11/04/2016 House of Commons

that those who are there should claim asylum, that is the best and

most effective way to get the help they need. Statement, the Prime

Minister. Thank you Mr Speaker. Hear, hear! I like to make a

statement on the Panama Papers. Dealing with my own circumstances

first, yesterday I published all the information in my tax returns, not

just for the last year before the last six years. I have also given

additional about money inherited and given to me by my family. So people

can see the sources that I have of income. The salary, the benefit I

have of living in ten Downing St, the support I have received, the

ready out of our London home, the interest on the settings that I

have. Since 2010, I have not had any shares or investment. The

investigation of a Prime Minister's tax information in this way is

unprecedented but I think it is the right thing to do. I am not

suggesting that they should apply to all MPs. The Chancellor has

published today information on his task return -- tax. This begs the

question how far the publication of tax information should go. I think

there is a strong case for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the

Opposition and for the Shadow Chancellor and Chancellor, because

the are people who are and wish to be responsible for the nations

finances. As for the MPs and already have robust rules of members

interests and decoration. That is the model which you continue to

follow. We should think carefully before abandoning completely all

taxpayer confidentiality in this house as some have suggested. If

this were to come in for MPs people would also ask for a similar

approach for those who ask this question, those who run large public

services, or lead local government. Or indeed those who added the news

programmes or newspapers. Hear, hear! I think be a very big step for

our country, and should not take place without a long and thoughtful

debate, and is not the approach I would recommend. Let me deal

specifically with the shares my wife and I held it in an investment fund

or do the trust called Blairmore Holdings. The fund was registered

from the beginning, it was properly awarded -- audit is every year. Its

share price was listed in these Financial Times. It was not a family

trust, it was a commercial investment fund for any investor to

buy units in. UK investors paid all the same taxes as with any other

share including and contacts on the dividends every year. There have

been some deeply hurtful and untrue allegations made against my father,

and I want to, at the house let me put the record straight, it was set

up overseas in the first place because it was going to be trading

in dollars securities. Like many other commercial investment funds it

made sense to be set up inside one of the main centres of dollar

trading. There are thousands of these investment funds and millions

of people in Britain who own shares, many of whom hold them through

investment funds or unit trusts. Such funds including those listed

outside the UK are included in the pension funds of local government,

most of it ten's countries -- companies and even trade unions.

Even a quick look shows that the BBC and Guardian newspapers and one

counsel entirely at random, Islington have these overseas

investors. They have a portfolio of over 50 million in investment in the

trade union unitized. This is not to criticise what they do. It is to

make the point that this is an entirely standard practice and it is

not to avoid tax. One of the countries leading tax lawyers has

stated unequivocally that this was and I quote, a perfectly normal type

of collective investment fund. This is the man who led the experts study

group who developed the general anti-abuse rule, so much debated in

this house that we find the enacted in 2013. It also shared the 1997 tax

avoidance by the committee. He has said it would be quite wrong to list

described the establishment of such funds as tax avoidance and would be

utterly ridiculous to establish that investing in such funds would

involve abusive tax avoidance. That is why getting rid of unit trusts

and other such investment funds that are listed overseas has not been

part of any Labour policy review, any conservative Polly -- party

policy review, or aggressive tax avoidance. Invest these funds

benefit from them being set up in jurisdictions with low or no taxes.

This is a misunderstanding. Unit trusts do not exist to make profit

for themselves before the holders of the units and those holders pay tax.

If they are UK citizens they pay full UK taxes. Mr Speaker, it is

right to tighten the law and to change the culture around investment

to further outlaw tax evasion and discourage aggressive tax avoidance.

We should differ aged -- differentiate schemes to reduce tax

and those that are are encouraging investment. This is a government any

country that believes in aspiration wealth creation. We should defend

the right of every British citizen to make money lawfully. Aspiration

and wealth creation are not somehow dirty words, they are the key

engines of growth and prosperity in our country and we must always

support those who want to own shares and make investments to support

their families. Some people have asked, if this trust was legitimate

why did you sell your shares in January 2010? I showed all the

shares in my portfolio that year because they did not want any issues

about conflicts of interest. Then I want anyone to be able to suggest

that as Prime Minister I had any agendas or a vested interest.

Selling my shares with the simplest and clearest way I can do that.

There are strict rules in this house for the registration of

shareholding, I followed them in full. The Labour Party has said it

will refer me to the Commissioner to parliamentary standards, I have

already given her the relevant information and if there is more she

believes I should say I am very happy to say. I accept all of the

criticisms for not responding more quickly to these issues last week.

As I have said I was angry about the way my father's memory was being

reproduced. I know he was a hard-working man and a wonderful dad

and I am proud of everything he did to build a business that provide for

his family. Hear, hear! On the issue of inheritance task -- tax people

are embarrassed to pass these onto their children by keeping a family

home in the family I believe is a natural human instinct and something

that should be encouraged. As her parents passing to their children

while they are still alive, it is a big the tax rules fully recognise.

Many parents would have their children when they buy their first

car, get a deposit for their first home, or face the cost of starting a

family. It is entirely natural that parents should want to do these

things and it is something that we should not just defend, but should

probably support. Hear, hear! Let me turn to the Panama Papers and the

action this government is taking to deal with tax evasion, aggressive

tax avoidance, and international corruption abroad. When this

government came into office there were foreigners not paying capital

gains tax with settling that UK homes. There were private equity

managers paying a low rate of tax for the people who clean their

offers. There were rich buyers in any way without paying stamp duty

because houses were in love companies. We have put an end to all

of these things. The last parliament although we have made a

unprecedented 40 tax changes. We will legislate for 25 further

measures for 2021. No Labour government has taken so much robust

action is this area. From my summit in 2013 I put tax cuts Red Sea on

the global agenda. Over who pays taxes and where. Mr Speaker many

said it would never happen, but today 129 jurisdictions have... Over

not -- 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the report

is dated on cash-strapped transit. Under this standard will receive

information on accounts of UK taxpayers in all of these

jurisdictions. In June this year, but it will become the first country

in the G 2200 Public register of beneficial ownership. Everyone can

see who really owns and controls its company. The government is also

consulting on requiring foreign companies to own property or bid on

public contracts to provide their beneficial ownership information. We

are happy to offer typical support and assistance to any of the Enders

-- and ministrations considering this. As the Panama Papers to make

there we need to go even further. When making it harder for people to

hide the proceeds of corruption offshore, they should does to smooth

the way cannot go into that and to get rid of wrongdoing. The McGill

with Crown dependencies and over and seize territories. They have already

agreed to exchange taxpayer financial account information

automatically and will begin doing so this September. That never

happened before I became Prime Minister, I got around the cabin

table and said that this must happen. We do need to go further. I

can tell the House today that we have now agreed that they will

provide UK law enforcement of tax agencies with full access to

information on the beneficial information of companies. We're

finalise arrangements for all of them except Anguilla and another.

You police and law enforcement will be able to see who owns and controls

every country -- company. Cayman Islands, British roads in Ireland,

Isle of Man and the lot. This is building on the progress they made

and I welcome the government in these territories to work with us.

The house should know that this will place our overseas territories and

crime dependencies well ahead of many other jurisdictions. Also

crucially ahead of many of our international partners including

some states in the United States of America. Next month we will seek to

go further still to seek our anti-corruption Summit to have

considered is not unjust exchanging information but publishing

information. As we're doing here in the UK. We want everyone and with a

stake in fighting corruption to use this data and help us rid out and

deter wrongdoing. Next we will take a major step in dealing with those

who fight corruption. It is difficult to prosecute a company

that assists in activation. We will legislate for a new criminal offence

to apply to corporations who failed to prevent the representatives from

taxation. Providing new funding of up to ?10 million for a new cross

agency task force to swiftly analyse all of the information that has been

made available from Panama and to take rapid action. The task force

would include analysts, compliance specialist, and investigators from

across HMRC, the national crime agency, and the contact authority.

We will be the international agenda to crackdown on evasion and tax

avoidance. It is important and needs to be combined with the approach we

take in this country. Low tax rates but taxes that people and businesses

have to pay. That is how we will tackle these issues and build a

strong economy that we need. It is that strong economy, creating jobs,

rewarding aspiration, that is the true voters of this government and I

think that will be made under the party opposite. I commend the

statement to the house. Hear, hear! May I think the Prime Minister for

the advanced side of his statement. It is absolutely a master class in

the art of distraction. I am sure the Prime Minister would join me in

joining -- welcoming the outstanding journalism that has gone into

exposing the scandal of destructive global tax avoidance by the Panama

Papers. What they have driven home is what many people have

increasingly felt. There is now one rule for the super-rich and another

for rest. I am honestly not sure that the Prime Minister fully

appreciates the anger of those out there over this injustice. How can

it be right that street cleaners, teaching assistants and nurses work

and pay their taxes get some of the top think the rules simply don't

apply to them? What has been revealed in the past week goes far

beyond the Prime Minister has called his private matters. There are six

questions he needs to answer today to the house and perhaps equally

importantly to the public as a whole. Firstly, why he chose not to

declare his offshore tax investment in the House of Commons register of

interest. There is a requirement to provide information of any peculiar

interest which might reasonably be thought to affect their actions. The

Prime Minister said he thinks he mishandled the events of the past

week, does he now realised how he mishandled his own nine declaration

six years ago we decided not to register and offshore tax haven

investment from which he has personally benefited? Can you

clarify to the house and the public when he sold his stake in Blairmore

Holdings in 2010, he also disposed of another offshore investment at

that time in particular whether any of the ?72,000 shares he sold were

held in offshore tax havens? The ministerial code states that

ministers must ensure that no conflict arises or could reasonably

be perceived to arise between their public duty and private interest

financial or otherwise. All ministers must provide a full list

of all interest which might be thought to give rise to a conflict

including close family interest. Did the Prime Minister provide the

permit secretary with an account of his offshore interest, and if not

did he realise that he had a clear operation to do so? Part of his

wealth was tied up in offshore tax havens. He is now making policy

decisions that have a direct bearing on the operation. For example in

2013, the Prime Minister might roads to the president of the Council

opposing centre registers of beneficial ownership of offshore

trusts. Thirdly, does the Prime Minister now accept that

transparency of their best beneficial ownership must be

extended to offshore trusts? The Panama based law firm register more

than 100,000 secret firms in the British Virgin Islands. Mr Speaker,

it is a scandal that UK overseas Territories registered have to shell

companies set up by them. The truth is that the UK is that the heart of

the global tax avoidance industry, it is a national scandal and it has

got to end. Last year, Mr Speaker, this government opposed the EU tax

Commissioner's blacklist of 30 uncooperative tax havens, that

included the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands. With the

Prime Minister now stop blogging European Commission plans for a

blacklist of tax havens? As it turns out, the former conservative Home

Office minister was absolutely right, when he rode to the Cayman

Islands government in 2014 to reassure them that our Prime

Minister was making a pearly political gesture about cracking

down on tax havens at the G8. It was designed and I quote, to be a false

initiative which will divert other member states from pursuing their

agenda. Last June treasury officials lobbied Brussels not to take action

against Bermuda's tax secrecy. According to the European Union's

transgressor register the tech giant Google has no fewer than ten

employees lobbying Brussels. Bermuda is the tax haven favoured by Google

to channel billions in profits. Conservative MPs have been

instructed on six occasions since the beginning of last year to vote

against action to clamp down on aggressive tax avoidance. This is a

party incapable of taking serious internationally coordinated action

to tackle tax dodging. Across the country and on this side of the

house there is a thirst for decisive action against global tax avoidance

scams. That sucked revenues out of our public services while ordinary

taxpayers have to foot the bill. It undermines public trust in business

politics, it can and must be brought to the and. The Prime Minister

announcement today to make new copies liable for employees that

facilitate tax cheating is welcome but it is also too little too late.

It was announced by the former chief Secretary of the treasury a year

ago. People won a government that acts on behalf of those that pay

their taxes. Not those that dodge their taxes in offshore tax havens.

Yesterday my friend the Shadow Chancellor set out a clear plan for

transparency and he is a member of this house who has spent all of his

time in Parliament exposing tax havens and tax avoidance. On his

neighbour included calling for an immediate public inquiry into the

Panama Papers revelations to establish the harm done to our tax

revenues and to bring forward serious proposals for reform. I say

gently to the Prime Minister, a task force according to the Chancellor

and the Home Secretary is, but members of a party funding by donors

in the implicated in the leaks will not be credible. What he Prime

Minister backed a credible and independent public inquiry into the

abuses of the leaks? Our tax transfer the plan also called for a

specialised tax enforcement unit, properly resourced Mr Speaker and

that has to be the key. The 2010 there have only been 11 prosecutions

of offshore tax evasion. A situation the Public Accounts Committee

described as woefully inadequate. Having slashed resources and cut

14,000 staff since 2010, will the Prime Minister today guarantee that

resourcing will increase in this Parliament? Re-support real action

to end the abuses that allow the wealthy to dodge the rules that the

rest of us have to follow. We need to ensure that trust and fairness

are restored to our tax system and our politics. In the sense and the

reality that there is wonderful for the richest and another for

everybody else. The Prime Minister has a tax -- attacked tax dodging as

immoral. But has clearly failed to give account of his own tax dodging.

Also take essential action... Also take essential action to clean up

these system while blocking what efforts to do so. There are clear

steps to bring tax havens and dodging under control. The minister

is standing at the bar shrieking into an absurd manner, he must calm

himself, or leave the chamber. I suggest Mr Speaker the Prime

Minister record particularly over the past week shows the public no

longer have to trust in him to deal with these matters. Does he realise

what people are so angry? Does he realise, the members opposite

realise why people are so angry? We have gone through six years of

crushing his charity. Family is lining up at food banks to feed

their children. Disabled people losing their benefits, elderly care

cuts and slashed, living standards going down. Much of this could have

been avoided if our country had not been ripped off by the super-rich

refusing to pay their taxes. I say to this, I say to the Prime

Minister, ordinary people in the country simply will not stand for

this anymore, they want real justice, they want the wealthy to

pay their share of taxes like they pay when they work hard all the

time. First of all let me join the right honourable gentleman in

congratulating the journalists who have broken the story about this

huge cache of information. I think what matters now is that information

is shared with tax authorities including here in the United Kingdom

so that action can be taken. The right honourable gentleman accused

me of a distraction to my think the biggest attraction today was waiting

for the right honourable gentleman's tax return. We finally got published

at 335 PM after the session had begun. How incredibly convenient

that no one can scrutinize it. No one can scrutinize it. Each and

every one of the questions that he said. First of all, he asked whether

we would resourced with the right amount of money, we put ?1.8 billion

into various initiatives is to does intend to make sure they have the

resources to find this money, first one, second point he asked me about

my register of members interests, I have comply with every aspect of it.

Even before the Labour Party complaint has arrived at the

commissioners door I provided her with all of the necessary

information. He asked me when I made the sale of the shares, isolated the

Glenmore shows in January, everything else in June. Yesterday

whether I shared a list of these with the Cabinet secretary but I sat

down with her and went to all of my interests and connections and

friendships, and family, as all ministers are advised to do. See you

have a proper conversation with the Cabinet secretary in that way.

Fourth question was why were we not extending to beneficial ownership of

companies the beneficial ownership of trust, and one international

action to take place in the very clear advice I got was if we

included trust in our interested we would not get any international

action done. This government has done more than any

He asked about the tax passport square HMRC, the serious crime

office than others I want to be investigating all of the information

coming out of Panama. They have operational independence, if they

find people to prosecute, prosecute them. They find information of Ula

Delta, act on them. They are independent and that that is exactly

what they will do. They are reported to the Home Secretary under Chapter

because we want to make sure that radical action is taken. But they

have total operational independence and is the Shadow Chancellor is

questioning the professionalism of the Inland Revenue of crime agency,

he should not be doing that. Finally, let me answer the last

question, which is the action we have taken about the overseas

Territories and the Crown dependencies. No government has done

more to encourage them to take part in a changing information, reported

tax information, and making sure that they give us the information on

beneficial ownership. The leader of the Labour Party has suggested that

we should force them will stop out as he clung to for some? What is he

going to do? How do we find a Prime Minister that once again Argentina

-- give the Falkland Islands and advantage of altered? What we have

seen from the Labour Party as their true colours when it comes to

inheritance tax. If you want to bash her home to get children, they will

tax it. If you want to help your children, they will tax it. We see

the true colours, they are the enemy of aspiration, the enemy of them was

won to support each other. That is the real lesson of today. --

families that want to support each other. All going to call the chair

of the committee, but he is tunneling out of the chamber. -- I

was going to call. Get in there. LAUGHTER

Order! Order! Am sure there will be worth waiting for. Very good of you

to give me the good Lord Mr Speaker. -- the floor. I don't think the

prominent or has done anything wrong. -- the Prime Minister. Except

possibly be, and the Jimmy Carter illegal and should be very pursue it

with criminal prosecution. And imprisonment. Tax avoidance is not

illegal. If the Government on home and do not like it, there is no

point in demoralising it. Does the prominence it agreed that to do with

tax avoidance we need to perform to close loopholes and vigorous tax

simplification to assure there are fewer of them? I'm very glad that he

was detained before leaving the chamber. I think he is right, tax

evasion is illegal and tax avoidance, if the government dispose

of it, should be legislated against. That is the approach we have taken.

But what I have said before if there are some practices of aggressive tax

avoidance and I think the mirror proper questions and then action. To

be fair to Jimmy Carr, as another was point out that he was in a

scheme to reduce his income, he immediately changed his abrasive. He

made it very clear and I pay tribute to him for doing that. That's

changed his abrasive. Then I begin by welcoming the Prime Minister's

statement, the new measures contained in it to tax evasion and

aggressive tax avoidance. The publication of his tax information

and his apology for the way that he has handled it was updated estimated

that between 21 and $32 trillion a time and financial wealth is

allocated to a -- a tax or likely tax and tax havens around the world.

Elicit trust board estimated that more than $1 trillion for gear, ten

times more than the global foreign aid budgets combined. The Panama

Papers lake is so large that if one part of the file, the final deck --

document will be held 650 million pages long. It is right that a

special task force is being set up to go through this information as it

has been linked. Have the Prime Minister said, public charges will

be followed and criminality can't be proven. But the public are indignant

here and they are indignant about the well. People are rightly angered

by the different roles for normal taxpayers and small ultrarich elite.

But we have to ask ourselves, whether this scale of the Bible has

been taken seriously because it has not been thus far. Either

domestically or internationally. UK bears a particular facility, given

that the UK and its overseas territories and dependencies

collectively said at the top of the financial secrecy index of the tax

Justice network. In Scotland, we are confronted by the reality of a small

number of landowners, owning huge parts of the country, Minikin tax

haven. Across Scotland, land is owned through and transparent firms

based in tax havens like, and the British Virgin Islands. May I ask if

I minister the following specific questions? Will he be present --

revisit his decision not to fully co-operate with European union

partners on trust? On the welcome register a beneficial owners, across

the British and overseas territories, specific question,

whole would this be available to and when? Will be publicly available and

if not, why not? Will the Prime Minister prioritise bilateral tax

treaties with catalogue and other tax havens as part of global efforts

to better co-ordinate against tax avoidance and will he regularly

update this house on progress? Nicely, given is UK cabinet that

agrees government actuals -- textiles, and arrangements with tax

havens, with the Prime Minister ensure that all of his cabinet

colleagues confirm whether they have ever benefited to offshore financial

dealings? -- from. Let me agree with him. There is no doubt that and some

of these jurisdictions and countries, there are some very bad

things are happening in terms of the hiding of assets, but having a

wealth of the avoidance of tax, and that is why we want to authorities

to go through to recover the money. Just because those bad things are

happening, it does not mean we should condemn unit trust that many

investors, pension funds, local government, and trade you can, even

the pigeons under this house, might well use as a totally legitimate way

of investing and then paint attack. -- paying tax. I agree. But we

should not do down the civil action, and the civil penalties that the

custom site. 1100 cases going through, they can charge up to 300%

of the money. On the issue, taken this it is a fine of, I would say

this is the first country in the G7 and G20 to make tax transparency the

number one issue at AG eight or G20. No not done before. We have

government. You see these permit improvement. I'll think he is meant

for only dependencies and overseas territory. Book your stay with a

reputation and potentially broad problem. There have been a huge

amount to adjust that. Now better placed others similar jurisdictions,

states and the US to have left us closer and less repressive than they

do. A not be unfair upon dependencies and overseas

territories and on the side of the house. In terms of Scottish trust

and transparency, happy to work with any WebCam. Again, we are happy to

work with and are working with European partners on the issue of

shots. The point was making is that we would have any progress on

beneficial ownership if the included trust and that debate in the G8. But

we did make progress and for the bridge and we do. And the honest of

information and the Crown dependencies, he's asking for will

be available to you. It will be available to law-enforcement

initially, including our own. They are not producing public registers

yet. I wanted to but let's be frank. There's only about three countries

in the world, including Britain now, that have these public ownership

register. If we're trying to push that onto the quad dependencies

should away, I think we'll have not got as nearly as far as that we have

got it today. A textured, I'm key and attempted cabinet ministers, I

think the current rules for registering members interests are

broad. As I said, we're going further. According to the official

forecast, with likely to lose billion of tax revenue to

multinational companies of the ensuing five years. -- 74 3 billion.

They will solicit core and get the European Court of Justice to

overturn the Texas we were supposed. With another 35 billion at risk.

What can be do here to make sure those companies pay their fare

amounts, which this Parliament wants but the easy jay doesn't? We take a

certain action and the budget, and we have the government profit tax,

which is a tremendous weapon of making sure these companies pay that

tax and the jurisdictions where they are rightly earning the money. I

think this will be able to change tax information, and having a common

reporting standards, which is what we set off in 2013, they'll make the

biggest difference. Desk that will make. But of the main benefits of

the journalism that uncover the Panama Papers was that it showed so

much every is that people do not want it to go. The Prime Minister

makes great play that his government has done a great deal to improve

corporate tax defensive. But it is nowhere near enough. When is he

going to step up, and make sure that corporate can publish their tax

information, so that everybody, the public, conceived where tax is being

paid? -- can see. I am not saying we have a perfect record, but I think

this government has done more than any previous government to make this

happen. I'll answer it directly that our system is based on full

disclosure, by companies to the revenue, but a basic deal of

taxpayer confidentiality between companies and the retina. That is

the way our system and most of the systems work. That is why the common

reporting centres and the exchange of information between tax

jurisdictions is so important. The mesh of these companies are telling

the truth to us, and telling the truth to others jurisdiction. On

happens Will we be able to recover the money. That's only one that

happened. The ownership register that comes on place and over six

with time, plus the announcement that the Prime Minister has made

with regard to the code appendices and in a criminal act, would do much

to do with tax evasion. At the house will forgive me, able to far more to

ensure that the proceeds of crime, the proceeds of terrorism can not be

allowed to do this jurisdiction. An antiseptic be welcomed. I detailed

that the province is being -- kicked off a little. I know, personally,

that we would never be agreement with the competencies without his

personal intervention and without him being very tough. And he should

be congratulated. It the deliberate without a single shot being fired of

the Leader of the Opposition, putting books on the ground.

Decibels underground. But he will remember -- what he will remember,

but we did was get the Crown dependencies and the overseas

territories around the table in the Cabinet room. The same day at and

say we have to make descended. You don't have to go all the way to

publish and registers, but another may just information available. As

he says, that will mean not only more tax paid, but also great

ability to uncover corruption. Can I ask the Prime Minister some

questions about his welcome announcement in relation to Crown

dependencies? Can ask him personally whether it is right that the British

Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands have agreed to

compile a rich set of beneficial ownership? Canada ask and secondly

whether HMRC will have access to that register and cannot has,

thirdly if he did not succeed in getting those territories to publish

those registers publicly, he would use his powers to the Privy Council

to order the tax havens to publish some? There are three things would

have been asking the Crown dependencies anew. One is to change

tax information, the second is to have a common reporting standards

and the third is to establish registers a beneficial cell. They

have now been altered. The answer her prescription, they have agreed.

The Senate agreement, Guernsey but we hope that will come in the coming

days. Second question, will our revenue had access to the register.

Guess they will. A third question, I'm going to force them to have

public registers. We think they should. We think that at the rate

would go. Very few countries in the world, I think saying, Britain, and

possibly one of two others have the public registers a beneficial

ownership. Hard appendices and territories without the be far in

advance of most of the country. The of attacking them, we aren't could

raise affect him for what they have done. -- instead of attacking them.

We ought to praise him. Shouldn't the credits just not out of the

synthetic indignation animate the real point is that they hate anybody

who has a hand of 12 and Allied? -- should the critics. May I support

the Prime Minister and in the golf those who are attacking him,

particularly in thinking of this place. If he does not, we were

saying at House of Commons with stuffed full of low achievers, who

hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own families, who

know absolutely nothing about the outside world. Grateful for his

support. We have a system of members interests, which is better placed at

the end of 13 years of a Labour government. I think we should

maintain that system. I do not want us to discourage people who've had a

successful career in business or anything else to come into this

house and making a contribution. That is why I said but Prime

Minister than shadows, the Prime Minister is, subsequent, it is a

different set of originals. That's a different set of derangement.

That's does he recall had the time after he became Prime Minister under

the Coalition, and had a time when he was dividing the nation between

strivers and scroungers, I had to have a very important question about

the windfall he receives when he brought off the mortgage of the

premises and not until. And I said to him he did not write off the

mortgage the one detachment for helping, at Oxford. I didn't receive

a proper answer it then, maybe, dodgy Dave will answer it now. By

the way,... Order! Order! Order! I must ask the Honorable gentleman, I

don't require assistance from a junior minister. Absurd proposition.

I advised him to withdraw the hated it that he used a moment ago. He is

capable of asking his question without using that word. It is up to

him, but I cannot reasonably ask you, Mr to ask that -- answer the

question. Just withdraw the word epic or another. -- and think of

another. I think he knows the word beginning with the and ending with

wide that he inappropriately Jews. -- and appropriately used.

There are simple, withdraw. This man has done more good about this

patient than anybody else. He has look after his own pocket. And I

still referred to him as dodgy Dave. Order! I am sorry, I must ask the

Honorable gentleman to withdraw the word. The very well. Under the power

given to me by standing order number 43, I order the envelope member to

withdraw immediately from the house, for the remainder of this day's

setting. -- sitting. Needless to say, no apply is

required to that. We will take next. But we now know that the Prime

Minister that is the hands of a lot of before becoming promised an

unpaid taxes in full. Shocking. -- has paid his taxes. It follows on

the question from the chairman of the treasury committee. As others we

have the largest tax code in the world after India, on hard-working

families away to legitimate ways of trying to minimise their tax bill? I

get the gears for headlight attacks, to Madrid. Let me give him one

suggestion. The best way to stop people avoiding paying inheritance

tax, that tax is to abide by a manifesto commitment and a ball

said. -- abolish it. I would say that we met our manifesto commitment

on a heritage site, which was to exempt the family home. He is right

that would be too simplified, but there is -- painfully into

federations which is when you want simplified, but on the other where

you see a abuse as a terror, you sometimes need to write new taxes in

order to make sure that they cannot begins. -- abuses of care. I think

he is right. With the Prime Minister now answer a question that both he

and Anna Chancellor refused to answer a few years ago? And can he

confirm that they both benefited, personally, from the cut to the top

rate of tax, and on the day that the universal credit cards main

part-timers can be over ?1000 figure wears off, does he think that the

several thousand pound figure and was they both benefited out there?

-- are fair. The information is contained in my tax return. And the

House of Commons Library, everybody can look at it. But the key point is

simply produced the top tax from 50 to 45p, would not only raise more

revenue, which is money that we can spend on the public services that

she supports, but also the richest 1% and our country are paying a

higher overall percentage of income taxed at 27%. But my right

honourable friend clarify again that kind of millions of our fellow

citizens benefit from tax exempt investments and that most pages

games do not pay tax on that investment income, which directly

benefits hard-working people, saving for and receiving pensions? He is

right about that. But I would also reinforce the point that millions of

our fellow citizens own shares and many people choose to make the

investments that do get a trust, to a safe form of investment because

they share the risk. Many of those unit trust are listed in other

countries, and many of them now in Dublin. They are sent up there at

night to avoid tax, but to make sure that the revenues of return to the

trust holder and then pay tax. That is the key point. Does he accept

that the revelations last week that he personally intervened and 2013 to

water down the effects of eg transparency rules of the trust that

the -- damage his inevitable try himself as some sort of a champion

and what he not commit to fully support eg transparency rules,

including country by country reporting by corporations, showing

exactly how much profit they make and wear? There were no EU

proposals, the whole thing was based on a British proposal, a British

initiative, to encourage all countries to have registered the

beneficial ownership. The EU then joined and by suggesting extending

to the trust, and we point out that if that happened, no one would pick

up this proposal because trust is set up for all sorts of victim. The

care of a disabled child, where support for a local school. Any

number of things, perfectly reasonable under English common law,

and the advice I had was that if we want for this proposal of going for

beneficial ownership of companies and trust, the move that we have

made that has happened to change the world and of the guard, would have

failed. Would he encourage the Leader of the Opposition too write

to him, to set out in detail the allegations he makes against him.

I'd advocate a lot or with both the top. Having listened carefully to

the Leader of the Opposition, I felt highly to comprehend what it is that

he is going on about. -- I failed to cover him. I'm glad to see my friend

Center for the overseas territories. You know that they can regularly --

the Attorney General had a lot of dealings with him. And encouraging

them to chant it just principles. They show themselves to be properly

responsive to those representations. And they also agreed that the

overseas territories are entitled to provide financial services, and not

to beat them for trying to ensure the well-being of their own

citizens. He is right. But we have tried to do with the overseas

territories is that there is a perfectly legitimate business of

providing financial services, but they, like us, should be doing it on

the basis of a high standards, not low standards. I think that in the

argument that they now accept and I can out and we should thank him for

it. As for the first half, I listen to the demo, and I'm not -- I'm not

sure how to read it again in letter. You can be forgiven for believing

that the only virtue is just fancy, but privacy and inequality above

important virtues that we value. -- and equality. That is the promised

and agreed that given the many thousands of the painting formers,

policy farmers and decision-makers in the country a publicly, the

private companies effort to set an principle, it should be the public

finance, publisher of fantasy. Who is paid but, by the taxpayers. Flag

it with the first half of this question. That is a value and

privacy and data slapping would have had this balance between what is

disclosed and was not disclosed. -- have this balance. I has issued

about a private service companies, the Chancellor had said something in

the budget. That's on his issue. There is a case in making sure that

people declare these arrangements in the proper way. The changes the

Chancellor has spoken about will make sure that whether someone

chooses to have a private sales company or chooses to be

self-employed, the amount of tax rebate will be much more similar.

That's the tax they pay. I'll come to prominence a public announcement

there will be a new, no offence applied to corporations who fail to

prevent the representatives from commonly facilitated tax abatement.

That reflects the value to prevent bribery offences. -- tax abatement.

There are nearly 40 begin other economic crimes, which are listed in

the crime axle 2013. Well my friend had discussions with the Ministry of

Justice and Law officers to measure we can add the tax offences that he

was referred to, but those other economic crimes so that they can be

dealt with under the failure to prevent system? He has a lot of

expertise and I think the point he's making that we have to sure as we

set out economic crimes we measured the properly publicise and

understood and then properly prosecuted. We need to make sure the

National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office work together

to integrate that he was keen when he was doing the job. The Prime

Minister says that he is leading international efforts to cut down on

tax evasion. So could he properly explained why he broke to the then

European Council President -- and the boat, and ask him to what about

the EU trade principles by trading trust differently than companies?

And anti-money-laundering gloss, despite warnings that such a move

could create the polls for tax dodges? -- loopholes for tax. I've

answered this question several times. We were keen to get progress

on the beneficial ownership of companies. If we had a set of

proposals to include trust, that would have gotten completely bogged

down and would have made nearly the progress that we have where we have

every G7 country, Thomas G20 country signing up to have action plans on

beneficial ownership of companies. If you do that which is, my advice

would the holding would have slowed down to a trickle.

As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly clear that neither the

Prime Minister nor his father, for that matter, have done anything

wrong at all. Any statement he said that we must defend the right of

every British citizen to make money lawfully. I agree with that

wholeheartedly. It is slightly of variant to this description of

people who have done that, as Morley apartment. Can the Prime Minister

give us a promise that he will uphold the rule of law and not

question him about the people who act lawfully with regard to their

tax arrangements. I am grateful for his support. I agree with what he

says. He is completely right. The rule of law is what matters overall.

The simple point that I have often made, and will continue to make, is

that of course, it is tax edition that is illegal. Not tax avoidance.

Or into other perfectly legitimate ways of planning for the future in

their family and all the best of it. I would say, what we have seen and

sometimes it's oppressive measures, I mention some of them in my

statement. People putting properties and envelopes, rather than paying

stamp duties. It is difficult for the government to catch up quickly

enough with the huge changes that are taking place. I think that a bit

of leeway is necessary, but it is right. It is different that what

matters. Does the Prime Minister Brill is that there is a difference

between the vast majority of our constituents who pay their tax in

the usual way, and very rich people who use tax havens for obvious

reasons? That is by the accusation is made. Of course there is bad

practice that takes place, not least in some of these jurisdictions that

needs to be dealt with. That is what the tax transparency and sharing of

information is about. The other thing to recognise that happened

last week the ?11,000 personal allowance came in, so people could

earn ?11,000 before they pay any income tax at all. That completed

our work of taking 4 million of the lowest paid people in our country

out of income tax altogether. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has paid

his taxes and behave perfectly properly. Can I commend him for

standing up to those who thought to be smart of his father's reputation.

Can he remind us how much extra money is coming into the exchequer

as a result of his government's closing down the loopholes that were

set up under 13 years of Labour government? We have raised an extra

12 billion and the last Parliament. We want to raise another 16 billion

and this Parliament, stretching up to 2021. Also, by having a lower

rate of corporation tax, we have seen more corporation tax come in.

Low tax rates, but taxes that people paid. We have heard that the rule of

law is paramount. The government controls what is legal. And what is

illegal and tax law. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the ball

will make offshore tax dodging in all its form illegal? -- the law.

Eve eating tax is already illegal whether you are doing it in the UK

or somewhere else. -- elevating. If they were admitting tax. We

should not use that to say that it is wrong for people or trade unions

or companies or pension schemes to invest in trusts listed in other

countries as that is a legal way of investing. Can I congratulate my

right honourable friend for bringing the transparency to the office of

Prime Minister by publishing his own tax return? Can he say whether he

had any thoughts about whether they should be extended to prime

ministers many of whom still receive public money. I would be very

interested in seeing be tax-deferred of Tony Blair. I would say that I am

not claiming some perfect record, but on the coming Prime Minister I

have cut the Prime Minister's kbyte 5%. I rejected the Prime Minister's

tax allowance of ?20,000 a year. I reform the Prime Minister's pension.

It is contributory for the first time. As Mr Speaker knows they have

given up their state pension that gives you half your salary in

perpetuity. I did it. All of those steps have been taken, which I think

they are the right thing to do. Thank you Mr Speaker. Will the

Chancellor of the Exchequer be clarifying the tax situation of his

family company which he holds a in, but has paid no UK corporation tax

in seven years? What I would say is that the Chancellor's family firm is

exactly the sort of manufacturing small firm we want to encourage our

country. For many years I gather that they have not been making a

profit, but I am glad that the company is doing well and are now

paying a dividend. That is a bishop should welcome. It's tax matters are

a matter between the company and the Inland Revenue. That is the way that

it should be. I would like to join members on the side of the House and

welcoming the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon. I would

like to ask when he meets with world leaders in London this May, for the

global anti-corruption summits, what will he pass them to agree actions

to expose corruption wherever it exists? I think that it is good beer

having the summit. I am writing in a document that will be released

before the summit, and no country or politicians can claim that they have

a perfect an unblemished record in this regard. All countries are

battling against these problems as we did in this House of Commons. I

want to encourage people and the Prime Minister of Afghanistan is

contributed, the president of Nigeria is contributing, they are

admitting that their countries are rife with corruption, but it needs

to be dealt with. The problem is that if nobody steps up and talks

about these issues and sets out an action plan, nothing will get done.

At the last count, 30 6000, 364 properties in London were owned by

offshore companies. That is one in ten of one London borough, and 7% of

another London Borough. We should know who owns those properties. Many

believe that it is dirty money from countries like Russia and the Middle

East. Driving up costs 50% increases, what is the Prime

Minister are going to do about dirty money propping up the London

property market? The first thing that we have already done is to say

that if a property is owned by a company, a so called them to look

structure, so you can't get to the name of the person that owns that

property, they have to pay an annual stamp duty charge of something like

15%. This has been a massive money raiser to spend on public services.

In a huge disincentive for this sort of behaviour. I want to go further,

we need to have more information about who owns what in our country.

Can I think the Prime Minister for his very clear statement. This

afternoon I received a furious e-mail from a man in my constituency

who said that he watched Sky News yesterday. He is so shocked that the

Scott Philipp Shadow Chancellor deliberately misled viewers and that

his... For a Shadow Chancellor to be so blatantly misleading is not

acceptable. I am quoting here. The Marxist's moron was not an excuse.

The Prime Minister cannot have paid inheritance tax even if you wish to

as taxes leveled on these... Order, order! This is all very well, but is

nothing to do with the responsibility of the Prime

Minister. Order, order! Don't argue with the chair. The Prime Minister

is not responsible for what the Shadow Chancellor has said. I do say

that to the honourable Lady kindly. But with some authority in these

matters, believe me. No one in this house should have to feel family

members are being attacked unfairly. And not, the Prime Minister is

absolutely correct. Can I tell him that it is not clear to me what he

believes about holding shares in offshore trust and tax havens. Does

he think that it is perfectly OK, and which is why was his clothing

them be a conflict of interest? Does he think that tax havens are eight

problem that needs fixing. And which case why did he have been in the

first place. Let me into this question in full. Do I think that it

is OK to own shares in eight units trust that is registered in another

country whether that is in Dublin, or in Guernsey. Guess I do. That is

why trade unions hold the shares. Pension funds. Many people in our

countries hold unitrust. Here is the key point. The units trust does not

exist to make money for itself. It makes money for the unit holders. If

the unit holders used in Britain they pay British income tax and all

of the wrecks. That is why these arrangements have been in place for

many years. No Labour or policy review has ever thought of getting

rid of them. That is my answer to her first question. Why if I thought

that there was nothing wrong with that that I sell my shares because

there might be a conflict of interest? I sold shares in every

company that I own because I thought that there were two back options,

you can put things into a blind trust, a very good way to go about

it, but I thought that even simpler and more straightforward was to sell

everything. Then I was not own any shares of any of the companies that

I previously had a shareholding and poop or have deep that had dealing

with the government. There was no for the Prime Minister confirm that

the only a regular thing about the summary of his tax return is the

fact that he voluntarily took the tax allowance something that was

enjoyed by many of his predecessors including those opposite. Instead,

he rightly focused on increasing the personal allowance so that many of

low income earners could appoint paying tax altogether when he

pledged to continue that policy. I am grateful to give him that

reassurance. We have the target in our manifesto. We want to meet that

target. I think that what I did as a Prime Minister was the right thing,

not least because as it says in the information from a tax return, there

is support for me and my wife from the Conservative Party in terms of

some of the costs and issues of travel and other things you have to

deal with as the leader of a party. Whether that was a better way of

doing it. Party money, not taxpayer money, on which they text charge. Is

it the right thing to do to be claiming expenses to live in a great

delete make an apartment, but making a big profit out of it. I am baffled

by the honourable Bolton summoned. With all of the information

necessary. He has not yet made a complaint. I hope that he is going

to find the time later on and do what he said he was going to do. The

point, I think that he has misunderstood. I am very likely to

live in number ten Downing treat. Precisely number 1011 and 12. I

received a benefit in kind. Because of that benefit, I pay a tax in that

benefit in kind. There is not a subsidy that I am getting. It is a

benefit that I am very grateful for, and I get the tax man money in

respect of it. May I tell the Prime Minister that he should not be a

shame that he has a good fortune to be born into a well-off family. He

has nothing to be ashamed about. Make a tiled the Prime Minister that

it is not a sin for his parents, quite naturally, to want their

savings to be cascaded down to the generations. He has nothing to be

ashamed of. Can I warn my right honourable friend, no matter how

much information he wants to the voltage, nothing will satisfy some

of those people on the Labour front bench. I am grateful for my friend

says. I think that there is a point of which were you have to say I

published the information that I think is relevant. I came back over

the last six years. That is the limit of what I'm going to release.

Some people said, well what about your wife's tax returns or your

mother's financial affairs. I think that there comes a time or we should

say we have a register of member's Angers, Prime Minister, chances,

opposition... We should rely on their interested release the rest of

our affairs. Given that more of the half of the companies in the Panama

Papers are registered in the UK, does the Prime Minister regret

telling this house in 2013I don't think that it is there any longer to

refer to any of the overseas territories as tax havens. Can he

try to rebuild some of the public trust that he has lost in the last

week by making sure that in terms of publishing information, the Crown

dependencies and overseas territories do you follow the UK's

examples and will be taking concrete action, ... We got the Crown

dependencies and overseas territories for the first time to

share automatically tax information but the United Kingdom government.

That is something that did not happen under the last Labour

government, something that we did a cheap and it was a different

approach. Now he is right we want to go further. The announcement today,

but they will give us access to their information about ownership.

Just so he knows how different things were under the last

government, the then financial Secretary of the Treasury, in

response to questions about the overseas territories said this,...

Is essentially a matter for the Crown dependencies themselves. He

was saying it is nothing to do with me. It is up to them. That is the

government that we replace, and we took a different approach. We made a

lot of progress. Forgive my lack of voice. I understand the Prime

Minister's is due to protect his father. His father did nothing wrong

whatsoever. The Prime Minister inch and a long and thoughtful debate,

can I'd say that when... That there are no more knee jerk reactions and

that's a debate is given it to everybody else. Thank you for your

support. He makes the point that we should try to make decisions about

these things calmly and rationally after debate. I felt that after all

of the questions that I was being asked, the right thing to do with

publicist information. I cannot be cleared today that that I don't want

to see this as a president. I think that we should be... But taxpayer

confidentiality. Some other countries do have complete

publication of all tax information. That is not our way. We have... It

speaking as a low achiever, the biggest and multinational company

earned more income in a single week in the combined income of all and

piece together. The Prime Minister had become a transparency before,

and that is why many of us want to make sure that the country by

country information that multinationals will be obliged to

provide to HMRC should be put in a public domain. Or he or a menace to

meet with myself and other members of the committee to discuss this

proposal? I have always thought of the honourable Lady is a high

achiever. She'd certainly put the boot into my predecessor. The point

about the country to country reporting, is what we are trying to

achieve as I said in my statement, is a common reporting standards

about companies purport to tax authorities in the same way, and

then the sharing of that information so that you can see if company a is

paying a certain amount of tax in one jurisdiction and one in another.

I think that at the moment is the most powerful way of achieving what

we want to achieve. There are those that say we need to go even further

and public declarations of tax. That is an interesting argument. Let's

not make the Gilly that the enemy of the good. I want to say that

completed. Does my right honourable friend agree that any course of

action designed to reduce tax which does not constitute tax evasion must

by definition be legal, even if some may regard it as a corrective tax

avoidance. It is up to this Parliament to legislate to make such

courses of action legal? Where there is aggressive avoidance taken place

it is against the spirit of the law. Then Parliament should act. As I

said many times, that is what the Chancellor has done and what HMRC

advises us about. I think that there sometimes are a for the tax

avoidance is so aggressive that it is right to warn those taking a a

bit that legislation will follow in that office happens also. He arrives

the tax arrangements discussed today as standard. Will he be issuing

guidance, perhaps in the form of a leaflet to every UK household, so

ordinary taxpayers can find out how they can benefit from offshore tax

havens? The point is that there are many people and our country, over 12

million shareholders, many hold shares in unit trusts. They don't

need any information from me. If you are a UK resident, you must pay UK

income and capital gains taxes as in any organisation. I would not

recommend doing this, but reading back Hansard over the last 13 years

of the label government, I cannot find a single occasion of which the

Member for Islington North raised any of these issues. The closest he

came with the Labour government's decision to use order in Council to

take control of the Turks and Caicos islands as undemocratic. Which he

now says is... I am interested to see the right honourable gentleman

conducted a U-turn. He has recently suggested taking control of these

territories. I cannot see a use for the nuclear submarines as they head

off towards the title of man -- Isle of man. . Much more sensible to get

them to do the things that they ought to be doing. Life does the

Prime Minister think so many companies are registered

independents Gilly Panama in the first place? Why not London or New

York? The reason why a lot of units trust order in different countries

is because they want to be able to market their services not just to UK

residents who pay UK taxes, but to other people. That is why if you

look at the revenue in the way that they arrange it, they actually want

to make sure that UK funds managers can be involved and pay their taxes

here in the UK and begin building investment industry that this

country can be proud of. Can I think my right honourable friend for his

open and frank statement today. I think that he has exonerated

himself. Can he confirm under HMRC rules that the supporting

information has been... Should he be defined? -- be fine. It is

disappointing that we got it at 345I think that when I was on my feet.

Matters for fines of late production of tax returns, I think that is a

matter for the HMRC. 2013 best man was found guilty of an egregious --

this man, ... And for taking ?10,000 a month as a payment for lobbying

for the Cayman Islands. He had no punishment from his party and was

allowed to get away with it with a brief apology to the House of Lords.

With the Prime Minister tell us that it's an future if any

parliamentarian in his party uses his privileged position and

prostitutes it in order to make private gain, he will act ended up

doing back discipline them? We have rules in this house for the

declaration a member's interest. We have a policeman, as it were, in

terms of making sure it they are properly carried out. We also have a

punishment, including expulsion for Miss declarations and this

behaviour. I am not as the money or -- I am not as familiar. While the

conversations around Panama are interesting to the front bench lead

back bench and the opposition, actually benefit from inheritance

tax. , does my friend agreed with me that the time is now to further

reform inheritance tax to help more people, mainly my age, get on the

property ladder? There is a role for making sure that people can pass on

the family home exempt from inheritance tax. That is why we set

out the steps during this Parliament to make sure that that can happen.

That's completely set out at our manifesto. I think the public would

be taken to TB Prime Minister at word. Had the Prime Minister not

appointed this man... Can they say what sorts of money he

got to pay this man and does someone with those views through late-night

along in the HMRC. The report that was in the paper points out he had a

commercial career at Simmons and Simmons, one of the most respected

legal practices that there is. It is a good thing that we can attract

people from private practice into the Revenue and Customs to make sure

that we collect all the money that we should. Can the Prime Minister

assured the House that in the future, any changes to the taxation

will do nothing to diminish the aspiration of working families so

that those families who want to do the right thing and provide for

their future, save for their retirement, and pass onto their

children, can continue to do that? I think my friend is absolutely right.

If you look at our reforms to inheritance tax and pensions,

enabling people to take and spend more of their money as they choose,

they are also able to pass it onto their children and to help with

those key purchases. First come, first car, helping young people with

there. All of those cascades down the generations and helping people

to do that as a part of our goal. The Prime Minister's announcement

that people will be criminalised if they assist with tax evasion,

particularly as it was announced by the Secretary of the transitive

delete put Ford in Coalition to see if they

can also play a significant role in dealing with a really difficult

issue of tax evasion? It is true that the Coalition Government

achieved a lot in this area. It was led by myself but the second Lord of

the Treasury in terms of driving that agenda. Particularly at the G8

in the G20, but at the G20, but Abby Fulp Philip at that point we had the

full support. I listen carefully to the words of the Leader of the

Opposition. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the reader of

this opposition seem to forget or possibly what seemed unaware of the

aspiration that determination and prospect of finance reward were

ingredients of the strong economy that behalf which lead to jobs and

for many. Does my right honourable friend agreed that we should condemn

these politics of envy, and will he stick to the politics of opportunity

and aspiration? My honourable friend is absolutely right. What we want is

a society would be set low tax rates and encourage people to make the

best of themselves and for their families. That will build not only a

strong economy, but a shocker society. -- stronger society. The

Prime Minister referred to his anti-corruption Summit. Can he tell

us which countries are going to be represented there and will and

imitation be extended to either president Putin or some of his

corrupt cronies that fund the propaganda channel to explain the 2

billion dollars held in Panama by that corrupt regime? He has been

restored to rude health. I welcomed him earlier and I know that the

Prime Minister will welcome him. I'm glad to see him back in his summa

your place. The guest list is still being worked on for the correction

Summit. The point is this. We will be asking people on the basis that

that they were in perfect countries or governments, but are they going

to commit to public declarations of things like open that official

ownership registration, sharing tax information, making sure that when

assets are alluded that we can confiscate them and restore them to

the people who they belong to. If countries want to sign up for that,

however much their record in the past may have been imperfect, you

will be encouraging them to come and do just that. My mother spent 32

working at a factory. Like the Prime Minister's mother she lost things.

Can I say how hurtful those remarks must have been to the Prime Minister

over the last few days? Can be Prime Minister tell the House what message

they want to send to the millions of people and all of our constituencies

who want to do the right thing by the next generation?

I am grateful, and I am sure my mother will be too. She says she is

developing a thicker skin with every week. He is right that many people

want to pass wealth and assets, help their children in all of the ways

that they can. That is not something we should be ashamed of, but we

should actively encourage it. It would help build a stronger society

in our country. The prime minister acknowledged that under current

legislation is difficult to prosecute countries to assist with

tax evasion. I, and many others would add fraud and corruption to

that list to. The government promised in a manifesto to extend

corporate offences to deal with all economic crime, not just tax

evasion. Would the Prime Minister committed today to urgently review

the legislation to extend the offence that would incorporate fraud

and corruption to? She makes an interesting suggestion, and I will

look at it carefully. We announced a proposal and identified an

opportunity in a future bill -- inclusion in the future bill. I

think she is arguing for an extension of the offences, so that

they can be used in the same way and I will look carefully. We have had a

full exchange, and we must move on to the second statement. The

secretary of state for business innovation and skills. Thank you Mr

Speaker. I would make a statement on Britain's steel industry. We are

familiar with the perfect storm that has led to the global still collapse

in 2015. For all of the economic challenges, this is a huge one. Over

the past 11 months I have visited steel communities all over the UK.

There are different plans in different faces, but there is one

thing that unites them. The pride, and the dedication of the highly

skilled people that I meet. All they want is to carry on doing what they

do so well. I am doing everything I can to help them do just that. Mr

Speaker, I will talk first about Port Talbot. It's becoming secretary

of state for business I have been in frequent contact with the senior

management of Tata. This includes several meetings last year and this

year. Several weeks ago, Tata told me, and confident, they were

considering immediate closure of port Talbot. I would have meant

thousands of workers would have been out of a job and thousands more

would have been facing a bleak future. I was not prepared to let

that happen. Any days that followed I worked relentlessly... . Order!

The statement must be heard. The record shows that the chair

facilitates a very full and thorough interrogation. The secretary of

state will expect nothing less, but he needs the courtesy of being hurt.

Thank you. I worked relentlessly to convince Tata that it was within

everyone's interest to keep the factory open. I was told they were

open to that process. That has paid off. They announced their intent to

sell off their planned rather than to close it. Since then I have made

with executives here, and in Mumbai. I have been joined by the business

minister and our member from Wales. We have been assured Tata will be a

responsible seller and find a buyer. The formal process begins today. I

have been in contact with potential buyers, making clear that the

government stands ready to help. This includes looking at the

possibility of how investing with a buyer on commercial terms. We have

appointed you why on behalf of the government. -- EY. I cannot divulge

ongoing discussions, I will update the house when appropriate. I would

take this opportunity to thank the first Minister of Wales for all of

his hard work, because his support in all of these works has been

invaluable. I will turn to tarmac's one product division. There has been

an additional agreement with Tata. They protect jobs, and minimizes

costs to taxpayers. We have been closely involved in the sales

process from day one, including making a commercial offer on

financing if possible. We will continue to work with them to make

sure that this gets done. Moving on to Scotland. Friday, we sought

liberty house receive the keys to to Tata Mills. It is a great result for

the people of Scotland. The Scottish government deserves applause. The

steel industry is still a long way from its peak, from its pre-crisis

deep. Our support continues. The steel Council, which has been

meeting has worked toward solutions. We have worked with unions. I would

like to thank the community for its positive and constructive approach.

We had taken on power. ?76 million has been paid to steel makers to

compensate for bills, and we expect to pay more than ?100 million this

year. We have acted on procurement. New rules make it easier for public

to buy British. We are leading calls in the EU against unfair trading

practices. We favoured anti-dumping measures in our votes last year. We

voted in favour of measures on rebar and coal products in February of

this year. These measures are having a real effect, with regard down 99%.

We are still looking at ways to improve the EU tax mechanism to help

the steel industry without harming other sectors. Let me be clear on

this. We have, repeatedly, donated, and voted on tariffs for unfair

Chinese steel, and we will continue to do so. Mr Speaker, I would love

to stand here and declare the crisis is over, to say that not one more

jobs will be lost in the steel industry. That is not a promise that

I can make. But, I can promise that this government has consistently

done all that we can to support Britain's steel industry, and we

will continue to do so. We know, Mr Speaker, there are no easy answers.

Too many jobs have been lost. Where that has happened we have worked to

ensure no one is left behind. The committed ?80 million to help those

affected by the closure. We stand ready to help you back industry

where it is facing redundancies. Britain's steel industry is a vital

part of our economy. I want to secure its long-term future, to see

made in Britain stand in steel used around the world, and I want to

protect the jobs of the workers who worked in the industry. The people

of Port Talbot, Scunthorpe, and of their one industries around the

country. I commit this to the house. Can I thank the secretary of state

for his statement. Can I also welcome the good news on the sale of

the lung products division, Scunthorpe, after nine months of

negotiation. I know the business secretary claims it as a business

success -- government success. The actual factory said they need help

from the government, but it was not forthcoming. This has turned into an

existential crisis. This government and this secretary have been found

wanting. When I met workers on the 18th of March I noticed the mood was

darkening and they were looking forward to the meeting in Mumbai. My

friend was so concerned that he flew to Mumbai with the secretary of the

community you need to meet directly with Tata. Where was the business

secretary? Was he fighting tooth and nail to ensure a UK foundation

industry? Mr Speaker, he is not -- was not. He was on his way to

Australia to fulfil pleasant engagements down under and leaving

his junior minister to take the flak back home. It is this incompetence,

this in action which has characterised his response to this

crisis from the beginning. He has claimed he was caught unaware by

Tata's decision to sell its entire operations, putting at risk of

40,000 jobs. A week, on the side of the house, had been a morning there

was a gathering of urgency, and that it was coming to a head. Labour MPs

have raised this issue more than 200 times since the election a year ago

and we have been brushed off with warm words and no action, month

after month. The business secretary's indifference to storage

steel making and red car, an action that will not be forgiven in the

Northeast for a very long time. The government has been the -- accused

of plundering by their own backbenchers. -- foundering. Since

you steel crisis made the front pages -- we have an ideological

disengagement policy because of their dogma. This could be an

existential moment for the whole of the UK manufacturing base, but Mr

Speaker, I welcome the long overdue admission from this government that

it is their duty to help find a place for steel making. I hope it is

not too little too late. He is simply telling it because he has

overcome his ideological tastes, and if so, I say, we say, about time.

Given that the Scunthorpe deal took nine months, can you tell us how

long Tata are planning to keep the plant operational until the deal,

and can he assure us that any sale is an integrated operation? Does the

secretary of state agree with me that for jobs to retained in the

industry, it is crucial that the UK retains the capacity to make as well

as recycle and remake the steel. Waxing will he take to ensure the

blast furnace is kept? What support is the government willing to make

available to secure a sale to a responsible owner? If he hasn't

already done so, will the secretary of state undertake Emma today, all

of the customer base and to reassure them that he plans have a viable

future. They will remain open for business so that they can be

confident about placing orders. But will the government's Plan B for

still making? The business secretary has ruled out temporary

nationalization, but his junior minister has not. Which is it? On

the dumping of Chinese steel, with the secretary of state rethinks his

action on the duty rule light of the tariffs that the Chinese have

provocatively imposed on special speciality steel. On procurement,

British steel industry was made the priority. With 178 billion

commitment to equipment over the next ten years, will the government

change this to support the British steel industry was

I am ashamed that she has taken this attitude. Instead of working

together, Mr Speaker, she seems interested in cheap, political

shots. The process, rather than the substance. I suggest she learns from

her friend, the first Minister of Wales, who has been nothing but

constructive and positive in his approach. The lady talks about

Labour's long-running concern for the steel industry. Let us. During

Labour's last term in office between 97 - 2010, 40,000 jobs were lost in

the British steel industry. Output was more than halved. During those

years, the lady herself mentioned the word actor won twice in the

House of Commons. The current Leader of the Opposition mentioned the word

still not once during that period. And, Mr Speaker, she talks about her

long-running concern. In the last Parliament, the then Leader of the

Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and shadow business secretary, how

many times did they mention steel? Not once. Not once, in five years.

To the right honourable Lady I say she and the sheep, political shots

and worked constructively with this government and the hard-working

people in this industry deserve nothing less. The lady talks about

industrial strategy. We have dozens of councils. We set up the good

counsel. We are not interested in picking winners we are interested in

doing what works. Not ideologically, but what works. Manufacturing is up,

employment is up. Our auto industry and aerospace industry are having at

their best years ever. May I suggest that she spends less time on whether

this score is a strategy and spend more time on celebrating the

stunning success of British industry? Now, she asked about the

actions that we have taken so far. Action on energy costs, compensation

for energy intensive industries which will now be moving to a policy

of exemption. We have changed procurement policies applying to all

parts of the public sector. We have also taken action on unfair trading,

something she asked for. There are 37 measures in place with 16

concerning China. What we are interested in our measures that

actually work. If you look in the design regard, Chinese emperor is

down 99%. Wire rod, down 90%. Interested in what works, we will be

given by the evidence. The evidence is here that, so far, the EU

policies work. We wanted to to work faster, but we are not interested in

rewriting the rule book for trade. We are interested in action for

steel. If she gives suggestions for steel, I will listen. She also

talked about timing in relation to the Tata sale. These discussions we

have had with Tata. The key discussion took place in Mumbai,

where Tata has said, while they do not have an unlimited amount of

time, something we understand, then upping the down a set time frame.

They will assure that there is a reasonable amount of time to find a

buyer. Today more information will be released on the sales process. I

believe it will reflect that. She asked about government support to

secure sales. We have been working on this for weeks. The decision by

Tata was sensitive so we cannot discuss earlier. There are a number

of areas the government is looking at concerning power supply,

pensions, and infrastructure. In doing so, we will work with unions,

trustees, the pension plan and the Welsh Government in coming forward

with the best offer civil. She also asked about -- best offer possible.

We are very clear that the best way forward for any steel operator, if

you look at the best operators in the world, they are privately run

and nationalization is really the answer. We are working to fight a

commercial buyer to ensure the long-term future of our Talbot and

all of the other parts of Tata. As I have said, Mr Speaker, steel is a

vital industry for the UK. It is important for our economic and

national security, and I don't want to live in a country that relies on

importing steel. We will do everything we can to assure its

future. The workers in the steel industry deserve nothing less. Does

he agree that Tata is an excellent company who have succeeded in making

access as of Land Rover, turning into one of the finest car

companies. It was a nationalised industry, and the fact that they

cannot make a goal of British steel reveals the problems that he is

facing. Would he also continued to reject the simplistic solutions on

offer, like turf wars on China, regardless of whether it is dumping.

Subsidy accommodation with Italy in breach of EU rules we have always

insisted on, or nationalization on the basis that we carry on paying

for the losses and poured billions of pounds any taxpayer's expense

until something changes. If the changes. As we all want to see news

in Port Talbot as we have seen in Scunthorpe, will he work for a

sensible investor who understands steel as a proper business plan, and

you can give a credible future for the best products for this business

which, no doubt, could have a Bright future with the right plan. I agree

wholeheartedly. He speaks with experience. First of all, Tata,

beyond skill had shown responsibility investing in this

country. What I found with their workforce, unions and others at Port

Talbot and others with the Tata group is that they have nothing but

good things to say about Tata about their values. I agree with his

remarks about terrorists and being careful. I also agree with

nationalization. It has to be commercial, that is how the best

companies are run and how we want British companies run. I thank him

for his statement. I will commit the news that Tata has confirmed a buyer

for its operations in Scunthorpe. This will be good news and I hope

the same can be found for Port Talbot and other sites. There are

concerns about possible erosions of worker conditions, but let's be

clear. This has happened in spite of this government's shameful approach

to this crisis. Doing as little as possible and as little as if I could

get away with. The business secretary was at the other side of

the world. A perfect metaphor and personification for the Tory

approach to be steel industry. In a stark contrast to the way the

Scottish Government approached the crisis facing the Scottish plants.

Nicholas Sturgeon said no stone would be unturned to send a crucial

industry, and that is what happened. I welcome that the business

secretary amended those efforts. We, on the benches stand in solidarity.

-- commented. Imagine what could've been achieved,

Mr Speaker, had a minister spent the last year three in Europe pressing

for action on steel as opposed to visit EU referendum gamble.

If you have done the work she has claim she has, he has nothing to

hide. It may well repair his tarnished reputation. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. As I said in my statement, I commend the Scottish Government on

the two mills in Scotland. I hope that he recognises the scale of the

problem of the UK is a larger, and you can find it within himself to

appreciate the challenge of the industry in the UK. I think he is

wrong to suggest that the government has not already taken action in

regards to helping the industry. I mentioned a number of things. Energy

prices are making a big difference, our action on procurement is also

making a difference. Then I urge him, at this point, to work with his

colleague in Edinburgh to see if they can change their procurement

rules to help not just common, but the UK. Or will he look at finding a

long-term, cheap energy solution for Port Talbot. That is crucial, and

what restraints are the EU clicking on helping the steel industry? He

speaks with experience, and he is ready to identify that energy is an

issue. I don't think that the constraints are, really coming from

the EU. We have demonstrated that there is action that we can take but

there is more that we can do. My friend has good ideas, and I look

forward to discussing them. To secure a long-term future the focus,

surely, needs to be on developing mainstream comics for sectors

collaborating with customers with innovative design. How will the

secretary of state ensure that downstream capability is maintained

while at potential buyer is found? In his response to the shadow

business secretary, he mentions sector groups. What has he

facilitated with the sector groups, like the automotive counsel or oil

gas and offshore wind councils to ensure closer cooperation to

customers to provide a great future for steel steel? Thank you. And I

thank him on his approach to this, especially to his chairmanship of

the business select committee. He is right to point out other parts of

the downstream steel of business. That is where the high value product

is. One thing Tata have made clear in approach to this sale is they

will not cherry pick. They know the downstream process is important to

potential buyers. They will make sure a potential buyer can buy the

whole group, an important commitment we have managed to secure. The

long-established councils that cover many different sectors, the

automotive and the aerospace sectors, both used steel from the

UK. We work them -- work with them to maintain the supply chain

implementing steel products from the UK. Is the best support a long-term

vision supporting long-term, quality sale and an attractive government

package? And encourage customers to buy? Thank you. Thank you. She takes

an interest on this from the select committee. The issue is that none of

us want to be back in this situation years from now. We want to find the

long-term buyer who will invest in the business, and that requires

government support. We are ready to work with that buyer. Before I

start, I would like to pay tribute to the steelworkers in the gallery

today, along with the outstanding general secretary of community

Union. I would also like to join with the secretary of state in

paying tribute. What a contrast to the British Government. Within days

?60 million were put on the table. As someone who is closing the gap.

Order! I said when the secretary of state was speaking that he should be

heard with courtesy. Order! The same goes for the honourable gentleman.

It is not appropriate for people to yell, shame! And honourable member

who is putting a legitimate question. Learn! The Welsh

government put millions of pounds on the table, I hope the UK government

will to. He asked for focus suggestions, here are three.

Firstly, what is the government doing to secure the customer base?

Honda, Land Rover? I hope that the secretary of state is picking up the

phone to them and insuring that we maintain the integrity of the

industry. Secondly, on the blast furnaces. Does the Secretary of

State believe that the blast furnaces in a Port Talbot should

continue as an integral part of the UK steel making industry? Thirdly,

could he explain why the British Government detainees to block the

scrapping of the best duty rule? -- continues to block? We are

repeatedly told that by scrapping the lesser duty rule the intake of

being measure would have a real teeth to deal with Chinese steel

being dumped? Within the UK government rather cosy up to

Beijing, rather than work with UK steel workers? First of all, can I

say to the honourable gentleman that is a very difficult situation for

his constituents. I am working with them and stand ready to work in any

way I can to help them and to listen to what he has got to say. The

meeting I have had with him has been useful, but I look forward to more

as we jointly try to help the situation. He asked three questions.

I think one of the most important things that we can do and that we

are doing is to revive confidence that we can help to find and secure

long-term interest in the steel works. That is what the customer

base will want to know. We are in touch with many of them. I talked

about the auto and aerospace industry, but providing confidence

will be reassuring. He asked about the blast furnaces. The blast

furnaces, which I went to see myself in action last week are hugely

important. I don't think I am in a position to say exactly what the

structure of the business should be going forward. I think that we will

work with all parties to make sure that we can secure as many jobs as

possible, and make sure that steel making a continues. Lastly, he asked

about the lesser duty rule. I will point out that it has been

long-standing. The previous Labour government and this government have

made sure that it gets the right balance in terms of the industry and

consumer. The last British are presented is sent to Brussels,

appointed by Labour, supported that rule. I am interested in what works

to help the industry. But we have seen is with tariffs imposed, they

work. It leads to massive reductions in Chinese imports.

That the's front bench interest in steel production is a new

phenomenon. The last phenomenon mentions steel... Given the recent

grandstanding does my right honourable friend agreed with me

that this contributes absolutely nothing. In assisting the many Tata

Port Talbot steelworkers who live in my constituency? My honourable

friend, first of all I am pleased that we are able to talk the last

few days. I agree with what he said, but I would also like to reassure

him that we will work closely with him and other members of this house

to try to bring back confidence to his constituents that we are trying

to do everything we can to help. There is a real danger that the

secretary of state is presenting sometimes the idea that everything

has been done. The fact is that the issue is we still see... On

procurement, the Ministry of Defense is not keeping records of where

they're still comes from. On tariffs, he says that he will do

everything, but he will not take action to scrap the lesser duty

rule. What is he going to change and those industry fundamentals that are

going to prevent us from sin crisis after crisis in the steel industry?

Let me just pick up on one of the issues. He has identified three very