bill. I should therefore perhaps not touch on that any further.

Overall, there is nothing to oppose in the Bill. I will break the habits of this debate and try to speak about the Bill, rather than stuff that is not in it or might have been in it. I will try to address some of the clauses it contains. Clause 1 deals with the full expensing of expenditure on plant and machinery, a matter I raised in the debate on the autumn statement. I welcome the measure, which I hope will work to encourage greater capital investment across the UK economy.

However, we should not underestimate how fundamental a change in our tax system that measure is. We have built, over decades, a series of rules on how companies—and individuals too, but we are talking about companies for this purpose—get tax relief on the capital spend they make. A large amount of work has to go into tracking what is counted as revenue spend and what is counted as capital spend, but now there is no point in doing that work in respect of plant and machinery, because companies are going to get the same tax treatment either way round—so all that can go.

Then there are all manner of ways of getting that relief, be it through the main general pool for plant and machinery, the long-life asset pool or the short-life asset pool. We have different rules for cars, for environmentally-friendly assets and for environmentally-friendly cars. We should take a step back and ask, “Is it necessary to keep this whole complicated regime if, for the vast majority of spend, we are giving 100% tax relief in year 1 when that spend happens? Should we now look at striking away a load of that and just accept that we could have a very different regime?” Perhaps we should just accept the accounts depreciation for all the other assets that are not plant and machinery? I suspect that the loss to the Exchequer for accelerating tax relief on those things would be tiny, but it would take away a huge burden of having to follow a different set of rules.

We also ought to ask, “What do we mean for buildings?” We are now being generous for tax relief on plant and equipment, but not generous at all if a brand-new factory is built. Tax relief is given very slowly on that and even then not on the whole spend. Is that what we want? Or should we be trying to incentivise people to build brand new, modern, energy-efficient factories? We give very little tax relief for office buildings. We want more people to come back to work together in offices, so should we not be incentivising people to build brand-new offices in the right parts of the country, rather than giving no tax relief?

We end up driving an entire leasing industry, because a completely different tax treatment is given where assets are leased or rented, rather than bought outright in someone’s own name. Do we really intend that if someone finance-leases something, they get 100% relief up front? What happens with a hire purchase? All this stuff is so complicated. Having made this radical and expensive change, the Government should go away and think, “What is the future of tax relief for capital items in the UK? How do we incentivise the right form of spend?”

I wish to raise one other question for the Minister to think about. It is very likely that a lot of businesses will be unable to get full relief for this in the first year, because they just will not have enough profit to absorb all their capital spend being relieved in a year. The chances of a medium-sized business that buys a multi-million-pound printing press having multi-million-pound profits are low, so it will end up having a loss to carry forward. Such a business will get benefit in the fullness of time, but we will have restricted how much of its losses it can carry forward and use—if it is a business of a certain size, it can offset only up to £5 million. Do we really mean that now? Or do we mean that if a business has spent a load of capital and generated a big loss that is carrying forward, it should be able to relieve that as early as possible when it makes a profit? Do we need to revisit some of those restrictions we have introduced for sensible reasons in the past?

I urge the Minister to commission some work, now that he has made this big and expensive change, on what the whole regime should look like. Do we need all those hundreds of pages of rules and all the compliance effort that has to go in, for what will probably now be relatively small amounts of tax relief at stake in the grand scheme of things?

I wish to discuss a few other clauses. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill’s anti-avoidance clauses. It is absolutely right to extend the punishments we give individuals who recklessly promote tax avoidance schemes that they ought to know do not work and in many cases do know do not work but carry on trying to sell. It is entirely reasonable to have the sanction of being able to disbar them from being a company director if they carry on doing that. There has been a lot of encouragement for the Government to go further on duties to prevent all manner of economic crimes, so I fully welcome these things.

In Committee, we could perhaps think about whether we are sure we have drafted that measure perfectly. A lot of tax advisers work through limited liability partnerships, but where someone is a member of a limited liability partnership that is promoting unacceptable tax avoidance, they will not be caught by these rules because they are not a director of a company that is doing it. Therefore, such a person will not be disbarred from remaining as the designated member of an LLP, because they are not a director of a company. Is that what we mean? Given that LLPs and their members have to be registered with Companies House, should we not broaden that sanction out to catch as many people as possible? Perhaps the Minister would think about whether we could make some extension to this, to ensure that we are catching everyone engaging in this industry, not just a small subset of it.

Clause 21 has further amendments on pillar two; at times, I think I am the only Back Bencher who supports pillar two. I will continue to support it but, as I said a year ago, the rules are fiendishly complicated. Anyone who tries to read clause 21 and the schedules that come with it will realise they contain an almost impenetrable set of rules for a relatively small number of situations, in relation to a simple principle about subsidiaries in tax havens that are paying less than 15% tax having their tax topped up to 15%, in order to discourage tax havens and the artificial movement of profit.

We have ended up with a hugely complicated shadow tax regime that every company with subsidiaries around the world will have to apply to every subsidiary they have. Even if they are in a respectable country with tax rates even higher than ours, they will have to work out whether they have accidentally managed to trip themselves below that rate. That cannot be what we intend, so can we try to find a way to filter out most of this work, so that we can catch the guilty but not make life miserable for the innocent?

With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill. The provisions are entirely sensible and I look forward to supporting them. I will have to vote against the SNP amendment, because I want the Bill to proceed today.

Finance Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I think my hon. Friend is kicking off what is likely to be a long debate over the course of the next year, but an important one for our constituents and businesses. The economy will play a pivotal part in discussions this year. It is very clear what we are doing: we are implementing vital changes, asked for by business and in response to business, to provide that business certainty and an environment in which they and therefore our constituents can thrive. I do not think any of us want to put that at risk. However, without the clarification and confidence from the Opposition about what they might do, these issues will be raised and the uncertainty can persist. We on the Government side of the House are committed to this, and my hon. Friend is right to make that clear.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I think the Minister just read out that the assessment is that this measure will create £3 billion additional investment per year. Is that right? If I remember the Green Book correctly from the autumn statement, the annual cost of this measure was £11 billion, which I think equates to £55 billion of extra capital expenditure. Is he saying that £52 billion of that £55 billion is just bringing forward investment that would have happened later, and £3 billion is new, or have I somehow got my numbers wrong and this will generate a load of investment that would not otherwise have happened?

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I am only going to make some brief remarks on the two clauses. The UK Government are clearly scrambling to fix an economic mess of their own making, and the Bill is full of such measures.

On clause 1, during the autumn statement I welcomed this move, but it does little to deal with the damage to business that has been caused by the big grey elephant in the room that none of the parties wishes to mention, which is Brexit. Far from the ideal of removing red tape and decreasing bureaucracy, as we have heard thrown about in this Chamber, it has actually led to more red tape and more difficulties for business. This is just one of the measures the Government should be taking, among many others they must consider in future. I hope to come to those later in the debate.

The “years of uncertainty” that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) mentioned have indeed been years of uncertainty caused by this Government, but they have definitely been impacted by the Brexit that Labour now supports, along with the Liberal Democrats. People are struggling with a cost of living crisis, and it is affecting domestic sales too, so they need other fixes. Again, I will have some questions about that later.

Clause 2 and schedule 1—I hope this will be helpful for the Minister—are like trying to make a jigsaw puzzle with no box, no picture and just some random bits and pieces to try to plug together to make something out of. Productivity does not work without the skills required in research and development. We do not get the advance or the boost we need without that and, once again, the spectre of Brexit means that we have a skills shortage across the nations of the UK. That is particularly affecting Scotland, which needs its own immigration rules. It is something we would ask to have powers over, short of our call—it would of course be the absolute best result—for Scotland to have independence so it can make these decisions itself.

[Nigel Mills]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to direct my remarks to clause 1, on permanent full expensing for the purchase of plant and machinery, which I discussed during the autumn statement and on Second Reading.

This is actually quite a radical and expensive policy. We have, probably for longer than all our lifetimes, given companies relief for capital expenditure using capital allowances. That was originally quite a generous 25% in the first year—I suspect that most plant and machinery had a longer life than that when the rules were produced. We have chosen to do that for all these years, rather than just letting a business deduct its own accounting calculation of depreciation, because we did not want the manipulation of tax deductions by businesses doing their tax returns. We chose to do it this way.

The tool that Governments of all colours for decades have had when the economy hits trouble is to give first-year allowances and various enhancements. I remember a 40% first-year allowance and a 50% first-year allowance. We have had full expensing up to £1 million, as the shadow Minister referred to. That has been the way of incentivising investment in a period of economic recovery for probably as long back as there has been a toolkit.

Now we have landed on permanent full expensing, so businesses get full relief on plant and machinery spend in the first year. What are the Government expecting to happen differently here? Are we expecting capital investment by businesses of more than £1 million a year that otherwise would not be economically viable and would never have happened? Are we expecting investment to be brought forward and to take place earlier than it otherwise would have? That would be entirely welcome and would probably modernise businesses, protect jobs and give them a chance to grow in a way that they perhaps would not have had, which is not a bad policy aim at all. Or are we just giving business an earlier tax relief than they otherwise would have had, whereby they bank that and are happy but it does not change behaviour?

It is hard to get behind the numbers on this measure in the Green Book. As I said earlier, the estimate at the end of the five-year period, and probably the first full year that making this permanent will make a difference, is a tax cost of £10.9 billion just for this measure. If we run the numbers, bearing in mind that businesses will already have had 25% tax relief on that same expenditure in that year, that means we expect a £55 billion higher claim to get tax relief in that financial year than otherwise would have happened. However, the Minister said that only £3 billion of that is estimated by the OBR to be additional investment that would not otherwise have taken place at some point. It suggests that we have a lot of investment being brought forward with a lot of more generous tax relief that would have happened anyway. Will the Minister explain what the Government are aiming to achieve and what is being forecast? Is the OBR being unduly cautious? That would enable us to understand how we judge whether the measure has been successful.

Are we expecting to see whole loads of investment in plant and machinery that never would have been viable before, or are we expecting to see it brought forward? If what we are getting is brought forward, at some time the cost should start to taper down, because this is not a new tax relief that businesses would not have already had; it is just an acceleration of tax relief and businesses will pay more tax in all subsequent years, because they are not getting the relief they used to get. The measure could cost £11 billion in the first year and gradually that would level down and in the fullness of time there would be no more annual cost, in effect. Can the Minister clarify that?

It is not immediately clear how the Government plan to assess whether the measure has worked or is working. I assume that from electronic corporate tax returns we can track down to the pound the amount of investment claimed for full expense relief every year. We could have a report within six months of the end of a calendar year on how much of these 100% allowances has been claimed and compare that with the total amount claimed for capital allowances in whichever preceding years we like. We could see whether full expensing was driving behaviour change. Will the Minister talk us through what he expects to happen and how he will assess whether this has been an effective way of boosting productivity and increasing investment for £11 billion a year? It is probably one of the most sizeable line entries we have seen in a Finance Bill in my 14 years here. Normally we expect the big number to be a tax cut for individuals, and this measure is significant.

As we are making this measure a permanent feature of our tax system, it shines a light on what we are trying to get from our corporation tax system. There will not be any kind of compliance saving. The Minister made a brave attempt at saying there might, but effectively all that will change is that the number that a business currently puts in its additions to its writing down allowance pool will now be put in the 100% first-year claim box. It is the same number in a different box; that is the only compliance change we have here. It throws into question some previous policy decisions we have made, because for a business to get full benefit from this, it needs to be paying enough tax to use the full relief in that first year.

If a business cannot use the full relief, the incentives are not as powerful as they would otherwise be, because then the option is effectively to carry that excess deduction forward, but we introduced rules a few years ago that are strict on how many losses a business can use in a year. If we really think that giving people the earliest possible cash tax benefit for capital investment drives investment, we should probably take away that restriction on using losses, so that businesses can get the benefit as early as possible and not have it spread over a number of years going forward. Will the Minister explain whether the Government will look at that and make sure we are not accidentally undoing some of the benefit we are seeking to get?

My second question is: what do we do with the legacy writing down allowance pool that relates to plant and machinery expenditure for God knows how many past years? On a reducing balance basis of 25%, it takes many, many years to get full tax relief for expenditure, so every business will have a large pot of money that it has not yet had tax benefit for. Are we expecting them to run that down at 25% reducing balance a year and still be doing so in 23 years’ time, by which point no one will have any idea what on earth that balance ever was? Or should we say, “That is a bit of a nonsense. Why do we not just let you take the whole balance at 20% a year over the next five years and finish that problem off, because we do not need to be focusing on that?”? We could find any number we like there, but it would draw a line under that past expenditure in a way that genuinely simplifies things.

We then have the question of, “What do we do with capital expenditure on items that are not plant and machinery?” The tax relief we give on structures and buildings is not generous, but if we are trying to drive an increase in productivity and large businesses to invest in new gigafactories to build batteries for electric cars or for electricity storage or whatever, do we not want to incentivise them to build the factory building as well, rather than either giving them no relief or giving it over a long time? If we are spending £11 billion a year to encourage investment in plant and machinery, should we not spend a little money on trying to encourage other things that are key for industrial investment to take place, by being a bit more generous on buildings and structures? Has the Minister any thoughts on that?

The Government did a capital allowances review only a year or two ago, which did not look at permanent full expensing as one of the options, but it would be interesting to see whether they have had any further thoughts on that. We are now asking every business to go through and track every item of capital that they spend and treat it differently in their tax return from how they treat it in their accounting records. Then we have all manner of different laws depending on whether it is a long-life asset, a short-life asset, a car or an environmentally friendly car—I could go on. For the amount now at stake, and given that we have given full relief for plant and machinery, which is the biggest amount, do we really need all that cost and complexity? Or should we just say for all those other items, “You can just have your accounting calculation”? Okay, businesses might take it a bit quicker than we would like, but in actual fact the cost of that is not all that material in the grand scheme of things.

We could move to a system where the only adjustment someone has to make to their tax return is to claim a very generous tax relief on plant and machinery, and they would not have to touch anything else. That would be a more coherent corporation tax regime, now that we have spent all this money incentivising plant and machinery. It would then genuinely be a compliance saving for a business in that situation.

I support the measure and truly hope that it works, but, as a significant amount is being spent, it would be helpful to understand what we are trying to achieve and how we will know whether we have been successful. I hope that the Government will move on to think about how we can slightly recast our tax system so that it makes sense, having made this radical and generous change.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will take a few moments to respond to quite a few questions raised during the debate. First, I reassure hon. Members that further guidance will be provided on these schemes. Of course, we do not want all the schemes just to exist; we want them to be used so that they have a real-world impact. More information will therefore be coming out about a variety of areas over a period of time.

I gently remind the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who yet again took the opportunity to talk the UK economy down—the Opposition always do—that every single Labour Government have ended with unemployment higher than what they inherited from the Conservatives. I think the public are well aware of that pattern.

I turn to the many questions raised. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Erewash (Maggie Throup), and indeed Opposition Members for their contributions. On timing, the Government have been clear since the merged scheme consultation was published in January last year that the intended implementation date for the scheme is April 2024. Importantly, in response to that consultation and in recognition of comments, the merged scheme will apply to accounting periods starting on or after 1 April 2024 rather than to expenditure incurred from that date. Again, we will provide further guidance on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will speak to new clauses 4 and 5, tabled in my name. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats do not support the Bill, which is a deception from the Government after years of tax hikes on hard-working families. It arises from an autumn statement that contributed to a record fall in living standards by maintaining the Government’s stealth tax on working families through the freezing of income tax thresholds. Some of the measures under consideration today may have worthy aims, but that wider context must be noted.

New clause 5, tabled in my name, would require the Government to produce an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s tax evasion and avoidance measures. That assessment would specifically need to include a review of whether the staffing of the compliance functions of HMRC is sufficient to implement the new measures. That follows the revelation to me in answer to a parliamentary question last year that almost 2,300 HMRC tax compliance staff are still working on matters relating to our exit from the European Union and covid-19 schemes. That means that thousands of staff who would usually be working on recovering taxes or dealing with other issues are instead being redeployed to manage the Government’s mishandling of the pandemic and the Brexit deal.

It is alarming to see civil servants being moved from one crisis to another—an indication of a Government in non-stop firefighting mode. We have known for a long time that HMRC is an organisation beset by understaffing issues. Last year, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that such chronic understaffing is not only causing unacceptable delays to businesses and families but hindering activity and actively hurting our economy. With that knowledge, can we have faith that HMRC will be properly equipped to put the measures in the Bill into action?

While the measures in clauses 31 to 34 and schedule 13 may have worthy aims of combating tax avoidance and fraud, the knowledge of those shortcomings makes it very difficult to have confidence in the capacity of HMRC, and in particular its compliance functions, to administer the measures effectively. I therefore urge the Government to accept new clause 5, and support the Liberal Democrats in ensuring that HMRC is fully equipped with sufficient staff to tackle tax avoidance properly.

New clause 4, also in my name, concerns the Bill’s pillar 2 measures, in clause 21 and schedule 12. It would require the Government to produce an assessment of the impact of those measures, examining whether they have been successful in achieving their policy aims. As Liberal Democrats, we strongly believe in the need for a fair international system that tackles corporate tax avoidance and evasion for the benefit of all countries. We welcome the pioneering work that has taken place under the auspices of the OECD for the formation of a fairer international tax system. The measures in clause 21 arise from that process and enable the UK’s adoption of the income inclusion rule and domestic minimum top-up tax rule. As such, they are to be welcomed; however, issues remain.

Most crucially, we believe that the global minimum corporation tax rate set at 15% under the deal remains too low. Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to help negotiate an increase to 21%, as originally proposed by the US under President Biden. Organisations such as Oxfam have highlighted that the 15% minimum rate still leaves many developing countries at a disadvantage, as they will continue to face unfair competition from tax havens. It is extremely disappointing to see the Government’s failure to back a rate of 21%, despite having raised UK corporation tax to 25%. The significant progress that has been made should not be obstructed or diluted, but if we are serious about pursuing the goal of a fairer global tax system, we must also take the time to ensure that the best path is being followed.

[Nigel Mills]

I understand the intent of what the hon. Member says. Could she explain how the review could be done within six months of the Act being passed, given that no business will have filed a tax return with any adjustments in until well after that period? Indeed, half the world probably will not have introduced the measure by that stage. Would that not be a bit of a premature assessment? Would we not risk that assessment showing no progress and then strengthening the arguments of those who would like to repeal it? It would probably be quite a bad assessment to do at that stage.

[Sarah Olney]

I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention, and—dare I say it—I completely agree with him. Of course, one is constrained by what one can amend in legislation, but I would like to see that as the start of an ongoing process of review. Let us be honest, it is an innovative proposal, not just because it requires an international co-operative effort, but because that very effort is innovative. It is therefore something that we as a sovereign Parliament should be keeping very much under review as the work continues.

I briefly note that the Finance Bill has implications for theatre tax relief, which plays a crucial role in enabling the development of new theatre productions in the UK. UK Theatre and the Society of London Theatre have raised concerns with the Treasury about those implications, which could damage how that essential relief operates. I therefore urge Ministers to liaise with those groups and particularly to provide assurance that international touring will not be hampered due to the Bill’s definition of UK expenditure. That is certainly an area that would benefit from scrutiny in Public Bill Committee.

Although the Liberal Democrats support certain measures in the Bill, such as the extension of full expensing, the Bill as a whole does not have our support, arising, as it does, from an unjust and deceptive autumn statement. I urge hon. Members to support the amendments tabled in my name, in particular new clause 5, which would hold the Government to account to ensure that HMRC is properly resourced to allow it to implement the measures in the Bill.