House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jul 1991

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : My hon. Friend's remarks are extremely interesting, but I have been concerned for some years about a particular point. The Government, rightly, reduced corporation tax on the argument that that would give more money to industry to invest as it thought fit. At the same time, we have the lowest percentage of investment in manufacturing industry among the G7 countries. We vie with the United States of America for the lowest figures and we are considerably behind Japan, Germany and France. How can we overcome that without some form of direct tax incentive to make sure that people invest?

Mr. Shaw : I agree with my hon. Friend and he makes a strong point. International comparisons for investment are not favourable, although they are favourable for the corporation tax rate. It is certainly necessary, when we

Column 91

consider that the United Kingdom has been going through a recession and is, I hope, in the first stages of coming out of it, to look at how we can encourage businesses to invest, not only to bring us out of the recession more quickly, but, funnily enough, to prevent inflation from recurring. If we do not invest, we will not have additional capacity. If there is a shortage of capacity, inflation will return. It is necessary, in coming out of a recession, especially one induced to prevent inflation, to encourage more investment. There are several reasons why it is appropriate to change the capital allowances rate. My argument is that a one third, one third, one third principle would be a highly desirable change. One must also consider the cash-flow cost of investment, which is incurred on day one. The current tax regime defers tax allowances for that investment over many years. It goes too far into the future to act as an incentive for the industries that need to be helped. My proposal would cost nothing in terms of tax revenue. Ultimately the tax would be repayable to the Treasury. The only cost to the Treasury would be that of tax deferral as a certain amount of tax would be deferred into the future. There are various estimates of how much that interest cost will be. For the shipping industry the estimate is thought to be only about £30 million or £40 million if there were 100 per cent. allowances in year one.

Dr. Marek : The hon. Gentleman must remember that some years ago his Administration reduced the rate of corporation tax and that as a quid pro quo there was a much more stringent policy on capital allowances. Does he believe that that policy was wrong? If not, how much revenue would be forgone by the Treasury as a result of his proposal, for which I have some sympathy? One cannot consider the proposal in isolation.

Mr. Shaw : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have never believed that the Government's changes to capital allowances and the corporation tax rate were wrong in principle, but, having had time to study how capital allowances are operating relative to the corporation tax rate, I think that the change, although right in principle, went too far in practice. We need a straight line basis for writing off capital allowances. That is what my proposal would achieve.

As I understand it, the proposal would cost nothing. I am not proposing that industry should be given any tax subsidies ; nor am I proposing any hand-outs for industry. I am proposing a deferral of the tax being collected on the basis that in any case British industry must pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the investment up front.

British industry is already paying out in terms of the effect on its cash flow. I ask the Government to help British industry to overcome its investment problems by accepting that it should have a deferral on its cash flow receipts. At the moment, British industry has a cash flow problem when it invests because it must pay that money up front.

I should like to draw attention to the way in which the new clause would help shipping--the subject of another new clause that was not selected. If the Government are averse, as suggested in Committee, to 100 per cent. capital allowances for shipping, they should seriously consider the benefits that would accrue from my new clause by accepting a one third, one third, one third write-off for tax

Column 92

allowances on British shipping. Although the new clause would apply to all British industry, it would provide a significant benefit for British shipping.

The Government have been through two wars--the Falklands and the Gulf. It should be apparent to everyone that the defence needs of our country are greatly assisted by the merchant fleet and the many people who serve in it who are prepared to support our Navy in one form or another. It is apparent that we must maintain a considerable defence requirement. It has been suggested that that should be achieved through a private subsidy to assist the maintenance of certain types of ships. I do not believe that that would be sensible, as it would encourage the shipping industry to invest in a particular type of ship which is solely suited to military purposes or has a heavy bias towards military purposes. It would be more appropriate to have a tax allowance to ensure that for most of the time we could use normal merchant ships, which could be adapted for defence needs. Shipping also contributes some £5 billion per annum to our balance of payments. It is a highly successful business, although in recent years the British merchant marine fleet has been forced to contract. That has been caused by factors that are often beyond Government control, such as the UNCTAD--the United Nations conference on trade and development--code. That code means that our shipping must compete with foreign shipping lines which are encouraged by those countries involved in the trade between the nations subject to that code. The opportunities for outsiders to trade with those countries has been severely limited in recent years as a result of the UNCTAD code. The average age of the United Kingdom fleet is 14 years, which is older than the world average. In addition to that, 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom's shipping fleet will need to be replaced by 2000. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the means by which the British fleet will be able to replace its ships in the next few years. It is important that some form of capital allowance changes are made. My new clause would greatly help the shipping industry, as well as the rest of British industry.

The international competition in shipping and shipping allowances means that the United Kingdom is unfavourably placed in relation to Norway, Denmark and Germany, where it is possible to have limited partnerships. It is also unfavourably placed in relation to Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden where the capital allowances are 25 per cent. or better. My new clause proposes a one third, one third, one third principle which would bring the United Kingdom's shipping industry into a favourable position relative to those countries. Greece has no corporation tax on shipping. Therefore, it is necessary to consider capital allowances and the way in which individual industries are handicapped on the international market. My new clause was discussed briefly in Committee and the argument used against it and the new clause on shipping was that 90 per cent. of tax reliefs are obtainable in seven to eight years. I put it to the Minister that that period is too long. Anyone who has done any form of discounted cash flow calculations will know that, after seven or eight years, £1 then is worth only 50p today. Therefore, the tax relief has changed from the days when 100 per cent. capital allowance existed and when £1 of relief was available on day one. In some cases £1 of tax

Column 93

relief is worth only 50p. The shipping industry and British industry in general would benefit from a change to a one third, one third, one third regime.

I was disappointed that the argument in Committee was not based on the serious effect on British industry of the current tax regime, which results in a cash flow disadvantage. The new clause is desirable, because failure to take action and to implement a better capital allowance regime will probably delay recovery from the recession. It will cause disadvantages to those United Kingdom companies that trade on the international market and to those companies in the United Kingdom that face international competitors. At the moment, companies must borrow much more money than they might otherwise in order to make capital investment.

If 100 per cent. allowances obtained, more of the investment costs could be drawn from a company's resources rather than from borrowed finance. Even if a one third, one third, one third allowance existed, British industry would not have to borrow so much and therefore its cash flow position would be healthier.

Mr. Ted Garrett (Wallsend) : If ever there were two industries that have been casualties of the ideological warfare that has taken place in this Chamber during my time in it they are the shipping and shipbuilding industries.

We now have just three major yards left in the United Kingdom that could build ships of the type that are required as a result of the depreciation of our merchant fleet. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is right to say that the average age of the British fleet is 14 years. As a ship gets older the insurance rates increase. I shall not detain the House for long, but I believe that the new clause is an opportunity for the Government to redeem themselves and their interest in the shipbuilding industry. It is a fact that we are now down to just over 900 ships registered under the British flag, which is extremely unsatisfactory.

The hon. Member for Dover also referred to the Falklands and Gulf wars. Those wars proved that we had to pay enormous charter rates. We were held to ransom by allegedly neutral or friendly countries when we had to charter ships to get our equipment and manpower to the correct place at the correct time.

Swan Hunter, the shipbuilding yard in my constituency, built the Atlantic Conveyor. Basically it is an air-support ship, but it does an enormous amount of work trading the oceans carrying containers. The new clause presents an opportunity for the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence to get together to ascertain whether it is possible for them to provide support for British shipping through a proposal that would ultimately give additional finance to the British shipbuilding industry. To that end, I warmly support the new clause. 8.30 pm

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : I support this sensible amendment and, if the Government have any common sense, they too will support it. Not to do so would be stupid and irresponsible. I have often criticised Government policy and I hope that the Government will apply common sense on this occasion.

May I speak briefly about the effect that the amendment will have on shipping? If we allow shipping to

Column 94

decline, jobs will be lost throughout the country. We would then be unable to defend our national interests and that would not be patriotic.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far away from capital allowances. If he would keep his remarks more general, he would stay in order.

Mr. Redmond : I shall certainly seek your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendment mentions a 30 per cent. capital allowance. If that allowance is not applicable to the shipping industry, it affects that and other aspects of productivity. Although it is applicable throughout industry, I wish to emphasise the impact that it would have on shipping. I am well aware that Mr. Speaker declined to accept an amendment on the shipping aspect--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That is why I shall not allow a debate on shipping.

Mr. Redmond : And rightly so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Unless the Government take the necessary steps to bring about a change and accept this sensible amendment, the country will run into trouble. Our competitors abroad are not inhibited by protection of their national interests. Allowances for all industries, including shipping, will enhance the country's economic future. If the Minister says that he is prepared to accept the clause, I shall congratulate him on his common sense. I regret that the Government operate market forces, which are fine except when the national interest is at stake. If the Government were to accept the same philosophy as Japan, America, Germany and other countries throughout the world, we would at least be in with a chance to compete on the same terms as those countries that seek to demean the British people. I do not know why the Government should seek to shy away from taking a step that would help to build up the British fleet.

Reference has already been made to the impact of the Falklands and the Gulf wars because of lack of investment. The clause would enable British ship owners to make investments that would bring about improvements in that industry. One of the consequences of the Government's lack of help to industry is that companies tend to try to reduce their losses. If the Government were interested in uplifting the British economy, I am confident that they would accept this sensible amendment but, I regret, I do not see the Minister having that little bit of common sense.

I do not normally support amendments tabled by Conservative Members, for a variety of reasons that I shall not go into. However, because our national interest is at stake, I feel that the whole House should support this new clause. I hope that the House will divide to ensure that people stand up to be counted so that industry knows precisely where it can lay the blame.

Mr. Denzil Davies : I, too, support the new clause. After 12 years of Tory Government it is refreshing to have a Conservative Member introduce a new clause, albeit modest, that will provide some support for British industry. He may have got there by the route of shipping--I do not object to that--but the new clause relates to all plant and machinery. The manufacturing industry uses far more plant and machinery than the service industry, the financial sector or the property industry. As the hon.

Column 95

Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, in the long term the Inland Revenue will not lose any money. However, because it thinks only in annual terms, it feels that it may lose money. The cash flow of the manufacturing industry may be slightly improved and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there will be a reduction in the reliance on borrowing which has been the scourge of British industry, and the service, financial and manufacturing industries are now paying the price.

The hon. Member for Dover also asked why we do not adopt the American system if a company wishes, for accounting purposes, to set off its depreciation against its profits in year one or year two. Why not allow the same for investment allowances? I suspect that the Inland Revenue does not like that suggestion. I remember years ago when Trafalgar House bought P & O, and I suspect that it did so for investment allowances. [Interruption.] I am sorry, the company that it bought was Cunard. I knew that it was a shipping and building company. Perhaps the Inland Revenue does not like the idea because it presents opportunities for avoidance. However, the new clause seeks simply to bring forward relief if a company so wishes. The Chief Secretary may argue against the amendment but I do not see what he can say against it. He may argue that it will cost more money in the first year, but he cannot be sure that it will because he does not know how the companies will react.

I shall not introduce the EC into the debate because you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. National taxation and investment allowances may soon be the only way in which the House can support the manufacturing industry. We have read about the problems that the French are having with subsidies to their computer industry and there are EC regulations in that respect. However, in this area of taxation--probably the last one left to us--we are still able to assist our manufacturing or any other industry by providing allowances.

I hope that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will support the new clause. I do not want to berate the hon. Member for Dover--I am happy that he proposed the new clause--but it is a slight admission that the blanket reduction in corporation tax, covering all industries, whether they invested in plant and machinery or not, helps service and financial sectors more than the manufacturing sector. Perhaps that blanket reduction in corporation tax was not entirely wise.

The Opposition do not want to support manufacturing industry because they like dark, satanic mills and do not like the service sector. However, while, we do not have a common currency, to pay its way in the world the United Kingdom has to sell its goods abroad for foreign currency. The service industry and the financial sector in the main do not provide the revenue that we need to pay our way in the world. That is why the Opposition want to provide some modest assistance, and I think from what he has said that the hon. Member for Dover agrees with that.

I would have thought that, in this new age and with the new world order emerging from No. 10 Downing street--which is different from the order that we have had during the past 12 years--the Government would want to

Column 96

help manufacturing industry a little. The Government would be wise to do so because that is the only way that we, as a country, will balance our books.

I am sure that the Chief Secretary has a large "no" written by the Inland Revenue on his brief, but he should throw away his brief. I am sure that he would love to do so, especially with his public expenditure brief, which he does not have with him at present. Despite the fact that the Chief Secretary's constituency is Putney, where there are few manufacturing industries, he should take the larger view of the subject, compliment the hon. Member for Dover on his splendid new clause and accept it.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate) : I had not intended to speak in the debate. I have previously given my support to the shipbuilding industry, especially the merchant fleet, and felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) could do with some support from other Conservative Members. As I listened to Opposition speeches some doubts were sown in my mind as to whether I was on the right course. However, I realise that I would be straying from the realms of order if I were to talk too much about merchant shipping.

There comes a period in every industry's history when it needs some stimulus and help from Government. The measure, modest though it is, would be of considerable help, particularly to the merchant fleet. As our defence commitments are being reduced--which is a matter for great joy--and as our forces are being cut back, nothing could be more important than having British ships on the world's oceans. The Merchant Navy has one of the greatest histories and reputations in the world for the way in which it carries out its duties. I believe that a measure of help is particularly appropriate now because of the aging fleet, as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary will be able to say something tonight that will help the merchant fleet.

8.45 pm

Dr. Marek : I am amazed that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) can table such an amendment because it was only a few months ago that I remember him as being so far to the right that, if we had a wall chart with a spectrum of people from the left of the Conservative party and the right of the Conservative party, he would be off the chart on the right. He was more Thatcherite than the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Clearly, he has been on the road to Damascus. I wonder why he was on that road. I do not think that I should dwell on that matter for too long but leave it to hon. Members to make up their own minds.

I shall make two succinct points. First, we as a country will not survive unless industry prospers and manufactures. For that to happen, there is no doubt that industry must invest. Secondly, it is absolutely vital for us to have a shipping industry and help must be given to allow ships to be built in British shipyards, ships to be flagged with the British flag and ships to retain British crews. The new clause would go some way towards fulfilling both those aims. I do not completely accept the seductive and good speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He was partly right, but we need a package of measures to achieve all the ends, not just one clause alone. Therefore, I wish to suspend judgment and make the plea that more must be done for industry to

Column 97

invest. We must safeguard our British fleet, but I wonder whether the new clause would be appropriately targeted. How much would it cost to implement the new clause and how well would it be targeted?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor) : First, I thank all those who have participated in the debate, not only for the eloquence of their speeches, but for the brevity and discipline with which they made them. I appreciate that and shall seek to emulate it. The points that have been raised are important and I am certainly more than willing to give an account of myself at the Dispatch Box, although the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will be sad to know that I am as attached to my brief as Linus is to his blanket.

It was a particular pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) ; I hope I shall not embarrass him too much if I say that he is one of my favourite Members of Parliament. I understand why he said what he did because, in his lifetime, he has seen tremendous changes in a great industry. I assure him that we are well aware of what that means. The difficulty--as I shall seek to demonstrate--is that well-intentioned arrangements designed to deal with the problems do not and will not necessarily do so, and we must be fairly rigorous in our analysis of what is proposed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) acknowledged that the Government took a conscious decision in 1984 to alter the rules on capital allowances and move from a 100 per cent. first-year system to one allowing investments to be written off over seven to eight years--a provision that is still generous as most pieces of equipment last for longer than that. We have heard much about the shipping industry--rightly so as it is important. I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about it. I do not want to stray out of order, but it is worth considering that most ships have an average life of 15 to 20 years, so the capital allowance system, even as it exists, is not ungenerous, particularly when one considers that there are special rules to deal with the depreciation of short-life assets. In 1984, a decision was taken to move to the new system. There was a striking quid pro quo for that change in the dramatic cut in corporation tax from 52 to 35 per cent., which the Budget proposes to reduce further to 33 per cent., thereby restoring this country's claim to have one of the keenest corporation tax rates in the world. We must not underestimate the tremendous benefits that have come from that change. In the last three years of the 1980s there was an increase in investment of more than 40 per cent. I shall not recount all the statistics and weary the House with them tonight, but they all show that Britain's exceptionally good performance in the 1980s made it the country of choice for the investment of a large amount of money from key industrial overseas countries, with one third of Japanese investment world wide coming to the United Kingdom, two thirds of American inward investment coming into the European Community and a European Community total of inward investment from outside of almost 40 per cent. That is well ahead of countries such as France which has 14 per cent. and West Germany which has 2 per cent. That was a tremendous boom in investment. Even with the recognition in the Budget statement that investment will fall this year, it will still be about 58 per cent. more than it was at the beginning of the last decade. In constant money terms, business

Column 98

investment has risen from £35 billion at the end of the 1970s to £55 billion or £56 billion at the end of the 1980s. That is a tremendous increase.

Against that background there would have to be a striking and compelling case for moving back to capital allowances. To do that would be enormously expensive. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for not having access to figures. I would not have them either were it not for the service provided by the Inland Revenue.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked about cost. For the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Llanelli from his experience as a Treasury Minister I can give only an estimate. The Inland Revenue's best estimate for 1992-93--bearing in mind that in the new clause the enhanced rate of allowances would apply not only to new investment but to unrelieved past expenditure--is £2.15 billion ; for 1993-94, £1.95 billion ; for 1994-95, £1.6 billion ; for 1995-96, £1.4 billion ; and for 1996-97 £1.25 billion. That is a total of about £8.5 billion over five years. The right hon. Member for Llanelli suggested that I should throw away my brief. To do so would be an expensive chuck.

I do not want to stray out of order, but I should like to deal briefly with shipping. The new clause would not necessarily help British shipbuilding because capital allowances are available wherever ships are built and cannot be restricted by European Community and other rules to the United Kingdom. One hundred per cent. capital allowances would open a whole range of potentially attractive dodges. For example, a bank in Britain could buy a ship made in Japan, obtain the allowances, and lease the ship to a company in Korea or Taiwan where it would compete with British ships. I am anxious to look after the best interests of the British merchant marine, but this is not a guaranteed way to help. There were 100 per cent. capital allowances in the decade from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s and the British merchant fleet shrank from 32 million tonnes to 13 million tonnes. That statistic straddles two Governments, so it is not partisan.

Where we can help we do and we have. For example, important changes were made in 1985 to the rules on writing down allowances, and in 1986 the business expansion scheme was extended to include ship chartering. Clause 44 of the Bill makes further changes to the tax arrangements for British seamen, increasing the number who can qualify to pay no tax as a result of being out of the jurisdiction for the qualifying period of the year. That is an attempt to make it more economical to employ British seamen.

Undoubtedly, some issues on the United Kingdom register need to be addressed because any ship that benefited from the capital allowances scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover would not have to be given a British flag but could be flagged out. Therefore, the problems of flagging out need to be addressed separately. They are being addressed, and the report of a technical working party is being carefully studied. An important defence issue is being addressed by Ministers and in due course more can be said about it.

Mr. Den Dover (Chorley) : Will the Minister confirm that the reduction from the 1970s to the 1980s in the British fleet from 30 million tonnes to 13 million tonnes owed more to flagging out than to the availability of capital allowances?

Column 99

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We are straying far from the point, as I know the Minister appreciates.

Mr. Mellor : I do, and I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Gentleman is not as appealing as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but provided that he allows me to stay in order I shall give way to him.

Mr. Brown : I shall not debate whether I am as appealing as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is absolutely no contest. I found beguiling the Chief Secretary's point about ships taken up from trade. That is an important issue because it affects the merchant fleet. May we expect a statement on the issue before the House rises or will we have to wait until the autumn?

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Gentleman refers to defence. The matter is being considered and a statement will be made when a proper conclusion is reached. I cannot say whether that will be before the House rises but I wanted hon. Members to know that the defence issue, which is unrelated to these fiscal matters, has the serious attention of Ministers.

I am sorry to give my hon. Friend the Member for Dover a somewhat dusty answer. It is important for these matters to be ventilated, but in moving to a low corporation tax regime and away from capital allowances we are, in the longer term, doing the business man a great favour. We have allowed him to retain the resources to make his own investment decisions rather than distorting matters by a system of capital allowances. Under our regime it is the quality of the investment that matters and not the amount, which is the case under a regime based on capital allowances. Having properly ventilated the matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. David Shaw : It is often said in the House that short debates are among the best, and this debate has given the issue a wide airing. I regret that I did not have access to Treasury counsel in drafting my new clause, but such is the problem of the Back Bencher in drafting detailed amendments. I would certainly have intended it to be only for new investment to assist industry at a time of recession. Therefore, I accept that the cost would probably be much higher than the clause intends.

The Chief Secretary produced figures to show a cost of £8 billion. He should be careful to separate the interest costs in terms of tax deferred from the actual cost of tax, because in the long term there is no loss of tax revenue. I notice that he stopped his example at year five. Had he gone on to year 10, the cost must be significantly reduced, and reducing towards zero.

However, I accept that the new clause as drafted is not perfect. When the economy is such that the Treasury counts every pound carefully, putting my new clause to the vote would be inappropriate. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Column 100

New Clause 10

Developer's self-supply

.--(1) Schedule 6A to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.

At the end of paragraph 6(2)(b) there is inserted--

"except that, if the supply is treated as made on or after 1st April 1991, the value of it shall be calculated so that, to the extent only that grants and other supplies were made to the developer before 1st April 1991, the tax payable in respect of those grants and other supplies shall be calculated as if the supply had taken place on 31st March 1991.".'.-- [Dr. Marek.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Marek : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take new clause 36-- VAT : Developer's self-supply (No. 2) --after paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 6A to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 there shall be added

"6(2A) Where the supply is treated as made by sub-paragraph (1) above, on or after 1st April 1991, the value of that supply shall exclude the value of all grants and the value of all taxable supplies set out in sub- paragraph 2(a) and (b) above, where those supplies were made to the developer before 1st April 1991.

6(2B) Where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the value of all grants and taxable supplies referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) and excluded from the value in sub-paragraph (1) by sub-paragraph (2A), shall be deemed to be supplied for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) on 31st March 1991.".'.

Dr. Marek : The Opposition have tabled these new clauses to remedy a fault that has occurred as a result of the increase in value added tax from 15 to 17.5 per cent. in the last Budget. It may be for the convenience of the House if I cover a little of the background so that it can appreciate the aim of the clauses.

The European Court judgment in June 1988 did not cover building land, although it covered non-domestic buildings. The then Economic Secretary, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the Committee that considered the Finance Bill in 1989--I remember the occasion well--decided to abolish land exemption once it was clear that, as a result of the European Court judgment, the Government would be required to tax new domestic buildings. As a result, the developer's self-supply charge provisions were born and are now paragraphs 5 and 6 of schedule 6A of the Value Added Tax Act 1983.

9 pm

Those paragraphs provide that, on completion of development, the self- supply charge is triggered and output tax is paid, based on the historic cost of land, together with the value of all goods and services. I have some quibbles about the historic costs of land which I believe should be on a different value, but that is neither here nor there in the debate on the new clauses. In practice, VAT is imposed only on the land element as goods and services output tax can be offset by an input tax rebate. The VAT levied on the charge may be treated as input tax subject, for example, to partial exemption and to the capital goods scheme provisions. However--and this is the crux of the problem--the increase in the VAT rate from 15 to 17.5 per cent. has given rise to an anomaly in cases where developers are exempt--for example, those

Column 101

developing schools and hospitals--and where work on those projects has taken place on either side of the 1 April 1991 deadline, when VAT was increased.

The land cost will be subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent. if the self-supply charge is triggered after 1 April 1991, but so will the goods and services. That is fine if the service was performed on or after 1 April 1991, as input tax can be reclaimed at the same rate. However, that is not the case if the goods were delivered or the services were carried out before 1 April 1991. Then VAT can still be reclaimed, but only at 15 per cent., while output VAT has to be paid at 17.5 per cent.

Mr. Denzil Davies : This is extremely complicated and I do not understand it. However, my hon. Friend said that developers would benefit. What kind of developers does he mean? I hope that it is not nasty property developers.

Dr. Marek : I seek not to make any distinction between nice and nasty developers. It is simply a question of equity, and the equity has always been that any developer, as a result of the introduction of the self -supply regime, ought to be able to recover his input tax for goods and services, and then have to pay output tax when the self-supply charge is triggered. The problem is that, because VAT was increased to 17.5 per cent., the amount of output tax may be greater than the amount of input tax.

My right hon. Friend may also care to dwell on the fact that if a future Government decided to reduce VAT the amount of tax that could be recovered by developers would exceed the amount of tax that they had had to pay. That would cause a general uproar as it would be manifestly unfair. The Opposition believe that it is unfair that allowance should not be made for this problem--which was probably unforeseen when the Government decided to increase VAT only a few days before the Budget was delivered, or so we are given to understand--for developers whose goods and services straddle both sides of 1 April 1991.

I do not want to prolong the debate because I am aware of the many new clauses and amendments with which we must deal. That being so, I shall be concise.

What is the solution? Happily it is a straightforward one, and the answer is apportionment. The Opposition, ever wanting to please and to help the House, have tabled not one new clause but two. I invite the Government to take their pick. The two clauses are worded differently, but they seek to achieve the same object. I hope that one of them will be acceptable to the Government. That being so, I hope that the Minister will regard one of them favourably and will accept it.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard) : I accept that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has a point, and I am grateful to him for drawing it to the Government's attention. I wish to help, but this is a hideously difficult subject. I understand that that is accepted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The self-supply charge was introduced only in 1989, so it is not surprising that there may be some teething troubles. I think that I am right in saying that the developers who are subject to the charge are the only people who pay value added tax who have, or have had, no choice about their tax point, which to my mind is probably the nub of the matter.

Column 102

I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham will understand that the new clauses are not quite right. I do not criticise him for that, because if one thing is clear it is that the self- supply charge is extremely complex. As the new clauses are drafted, they would apply a 15 per cent. rate of VAT to all land acquired before the Budget, no matter how far in the future the land comes to be developed. I am sure that that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention. It would make no more sense to do that than to say that land acquired before June 1979 should always be liable to VAT at 8 per cent., whenever it comes to be developed.

The new clauses would apply only to the change in the VAT rate that has just occurred. That may or may not be the intention of the hon. Member for Wrexham.

Dr. Marek : It is not the Opposition's intention that a VAT rate of 15 per cent. should be retained for land. If the VAT rate changes, the rate on land must change. I hope that my intervention clarifies the issue.

Mrs. Shephard : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. He will wish to know, however, that I am advised that there are other, more technical, problems with the drafting of the new clauses. As it happens, it would not be necessary to introduce primary legislation to amend the self- supply rules. The Government have the power under section 35 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to amend the rules by order. It would be sensible, of course, to take time to try to get these matters right.

If the House is content, I am prepared to consider the subject again, and to write to the hon. Member for Wrexham. I cannot give a commitment, but I am happy to say that if we can be convinced that it would be fair and reasonable to amend the self-supply provisions governing the construction element of the charge, if it proves technically possible to do so and if-- this is important--that need not upset other relationships within the tax system, I would propose to bring forward an order. If for any reason we come to the conclusion that that could not be done, I undertake to explain that fully to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that on that basis he will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Denzil Davies : I am slightly worried about my Front-Bench colleagues. I hope that they are not backsliding from the faith. A previous new clause was designed to support manufacturing industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) slightly--I do not know whether this is possible--poured cold water upon it. The new clause that is now before us seems to support the property industry, which is quite dominant in Britain and which has done well over the past 10 or 12 years. I know that it is facing some difficulties now, but I shall not weep if it has over-borrowed or geared too much--I think that "geared" is the vogue word for borrowing. That is a matter for the industry. The Minister has promised some action, as I understand it, and if the new clause is refined and accepted it will support the property industry.

I have nothing against the property industry, but I wonder which pressure group briefed my hon. Friend. Whichever group it was, it did not draft the new clause very well according to the Minister, but it must have been a group representing property interests. I am rather worried. I read in the newspapers about the debates on Lloyd's in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill.

Column 103

Clearly, we do not believe everything that we read in the newspapers, but I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not accepting the new age--or the new vogue--of market-based economies which, we are told, will solve our problems in the 1990s. I should have hoped that my hon. Friend would give more support to the new clause that favoured the manufacturing industry and that he would not have been so keen to support this new clause which, as I understand it, is aimed at and will eventually give some money to property interests.

Mr. Den Dover (Chorley) : I support the new clause. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that there are good and bad property developers and that to chase and make a profit is necessarily bad in itself. Property development brings enormous investment into this country across the range of property--industrial, residential and commercial. It is a high-risk industry and, although profits have been made, there are also enormous losses and high interest charges, despite the reductions of recent months. I welcome the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench in trying to create circumstances that are fairer for the property industry, and I must declare my interest. I am delighted that the Opposition are trying to correct an anomaly. I also welcome the Minister's constructive response. In addition to some of the changes that she is thinking of, I ask her to simplify the legislation. I also ask her and the Inland Revenue to be sensible about imposing misdeclaration penalties. The Chancellor mentioned that in the Budget, but self-supply is a legislative minefield for construction, development, land and buildings and I hope that the Minister will try to simplify the taxation regime in her future efforts.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : I wish to probe what the Minister of State, Treasury said. She mentioned three possible scenarios adding to each the phrase "if technically possible". She will know that I am not wholly happy at the way in which Ministers are forced to accept the views of officials who deal with value added tax. For example, they--and not Ministers--have decided that VAT is to be imposed on Jaffa cakes, because they believe that they are not cakes, but biscuits. Ministers have no control over that. I ask my hon. Friend to take the decisions and not to let the mindless bureaucrats in Customs and Excise impose this decision on her.

Dr. Marek : I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will accept that we are passionately in favour of British manufacturing industry and of providing the prosperity that the country needs to survive, but I hope that he will also accept that we are equally as passionate about trying to be fair. From what the Minister says, I hope that we can leave the matter in her hands and that if anything can be done, she will see that it is done.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard : It would be a pity not to mention the domestic dispute on the Opposition Front Bench--let us hope that it simmers elsewhere. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that Jaffa cakes are never far from my mind.

Dr. Marek : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Column 104

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Tax exemptions for certain sportingand recreational associations

(1) Where--

(a) an Association which has as its object the encouragement, development and governance on a national level of any sport or other form of recreational activity (or which has as its object the representation of such Associations) is approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State ; and

(b) the memorandum of association or other similar instrument regulating the functions of the Association precludes the direct or indirect payment of transfer to any of its members of any of its income or property by way of dividend, gift, division, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit,

there shall, on a claim in that behalf to the Board, be allowed in the case of the association--

(i) exemption from tax in respect of income, and

(ii) exemption from tax in respect of chargeable gains. (2) In Sections 338 and 339 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, "qualifying donation" shall include a payment under a disposition or convenant made by a company in favour of an Association approved for the purposes of this section under subsection (1) above.

(3) The conditions specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (i) above shall not be deemed not to be complied with in the case of any Association by reason only that the memorandum or other similar instrument regulating its functions does not prevent the payment to its members of reasonable remuneration for goods or facilities supplied, or for services rendered, of reasonable interest for money lent, or of reasonable rent for any premises.'.-- [Ms. Hoey.] Brought up, and read the First time .

9.15 pm

Next Section

Home Page