Finance (No. 2) Bill

I understand perfectly well that ““to do business”” is a better phrase than ““to enter into contracts””, but I want the Minister to confirm the nature of the commissioned agent or an employee of the business. They might be based overseas while carrying out business here, and I should like absolute clarity and certainty on that rather than on the wider point on the difference between the phrases ““to do business”” and ““to enter into contracts””. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. I am asking that question because as the Minister knows, in many groups, the holding company is a pure holding company, and undertakes no activity other than holding shares in its subsidiaries. My point is that such a company is unlikely to constitute a business as defined in the Bill. Consequently, to require a company to have a ““permanent establishment”” through which business is carried on or, if the proposed definition is maintained, a"““permanent establishment…to enter into contracts””," could be seen as running counter to commercial reality. I would welcome further clarification on how such arrangements would be treated for those purposes. I am dreadfully sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not engage in a classic Second Reading debate or address more widely issues that are not in the Bill, but I thought it important for someone actually to ask some specific technical questions to probe the Government on it, rather than indulging in the kind of debate that I am sure we will have on clause stand part later in the Bill's progress.