Clause 107 - Abolition of SDRT on certain dealings in collective investment schemes

Finance Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:30 pm on 10 June 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury) 3:30, 10 June 2014

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 107, page 90, line 33, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of changes made to Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 by this section.

(5B) The report referred to in subsection (5A) must in particular consider—

(a) the impact on tax revenues;

(b) the expected beneficiaries; and

(c) a distributional analysis of the beneficiaries.”

Photo of Gary Streeter Gary Streeter Conservative, South West Devon

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

It is a pleasure to be here, Mr Streeter. We are making good progress, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. However, this is an important amendment to an important clause, so I want to make a few points, as well as posing some questions to the Minister.

The clause removes part 2 of schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999, abolishing the stamp duty reserve tax currently payable by fund managers when investors surrender units in unit trusts or shares in open-ended investment companies. Our amendment essentially asks the Treasury to publish the costs to the Exchequer in order to ensure that a list of beneficiaries and a distributional analysis for the abolition of stamp duty reserve tax is put into the public domain. In a sense, the amendment is not dissimilar to some of our previous amendments that asked for further information and a report within six months of Royal Assent, but it specifically focuses on the key points that I have raised. The clause removes the stamp duty reserve tax charge for which fund managers are liable when investors sell or surrender their units in UK unit trust schemes or shares in UK open-ended investment companies. Those changes were first announced by the Chancellor in the 2013 Budget.

The Government say that their intention is to boost investment in the UK asset management industry by abolishing part II of schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999, which has been cited by some in the industry as an obstacle to establishing funds in the UK. The schedule applies a special stamp duty reserve tax to collective investment schemes, such as unit trusts or open-ended investment companies, when investors sell their units and those units are reissued to new investors within a two-week period. The change will not affect investors directly, but fund managers will no longer have to account for, and pay, the special stamp duty reserve tax charge that is currently levied at a rate of 0.5%.

We have concerns about what the explanatory note says about how the cost will ultimately be borne, because the proposal is that the reduced transaction costs of surrendering UK collective investments should make them more attractive to investors. Of course, the move has largely been welcomed by industry bodies; indeed, a number of them have been campaigning for the measure for some time. The legislation makes other amendments, too. Our concern, however, is that this could become a tax cut for those who are already wealthy. The purpose of our amendment is partly to try to ensure that we get information about exactly who will benefit from the measure, which is why we have asked for specific information about tax revenues, the beneficiaries and the distributional impact of the clause.

Photo of James Duddridge James Duddridge Chair, Regulatory Reform Committee, Chair, Regulatory Reform Committee

Is the hon. Lady arguing that there should be a differential in the tax treatment of closed-ended unit trusts and open-ended unit trusts? If so, why? I fail to see the argument for a differential.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I am trying to get to the Government’s thinking, and hopefully the Minister will be able to address some of my points. We opposed the change when it was announced in Budget 2013. The Government’s tax information and impact note shows the cost to the Exchequer and states:

“The measure is likely to have a positive effect on investments and employment.”

The note does not seem to provide supporting estimates to back up those claims, so I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any further information. The note goes on to acknowledge that the change directly affects only a relatively small number of individuals and bodies: 100 fund managers and 2,500 funds. Again, we assume the people affected to be wealthy because we have no information to the contrary. Other than possible benefits to pension investments, I am trying to understand how the measure will affect individuals and households. The note states that the change is only “likely” to create additional employment.

I have some questions for the Minister. People are struggling with the cost of living and problems associated with their day-to-day experiences. People have household costs, and they are trying to get into employment. They are trying to ensure that they have a basic standard of living. Those on the lowest and middle incomes have been hit by consecutive years of wage stagnation, cuts to tax credits, VAT rises and the bedroom tax, and so on. It is difficult for people to understand why the Government essentially seem to be giving a hefty tax break to the wealthiest people.

Photo of Iain McKenzie Iain McKenzie Labour, Inverclyde

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. On the whole, this looks like the Government giving away a tax cut to their friends in the City, while they turn their back and refuse to accept that there is a cost of living crisis up and down the country.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury) 3:45, 10 June 2014

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I know, because his constituency is not all that far from mine in the west of Scotland, the impact there of many of the Government’s policies. He asks exactly the kind of question that his own constituents will ask him, and he always makes a very powerful point on their behalf.

The Minister would, of course, be welcome within the confines of what we are discussing to make any comment he liked on how he will try to assist our constituents to deal with the cost of living crisis, although I suspect, Mr Streeter, that you might want to put some boundaries around that, so I will not stray too far. The Investment Management Association, whose members manage a total of £4.5 trillion in assets in the UK, stated:

“UK assets under management and funds under management are at record levels, and the UK retains its position as the second largest asset management centre in the world after the US.”

Of course, we recognise the value to the economy of that particular industry, and we want to see people continuing to be based in the UK. However, I think that prompts the question of why the Government are intent on giving that industry such a big tax break when, by the industry’s own assessment, it seems to be doing very well.

Will the Minister give us any further information on the whole question of how this will have a positive impact on the UK jobs market in particular and the UK economy more widely? Last year, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated:

“What are the advantages of having funds domiciled in the UK? First, there are advantages in terms of jobs, particularly in the regional economy. While fund managers can operate from anywhere, most jobs in fund management come from ancillary services and the professional services associated with them. These are high-value jobs in IT, legal services and accountancy support, and they are typically in the jurisdictions in which the funds are domiciled.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 871.]

On the basis of that information, will the Minister provide us with a concrete number or an estimate of the jobs he expects to be created as a result of this particular move? Will he be more specific about the regional benefits that were previously referenced?

Given the amount that the tax information and impact note talks of in relation to the changes, their impact on the Exchequer is not inconsiderable. That is why it is important to understand the impact and the potential benefits, and to try somehow to marry those up to see if there is indeed a benefit. According to the Government’s figures, HMRC potentially loses out on an estimated £160 million a year over the next three years, £165 million in 2017-18 and £170 million in 2018-19. That is not an inconsiderable sum of money and I wonder if the Minister feels able to justify the loss of that revenue to the Exchequer. If he gives us the figures for the jobs and for the wider economy, we will of course listen to that. It does, however, seem a significant loss to the Exchequer over the next five years, and he would surely agree that this money would perhaps be better spent elsewhere, such as on creating jobs for young people, and on improving support for those people on the lowest and the middle incomes that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and other Opposition Members are particularly concerned about. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

We will press our amendment, unless the Minister makes revelations that I have not anticipated, because it is important that we get those figures into the public domain. The Minister has on many occasions gently and politely knocked back my efforts to get such reports on other issues. Perhaps on this occasion he will make my day and accept our amendment—[Interruption.] I doubt it, going by the look on his face.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I rise to speak in support of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. This is an eminently sensible amendment, and the general public are entitled to see it passed this afternoon.

People are pretty cynical about the coalition Government. We have already seen examples of their looking after their mates in the City, such as the mates rates when the Royal Mail was flogged off—

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

Government Members can disabuse me, but we still do not know who the huge beneficiaries were—it is a secret. The public have a right to know who will benefit from the latest mates rates proposition in this clause.

Photo of Sheila Gilmore Sheila Gilmore Labour, Edinburgh East

I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks, like me, that the comments from a sedentary position, such as “back to the 1970s”, are particularly revealing. Actually, inequality was lower in the 1970s than in the whole of the post-war period. Clearly, Government Members do not like that period.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the 1970s, earned income as a proportion of the national cake was significantly greater than it is today. Ever since the dreadful day in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power and heralded the neo-liberal agenda, workers’ earnings as a proportion of national income have diminished, while unearned income has risen exponentially.

Photo of Gary Streeter Gary Streeter Conservative, South West Devon

Order. Before we continue with the history lesson, can we look at amendment 26, which does not refer to the 1970s? It is important that this good-natured debate continues strictly within the confines of the rules of the House. We are considering clause 107 and amendment 26.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Streeter.

Photo of Sheila Gilmore Sheila Gilmore Labour, Edinburgh East

I hope that, like me, my hon. Friend does not find it remotely funny to be talking about a period when for 10 years out of 16 more than 3 million people were unemployed.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would sooner take us back to the 1970s than the 1870s, which is the direction of travel in which the Government want us to go with the workhouse mentality they are trying to inflict on the nation—[ Interruption. ]

Photo of Gary Streeter Gary Streeter Conservative, South West Devon

Order. I want to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

I can tell that Government Members really cannot care less about the cost of living crisis that is affecting millions of people in our country; they are more interested in looking after their friends in the City. It is clear from Government Members’ guffaws and laughter that they have taken great pleasure in inflicting austerity on our country over the past four and a bit years. We have seen the impact of their decimation of our public services, from reduced social care to longer waiting lists. Yet with this proposition the Government are seeking to give a tax cut to an industry that is not struggling but doing incredibly well. According to the latest figures that I have seen, the industry is responsible for some £5.4 trillion-worth of funds, so it is hardly in need of any assistance. I am sure that Government Members would say that they want to make the UK more attractive to investment funds, but this is yet another example of a race to the bottom. Frankly, I do not think that we want to be in competition with the likes of Luxembourg and Ireland on tax rates.

It is important to bear this in mind: who is benefiting? We often hear Government Members say, “We’ve turned the corner. The economy is recovering. We have economic growth.” But who is benefiting from that? By and large the top 1% are benefiting, but the bottom 90% have seen a diminution of their income, after tax is taken into account.

Photo of Iain McKenzie Iain McKenzie Labour, Inverclyde

That may be why the Government are so reluctant to put this report in front of the House. They know that the numbers who benefit from this will be very limited indeed.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

Absolutely right. It may also be revealing to note that many of the people who will benefit are benefactors of and donors to the Conservative party. We can only speculate about that, of course, because it is a secret. However, it is important that we have this matter on the record and that the general public know who will benefit from the measure.

The cost to the taxpayer of the clause over the next five years—my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the point—is going to be the best part of £1 billion, with some £800 million of tax revenue lost to the Exchequer, at a time when 27 million workers in our country have seen their incomes after tax diminishing, even though we are in a state of economic growth at the moment. Would it not be better to use that money to generate jobs and support our public services? Looking at the figures, what could this money be used for? It is about choices, is it not? We know about the choices that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members want to make; they want to look after the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country—their mates in the City, as I have already said.

Let us make some comparisons. I was doing a quick calculation as my hon. Friend was speaking, about where that money, which is going to be lost to the Exchequer, could be used to much better effect. It would fund some 7,000 additional nurses, on the starting salary, bearing in mind that waiting lists are growing in our NHS at the moment; some 7,000 teachers could be appointed on the starting salary, if this tax cut did not go ahead; and around 8,000 social workers could be employed. That would be possible in each of the five years that we will be losing this money, and into the future.

Perhaps we could use the money for capital investment. For example, it would fund some 10,500 council houses. We have a massive housing crisis in our country, but we are still building fewer houses than we have ever built since the 1920s. Would it not be better to use this money to build houses and generate jobs, rather than giving tax cuts to already wealthy and powerful people in the City of London?

Photo of Heather Wheeler Heather Wheeler Conservative, South Derbyshire

In the hon. Gentleman’s peroration about building council homes, will he congratulate the Conservative-run South Derbyshire district council, which is building council houses, even though it has had to cope with the reconfiguration of finance from this Government?

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North 4:00, 10 June 2014

I am delighted that South Derbyshire is building council houses. Indeed, if we look around the country at the number of council houses being  constructed, Labour authorities are building far more than Conservative authorities. I welcome new houses wherever they are, whether they are built by Conservative-controlled South Derbyshire district council or Labour-controlled Derby city council. The fact is we need a lot more than the ones being built in Derby and South Derbyshire at the moment. We need hundreds of thousands of new homes.

In conclusion—

Photo of Ian Swales Ian Swales Liberal Democrat, Redcar

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He seems to be assuming that the entire amount of money involved will end up in the hands of the managers of the various investment companies and unit trusts. As the background note makes absolutely clear, the money will end up in the companies and in the trusts ultimately to the benefit of investors, which can include some of the workers he is talking about.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a fairly naive intervention. We have seen huge bonuses being paid out to our friends in the City, totally irrespective of the state of the economy and the fact that people are really struggling outside the City and living through a cost of living crisis. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the money will not filter through to the fund managers, he is sorely mistaken.

In conclusion, unless Government Members agree the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, it will be yet another indication that the Government are entirely out of touch, completely out of date, and, in 330 days from today, they will be out of office.

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

Let me turn to the clause, at least to begin with. The Government announced in Budget 2013 that they would abolish the schedule 19 charge as part of their investment management strategy to improve the UK’s competitiveness as a domicile for collective investment schemes. HMRC published draft legislation in December 2013 for consultation, which ended on 4 February 2014. As a result, a minor change was made to the final clause included in the Bill.

Schedule 19 is a special stamp duty reserve tax charge levied on UK collective investment schemes, or “funds”. A charge arises when investors surrender back to the fund manager either their units in UK unit trust schemes or shares in UK open-ended investment companies. It is paid by fund managers, but the cost is ultimately borne by the investors in the schemes—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. The investors are largely pension schemes, life companies and individual savers. It is worth stressing that the charge is only payable by UK schemes. An identical scheme established outside the UK would not be subject to the charge, placing the UK at a competitive disadvantage as a domicile for collective investment schemes. Investors who do not wish to pay schedule 19 charges already have the option of investing in funds domiciled offshore.

The schedule 19 regime is regarded as complex and burdensome, requiring frequent tax calculations and returns to be sent to HMRC. Additionally, because of the way in which the tax operates, its headline rate implies a much greater tax burden than the annual cost  actually suffered. This is difficult to explain to investors and gives rise to presentational complications when trying to market UK funds, especially overseas. It is for those reasons that schedule 19 was identified as a major deterrent to domiciling funds in the UK, with a particularly damaging effect on the ability of UK funds to attract non-UK investors.

The clause repeals part 2 of schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999, thereby abolishing the schedule 19 charge. This levels the playing field between the UK and other countries as domiciles for collective investment schemes. The abolition has effect from 30 March 2014. The clause makes various consequential amendments and, in a minor change from the draft provisions published in December, it also makes a small change to how the main or principal stamp duty reserve tax charge applies to certain rare transactions.

The transactions concerned are where investors surrender their units in a fund for assets of the fund, rather than for cash, which is known as an in specie redemption. The securities transferred to the investor are usually in proportion to the assets held in the fund. Where that is the case, there is no SDRT charge. If the securities transferred are not in proportion to the assets held in the fund, that is known as a non-pro rata in specie redemption and would previously have been taxable under the schedule 19 regime. The abolition of schedule 19 means that these types of transactions would have become free from tax. The principal charge is therefore being amended to apply to these rare transactions instead of the schedule 19 charge.

Amendment 26, which Opposition Members tabled, asks the Government to lay a report before Parliament within six months of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent that sets out the clause’s impact on tax revenues and who benefits from it. The Government are not minded to accept the amendment. While the Government rightly keep all tax policy under review, there would be little merit in producing a report in the way suggested by the amendment. We have already had the impact of the measure independently assessed by the Government Actuary’s Department. It calculated that a typical 22-year-old, currently earning average weekly earnings and investing the equivalent of 10% of gross income each year over a 45-year period, would see a fund value that was £11,200 greater at retirement as a result of these changes. That is approximately equivalent to a 1.3% uplift in their total fund at retirement. In current money terms, that is equivalent to an additional £4,600. Further detail on the distributional impact of the measure was included in a tax information and impact note for the measure in December, alongside the draft legislation.

On the benefits seen due to the improved competitiveness of the UK as a fund domicile location, the time taken to authorise and launch new funds means that any positive effects of the change would not have been established by the time of such a report, which would be premature.

I want to stress again, because this point has been consistently missed by Opposition Members, that the schedule 19 charge is borne by investors, not by fund managers. Data from the Investment Management Association suggest that around 85% of the charge is borne by pension and insurance companies together with retail and public sector investors. Abolishing  schedule 19 is not a tax cut for hedge fund managers or hedge funds, which have in fact never paid tax under the schedule 19 charge.

I make reference to hedge funds not because the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to them—in fact, it was noticeable that neither she nor the hon. Member for Derby North, who usually likes to bring them into most subjects, mentioned hedge funds in their remarks—but because fairly consistently and until recently, the Opposition characterised the measure as a tax cut for hedge funds. The Leader of the Opposition, in Prime Minister’s Question Time no less, accused us of introducing a tax cut for hedge funds. The shadow Chief Secretary has certainly referred to it as a tax cut for hedge funds on many occasions. I take it from the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that that is no longer the Opposition’s position, and I am glad. They have finally understood what schedule 19 is and they no longer make accusations that the measure is a tax cut for hedge funds. I will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to withdraw formally that accusation, which her party has made repeatedly.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I am not going to withdraw anything that has been said previously, which will not surprise the Minister. I wonder whether he can explain why the impact note specifically states:

“This measure directly affects managers of collective investment schemes.”

It goes on to say:

“This measure removes a charge” and

“Schemes that are affected will pay less tax”— that seems fairly straightforward to members of the public. It also states that the measure “could” improve returns on investments, and I am not sure where he found the 22-year old that he was talking about in his example.

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

The 22-year old was found by the Government Actuary’s Department, rather than by me. There is an important point to make—it would be helpful to the Opposition if they grasped it—about tax incidence and the distinction between who writes the cheque and who bears the tax. It may well be the case that the funds write the cheque—the funds pay the money over—but the tax is borne by the investors. Those are principally pension funds, and underlying that are the policyholders in a pension fund. That point should not be missed.

Another point, which we fully acknowledge, is that if we want to help our investment management industry, an uncompetitive charge that puts UK-domiciled funds at a disadvantage to funds domiciled elsewhere is clearly damaging to the investment management industry. The industry is important to the UK economy. A strong investment management industry is good for the UK as a whole and all its citizens due to the jobs and taxes it generates. This is a critical time for the industry and it is important to make these changes now.

In July 2013, the alternative investment fund managers directive—the AIFMD—came into force. That may lead to an estimated €250 billion moving onshore in Europe and it gives the UK an opportunity to attract significant new funds. In addition, the industry is currently  experiencing significant growth. Emerging economies are becoming increasingly wealthy and are able to save and invest significant amounts. EU funds are, in many ways, a natural home for those investments and the UK must lay the right foundations now before that new market is lost to our competitors. I could even go as far as saying that ensuring that we have a strong investment management industry is part of a long-term economic plan. The provisions ensure that we have in place the long-term conditions for a thriving industry, which benefits not only London and the south-east, but employs 1,400 people in the west midlands, 3,600 people in Scotland—some hon. Members who spoke in this debate might be interested in that—and 1,000 people in the north-west.

Photo of David Rutley David Rutley Conservative, Macclesfield

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the significance of investment management and financial services in the UK. The industry does indeed make a difference to the long-term economic plan, but would it not also help the UK economy in the global race?

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

My hon. Friend beats me in getting in yet another important phrase. He is absolutely right; this is the right change to ensure that the UK is an attractive place for funds to be domiciled. It is good for that industry, and it is good for the people who invest in a pension. I do not know whether that is the category of person whom the Opposition consider to be wealthy and therefore not worthy of any support, but a lot of people—increasingly, indeed, as a consequence of auto-enrolment—will be investing in pension schemes, and we should do everything we can to encourage and support that.

The Opposition’s approach to the measure appears to be hostile. That will do nothing for the pension schemes or the investment management industry, and some of the rhetoric we have heard about a return to the 1970s does absolutely nothing for economic confidence in this country, should there be any prospect of the Labour party returning to office.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North 4:15, 10 June 2014

In view of what the Minister says, what is his objection to the Labour amendment? All we seek is publication of who the beneficiaries are. Surely that is not unreasonable. Do the British people not have a right to know? What is there to fear?

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

I addressed that point earlier. We have set out, in the tax information and impact note, the impacts of the abolition of schedule 19. There is no reason for a more detailed analysis for that measure. It would be disproportionate, and it is difficult to see what such analysis would achieve, particularly given that it would take longer than six months for evidence to become available of how the benefits of the change were accruing to investors.

I will not accept the amendment and I urge the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun to withdraw it. I want to highlight the fact that the clause will help the many, not just the few, and will strengthen an industry that is important to us.

Photo of Charlie Elphicke Charlie Elphicke Conservative, Dover

Never mind the amendment; I want to pick up on the Opposition’s tone. If we are to support hard-working people and their families, we need to ensure that there are jobs. This measure is about creating jobs. We have heard from the same old Labour party, which is obsessed with the rich and the poor, rather than with just creating jobs and prosperity for the country, so that people can get on, work hard and do well.

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

I entirely agree. There are moments during our debates when the mask slips from some Opposition Back Benchers, at least.

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

I am delighted to provide a further opportunity for the mask to be cast off altogether.

Photo of Chris Williamson Chris Williamson Labour, Derby North

We just heard an intervention arguing that the provision is about job creation. I gave a list of the jobs that could be created if the money were directed in a different way. How many jobs will be created, and in what sectors, as a result of the measure that the Minister is putting forward?

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

The sectors are likely to be the investment management sector. What do we mean by that? It is not only those who are directly employed; this also relates to operations and administration, IT, compliance, and legal and audit services. All those will benefit. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s only answer on job creation is more public sector employment. That is what he proposed and that is his position—one that I think he is consistent about. However, we must recognise that putting in place the conditions for private sector job creation matters.

Photo of David Gauke David Gauke The Exchequer Secretary

The hon. Gentleman says it is not working, but there are more people in work today than ever before. The biggest risk to that is the anti-business policies of the Labour party.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I shall not detain hon. Members too long before we vote; I intend to press the amendment. If it is not carried—and no doubt it will not be, given the Minister’s comments—I want to vote against the clause. We have not heard a response from the Minister to the issues that we wanted to draw out: the number of jobs, the expected beneficiaries and the distributional analysis that the amendment calls for.

I am glad that we livened up the debate, because these are important matters. My hon. Friends are speaking out on behalf of their constituents when they express concern about the impact of Government policies, and about the jobs question. Unfortunately, it is sometimes too easy for those on the Government side to resort to saying that there are more people in employment than ever before, when we know that the reality for many of our constituents is that they are working in jobs in which they are not able to gain full-time hours. In many instances, they are working in jobs that ultimately are  not the jobs for which they have been trained. They are perhaps taking those jobs rather than having no job at all. There are a number of young people in particular—

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I will in a moment. I was interested in the notion of the 22-year-old, because the majority of 22-year-olds who have come to me are desperate to get a job, either because they have finished an apprenticeship and are not being kept on, because companies cannot keep them on, or because they have recently graduated and are determined—desperate—to get their foot on the employment ladder. Unfortunately, the notion that their first decision would be about where to put that investment for the long term does not apply to the majority of the 22-year-olds in my constituency. I am sure that it is little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North either that most of the jobs will be created in the investment management sector, rather than in the manufacturing sector and the other areas on which many of our communities depend.

Photo of Ian Mearns Ian Mearns Labour, Gateshead

My hon. Friend has almost pre-empted my question. I was just wondering whether she would speculate on how soon we can expect to see advertisements, and how many there will be, for investment management job opportunities at the jobcentre in Gateshead.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I am sure my hon. Friend will tell me when the adverts do appear, because I cannot speculate on when that will happen.

I have said that I intend to press the amendment to a vote. I suspect that nothing that I say at this point will change the Minister’s mind. Therefore, I will leave it at that in order that we can make further progress.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

Division number 9 Decision Time — Clause 107 - Abolition of SDRT on certain dealings in collective investment schemes

Aye: 12 MPs

No: 16 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 12.

Division number 10 Decision Time — Clause 107 - Abolition of SDRT on certain dealings in collective investment schemes

Aye: 16 MPs

No: 12 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.