House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2001- 02
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Finance Bill

Finance Bill

Standing Committee F

Thursday 23 May 2002

Mr. Roger Gale

Finance Bill

(Except clauses 4, 19, 23, 26 to 29, 87 to 92, 131 and 134 and schedules 1, 5 and 38)

9.30 am

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members, including myself, have a slight problem, in that security in the Room is so secure that we cannot get our boxes out of the cupboard. Officers of the House are doing their utmost, and I am sure that our personal belongings will be released in due course. In the meantime, I propose that we proceed as best we can, although I am sure that we shall cope.

On another matter, we have taken up with the authorities of the House the matter of acoustics in the Room, and the hon. Member concerned has been advised. The authorities are looking into the matter and, indeed, into the whereabouts of the key.

Clause 53

Tax relief for expenditure on vaccine research etc

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

Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): Good morning, Mr. Gale. The Opposition want to use this clause stand part debate to find out why the Government have chosen a rather complex system of tax credits when a more straightforward system of grants would surely have been more suitable. Hon. Members will be aware that we tabled a new clause on the issue, but it went outside the scope of the Bill and was not valid. The crucial question is, however, why the Government have introduced fairly complex fiscal legislation when the matter could be handled more simply through grants. Dare I suggest that this has something to do with the Treasury taking unto itself powers that might more suitably rest with the Department for International Development?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Clause 53 and schedules 13 and 14 introduce a new tax relief for spending on medical research and development. The new relief will apply to spending on vaccines and medicines for preventing or treating tuberculosis and malaria, vaccines for preventing HIV infection, and vaccines and medicines for preventing and treating forms of AIDS that are found mostly in developing countries.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we chose a tax credit rather than grants, and I expect that he will have some sympathy with the answer when he takes time to reflect on the matter. The tax credit is targeted at a

Column Number: 218

specific case of market failure. When it comes to treating most of the diseases and conditions that affect the developed world, we and our constituents can rely on the pharmaceutical industry, which has an excellent track record on research and development. In that respect, this country is pre-eminent in the world, and that is true in terms of its history and tradition and of its current market position. Although we can rely on the industry and the market to deliver on most health issues, there has been a market failure in this case, and we are promoting a market-based solution.

We could have used grants, although that might have cost more. That approach would not, however, have been as successful in underpinning the market. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, the Government believe in the market and in its ability to deliver if it is properly regulated. It is strange to find that all the market sceptics are on the Conservative Benches. Who would have thought that that day would come? However, it explains why we are sitting here and they are sitting there.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I am most grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene. Can he help me by defining what he means by market failure and can he analyse why he thinks that the market has failed in this case?

Mr. Boateng: I can give the right hon. Gentleman a very simple explanation of our thinking. It has been informed by the work that we are doing with DFID and the pharmaceutical industry. The companies involved are the first to tell us that they have two concerns. First, they have shareholders whom they must satisfy and to whom they have certain fiduciary responsibilities. Secondly, they see themselves, as health providers, as having a moral purpose and a degree of corporate responsibility. They recognise that they have skills and an infrastructure for research and development, but—they are very upfront about it—there is no market because the developing world does not have the resource base available to it either to put in place the infrastructure or to fund the research and to buy its product. Having been involved in creating the structure of the credit, they are looking to us to prompt and assist the research and development by putting that incentive in place. But of course—this is where the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is so wrong—we do that in co-operation with DFID.

The notion that the Treasury is seeking to take powers unto itself could not be further from the truth. The further away that Conservative Members are from any return to the Treasury, the more sceptical they become about its taking powers unto itself—hence the state of extreme scepticism that the hon. Gentleman lumbers in when he makes that sort of point. I know where he is coming from, but I hope that my explanation has set his mind at rest. Given that a fifth of the world's population—1.2 billion people—survive on less than a dollar a day, if we are to stimulate a market in that sort of health provision, we have a responsibility to take the action that we are taking.

Column Number: 219

That was the thinking behind the measure. Companies undertaking or sponsoring such research will be entitled to deduct from their corporation tax profits an additional 50 per cent. of their own expenditure or the cost of subcontracting such research to other companies or institutions. They will also receive relief in full on contributions to independent research into the target diseases by universities, charities or scientific research organisations—that has been particularly welcomed by those organisations and institutions. The relief will be on top of either the new R and D tax credit for larger companies detailed in clause 52 or the R and D relief for small and medium-sized companies introduced in the Finance Act 2000. Small and medium-sized enterprises and companies with insufficient profits to offset the relief in full will be able to claim a vaccines tax credit equivalent to 24 per cent. of the cash cost of qualifying research.

I hope that the clause and its schedules will find favour with the Committee.

Mr. Jack: Good morning, Mr. Gale, and welcome again to the Chair. As it looks likely that the Government will find their way to obtaining the Committee's approval on the clause and the schedule, I shall probe the Financial Secretary further about the choice of the qualifying activities as defined in paragraph 4 of schedule 13. Paragraph 4(4) clearly states that

    ''references to vaccines or medicines are to vaccines or medicines for use in humans.''

The Financial Secretary will be aware that many infections that pose risks to animals subsequently, for economic reasons, pose risks to humans. Indeed, in the case of bovine tuberculosis there is a potential direct risk to humans. He will also be aware of the intense debate during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease about the particular role that so-called smart vaccines might play in that context.

In the less-developed world, foot and mouth disease is endemic. I do not want to trespass too far on to a debate about animal diseases, but I hope that I have illustrated that there is a case to be made for giving assistance to the development of appropriate medicines and vaccines to counteract animal diseases, particularly in the context of the less-developed world. Foot and mouth exists outside developed Europe and if it is discovered somewhere, that means an immediate ban on the import into the United Kingdom of meat from that place. That can have an economic effect just as devastating as some of the illnesses that are prevented by the vaccines that the clause already defines.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Does my right hon. Friend accept that taking the steps that he is describing would have practical, material benefits for the United Kingdom, given that foot and mouth may have been caused by meat smuggled illegally or legally?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Column Number: 220

Mr. Jack: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but I do not want to stray into a full-scale debate on areas that are not subject to the clause. I use the animal illustrations to exemplify my concern about the restriction in paragraph 4 of schedule 13.

The provisions currently focus on particular diseases. On the World Health Organisation's website, the organisation's department of communicable disease surveillance and response publishes a current list of conditions that are serious in global terms. The list includes cholera, dysentery, influenza, HIV/AIDS, Leishmaniasis, meningococcal disease, plague, sleeping sickness, rabies and viral haemorrhagic fevers, including Ebola and Lassa. BSE is also mentioned, as are salmonosis, brucellosis and anthrax.

I am intrigued, because if the World Health Organisation identifies those diseases as being of major importance and ones on which the world should be focusing, why does the schedule identify the principal diseases as tuberculosis, malaria and human immuno-deficiency virus conditions? I can understand that the Treasury would want to reduce its exposure by ensuring that the measure does not include everything in the field of medicines and immunisation—there is an element of targeting. However, if we are to address issues of global poverty and global disease in a world of highly mobile individuals, it would enable the Treasury to be more flexible if there were some relationship between those diseases that the WHO identifies as risks and what we are prepared to help to counter.

Paragraph 4(3) of schedule 13 states:

    ''The Treasury may make provision by regulations further defining the purposes referred to''

in the sub-paragraphs. If I have understood those correctly, they deal with the definitions of what may currently be helped. Will the Financial Secretary give me some comfort by telling me that the provision is a first stab, and that there may be more to come?

9.45 am


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

©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 23 May 2002