Finance (No. 2) Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: †Mr. Joe Benton, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. Edward O'Hara

† Balls, Ed (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Banks, Gordon (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)

Barlow, Ms Celia (Hove) (Lab)

Breed, Mr. Colin (South-East Cornwall) (LD)

† Dunne, Mr. Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

Francois, Mr. Mark (Rayleigh) (Con)

† Gauke, Mr. David (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Goldsworthy, Julia (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD)

† Goodman, Helen (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)

† Goodman, Mr. Paul (Wycombe) (Con)

† Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab)

Healey, John (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)

† Heppell, Mr. John (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)

† Hesford, Stephen (Wirral, West) (Lab)

† Hoban, Mr. Mark (Fareham) (Con)

† Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab)

† Hosie, Stewart (Dundee, East) (SNP)

† Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)

† Khan, Mr. Sadiq (Tooting) (Lab)

McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol, East) (Lab)

† MacDougall, Mr. John (Glenrothes) (Lab)

† Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab)

Newmark, Mr. Brooks (Braintree) (Con)

† Primarolo, Dawn (Paymaster General)

† Reed, Mr. Andy (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op)

Reed, Mr. Jamie (Copeland) (Lab)

† Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

† Villiers, Mrs. Theresa (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

† Wright, Mr. Iain (Hartlepool) (Lab)

† Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)

Young, Sir George (North-West Hampshire) (Con)

Frank Cranmer, Emily Commander, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 229

Standing Committee A

Thursday 18 May 2006

(Morning)

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

(Except clauses 13 to 15, 26, 61, 91 and 106, schedule 14, and new clauses relating to the effect of provisions of the Bill on section 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984)

Clause 32

Meaning of “film production company”

Amendment proposed [18 May]: No. 47, in page 29, line 14 [Vol I], at the end insert the words

‘; but notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a company is only a "film production company" if it meets the conditionsfor film tax relief as set out in section 38 of this Act.’.—[Mrs. Villiers.]

9.5 am

Question again proposed, That the amendmentbe made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 64, in page 29, line 17 [Vol I], leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—

‘(a) undertakes (whether on its own account or whether it is responsible to a third party)—

(i) principal photography and post production of the film, and

(ii) delivery of the completed film,'.

Amendment No. 31, in page 29, line 18 [Vol I], leave out ‘pre-production'.

Amendment No. 65, in page 29, line 22 [Vol I], leave out ‘pre-production,'.

Amendment No. 32, in page 29 [Vol I], leave out lines 24 and 25.

Amendment No. 33, in page 29, line 26 [Vol I], at end insert—

‘(3A) The Treasury may, by regulations—

(a) amend subsection (3); and

(b) provide that specified activities are or are not to be regarded for the purposes of this Chapter as film making activities;

and in this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.'.

Amendment No. 46, in page 29, line 27 [Vol I], after ‘company', insert

‘resident in the United Kingdom (and not resident in another place in accordance with the law of that place relating to taxation)'.

Amendment No. 34, in clause 34, page 30, line 19 [Vol I], after ‘on', insert ‘development,'.

Government amendment No. 26

Amendment No. 35, in clause 35, page 30, line 37 [Vol I], at end insert—

Column number: 230

‘But for the purposes of this subsection—

(a) services provided in relation to rented equipment shall be considered to have been performed in the United Kingdom where the equipment is used in the United Kingdom; and

(b) where goods are initially supplied in the United Kingdom, their subsequent transport and use outside the United Kingdom shall not prevent the relevant expenditure from being treated as UK expenditure.'.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ed Balls): We have made progress—although not very much, I see from the amendment paper—and our debate has been useful and wide-ranging. When we adjourned, I had addressed amendment No. 31 and was part way through addressing amendment No. 32. As I had explained to the Committee, I was taking the amendments in a slightly different order, so as to make my speech appear logical, as far as was possible.

I should like to make a couple of comments, following on from our wide-ranging debate. We had such a long debate on the nature and definition of a film production company and issues around that, because that goes to the heart of the issues explaining the decision to move away from the old tax treatment of films to the new tax treatment set out in the clauses.

The majority of the debate on Tuesday was about the definition of a film production company. Some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), felt that the criteria that we were setting out in the definition of “film production company” were both too broad and too tight, and would exclude some genuine film production companies that might not cover all aspects of all three stages of the processes defined in clause 32.

As I explained on Tuesday, the definitions in the clause are designed to ensure that the Government’s relief is properly targeted on genuine film-makers—those who really make films—so the definition requires the company to be responsible for all phases of film production, not just some. However, as I explained on Tuesday, it does not require the company to be directly responsible for all parts of all phases; nor does it prevent the company from sub-contracting some of the work to others.

We fully recognise that the stages to which the legislation refers—development, pre-production, principal photography and post-production—are, in practice, not sequential, and that there will be overlap between them; and we accept that a company may take over some pre-production work for which it will not have been fully, directly responsible. We also fully understand from our discussions with the industry that the film production company achieves much of what it wants through others, and that sub-contracting is absolutely standard practice. However, to qualify for the tax relief, the film production company needs to be the film-maker—the person who has the vision for the film and who is charged with taking that vision through to delivery. That is why they must be in control of each of the three stages.

During Tuesday’s debate, worries were expressed about the requirements being too tight. Now that I have explained that there is no expectation that the company will do all the work itself, or be responsible for all of every stage, I hope that the hon. Lady will be

Column number: 231

more comfortable with the clause. There was also concern that by using standard industry terms, such as development, pre-production and so on, without explicitly defining them, we are laying ourselves open to being misled and to allowing the new relief to be abused in the same way as what it replaces. However, as I explained on Tuesday, it must be right to use terms that the industry uses and understands, in order to ensure that it can operate the relief in reality. So if, for instance, developments in the industry mean that new things need to be done during pre-production, they are automatically included.

The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), who is not currently with us but who was certainly here on Tuesday, asked a good question about how we intend to prevent the deliberate manipulation of the divide between development and pre-production. He feared that a less scrupulous film-maker might disguise what were clearly development costs as pre-production costs. Although Treasury Ministers are responsible for the making of tax policy, the administration of the system is the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the new tax rules, and for the proper interpretation of “core expenditure”, just as it ensures compliance with the rest of the tax system. As we shall discuss later, if all else fails, the remedy lies in paragraph 3 of schedule 5, which gives the Treasury the power to specify what is included or excluded in respect of expenditure qualifying for the enhancement. Any attempt to disguise expenditure as something that it was not would allow film production companies to claim tax relief to which they were not entitled. The power in the paragraph deals with that issue.

On Tuesday, Committee members suggested that the rule that a company working in partnership cannot be a film production company would in practice exclude all co-productions, as they are by definition companies in partnership. That is absolutely not the case. From our extensive discussions with the film industry, we know that although it is standard practice for film makers to work collaboratively with others on international co-productions, they are not “in partnership” in the sense intended by clause 32(2). Separate film production companies are set up in every co-producing country, each being responsible for delivering its own contribution to the film as a whole, and each company can claim whatever tax relief is available from its respective Government.

Far from excluding companies that make films in that way, clause 32(4) makes special provision to ensure that co-productions can access the new tax relief in the same way as others. The rules in subsections (2) and (3) are designed to exclude partnerships of companies in which one partner’s only contribution to the film is to provide finance. Such an exclusion is essential to ensure that profitable companies not otherwise engaged in the film business are not able to badge themselves as full making partners and open the door to precisely the kind of abuses and avoidance to which the film tax relief regime has been subject in the past, and which the reforms and clauses are designed to prevent.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend clarify whether he is talking about “partnership” in its everyday sense, using standard

Column number: 232

industry terms, or whether in the Bill the word is intended to be used in a legal sense, such as that used in the Partnership Act 1896 or whatever?

---

Prepared 19 May 2006