---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

You are absolutely correct, Sir Alan. It is the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) who has an idiotic proposal. In 2004, the Paymaster General was a little more certain when she said:"““The deliberate and cumulative aim is to underpin all the measures that the Government have taken to encourage businesses to grow and to be more enterprising and productive in the medium and long term and not to operate year by year by playing around with the tax system.””—[Official Report, 27 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 846.]" What is deliberate and cumulative about clause 26? The Paymaster General had an opportunity in 2004 to admit that the zero rate of corporation tax was not viable. Instead, the regulatory impact assessment to which she put her name insisted that the abolition of the nil rate band"““would be the most straightforward option. However, it would run counter to the Government’s aim of maintaining low rates of corporation tax to encourage growth and enterprise.””" On Report, she reiterated that sentiment for those few Members of the House who neglect to read regulatory impact assessments by affirming:"““I fail to understand how removing the zero rate, yet keeping the 19 per cent. rate, would assist such small companies.””—[Official Report, 7 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 863.]" I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. It seems that enlightenment is contagious among Treasury Ministers this year, as the Paymaster General now seems to have reached a better understanding of how the removal of the nil-rate band will help small businesses after all. That is what this proposal is about—helping small businesses, not hindering them. In his submission to the Treasury Committee in December, Mr. John Whiting, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said of the current proposals"““Now we are to go back to the beginning with small business probably feeling they would rather have been left alone from the start.””" In other words, small businesses like needless interference from Government even less—again, I hope that this answers the hon. Gentleman’s question—than they like corporation tax. Once again, the Government’s unhealthy fascination with anti-avoidance legislation precluded sensible consultation. Once again, papering over the cracks has not kept the water out. Once again, the lofty intention of aiding small businesses has ended in a farce. The guiding principle should now be to let well enough alone. If the non-corporate distribution rate was an appropriate solution to a self-inflicted problem in 2004, what has changed since then to justify its removal? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.