The Economy
Nigel Mills Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Having recently joined the Northern Ireland Committee, I am becoming more familiar with the issues that he raises and, in particular, with Northern Ireland’s attempts to show that one can compete on tax rates to grow one’s economy. It has the right idea in wanting to match Ireland’s lower corporation tax rate in order to grow the Northern Ireland economy, but I sense that it will not want to match Ireland’s new higher VAT rate in an attempt to grow the economy over there. That is aiming for the best of both worlds.
I welcome the chance to contribute to this important debate on what is the central issue for my constituents. I am sure that every Member who has spoken to constituents and businesses cannot have failed to notice how difficult economic conditions have become, and that is why I welcome in particular the fact that the Chancellor, in his autumn statement last week, did not try to hide the full extent of the difficulty, but set out exactly how difficult things are now and will be for the next few years.
The response was robust, and it should see us maintain the market’s confidence, which is the key to our recovery. I am not aware of any serious commentator who suggests that we should change our plan, and borrow more and spend more than we plan to, when we are running a deficit of more than £120 billion this year already. The shadow Chancellor chose earlier to quote Voltaire, and I have found a second quotation for him:
“Common sense is not so common.”
Some of his speech showed eminently that that is true.
I shall touch on the measures in the autumn statement that are relevant to my constituents and work through those issues that are raised most frequently. People—especially first-time buyers—complain that they cannot get mortgages or, if they can, that the deposit requirements are too high or the cost is too high, so last week we announced measures to make it easier for first-time buyers to get mortgages and thus get the building industry started again. I can think of some building sites where a couple of houses were started on the edge but the rest of the estate was mothballed for a few years, and getting those finished has to be a good thing.
Small businesses have for a long time complained that they cannot get funds out of the banks, and, although all our measures may have helped a little, they certainly have not solved the problem, so the loan guarantee scheme will I hope be a real step forward. Many businesses are struggling to decide whether investment is a great idea in the current climate, but as things start to improve the scheme will be in place and enable them to secure the finance that they need. In the meantime, every small business will welcome the extension of the business rate holiday for a few more months, but it keeps being extended, and at some stage it might be nice to extend it to a distant horizon so that we know where we are.
The worst impact of any economic downturn is on unemployment, and especially on youth unemployment, and the £1 billion of funding that we announced to tackle that will be hugely welcome. As I visit businesses throughout my constituency, I see that some are taking real steps, at their own cost, to employ local young people. I pay tribute especially to David Nieper in Alfreton, a fashion business that has started its own fashion academy, taking students from nearby universities and showing them the entire industry—from designing clothes all the way through to marketing them, selling them and producing brochures—in order to give them that whole-industry experience so that they really are job-ready.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman congratulates David Nieper, because my sister works in that factory.
Nigel Mills
Well, I am sure that she recognises how great an employer it is—and it is very kind of the hon. Lady to give me an extra minute!
Many other businesses in my constituency have expressed their concern about the impact of rising energy bills, especially given the Government’s climate change policies, which increase those costs. In my constituency, I have another great business, Denby Pottery. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has family working there, too, but it has expressed a real concern that even the welcome help that we announced for energy-intensive industries last week will not assist the ceramics sector, so I urge the Government to keep working on those measures to protect such valuable and historic industries.
Another particularly welcome announcement for me was the announcement of expenditure on infrastructure and road building. New road construction in Amber Valley has been a little neglected, so I urge the Government to look favourably on the bid that I and Amber Valley borough council have championed for the new Ripley-Codnor bypass, which would link the A38 and M1. We are not asking for the full funding, because the council is busy arranging it through developers that can pay for up to half the bypass, but if the whole road were completed it would present a real chance for regeneration and a real chance to attract new business to the area, which is exactly what the Government’s infrastructure funding is trying to do.
I am happy with what the Government have announced. In a difficult situation, they have announced some short-term measures to tackle the worst impacts of economic downturn. Now, we need to look at the long-term strategy and at the measures we need in place to make our economy as competitive as it can be in five or 10 years’ time.
In the final minute of my speech, I shall turn to the reform that we need in our tax system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee suggested, many tax regimes that affect our businesses are unduly complex and out of date, discouraging investment while encouraging strange and perverse behaviour, which is why we have to introduce a huge number of more complex anti-avoidance rules, such as those announced today.
Wholesale simplification would ensure that we had a system which encourages what we do want and make it easier to stop the avoidance behaviour that we rightly wish to tackle—and I think the Government are coming round to that. Last week, they announced that 100% capital allowances will be made available to enterprise zones, and, to all those businesses in my constituency which would like to invest in new machinery and need to do so to remain competitive, we should send the message that we want to provide tax incentives for people to invest in capital equipment at this time. If we need 100% capital allowances for enterprise zones, can we not find a way of being more generous with capital investment throughout the whole country, not just in those zones?
Fuel Prices
Nigel Mills Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his tireless campaigning to secure this debate. I think it was back in February that I last spoke in a debate on fuel prices. Indeed, it should be a tradition that we debate fuel prices two or three weeks before every Budget or the autumn statement. The last debate was a great success, because shortly afterwards the Government scrapped the 5p rise and introduced a 1p cut. We hope that our new Minister will follow that trend and that the next 3p rise will be scrapped, with perhaps even a small cut made to encourage people.
The price of fuel is one of the topics we debate where so many of our constituents feel the pain personally, either as individuals or in the businesses they run.
Mr McCann
It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to give way, because he will remember that I followed him when he made his maiden speech in the House. Does he think that his constituents are feeling the pinch of the increase in fuel prices attributed to the VAT increase that his Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition introduced?
Nigel Mills
I am tempted to say that I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell us whether he voted against the VAT rise. We have heard a great deal of concern expressed today about the VAT rise, but it is surprising that those feelings are so strong, given that most Members did not vote against it. We have often said that we had to introduce that increase in part to fix the mess that Labour left for us. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take away that £12 billion or £13 billion of tax revenue, he will have to find a way of replacing it. I shall return to the question of fuel prices before I run out of time.
The point has been well made that this issue is all-pervasive, in that fuel costs affect everything that we buy. Today the headlines are telling us that inflation has fallen to 5%. Who on earth would have thought that we would be reading such headlines? The last thing that the Government want to do is put up fuel prices, which would affect everything that we buy, thereby pushing up inflation again.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is particularly difficult for people living in rural areas? One of my constituents who was unemployed has found a job further afield. He is earning £17,000, but he is spending £3,000 of that on petrol.
Nigel Mills
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have similar situations in parts of my constituency. Petrol prices are much higher there than they are in large cities. I have perhaps had a bit of luck recently in that Asda has opened a branch in the past year, which has pushed some petrol prices down a little—not that I like to pay tribute to supermarkets all that often.
Governments of both parties have spent nearly 20 years putting up petrol prices, and they have justified that in part by saying that it would encourage us to change our behaviour by buying smaller cars and driving less. Well, I think we have all got that message now. I have a smaller car that does many more miles to the gallon, as have most of my constituents, and many of the businesses that I talk to have reformed the way they transport their goods in order to reduce the number of lorry loads. The message is already out there, and we do not need any more nudging. We all understand it, and there is little more that we can do. For many people, their journeys are essential, and we risk pricing them off the road and out of economic activity completely.
The price of fuel is high. In fact, the underlying price—excluding the duty—has increased by about 20% over the past two years. There is no need for an inflationary rise in the duty to ensure that the price goes up in line with inflation, because the price has already risen by that amount. I cannot see any justification for a price rise on that basis. The only argument left for a further fuel duty increase is the fact that we need tax revenue, but this would be an especially bad way of generating that revenue, given the damage that it would do to our economy at this difficult time. I therefore urge the Government to scrap the rises that are planned for next year, and to try instead to find a way of reducing the duty in order to stimulate the economic activity that we need.
Eurozone Crisis
Nigel Mills Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable position for the Labour leader to take when he says:
“I don’t think Brussels has too much power.”
What sort of negotiation would it be if he were in charge?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Chancellor’s efforts to protect British taxpayers from further bail-outs. I also welcome his statement that the International Monetary Fund exists to support countries that cannot support themselves, but I reiterate my concern that the IMF does not end up supporting a currency if a country chooses not to take the right action.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend has made a good point. The IMF exists to support countries, and supports 53 at present. It does not exist to support currencies.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Nigel Mills Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Group filing for corporation tax—
‘The Chancellor shall direct the Office of Tax Simplification to report by 31 March 2012 on the potential for the introduction of a consolidated corporation tax filing for UK-resident companies meeting the current definition of a group for corporation tax purposes, to include an assessment of the potential cost savings for companies and HMRC, and the potential for reducing tax avoidance.’.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out ‘is treated as having come into force on 1 April 2011’ and insert
‘shall come into effect when legislation shall have been enacted requiring that all public limited companies registered in the United Kingdom shall be required to submit the arrangements for the payment of salaries and bonuses of their directors to a binding vote of approval by their shareholders at an Annual General Meeting.’.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 16, leave out ‘is treated as having come into force on 1 April 2011’ and insert
‘shall come into effect when legislation shall have been enacted requiring all public limited companies registered in the United Kingdom to publish the current salaries and bonuses of their directors.’.
Amendment 51, in clause 7, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
‘(10A) The Chancellor shall produce, before 30 August 2011, a report on the Government’s discussions with the industry on the implementation of the increased charge’.
Amendment 17, in clause 42, page 27, line 4, after ‘appoint’, insert
‘after a Report has been submitted to the House of Commons detailing the number of EIS schemes previously approved, their total cost in terms of tax relief, the number of jobs created by the companies enjoying such relief and the number of companies that failed subsequent to relief being granted allowing for an estimate to be made of the cost of each job created under the terms of this scheme when compared to the cost of tax relief given.’.
Amendment 9, in clause 43, page 27, line 35, at end insert—
‘(11A) In section 1052 in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(e) incurred on premises costs
(f) incurred on design costs
(g) incurred on patent, trade mark, registered design, copyright, design right or plant breeder’s right (see section 1139)”.
(11B) After section 1142 add—
“1142A Premises costs
(1) In this part “premises costs” means rents and business rates costs of the studio where R&D is undertaken.
1142B Design costs
‘(1) In this Part “design costs” means—
(a) user interface costs,
(b) user testing costs,
(c) aesthetic costs,
(d) new business model costs.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) “user interface costs” means—
(a) costs occurred from designing the visual and functional appearance of the application,
(b) costs occurred from designing the code that reacts to user inputs.
(3) In subsection (1)(b) “user testing costs” means—
(a) costs occurred during product testing.
(4) In subsection (1)(c) “aesthetic costs” means—
(a) costs occurred from the artistic design of the product.
(5) In subsection (1)(d) “new business model costs” means—
(a) marketing of building a new business monetisation model,
(b) marketing of testing a new business monetisation model.”’.
Nigel Mills
The aim of new clauses 12 and 14 is to encourage the Government to move a little faster in simplifying our corporation tax system, which is far too complex to meet modern needs.
On a day on which we have celebrated the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, it is appropriate to start with a quote from that great tax reformer. He said in 1985:
“Later in this session of Congress, we’ll be presenting our proposals for tax reform that will lower tax rates, broaden the tax base and make the tax code simpler and fairer. We’re looking at a top rate on personal income taxes of 35 percent, very possibly less. And we’ll be sure that incentives for capital formation are maintained. And I just want to reemphasise one thing: Tax reform will not be a tax increase in disguise.”
Those words are as relevant today as they were 26 years ago. To be fair, the Government have received that message. The Exchequer Secretary recently said:
“Taxation in Britain is far too complex. A clearer and more straightforward tax system will bring benefits for tax payers, tax professionals and the Government alike.”
I hope that the whole House would entirely agree with those sentiments.
The Government have taken welcome steps in the right direction. We have established the Office of Tax Simplification, and I commend the work it has done. In fact I am keen to ensure that we get maximum value out of it by giving it a bit more work to do under these two new clauses. At a time when we are assessing the value of all our quangos and outside bodies, the more work we get out of them the better.
We need to hasten the work of the OTS along. We are already a year into this Parliament and we rightly have a process now whereby we consult in detail on major changes to the tax system. If we do not bring forward our proposals in the next year or so, we will struggle to get any benefit from them in this Parliament, and that is the direction in which I am encouraging the Government to go tonight.
The Exchequer Secretary has made such a great start in tax simplification that he has had the honour of being named the tax personality of the year. We could start making various jokes about accountants’ personalities, but we would probably cause grave offence to all my former colleagues, so perhaps we should leave that subject. We have had a consultation on removing a few simple tax allowances, such as the reliefs for angostura bitters and black beer—if going that far gets the Minister that award, just think what garlands could be thrown at his feet if he tackled some of the real complexities of our tax system!
It was just last week that the Government announced the next areas that they want the OTS to consider, rightly including the taxation of pensioners and employment taxes. However, at a time when we need business to drive the growth that will sort out the deficit and our economy, we need to look at the taxes that encourage—or perhaps discourage—business from making the investment that we need. That is why new clause 12 would require the OTS to consider ways to simplify the capital allowance system, or to replace it if simplification is not possible. If the Minister questions why we need that provision, I draw his attention to the Bill, in which we have had to introduce various measures that tinker with the capital allowance system, because we know it is out of date and not working. It is hard to imagine that anyone would design from scratch a system in which we have to introduce a modification to ensure a different system for short-life assets and then we have to change the definition of short-life assets to eight years. I wonder how often businesses invest in assets that they expect to have a useful life of eight years, never mind any longer. That is a clear sign that the system is not working, out of date and far too complex. It needs to change.
I am sure that Members have taken a fascinating look through this country’s tax code and seen how many types of capital allowances we now have. We have a basic regime—the general pool—which from next year will produce an allowance on a reducing balance basis of 18%, meaning that it will take a long time for a business to get the full economic relief for its investment. It would take well in excess of six years to get the majority of that relief. We then have the short-life asset pool for assets that a business thinks might have a life of less than eight years. That effectively means that it has to track those assets and work out when to scrap or dispose of them to get the final balance. We also have a long-life asset regime for assets that have a particularly long life, but which are not suitable for the general pool. Furthermore, we have different rules for cars and environmentally friendly assets, and completely different rules for assets on a finance lease, where effectively we allow account depreciation.
This range of reliefs for simple investments in plant and machinery beggars belief. Frankly, if I was an overseas business or someone with some cash wanting to start a business in the UK, and if I wanted to invest in a heavy manufacturing business, was investing in large numbers of plant and equipment and went to my adviser and said, “I want to invest in the UK. Can you tell me how I get relief for all this investment?” and I got the answer, “Well, it depends on whether it’s a long-life asset, a short-life asset, an ordinary asset, an environmentally friendly asset, and it depends whether you lease it, hire purchase or buy it outright”, I would start to wonder whether it was really worth the effort. Surely there must be a simpler and better way of doing this than having to go down all these different routes.
We know what happens. The system creates complexity for businesses having to track and make all these returns. Then the Revenue has to audit and scrutinise those returns and ensure that everything is done properly. It therefore takes work on both sides to support a system that I suspect is achieving the opposite of what we want, which is to encourage existing and new businesses to invest in new, modern and environmentally friendly equipment, and to create more jobs in the manufacturing sector that we so value in this country.
Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I share his interest in this subject because, like him, I have large amounts of manufacturing industries in my constituency. Have any businesses in his constituency made representations to him about how much such a measure could save them or help them to invest?
Nigel Mills
I can think of many things on which businesses lobby their MP, but the details of the tax system are a little way down that list. We would find that businesses take a different view of whether they benefit from the current regime. However, as we continually reduce the rate, this will become of greater interest to more and more businesses. Yes, businesses come to me and say, “The general tax system is just far too complex. The corporation tax system as a whole is far too complex.” The issue I have raised is just one particularly good example of where the system is now out of date.
If the Minister needs more encouragement to simplify the system, I would add that the more complex we make a system, the more attractive we make tax avoidance and the more loopholes we create for tax avoidance. Through the Finance Bill we have had to introduce anti-avoidance measures to try to stop people exploiting the system’s complexities. How much more attractive would it be if we simplified the regime either by retaining capital allowances that provide the attraction of a simple fixed rate of relief, or by allowing a business to relieve the depreciation charge it makes in its accounts? In previous debates, we have heard of the risk that businesses could massage their tax results to accelerate the deduction in advance of the economic life of those assets ending. These things can be tackled, however. In effect we are allowing a business with an intangible asset to take relief for its accounts depreciation. It is strange that we allow that for intangible assets that we cannot, by definition, touch and for which there is no scientific data proving the lifespan, yet for tangible assets—the core things we want businesses to invest in—people have to go down this hugely complex route.
In reducing the allowance rate from 20% to 18%, the Government think that they will more closely align rates with the economic life of assets these days. I am not sure that businesses in my constituency are saying that that is their experience. These days, things move on so fast that the life of an asset is quite hard to predict. If someone is looking for a return on an asset over six years-plus, it is hard to be confident in the current market. There are many issues with the capital allowance system, and I suspect that each year a different aspect will become the hot topic. The Minister will be lobbied by different interest groups, as I suspect he was this year in his attempt to move—quite rightly—from four years to eight years, but when he is next lobbied and gets proposals in his Red Box to add another layer of complexity to the system, I hope he will say, “Actually, there must be a better way we can do this.” This is fundamental to our corporate tax system, it is fundamental to how we encourage investment in our country, and there must be a better, simpler, fairer way that removes some of the potential for abuse. New clause 12 would get the Office of Tax Simplification to consider whether a better system could be introduced. I would strongly encourage the Government to consider carefully going down that line.
Let us step back in history to the time of President Reagan. One example of how not to simplify a tax system was his Tax Reform Act of 1986, which introduced what was called the “double-declining balance method”, switching to the straight line method at a time to maximise the depreciation allowance. I raise that issue only to show that this is not as simple as saying that we need either the current system or accounts depreciation—different things could be done that might encourage investment, although I am not sure that the double-declining balance would meet my aim of simplifying, even if it might give businesses the joy of accelerated relief. I shall not ask the Minister to respond in detail on that particular method, however, as I suspect that it will not have featured in his recent studies.
New clause 14 addresses a slightly less hot topic—groups of companies. These can range from groups with two companies through to multinationals with dozens or even hundreds of UK companies. For corporation tax purposes, we currently ask groups to file a tax return for each entity. Then we ask them to file separate claims and elections for all the various inter-group transfers and allocations. They are allowed to transfer a loss from one company against the profit of another, and they are allowed various elections on the transference of assets around the group. All these things create a huge compliance headache for taxpayers and the Revenue.
It is worth considering whether there is a simpler way of getting groups to deal with their corporation tax compliance by filing a tax return covering the whole group. There are precedents: many other tax regimes under our competitors allow groups to file a single tax return for their whole group, and in fact we allow groups to make group VAT elections and effectively file single VAT calculations. I wonder how much easier it would be for a group if it had the same basis for VAT as for corporation tax. Let us consider all the potential savings for businesses and the Revenue in not having to go through dozens of individual tax returns. We should bear in mind the fact that many entities in a group will have few entries and will add very little. Under my proposal, we would no longer require all these group relief returns when businesses allocate losses from one company to another, then make a change following submission and have to change all those returns, after which one company makes a loss the next year that changes the previous year’s return, meaning that they have to re-file them all. All these things add huge complexity and costs but very little value to the tax system.
I accept that they add some value to the Treasury, however, through the hope that, somewhere in a group, some losses or something else will not get relieved but will get trapped, whereas under a simplified system they would get used. I am not sure that our predecessors, when they passed these reliefs to support and encourage business, were aiming to put in place systems so complex and out of date that some relief would get denied when it ought to be given.
There are further reasons behind my proposals. We impose on UK group companies various requirements to review the pricing of transactions that take place between them. There is no tax at stake if company A sells something to company B for £100, then has to work out whether the price ought to have been £95 or £105. The only result is that one entity ends up with a slightly reduced profit, and the other with a slightly higher one. Both pay the same rate of tax, so the present arrangements simply result in a paper chase that creates compliance headaches for business and the Revenue alike. All such transactional requirements between group companies would disappear if they were allowed to file one tax return.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for kicking off this wide-ranging discussion on a number of important tax issues. He certainly enlightened me when he revealed that the Minister is tax personality of the year. I missed that; despite all my “Gauke” Google alerts, I missed the fact that he was tax personality of the year. May I offer the official Opposition’s wholehearted congratulations to him on that?
The hon. Member for Amber Valley gave a number of Ronald Reagan quotes and he said today was the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. That was on 6 February, in fact, but this is the 100th year since Ronald Reagan’s birth. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, today is the day on which we shrank the UK tax base by giving away America 200-odd years ago, and I hope that, as part of his plans for simplification, the hon. Gentleman will recall that.
New clauses 12 and 14 were proposed by the hon. Gentleman and he may be surprised to learn that I am not averse to his suggestion in new clause 14, because there are grounds for discussing the simplification of UK corporation tax returns for multinationals. It is worth while considering the review that he suggests, provided that it examines whether such a simplification will decrease, rather than increase, tax evasion—an increase is always the worry with such a simplification. New clause 14 potentially has merit and although I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to push it to a vote, I hope that the Minister will consider the issue.
New clause 12 proposes to review, or possibly even remove, capital allowances and asks the Office of Tax Simplification to report on replacing them with a different form of relief. The hon. Member for Amber Valley will know that Labour Members had substantial concerns about reducing capital allowances for firms, which explains why I cannot support the new clause. My hon. Friends and I tabled a number of amendments in Committee to oppose the reduction in the capital allowances. I realise that the reduction was tied up strongly with the decision to cut corporation tax to 24% by 2014-15—shortly thereafter it was decided to cut it to 23%— which was one of the flagship growth measures in the June Budget. However, that was paid for by slashing investment and capital allowances, which encourage businesses to take a long-term view by providing tax relief on the purchase of equipment and machinery. The view that I expressed in Committee has not changed, although I know that it will cause disagreement: companies that invest, particularly in manufacturing—car industries in my own area of north Wales, advanced manufacturing, wind turbine manufacturing, plane makers and so on—will benefit from capital allowances, whereas the tax cuts are, unfortunately, aimed at financial services.
At the time of the June 2010 Budget, manufacturers expressed concern at what this approach will mean for industry. More recently, the engineering manufacturers association warned that the Government risk moving to a tax system that contains “a bias” against big manufacturers. Members on both sides of the House are trying to encourage manufacturing growth, and I believe that the review that the hon. Gentleman seeks in the new clause could be damaging to the growth of capital investment and, therefore, to the growth of manufacturing industry.
Nigel Mills
I wish to clarify something. My aim in new clause 12 was not to do what the right hon. Gentleman fears will happen, but to do the opposite. I was aiming to ask the OTS to consider simplifying or replacing the capital allowances regime with one that would match the tax relief more closely to the life of the assets being invested in. My concern was that an 18% reducing balance was giving tax relief over a far longer period than the actual useful life of those assets. I felt that having a simpler system, where a shorter “life” meant that the tax relief would be obtained much faster, would incentivise investment, not discourage it.
Mr Hanson
That is an interesting argument, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s detailed knowledge of these matters, which goes back to his professional experience before entering the House. My worry has been placed on the record on Second Reading, in Committee and on several other occasions. For the moment, it is best that we keep our arguments to the effectiveness of capital allowances, and I will, thus, still be unable to support the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled amendments 15, 20 and 17. I suspect that he was even more surprised than me to hear the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) offer his unflinching support for my hon. Friend’s suggestions on this matter. I thank him for tabling his amendments because they make an extremely important contribution to the debate. We face a real issue in how we collectively address what is now a cross-party concern and shed light on the remuneration of executives, who are ultimately paid by the companies for which they work and by us as consumers of those goods in our society at large.
Mr Gauke
There have been assessments of the enterprise investment scheme, which has been in place since 1994. We want to encourage greater investment, particularly in smaller companies. We recognise that sometimes there is market failure in that area, which is why tax incentives are justifiable. We have set out as much information as we can, but it is not something on which we can provide precise numbers. That is not the nature of the economy, but the scheme will encourage greater investment and that should be welcomed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his remarks on my award as tax personality of the year. Some may think it a somewhat oxymoronic award, but I can tell the House that it has changed my life considerably.
My hon. Friend brings much greater expertise to these matters than I do. I welcome the fact that he seeks simplicity, which is not always the case with new clauses and amendments to Finance Bills. I want to make a couple of points that relate to both his new clauses.
First, we do not see it as our role to direct the Office of Tax Simplification. The office has done a lot of good work, but it is important that its independence is respected. Secondly, in its broad work the OTS has looked at the various allowances and reliefs in the tax system and has concluded that they are not areas where it wants to devote its efforts. None the less, I know that the OTS will closely read my hon. Friend’s speech. We are always keen to look at areas where we can improve the administration of the tax system, including his proposals in new clause 14 on consolidated filing.
On new clause 12, the OTS has given initial consideration to capital allowances as part of its review of tax reliefs and its ongoing review of small business taxation. The Government have set out their approach to capital allowances in the corporate tax road map. Allowing each business asset to be written off for tax purposes in line with its own depreciation rates would not necessarily bring the benefits to businesses that the new clause anticipates. Some business assets would depreciate more slowly than they currently do under the capital allowances regime, and it should be noted that the annual investment allowance gives immediate write-off for the plant and machinery expenditure of 95% of UK businesses. There is thus a danger that the new clause could increase business tax complexity.
I know that my hon. Friend tabled his new clauses as probing provisions. I may not have entirely satisfied him, but he has put his case on record and the OTS will of course look carefully at what he says.
I turn finally to amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has played a constructive role on the issue in the three months since the Budget announcement on oil and gas. He made an important contribution when the House debated clause 7 in the Committee of the whole House. He has stressed the importance of working closely with the industry in the months ahead, which the Government committed to do at the time of the Budget. We announced then that we would work with the industry in three key areas: setting the right trigger price for the fair fuel stabiliser; looking at whether we can find a way to provide long-term certainty on decommissioning relief; and looking at the case for new categories of field qualifying for the field allowance. I am pleased to tell the House that we are making good progress in these discussions. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is here this evening, will update the House on progress on those discussions as soon as is appropriate. I hope and expect that she will be able to do so in the very near future. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling his amendment. Although I have been unable to respond in full detail, I hope that the Government will be in a position to do so shortly.
In conclusion, I remind the House that it is the Government’s aim to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20. We have set out our plans for reform over the next five years in the corporate tax road map, which was published last November. In order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers. Therefore, although we have had a good debate, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the motion.
Nigel Mills
My purpose in moving the new clause was to encourage the Government down the route of tax simplification, which I hope I have achieved tonight. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Charge and main rates for 2011-12
Regulatory and Banking Reform
Nigel Mills Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I reiterate what I said before. Yes, Northern Rock has been put up for sale. The purchaser could be a proprietary company or another mutual. An acquisition by another mutual could actually help strengthen the mutual sector. I have made it clear that as the sale process proceeds, we will compare the outcome with either an initial public offering or a stand-alone remutualisation. The challenge that those supporting a stand-alone remutualisation need to address is how we ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money from that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Although I warmly welcome the long-term direction that the Government are taking, may I press the Minister a little further on the short-term problem of the regulators’ demands for banks to improve their balance sheets? That is leading to deleveraging, which is starving businesses of the funds that they need to provide the growth that we need. Is there any way in which we can force—or encourage, at least—the regulator to go against the cycle and, when times are tough, to be a little more relaxed and allow banks to lend more in these difficult situations?
Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base
Nigel Mills Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
As has been pointed out already this evening, we ultimately have the ability to say no, but rather than having to do so, we want to ensure that we carry the majority of member states in the first place. That is precisely what we are doing now, and we want to ensure that we are in a position to do it as effectively as possible.
I assure the House that we are putting our points across. Tonight’s debate is a key part of that, because it is an important opportunity for the House to put on record its concerns and views as these proposals develop. The proposals are at an early stage, but they are shaping up to be important and fundamental.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
We are inviting the Minister to say whether she agrees that, as I believe, no form of consolidated tax base will ever be acceptable. It is vital to our competitiveness that we can attract business here with a more competitive way of calculating the tax base, so any proposals under which we would not have that competitive edge must be bad for our nation. It is all right saying that this is a draft, but I cannot think of any form of this proposal that could ever be in our interest.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend might well be right, but I want to make clear the rules and the processes going forward. No member state can unilaterally block the use of enhanced co-operation. Of course we can decide whether we want to be part of that—I have clearly set out the Government’s concerns about the proposal—but I am saying to the House that we need to participate in the debate and ensure that we influence the underlying proposal. We do not want to end up being unable to stop enhanced co-operation simply because it was a proposal that we fundamentally did not want in the first place. We need to make our case, with other member states, in order to influence the proposal as it develops, and that is precisely what we want to do.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), although I shall not follow his lead by addressing European law in forensic detail. In these debates, we run the risk of getting lost in the detail of legal technicalities and forgetting to look at why the whole idea before us is bad for Britain and bad for Europe. Although I understand why the Government have put forward this proposal, I want at the very least to try to improve it and to make the final agreed measure the least bad it can possibly be. More than that, however, I think we must explain why the whole idea is so bad for all European Union member states and try to persuade them to kill it off and not run with a slightly improved version.
My hon. Friend set out some of the reasons why this is bad for Britain. There is great concern that it would lead to tax revenue disappearing from Britain and going to other member states. We should consider the three proposed allocation keys: the number of employees and the wage bill; the value of tangible assets, but not intangible assets except in some limited circumstances; and the level of sales. Those keys will greatly favour economies that have high employee-intensive and asset-intensive industries, and I am not at all sure that that is how we would describe our economy, or whether it would accord with our vision for our economy in the future. The amount of profit, and therefore tax revenue, could be skewed, with the extra sums going to the nations with high numbers of employees and high-value tangible assets. As a result of this measure, multinational groups would be able to allocate certain activities and thereby place their corporate tax bills in territories that would result in their getting a lower rate than we might want. We must thereore be very careful.
From my experience as a tax adviser for 13 years, I can say that what we want is choices. It would be a great start if we could choose whether or not to be in the regime, or if we could choose to be in, and then try to have a completely different allocation key if we can find one that gets us a lower bill. The draft directive allows that. The aim must be to get every possible chance to choose. If I can choose where to base and allocate certain activities, I can come up with some clever ideas on how to reduce my tax base. In these days of internet sales, where we recognise a sale to have been made is an interesting exercise. Is it where the server is based, for instance? It could be set anywhere we like, I think.
For some, there is an attraction in such Europe-wide measures. If I were an American finance director I might think, “I have 27 EU subsidiaries, and sorting out all the tax returns and compliance issues is horribly complicated, but now I can just do one nice and simple tax return. Great!” In the US system however, there is a federal corporate tax, but also a load of different state systems. I do not think anyone would say its system is at all simple, or would choose to adopt that model.
We should be looking to take away some of the tax barriers across Europe. Frankly, the EU has led to the creation of some unnecessary tax obstacles. The idea that the EU involves a tax simplifying arrangement is somewhat laughable. About seven years ago, we had to extend transfer pricing rules to apply between UK resident companies of the same group because we were concerned that the European Court would otherwise throw out the transfer pricing rules that only applied on cross-border transactions. That increased the compliance burden on almost every corporate tax group in the UK. Ideally, we would allow our large groups to have a consolidated tax filing in the UK of all their UK entities, and thus take away the need to keep separate records and make separate transactions. We cannot do that because we fear European law would strike it out for no particularly good reason, yet we can try to have this complex arrangement for the whole EU.
We would think that the EU would be taking away withholding taxes, yet its directives allow withholding taxes on certain transactions between member states. If we are going to spend a lot of time and money looking to simplify tax across the EU, let us look to take away the barriers that are already there, and not create whole new levels of complexity we do not need. This whole agenda is a complete blind; this has to be seen as a drive towards a single European Union, a single federal state and a single tax system. If we want to be competitive, we are making exactly the right moves in reducing our tax rate, but there is more to a competitive tax system that attracts overseas investment than just the rate; there is the tax base, and the stability and simplicity of the system. If there is one message for the Government coming out of this, it is that we need to simplify our tax regime to make these ideas, which are superficially simple but which would not turn out to be so, seem less attractive.
I took the time to look through the draft directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base and I could see a few things in it that will attract some multinational directors. Its level of tax depreciation or capital allowances allowed for fixed assets is somewhat higher than we are reducing ours to. As I recall it, the EU is allowing 25% on a reducing balance basis, rather than the 18% that our level is now down to. Various other things in the directive may also be found attractive. We should focus our energies on trying to simplify our tax system to keep our competitive advantage, which arises from some of the reliefs we offer. We should also try to take away the tax barriers around Europe and not create a whole new complex system. We should not waste loads of time and money and miss the big picture.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Nigel Mills Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many challenges across the board, and manufacturing is always going to be a changing, moving field. In my area of north Wales, for example, manufacturing grew quite dramatically. In my constituency, we make the Airbus aeroplanes, which you will know very well from your constituency in Bristol, Ms Primarolo. That has been a major growth industry, in partnership with Government investment, Government backing for investment and Government loans and grants to help to grow the private sector and create jobs. The people who have those jobs then spend their wages in the local economy, creating further jobs in shops and in other manufacturing areas across the board. It is therefore an ever-changing field.
I have tried to make it clear to the Minister that we support the general direction of travel on cutting corporation tax, because we do not want the UK to be uncompetitive with our neighbours. In our discussion on clause 4, I was simply seeking an assessment of how the Minister will measure the success of the provision, because we will be forgoing a considerable amount of resource and we will need to measure a success that we do not yet know. The proposal on capital allowances goes hand in hand with the proposal on corporation tax. We will be paying for that cut in part with a major slashing of investment allowances by £2.6 billion under these proposals. Again, I am simply asking for an ongoing assessment of the impact of the measure, because it might work and it might not. I fear that cutting the allowances will lead to a lack of investment, a lack of growth and a further reduction in the manufacturing industry that the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) is seeking to protect and develop. I want to test the Minister on these issues so that he can justify to the Committee why he is making these cuts.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case. Would he care to comment on whether any work was done by the previous Government when the capital allowance rate was reduced from 25% to 20% to determine whether that cut had the kind of damaging consequences that he now envisages with the cut to 18%?
Nigel Mills
It is with a small amount of pleasure that I rise to speak about tax issues, having spent 13 years advising companies on them, mostly under a Labour Government. It was kind of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to mention my two former employers and the various comments that they have made, which I happily endorse.
I want to comment on the request for a review of the proposed reduction in capital allowances partly because I think that we are in a strange position overall. The purpose of capital allowances is to give businesses tax relief on their capital investment in order to encourage them to invest in plant and machinery. We used to try to encourage them to invest in industrial buildings and factories, but we have stopped doing that now.
The attraction of the capital allowance system used to be the ability to incentivise people by accelerating tax relief. Forty years ago someone who invested in a piece of equipment with a 10 or 15-year useful life could accelerate the tax relief on it quite far in advance of the overall spread of its useful life, but I am not sure that that is where we are now. How many businesses in our constituencies will invest in equipment when they are not certain that its useful life will be even 10 years? If they expect it to be five or six years, the present mechanism will not work at all.
A simple calculation will show that, given an 18% writing down rate, an investor will still not have received tax relief on 30% of his investment in a piece of equipment. After eight years, he will still have not have received 20%. He may anticipate a fairly large residual scrap value if he can sell the equipment on, but that is on the assumption that a good deal of its useful life remains, and I am not sure how realistic that assumption is.
If we are to have a review, let us review the whole capital allowance system to establish whether it is really giving businesses an incentive to invest. Perhaps we should have a look at what they are actually doing in their accounts. The right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned that. What is the useful life over which they are writing off assets? I think that we may be adding a huge amount of complexity to the system by preventing all the businesses in the country from employing actual accounts depreciation for this purpose, and requiring the creation of a capital allowance pool requiring all the assets to be tracked separately. In the past it was said that businesses were receiving a tax incentive, but this huge and unnecessarily complex system may have an adverse impact on them. Our review should ask whether the capital allowance regime is the right one.
Later—not today—we will come to clause 12. The Government have responded to some lobbying, and have recognised that it will cause huge problems for manufacturing business in particular. The clause proposes that the lives of short-life assets should end after eight years. Someone who invests in equipment whose life he expects to be less than eight years will have to make a separate election to treat it as a short-life asset rather than putting it in his main capital allowance pool. He can try to obtain the tax relief over the eight years; otherwise, as I have said, he will still have 20% unrelieved. We are building additional complexity into the system, and I am not sure that that is necessary.
The Bill contains various responses to businesses that are trying to find ways around the capital allowance rules. Clause 33, for instance, proposes anti-avoidance rules for long-funding finance leases. Year in year out, we see new and complex rules intended to prevent businesses from getting around the rules. Sometimes they are trying to obtain extra deductions to which they are not entitled, and sometimes they are trying to find ways of receiving a deduction over the period for which they think they should receive it.
If we are to be a tax-simplifying, tax-reforming Government, perhaps the Office of Tax Simplification could conduct a review of whether the capital allowance is still fit for purpose, and whether it is the right way to attract business investment over the next 10 or 15 years. Should we, in fact, try to find a way out of it, and adopt a system that allows businesses simply to look at their accounts to be eligible for some kind of tax relief, rather than having to adjust the depreciation for those assets? I know that that too will be complex, because there will be a huge hangover from the existing system, and there will be problems when people try to accelerate relief over far too short a period. However, I think that all those problems can be addressed, and that we shall be able to stop increasing the complexity of the system.
I cannot vote for the amendment, because I think that it is merely an excuse for a debate. If we are to have a review, let us have a proper one.
Nigel Mills
If we want a competitive corporate tax system, the tax rate is key. However, we probably need to examine four things, which include the tax base, as the hon. Gentleman said, and the complexity, stability and predictability of the system. We are in danger of just ticking the first box; I am not sure we are ticking the tax-base box well with this approach, and we are adding extra complexity. Many regimes around the world do not have capital allowances but do let businesses take the depreciation that they see in their accounts. That is a far more attractive, simple and predictable system, because businesses would not think, “I might invest in this piece of equipment, but they might reduce this to 15% in three years’ time and my relief suddenly starts to look different.” As the hon. Gentleman was trying to say, this involves a combination of things. We need to get not only the rate right, but the base and the underlying system right; we will not get all the advantages from simply reducing the rate.
However, for most businesses the first headline comparison is about the overall tax rate, so that is the main thing to focus on. I am not going to vote against this rate reduction. Paying for the reduced rate partly by reduced capital allowances is the right way to go in this financial situation, but we need to go in the direction of simplifying our incredibly complex corporate tax system. We can all work out the statistics by saying, “When I started work 13 years ago, my tax legislation was so big and when I left a year ago it was much bigger, and I have not even got the VAT and inheritance tax book.” We can look at how many schedules on income—actual capital—we have and consider how many of them we actually need. The capital allowance regime is part of that problem, because it was written 50 or 100 years ago, when it actually worked. A lot of these things are out of date, so we must look to simplify things if we want to ask businesses to invest. I am not sure that they are going to worry about whether something is at 18% or 20%, but they do want tax relief for their investment over the useful life of their asset provided in a way that is simple for them to manage. I am not sure that we are anywhere near providing that at the moment.
A lot of my clients use the capital allowances regime to add flexibility to how they get tax relief in the years when they have profits and in the right entities in which they have profits. They will not entirely welcome my idea of simplifying this system and taking all that away from them. However, if we are to get a modern, competitive corporate tax system, it must be simple and easy to understand. It must also do what we want it to do: incentivise the investment that we desperately need to have a growing economy.
John McDonnell
I have a fair amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), because if he ever wants to return to his former profession he may well find that he has lost a number of clients as a result of that speech.
The linkage between clauses 4 and 10 is inevitable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said from the Front Bench, because the corporation tax reductions are being paid for by these cuts in capital allowances. I do not want to upset the consensus that has emerged on the cuts in corporation tax, but I do not support them and believe that they will be an error in the long run. I address the issue of capital allowances in that context.
I am unclear as to what the Government’s strategy is on stimulating the economy to tackle the recession in a way that rebalances the economy. I thought that this was not just going to be a rebalancing between the public and private sectors. I listened to some of the statements made by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about rebalancing the economy as between the finance sector and the manufacturing sector, which gained support across the House. We heard about the development of a manufacturing strategy that would enable us to have a balanced economy between the finance, manufacturing and service sectors, so that if there was a crisis in one sector, the whole economy would not collapse as a result of overdependence on that sector. However, these Budget measures seem to fly in the face of that balanced approach.
A number of methods can be used to re-stimulate the economy, one of which is tax cuts, including corporation tax cuts, as have been introduced in this Bill. Another method is the more directional approach of considering a form of tax cuts through the capital allowances, whereby the Government try to influence economic behaviour in a way they believe to be beneficial. The other method is to invest in largely capital expenditure through public services—I am talking about public investment.
Mr Gauke
Amendment 6 would require the Chancellor to publish by 31 October 2012 an assessment of the impact of the proposed changes to capital allowances on the UK economy, as we have heard. The amendment was tabled to clause 10, which reduces the rates of writing-down allowance on the main rate pool of plant and machinery expenditure to 18% and on the special rate pool to 8%. Before I deal with the amendment, I will explain the purpose of clause 10, which is key to the amendment.
Capital allowances allow businesses to write off their expenditure on capital assets, such as plant and machinery, against their taxable income. They act as a simple, statutory system in place of commercial depreciation. Capital allowances are given at different rates, depending on the year of investment and the type of asset acquired. The principal year-on-year allowance for plant or machinery expenditure is the writing-down allowance. The main rate is currently 20% per annum, and the special rate is 10%.
Both are calculated on the reducing-balance basis. We are making changes also to the annual investment allowance, in clause 11, reducing it to £25,000, as we have heard, and extending the short-life assets regime from four to eight years, in clause 12.
The changes announced last year, which are given effect by clauses 10 and 11, enable a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax, which will reaffirm Britain’s competitive tax system and support enterprise and growth. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was right to highlight the fact that this is part of a package. In his earlier remarks, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) pointed out that this was a partial contribution. There is none the less a gap, and further funding has been found—from the bank levy, for example—which has enabled us to reduce the corporation tax rate.
We have already debated the benefits of reducing the corporation tax rate and we have returned to that topic to some extent in the present debate. I note that it does not have the support of all hon. Members, although it is supported by the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is helpful to repeat what was said by John Cridland, the director general of the CBI:
“The extra 1p cut in corporation tax will help firms increase investment.”
The objective is not just to reduce the amount of tax that companies pay, but to enable them to invest and grow businesses in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that that is welcomed throughout much of the Chamber.
Our initial assessment of the package as a whole suggested that that would lead to an additional £13 billion of business investment by 2016 by making the cost of capital investment cheaper. The additional reductions in corporation tax rate and the extension of the short-life assets regime will help to increase further the levels of investment by business. We estimate that the overall effect of these measures will be to reduce the tax liabilities of the manufacturing sector by around £700 million by 2015. The changes to the rates of writing-down allowances do not mean that businesses will not continue to receive full tax relief for their investments in plant and machinery. Rather, the relief will be over a slightly extended time frame.
Let me give an example. Where it would have taken 11 years under the current rate to write off more than 90% of the cost of a machine, it will now take 12 years. Meanwhile, the rates will continue to align broadly with average rates of depreciation across the economy. This does not mean that we intend to remove capital allowances in favour of pure accounting depreciation.
On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), the previous Government did consult in some detail on their reform of corporation tax between 2002 and 2004. I am sure you remember it well, Ms Primarolo. The business response to that consultation was strongly in favour of retaining capital allowances. It was argued that capital allowances provide certainty and a level playing field, with the same rates of allowances applying to all. The flexibility of the system allows the pooling of expenditure and the ability to claim less than full allowances, depending on the individual’s business circumstances. My hon. Friend set out the case for a different approach to capital allowances. He brings great expertise on the matter and there is ongoing debate, but we do not intend to reopen discussion of that point.
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that study from almost a decade ago. I gently point out to him that the rate of capital allowances was quite a bit higher at the time of the study. If he did the same exercise now, he might get a slightly different answer.
Mr Gauke
Again, my hon. Friend raises an interesting point. We look forward to receiving any representations that he may wish to make on that. He is right to say that the rate of capital allowances has changed since 2004, and he highlighted in an intervention the fact that the previous Government—as I am sure you will recall well, Ms Primarolo—reduced writing-down allowances in 2007, a point that my hon. Friend made to the right hon. Member for Delyn.
In response to those Opposition Members who raised their concern about the approach that the Government have been taking, I point out the approach taken by their Government in the previous Parliament, when they were all Members of this place. Whereas we are reducing the writing-down allowance from 20% to 18%, the previous Government reduced it from 25% to 20%. In our case that is a contribution towards reducing the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 23%. The previous Government reduced it from 30% to 28%. Ours is a much more generous package for business and as a consequence a much better package for manufacturing than that contained in the 2007 Budget, where essentially the entire reduction in corporation tax from 30% to 28% was paid for by the reduction in the writing-down allowance from 25% to 20%.
On amendment 6, the Government are fully committed to providing greater transparency on the impact of tax measures. I am sure Opposition Members have examined the tax information and impact notes that we published on 9 December relating to clauses 10 and 11, and the additional note that we published at Budget in relation to clause 12. It is clear that there is no need to publish a report into the impact of the capital allowances changes. We have provided a great deal of detail already, but for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to read the published notes, let me provide a brief summary.
The note states:
“The OBR assessment of the package was that the cuts in CT”—
that is, corporation tax—
“rates more than offset the reductions in investment allowances”,
and that the businesses affected
“will benefit from related reductions in the rates of CT.”
As I said earlier, we expect the overall effects of the cuts in corporation tax rates and capital allowances changes to lead to an additional £13 billion of investment, and the additional changes to increase that further.
Although this is not strictly in scope, as the amendment is to clause 10, I hope I may be allowed to make a few comments about the other changes to capital allowances in the Bill, to which we shall return in Committee upstairs. The reduction in the annual investment allowance to £25,000 is estimated to affect between 100,000 and 200,000 businesses. As the tax information and impact note clearly states, however:
“The CT reform package will promote higher levels of business investment than would otherwise have been the case.”
Further, more than 95% of businesses in the UK will be unaffected, as the qualifying capital expenditure will continue to be completely covered by the annual investment allowance, so companies, be they small, medium or large, will benefit from the CT cuts, including the cut in the small profits rate in clause 5, while most unincorporated businesses, which by their nature tend to be the smallest businesses in the economy, will still have their expenditure covered by the annual investment allowance.
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Nigel Mills Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be invited to speak in the debate, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who made a passionate if somewhat partisan speech. The Opposition’s problem is that out there in the country no one believes a word that they say about this topic. We all know of their record during 13 years of government, but, just in case a reminder is needed, let me point out that when they took office in 1997 the price of a litre of unleaded petrol was about 56p, which included 43p of duty and VAT. When they left office nearly a year ago, the price was about £1.20 a litre, including tax amounting to about 75p. We hear talk of fuel duty rising “ahead of inflation” or “in real terms”, but if the price of petrol had risen in line with RPI throughout Labour’s term of office, it would have been 80p a litre at the last election rather than £1.20. That is the hike that we have all had to suffer.
As the contents of my inbox make very plain, fuel price rises are a real problem for people and businesses throughout my constituency. In many areas people have no alternative to driving a car if they want to go to work, but the fuel price rises are preventing them from being able to afford to go to work—let alone the damage that they are doing to all manner of small businesses all over the constituency. The Government must take action in next week’s Budget.
Andrew Bingham
As a fellow Derbyshire Member, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. Does not the rural character of both his constituency and mine, High Peak, exacerbate the pressures and difficulties experienced by small businesses, in particular?
Nigel Mills
I am grateful for that intervention from a fellow Derbyshire Member, and I entirely agree with him.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that all Governments had chosen to increase fuel duty over the years. We must accept that it was our Government who, nearly 20 years ago, introduced the fuel duty escalator, but the aim then was to encourage people to improve their behaviour by driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars and considering alternative means of transport. I think we can tell the Government that we have all got that message. Many of us have started using diesel and have bought cars with smaller engines in an attempt to cut our spending on fuel. I know that many of my constituents have done that. However, the scope for such measures is limited, as many people still cannot afford to drive a car. If the nudge is the order of the day, I think that we have got the message and do not need any more nudging.
Fiona O'Donnell
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we too have got the message from the Government, who claim that they want to make work pay. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for many working people, fuel price increases mean that work is not paying?
Nigel Mills
I am grateful for that intervention—I think. The cost incurred in driving to and from work is clearly a factor when people are deciding whether work pays, which is why the increase planned for 1 April really should not go ahead.
Let me return to the topic of nudging. I think we all accept that tax can influence behaviour, and that if we further increase the tax on driving we will see the changes in behaviour that we would expect. People will drive to work less, and businesses will not be able to survive, prosper and grow because they will not be able to cope with the increased cost base. We can all cite small haulage businesses in our constituencies that are struggling to deal with the duty rise. As has been pointed out, reversing the VAT rise will not help those businesses at all; it is the level of duty that we need to consider. If the Government want to find another way of raising some revenue from the haulage industry to help compensate for the loss of fuel duty, I urge them to accelerate their plan to charge foreign road hauliers for using our roads.
Nigel Mills
I am afraid that I have already given way twice.
There is anecdotal evidence that foreign hauliers drive into our country with full tanks of petrol, which in many instances means that they can do all their work here without paying any fuel duty. We are making our haulage industry uncompetitive through the prices that we are charging hauliers to buy diesel in this country and the road taxes that they have to pay. Meanwhile, we are not charging foreign hauliers anything to use our roads. Let us collect that revenue as soon as possible, and use it to help support our own small businesses.
We have heard that, according to the review by the Office for Budget Responsibility, rising prices do not necessarily generate rising tax revenues. As was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), that is because of the damage that increasing fuel prices do to the overall health of the economy, which depresses tax revenues. The Government are looking for tax cuts to try to enhance growth. We have plans to reduce corporation tax, but we should consider the damage that fuel tax rises do to growth. There must be some scope for a reduction in fuel tax. Even if it were not revenue-neutral, it might make a positive contribution to the growth that we need if we are to tackle the deficit.
I cannot support this Labour motion. The fact is that we could not reverse the impact of the VAT rise, because that would be illegal. Even if we could try, it might take six years. I urge the Front-Bench team, and the Chancellor when he delivers his Budget next week, not to go ahead with that planned fuel rise. We need some sort of fuel duty balance, to try to ensure that the shock of oil price rises does not do the real, serious and predictable damage to our economy that it could, and we must also bear in mind that if the middle east situation worsens, the shock could become much more severe than at present. We could be faced with the real damage to jobs that those significant price hikes could do.
Tax Avoidance
Nigel Mills Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
Until the election, I was employed by one of the large firms of accountants, although I assure the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) that I was not involved in tax avoidance. My role was to seek up-front agreements with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which was generally more than happy to enter into such agreements with my clients. I am not guilty of the things of which he accuses accountants. I have practised as a tax adviser since 1996, so I remember the previous Government’s attempt to introduce a general anti-avoidance rule in 1997-98, and I can just about recall why that attempt failed.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is clearly right to tackle tax avoidance and it is important that the new Government continue to do that job. I accept that the previous Government took many effective measures on that front—the move towards targeted anti-avoidance rules and the principles-based approach was the most effective way forward. However, if we are to get the deficit down, we need to increase tax revenue, so we need to attract taxpayers to the UK and encourage them to remain here. A general anti-avoidance rule in principle may not be a brilliant way of doing that.
Dr Pugh
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that. We have enough examples worldwide of such rules being implemented. We ought to be beyond the stage of simply suggesting that it can happen. We should be able to point to empirical data showing that that is exactly what has happened in places such as Hong Kong.
Nigel Mills
I am afraid that I do not have those data in front of me. Having worked with many businesses on where they want to locate head offices or functions, I know that one of the key determinants of their choice is the tax regime—its simplicity, the ease of compliance and the overall rate. The combination of difficulty of compliance, the rate and ease of getting certainty on tax treatment is what makes people choose where to go. The risk of a general anti-avoidance rule in that situation is that it makes certainty hard to get, and it would be bad to combine that with the UK’s very complex tax regime and some tax rates that are currently not over-competitive, although I hope that that will change. The combination of those three factors might make the UK an unattractive location for people to come to or stay. I am sure that many bodies can provide those data.
The key to tackling tax avoidance is to make tax law simple and understandable to taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman talked about tax avoidance being a way of frustrating the intent of tax law, but at times, it is important that the intent of the tax law is clear in the drafting and that the drafting achieves that intent. Often, commercial situations grow up that tax law does not specifically address, so the intent of Parliament is not easy to establish. If we get the drafting right, it might take away some of those problems. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the finance and Treasury rules, which are incredibly complex and have produced various loopholes that have been exploited in various ways. That is a case of very complex legislation that no taxpayers I can think of could understand, and that the vast majority of tax advisers—myself included—did not really understand. I suspect that a lot of staff at HMRC could not possibly understand it either. If we get that right, some avoidance opportunities will not come up in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not the person to draft a general anti-avoidance rule. Where the previous legislation floundered was in the attempt to find words that achieved what was wanted without unnecessarily stopping or discouraging many things that we want people to do. The examples cited at the time were the various tax-advantaged savings schemes, such as individual savings accounts, which in theory would fall within a general anti-avoidance rule unless a lot of care was taken over the exemptions included. Getting the drafting right is extremely difficult, and a lot of detailed consultation will be needed if the Government want to proceed.
I have experience of dealing with some of the existing anti-avoidance legislation, which generally looks at a transaction’s main purpose or one of its main purposes, or at the main benefit or one of its main benefits—one has a choice of which way to go. The difficulty comes in defining “transaction”. What is a scheme of transactions? How many are related? Are we tackling individual components? Should the purpose of the individual components or of the scheme as a whole be looked at? Understanding what is being done becomes very complicated. For example, somebody could decide to buy a UK-headquartered multinational business. We would all say that that is a good commercial purpose, but it commonly needs to be done differently in various territories, depending on the tax needs of those territories. As a result, individual elements of the transaction might be created that look as though they are motivated by a tax benefit, whereas, overall, they are part of a main commercial transaction. We could create great uncertainty about those transactions, which might then fail because the businesses or individuals involved could not be confident that they would get the commercial benefits they were trying to achieve without being drawn into some huge, long tax dispute.
Ms Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech illustrating precisely the problem that everybody has to grapple with, as the Minister will have to in due course. If one goes for a simple, declaratory and principles-based approach, one has to think about what is motivating people, which is difficult. The only other way of approaching it is the extremely complex and byzantine method of looking at what to do in each circumstance, which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) was worrying about. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is illustrating the fact that we get into difficulties whichever route is taken.
Nigel Mills
The hon. Lady is correct. The previous Government happened on what is probably the right balance, which is to have principles-based rules targeted at commonly exploited rules, so that taxpayers know when they are wandering on to dangerous ground and therefore need to deal with those rules, rather than having a general principle that might apply to every tax in every situation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that it puts the burden on taxpayers to declare that what they are doing has a mainly economic benefit rather than being an attempt at tax avoidance. That is a huge burden to put on taxpayers. I am not sure that we should put the burden of knowing how to comply with a general rule in complicated and innocent situations on to every payer of every tax in the country. I am not sure if that is what he intends.
Dr Pugh
Some of us laboured long and hard over controlled foreign companies. I remember one difficulty was deciding how different transactions should be linked and/or broken up. Anyone reading the legislation, highly specific as it is, will have to do an enormous amount of work—no less than if they had to apply a general principle to their circumstances.
Nigel Mills
I have some familiarity with the controlled foreign company rules, or at least the previous version—I never had to get too close to the attempt to reformulate them. Yes, they are incredibly complicated and they were complicated before, although there was a purpose exemption in the previous rules that was in some cases helpful. I would not necessarily suggest that the new Government should exactly follow the approach that was taken to reforming those rules, because it was a long drawn out process which is, I think, still incomplete.
If we are to tackle avoidance without going down the general anti-avoidance rule route—if the Minister is minded to go down that way, I suspect that by the time he has gone through the full gamut of consultation, he will be backing off quickly—perhaps we should look at overall solutions for tackling the problem rather than proceeding on that basis alone. Targeted purpose rules in areas of tax that are commonly exploited are the better way to go. As a way forward in tackling tax avoidance, we want simple, clear legislation so that the intention of Parliament is clear and both tax authorities and taxpayers can understand the aim of the law and what the rules are. That will help to support the moral argument: if we all understand the right amount of tax to pay in a situation, everyone should be paying it. The present complexity gives people the veneer of an excuse when they structure transactions in an artificial way.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned tax havens. There is a lot of scope for tax planning using other EU nations that have very different tax regimes or much lower tax rates in some situations. I am sure that the Minister has found in his in-tray a load of pending or ongoing cases at the European Court of taxpayers claiming that they have suffered tax that does not comply with various EU treaties. Roughly how much tax is the Exchequer in danger of losing or having to pay back as a result of those cases? It is important when looking at tax law to make it compliant with systems outside the UK, but it is difficult to do.
My area of expertise was transfer pricing. We were forced to apply transfer pricing rules on transactions within the UK, rather than just cross-border ones, which added a huge compliance burden that, frankly, taxpayers were not desperately excited by and the tax authorities did not have anything at stake on. I hope that we can find better ways of writing tax law that do not add to that burden. Perhaps some tweaks to European treaties would have been a better way of sorting this and creating OECD-compliant tax law, rather than using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If we want to tackle tax-avoidance effectively, let us have simple, clear legislation, and where there is abuse, let us have targeted, principles-based anti-avoidance rules that state clearly that the intent of Parliament is to stop one-sided complex financing transactions that have no commercial benefit and get a big tax advantage. In that way, we will make the progress that the hon. Gentleman wants.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. Let me begin by endorsing your words with regard to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr Timms). It was a great privilege to shadow him for a number of years, and I look forward to his return. I know that he has a formidable intellect and is a fine parliamentarian, so he will be a very testing person to have as a shadow. He is also a very good man, and I wish him well. I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) on securing this debate and on his excellent contribution. He has the benefit and experience of serving on many Finance Bill Committees. The second excellent contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who, I suspect, will serve on many Finance Bill Committees. He brought great expertise and considerable practical experience to the debate.
We had a thoughtful debate on some of the matters relating to the general anti-avoidance rule, and I shall say more on that during the course of my remarks. The quality of this debate has been extremely helpful, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport for highlighting this particular issue, and for giving me the opportunity to say a bit more about tax avoidance and the tax gap.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks in respect of my position. I had the pleasure of shadowing her to some extent. I did not directly shadow her position, but we served on Finance Bills together. She has demonstrated today that she is as tenacious in her Opposition role as she was as a Minister, and I hope to be able to answer her questions.
The issue of the tax gap, which incorporates tax avoidance but does not consist solely of it, is important for the Government. As earlier speakers have mentioned, it has been brought into even sharper relief by the dreadful state of the public finances, which we have inherited from our predecessors. As the hon. Lady pointed out, there is a public mood for people to do the right thing and to play by the rules, and that includes paying the taxes that are due under the law. Those who do not do that have very little public sympathy. The hon. Lady said that she felt that the previous Government are being traduced and unfairly criticised over their record. Although I would be the first to point out the failings of the previous Government with regard to the public finances, there are elements of both HMRC and the previous Government that I want to address in a fair manner, and their record is not all bad.
We are grateful to HMRC for publishing, for the first time, tax gap figures across all of its regimes in December 2009. It was the right thing to do and we welcome that greater transparency of information. Tax gap figures for VAT have been published for some years, but this was the first time that figures for direct taxes had been published. As we have heard, HMRC estimated the UK tax gap to be around £40 billion in 2007-08. That figure is net of the amounts collected through HMRC’s compliance activity.
The tax gap is the result of several different factors, ranging from tax evasion and organised criminal attacks on the tax system through to errors made by customers. One of the largest factors contributing to the tax gap is avoidance. Tax avoidance is estimated to contribute around 17.5%—around £7 billion—of the total tax gap. It is worth making that point at the beginning because, although those contributing to this debate today have not fallen into this trap, there is sometimes a conflation between the tax gap, which is a considerable figure, and tax avoidance, which is still a considerable figure but is only part of the £40 billion figure. None the less, £7 billion is a substantial sum, and this Government are determined to reduce it as far as possible.
As our coalition programme for government says, we will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance, which will include considering the Liberal Democrat proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport will forgive me, but with the Budget in six days’ time, I do not intend to pre-empt anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may say on that day. My hon. Friend rightly says that my previous responses in this area have been more like holding answers, and perhaps they have, but I hope, given the proximity of the Budget, that he will understand why. For that reason, and that reason alone, I do not intend to wander down the path of capital gains tax, which he gently mentioned. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be paying attention to what the Chancellor has to say next Tuesday.
I will say a word or two about the general anti-avoidance rule, which was well debated by both my hon. Friends. They managed to tease out some of the issues as well as outline some of the questions that have to be asked. The hon. Lady talked about the balance between principles and something that is much more targeted. One of the questions that we must consider is whether it enables us to reduce targeted anti-avoidance rules. Do we know the answer to that until we know what the attitude of the courts is? That is clearly something that is worth exploring. Does it require a clearance regime in order to make it work? If it does—in some countries it does and in others it does not—what resources will be necessary? My hon. Friend mentioned HMRC resources in that area. In total, HMRC has something like 17,000 tax professionals. Not all of them work exclusively on tax avoidance matters, but many of them do. There is a question, therefore, over how resources are deployed.
Nigel Mills
If the Minister was minded to proceed down that line, a clearance mechanism would be essential to avoid creating huge uncertainty for taxpayers. Having had much experience of dealing with the clearance system, I can say that it would take huge amounts of resources to deal with the amount of clearances that we would get for a general anti-avoidance rule. Almost everybody would want to get that certainty. In any remotely complicated transaction, there would be some element of doubt in the situation. There is a real risk in the case of a purpose transaction. For example, someone may say, “My intention here is commercial and not to avoid tax.” They want HMRC to write back and say, “Yes, we agree.” However, they would have to give a lot of information to achieve that response. There is a risk that if the transaction changes slightly, the claim becomes invalid, or that a hugely long and detailed inquiry would be needed covering many aspects and many different taxes, and that would take a huge amount of time and a lot of resources to complete, which will discourage the transaction from taking place at all.
Mr Gauke
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. At this point, given that we will have a Budget next week, I will say that there are a number of issues here. The Government are not hostile to exploring these areas. The coalition agreement is very clear in saying that we want to look at the Liberal Democrat proposals, which included a general anti-avoidance rule. However, my hon. Friend is right to raise some of the complexities and difficulties that may exist and that may need to be overcome. That is a debate that I think the Government, across the board, welcome and want to take forward.