Thank you for your guidance, Ms Primarolo. I will move swiftly on to capital allowances. The Government have discussed the need to widen the tax base and they have told us that reducing capital allowances is partly a method of paying for the cut in the headline rate. As I mentioned in an intervention, that phenomenon has been apparent in most western countries in recent years and, indeed, all the economists project that there will be much greater competition in business taxes. Corporation tax is likely to continue to come down, and the reduction will be partly made up by the widening of the tax base.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I am prepared to consider the changes to capital allowances, although I am concerned about the cut in the annual investment allowance from £100,000 to £25,000. I am perfectly happy, however, to look at that if we are reassured that the proposal in the amendment will make a significant difference. As has been said—and I have said so myself—the Office for Budget Responsibility added a rather sceptical note to the debate by suggesting, even though it had been informed at a late stage of the 1% cut in corporation tax, that that would not have a great impact on growth.
Finally, I want to focus on the issue of who will benefit from the changes to capital allowances. As has been stated by a number of Opposition Members, high-profit, low-investment companies will be the main beneficiaries of the package, which is unfair and, if I may say so, will not achieve the rebalancing of the economy that the Chancellor has promoted for a considerable period, away from financial services towards the manufacturing and production of export-oriented goods. The change militates against all of that. In particular—and I refer to the cut from £100,000 to £25,000—it will penalise manufacturing, particularly businesses with high capital costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn mentioned the motor industry and others, but I am concerned, because I have a number of small, capital-intensive manufacturers in my constituency. Sadly, they are only a remnant of the manufacturing sector that we had 25 or 30 years ago, but we need them and we need to promote them. I am therefore worried about the Government's proposals.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Love
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 May 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No. 3) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
527 c709 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:51:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738179
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738179
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738179