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.
Corporation Tax Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Stephen Timms
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 4 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Corporation Tax Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c498-9 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:35:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619294
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619294
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619294