---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

How could I fail to rise to such friendly bait? Perhaps my noble friend will examine with me what he seeks to do with the clause. In a sense, he is dealing with two different aspects, which I fully respect and understand. One concerns a company meeting its tax liabilities in this country through a proper approach to the apportionment of its income; the other concerns a company which deals with its tax liabilities in another country because it has chosen to allocate its income in such a way that, on one view, would deprive that country of its fair share of revenue. In so far as companies are, as it were, ““cheating”” in relation to the apportionment of their income and claiming that it does not for some reason fall within the charging provisions of our tax legislation, I have no doubt that the way to deal with that—if it is necessary at all—is through specific tax legislation. That would no doubt deal with the kinds of points that I have indicated arise on this clause. In so far as it is a concern that companies are failing to meet their tax obligations in another country, one could start by seeing what help we can give to that country—perhaps through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development—or it might be a matter for legislation in that country. There might also be questions about the reporting that companies should make about certain matters. As my noble friend will know, that is an issue on which we are now consulting further, as indicated in a Statement in the other place last week. I am happy to discuss this matter further with my noble friend outside the Committee, but it is not facile to say that it is not for this Bill. So, much as I respect what lies behind his amendment, I hope that my noble friend will understand that there are substantial reasons why the matter is not for this Bill.