Finance Bill

We need a belt and braces rule—a specific provision that is assisted by a general rule. Again, the Government's consultation stated:""A GAAR, applying at first only to the corporate sector,"—" this was 1998 or thereabouts—""would aim to put a stop to many of the complex avoidance schemes which currently cost the Exchequer large sums. In addition, it would be expected to discourage people from devising contrived avoidance schemes in the future."" That was the Treasury, not the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton. Now we have the repeal of the time-served section, section 765 of the 1988 Act, which ensures that when funds leave the country the Treasury is notified of any detriment to it. It is an old rule to do with the flight of sterling and so on, but it does—or did—a good job. We have the replacement of a clearance and pre-disclosure scheme with a light-touch reporting regime, coupled with a series of attempts to outlaw specific dodges and scams. However, if we read the legislation, we find that only transactions above £100 million will need to be reported, and not even then if they are said to be""in the ordinary course of trade"—" hence my amendment. If, after six months, there is no report on a £100 million transaction, there will be a ludicrous fine of £300, which I remember made the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) incandescent in Committee. It is a ludicrous penalty to enforce on a £100 million transaction.