|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
(3) In this Chapter "qualifying expenditure" means core expenditure on the video game that falls to be taken into account under Chapter 2 in calculating the profit or loss of the separate video game trade for tax purposes.
'(1) In determining for the purposes of this Chapter the amount of costs incurred on a video game at the end of a period of account, ignore any amount that has not been paid 4 months after the end of that period.
'(1) So far as a transaction is attributable to arrangements entered into wholly or mainly for a disqualifying purpose, it is to be ignored in determining for any period any additional deduction which a company may make under this Chapter.
(2) Arrangements are entered into wholly or mainly for a disqualifying purpose if their main object, or one of their main objects, is to enable a company to obtain an additional deduction under this Chapter to which it would not otherwise be entitled or of a greater amount than that to which it would otherwise be entitled.
(2) The loss is not available for loss relief except to the extent that it may be carried forward under section 45 of CTA 2010 to be set against profits of the separate video game trade in a subsequent period.1216Y Use of losses in later periods
(3) So much (if any) of the loss as is not attributable to video game tax relief (see subsection (6)) may be treated for the purposes of loss relief as if it were a loss made in the period to which it is carried forward.
(6) The amount of a loss in any period that is attributable to video game tax relief is calculated by deducting from the total amount of the loss the amount there would have been if there had been no additional deduction under Chapter 3 in that or any earlier period.
(3) The election is to have the terminal loss (or part of it) treated as if it were a loss brought forward under section 45 of CTA 2010 to be set against the profits of trade Y of the first accounting period beginning after the cessation and so on.
(6) On the making of a claim by company B the amount surrendered is treated as if it were a loss brought forward by company B under section 45 of CTA 2010 to be set against the profits of trade Z of the first accounting period beginning after the cessation and so on.
(7) The Treasury may, in relation to the surrender of a loss under subsection (5) and the resulting claim under subsection (6), make provision by regulations corresponding, subject to such adaptations or other modifications as appear to them to be appropriate, to that made by Part 8 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 (company tax returns: claims for group relief).
(2) The company's company tax return for the completion period must state that the video game has been completed or that the company has abandoned video game-making activities in relation to it (as the case may be).1216AB The UK expenditure condition
(3) When the video game is completed or the company abandons video game-making activities in relation to it (as the case may be), the company's company tax return for the completion period must be accompanied by a final statement of the amount of the core expenditure on the video game that is UK expenditure.
(3) When the video game is completed or the company abandons video game-making activities in relation to it (as the case may be), the company's company tax return for the completion period must be accompanied by a final statement of the core expenditure on the video game.
Mr Hanson: As the House will be aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred on Second Reading to the fact that we want to bring forward a provision on tax relief in order to help to support the video games industry. Although, undoubtedly, new clause 1 would not do that in every respect, I want to put it before the House, so that we can have an in-principle debate about video game industry tax relief. The new clause provides an opportunity for the House to consider enhanced relief based on UK expenditure on video game production.
The new clause suggests that we might consider qualified tax relief for the video game industry, and that it should be based on strict criteria: the video game must be for commercial release; it must be a British video game, assessed on the basis of a points system; and it must meet a 25% UK expenditure threshold, whereby 25% of the total expenditure on the production and development of the video game is UK expenditure on goods or services. We intended to look at that issue, and I would have tabled a much more detailed new clause, but the advice was that we could not. I hope that I have, however, tabled sufficient proposed changes for the Government to consider bringing back at a future date, or supporting the principle of, tax relief for this vital sector in the United Kingdom.
The video games industry is a real success story for British industry, and we look to support it in detail. As I am sure that the Minister is aware, research from TIGA, which represents the gaming industry, shows that over a five-year period games tax relief could create or save about 3,500 graduate-level jobs, secure £450 million-plus in new and saved development expenditure, and generate about £415 million in new and saved tax relief. I hope that it would do so in a way that ensures that the cost to the Treasury amounts to about £192 million over five years, which would be more than paid for by the jobs and investment, and encouragement to the industry, that that would develop in due course.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have been very vocal in supporting such a tax relief. I hope that the Minister will consider it in principle, so that we can begin to develop a cross-party consensus in due course.
Mr Hanson: Our proposal is based on an existing tax relief for the film industry, which has been very successful in helping to generate extra revenue for that industry and keeping production in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said this on 13 April-I accept that that was in the middle of an election campaign, so we will take these words as being from that particular time:
"We are committed to a tax break along the lines of the video games tax credit. We have been calling for tax breaks for the video game industry for the last three years."
In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who then held the esteemed position of Liberal Democrat shadow spokesman for Culture, Media and Sport-the Lib Dem spokesmen are now all subsumed into one entity-said:
"Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a Games Tax Relief. Following consultation on the details, we would implement the Relief as soon as possible."
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who is shadow Chief Secretary, the then shadow Culture Minister, who is now a Minister, and the then Liberal Democrat spokesperson supported this proposal, as did I. Since then, however, it has vanished without trace-until today's debate.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) may oppose tax reliefs generally. However, such a relief has been proved to work in the film industry to date. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget:
"we will not go ahead with the poorly targeted tax relief for the video games industry."-[ Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 175, c. 512.]
I want to test with the Minister whether that is an in-principle opposition to tax relief for the video games industry. If not, is his opposition based on a poorly designed scheme by the previous Labour Government or on poorly targeted suggestions in today's proposals? Is there, in principle, room for discussion, so that it would be possible for him to bring back, at some point, a tax relief that meets the objectives of the hon. Member for Bath, the Under-Secretary and ourselves, and that would, I hope, help to support the video games industry?
Mr Redwood: Just to clarify the point, the right hon. Gentleman should know that I believe that lower tax rates result in more revenue. I am delighted to see that he is now a recruit to that cause, but I suggest that he should not limit it to one industry.
Mr Hanson: We are happy to consider on a case-by-case basis whether tax relief helps to generate employment and earn business and crucially-I think that this is the right hon. Gentleman's point-to maintain that business in the United Kingdom rather than transferring it overseas. The film tax credit has proved that that can be the case, and I suggest in the new clause that we consider it for the video games industry.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentioned the British film industry. Is he aware that figures provided by TIGA, which represents the computer games industry, suggest that the cost of a tax break for computer games would be £55 million, whereas the film industry already gets a £110 million break, even though the revenue generated by both is much the same?
Mr Hanson: Indeed, and TIGA-my hon. Friend says "tiger"; I say "teega", but we both mean the same thing-has estimated that we can make savings to the Treasury by investing in a tax relief up front and keeping jobs in this country. That is the crucial point.
Stewart Hosie: The right hon. Gentleman was right to mention the Chancellor's argument that the proposed tax break was poorly targeted, but he will be aware of the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee by Edward Troup of the Revenue. He said:
"I am not sure I would say it was poorly targeted. It was targeted at the video games industry...it was perfectly designable if we had continued with it",
Mr Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has effectively read out the next section of my speech. I have indeed examined what was said in the Scottish Affairs Committee. The Under-Secretary said at the same meeting on 20 October:
"It may be that we can revisit a video games tax break in the future."
Was he speaking for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport or for the Treasury? I presume that the Chancellor was speaking for the Treasury in ruling out the idea, but three months later his Minister in the DCMS said that we should consider it in future.
I do not necessarily wish to press the new clause to a Division, but I have tabled it so that the Exchequer Secretary can clarify whether, in the next 12 months or two years, he can meet the objectives that my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee West, for West Bromwich East and for Liverpool, Wavertree, and the hon. Member for Dundee East, have championed so strongly.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): The important point about the new clause is the unique position of the video games industry. It has the potential for explosive growth and to create far more high-level, highly paid, highly skilled jobs in the UK. Yet its competitors, with a fiendish interpretation of international competition rules, are picking off the very best designers and developers from UK production shops one by one. The industry worked long and hard with the Treasury to build a robust model for a specific rate to allow the industry to grow over the coming years. That is why hon. Members are so concerned-many jobs are at risk if the new clause is not accepted.
Mr Hanson: My hon. Friend makes the important point that those are high-skilled, highly technical jobs that will bring investment to this country. They are intellectual capacity jobs that are helping to grow the areas of our international markets that we need to grow.
"There would be issues; there would be boundary issues,"
but crucially, he continued, "but it would work." I am not trying to make political capital out of the matter, but if it is proved that the tax break would work-meaning that it can be applied, can deliver, will keep jobs in this country, will grow business and will help resources be reinvested in the British economy-will the Exchequer Secretary be willing to accept the principle and introduce an appropriate clause in some future Finance Bill?
If it is found that the tax break would work but the Exchequer Secretary will not introduce it, I will have to presume that he is not interested in doing so, rather than that he is concerned about its applicability and workability. If so, he is on an entirely different page from the one that the Under-Secretary was on in April, that the Chancellor was on before the general election and that the hon. Member for Bath, who is part of the coalition, was on at that time.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman makes a perennial point that shadow Ministers make, to which actual Ministers presumably perennially say no. May I point out to him the table in proposed new section 1216Q of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, in new schedule 2? It mentions points being given for at least 50% of a game's production budget being incurred in the UK, and proposed new section 1216R states what the percentage of UK expenditure has to be. Will he confirm that that does not conflict with any European law provision?
I have taken advice in drafting the new clause, and my advice is that it is workable and applicable, although I have had to leave out certain aspects. My purpose is not to force this particular model on the Treasury, but to use the new clause as a debating point, so that the Treasury can respond to the principle and decide whether this is a good proposal that will help matters, bring investment back to the United Kingdom and be supportive. I would, potentially, be happy to
withdraw the new clause at the end of the debate, and I am happy to listen to what the Minister says, but I want to get to the nub of the issue.
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Members for Bath and for Dundee East, who speaks for the Scottish National party, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West and Labour Front Benchers all think that some form of games tax relief to help maintain the industry in the United Kingdom would be a good thing. All I want today is for the Minister to say, "Yes, I agree with that general principle. Over a period of time, I will look at how we make this proposal workable and how we bring it back in a future Budget or Finance Bill." Indeed, he could say today that he is happy with the proposals and that the Government will look at them again in the near future in whatever format they choose. It is important to get that on the table.
"the UK is losing out on jobs and investment because of the absence of Games Tax Relief.
High-skilled jobs could be created in Manchester and Warrington. Instead they are being created in Montreal."
"key competitors, particularly Canada, have tax breaks for games production. The UK does not."
"The talent in the UK is extraordinary...We have a studio up in Warrington that's an excellent studio...but I'm sorry, it's...about money at the end of the day."
We need to ensure that we have the support for such things. That is the reality of the market. World-leading publishers recognise that we have an asset, which it has taken years to build up and which is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, but it will go abroad if we do not compete on the same level as our Canadian colleagues. In France, there is a 20% tax reduction for video games, and tax provisions in Canada have driven up staff numbers by 43%, but in the United Kingdom we have seen the head count start to decline over the past few years.
I do not want to go into great detail or to take up the House's time. I simply want to tell the Minister that there is real scope for these proposals. There is scope to develop the UK film tax credit model and to use it for the UK video game tax model. We can ensure that we help to grow the sector, and we can meet the commitments that colleagues made during the general election campaign. I tabled the new clause so that we could hear whether the Minister is still of the view that there is no scope for such proposals or whether he could look at the issue in detail and bring back proposals in due course. I commend the new clause to the House.
I have spoken on many occasions to leading lights in the video games industry, and they outlined many of the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Members for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). There is a risk that a significant amount of business is leaving these shores because of a perception, and indeed the reality, that there is unfair tax and regulatory competition from further afield.
One of my concerns, which I expressed before the election to leading lights in the video games industry, is that trying to emulate the film tax credit is not necessarily the right route down which to go. Back-Bench and Front-Bench veterans of Finance Bills going back a decade or more-you are one, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your time as a Minister, as am I from my time in opposition-will know of the concern that the film tax credit has had to be updated almost annually, because of the clear abuses and unintended consequences resulting from it. There was a sense that although the film business in this country benefited from it, there was a significant through-flow of cash that was not in the interests of either the Exchequer or the high-quality products of which our film industry has been rightly proud in decades gone by.
Stewart Hosie: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's points about the film tax credit, I am sure that he will understand the business model around which the video games industry operates. A large amount of cash is spent in the development of games, but revenue drops off in the run-up to a new hardware offering or console being developed. The difficulties that the sector faces are exacerbated by the regular new hardware offerings. Does that not make a stronger case for some sort of assistance?
Mr Field: I accept that. There is also little doubt that we have some tremendously high-quality people working in this business. I must say, in parenthesis, that one difficulty is that hitherto we have had to import far too many such people from beyond these shores. I know that our university media studies industry is much discredited, but those media studies courses that are linked to the video games industry in particular often ensure that we get some of the brightest and best of the home-grown talent in our universities entering the industry.
I take on board the concerns of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), given that the issue before us has been in the ether for years. I would prefer not to rush into anything, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the deep concerns expressed today so that we can come back, perhaps during next year's Finance Bill, with a workable model based on the proposals before us.
I would like to put in a word not just for the video games industry, unique though its interests are in the minds of those who run and work in those businesses, but for the animation industry. It is a related industry within the media sphere, and faces many of the problems expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee East and businesses in the industry. The animation industry is deeply concerned that it is losing some of its brightest talent, and feels that-this is felt not just in the animation sector-it is facing unfair competition not only from
the Canadian and French models, but from Ireland and, dare I say it, Scotland. It feels that it is losing out to a large degree. I would therefore like to see a clause that brings the video games industry, the animation industry and all these other industries under a single protocol. Such a protocol could operate well and effectively, so I hope that the Treasury will consider one in next year's Finance Bill.
Jim McGovern: The hon. Gentleman has indicated that part of the computer games industry is based in his constituency-in fact, he seemed to indicate that the industry originated there. Does he agree that a change of name or title is required? When people hear "computer games industry", they think of young lads between 15 and 30 sitting in front of a computer screen playing "APB" or "Grand Theft Auto", when in fact, as people who have visited Abertay university in Dundee will have seen, it is used in medical research, construction and architecture. Perhaps we need a change of focus, rather than continuing to call it the "video games industry".
Mr Field: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that important point, although it also raises the question of how we couch such a new clause and schedule in a future Finance Bill to ensure that it takes on board an industry that we want to encourage rather than see go much further afield. I am not a young lad of 15 or 30-or even of 46-so the industry has passed me by, but there is no doubt about the enthusiasm of the companies operating in this sphere. One of my biggest concerns is that all too often those companies have to employ programmers from eastern Europe and other parts of the world in order to get the relevant level of expertise. That is a regrettable state of affairs. None the less it is undoubtedly a thriving and enormous industry, in which we are cheek by jowl with the Japanese in terms of our expertise and export potential.
I implore the Minister to take our concerns seriously. Now would not be the time to accept a proposal such as the one before us, but I hope that he will give sufficient comfort to Opposition Members to ensure that they do not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue is worth discussing at length today.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): One thing that I have not understood-I have not understood it from either the debates that we had in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, or the responses to the various parliamentary questions that have been asked about the video games industry and tax relief-is whether the objection is to the detail of previous proposals or this proposal, or whether there is a more fundamental objection about giving such a relief at all. At times, it seems to be suggested that it is not appropriate to give such a relief, but it would be extremely helpful to know which it was.
If the issue is the detail or exactly how the proposal is to be implemented, that could be discussed further. However, targeting such an industry-or indeed any industries-might be felt to be inappropriate. In one answer given in the Chamber last week, the suggestion seemed to be that a lower rate of corporation tax generally would be sufficient, without targeting specific emerging industries. However, a tax relief is important to a growing industry in that it allows it to get off the
ground and develop in the way that it needs to. People have already spoken about the cash-flow difficulties for sectors such as the video games industry, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify where the Government are on this issue and what their future plans might be.
Mr Redwood: I am delighted that the Opposition have highlighted the example of the video games industry. However, I fear that it is only one example among many of how we are at risk of losing talent, enterprise, jobs and business development in a number of areas because our rates of taxation are now not internationally competitive. It is interesting that the Opposition, who do not normally favour lower rates, have identified lower rates-or a lower tax imposition-as the answer in this case. I hope that they will think on these things more widely, because the combination of a high marginal rate of income tax and what is now quite a high rate of corporation tax by international standards is not a good combination in an intensely competitive world, where there has been a shock to overall demand and where we are having to fight for our commercial lives in world markets.
From my point of view, there are a couple of problems with the proposals before us. The first is that going for 25% British content is a low ambition. I would have thought that one would want a rather higher rate of British content if we were formulating some special treatment for the industry. There is also a problem with concentrating on the profits that a company generates, because some companies will be small businesses with talented entrepreneurs. They might have just one good game in them that earns them an awful lot of money in a short space of time. That is when high marginal rates on apparently high earnings-they become genuinely high earnings where it is possible to sustain them-could become quite an imposition, because those entrepreneurs might get caught in the year or two of their success, but find afterwards that they are no longer able to achieve that.
The issue is therefore not just about corporation tax or profits tax; it can also be about income tax. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by saying something about how he sees our overall tax regime developing, in both corporation tax and income tax, because we have a general problem and we need to show the way to lower rates as quickly as possible in this very competitive world. I would also repeat to my hon. Friend the simple point that the evidence from the American and the British experiences is that when countries have been bold enough to cut rates on enterprise, income and profits, they have usually found their revenues increasing. It is quite obvious that the Government need a lot of extra revenue, so I would recommend that proposal to him.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): New clause 1 and new schedule 2 seek to provide additional tax relief for companies producing video games. The measure was announced, but not implemented, by the previous Administration. As the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget statement, this tax relief for the video games industry is poorly targeted, which is why we have decided not to introduce it.
The United Kingdom's video games industry is recognised as a world leader, having produced hugely successful games such as the "Grand Theft Auto" series, and has led to innovations in industries as diverse as defence and health care, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) pointed out. All that has been achieved without specific Government intervention for the sector through the tax system.
We estimate that the relief proposed by the Opposition would cost some £40 million to £50 million a year-that was the costing for the previous Administration's proposal-and we believe that without strong evidence of a market failure in the games industry, it is difficult to justify spending that amount of money on such an intervention, particularly given the state of public finances.
Jim McGovern: At a recent meeting with the Minister, I told him that before the Budget that announced the intention to promote tax breaks, there were at least six ministerial visits to Dundee, which included the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Chancellor. There was a lot of consultation before the then Chancellor eventually announced the decision on tax breaks. Will the Minister tell the House how many visits were made to Dundee before this Government's decision to withdraw them?
Mr Gauke: The circumstances facing us in the run-up to the June Budget were such that we wanted to introduce a more fundamental reform of corporation tax. In that Budget on 22 June, we announced a reduction in the main corporation tax rate from 28% to 24% over the next four years. In doing that, we wanted to show a sense of direction, to ensure that Britain was open for business, and that we were providing lower rates. Our approach is to have a broader base but lower rates rather than targeted intervention, unless there is clear evidence that intervention is the right approach.
"prioritise spending which supports private sector growth and investment".
Various forms of those words have been used since his party and the Liberal Democrats took office. Surely tax breaks that would cost perhaps £195 million and would deliver £415 million in tax receipts are precisely the sort of investment in precisely the sort of industry that would meet the Government's objectives.
Mr Gauke: We have heard the figures quoted by TIGA, but we do not accept the validity of that analysis because we feel that some of the assumptions underpinning those estimates are erroneous. The research commissioned by the industry implicitly assumes that the investment incentivised by the subsidy is entirely additional to the UK economy. In reality, it is likely that the relief will displace investment from elsewhere in the economy, so the net impact on total UK investment could be limited. For example, it is possible that such a tax subsidy would divert investment from more productive sectors to the detriment of the productivity of the UK economy as a whole.
If Opposition Members are making the case that lower taxes always result in growth in the economy, I would listen with great interest and it would-my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made this point-be an interesting conversion to supply-side economics. I do believe, however, that the strongest economic case can be made for lower tax rates as a whole, across a broader base, as opposed to targeting some sectors, unless there is a strong case that there is some kind of market failure. We have not yet heard such a case being expressed in a way that we find persuasive, and that is why we decided not to proceed with video games tax relief.
That is not to say that we do not wish to support British businesses-far from it; we do. It is vital that we have a strong private sector to drive the recovery, but we must support that growth in the right way. In the emergency Budget, the Government announced a major package of reforms to the business tax regime with the aim of creating the most competitive corporate tax system in the G20.
Mr Mark Field: The Minister has twice referred to the concept of market failure. Did not the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) make a compelling argument when he spoke about the very nature of this market? Perhaps we should be talking not about market failures but about the way in which the video games industry operates and the fact that its nature makes it susceptible to the kind of tax relief that we are looking for. The Minister is understandably, and rightly, sceptical about some of the figures being put out by TIGA, but a multiplier of nine seems pretty high. What level of multiplier would be so unacceptable as to allow this kind of relief to be put in place?
Mr Gauke: The TIGA analysis makes the assumption that everything achieved as a consequence of the relief would be additional to the economy. It does not appear to recognise that there would also be displacement, and that highly skilled graduates would not remain unemployed if they did not find work in the video games industry. We are therefore sceptical about the TIGA analysis. My hon. Friend makes his point well, however, and the nature and profile of the video games business clearly have some significance for his constituency, but we are as yet unconvinced of the necessity for the tax relief that was proposed by the previous Government, and that is proposed in the new clause.
The Government's focus must be on providing a strong business environment for sectors across the board, including video games. Our reforms will reduce rates of corporation tax by four percentage points over the next four years, which means that the UK will continue to have the lowest main rate in the G7. This will improve our relative position significantly, compared with that of our competitors, after the years in which we have fallen behind. This will benefit companies across the economy, including those in the video games industry.
My party welcomes the reduction in corporation tax; we believe that it is a good thing. However, some of the businesses that are creating video games are not big enough to pay corporation tax. Many of them are dependent on the annual allowances, but some of those have now gone, and one has been halved.
So although I welcome the reduced corporation tax, the overall package will not necessarily help the start-up studios and small studios as they develop their games.
Mr Gauke: We have also reduced the small profits rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20%, when it was set to go up to 22%, and we have effectively reversed the jobs tax-the increase in national insurance contributions that would have hurt start-ups. We are also offering start-ups, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, a national insurance contributions holiday for the first 10 employees, so there were plenty of positive policies for start-ups announced at the time of the Budget. Indeed, given the state of the public finances, it was a very pro-business, pro-growth Budget in the way that it set up proposals for lower taxes.
On tax simplification, the Office of Tax Simplification earlier today announced the list of reliefs and exemptions within the tax system. When its work began in the summer, the general expectation was that there would be about 400 reliefs and exemptions; the total reached is 1,042 such reliefs and exemptions. Many play an important role within our tax system-I do not wish to decry that-but we have to think carefully about introducing new areas of complexity and new reliefs and exemptions, unless there is a strong case for doing so. Members have already made the case for video games, but the Government remain unconvinced.
Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He talks about hearing what has been said in the Chamber, but as far as I am aware he has not yet met Richard Wilson of TIGA. Like everyone else who mentions the organisation, I originally referred to it as "teega" but Mr Wilson continually refers to it as "tiger", and I assume that he knows better than I do. I believe the logo resembles a tiger, so there is a connection with the pronunciation there. Will the Minister agree to come to Dundee and I will arrange for Richard Wilson to be there? If figures are to be bandied about, with the Minister saying they are erroneous and Richard Wilson saying they are correct, it would be better if those two were in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.
Mr Gauke: I am grateful for that invitation. I am sure it will be small comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but I will accept the pronunciation "tiger" and concede that point. I am not sure that it would be terribly helpful if we were all in the same room to discuss these particular numbers. As I say, we are not convinced by the case made on these numbers. Of course, Members with constituencies that have a concentration of video game companies will want to make that case, but it is right for the Government to look at the economy as a whole and to bring forward policies that benefit all parts of the country and all sectors, including the video game sector. As I said in the meetings I have had with the hon. Member for Dundee West, there is no sense in which the Government are in any way anti-video games or think it is an antisocial issue or anything like that. It is a question of economic efficiency and where we believe the role of Government can be best used-and that is in providing a favourable climate for businesses.
I appreciate that the new clause and new schedule proposed by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) are probing measures, but I would like to touch on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). This relief is targeted at a specific sector and it would be considered to be state aid; as such, it would require notification to and approval from the European Commission. The new clause and new schedule would be effective from Royal Assent. As the Government would not be able to secure approval in such a short period, the provisions would create an illegal state aid. As I said, I understand that the amending provisions are probing, but the same issue applies to the previous Government's proposals-and they, too, would have required state aid approval, which is worth putting on the record.
The new clause would create unjustified distortion and complexity in the corporate tax system. We do not think that such an intervention would represent good value for money for the Exchequer or be conducive to providing a simple and competitive tax system. The UK needs a tax system that supports all businesses, because it is the private sector across the board that will drive the recovery. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause and new schedule.
Mr Hanson: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification of the Government's response. If we take into account the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is clear that the Government are not in favour of the principle of this type of tax relief rather than the practicalities of the suggestions in the amending provisions. I am disappointed about that. I remind the Minister again of what the Under-Secretary said. When asked during the election campaign whether the Conservative party was in favour of a games development tax break, he answered:
"emphatically, 100 per cent in support for game tax breaks. No ifs, no buts."
I think that we need to reflect on this issue. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and, outside the Chamber, for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) have demonstrated great support for their industry. Many jobs depend on it, not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). We must ensure that we do not transfer jobs to Canada, France and other countries just because of the impact of our tax regime on the industry, and just because-as has been pointed out-some companies do not qualify for the help that the Government have provided through capital gains tax relief owing to their size.
I accept what the Minister has said today, which I interpret as a closed door, but I must tell him that Members, including those with constituency interests, will return to the issue. I hope that he will accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West that it should be examined in detail, that he will meet representatives of the industry, in London if not in Dundee, and that he will consider discussing with those who are helping to create this wealth how we can ensure that we keep the jobs in the United Kingdom. I hope he will not allow that door to remain completely closed.
I give the Minister notice that both Back Benchers and Front Benchers will return to the issue, so that we can all fulfil our manifesto and election pledges and, more important, protect the industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
'The Treasury shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission and publish an independent review of the implications of the operation of section 32 of the Finance Act 1988 (Married couples-abolition of aggregation of income) on methods of determining eligibility for family benefits including child benefit.'.- (Chris Leslie.)
New clause 2 would force the Treasury to come clean on its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with higher-rate taxpayers from January 2013, which will take £2.5 billion a year from those families from 2014-15 onwards.
Ever since the Chancellor announced the policy of means-testing child benefit a month ago at the Conservative party conference, the policy has gradually unravelled. The Treasury has struggled to spell out exactly how it will implement the idea-especially as there has rightly been separate and independent taxation of individuals since 1990, when it was recognised that there were major problems with taxing women as though their income were effectively part of their husbands' property. Those days may seem long ago now-it is 20 years since Lady Thatcher left Downing street, and 20 years since Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism-but the Government have adopted a déjà-vu approach to policy making which looks set to reopen that history.
We have grown used to the principle of independent taxation over the past two decades, and many now take it for granted, but we ought to pause and reflect on why it is so important. The Government's proposed changes to child benefit imply a requirement for mothers to disclose their receipt of child benefit to their partners, and a requirement for partners or husbands to be taxed on the income of their spouses. That represents a potential breach of the principle of separate and individual taxation which, as the new clause says, was introduced in the Finance Act 1988, and which applied from 1990 onwards.
The 1988 Act introduced a radical change in the system of taxing husbands and wives: independent taxation. Until then, husbands and wives were viewed
as one person for tax purposes, and the Revenue, of course, saw only the husband. The spouse's income and gains were added together, and the couple were treated as if the total income were that of the husband. He was responsible for completing the annual tax return and for paying all tax due, including that on his wife's income and gains. However, with the introduction of independent taxation, spouses were treated as separate individuals for tax purposes and for the first time married women enjoyed privacy in, and responsibility for, their own tax affairs. In addition, some married couples were paying more tax because they were married than they would have if they had been cohabiting. That drew much criticism at the time.
It is instructive to look back at the speeches advocating the virtues of independent taxation, especially by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has since been ennobled as Lord Lamont. In the 1988 Budget debate he called this reform
"a radical proposal for independent taxation...It will give married women the independence and privacy in tax matters that they have been denied for so long...Under the new system, a married woman will be treated as a taxpayer in her own right with a full personal allowance to set against her income, and her own basic rate band. She will have responsibility for her own tax matters and will be able to enjoy complete privacy if she wishes...It is an important principle that there should be independence and privacy in taxation matters."-[ Official Report, 16 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1193-94.]
Clearly the Prime Minister should heed the words of his former boss in these matters. I gather that Lord Lamont is still occasionally called upon to give advice to his former special adviser. Perhaps their diaries clashed on the day of the fateful decision on child benefit, but there is still time for the Prime Minister to make that call to Lord Lamont, and to see the error of his ways and rein in his doctrinaire Chancellor on this issue, especially as the Prime Minister promised before the general election to protect child benefit. Winding the clock back 20 years and reversing decades of progress in equality in taxation and in the responsibilities of individuals for their own income risks creating a set of major perversities in the tax system that could have significant ramifications. That is why the Opposition are opposed to the changes in child benefit.
Let us consider the administrative shambles that would be created if the Government were to get their way. The Wall Street Journal has reported insiders in the civil service talking of "panic stations" at the Treasury with growing acceptance that the policy is virtually "unenforceable" and "likely to be ditched". If a mother is under no legal obligation to tell the father that she is in receipt of child benefit-unless we do see the end of independent taxation, of course-how can this tax on families work? Currently, the father's tax status is irrelevant to the mother's entitlement to child benefit. Can the Minister tell the House how this clawback arrangement will work, especially if parents are divorced or divorcing or separated or separating, or if the mother simply declines to report the tax status of the father of her children to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs officials?
Can the Minister also tell us whether the rumour that the Treasury is considering a new database to match mothers with their partners is true, and would that not make the Child Support Agency seem a bit like a pocket calculator by comparison? Will the Minister spell out the mechanisms the Treasury envisages in respect of this policy, and the enforcement mechanisms it is planning
to put in place to take these sums off families earning approximately £45,000 or above? Will the Treasury be relying on a self-certification approach by the partner not in receipt of child benefit? Will the Minister take this opportunity to state for the record that the Government will continue with the important principle that mothers should be the primary recipient of child benefit payments?
The poor design of this policy could easily undermine revenue plans too. Clawing back the cost of the benefit from higher rate taxpayers through the tax system would be "intrusive" and involve lots of form filling. That is the opinion of one of the Chancellor's own advisers on tax policy, John Whiting, whom the Chancellor recently appointed as the tax director of the Office of Tax Simplification. Mr Whiting suggests that the policy would be an administrative burden that would merely "make a dent" in the estimated £2.5 billion of savings the Treasury claims the change would bring. We are not alone in questioning the logic of this ill-thought-through proposal, therefore. We know from the reporting on this policy that the Chancellor rode roughshod over his Cabinet colleagues when it was announced at the Conservative party conference. Clearly many in the Cabinet were oblivious to those plans when the Chancellor sprung them on them, but it is now clear that he also rode roughshod over those in the civil service. They were insufficiently included in the plans for this policy and had he consulted them properly, they would have pointed out the chaos that it would create.
These are serious matters affecting millions of families across the UK, not only millionaires such as the Chancellor's family or the Prime Minister's family, but those on relatively modest incomes. They include police officers, college tutors, health service workers, senior teachers, pharmacists, paramedics, train drivers and air traffic controllers. Many are caught up in this category, the arbitrary design of which will create great unfairness with punitively high marginal rates of taxation.
Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman seems to want to convince the House that £45,000 a year is not very much money, but he should tell that to my constituents, whose average annual earnings are less than £20,000; that is what the average job pays in Dover and that is the norm in many parts of this country outside London. My constituents look askance at the fact that people on £45,000, a sum of earnings that they aspire to and dream of having, receive benefits. They tell me on the doorstep that they think that that is wrong, in principle, and that this measure is the right one to take.
Chris Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is doing his job, supporting a policy that was not the one espoused in his party's manifesto. It certainly was not the policy that the Prime Minister advocated before the election when he promised to protect universal child benefit-he now says that it should be taken away from these "rich" individuals, but I do not agree. I do not believe that this class of middle-income families is necessarily finding life easy on this particular range of salaries. We have to speak up for that squeezed middle in society and that is absolutely what the Opposition intend to do. Where a policy could see a £1 pay rise for these families result in the loss of £2,000 in child benefit, depending on the number of children involved, it involves a punitively high rate of marginal taxation that surely even Members on the Government Benches would agree is flawed.
At last week's Treasury Committee sitting, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Mike Brewer, described these cliff-edge issues as "economically perverse" and "distorting". He also said that it "seems unfair" that two families in different circumstances but perhaps separated by very small sums should be "treated so differently". His colleague, Carl Emmerson, added:
"The income tax system, by being individually based, is basically neutral about whether individuals"
"why should a family on £45,000 where one person stays at home lose their child benefit-£1,000, 2,000, £3,000 a year-but a family on £80,000 where both partners... are working should keep their child benefit?"-[ Official Report, 13 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 322-23.]
Even the Treasury has, begrudgingly, had to publish some statistics showing that this policy would create all sorts of anomalies and odd behaviour. It published a figure in the Budget suggesting that it expected to lose £270 million each year in revenue from people tax planning as they navigated this madness.
A family with three children on £33,000 a year after tax is to lose £2,500 from 2013-that is the equivalent of a 6p in the pound hike in their income tax. Middle-class families are being hit, and it is particularly pernicious of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to focus on children in this way as a means of raising money-they are clubbing families over the head with a higher tax burden while, of course, letting the banks off the hook. At the very least the Treasury should accept the new clause and agree to publish an independent review of the consequences for independent taxation if its plans for child benefit taxation of higher rate paying family members are to proceed.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): The conflicting press reports on this policy that we have seen over the last couple of months mean that the Government must explain their plans to withdraw child benefit. Like many commentators and Members of this House, I am deeply concerned by proposals that will see a lone parent or single-earner couple earning just above the higher rate threshold lose their child benefit while a dual-earner couple both earning just under the threshold would continue to receive it.
The reform could also distort incentives for those with incomes around the higher tax threshold. As I understand it, those earning above the 40% tax bracket will no longer receive child benefit for their children-that bracket is currently about £44,000. The system is complicated by the fact that that rule applies to single wage earners. If both parents earned, say, £42,000-or £84,000 between them-their family would continue to receive child benefit.
The Treasury has a duty tonight to explain how its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer could work in practice. Some tax experts have said that ending child benefit payments to couples with one higher rate taxpayer earning more than £43,875 a year is unenforceable. The method of
recovery will require taxpayers to submit annual paperwork, new HMRC tax codes and a change in the law to cover parents who separate or live apart.
Higher rate taxpayers will need to tick an honesty box on their tax return, stating whether they or their partner have received child benefit in the past year, and it is said that they will be fined if the information provided is incorrect. According to press reports, taxpayers might face fines if they fail to disclose whether their household received child benefit. On 29 October 2010, the Financial Times stated:
"From 2013, higher-rate taxpayers in the self-assessment system will be required to tick a box declaring that their household claims child benefit. They will then pay a higher rate of tax corresponding to the level of benefit, which is worth £1,700 to a couple with two children.
Those on the pay-as-you-earn tax system will be asked in a letter to disclose if their household claims the benefit-a declaration that will put them into a different tax code. The benefit would then be deducted in the next tax year, in an 'end-year adjustment' similar to that in the tax credit system."
"Legislation to implement the changes will include laws setting out what will happen to the benefit if parents split up, remarry or share custody."
To me, it is not clear how a system based on an end-year adjustment would cope with in-year changes in circumstances such as the birth of a child, a partner moving out or a new partner moving in. It is also unclear what a household will constitute for these purposes. As I have said, parents who earn £42,000 each would keep the benefit-worth £1,752 a year for a couple with two children-whereas a family relying on one income of £44,000 would lose out. Someone with children on a £42,000 salary would be better off than someone on a £45,000 salary, as they could keep all their child benefit.
At present, there are no definitions of "household" in either tax or child benefit law. Defining a couple is not easy, particularly if a couple split up. He might be a higher rate taxpayer while she is the carer for the children-or, with equality fresh in the mind, she could be a higher rate taxpayer while he is the carer for the children. When they part, she could claim child benefit as she has little other income, but if the rules treat them as still part of the same household-perhaps they have split up but are still living together-she could lose her child benefit, or even have to pay back whatever she has received.
We already knew that the plans were unfair, but what has been increasingly clear is that they simply have not been thought through. We do not even know if the provisions on independent taxation will be repealed. If mothers are under no legal obligation to tell fathers that they are in receipt of child benefit, how can this tax on families work? The policy will simply create more work; there will have to be a lot of checking up. People will have to put a lot of effort in to get it and to make sure they are getting the right amount.
We are now seeing significant confusion about what the policy means in practice. Quite simply, it is creating more questions than answers. In the June emergency Budget, it was announced that the income tax personal allowance will rise by £1,000 to £7,475 from April 2011. However, the 20% tax band is being squeezed so as not
to benefit higher rate taxpayers: whereas the 40% tax band currently starts at £43,875, with no tax on the first £6,475 and 20% on the next £37,400, that will change from April next year. At that point, the 40% tax bracket will start at £42,375, with a personal tax allowance of £7,475 and a reduced £34,900 tax band of 20%. Does that mean that people could lose child benefit even if they earn less than £44,000 from April next year? If that is the case, an additional 800,000 wage earners will be brought into the higher rate tax band from next April, which makes a mockery of the Government's claims to be on the side of hard-working families. If tax allowances remain as planned, those earning more than £42,375 will be denied child benefit. The Government must answer these questions ahead of April 2011.
The first point is the issue of declaration. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned last week's Treasury Committee hearing, during which I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury how he intended to enforce the new child benefit measure. He said that the coalition Government will introduce legislation to require higher rate taxpayers to declare whether child benefit is coming into the household. Such a declaration is partly dependent on information being passed from one partner to the other. The Chief Secretary was very clear that the obligation to provide the information will be on the higher rate taxpayer. Why not also introduce a requirement in respect of the other half of the couple? As the Chief Secretary did not answer that, will the Minister now shed some light on it and reveal whether the Treasury has taken proper legal advice? The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), a former tax lawyer, is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he advised his colleagues.
Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As a lawyer, I might be very cautions, but as someone who has been in a relationship and who has found that couples tend to talk, I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of any couples with children who do not share their financial information?
My second point is, how will it be possible to prove the connection between the mother and the higher rate taxpayer, bearing in mind the problems that we have been having at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? Given that HMRC's resources have been cut over the past few years, how will it be able to keep tabs on the situation between couples on a monthly basis? As some 1.2 million families will be affected by the new measure, will HMRC be given any more funding to enable it to enforce the new change and to keep tabs on what is happening out there in the nation?
Finally, John Whiting, joint interim head of the Office of Tax Simplification, has obviously commented on the problems of the new measure, but what is the point in setting up such an office when the people working
within it and those heading it up have not been properly consulted or asked to advise on this measure? Surely, if the Government are not minded to accept this new clause, it would be a good idea to delay the introduction of this measure and ask the Office of Tax Simplification to do its job and advise on how it can be more efficiently introduced.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend makes a powerful case to look again at the detail. Does he agree that if the objective was to be fair and to put the burden on to the broadest shoulders, surely it would have been better to raise the marginal rate of tax from 40% to 41% , so that the people who have more pay more, and not just clobber people with children, who now have to pay more for their children. Those are couples, only one of whom might be working, where the 40% does not signal the best-off households.
One of the main problems with the new measure is that people fall off a cliff edge when they hit the higher rate. Have the Government considered introducing a taper mechanism to prevent that anomaly from occurring, because obviously that is where the unfairness shines through?
Mr Gauke: The new clause would link the future withdrawal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers with the principle of independent taxation. The payment of child benefit is clearly a spending issue and is not directly linked to the Bill. I therefore shall not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important to set out the background to the change.
The spending review set out how the Government will tackle the deficit that they inherited from the previous Administration. Given the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition-I congratulate him on becoming the recipient of another child benefit payment, and wish him and his family well-as well as by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and several other Labour Members today, I take it that the Labour party remains opposed in principle to our reform of child benefit and believes that it should continue to be paid to all households.
Sheila Gilmore: Does the Minister agree that this is a case of reforming in haste and repenting at leisure? However tempting it might be to put in place something that sounds simple in principle, the complexity of the proposal should have been examined. The Government could have acted differently, such as by making child benefit part of taxable income. I do not necessarily suggest that that would be the best solution, but it would mean that several issues around independent taxation would not apply. If the Government wish to reduce child benefit to some households, there are other ways of doing it.
I take the hon. Lady's point, but I am not clear about whether her party's position is to say, "Something should be done, but we don't like the way it's being done," which, I think, is the position that she sets out, or to say, "We don't think anything should be
done at all," in which case we must include the £2.5 billion that the measure will save the Exchequer-that is an estimate from the Office for Budget Responsibility-as part of our assessment of the Opposition's fiscal policies.
Mr Umunna: The Minister cites savings of £2.5 billion, but will he estimate the likely cost of administering the new policy, which will have an impact on those savings? John Whiting has said that the extra burden associated with administering the change in the way it is envisaged will make a fairly big dent in the expected savings.
Mr Gauke: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but I will not give him a precise number because that is something that we continue to consider. The implementation of any policy clearly involves a cost, but I assure him that this cost will be small when compared with £2.5 billion. I am keen to ensure that the policy does not place an undue burden on HMRC. He made a fair point about HMRC. It faces a budget reduction, even though the Government are protecting it by ensuring that it has more resources to tackle evasion and avoidance, but we are keen to ensure that the burden of administering the policy will not cause it undue difficulty.
We have to take tough decisions and make tough choices, and this is one of the decisions that the Government have taken because we believe it is the right thing to do. We do not think it is fair to tax people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning much more. We cannot afford to continue providing financial support through child benefit to better-off households where there is a higher rate taxpayer. From January 2013, the Government will therefore withdraw child benefit from families that contain a higher rate taxpayer. Despite the noises from the Opposition, the British people understand that this is a tough, but fair, decision.
Geraint Davies: Can the Minister explain why the proposal to tax higher rate taxpayers in that way was made and announced before the comprehensive spending review? I put it to him that the reason for that was to warm up the audience and to make out that the comprehensive spending review would be fair and balanced, as opposed to the IFS's conclusion that it hit the poor two and a half times as much as it hit the rich. Was not the timing of the announcement entirely cynical?
Mr Gauke: The policy underlines the fact that the Government are looking to address our deficit in a way that is fair, and to ensure that all parts of society play their part and those with the broadest shoulders make the biggest contribution. That is what we are doing. It is remarkable that it is Opposition Members who appear to be trying to prevent that happening, though I am not sure whether they object to the way in which it is being done or whether they intend to fight in the last ditch to defend the principle of universality as it applies to child benefit.
We wanted to avoid creating a complex new means test for household income. To do so would fundamentally change the nature of child benefit and come at a significant cost to the taxpayer. This policy has therefore been designed to avoid affecting the vast majority of the population-some 80%-who are basic rate taxpayers.
It also avoids additional systems being developed, as the measure can be delivered within existing pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment systems.
Let me deal with the issue behind the new clause-the principle of independent taxation, which was introduced in the Finance Act 1988. It is a great pleasure to hear Opposition Members applauding the 1988 Budget. If I remember rightly, proceedings in this place at the time were interrupted as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was shouted down by some Opposition Members. Section 32 abolished the provision that a wife's income was income of her husband for income tax purposes. That remains the case, and none of the proposed changes to child benefit alters it.
Child benefit is provided for a child within a family and it is therefore necessary to consider the family as a group. The policy merely withdraws child benefit from a family to whom it is difficult to justify paying it. Furthermore, the withdrawal of child benefit from families containing a higher rate taxpayer will not affect the personal allowance or rate band applicable to an individual. The changes apply a simple test to ensure that child benefit is not provided to those who need it the least.
Of course, the House will have the full opportunity to debate the changes to child benefit when they are legislated, ahead of implementation in January 2013. That would be a better time to discuss the various specific issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. Although I understand that Opposition Members may wish to draw a link between child benefit and independent taxation in order to have this debate today, it is clear that the two systems remain separate and independent.
Chris Leslie: I am trying to follow the Minister's logic. Does HMRC envisage child benefit continuing to be paid to all mothers, but that higher rate taxpayers will have a sum equivalent to child benefit deducted from their income, on top of taxes?
Mr Gauke: The hon. Gentleman, who has been somewhat ingenious in tabling the new clause, again seeks to draw me into a wider debate about the implementation of child benefit. He sets out one way in which it could work; in other circumstances, claimants might seek to stop receiving child benefit. However, I must stress that, although he has been somewhat ingenious in raising the issue in the context of the Finance (No.2) Bill, the new clause has nothing to do with independent taxation, so I ask him to withdraw it.
Chris Leslie: I am astonished by the Minister's blinkered approach in sticking to the robotic text, "This has absolutely nothing to do with independent taxation," when it patently does. If a higher rate taxpayer is being asked to pay for income that their partner or spouse receives, that clearly breaches the principle of independent taxation. The hon. Gentleman would not be drawn into the mechanism by which the scheme would be set up, but, given the great fanfare with which the policy was announced at the Conservative party conference, I would have thought that by now the panic stations at the Treasury might surely have subsided, and that he would be able to share with the House exactly how the measure would work.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman congratulated my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the arrival of his new baby. May I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? It reminds me that I should have possibly declared an interest in child benefit at the beginning of the debate, but there may be a sufficient quantum of participants to make that unnecessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was right to describe the chaos involved in the measure. He asked, will tax circumstances be adjusted for in-year changes in circumstance? The answer is no, unless of course a child happens to be born at the very beginning of the tax year, but perhaps that is part of the Government's plan: children will be able to be born only at certain parts of the year, or by quarter, so that HMRC is able to apply the tax rules with administrative ease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out the Government's sketchy plans in relying on a declaration by the higher rate taxpayer in order to disclose about child benefit-something of which, of course, they may or may not be aware. The fact that the Office for Tax Simplification-again, much vaunted when it was established-does not seem to have been consulted or involved leads me to suspect that the OTS may well have been set up for the benefit of high net-worth individuals, rather than to simplify the tax arrangements of ordinary taxpayers.
The Minister has failed to set out how the child benefit taxation arrangement will work. There are hundreds of thousands of families throughout the country hanging on his words and trying to find out how on earth the scheme will be arranged, particularly given the perversity that will be introduced through the high marginal rate of taxation. Do not let us forget that that extra pound could result in an individual losing £2,000 in child benefit.
Geraint Davies: In my constituency, my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country, there are women who do not earn any money but live in a household with a partner, receive child benefit and spend the money on their children. In the light of their uncertainty about the future, given what we all know about the divorce rates, those women are critically concerned that the hand of government will suddenly come in and snatch that money from them or their children because of what the man earns. The Bill is clearly an infringement of independent taxation and an attack on children and mothers.
Chris Leslie: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that I cannot see this being the end of the matter. The Minister suggests that the measure is part of the Government's carefully calculated spending commitments, but I do not think that they will continue with the plan. There are so many anomalies and problems in its design and operation that they clearly did not think it through properly. They might have looked at the ready reckoner, saying "Oh yes" as they licked their lips at the £2.5 billion that they could take from families, and went straight to the first day of the Conservative party conference to announce their proposal, but it is unravelling by the moment.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others are starting to highlight the economic perversities and distorting effect of this measure. Even the sole issue of independent
taxation is sufficient to hole below the waterline the Government's plans to tax child benefit. I therefore hope that we can divide the House on the new clause.
This is a short new clause, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). It might be naive of me to expect that the promises made by the Prime Minister in opposition still hold good today, but this debate is necessary because of his rhetoric then, when he said that
"there should be a day of reckoning"
"A day when we would not flinch from spelling out the rightful consequences of irresponsible behaviour...this is a question of fairness...on behalf of working families".
"we show clearly that...there is not one rule for the rich and a different rule for everybody else."
Those are the words of the Prime Minister-before the last general election, of course. Time has moved on, the ministerial cars have become very comfortable, but the Treasury has barely lifted a finger to fulfil the promises to reform the tax regime in which the major banks operate. Perhaps that is a convenient state of affairs for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as they desperately try to shift attention from the banks' culpability for the state we are in, but there is still an urgent need to take stock of their contribution to repairing the public purse and to see decisions taken that might help to alleviate the looming crisis of public service redundancies and cutbacks.
The Chancellor's spending review, to which the Opposition obviously take great exception, is based on the pretext that "There is no alternative". In other words, anyone who even dares to murmur that there is any other course of action is somehow using flawed, unreasonable or unrealistic logic. That not only insults the intelligence of the public at large, but is profoundly short-sighted, as there are a great many alternative strategies that the Government should be considering. However, they insist that there is no plan B.
The new clause would shed further light on the facts behind the claim that there are no alternative revenues that could alleviate the burden of service and welfare cuts, which will fall heaviest, as we know, on middle-income families and some of the poorest adults and children in this country. We surely owe it to those people-our constituents-to try harder to find ways to close the tax gap, to create growth and new jobs, to generate new income and to bear down on the tax avoidance that costs billions of pounds each year.
Let us remember why we have the budget deficit. Contrary to the spinology that we will no doubt get from Government Members, who are obviously desperate to politicise the deficit in the hope of providing cover for their ideological scaling-back of public investment, our national debt was caused primarily not by a spending spree, as they claim, but by a dramatic collapse in revenues to the Treasury from income tax, VAT and corporation tax as a result of the global credit crunch and recession. The £132 billion rise in the deficit in the last financial year was, yes, partly the result of £53 billion in extra social protection expenditure, which was necessary,
for example, for unemployment benefits. More importantly, however, there was the £79 billion decrease in revenues. It is that collapse in revenues, which was compounded by the need to spend billions shoring up the banking system and preventing its collapse, that the Conservative party consistently and mysteriously want to overlook.
Let us remind ourselves of the banking bail-out, because significant sums were spent, and had to be spent, on it. Those sums included £76 billion to purchase shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, £200 billion to indemnify the Bank of England against losses occurred in providing liquidity support, £250 billion to guarantee banks' wholesale borrowing and strengthen liquidity in the banking system, £40 billion to provide loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and £280 billion agreed in principle to provide insurance for a selection of banking assets. All in all, it was the credit crunch, as we know, that led to the banking crisis and the recession. It is those things, not the public service inflation on which the Conservative party is completely fixated, that were the underpinning factors fuelling the deficit.
The banks owe taxpayers a massive debt of gratitude-that much is clear. They would have gone bust were it not for the deficit facility that we are now grappling with. My constituents are therefore repeatedly asking one simple question: will the banks be made to pay their fair share, getting us out of the deficit that they helped to create because of their business mistakes? Before the election, the Prime Minister gave every impression that that would be so, but so far very little action has been taken.
I do not want to penalise the banking sector to the point of annihilation; nobody wants our economy's financial services sector to fail further. Indeed, it should be resurrected in a more sustainable, diverse and healthy form for the future. However, when the Government are raising VAT on the rest of us, cutting police budgets, for example, by 20%, severely squeezing students and those on housing benefit, and forcing the closure of fire services, libraries and community services-the list goes on and on-we should surely examine more closely the level of taxation that the banks are paying. That is the point of new clause 3.
The Government say that the banking levy is the answer-that is what we will hear from Ministers tonight-but let us explore that point. Although the banking levy is in principle welcome, it is now patently obvious that it has been set at a woefully inadequate level. When the Chancellor unveiled it in the June Budget, it was greeted with relief in the City, which had been bracing itself for a hit of about £5 billion a year. The eventual 0.07% tax that the big UK banks will pay on their assets is less than half the rate envisaged in the United States when it was planning to implement a parallel scheme.
Most City experts know that, in reality, the banks are getting off quite lightly. Citigroup estimated that Lloyds could pay a levy of only about £268 million in 2012, compared with £292 million for RBS and £368 million for Barclays, and that for HSBC the levy for the same year could be £311 million. Deutsche Bank analysts
said that the Budget was "a good outcome" for the banks, and a City insider was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying:
"Privately, some banks will have a feeling of glee at the way this has worked out. But none would be stupid enough to say anything openly."
"We'd expect most domestically-orientated banks, for example Lloyds, to be better off after four years than they were pre-budget".
Stewart Hosie: This is interesting. I have seen many of these quotes before, and I am certainly minded to support the new clause, if the hon. Gentleman pushes it to a vote. An examination of the level of tax on banking is sensible, but I would like to know what the Labour party proposes for the level of taxation, given that every billion out of the banks is about £10 million to £15 million less to lend in the real economy. I am curious, therefore, to find out how punitive the Labour party would be.
Chris Leslie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We have to be prudent in how we address these questions, and I hope to come to some of the matters he raises as we explore corporation tax and so on. If he bears with me, I will-hopefully-elaborate.
UBS analysts said that they expected Lloyds and HSBC to benefit by 2012 because of the cut in corporation tax bills, which in their case was larger than the hit they expected to be sustained through the banking levy. It seems, therefore, that the banking levy is playing quite a small part, perhaps a walk-on character-
Charlie Elphicke: I would like to put a couple of points to the hon. Gentleman. First, taking the case of Lloyds and RBS, are there not likely to be substantial carry-forward losses in those banks, which will not be paying corporation tax for many years to come, let alone by 2012? Secondly, were they then to face a higher rate of tax, which I believe he is proposing, would the cost on those banks not result in the devaluation of their shares, which are now owned by the public? Surely, it would go round in a circle.
Chris Leslie: I will come to deferred tax in a moment, because the corporation tax questions require much greater scrutiny. That is one reason we tabled the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby, should we divide on this issue-unless the Treasury concede it-and that he agrees that we should have a review of the level of tax the banks are paying. If they are paying too much, which I doubt, I will be happy to look at the evidence and the facts. However, there is opacity about these questions, and given the hit falling on the shoulders of families and children in this country, it is incumbent on us to ask whether the banks will be paying their fair share. That is all we are asking this evening.
We think that the Government's banking levy has been a limp effort so far. Given some of the corporation tax changes, there is a bit of a cashback arrangement for some of the banks. I would like to touch on three
areas of corporation tax that I think require more serious and rigorous review. The first is that cashback boost for the banks resulting from the reduction in corporation tax rates announced in the Budget. The Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer that over the lifetime of the spending review the Treasury expects that the cut in corporation tax main rate from 28% to 27%, and eventually down to 24%, will return £1 billion to the banks-specifically to the banks:
"£0.1 billion in 2011-12, £0.2 billion in 2012-13, £0.3 billion in 2013-14 and £0.4 billion in 2014-15."-[ Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]
Mr Gauke: It is dangerous to intervene given that I do not have the answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in front of me, but my recollection is that the answer to that parliamentary question was in the context of financial services companies as a whole, including insurance firms, not specifically banks.
Chris Leslie: It might well be that in that written answer the Exchequer Secretary's definition of "financial services" extends slightly beyond the banks. I am happy to concede that point. Of course, we framed the new clause in order to explore the tax burden not just on the banks but on financial services more widely. However, even the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that the banks will probably be the principal beneficiaries of the corporation tax cut that he is choosing to give them at a time when he is taking money from young, pregnant mothers-the health in pregnancy grant, to name one example of an incongruous decision that might be questioned by our constituents.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening): I can see that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused about the written answer, so I want to clarify it for him, as I have a copy of it. The figures he gave relate to "financial sector" companies, so does he accept that he got his figures wrong when he said he was talking specifically about the banks?
Chris Leslie: The hon. Lady has several thousand civil servants-for the time being, at least, before they are made redundant-in the Treasury to help her with the costings for such questions. I can only go with the facts published in Hansard. Perhaps she could save me the trouble of tabling a further written question to find out what the bank cashback arrangement will be on corporation tax. I will give way to her if she has to hand the precise figures on what the UK banks will be gaining from the corporation tax cut. Can she tell us what those figures are? If not, I will table a written question. If she can swiftly answer that, it will be for the benefit of the House. I am pretty sure that it will be a net gain for the banks.
Let me deal with this directly. The Treasury and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs figures that we have look at hits by sector-in this case, the financial services sector, which includes not only banking but insurance and financial auxiliary services. The hon.
Gentleman quoted his figures and suggested that they represent a net gain. In fact, by the time we get to 2014-15, the bank levy will be £2.4 billion. At the same time, the corporation tax cuts in 2014-15 will benefit the financial services sector by £0.4 billion. However we divide £0.4 billion, it is hard to see how it will ever be higher than £2.4 billion.
Chris Leslie: Were those the only two relevant factors, that might be the case, but of course they are not. There are other tax changes through which the banks will more than benefit from the arrangements. If the Exchequer Secretary had had the patience to wait, I would have elaborated on that. I will come to that quicker.
It is important that the Exchequer Secretary listens to those experts who have talked about the benefit to the banks from the corporation tax change. Lloyds Banking Group plc could gain more from a cut in corporation tax than it loses under the new banking levy, according to analysts at Redburn Partners legal practice. Lloyds, 41% of which is owned by the British Government, might see a 3% rise in its earnings per share in 2012 as corporation tax begins to fall to 24% from 28% over those four years, according to Redburn analyst, Jon Kirk. There will therefore be a net positive for Lloyds. That is one example of a net gain for the banks.
Secondly, the banks have already found a way of minimising their corporation tax liabilities. A report published only last week by the TUC on the corporation tax gap showed a gap between the headline rate of corporation tax paid and the actual or effective rate of corporation tax paid. The TUC's analysis of data on UK corporate returns showed that the larger a company is, the better it tends to be at reducing its effective rate of corporation tax, which fell from 28% in 2000, when the headline rate was 30%, to about 23% in 2009, when the headline rate was 28%. On that basis, the TUC's economists predict that by 2014, the largest companies will be paying corporation tax at a rate of no more than 17% on average, while small companies will still be paying corporation tax at 20% or more.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): The hon. Gentleman will know that there are all sorts of reasons why the headline rate of corporation tax may not reflect the rate of corporation tax that is actually paid, which are to do with credits for R and D, and all sorts of things. He keeps quoting what the TUC report says about larger companies, but what does it say about the banking sector?
Chris Leslie: The TUC says that the effective rate of corporation tax for the banks will fall from 25% in 2000 to below 20% this year, which means that, in reality, they are already paying a rate that is below the headline rate that small firms pay. Those findings are certainly eye-catching. All I am saying in new clause 3 is that they merit further review and consideration, which would be a reasonable step to take. Indeed, those findings suggest that we could even be heading towards a regressive corporation tax system in the UK. Small businesses should be paying less in corporation tax than the banks, but the evidence suggests that that might not be the case.
The third wheeze that the banks might benefit from, in their navigation of the corporation tax system, is known as deferred tax, which can be defined as the tax liability that might be payable at some point in the future because of transactions that have already taken place, albeit where there is no certainty about when it will have to be paid. Deferring the payment of tax is not something that ordinary taxpayers can indulge in with great ease, yet it appears that the banks are playing that game on a gargantuan scale, according to the findings of Richard Murphy, the director of Tax Research LLP. He suggests in his recent report that the banks' deferral of tax reserves are absolutely phenomenal. He calculates that a sum totalling nearly £19 billion, which is nearly half what this country spends on capital projects annually, might not be paid by the banks in corporation tax as a result. He describes that as
"an extraordinary double subsidy going on for these banks."
Not only were the banks underpinned by the taxpayer in 2008-they are still underpinned in the form of the guarantees offered by the Treasury-but they may receive another fillip, he argues, from that deferred corporation tax gain.
Stewart Hosie: Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, at least one of the nationalised banks used those unused or deferred tax assets to pay for the asset protection scheme, which was set up-rightly-by the Labour Government in the previous Parliament. Without those unused tax assets or that deferred tax, the asset protection scheme would not have been possible, thereby imposing an even bigger burden on the banks, so I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman is going with this.
Chris Leslie: I am not making any particular proposals at this point; I am simply saying in new clause 3 that we should review the level of tax that banks are paying. There may be perfectly good and justified reasons for it, but we are talking about enormous sums of money. If, as some allege, the banks are playing a canny game, with sums of money that might have prevented many of the swingeing cuts that we are seeing to public services, it is incumbent on us, on behalf of our constituents, to ask those questions. If we are indeed "all in it together", as we are constantly told, we should ensure that the banks pay their fair share and do not leave the rest of us picking up all the bills.
Banker bonus season is around the corner. It seems rather than showing restraint, the bankers may be showing a return to form. Last week, Deutsche bank reported its third quarter results, saying that it had set aside £4 billion in the bonus pool for its corporate and investment bank over the first nine months, amounting to around €285,000 per employee. According to the financial services recruitment firm Astbury Marsden, banks and hedge funds are stepping up their bonus buy-out offers, as they try to prise key staff from their competitors. Goldman Sachs, a Wall street bank with a large British operation, has managed to set aside around £236,000 per employee in compensation for the first nine months of the year, which is obviously less than the $527,000 that we saw this time last year, although it still demonstrates that potential pay-outs are being lined up in the City for February, when they are traditionally handed out.
Richard Lambert, the outgoing director general of the CBI, has called for a global ceasefire between banks, to stop bonuses spiralling upwards, thereby further undermining the public's trust. In his speech to the CBI's annual conference this month, he said:
"Carrying on with business as normal would seem arrogant and out of touch,"
pointing out that many workers were facing job cuts and pay freezes. Those comments came as a survey found that seven out of 10 bankers expected to take home more pay this year, with half expecting a bigger bonus than last year, according to the website eFinancialCareers. City head-hunters Morgan McKinley found that 48% of financiers are expecting a higher bonus. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has predicted that £7 billion is likely to be paid out this year.
The former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), wisely instituted a bank payroll tax on banker bonuses while Labour was still in charge, netting some £2.5 billion for the Exchequer. Yet despite the coalition agreement promising to
"bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector,"
nothing significant has yet materialised from the Government. In fact, worse, the Government now appear to be rowing back from their commitments to tackle excessive banker bonuses. Last Monday, the Treasury Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Sassoon, told peers that
"the Government have taken action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the banking sector,"
"The Financial Services Authority is updating the remuneration code, which will ensure that bonuses are deferred and aligned with the underlying risks, and significant portions of any bonus will be paid in shares or other securities,"
"Employees in this industry will no longer receive all their bonuses in cash while leaving their shareholders, and potentially the taxpayer, exposed to the long-term consequences of the risks they take."
"My Lords, what I said was that we have indeed taken action".-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1417-18.]
Mr Umunna: Has my hon. Friend noticed that in the same package of measures in the emergency Budget-this was also touched on in the comprehensive spending review Green Book-there is also provision for a remuneration disclosure scheme? In the emergency Red Book and the CSR Green Book, we were told that the Government would come forward with details on how they would implement the scheme, which would require greater transparency in the financial services sector, so that the country could see what those in the sector were earning and whether there were irresponsible remuneration packages in place. It seems that the scheme will not now be implemented in time for the bonus round that my hon. Friend has just mentioned.
Chris Leslie: Absolutely, and it is no coincidence that it is on the first page of promises in the coalition agreement-actually, the reason is alphabetical; the first page starts with b, for "banking"-that many of those promises, including the promise to tackle banker bonuses, were made. The Government have tried to suggest that they are being tough and that they will take action, but that action has not been forthcoming. I want to hear from the Minister whether the Government are now content with the current framework, in which higher banker bonuses look set to continue to be paid. If not, will he say when the Government will bring forward proposals to act? It is a specific and simple question. The House wants to hear what the Minister has to say.
The coalition agreement also promised to use net lending targets for the nationalised banks as a means of getting credit flowing to businesses, as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has suggested. Yet last week, the Prime Minister again shifted his stance. In a meeting with business leaders in Hertfordshire, he stepped back from that pledge, and indicated that lending targets for banks would not be reintroduced. He said:
"You can go for lending agreements with the banks. The trouble is, what I find with lending agreements is that they will promise to do a certain amount of lending to one sector, but they'll shrink it somewhere else."
His comments were followed by similar remarks from the Minister with responsibility for small businesses at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). Last Monday, the Government published their response to the Green Paper consultation on financing the economic recovery, and it was conspicuous by its absence that no mention was made of net lending targets. Have the Government softened their position on the pursuit of net lending targets to business?
During the summer, the Chancellor said that he would be exploring the costs and benefits of a financial activities tax on profits and remuneration. He repeatedly said that he would consider such a levy on the total profits and remuneration of financial institutions rather than on individual transactions, and the European Commission backed the financial activities tax, but when it was brought forward for discussion at the EU Council summit on 28 September, Ministers seemed to be rowing back from even that pledge. Will the Minister tell the House where the Government stand on the proposal for a financial activities tax? The rumour was that the Government did not want that idea going forward to the G20 summit in Seoul this coming weekend. If so, why?
Many of our constituents will be aware of the proposal from 50 or so charities and other voluntary bodies for a financial transactions tax, which is slightly different from a financial activities tax, and would apply to a wide range of individual capital movements, including equities, bonds and derivatives. That Tobin tax or Robin Hood tax deserves a thorough review, although clearly there are arguments for and against with regard to the details and the relative impact on London as a centre for financial transactions. Nevertheless, the Government have singularly failed to respond to that campaign so far. Any review of banking taxation would need to analyse the case for a financial transactions tax far more rigorously as it is a serious proposition meriting a serious response. All in all, the banks' tax position needs a far more serious review than the piecemeal commitments offered by Ministers so far.
Justine Greening: I note that the hon. Gentleman failed to answer my question. I will respond to him broadly when I have heard the rest of the debate, and when I have a chance to respond to his new clause.
Chris Leslie: I thought it was a simple question. I thought the whole point of a debate was to exchange views. I am happy to review the financial transactions tax. It is an important proposition, and it deserves serious consideration. The Minister does not seem to know whether she is allowed to review it. Perhaps some inspiration has come down from on high. There is scurrying around, and I see that the Chancellor has been paging her officials. I am sure that inspiration will come to her shortly.
Will the Minister say whether there should be a change in tax policy to rectify some of the loopholes, such as those in corporation tax? Should there be a further review of, for example, the bank payroll tax? Should banks have their right to carry tax losses forward limited so that they expire after a specific time, or would that be detrimental? Clearly, the Government's feeble attempt to recoup something from the banks through the banking levy alone is barely denting their balance sheets and is dwarfed by, for example, the deferred tax assets that the banks are wielding according to the report.
Ministers should concede that the whole matter needs clearing up urgently if they are to have any hope of preventing widespread public cynicism, discontent and anger. In short, as things stand, all we see from the Government is a puny banking levy, banks still using corporation tax loopholes at taxpayers' expense, promises on bankers' bonuses unfulfilled, promises on banks' net lending targets more distant than ever, and inaction on reforms to the banking taxation system. The taxpayers of this country deserve better.
Chris Evans: Since coming to the House, I have seen a lot of history being rewritten. We are told whenever we stand in the Chamber that we must apologise for the economy, but to coin a phrase from The Sun on the day after the general election in 1992, "It was the banks wot did it." There is widespread public anger with the banks, and people believe that they are getting away scot-free.
At my surgeries, in my local Labour party and out in the streets, people ask me why our nurses and teachers are bearing the brunt of the deficit-what about those casino bankers? If it were not for their reckless practices, why did the then shadow Chancellor just before the general election commit to follow Labour's spending plans for two years if we were so bad at running the economy? The simple fact is that the banks have not paid the price for the deficit that they helped to run up.
The new clause is not about destroying the banking system; it is about strengthening it, which means changing it and making it mixed. I know that this is outwith the amendment, but I would like a mutual element in the
banking system, and that could start with Northern Rock. The simple fact is that the banks received £1 trillion. Can anyone imagine what £1 trillion looks like? Can anyone imagine what public works we could do with £1 trillion? Projects in my constituency are crying out for money. The Newbridge Memo, the memorial hall, needs restoration. So much could be done with a tiny part of that £1 trillion. But the bankers remain blasé and people think they are plain arrogant.
If no one believes me, let them look at Lloyds TSB, which this week appointed a chief executive. I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce his Spanish name, but we are told he will receive a package of £8 million. Who is worth £8 million, and what message does that send to people who are struggling to get by? It sends the message that the Government do not care how much damage bankers have done-they can carry on as they have been. When we read about such figures, what are we saying to people on the ground? They are the ones who must pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about bankers' bonuses, and I wholeheartedly agree that something must be done to rein them in. However, I have been a high street banker. I worked for Lloyds TSB, and I know for a fact that someone working as a personal account manager or personal banker is desperate for their bonus at the end of the month, because it makes up their wage. If we rein in the big City bonuses, we must think about the people on the ground. Let us not rein in their bonuses. They still have to pay their bills, and we must think about that. I ask the Government to consider the new clause because the banks really must pay their fair share.
Opposition Members are not under any illusion that banker-bashing, as it has been called, or reining in bonuses alone will sort out the problems with the financial services sector. It is important to reform the way it operates generally, which is why I welcome the banking commission that the Government have set up. Its terms of reference are sensible and, as a member of the Treasury Committee, I look forward to providing some input to that.
"I believe that it is fair and right that in future banks should make a more appropriate contribution, reflecting the many risks that they generate."-[ Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]
Of course, some banks were taken into public ownership, including Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds HBOS, but we are not
talking only about the measures implemented by the previous Government on the eve of the financial crisis to nationalise or take a public stake in those banks. A package of measures was also put in place for the many other banks that were not taken into public ownership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has mentioned. In addition to the special liquidity scheme, there were the inter-bank lending guarantees and the banning in 2009 of short selling practices.
All those factors contributed to helping the entire sector and, as a result, those banks are still operating today. Their balance sheets are looking far healthier and, during the summer, the five biggest players in the sector reported half-year pre-tax profits of more than £15 billion. So the good times are back in the City. My hon. Friend also mentioned the predictions of the bonuses that are likely to be paid in the current round. Over the weekend, for example, we read that at RBS some £2.1 billion has been accrued to pay staff salaries, benefits and bonuses, compared with £2.2 billion a year ago, at a time when revenue has dropped from £9 billion to £6.3 billion.
I am puzzled by the package of measures in the CSR Green Book that tell us that the banking sector will be required to make a greater contribution. If we look at the banking levy, for example, we see the sum of £2.5 billion being bandied about as the amount that we can expect the banks to pay. However, I have been told in an answer to a written parliamentary question that the amount coming in from them will be £1.15 billion in 2011-12, that it will be £2.32 billion in 2012-13, and that it will reach £2.5 billion only in 2013-14 before falling back to £2.4 billion in 2014-15. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) has pointed out that, by the end of that four-year period, the banks will be paying less than all the parents who are giving up their entitlement to child benefit, thanks to the measures announced by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference on 4 October.
I would also be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the fact that the banking levy is to be implemented in such a way that the banks will not have to pay it on the first £20 million of taxable liabilities. It is extraordinary that they appear to be receiving a tax break before the tax has even been introduced. Will she also comment on the views expressed by the International Monetary Fund on the rate at which the levy is to be imposed? The IMF is clearly of the view that the banking industry in general has been under-taxed, and it has called for the levy to be tripled so that it could bring in at least £6 billion a year. Just think what we could do with the extra moneys! We could reinstitute the future jobs fund, for example.
The IMF's proposal is quite moderate when we consider what Oxfam is proposing, however. It argues that the levy should be imposed in such a way that it raises £20 billion. That is not even being proposed by Opposition Members at present. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the measures that appear in the CSR Green Book under the heading "Everyone making a fair contribution" will do as they say they will do-namely, require the banking sector to make a contribution that is proportionate to all the problems it has caused for our constituents.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|