Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McDonagh.

Clause 27 increases the rate of relief for businesses investing in research in development and supports the Government’s ambition to drive up R&D investment across the economy to 2.4% of GDP. R&D tax credits are a key element of that support for innovation and growth. To assist businesses further, the Government will increase the rate of the R&D expenditure credit from 12% to 13%. In the interests of disclosure, I should mention that my wife, Kate Bingham, is the chair of the vaccines taskforce and is engaged in the R&D sector.

Investment in R&D is vital for increasing productivity and promoting growth. There are two schemes for claiming R&D task credits: the research and development expenditure credit—RDEC—and the small and medium-sized enterprise scheme. Businesses can benefit from R&D tax relief regardless of whether they make a profit in that year. As R&D is often risky or pays back years after the investment, this is a well-targeted and much-valued incentive. In 2016-17, the Government provided over £2.2 billion to businesses through RDEC, supporting almost £25 billion-worth of R&D activity.

The changes made by clause 27 will provide an additional £1 billion of support over the next five years. Increasing the RDEC rate will make the UK even more competitive for R&D investment and drive growth across all the UK’s regions. I believe that the changes made by the Bill will give innovative businesses additional support and encourage further investment in R&D. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Welcome back to the Chair, Ms McDonagh.

The Financial Secretary has outlined the impact that clause 27 will have on the generosity of RDEC by increasing it from 12% to 13%. The Opposition certainly have no qualms about that; it is estimated to benefit approximately 7,000 businesses, which is to be welcomed, and the incentives that he outlined are laudable. If I may, however, I will raise a couple of concerns.

The Financial Secretary mentioned the RDEC provision and the SME R&D scheme. As other stakeholders have said, it is disappointing that while the RDEC rate of credit is being increased from 12% to 13%, we are not seeing an increase in the generosity of the SME R&D scheme. Will the Minister address that in his reply? I think it is a big missed opportunity: SMEs are an important part of our economy, and their R&D potential should not be overlooked. That is why there is a provision specifically for them, after all, so it is disappointing that they seem to have been overlooked.

While we are debating clause 27, I will make a few points about research and innovation more generally. The UK is a global centre of excellence in R&I, but we should be even more ambitious, and the Treasury ought to be driving ambition in that respect. The latest figures from the Library put the UK’s research and development spending at 1.7% of GDP—behind the USA, France and Germany. While I absolutely acknowledge that the Government intend to be more ambitious and increase the percentage of GDP spend on R&D, I do not think that there is any room for complacency, so it is disappointing that they have overlooked the SME dimension.

We have to ensure that any uplift in innovation investment also ensures value for money, and that we are more ruthless about returns for the taxpayer and our economy. It is the research that costs money and the development that brings in the financial and, crucially, industrial payback.

As I said only on Monday to a group of university leaders, we have world-class universities in this country. I am very proud of the UK’s higher education sector and the contribution it makes. I hope that the plight of our universities is well understood by the Treasury and that, as the Chancellor is considering what more needs to be done to support different sectors of our economy through the crisis, he will look very carefully at what is happening in our higher education sector. It is the result not just of luck but of strong leadership from our universities that we have a world-class higher education sector in the UK, and we want it to go on being world-class. That applies not only to the teaching and the reputation of universities as a destination for students and academics, but to the world-class research output of our universities.

We still need to do much more as a country to bridge the so-called valley of death—to take academic ideas on to commercial success. It is a constant source of frustration to me, and I think more broadly, that our universities are places of outstanding research and innovation that is then capitalised on elsewhere. We end up paying double: we pay for the research up front and then we pay to buy back the benefits of that research, which has often been applied and commercialised by others.

Industrial researchers know that the cost of scale-up and commercialisation is an order of magnitude more than the cost of fundamental research, and they allocate their resources accordingly. The public sector in the UK has that ratio almost entirely reversed, spending 10 times more on research than on scale-up and development. While I absolutely celebrate and champion the research base of our universities and the importance of research and scientific discovery, and the arts and humanities as public goods in and of themselves, it is disappointing that the UK taxpayer often find themselves a benevolent funder of research for the world, hamstrung by a funding regime that has insufficient capacity to absorb and commercialise UK-funded research in the UK. I believe there is an opportunity for the Government to think about what more they can do to ensure that future growth in the science and innovation budget is targeted on development as well as research, ensuring that research carried out in the UK is commercialised in the UK, and that the economic benefits are captured in the UK.

We can also do much more around our research and technology organisations, which are an under-utilised and undervalued part of our science and innovation base. Funding development rather than research, using RTOs, would also support the Government’s objectives, which I believe are shared cross-party, of levelling up and investing in those parts of the UK that too often in the past have felt overlooked or left behind. By ensuring that funding is targeted at development as well as research, we can ensure that a greater proportion of funding goes towards some of our industrial heartlands, particularly in the north of England, where many RTOs are located, rather than continuing to concentrate funding in the so-called golden triangle of universities in the south of England.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will take those points on board, and that when he has the opportunity to do so, with the Treasury, he will focus R&D investment appropriately. It would be particularly helpful if, this afternoon, he enabled us to understand why the Government have overlooked the importance of SMEs when thinking about our research and development tax incentives.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful comments and questions. Let me discuss the SME scheme first. It is worth reminding the Committee that the SME scheme is extremely generous as it stands. It has a 230%—2.3 times—corporation tax deduction on R&D spend and a 14.5% payable credit where losses are made; some £2.2 billion of support was claimed through the SME scheme in 2016-17. It is also true that some SMEs claim RDEC, and will therefore benefit from the increase of the expenditure credit we are discussing. In 2016-17, just under 3,500 small and medium-sized enterprises claimed a little over £200 million in support through RDEC.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman says we need more ambition, but it is important to realise that the increase now under way represents the largest increase in support for R&D for 40 years across all Governments, Labour, Conservative and coalition. It is an enormous investment that increases public investment in science, innovation and technology to £22 billion by 2024-5, so there is no absence of ambition from the present plans. Of course, it is always important to balance that ambition against cost-effectiveness and value for money.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the situation of universities in the context of covid-19. I understand that point: I used to teach at University College London and at Birkbeck, and have been associated with several universities in my life. It is also true that an enormous body of work remains to be done within universities, which may in turn be stimulated by the present situation to address the third point he made, which is the importance of the “D” in R&D—improving commercialisation and development. That is often the part of the picture that is missing, and it is hard for Government to create the development side on their own; we need active, vigorous, energetic partners. When one looks at other countries that have been highly effective at the development side of R&D, one finds in many cases that it has been not just corporate-led, but led and supported by universities as well. The hon. Gentleman’s points are therefore well made.

I remind the Committee that the ambition of this measure has been recognised by the Confederation of British Industry, which noted that these were

“powerful incentives to get businesses investing”.

It has also been specifically supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, which has recognised that despite the difficult circumstances in which the Budget was delivered, there is a commitment to this sector and this kind of investment. With that in mind, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Structures and buildings allowances: rate of relief

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Increasing the SBA rate and making these technical amendments will ensure that the SBA functions as intended—as an important relief for businesses up and down the country that wish to invest. I therefore commend both these clauses and schedule 4 to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

In the case of clauses 28 and 29, I think we have to ask some questions about what the Government are trying to achieve, and some questions about the frequency with which they change the rules.

As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has said, taxpayers generally welcome any increase in a rate of relief, but as the institute has noted on many previous occasions, regular tinkering with rules and rates of capital allowances brings additional complexity and uncertainty; it also undermines investor understanding of and confidence in what is on offer at any one time. Most businesses cite certainty as one of the most important factors in their business planning, and as the institute has also said, it is perhaps more important than the precise amount of relief available.

When the SBA was introduced in 2018, it took an approach of introducing another type of asset classification required only for tax purposes—something that was previously identified by the Office of Tax Simplification in its review of capital allowances as a source of compliance costs. For most property investors, as there is a clawback on disposal of a structural building, the main benefit of the SBA is one of cash flow. As financial accounts will have to provide for a deferred tax liability, it is questionable how much this tax measure will act as a significant incentive to invest or will result in a significant impact on the UK’s competitive advantage. The Financial Secretary ought to address that criticism.

One of the other issues I wanted to raise is something that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has mentioned. Broadly, the changes—particularly in clause 29 and schedule 4—can be described as making the SBA work as it was intended to. It is a relatively new relief, having been introduced in October 2018, and the need for these corrections may reflect the fact that the relief was introduced as a done deal for immediate implementation, with no prior consultation. I am sure the Financial Secretary will say in defence—he can correct me if I am wrong—that the Treasury considers this important to deter businesses that were planning expenditure immediately after the 2018 Budget from deferring it until a later date of introduction, to avoid people taking full advantage too soon. It prompts the questions of why we have a system that apparently requires constant fine tuning, and of whether this is really working to the extent that Ministers intend and to the advantage of the businesses that are supposed to benefit from the relief, if they face additional compliance costs as a result.

I move on to new clause 10. I am in danger of repetition, which I appreciate is not a novelty in this place, but it is repetition that could easily have been avoided, were it not for the same issues that I raised this morning in relation to the “amendments to the law resolution” that successful Governments of different political stripes would have tabled to enable a more wide-ranging political debate in the interests of Parliament and, most importantly, of the wider public.

Ms McDonagh, as you were not chairing this morning’s proceedings, I think it is fair to say that the debate surrounding this Finance Bill, and the clauses that we are considering this afternoon and will consider into next week, is a little more dry and technical than perhaps any of us would have liked. There is a reason for that: it comes down to the fact that the Government are trying to restrict the ability of the Opposition, minor parties and dissenting Back Benchers to cause trouble. That would have been a little more understandable, if not noble, in previous Parliaments, when Governments operated under much tighter majorities or with no working majority at all. That is not to say that it was justified—the Opposition strongly argued against it in the past and would argue against Governments behaving in such a way in the future—but this Government have a significant majority. They do not need to worry about Back-Bench rebellions to the same extent as they once did, and none of us is well served by the Government failing to table the “amendments to the law resolution” alongside the Finance Bill, in order to allow the more wide-ranging political debate that our constituents would expect us to have.

Here we are with new clause 10, just as we were this morning, with an SNP amendment using the structures and buildings allowances review—I hope the hon. Member for Aberdeen South will not resent my characterising the new clause in this way—to shoehorn in some important wider considerations around what is happening to the UK economy on business investment, employment, productivity and energy efficiency, as outlined in the new clause, in a way that would not be necessary if Opposition parties or any hon. Members of the House were able to table amendments in the way we would have liked and our constituents would have expected. The Government would be richer for the scrutiny and would be forced to raise their game, and the Opposition parties would be encouraged to think more carefully about the changes that we propose to Government policy and would be under greater scrutiny to ensure that, where we oppose Government, we also suggest alternatives. Previously, we would have been able to demonstrate those alternatives more plainly by tabling amendments, but we are curtailed by the way the Government have gone about the process and procedure for amending this Bill. As a result, here we are, locked in Committee Room 14 on a moderately sunny afternoon, debating rather dry and technical details of the Bill, when our constituents, the Government and the process of government would have been better served by a more wide-ranging debate.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Before I start, I want to touch quickly on the remarks that the hon. Member for Ilford North made about why the new clause was tabled. This is the only opportunity available to us to highlight the issues that we seek to promote. Of course, that is not a criticism, and I would certainly welcome seeing a few more new clauses from Labour Members. Indeed, there is opportunity for all of us to discuss what we seek to discuss, but the key thing is that we need to move something first.

On the matter at hand, amending the tax system in order to incentivise capital investment is a good thing—it is something that we should all want—but when we take such actions we also need to ensure that good governance is put in place. We must also look at the effectiveness of those actions, particularly when we are dealing with the potential impact on business investment, employment, productivity and energy efficiency.

I want to focus on energy efficiency, because it is so important in combatting the climate crisis that we all face. Words mean only so much, so we need action too. We all want to understand how Government measures incentivise energy efficiency, and we want to see further detail behind that, but we also want to see how the Government could go further. For instance, I wrote to the Government—I am not sure whether I got a response—about VAT on building repairs. I appreciate that in the south-east of England, the need for energy efficiency in properties is perhaps not as urgent as it is in the Baltic north-east of Scotland, where I hail from, but that is not to say that it is not a hugely significant issue.

Although we would like VAT to be reduced to encourage home owners, property developers and the like to improve the energy efficiency of older properties, that is not something that the Scottish Parliament can legislate on; the Scottish Government’s hands are tied by the UK Government in that regard. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify why there has been no move on that issue. We want properties to be more energy-efficient, and reducing VAT on the essential repairs that they require would be a logical, practical and easy step. It is deeply frustrating that such matters are not within the Scottish Parliament’s competence, and that we need to rely on a UK Government we did not vote for and do not support. So much good is happening in Scotland at the moment and the Scottish Government are doing incredible work, but their hands are tied. For instance, in December 2019, the Scottish Government’s Housing Minister, Kevin Stewart, highlighted that, by the end of 2021, we will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 to tackle fuel poverty and improve energy efficiency to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat.

In my former life as an elected councillor in Aberdeen, I saw at first hand the good work that housing associations and local authorities have done to improve insulation, use newer windows to stop energy leakage and put better heating systems into homes. Moves are afoot to increase our energy efficiency, and they are all positive.

In Scotland, we are blessed that we will have legally binding standards for home energy efficiency from 2024 onwards, which will make things even better. However, we should not have to rely on the UK Government’s approval to put in further measures. I again ask the Minister to clarify why the Government have been unable or unwilling to reduce VAT to date.

As I say, so much good is being done in Scotland to improve energy efficiency. It is only right that the UK Government agree to the new clause, in order to then assess their own actions and determine what more can be done to improve the situation, not only for those in Scotland but for those across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Almost as if it had been perfectly choreographed to illustrate the underlying nature of a Public Bill Committee on a Finance Bill, clause 30 concerns corporation tax intangible fixed assets relief for pre-Finance Act 2002 assets, thereby supporting UK investment in intangible assets.

Intangible assets include intellectual property rights such as trademarks, patents and design rights. The intangible fixed assets regime provides tax relief to companies for the cost of acquiring intangible assets. Relief is given either as the cost is written off in a company’s accounts or at a fixed rate. Not all intangible fixed assets are in the regime; there is a restriction, known as the pre-FA 2002 rule, that excludes certain older assets so that relief for the cost of such pre-FA 2002 assets is usually deferred until they are sold and the capital gains rules apply. This deferral, along with the administrative cost to companies in identifying whether an asset is within the regime, reduces the UK’s attractiveness, compared with other jurisdictions, as a location in which to hold intangible assets.

The changes made by clause 30 will make it more attractive for businesses to develop, manage and exploit intellectual property in the UK. They will simplify the taxation of such assets by bringing all intangible assets into the single regime where they are acquired on or after 1 July 2020. The clause will amend the commencement rules in part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, which prior to 1 July 2020 would have prevented pre-FA 2002 assets acquired by a company from a related party from coming into the regime. Intangible assets held by a company that is not within the charge to corporation tax as at 1 July 2020 will all be brought within the intangibles regime without distinction, should that company subsequently come into charge. The tax treatment for pre-FA 2002 assets already within the charge to corporation tax prior to 1 July 2020 will be preserved to protect those companies that already benefit from the existing rules.

There are further rules to apply the restriction to transactions that stop short of an outright acquisition of a pre-FA 2002 asset, but that nevertheless transfer its substance and value to a related party, such as in the form of a licence or some other new asset. The costs that can initially be relieved on such an acquisition will be restricted by reference to the market value of the asset; the company will not obtain full relief for the cost until it disposes of the asset. There are further rules to prevent arrangements between related parties that are intended to sidestep this restriction by creating or transferring what are notionally new assets instead of pre-FA 2002 assets.

The most immediate impact of this measure is likely to be on international businesses importing valuable intangible assets to the UK from overseas. These businesses will no longer have to perform the complex task of identifying excluded pre-FA 2002 assets, and will instead receive tax relief on all the assets that they acquire. Domestic companies, however, will also stand to benefit over the longer term from the reduced administrative burdens brought about by this measure. An estimated 1,000 companies a year acquire pre-FA 2002 assets. There will now be less need to distinguish between these pre-FA 2002 intangible assets and new intangible assets when companies enter into transactions involving such assets.

The clause enhances the availability of UK tax relief for the costs of acquiring intangible assets. It brings those acquired assets into a single tax code. That reduces the effects of an arbitrary distinction between older and newer intangible assets, and in so doing increases the attractiveness of the UK to innovative, IP-intensive businesses. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

The Financial Secretary said that Finance Bills cannot be exciting and fun, but I am riveted by this particular clause—I have been looking forward to it all afternoon. I rise not to take umbrage at what the Financial Secretary said but to give voice to the concerns expressed by the London Society of Chartered Accountants and to ask the Minister to address those concerns.

As the society has acknowledged, this change will benefit many taxpayers. However, there will also be taxpayers who have capital losses or non-trading deficits and would have anticipated using them against any gain on pre-2002 intangible assets. There will be taxpayers who, having been through the transition to the new rules in 2002, are now quite happily running the two regimes side by side. For them, a compulsory change to the system would be more disruptive than maintaining the status quo, and as a result they might be disadvantaged. I wondered whether the Minister, speaking directly to that point, could clarify how those taxpayers will be impacted.

By way of slight digression, Ms McDonagh, and in response to the point that the Financial Secretary made during our discussion of the previous clause, I should say that I do not remember the Labour Government doing a great deal of tinkering between 1997 and 2007.

[The Chair]

Me neither!

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

The word that the Financial Secretary was looking for was “transformation”.

[Jesse Norman]

That was an unexpected intervention from the Chair, Ms McDonagh, but no less welcome for that. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford North for his question. He slightly galloped through the particular concern, and I am afraid I did not fully catch it.

[Wes Streeting]

Sorry!

[Jesse Norman]

That is absolutely fine. What I will do is ask the hon. Gentleman to give me the letter; I will write to him separately with a response that addresses the detail of the concern.

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not believe that companies will be worse off because of these changes, which will not affect IP already held by any company. If a company does dispose of its IP, it will be taxed on the same basis as it would have been before the changes. The company will still be able to make use of reliefs that they may have been expecting to use. Any tax change can have an impact in some particular cases, of course, but overall we do not expect companies to be worse off. I am very happy to take up and respond to the specific question that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will do that outside this Committee Room, if I may.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

This is another kaleidoscopically exciting measure alongside some of those that have already got the hon. Member for Ilford North so excited. I am happy to be able to titillate him further by discussing further changes to the non-UK-resident companies that carry on UK property businesses. Clause 31 and schedule five make amendments to legislation that provides that non-UK-resident companies carrying on a UK property business will be charged corporation tax from 6 April 2020.

In the Finance Act 2019, the Government legislated to bring non-resident companies that carry on a UK property business or who received other income from UK land within the charge to corporation tax from 6 April 2020. Until then, they are within the charge to income tax.

These changes make four minor amendments to the legislation that took effect in April 2020. They maintain the treatment of non-trading interest income of non-resident companies. They provide relief for interest expenses paid prior to the commencement of the non-resident companies’ UK property business—a UK resident company can already obtain relief for this type of expense. The time limits for making certain elections in respect of derivative contracts will only start to run for a non-resident company from 6 April 2020. Finally, for all companies, there is an exception from the obligation to notify chargeability to corporation tax if the taxable incomes have an amount on account of tax withheld from it. The changes clarify that the amount withheld on account of tax must meet the tax due on that income before the exception can apply.

These changes will ensure that there is a smooth transition for non-UK-resident company landlords from the income tax regime into the corporation tax regime. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

As the Financial Secretary has outlined, the clause and schedule make minor amendments that have arisen as a consequence of the provision made by schedules 1 and 5 to the Finance Act 2019. There is not much for me to add, as it is very much a consequential and technical adjustment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 32

Surcharge on banking companies: transferred-in losses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

We now enter the lush hinterlands of the banking surcharge regime. Clause 32 makes changes to the regime that ensures that the surcharge operates as intended when it was introduced.

The Government believe that even as reliefs are provided to support the economy in response to the coronavirus, the tax rules should continue to operate fairly and consistently for all businesses within their scope. Previously, the Government have legislated so that banks make a fair tax contribution, which reflects the risks they pose to the UK economy. That is why the Government introduced the bank levy in 2011—a tax on banks and building societies’ balance sheet equity and liabilities. It is also why banks have been subject to additional taxes above and beyond general business taxation ever since then.

In 2015, the Government made changes to the bank tax regime to ensure the sustainability of the tax base. They introduced the new bank levy rate, but offset that with the introduction of a new 8% surcharge on banks’ profits over £25 million, on top of corporation tax. The surcharge applies to corporation tax profits of banking companies within a banking group.

For corporation tax purposes, companies are able to make a number of adjustments when arriving at their profits. That might include transferring losses from one group company to another or carrying forward losses to the next accounting period. However, to ensure that banks are paying tax on all their banking profits, some of these are disallowed when arriving at the profits subject to the surcharge.

One such disallowed adjustment is for capital losses that are transferred from a non-banking company to a banking company and set against the capital gains of that banking company. That transfer should be disregarded when calculating the surcharge profit for the banking company. Currently, where these capital losses are carried forward to a future accounting period, that transfer is disregarded.

However, under the legislation as it stands, such transferred-in capital losses are not disregarded when they are set against the capital gains of the banking company in the same accounting period. That could, counter to the original intention, mean banks using losses from non-banking companies in their group to reduce their surcharge profits. That cannot be right, and the changes that we are making in the Finance Bill will ensure that it cannot happen. The changes made by clause 32 will stop surcharge profits being reduced by all capital losses transferred in from non-banking companies, whenever they are utilised against capital gains.

The changes made by clause 32 will ensure that the surcharge operates in the way that was intended when it was introduced. They will ensure that banks cannot reduce their profits subject to surcharge by using losses from non-banking companies in their groups. Above all, they will ensure that banks pay the additional tax on all their banking profits.

[Wes Streeting]

We welcome clause 32 and the Financial Secretary’s explanation of why the measure is necessary. It is important to emphasise, particularly for those in the banks who pay close attention to proceedings in Parliament, a couple of points that they should bear in mind, even a decade on from the financial crisis.

Across the House, we recognise and welcome—certainly this is true of Her Majesty’s official Opposition—the fact that the UK is a global financial centre and that the financial services industry is an asset to our country. It generates jobs and employment, and provides the oil to grease the wheels of the economy. We can see now, in response to the present crisis, the importance of getting finance to where it is needed.

Whether we are talking about business or personal customers, business loans and lending, mortgages, pensions, savings or bank accounts, people in their day-to-day lives understand the importance of a strong financial services industry. Across the House we recognise the importance of the financial services industry to the economy as a whole. As we saw, painfully, back in the midst of the global financial crisis, when the financial services industry fails and suffers, the whole economy suffers, too. It is important to acknowledge the value that we place on it.

However, it is also important that the banks should continue to reflect on the fact that the financial crisis—which came about as the result of irresponsible and reckless actions, and greed—demanded a significant price that fell on the heads of taxpayers and citizens of this country and around the world, who had no part in the making of that crisis. For the past decade of cuts to public services and pain that has been felt by businesses and households across the country—although part of the blame rests with Government for policy decisions that were taken, which we have rehearsed many times in those 10 years—it is a fact that the decisions and choices faced by successive Governments were made all the more difficult because of the irresponsibility of the spivs and speculators in financial centres, who did not understand their responsibility to society as much as they understood their own reckless greed.

In that context it is right that over the past 10 years Governments have asked banks, through the bank levy and other provisions, to pay back the debt they owe to society, so it is disappointing when new ways are found to try to lessen their tax liabilities. It is important that when the Government identify gaps and loopholes in legislation that have unintended consequences, they act to close them.

I hope that my remarks will achieve two things, the first of which is to reassure the financial services industry that we value its contribution and see it as an important part of our economic success and national life. However, I also want to remind financial services of the responsibilities that they have to the society they serve. The clause goes some way to ensuring that the debt they owe to society is properly repaid.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view: it is of enormous value to the UK to have a global financial sector between the City of London, Birmingham, Leeds and Edinburgh. The UK is a country with astonishing heft in global markets, which is a very good thing in many ways. As he said, however, it is also important that those institutions pay the full burden of taxation that is due. There is very little concern that they have not done so in this case, and the concern has now been addressed because a potential loophole has been removed.

If I have understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman attributes the crash of 2007-08 to spivs and speculators in the financial markets. There was a lot of that, but it is important to recognise that it was also a function of incentives, law and culture. Those things were all, in some respects, out of control before 2007-08. We talked banteringly about the level to which the Government have attempted to tinker with the legislation. In that case, however, it is perfectly clear that there was a failure not of regulation, but of supervision. It was a failure that was extraordinarily costly to this country.

In the spirit of putting things on the record, it is important to remember that, as the Vickers report found, the level of aggregate bank leverage in the financial sector in this country remained roughly steady for 40 years between 1960 and 2000 at 20 times capital. Between 2000 and 2007, it increased to 50 times capital. The effect of that was that, when the financial crisis hit, the UK banking sector was vastly over-leveraged. I am thrilled that this Government, as I suspect other Governments would have done if they were in place, have taken steps to extract a proper level of taxation from the banking sector and thereby set incentives that restrain the tendencies to growth and periodic explosion in the banking sector, because such tendencies are often absolutely ruinous for the wider economy.

[Wes Streeting]

It is, of course, right to say, especially with the benefit of hindsight, that the supervisory arrangements governing financial services in this country and other countries were insufficient. That is why we have a much more robust supervisory regime in place, which has been implemented to a large degree with cross-party consensus over the course of the past 10 years. I would gently point out two things. The first is the global context, and the second is that, although the Financial Secretary may point to the apparent failure of the last Labour Government to put in place a greater degree of regulation, I would challenge him—he can write to me if he cannot answer immediately—to cite a single example of a Conservative shadow Chancellor or shadow Treasury Minister calling for greater financial regulation by the last Labour Government. In fact, I remember the charge against the Government being that we were too prone to regulation rather than too hands-off, but I stand to be corrected.

[Jesse Norman]

I do not think there is any doubt at all that MPs and politicians across the political spectrum were taken by surprise and were not as alert as they should have been to the expansion in bank leverage that took place. I was merely putting those facts on the record. Inevitably, the responsibility lies with the Government in power at the time, as it would do in other crises, and it is for posterity to decide how it wishes to judge. I just mean that this is a proper response to a crisis that is much worse than it should have been; if those in charge at the time had taken the measures and spotted the crisis in advance, it would not have happened, notwithstanding all the ameliorative points that the hon. Gentleman has made in opposition to that.

Having said that, let me move on to points of greater overlap and agreement, and recommend to the Committee that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

CT payment plans for tax on certain transactions with EEA residents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Clause 33 and schedule 6 would make changes to UK corporation tax payment plan rules so as to provide a deferred payment option for tax on certain transactions with EEA residents. Again, this is a small and technical matter.

A recent decision of the tax tribunal found that the requirement for a taxpayer to pay tax immediately following certain transfers of assets from a UK company to an EEA company within the same group did not conform with EU law. UK rules provide for tax-neutral transfers of assets between two group companies within the charge to UK tax, meaning that there is no immediate tax charge. If assets are sold or transferred otherwise, tax is payable immediately based on a disposal of the assets at market value.

The risk to the Exchequer arises from the fact that the tax tribunal decided that these rules could only be justified if transfers to group companies in the EU did not give rise to an immediate tax charge. In the absence of any mechanism for deferral, the tribunal decided that tax-neutral treatment must be applied to such transfers. Effectively, that would mean that the UK would completely lose its right to tax any profits on such assets. The case is under appeal, but resolution could be some years away. In response to that decision, the Government are acting to provide taxpayers with the option to pay tax on such transfers in instalments, which the judgment says would ensure compatibility with EU law. The effect of this is to remove the uncertainty caused by the decision and provide protection to the Exchequer.

This new facility to defer payment of part of a company’s corporation tax bill for an accounting period is modelled on an existing scheme for so-called exit taxes. Schedule 6 provides that corporation tax due on transfers of assets from a company in the UK to an EU company in the same group can be paid in instalments over five years, subject to interest at the usual rate for late-paid tax. We are making this change not to comply with European law, but to provide certainty to UK businesses and ensure that there is no risk to the Exchequer while the case before the UK courts remains unresolved. Once the risks and the uncertainty are resolved, this deferred tax payment facility will no longer be required.

Certainty could come either through a successful conclusion to the litigation in favour of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or at such time as the EU treaty freedom of establishment rules no longer apply to the UK. To that end, schedule 6 includes a power for the Treasury to repeal this facility by regulation; the Government intend that this power should be used once there is no need for the facility. These changes will provide greater flexibility for UK businesses, remove uncertainty and protect Exchequer revenues. I therefore commend both the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

Clause 33 and schedule 6 represent a welcome and sensible response to the decision taken by the first-tier tribunal in the case of Gallaher v. HMRC. The only question I have for the Financial Secretary is about the fact that the Treasury can withdraw the facility to enter into CT payment plans by statutory instrument, as he alluded to at the end of his remarks. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the power of repeal

“is intended to be used if the Government determines that CT payment plans are no longer required.”

Could the Financial Secretary give us some sense of the circumstances in which the Government may determine that CT payment plans are no longer required?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for the question. If we get certainty in the legislation, the effect would be that the provision was no longer required. Certainty could come, as I said, at the successful conclusion to litigation in favour of Revenue and Customs, or when the EU treaty freedom of establishment rules no longer apply to the UK. Those are the circumstances under which we would expect the Treasury to repeal the facility. It is done by regulation simply because it is completely uncontroversial and would be much better handled that way, rather than through the primary legislative process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 34

Changes to accounting standards affecting leases

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.