Finance Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. Flight: I support the comments of hon. Members. I shall add one specific and separate point on improving R and D performance. We could reconsider patent law and have a two-stage patent arrangement. The first stage would take products up to the point of licensing, and the second would deal with specific needs thereafter. That would be particularly valid to the pharmaceutical industry. In the round, we want measures that will increase R and D activity here rather than overseas. As well as tax incentives, the relative attractions of patent law are important.

Column Number: 196

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I shall make a few brief remarks, but the debate on these amendments should tease out in more detail many of the points raised by hon. Members.

I welcome the positive comments from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). They echo comments by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of the Electronics Industry, to mention but a few.

Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): A number of us who have lobbied for several years appreciate the move on tax credits, but may I ask my hon. Friend a question? If we consider a company such as Rolls-Royce which has put considerable expenditure into research and development, is it the Government's intention to retain what they call lift-off loans, along with the tax credit?

Dawn Primarolo: I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer specifically the question posed by my hon. Friend, which is similar to the point that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made, concerning Government policy across the board in the encouragement of research and development. In the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made last week on manufacturing, she specifically focused on aerospace as well as the pharmaceutical, chemical and car industries. The appointment of Sir Richard Evans to chair the innovation and contracts team that will advise the Department of Trade and Industry is crucial. Rolls-Royce itself may be the subject of debate in relation to some amendments.

Yesterday, I was with David Marshall at a conference in the south-west, where there are a great many aerospace companies. We should be in no doubt that the tax credit will enormously help investment into research and development in this country. As we go through the amendments, we will see how the small and medium-sized tax credit on research and development and the larger company research and development tax credit fit together.

Underpinning all companies is a 100 per cent. deduction for research and development on current and capital expenditure. That underpins everything. On top of that, the two tax credits are boosting—they are super-plus credits. For the small and medium-sized companies, there is a 50 per cent. boost; for large companies, it is 25 per cent. Without drifting into the amendments, it will come out later in the debate why they are different, and what the Government are trying to achieve.

The historic position for the United Kingdom is that investment in research and development—with the exception of pharmaceuticals, perhaps—lags behind that of other major economies. To stick with the example of aerospace, we have the second largest aerospace industry in the world. We are second only to the United States, with a complete capacity to design, develop, manufacture and deliver. That is obviously enormously important, and great strides have been made in the past, but more must be made in the future.

Column Number: 197

We have considered the position on international comparisons and what other countries are doing to give assistance to their companies for research and development. Putting in place the large company element, the value of the credit for research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product will be second only to that of Canada. That is the only G7 country that will—marginally—be ahead of us. We will be spending more, using the tax credit, than the United States or France, which have traditionally invested more than us.

Mr. Jack: On a point of clarification, and I apologise if I have missed something, but will the Paymaster-General explain why she is talking in general terms about the operation of the research and development tax credit? For example, the Marconi part of BAE Systems in the United States consolidates its company accounts in the United Kingdom but incurs research and development expenditure of a qualifying nature in the United States. How does that operate in relation to the credit?

5.45 pm

Dawn Primarolo: That is the subject of one of the amendments, but I shall make my general comments now. I have taken the challenge to compare and contrast that the right hon. Gentleman often poses to Ministers. Perhaps if I give my response in the general debate on the clause, it will set the matter in context. I shall compare and contrast how and why the small and medium-sized enterprises tax credit is different from the larger company tax credit.

The obvious headlines are the rate of relief and whether it is payable; the subcontractor issue, which relates to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making; intellectual property rights—there is a variation there—and the definition of research and development. Every one of those subjects relates to amendments, but I shall just discuss them briefly now.

The rate of relief for research and development costs for small and medium-sized companies is 150 per cent.; it is 125 per cent. for large companies. We have to draw a line somewhere. I should also just say as a caveat that in all the consultations the industry and professional associations were clear that we had to have simplicity, transparency and certainty. There was much discussion about the different ways to operate the credit, whether based on volume or incrementally. Hon. Members will have seen the outcome of that debate.

A reason for the difference between 150 and 125 per cent. is that small and medium-sized companies face particular difficulties attracting finance, especially for research and development. For example, banks often find it difficult to assess the worth of a project. That is a real problem for small and medium-sized companies. In addition, the difference in the effective rate of the subsidy is smaller for larger companies. Typically, it is 9.5 per cent. for small companies and 7.5 per cent. for large companies, because smaller companies pay tax at a lower rate. We are considering the introduction of a system, and more detailed explanations will come up when we deal with the amendments.

Column Number: 198

Another issue is whether relief is payable. For small and medium-sized companies, the credit is payable for a loss-making company, whereas it is not for larger companies. Loss-making companies carry credits forward until they make a profit, but smaller companies cannot always do that. Obviously, we are trying to create an environment in which research and development are undertaken in this country. That is the purpose of the measure. The reasons that apply are the same as those that I gave for the size of the credit. For instance, the difficulty that small and medium-sized companies have in finding financing reflects the fact that the finance market sometimes fails specifically to assist them.

A payable credit also has public expenditure and state aid implications, and we had to be very careful and consider the laws. On subcontractors, we might discuss Rolls-Royce again when we deal with the amendments later. For small and medium-sized companies, the company funding the contract gets the credit, but for large companies, the company undertaking the research and development gets the credit. It is a natural preference to give the credit to the funding company, as it makes the decisions and takes the risks. However, for the large company, the credit essentially rewards all UK-based research and development, whether or not it is funded from abroad. That would not occur, on the whole, for small and medium-sized companies. By their very nature, they operate in one country.

To answer the right hon. Member for Fylde, we do not want to give credit, if we can possibly avoid it, for R and D undertaken elsewhere, by non-resident subsidiaries of UK multinationals. When we discuss the amendments, we shall see how our measures interact with tax treaties and other issues to ensure that that does not happen. By focusing on UK R and D, we have been able to deliver an enhanced rate of credit for the same Exchequer cost. What we have tried to do has been to produce a usable credit that maximises the rate at which we can pay it, by ensuring that it benefits UK investment. We have been greatly assisted in our detailed discussions in relation to tax by both the companies and the professional accounting bodies.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): My hon. Friend should be aware that I have recently been in discussion with some of my engineering colleagues, with particular reference to the R and D tax credit. First, I pass on their congratulations concerning the consultation that took place to ensure that the R and D tax credit was gifted to large companies. I also applaud the moves that the Government have made to ensure that the tax credit is passed on to third-party suppliers. As my hon. Friend will be well aware, large companies have, in the recent past, evolved their research capacity out of third parties. There was great concern that they would miss the bonanza. Can she comment on the future viability of such organisations, particularly with reference to the substantial enhancement for R and D?

Column Number: 199

The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Lady to intervene, so I shall allow the Minister to answer the specific point if she wishes to do so. Clause 52 is a narrow clause; it is really a trailing clause for schedule 12 and, although I appreciate that these are complex issues, and interlinked, we are effectively entering into a stand part debate on schedule 12. As swiftly as possible, we should put clause 52 to bed then move to the amendments to schedule 12 and have a proper debate in the proper place.

Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 21 May 2002