Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), made a number of interesting points, and I want to deal with some of them in the time that I have. He asked a question about the tax rate on trusts. Rates were aligned in 2004 to prevent avoidance of the higher rate by routeing income through a trust. The trust rate will be increased in line with the higher rate, so we are not opening up opportunity for trusts to be used for avoidance. Those for whom the lower rate is appropriate can reclaim tax; many do so already. In the case of self-assessment, that will happen automatically. If, as was suggested, the trust is for a vulnerable beneficiary or a
bereaved child, for example, an election can be made under the vulnerable beneficiary legislation, which has a special tax regime.
On bingo, which came up in the debate, we have increased the rate of bingo duty, but withdrawn VAT on participation fees. The overall consequence of that is to reduce the rate of tax on bingo from 24 or 25 per cent. to 22 per cent. I am sure that the change will assist those in the bingo industry.
The shadow Chief Secretary welcomed the announcement in the Budget and in the Bill on foreign profits taxation, and I am grateful to him for that. He made the point that there had been a good consultation exercise, and I thank him for that as well. I hope he will have a word with the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who took a slightly different position in his winding-up speech. I agree that we have made an important announcement that will increase and improve the competitiveness of the UK.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am happy to acknowledge the proper consultation that went on in relation to the foreign profits taxation, but can the Financial Secretary tell us why there was no consultation at all on clause 92?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the requirement on accounting officers to confirm that their businesses have appropriate systems in place for assessment of tax. No doubt we will have some debate on that in Committee. The great majority of people will think that it is appropriate that companies give that assurance as a measure to help address the problems of avoidance, which were mentioned in the debate and which have been of concern elsewhere. It is an appropriate measure to ensure that companies are paying the tax that is due.
On the pension changes that were discussed in the debate, we will consult on the detail of how those will work. I can confirm that civil servants on sufficiently high salaries will be affected by those changes. We were asked in the debate whether we would acknowledge the position of those who make regular but less frequent pension contributionsless frequently than quarterly. I refer Members to my statement to the House on Budget day, in which I confirmed that we would examine that issue.
The shadow Chief Secretary asked whether we would use plea bargaining with tax avoiders. The Bill sets out the criteria for exemption from HMRC publishing peoples names in the event that they deliberately evade taxes, which is a full disclosure, either unprompted or prompted, within a time frame specified by HMRC.
The hon. Gentleman was rightjust last week we secured state aid approval for the venture capital trust scheme, but I caution him about looking at the prospect for relaxing some of the restrictions put in place in 2007. We will need to ensure that we continue to comply with state aid rules.
Many businesses, especially in London, will have been extremely concerned about the hon. Gentlemans refusal to commit his party to support for the Crossrail scheme. There is very strong support among businesses and, I thought, across the House for the Crossrail project. His unwillingness to commit to that will have caused widespread concern.
I wish to comment on some of the other contributions in the debate. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) made some observations about the Governments approach. He made some enjoyable observations about the Conservative party. I particularly enjoyed the bit where the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) felt that he had to leap to his feet to defend his party leader from the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman was delivering. The hon. Member for Taunton did not have a great deal to say about the Bill, but I am sure he will do so in the debates next week and upstairs in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a characteristically thoughtful speech and I, for one, would welcome his presence on a seventh Finance Bill Committee. He is absolutely right to underline the need to plan for efficiency savings. We have announced that we will introduce £5 billion of efficiency savings from next year, and they will be very carefully planned, as opposed to the slash-and-burn approach that we have seen from the Opposition. It is absurd for the Conservatives to demand £5 billion in spending cuts this year without any attempt at all to identify where those savings would fall or what their effects would be.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight the scale of the increase in borrowing in the next few years, and that those increases will be matched throughout the world in comparable countries. In fact, they will be matched not only in developed countries but in developing countries. He was right also to welcome the first-year allowances, which businesses have widely welcomed.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) commented on the rise in unemployment, and I agree about the concern at the rise. That is why I am sure that he will welcome the job guarantee for young people, which was announced in the Budget. Indeed, perhaps he will agree with this recent comment:
Previous recessions have left tens of thousands unemployed for years, even decades, and stuck on dependency culture without the skills that they need to get a job. The devastating impact...is still being felt in many parts of the UK today. It is encouraging that action is being taken
to target this.
That was Margaret Eaton, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, welcoming that measure in the Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) also made an excellent speech, rightly drawing attention, through his visit with others to the Debt Management Office this morning, to the realities of the current market for Government debt.
David Taylor: Was the Financial Secretary as disappointed as I was by the serried ranks of Conservative MPs who, in their contributions, hyperventilated to the extent of needing defibrillators at one proposed change to national insurance for those who earn £20,000 or more? They failed to point out that a person on an average income of £25,000 will pay 0.5 per cent. on the £5,000 over £20,000, equalling £25 a year. Instead, they suggested that it was some sort of awful impost.
Mr. Timms: Of course, those increases are more than offset by the increases in personal allowances which we introduced last year and in the Bill this year.
The Bill presents effective tax measures to support businesses and households through these tough economic times, and it also looks ahead. It lays foundations for a strong recovery to make the most of new opportunities when the upturn comes, and for fair fiscal consolidation to keep the public finances on a sustainable path. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that in the debate that we have just concluded there were 14 Back-Bench speakers, of whom only three came from the Labour Benches. Would you confirm that the usual practice is to constitute the Committee stage of a Bill to reflect those who participated on Second Reading? If that is right, should not the Committee of Selection ensure that there is a majority of Opposition spokesmen and speakers on the Committee on the Finance Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chair might have the power to do certain things and might wish to do others, but one thing that the Chair certainly does not do is tell the Committee of Selection what to do. I am sure that it will take every matter into account.
That
(1) Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20 and 92 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
(2) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Public Bill Committee; and
(3) when the provisions of the Bill considered by the Committee of the whole House and the Public Bill Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Public Bill Committee. ( Mr. Timms .)
That the Finance Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets .( Mark Tami .)
Next Section | Index | Home Page |