Were amendment No. 92 the lead amendment, I should not have moved it. The Economic Secretary said that he would look carefully to see if there is any need for a change in wording such as that proposed in amendment No. 91. Further representations may be made on that, and he will have time to consider those before Report. For that reason, I have not moved amendment No. 91.
I am trying to make my remarks at the right place in the batting order, which the hon. Member for Eddisbury seems to be finding difficult today. I was slightly puzzled when the Economic Secretary said that services that are supplied by companies within the EU to companies outside the EU are subject to VAT but not vice versa. I cannot see in schedule 2 that the reverse is taken into account for countries such as Canada, which has the equivalent of VAT in its goods and services tax. Will not there be double taxation under the scheme?
We have a double taxation treaty that adequately covers that situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.