Crime and Security Bill (Ways and Means)

House of Commons, 4 February 2010.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

Hon. Members will recall that the House agreed a money resolution in respect of the Crime and Security Bill after its Second Reading on 18 January. Since then, the Government have tabled amendments to the Bill to establish a compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism, and to provide for a scheme to be set up so that motorists can appeal to an independent tribunal or adjudicator in respect of release charges when their vehicle has been clamped. Both these matters need to be covered by a Ways and Means resolution before the amendments can be considered in the Public Bill Committee. I commend the resolution to the House.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I am most grateful to the Minister for outlining the purpose of today's brief Ways and Means debate on the Crime and Security Bill. Certain financial implications will flow from some of the necessary measures in the Bill, however, and I am concerned that the Government appear not to have thought through the process involved from day one.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Was not my hon. Friend amazed by the speed with which the Minister introduced this resolution, without giving any proper information or figures?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Yes, that was rather surprising, and I hope that she will come back at the end of the debate and address the whole range of questions to which the public need an answer. The provisions have major positive implications for those whose vehicles are clamped by cowboy clampers, but they also have financial implications for Government expenditure, as well as raising questions about any legal fees that might flow from them and about what the public might have to pay. There is also a possibility of local authorities having to spend money in this respect. These issues really need explanation, and I am surprised that the Minister has brushed them all aside and failed to address them at the start of this important discussion.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

This is a well-meaning law that will, without question, benefit people. I want to see an end to these cowboy clampers charging exorbitant amounts to people who, in many cases, have not parked illegally. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the correct funding must be given to local government, rather than expecting it to come from their existing budgets? Otherwise, the pressures on local government would just be too much to bear.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Having served on a local authority myself, I know how easy it is for Governments to bring in new laws and regulations that impose financial obligations on local government without considering their impact on local government costs or any increase in council tax that might result. I hope that the Minister will explain herself at the end of this debate so that we can all understand the issue and explain to our local councillors and our constituents how this will be implemented, particularly the cost implications, along with the practicalities.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I share my colleague's concern at the paucity of the Minister's comments. This is an important issue. In talking about charges, it is obviously important to explain what sort of charges will be involved. Will it cover full legal costs; will there be a scale rate; will there be fixed costs, and so on? I have to say that the paucity of comments from the Minister is somewhat breathtaking.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

My hon. Friend emphasises the point. I have no doubt that when I have concluded my remarks-I have many points to make-the Minister will take the opportunity to explain herself and explain the Government's rather haphazard way of dealing with this matter, so that we can decide whether it is appropriate for the House to approve this motion today.

Of course, Her Majesty's Opposition welcome the provisions in the Crime and Security Bill to license businesses that engage in vehicle immobilisation. This change to the law is, I believe, long overdue, and I have no doubt that this will come as good news to motorists up and down the land, who are heartily fed up with being stung by cowboy clampers who charge exorbitant sums of money to all our constituents when they unwittingly park on private land, not realising the extent to which they could be fined. This, of course, has financial implications for the Government, for local authorities and, most importantly, for the constituents we are elected to represent. The Minister will need to answer these points.

I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will recall many examples of situations like this in their own constituencies. I certainly do. I have been contacted many times by constituents who have been clamped and fined huge sums of money. Their vehicles are immobilised and this can lead-

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Member may be straying rather wide of the motion, which is quite a narrow one. Will he now confine his remarks to the motion currently before the House?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I will certainly endeavour to do so, but the points I am making have implications for the costs at local level. Until I can explain my arguments to the Minister, it is hard to see how she will be able to respond in a meaningful way.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Let me remind the hon. Member of the purpose of the motion. I am sure that he is aware of it. We understand the background, so he should concentrate his remarks on the motion set out on the Order Paper.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion on the Order Paper seeks to authorise "the imposition of charges", and I would like to focus on the word "imposition". Why has the Minister not explained how these charges are to be imposed? Who will administer this measure? Will the Government make adequate provision to ensure that it is done in a practical and meaningful way that will work? I would be most grateful if the Minister would outline the cost implications in greater detail. What overall costs for the appeals process are envisaged? What assessment have the Government made of how many people are likely to use this service? How much would each appeal cost on average? These are important questions that simply must be answered.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I think it is important to establish at this early stage whether the Minister intends to come back to the House and answer some of the very important questions that have been raised. The word "charges" is very broad and very vague, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be able to tempt the Minister to come back and give an assurance that she will make a substantive response as to what sort of charges are proposed.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I think my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister has got the message at this stage-that those present in the House today feel that more detail should be given. How can we, as the House of Commons, make a judgment when so little information has been provided? I understand that the basis of the motion is financial, but to assess whether any financial motion should be approved, we need to understand how it will work in practice. The Minister will take the opportunity, I hope, to answer these questions and allay the concerns that many of our constituents may have.

May I also ask the Minister how much will be paid into the Consolidated Fund? How does she expect to recoup any of these costs? This involves taxpayers' money, so we need to know the answer to that question. Who, indeed, would pay the legal fees of those clamped but found innocent? Where would the money to deal with all of this come from?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to have clarification of the payment of fees? Will the charges apply to the separate parties or will they also include payment of the adjudicator and the adjudication process, which will have incurred some costs? Is this to be a system under which costs will be paid between the parties alone and what will the rates be? For example, if legal advice is provided, will all the attendant costs be covered or will there be a scale-based rate? It is highly important to clarify whether or not adjudication fees will be paid. Again, will they be paid at the proper cost rate or will there be fixed charges and a scale rate?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Once again, my hon. Friend makes extremely valid points about how this whole system will work, what charges will be imposed, who will pay the bills for the adjudicators and the legal costs when things go wrong and how the system will operate in practice. We are being asked to approve the financial implementation without being given the full details of how the whole system will work in practice.

Will the Minister clarify whether there are any financial implications for local authorities? Will the same rules apply to private operators as to local councils that are responsible for parking enforcement on the public highways? Will she also explain how the system will work without a code of practice? Her Majesty's Opposition agree that there is a need for adjudication-

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member again, but I repeat that he is going wide of the motion. Let me re-emphasise that the motion is very narrow. I understand his concerns, but I am afraid that it is not appropriate to raise them in this debate.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we are all looking forward to the Minister answering these questions, as only the Minister can reveal what is behind this motion. I look forward to finding that out.

Finally, will the Bill's provisions that apply to wheel-clamping on private land also apply to ticketing, because financial implications are equally evident there? Will the appeals process be applicable to parking tickets as well? The financial implications need to be explained.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member has gone wide of the remit once again.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that anyone watching this debate will wonder why it is that we cannot get to the nub of these questions. I understand the procedures of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the problem is wholly due to the lack of a proper explanation by the Minister at the start of this debate.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. All I have to say to the hon. Member is that although people listening to the debate may not be aware of how narrow the motion is, Members present for the debate should be aware of that-and most are. That is why we are so restricted.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Thank you. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I fully appreciate the narrowness of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I trust that the House will appreciate the vastness of its implications. What we are trying to ascertain from the Minister are the precise details of a measure that will have a huge impact. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the vastness of its consequences, one of the questions that the Minister must answer is "What are the Government trying to hide with the sparseness of their comments?"

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

We are still waiting with bated breath to hear what the Minister will have to say. I am baffled-we are all baffled-as to what the Government are trying to achieve, because we have not been given a proper explanation. Perhaps this constitutes a lesson: if the Government wish to table a motion of this sort, they should at least explain what they are doing.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I think my hon. Friend is about to end his speech, but I should say at this point that I am in a dilemma. If the House divides, I shall not be sure how to vote, because I have not heard the Government's argument. Has my hon. Friend any advice for me?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

That is a good question. We shall have to see what the Minister's explanation is before the House decides whether or not to divide. I hope that she will come clean and reveal everything. I should of course have preferred a more reasonable discussion enabling our constituents who are watching the debate to understand the purpose of the motion, but no doubt the Minister will now explain the background so that we can understand a little better.

Important details are hidden behind the motion. The whole issue of wheel-clamping is of great concern to our constituents, and we want financial provision to be made to ensure that the Bill will work effectively. We are all fed up with cowboy clampers. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Her Majesty's Opposition will do all that they can to support any sensible measure, practical or financial, to ensure that there is an end to cowboy clamping in our constituencies.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

What a meal the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has made of the Ways and Means motion. Having said that, however, I should like to make a couple of brief procedural points.

Let me say first that the motion is before us because-yet again-substantial new parts of the Bill were introduced in Committee. Given that this is one of the criminal justice Bills with which we deal every year, it was to be hoped that Ministers would think a little about what they wanted to be in it before publishing it. The motion is before us because they did not, and they have now decided to add a couple of provisions. I do not know the merits of the provisions. I suspect that they are a very good idea-I should certainly like to see proper control of clampers and proper compensation for overseas victims of terrorism-but they should have been in the Bill from the start.

My second procedural point concerns the timing of the motion. The matters involved are still before the Committee, which has yet to report to the House. It is always helpful for the House to be aware of what has been determined in Committee, and, before Report, to deal with the appropriate Ways and Means motion in order to authorise expenditure that is at present entirely hypothetical, because it is based on consideration in Committee of matters that the House as a whole has not yet had an opportunity to discuss.

A Ways and Means motion is not the occasion on which to judge the merits of proposals such as this, far less to ask for details of the operation of a scheme. A Committee stage is the occasion on which that should be done, and the Report stage-if we reach it-will provide an opportunity for Members to have their say and for Ministers to explain the consequences of their proposals.

As you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very narrow motion whose purpose is to authorise payments if, and only if, the proposals are found to be satisfactory on Report, pass through another place and receive Royal Assent. There is a scrutiny process and we do need to examine the details, but this is not the right time to do that. I have my doubts about the procedure as currently constituted. I do not think that even the limited consideration that we can give the proposals during the debate makes this an appropriate time to examine them.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I entirely agree with what he said about the procedure. I think it is generally accepted that dealing with money motions is one of the things that Parliament does very badly. The question of how we spend money is not debated properly. I recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were in the Chair when I was trying not to deviate from the terms of a Ways and Means motion when we were spending £40 billion in one and a half hours.

I had no intention of speaking today, but I was interested to see what the business was. I have the utmost regard for the Minister, but we are discussing spending money, and she has not told us how much is to be spent. If she had told us that it was £50,000 or £5 million-

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

She does not know. We have not made the law yet.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

That is one of the reasons why I am a little concerned about the timing.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Briefly.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful. Given the financial state of the country, does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly relevant for a motion of this kind to refer to money, and to specific amounts?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I disagree. I think that Ways and Means motions should always be debated in full. The spending of money is a very important aspect, but I do not think that the fact that we are in a financial mess of unique magnitude makes any difference to the fact that we should always discuss ways and means. However, I do not know how we are to do that without having been given even an estimate of the amount involved, and without knowing whether the Minister is going to tell us more. Perhaps little notes are being passed to her; I do not know.

I do not want to detain the House for long, but I am trying to make a serious point. We know about the principle, which was a matter for the Committee and will be decided on Report. However, we debate Ways and Means motions very rarely. We normally nod them through, saying, "Oh yes, it is all right to spend that amount of money." That is where our Parliament fails and the American House of Representatives, for instance, succeeds.

Given the furore that is undoubtedly going on outside this place today about the importance of Parliament, it is sad that, yet again, the Government have in a sense taken Parliament for granted, and have not given us more detail on a specific Ways and Means motion. The merits of the issue are not important; what is important is how much we are, or are not, going to spend. When I decide how to vote, or whether to divide the House, I want to be in a position to know that. I have a feeling that if the Minister does not tell us, the Division Bells will ring.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I had not intended to speak either. The other day, however, I received a letter from the Minister about a constituent who has failed to secure compensation as a victim of terrorism, although the Minister acknowledged that he had indeed been a victim of terrorism. Let me say a little about the case, very briefly and, I hope, sticking to the point-

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber when I have drawn attention to the narrowness of the motion and the debate. I understand his concern for his constituent, but I have a feeling that this is not the appropriate time to raise that case.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The point that I wish to raise is slightly procedural, and is also concerned with Government inconsistency. My constituent has been acknowledged by the Minister to be a victim of terrorism, but the Foreign Office has never acknowledged that. He has campaigned-

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I am afraid that I must rule the hon. Gentleman out of order. This is a Ways and Means motion. The hon. Gentleman may well have a case on behalf of his constituent that requires answering, but I regret to tell him that this is not the time or the place at which to raise it.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in managing to extend the areas covered by the resolution in order to question many substantive areas of the legislation itself.

We are dealing with a Ways and Means motion, not a money motion. The motion that we are discussing is not, therefore, about the cost of the provisions, but about the charges and payments into the Consolidated Fund.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to ensure that there are opportunities to do other things around the House this afternoon, so I shall co-operate completely and give way to him.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. She said the motion has little to do with cost, but may I remind her that it refers to

"charges in respect of the cost of adjudications"?

As she said earlier that this has everything to do with charges and little to do with costs, I would be grateful for some clarification.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

It is not to do with costs; it is about charges and payments in relation to the Consolidated Fund.

May I now be allowed to try to answer some of the specific issues that have been raised? Questions were asked about the details and the costs and charges of this scheme in respect of wheel-clamping. They will be discussed in Committee.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has said there will be a consultation. Can she assure the House that it will not be the usual type of Government consultation, which is a sop to public opinion with decisions already having been made but a consultation taking place for the sake of it? Will she give an assurance that genuine consultation will take place, and that the views of those consulted will be taken into account before decisions are made?

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government always take into account the views expressed in consultations before coming to a view.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 places a requirement on individual vehicle immobilisers who operate on private land-questions were asked about the impact on local authorities, but this applies not to local authority land, but to private land-carrying out the clamping of vehicles and the associated activities of towing or impounding. They must hold a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority if they charge a release fee.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I fully appreciate that the Bill does not apply to local authorities and their land, but does the Minister not accept that it is bound to have a financial impact on local authorities, because the public always go to the local council when there is a parking problem? Even when that takes place on private land, they still go to the council, so this will still have an impact on local authority spending.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

The hon. Gentleman is straying into rather more substantive issues to do with the Bill more generally, and they will, of course, be dealt with in Committee. This measure refers specifically to private land, and the action people might take and who they might approach if their vehicle has been clamped cannot be addressed in respect of it.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The excellent Minister is being most helpful, but I must be being extremely thick today. If this is a Ways and Means motion, there must be an estimate of the money, because if there is not, why are we here? I shall need to be told that figure before making up my mind as to whether we should have a Division.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

Well, the hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wishes to call a Division, and thereby take a step that his constituents-or mine, for that matter-might decide was simply challenging the substantive issue itself and seeking not to allow the usual procedures to take place that would ensure this important measure makes progress through the House. That is a decision for him. I have said to him that questions of charges and fees will be considered, to some extent, in Committee, and also in consultation. I can only reiterate that this is a Ways and Means motion and that therefore it is about not the cost of provisions or the finer detail, but the charges and payments.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

rose-

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

I shall give way again, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will then allow me to answer one or two of the points that he made.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I certainly will. The Minister is doing an excellent job in trying to persuade the House not to call a Division on this matter, but does she accept that there is so much concern in the House today because of both the poor explanation at the beginning of the debate and the muddled way in which the Government have handled our discussion and the issue of introducing further motions? There will be another Ways and Means motion in respect of this Bill next week. It seems to me that the whole Bill is more about the forthcoming election than actually achieving results for the British people.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these are important matters, which is why the Government are responding to the views that have been expressed to us by bringing forward these measures. In respect of the resolution that is required for the overseas victims of terrorism scheme, that is a complicated scheme and given that it has been a difficult task, I believe the Government have done all we possibly can to ensure that we bring forward this legislation as soon as possible and in the most appropriate fashion.

Clause 39 of the Bill amends the 2001 Act to provide for vehicle immobilisation businesses to require a licence issued by the SIA in order to carry out these activities. Regulations will specify the conditions that businesses will have to meet in order to qualify for a licence. These will include maximum release charges and other rules governing clamping, towing and impounding.

A Government amendment to the Bill provides for a scheme to be set up so that motorists can appeal to an independent tribunal or adjudicator in respect of release charges. Appeals can be on either the principle of the charge-for example, if the signs were inadequate-or the amount charged, if it exceeds the maximum to be set. The detail of the appeal arrangements and rules will be set out in regulations to be made for the purpose.

The appeal scheme will be funded largely by the vehicle immobilisation industry. The fixed costs of running an appeals system would be met by businesses as part of their business licence fee. It is proposed that vehicle immobilisation businesses will also pay a set sum in respect of the total variable running costs of adjudications, covering costs such as the adjudicator's time and the costs of accommodation for hearings.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The Minister said that the costs are being paid "largely" by one body. Which other bodies or groups will be making up the difference?

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

The full details of the costs of the scheme will be considered in Committee. Let me simply say today that we are making provision through the Ways and Means motion to ensure that this procedure can be debated thoroughly in Committee.

Businesses will only pay the sum to which I have just referred when they lose an appeal. As a result, the payment will reflect the variable costs of all adjudications. It is also intended that the motorist will be required to pay a modest fee for each appeal made, irrespective of whether that appeal succeeds. The intention is not to burden appellants unduly, but to discourage speculative appeals without foundation.

Since the payment made by losing companies will contribute to covering the costs of other cases where the vehicle immobilisation business has won the appeal, and it will be based on averaging out the costs over all appeal cases, there is an element of cross-subsidy. The Home Office believes that this is the fairest approach; the bulk of the overall cost is met by those companies that lose appeals, but a modest fee will discourage motorists from speculative appeals. In general, a Ways and Means resolution is needed if people are required to pay out money other than for a service or other benefit that they are receiving fairly directly.

The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Second Reading that we would table amendments to the Bill to provide for the establishment of a victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme. As with the legislation governing the domestic criminal injuries compensation scheme, the amendments to the Bill include provision for compensation to be repayable in circumstances specified in the scheme. The criminal injuries compensation scheme of 2008 provides for compensation to be repaid where the beneficiary subsequently receives a payment in respect of the same injury from another source-for example, following a civil claim for damages. We envisage that the overseas terrorism compensation scheme will include a similar provision. As with the domestic scheme, new clause 14 tabled to the Bill provides for any such repayments to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Provisions in legislation about the use of receipts must be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution, hence the second paragraph of the motion before the House today.

We have had an extensive debate-

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

rose-

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

But clearly not extensive enough, and as there is still time left that the hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure is available to him, I am more than happy to give way.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am very grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way. She is winning me over, I have to say. I grasped the point on the issues relating to vehicles-slowly-and I am with her on that. However, the terrorism issue is not mentioned in the motion as such. If we could have a little more explanation of that, she might win me over.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I am afraid I must intervene ahead of the Minister and say that that is wide of the motion.

Claire Ward (Labour, Watford)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I am not sure there was much more I could have added without getting into a debate on the substantive nature of the amendments, and I am sure that Members will want to have that opportunity in Committee or when the Bill returns to this House.

This is an important motion that has been debated more than thoroughly by the House today. The right place to debate matters of detail, of course, is in the Public Bill Committee, where there will be an opportunity for its members to discuss the amendments. I hope the House will give its full support to the Ways and Means motion today, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Corporation Tax Bill

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am pleased to open this Third Reading debate on the Corporation Tax Bill, and delighted to be debating once again with the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Stockport-

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Southport.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Indeed; that is not the first time that I have made that mistake. The three of us took part in a rather different discussion yesterday.

This Bill rewrites a range of corporation tax provisions, including provisions about the computation of profits, small profits relief, losses, group relief and distributions. It also rewrites some provisions that are more specialised-for example, those related to UK real estate investment trusts and others related to avoidance.

The Bill has been produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' tax law rewrite project and continues the project's work to modernise direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. Last year, the project completed the first part of the task of rewriting corporation tax when the Corporation Tax Act 2009 was enacted. This Bill completes that work and means that, substantially, the whole of the legislation relating to corporation tax will have been rewritten.

Let me remind the House about the work of the tax law rewrite project. It was set up in 1996 by the then Chancellor-the current shadow Business Secretary-following a defeat for the then Government in the Finance Bill Committee, of which I was a member, on an amendment moved by the then hon. Member for Beaconsfield, Tim Smith. The project has, on the whole, continued to enjoy support from across the House since its establishment. Its principal aim is that the rewritten legislation should be far more accessible to users than the source legislation, some of which is dense and difficult to follow. Its success has been widely acknowledged and confirmed by independent market research.

To date, the project has rewritten the capital allowances and income tax legislation, and completed the first part of the task of rewriting corporation tax legislation. This Bill is the sixth produced by the project. The project takes great care to ensure that the legislation's effect is essentially unchanged by rewriting, but it can make minor changes in the law where they improve the legislation-for example, to remove ambiguity, to repeal obsolete provisions or to correct minor, unintended anomalies. There are 66 such changes set out in the explanatory notes to this Bill. Major changes will always be matters for a Finance Bill. All proposed changes in the law are considered by both the project's committees, and no minor changes are included in the Bill without the approval of both.

The work would have been impossible without considerable input from tax specialists and others, and I express particular thanks to them and to the members of the project's consultative committee, chaired by Miss Robina Dyall, who have ensured that the consultation has been detailed and thorough. The consultative committee includes representatives of small and large businesses, accountants, lawyers and other tax specialists. The time and commitment they have all invested are greatly appreciated.

The strategy of the project is set by its steering committee, chaired by the noble Lord Newton of Braintree, which includes Members from both Houses of Parliament and members of the judiciary, of business and consumer groups and of the accountancy and legal professions. I am particularly grateful to Lord Newton, who took over from the noble Lord Howe, for his commitment and guidance, and to the members of his committee.

The Joint Committee of both Houses, of which I was a member, chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), considered the Bill on 11 January and noted the extensive consultation process to which it had been exposed. It paid close attention to the reasons for rewriting recently enacted legislation, the impact of the rewrite changes proposed in the Bill, and the powers in the Bill to amend the legislation. It also considered all the amendments to the Bill. The Joint Committee concluded that the Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law, which, as a result, will be easier to use and more accessible. The Committee was satisfied that the changes to the law were of very minor significance and it accepted the amendments, all of which were technical.

This Bill is the second of two Bills that rewrite corporation tax legislation. Some of the corporation tax rules in it originally applied to both income tax and corporation tax, but as the tax law rewrite project's previous Acts provided a separate set of provisions for income tax, the income tax provisions have been in the rewrite style, whereas the corresponding corporation tax provisions remained in the original form. The Bill finishes the process of bringing the drafting of corporation tax back into line with that for income tax where the provisions share the same source legislation.

The Bill is a worthwhile contribution to modernising direct tax legislation, making it clearer and easier to use, and it maintains the project's excellent record in improving current legislation and has been welcomed by those who use it. I am very grateful for the support that has been shown across the House throughout this exercise, and I commend the Bill to the House.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

It is pleasure to speak on Third Reading. This is very nearly the end of the process-we have another Bill to discuss this afternoon-but it is a good opportunity for us to thank those who have been involved in it over the past 14 years. As the Minister said, it all began in 1996 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up the tax law rewrite project. He went on to Chair the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills. Those are two of the many contributions-both past and future-that he will have made to public life.

By the time a tax Bill reaches its Third Reading, an Opposition Front Bencher has usually devoted what feels like weeks of their life to addressing the matter. The tax law rewrite project process is unusual, in that an Opposition Front Bencher's involvement tends to be on Second Reading and Third Reading. The Minister has a slightly greater role as a member of the Committee, but I am sure that he would be the first to accept that it is not quite as demanding upon his time as a Finance Bill would normally be.

None the less, for many people this has been the most enormous project, and one should pay tribute to those who have been involved in it: the independent steering committee, which is chaired by Lord Newton and, as the Minister said, was previously chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon, who has had a long-term interest in the making of tax law; Members of both Houses who have been part of the Joint Committee; members of the judiciary, and of the legal and accounting professions; and business and consumer groups. I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) for his service as Chair of the Joint Committee. In its report, which I read through, he acknowledged that he was new to the process, but he handled the proceedings with the skill that one would expect of him.

I also wish to thank the consultative committee, which consisted of members of the main tax and business representative bodies, and the many consultees involved in the process, both in the professional organisations and businesses, and in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. They responded to the project by devoting a great deal of their time to it, without any compensation as such, and they played an important role in developing this law.

Of course I also wish to thank the tax law rewrite project team for all its efforts over many years in developing this legislation. The first bit of legislation was the Capital Allowances Act 2001. It was followed by three Acts relating to income tax: the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, ITEPA; the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, ITTOIA; and the more simply-named Income Tax Act 2007. In this context, one should also mention the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003. The legislation on corporation tax is: the Corporation Tax Act 2009, this Bill and the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill, which we will debate subsequently.

I have set out my thanks to all those involved in the process; the level of professionalism has been very high. I now wish to raise a query that the Minister will anticipate, and it is not, in any way, meant to take away from anything done by those who have been involved in the process. Does the process go far enough? It has required a great deal of expertise, it has placed great demands upon the consultees and it has cost £37 million, which is not an insignificant sum.

It is worth citing the remarks made by John Whiting, the tax policy director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, with whom those of us who have anything to do with tax tend to be familiar. He said:

"The Rewrite has done a good job but our concern has always been that it has not really been the right job. The new law is certainly clearer but it would have been better to put the effort into simplifying the system rather than just the wording."

He went on to say that

"the Institute believes that bringing the Rewrite to a close is correct, as we have previously said. We would hope that more effort can now be put into simplifying the tax system."

We fully endorse those remarks.

The importance of the project has not just been about the rewriting of the legislation and the provision of greater clarity in the wording-that is important; we can build upon a lot of the work that has been done, because we can use some of the structures that exist. For example, the Joint Committee involves parliamentarians making use of outside expertise to scrutinise technical legislation with perhaps more thoroughness than we normally achieve through the Finance Bill process. I have had the honour of being part of that process for the past four years, but I wonder whether, in this complicated area of tax law, a committee that can inquire more than debate and that has access to expert advice is able to provide greater scrutiny than the traditional parliamentary process.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

There is a general demand, which I think we all accept, from business to have corporation tax simplified. However, the paradox is that when one starts talking about removing a specific allowance that affects a specific business, the tune changes somewhat. Thus, it is rather difficult to conduct the process in a universally agreed way.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point; the losers tend to make more noise than the winners-that is inevitable. I was coming to the issue of simplification, which relates to the argument that John Whiting has been making. Two elements are worth exploring, the first of which is the possibility of a greater degree of scrutiny. The tax law rewrite project has involved scrutiny, but the project has had a very limited remit: to focus on rewriting the language. We will discuss the conclusions that have resulted from that.

The second element is the push towards simplification, and I take on board fully the remarks of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) about that. None the less, the view of my party is that simplification is worth pursuing. All this, whether we are discussing the clarity of language, which is what this Bill is about, or simplification, fits into the issue of the competitiveness of the tax system. I will not digress at any length into corporation tax rates, for example, but this is obviously a Bill on corporation tax and it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that we used to have a corporation tax rate that was lower than the OECD average in 1997, whereas it is now higher. In 1997, the UK had the 11th lowest corporation tax rate in the world, and now has the 23rd lowest-

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as he has recognised, there are some limits to this debate? I hope that he will recognise that and confine his remarks appropriately.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I certainly shall not pursue the issue of corporation tax rates, but clearly the intention behind the Bill is to improve the clarity of corporation tax law. That is an important element in improving-or trying to improve-the competitiveness of the UK tax system. Our argument is that we should go further and that simplification would do much to improve our competitiveness. The process that we have seen in the tax law rewrite project is a valuable guide to how we could go further. I shall not dwell on our proposal for an office of tax simplification, which would make use, as this project has, of the expertise in the tax professions, in businesses, in HMRC and in HM Treasury to ensure that we develop our tax law in an attractive way.

It is worth stressing that we live in a very competitive world. The UK, in many respects, should be well placed to benefit from a globalised world, but it needs a competitive tax system. May I briefly highlight the fact that in 1997 the UK was fourth in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report's ranking for having the lowest tax burden? According to a measurement that is not exactly the same but is the closest equivalent, it is now ranked 84th for the extent and effect of taxation. That is a substantial decline, not because of the tax rewrite project but despite it, of course. None the less, we need to go much further. We believe that an office of tax simplification would be a huge step forward.

Let me raise another query with which the Minister might be familiar, as he briefly touched on it in his remarks. The argument was often made that making legislation clearer in the context of income tax was very important. Income tax is relevant to nearly all of us, whereas companies tend to be advised on corporation tax. It is an area that inevitably involves some specialist expertise. Is it quite as necessary to pursue a rewrite project in that context?

Of course, the first point to make-the Minister touched on this-is that there is an interrelationship between income tax and corporation tax, and having reformed income tax, it makes sense to follow with this corporation tax Bill. The second point is that existing practitioners are often somewhat dubious about the project, because they already know where everything is. They are familiar with the existing law and the various sections and schedules, and they know their way around. There is a complication when a new Act that changes things around is introduced. Of course, one must have a degree of intergenerational fairness to tax advisers in this area, and it might well be easier for future generations to find their way around with this new legislation.

Sometimes it is recent legislation that is being amended-again, the Minister touched on this point. In particular, he highlighted the legislation on real estate investment trusts. The regime for REITs was introduced in 2006, and it is substantially rewritten in the Bill. I was struck by the remarks of John Sellers, the head drafter of HMRC's tax law rewrite project, in Committee on 11 January. He referred to the substantial recasting of REIT legislation and went on to say:

"the legislation had been passed, I think, at a point when policy was still being developed and in those circumstances it was difficult to achieve the optimum arrangement of the material."

A couple of points can be made about that. First, I would be interested to know from the Minister, with his vast experience as a Treasury Minister, how often legislation is passed while policy is still being developed? Perhaps naively, I thought that the policy came first and the legislation followed, but possibly that was not the case. Perhaps that was a peculiarity of the Minister at the time, who, if I recall correctly, is now the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. None the less, that is somewhat surprising. We will always face the need to improve the clarity of legislation if we do it that way round-if we do the legislation first and the policy second. That is somewhat surprising in this context because, if I recall correctly, the REIT legislation was in gestation for some time. It was not rushed. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why it has been necessary to recast it.

Let me return to the limitations of the tax law rewrite project. There is quite a strong argument for reconsidering the REIT legislation, not just in terms of how it is structured and drafted, but on its merits, too. In the proceedings on the Finance Bill last year I tabled amendments on the restriction on distributions, for example. At least 90 per cent. of property income must be distributed in the year in question, and currently that has to be done in cash. There was an argument about whether shares should be allowed too, given that there should be no tax consequence. I do not want to go outside the scope of the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will say something about whether the Government are considering the REIT regime, which has cross-party support, more widely. I know there have been difficult economic conditions for REITs, but there is an argument about whether the regime could go further and whether reforms will be necessary. I would be interested to hear his views.

None of these debates would be complete without my briefly mentioning the order-making powers in clauses 1178, 1179 and 1180. The Minister customarily reassures us that those order-making powers, which enable primary legislation to be changed by regulation, will be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Bill restricts them somewhat. I would be interested to know to what extent those powers have been used for previous tax law rewrite Bills. One point that was raised in Committee-it would be helpful if the Minister could address it in this debate-was whether a negative resolution is sufficient or whether the affirmative procedure should apply.

My final query-I apologise: I have two final points; I am sorry to disappoint the Government Whip-relates to whether some of the changes will involve more or less tax being paid. The Minister has said that no major changes are contained in the measures, and rightly so, because they do not involve the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. However, I should like to know whether there has been any assessment of the revenue implications of the changes in the Bill, and whether there is a rough and ready test to determine whether a change constitutes a major change-one too significant to be contained in a tax law rewrite Bill. I should also like to know how that assessment is made.

Finally, some of the amendments made in Committee, particularly those to schedule 1, relate to Northern Ireland, and I wonder why those issues were missed earlier. When the Minister responds to this point, will he say something about the process when new issues arise in Committee? Where do they come from, who identifies them and are they part of the consultation process? We would like to get a better idea of the point at which weaknesses and omissions are addressed.

Subject to those queries and questions, we welcome the Bill. The tax law rewrite project might not be perfect and might have too limited a remit, and there is more to be done to move towards simplification, but we should none the less acknowledge the enormous efforts that have been made by many people to improve the clarity of our tax law. That is an important objective. A start has been made, and we hope that a future Government will take on the project and do more to simplify our tax system, not just to clarify it.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I have not had the advantage, or indeed the pleasure, of being on the Committee, but I pay tribute to all the people who have laboured long and hard to bring the Bill before the House. This kind of legislation takes me back to my days as a council leader when members were annually shown for comment long papers on treasury management that were full of algebra, rather like pages 13 to 16 of the Bill. They were always passed without undue comment, and I note in passing that hon. Members have not exactly been fighting to get into this debate. If the truth were told, only a few pointy-headed people in the Treasury have complete mastery of the entire legislative feast that confronts us-and that includes the Minister, whose knowledge is encyclopaedic, so I assume that he understands it. There is a real case, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) said, for expert advice in certain areas in which Members' background knowledge is deficient.

The measures before us are, in part, highly technical, and largely uncontentious. The document is one for tax lawyers to work with as much as one for politicians to mull over. It is largely a tax rewrite and consolidation, rather than ground-breaking, innovative legislation that we need to get excited and argumentative about. It is, however, important, and it would be wrong and foolish of us to pretend that we could do justice to it all here in the time available, so I shall content myself with probing the Minister simply about the general thrust and shape of the legislation, bearing in mind that I wear another hat as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee recently did an excellent report on corporation tax, which is an odd tax because research shows that raising it does not necessarily raise the total take and that lowering it does not necessarily reduce the take. I think that we can all conclude from that observation that it is easily avoidable.

One point that the Committee made in its report follows from what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has just been saying. Conclusion two of the report states:

"Businesses in the United Kingdom can legitimately reduce their Corporation Tax payments by claiming a range of reliefs and allowances. In some cases, the liability may reduce to zero, even though the businesses have made profits. The amount of tax foregone is likely to be substantial, but is not visible."

I cannot tell whether the Bill has been crafted to do what the Committee wants the Government to do, which is ensure that a proper balance is achieved between allowances and overall liability, but I welcome the Minister's assurance that he is mindful of that point.

The Committee also pointed out that the Department does not have

"a robust measure of the Corporation Tax gap",

by which we mean the difference between what large businesses pay and their theoretical liability. The report makes another point that is worth making now, given the long evolution of the legislation-that, in a change from recent times, about half the growth in global trade now comes from transactions between subsidiaries of multinational companies. However, recommendation eight states:

"In the United Kingdom, groups of companies are not required to prepare consolidated Company Tax returns so the Department cannot assess the effective Corporation Tax rate across a group of companies."

It then cites Australia and Canada as counter-examples of where things are done a little better. I do not suppose that the legislation was crafted to resolve all those issues, but can we have an assurance from the Minister that those anxieties require a legislative response, and will he ponder whether vehicles such as this Bill provide an appropriate opportunity for that?

I have other concerns, including concerns about the development of bespoke tax avoidance schemes. The Minister is acutely aware of those concerns, and I know that he is working hard to close loopholes where and when they appear. Corporation tax matters are generally controversial, and no issue to do with taxation and this Government is simple. However, corporation tax is a valuable piece of the fiscal jigsaw, and we have to hope that this legislation has got things right.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome the constructive comments from the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and the broad support that the Bill enjoys. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire suggested that the work should go further and the underlying tax rules should be simplified, but I remind him that the Government have already committed to simplifying the tax system, and we are working with a wide range of interested parties through the tax simplification reviews. The rewrite complements that commitment. I also draw his attention to the fact that the UK compares very favourably internationally, ranking first among G7 countries for ease of paying taxes. The World Bank "Paying Taxes 2010" survey is well worth a read. It makes the point that in the UK it typically takes 110 hours for a company to comply with paying taxes, whereas in Canada, France, the United States, Germany, Japan and Italy it takes a great deal longer. In Japan and Italy, for example, it takes more than 300 hours.

Ease of compliance is what really makes a difference for businesses. For the reasons that we have discussed, more pages of legislation are appropriate for this issue, because although income tax and corporation tax legislation have been placed in separate locations, ease of use and clarity have been improved. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave on Second Reading and in Committee that the powers cannot be used to change the law in relation to periods before the Bill comes into force, so the powers are time-limited. As with previous rewrite Acts, I can confirm that the powers will not be used unless the tax law rewrite project's consultative and steering committees both agree that they should be so used.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked me about the rewriting of the real estate investment trust legislation. That reflects the fact that when the REIT legislation was introduced by the Finance Act 2006, there had not been time fully to work out how it should apply in certain cases, particularly in relation to joint venture companies and groups. Powers were therefore taken in that Act to enable those gaps to be filled using regulations, but the resulting regulations are considered to be equal in importance to the legislation in the Act. So I think that it is appropriate for them to be addressed as they have been.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the powers to correct the legislation. The five rewritten Acts so far include more than 4,500 sections, but a total of only 97 errors have been corrected either by using the powers or by primary legislation. That is a great credit to the extensive consultation process and to those who gave their time and expertise to review the draft clauses. Most of the errors have been corrected in primary legislation, rather than by using the powers that we have discussed.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for the points that he raised, and I can give him the assurance that he sought. We certainly bear the concerns that he raised in mind.

I pay tribute again to the work of the team led by Robina Dyall. This Bill does not reform tax law, but it is important and has cross-party support. It will make things easier for everyone using tax legislation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed .

Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill has two themes. First, it rewrites international provisions such as double taxation relief, transfer pricing, advance pricing agreements and tax arbitrage. Secondly, it helps users of tax legislation by relocating and, where appropriate, rewriting provisions that would otherwise have been left unhelpfully in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or in one of the Finance Acts.

As we have just discussed, last year the tax law rewrite project completed the first part of rewriting corporation tax legislation when the Corporation Tax Act 2009 was enacted. A second Corporation Tax Bill, the sixth Bill produced by the project, has just received its Third Reading. As a result, the whole of the legislation relating to corporation tax will have been rewritten.

This is the seventh and final Bill produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' tax law rewrite project. As with the Bills produced by the project in the past, this one continues the work to modernise our direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use.

There is a further point that I want to make about the approach taken in this Bill. In rewriting the international provisions, this Bill, unlike previous rewrite Bills, does not separate them for income tax and corporation tax purposes. This different approach was agreed in consultation with users represented by the independent committees that oversee and support the work of the project.

The project takes great care to ensure that the effect of the legislation remains the same, but it can encompass minor changes in the law when they improve the legislation. There are 15 such changes detailed in the explanatory notes to this Bill, although of course major changes will always be matters for a Finance Bill. All proposed changes in the law are considered by both the project's committees, and no minor changes are included in the Bill without their approval.

Again, I should like to express particular thanks to the UK tax specialists, and others. My gratitude also goes to members of the project's consultative committee, chaired by Robina Dyall, who have ensured that the consultation has been detailed and thorough. The consultative committee includes representatives of small and large businesses, accountants, lawyers and other tax specialists. They have been very generous with their time and energy, for which we are very grateful.

The strategy of the project is set by its steering committee, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, which includes members from both Houses of Parliament, the judiciary, business and consumer groups. I am particularly grateful to Lord Newton for his commitment and guidance, and to the members of his committee.

As we debated previously, the Joint Committee of both Houses was chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It considered the Bill on 11 January and concluded that the Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law, which as a result will be easier to use and more accessible to all users. The Committee was satisfied that the changes to the law were of very minor significance, and it accepted the amendments.

This Bill is a worthwhile contribution to modernising our direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. It maintains the project's excellent record in improving current legislation and has been welcomed by those who use it. Once again, I am grateful for the support that has been shown across the House throughout this work.

I commend the Bill to the House.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

It is almost tempting to deliver essentially the same speech that I delivered a couple of moments ago, but that would break the heart of the Government Whip and I would hate to do that. I am also very tempted to say, "I refer the House to the speech I gave some moments ago," but perhaps that would go to the other extreme.

The international aspect of taxation is hugely important for an outward-looking economy such as the UK's. We witnessed great difficulties in 2008, when a number of companies moved their head offices out of the UK because of concerns over international taxation, in particular the Government's consultation with regard to controlled foreign companies that was published in 2007. We touched on that point on Second Reading.

We welcome progress towards greater clarity in this respect, but we touched on the issue of controlled foreign companies in the Second Reading debate of 15 December. The Minister made it clear then that a consultation document was to be published in the new year, which would lead ultimately to legislation that I presume will be incorporated in this Bill when it becomes an Act. The consultation document was published in January, and the early indications that we have seen are encouraging. The Government are moving towards a more territorial system, and it is worth putting it on record that the Opposition believe that that is something that we need to pursue.

Of course, the real test will come when we see the details in the consultation document and what will follow from it. It might be useful to mention that one of the points raised with us is that we need to know how the new user-friendly motive regime contained in the consultation document will operate in practice. The outcome must avoid causing difficulties with HMRC and placing an administrative burden on multinationals that are looking to locate in the UK. It is important that we have a competitive tax system that encourages business to locate here.

Many of the remarks that I made earlier also apply equally to this Bill, and I should like to add my thanks to the various organisations and individuals that the Minister mentioned in his remarks, but I want to make a final point that I could also have made about the previous Bill. That is that witnesses at the Committee stage observed that the engagement by consultees seems to have fallen away slightly. As I noted in the earlier debate, the tax professions and businesses want legislation that goes further than merely clarifying and simplifying the language. They want something that starts to address the substance as well. I make that point again but, those comments apart, we support this Bill.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

If the re-committed Corporation Tax Bill was opaque, this is doubly so, and I say that as a veteran of several double taxation statutory instruments in my time. I want briefly to commend the Government and the Minister for the seriousness of their intent in this matter. I note the updating of tax avoidance legislation. When 82 per cent. of central London commercial properties are owned by companies registered outside the UK-that is the figure from the chief executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs-when companies exploiting the developed world's resources choose to base themselves largely in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man and pay little if any tax, and when our biggest retailer put its property portfolio in Liechtenstein, there is a problem, but it is one that the Government have endeavoured to square up to.

Tax avoidance and double taxation are two incompatible evils, and any Government who recognise the reality of international finance need to strike the right balance between them. The Government, and the Financial Secretary in particular, have been resourceful and persistent in their efforts in this regard, and have accelerated the work in this very complex field, using what coercive and persuasive powers they have. I know that the Financial Secretary has had discussions with Crown dependencies' many tax havens and we see now a panorama of treaties around the world, and statutory instruments in this place are multiplying similarly. It is an important point. In a depressed world, it is important that all pay their fair share of tax, and an aspect of this Bill, at any rate, is part of the long, painful, not unrewarding task of making that happen, in which the Financial Secretary has played a conspicuous part.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Once again, I welcome the helpful remarks made by the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I was particularly interested in and grateful for what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said in passing about the discussion document that we have published recently on the reform of controlled foreign company rules. I agree with him about the importance of this key issue for the UK's tax competitiveness and I welcome further discussion with him and others in the House and with the large number of companies and organisations that will be taking a close interest as work on this goes forward with a view to legislating-I hope, in the finance Act next year.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for his comments about the seriousness of the Government's intent in tackling tax evasion and avoidance. This is an area that he has taken a close and helpful interest in and I am grateful to him for what he said. Over the last year we have made more progress on tax information exchange than was made in the previous 10 years. The interest that he has shown is a helpful addition to making the progress that is needed.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

May I take this opportunity to reiterate the remarks that I have made in some of those double taxation treaty statutory instrument committees? I know that there is potentially a backlog in getting through some of the treaties, such is the number that have been entered into in recent years, and the Opposition are willing to co-operate with the Government to ensure that we can get through as many of those as possible. We think that that adds to the attractiveness of the UK as an economic proposition, as well as addressing some of the concerns about tax avoidance.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.

Finally, once again I express thanks to the very large number of people who have contributed to the tax law rewrite, and my particular thanks go to Lord Newton and Robina Dyall. This is the final debate of its kind and once again I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.