31/10/2017

0:00:00 > 0:00:00the honourable gentleman, with his persistence, will be able to do so.

0:00:00 > 0:00:06I am grateful to the member of Bolsover.If there were no further

0:00:06 > 0:00:12points of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion.Maria Eagle.

0:00:12 > 0:00:20Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly heard your homily about the benefits

0:00:20 > 0:00:24of assistance. And I hope that the coach and bus industry have heard it

0:00:24 > 0:00:29as well. Mr Speaker, I'd beg to move that leave be given to bring in a

0:00:29 > 0:00:38Bill to introduce limits to the edge of tyres on buses and coaches for

0:00:38 > 0:00:41connected purposes. Such a bill would aim to make it unlawful to

0:00:41 > 0:00:46operate a public service vehicle with tyres that exceed the age of

0:00:46 > 0:00:49ten years. It would require the annual MOT to check an accord the

0:00:49 > 0:00:55age of the tyres and give traffic Commissioners powers of enforcement

0:00:55 > 0:01:00to sanction any public service vehicle operators found to be using

0:01:00 > 0:01:06tyres more than ten years old. Mr Speaker, late on the 10th of

0:01:06 > 0:01:13September 2012, just over five years ago my constituents -- constituent

0:01:13 > 0:01:17Francis Molloy lost her 18-year-old son, Michael. He was killed when he

0:01:17 > 0:01:23was returning home as a passenger on a coach from an annual music

0:01:23 > 0:01:29festival on the Isle of Wight. Two others Le Carillon Patton, 23, and

0:01:29 > 0:01:36the coach driver, Colin Dolby, who was 63, also lost their lives.

0:01:36 > 0:01:41Others were seriously injured. Some in life changing ways. The crash was

0:01:41 > 0:01:46caused when the front nearside tyre of the coach burst on the northbound

0:01:46 > 0:01:5183, causing the vehicle to swerve out of control, Mount an embankment,

0:01:51 > 0:01:56and strike a tree. The Surrey coroner Richard Travers were found

0:01:56 > 0:02:04on the 16th of July 2013 that the crash was caused by a 19 and a half

0:02:04 > 0:02:10year old tyre that had recently been fitted to the coach. It had 40% of

0:02:10 > 0:02:17its tread intact and was thus being used entirely lawfully. The coroner

0:02:17 > 0:02:22found, on the basis of the evidence before him, that it had burst

0:02:22 > 0:02:28catastrophically because it had perished by reason of its age. I say

0:02:28 > 0:02:33again Mr Speaker, this tyre was being lawfully used. It had no

0:02:33 > 0:02:39outward sign to show the perilous condition it was in fact in. It was

0:02:39 > 0:02:45older, Mr Speaker, than my 18-year-old constituent. The Surrey

0:02:45 > 0:02:54coroner was so concerned about the fact is he found that he wrote to

0:02:54 > 0:02:58the Secretary of State for Transport under rule 33 to raise a concern by

0:02:58 > 0:03:03which, in his opinion, there is a risk that future deaths that occur

0:03:03 > 0:03:09unless action is taken. He went on to express his concern and, I quote,

0:03:09 > 0:03:13that public service vehicles carrying passengers are able

0:03:13 > 0:03:18perfectly legally to drive on tyres that have no restriction as to their

0:03:18 > 0:03:23age, and which by reason of that age, maybe in a perilously dangerous

0:03:23 > 0:03:27condition, which there is no realistic means of detecting that

0:03:27 > 0:03:32this was not the first such rule 43 letter received by the Secretary of

0:03:32 > 0:03:37State for Transport concerning the dangers of ageing tyres. The

0:03:37 > 0:03:42Gloucester coroner had written, following an inquest he conducted in

0:03:42 > 0:03:48July 2010, concerning the dangers of ageing tyres causing death. Mr

0:03:48 > 0:03:53Speaker, when I discussed all of this with Michael's mother Francis

0:03:53 > 0:03:56Molloy, following being quest verdict at that time, I found it

0:03:56 > 0:04:02hard to believe that the use of such a potentially dangerous old tyre was

0:04:02 > 0:04:07in fact lawful. The fact that it represents a Laguna in our road

0:04:07 > 0:04:11safety legislation, the fact that it was lawful. I quickly became

0:04:11 > 0:04:17convinced that this is a gap which can and should be closed. I'd took

0:04:17 > 0:04:22Francis Molloy and Davis Price, an expert forensic accident

0:04:22 > 0:04:33investigator, who had given evidence

0:04:35 > 0:04:37at Michael's quest, to see the right honourable gentleman for Derbyshire

0:04:37 > 0:04:39Dales, then Transport Secretary, and asked him to ban such potentially

0:04:39 > 0:04:41dangerous old tyres from our roads. It would cost the Government nothing

0:04:41 > 0:04:44to do because the date of manufacture of the tyre is printed

0:04:44 > 0:04:47on the side of the tyre and can be easily checked at an MOT or when

0:04:47 > 0:04:50every vehicle is stopped by the authorities. It is not as if, Mr

0:04:50 > 0:04:54Speaker, one would have to take a sample of the tyre and tested in a

0:04:54 > 0:04:59laboratory. It is printed on the side of the tyre. Such a measure

0:04:59 > 0:05:02would save lives. It removes dangerous old tyres from our roads.

0:05:02 > 0:05:10I believe that had such a measure been in place before this crash, the

0:05:10 > 0:05:12deaths that were caused in that accident could have been prevented.

0:05:12 > 0:05:18I thought then and I think now that the case to do this is compelling.

0:05:18 > 0:05:21It was disappointing then that the Government at the time simply

0:05:21 > 0:05:27produced guidance which, and I quote, strongly recommends that

0:05:27 > 0:05:32tyres over ten years old should not be fitted to the front axles of

0:05:32 > 0:05:36buses and coaches and goes on to say, and again I quote such tyres

0:05:36 > 0:05:43should be fitted only to the rear axles of vehicles as part of a twin

0:05:43 > 0:05:46tyre combination. Whilst this would certainly improve safety, because it

0:05:46 > 0:05:55would perhaps stop the catastrophic nature of the crash that occurred, I

0:05:55 > 0:06:00do not believe, Mr Speaker, this is a clear signal. I had hoped that

0:06:00 > 0:06:02following my representations, the signal the Government sent would be

0:06:02 > 0:06:08much clearer and I believe that my constituents, Francis Molloy, and

0:06:08 > 0:06:15the campaign which she now fronts, would also expect more to be done.

0:06:15 > 0:06:19Making use of such dangerous old tyres unlawful is the only clear

0:06:19 > 0:06:23signal that can be sent that will have the desired effect. Now I say

0:06:23 > 0:06:30this to the Government now, a new minister is now in post. Can we just

0:06:30 > 0:06:38get on and do this? They will find widespread support if they back this

0:06:38 > 0:06:41measure. My constituent, Francesco Laporta, has been campaigning for

0:06:41 > 0:06:49improved tyre safety but nonstop since her son's death. -- Molloy.

0:06:49 > 0:06:53This summer she launched a campaign to ban tyres more than ten years old

0:06:53 > 0:06:58to be fitted to public service vehicles. Merseyside is clearly

0:06:58 > 0:07:03behind the campaign. Liverpool City Council and Mayor Anderson,

0:07:03 > 0:07:08Liverpool city region and Mary Rotherham. Mostly metropolitan

0:07:08 > 0:07:13Borough Council, Sefton much apology Borough Council, will match a poet

0:07:13 > 0:07:18Council, all have passed motions backing this campaign. --

0:07:18 > 0:07:25Metropolitan Borough Council. There had been agreement from operators to

0:07:25 > 0:07:30ban old tyres from all public service vehicles operating on the

0:07:30 > 0:07:36network across Merseyside, across our nation, bus and coach operators

0:07:36 > 0:07:41like National Express and the big Green coach company are signed up.

0:07:41 > 0:07:45Smaller regional operators like city sites Liverpool have come on board.

0:07:45 > 0:07:50More councils and companies will back this effort. This change will

0:07:50 > 0:07:56be made area by area and company by company. But it would be so much

0:07:56 > 0:08:02better if the Government would simply accept that these old tyres

0:08:02 > 0:08:09kill and agreed to ban them by supporting the proposed legislation.

0:08:09 > 0:08:14Mr Speaker, Michael Molloy was a talented and creative young writer

0:08:14 > 0:08:21and musician. Just making his way in that exciting world full of his life

0:08:21 > 0:08:27was full of enjoyment, love, hope and promise will stop his life was

0:08:27 > 0:08:30needlessly cut short, tragically, in a totally avoidable crash. His

0:08:30 > 0:08:37mother is heartbroken. She thought coach travel was a safe form of

0:08:37 > 0:08:42public transport, yet the coach to which she entrusted her son turned

0:08:42 > 0:08:48out to be a death trap because of 19 and a half year old tyre that no one

0:08:48 > 0:08:53could see was going to burst because of the deterioration caused by its

0:08:53 > 0:09:02age. So, let those of us now in this House, take steps to ensure that no

0:09:02 > 0:09:09other family house to ensure what she has had to ensure. Mr Speaker,

0:09:09 > 0:09:15these old tyres kill full let's get them off our coaches and buses.

0:09:15 > 0:09:21Let's get them off our roads. Mr Speaker, I commend this motion to be

0:09:21 > 0:09:26House.Here, here. Order. The honourable member have leave to

0:09:26 > 0:09:32bring in the bill. As many as are in favour say, aye. Of the contrary,

0:09:32 > 0:09:40no. The ayes habit. He will prepare and bringing the bill?Mr George

0:09:40 > 0:09:45Howarth, Mrs Louise Ellman, Luciano Burge, Stephen Twigg, Miss Angela

0:09:45 > 0:09:52Eagle, Alison McGovern, Dan Carden, Bill Esther sent, Miss marry Rimmer,

0:09:52 > 0:10:08Jack dryly and myself, sir. -- Marie Rimmer.Maria Eagle.

0:10:30 > 0:10:37Tyres buses and coaches Bill.Second reading what day?Friday 1st of

0:10:37 > 0:10:42December. Friday 1st of December. Thank you. Order the programme

0:10:42 > 0:10:48motion, the minister or whip to move. Move formally. The question is

0:10:48 > 0:10:53the Finance Bill programme number two motion as on the order paper. As

0:10:53 > 0:10:59many as are of the opinions they aye. Of the contrary, no. The clerk

0:10:59 > 0:11:03will now proceed to read the orders of the day.Finance Bill is amended

0:11:03 > 0:11:09in public bill committee to be considered. In Anow. Aye thank you

0:11:09 > 0:11:16for that we begin with new clause one which it means it will be

0:11:16 > 0:11:19convenient to consider government amendment 17. To remove new clause

0:11:19 > 0:11:30one, I call Mr petered out.-- Peter Dowd. This bill is drawing to a

0:11:30 > 0:11:35close fought it has been going on since March, interrupted by the

0:11:35 > 0:11:38general election. Not brought back very much in the post-election

0:11:38 > 0:11:43period then back in September will stop here we are moving towards the

0:11:43 > 0:11:51phrase used by the minister, the denouement of the debate. Mr

0:11:51 > 0:11:55Speaker, to solve the problem, it's his first important to recognise

0:11:55 > 0:12:01that there actually is a problem. I think that sums up the debate

0:12:01 > 0:12:05surrounding the Government's domicile measures today. I don't

0:12:05 > 0:12:09think they can say there is a problem. Non-Dom status is a

0:12:09 > 0:12:14hangover from the days of the British Empire. The non-Dom Stater

0:12:14 > 0:12:20is introduced in 1799 and I'm British colonialists to shelter

0:12:20 > 0:12:27property from wartime taxes. -- status. Non-Dom is live in the UK

0:12:27 > 0:12:33but claimed to have a permanent home in another country. There is no

0:12:33 > 0:12:39statutory definition of a non-Dom and status depends on circumstantial

0:12:39 > 0:12:46evidence. HMRC says 21,000 individuals claim non-domiciled

0:12:46 > 0:12:51taxpayers status via their self-assessment returns in 2014,

0:12:51 > 0:12:552015. Non-domiciled resident taxpayers account for around 85,000

0:12:55 > 0:13:01of the total figure. The remaining 35,000 or so were non-UK resident. A

0:13:01 > 0:13:10famous example of non-doms include the director of Lloyds and RBS,

0:13:10 > 0:13:18Chelsea owner, Roman Abramowitz and steel magnate, Viscount Rather Mia

0:13:18 > 0:13:22and numerous footballers. Non-doms are allowed to avoid tax and

0:13:22 > 0:13:26overseas investment income if it does not exceed £200,000 a year.

0:13:26 > 0:13:30They are all required to pay income tax on UK earnings but avoid income

0:13:30 > 0:13:33tax and capital gains tax on assets held elsewhere as long as the

0:13:33 > 0:13:40amounts are not limited to the UK. The Treasury's proposals to reform

0:13:40 > 0:13:43non-Dom status would mean an individual resident in the UK for 15

0:13:43 > 0:13:48at the last 20 years would be considered UK domicile for the

0:13:48 > 0:13:59purpose of income tax cut capital gains tax.Listening to his case

0:13:59 > 0:14:03with interest. I am curious as to why it was the last Labour

0:14:03 > 0:14:07government did nothing about non-domiciled whatsoever until the

0:14:07 > 0:14:11first 12 years and then only acted reluctantly went falls to and he

0:14:11 > 0:14:14really to the then Conservative opposition into taking action. Why

0:14:14 > 0:14:18is he not praising the Conservative government will taking action in

0:14:18 > 0:14:23this matter?If it takes a Labour government up to 200 years to sort

0:14:23 > 0:14:28the problem out what we will sort the problem out. On paper it agrees

0:14:28 > 0:14:32that is what it agrees to be a sensible idea. Even progressive

0:14:32 > 0:14:39until metaphorically speaking. Someone starts to scratch away at

0:14:39 > 0:14:46the very thin veneer. In reality the Government has purposely and

0:14:46 > 0:14:59deliberately emptied offshore trusts, undermining reforms.

0:14:59 > 0:15:06The Panama papers and now the Bermuda league have brought offshore

0:15:06 > 0:15:09trust to the forefront of debate around international tax avoidance.

0:15:09 > 0:15:14The Panama papers have provided us with an abundance of evidence that

0:15:14 > 0:15:19offshore trusts have been used for tax avoidance over the years. There

0:15:19 > 0:15:23are many examples of well-known people who have set up of soil trust

0:15:23 > 0:15:29to ensure that paying inheritance tax is a mug's game. Politicians and

0:15:29 > 0:15:32business leaders are embroiled in the Panama papers scandal are not

0:15:32 > 0:15:36unknown. In one European country the government was brought down when it

0:15:36 > 0:15:41emerged the then Prime Minister's family had millions hidden offshore.

0:15:41 > 0:15:45It is not only restricted to inheritance tax but income tax, as

0:15:45 > 0:15:51shown by the recent case relating to one of the Scottish football teams.

0:15:51 > 0:15:55We have also seen in Spain, the rising problem of tax avoidance,

0:15:55 > 0:15:59relating to football image rights with high profile players convicted

0:15:59 > 0:16:03of shifting profits from image rights offshore. This is something

0:16:03 > 0:16:08that both the front bench and the honourable member Fodorova have

0:16:08 > 0:16:11actually raise. There are reports of offshore trusts being used by the

0:16:11 > 0:16:16banks in the City of London. In 2011, following advice from

0:16:16 > 0:16:22Deloitte, Deutsche Bank encourage people to set up trusts on the backs

0:16:22 > 0:16:27of their bonuses. The government managed to defeat this scheme but

0:16:27 > 0:16:32there are others in use today. HMRC, it has seen its staffing levels

0:16:32 > 0:16:37reduced by 70% since 2010, is woefully understaffed and under

0:16:37 > 0:16:43resourced to tackle them. Insiders within HMRC believe as much as £1

0:16:43 > 0:16:46billion a year is lost to wealthy individuals hiding money in offshore

0:16:46 > 0:16:53trusts. The House should be clear, offshore trusts continue to operate

0:16:53 > 0:16:59outside the law and within impunity. They remain one of the last bastions

0:16:59 > 0:17:03for international tax dodgers while the value of the assets hidden in

0:17:03 > 0:17:08these trusts remain unknown and continue to operate under a veil of

0:17:08 > 0:17:14secrecy. A conservative estimate by the Economist, suggests at least 8%

0:17:14 > 0:17:19of the world's wealth is a legally unreported. Though other estimates

0:17:19 > 0:17:24put it actually higher. In short, it impossible to know how much money

0:17:24 > 0:17:32the UK Treasury is foregoing in tax, as this government continues to

0:17:32 > 0:17:35Stonewall any attempts by the side to introduce a public register for

0:17:35 > 0:17:43offshore trusts.I think his well-intentioned proposal might

0:17:43 > 0:17:47backfire and if it were to be put through, if you are rich people

0:17:47 > 0:17:55would come here and pay as any tax at all.I thank the honourable

0:17:55 > 0:17:57gentleman for his intervention but that has been a persistent argument

0:17:57 > 0:18:03we have had for years and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to

0:18:03 > 0:18:08back up that assertion. I understand that HMRC is currently responding to

0:18:08 > 0:18:12EU directives on money-laundering and has begun the process of the

0:18:12 > 0:18:16registration of new trusts and those already operating must provide

0:18:16 > 0:18:22additional information by the 31st of January 20 18. But HMRC has

0:18:22 > 0:18:25confirmed it will not penalise anyone as long as they register

0:18:25 > 0:18:31before the fifth December this year. The rules that state all trusts with

0:18:31 > 0:18:34UK tax liabilities must be registered, but the process is

0:18:34 > 0:18:40conveniently silent on the trust registered in Crown dependencies and

0:18:40 > 0:18:44overseas Territories. Also, the information provided to HMRC will

0:18:44 > 0:18:48not be made publicly available. The Minister and those on the benches

0:18:48 > 0:18:52opposite have made much of the claim that the Conservative Party have

0:18:52 > 0:18:58been clamping down on tax avoidance. In fact, it was considered such a

0:18:58 > 0:19:02priority in the general election, the Prime Minister, at her most

0:19:02 > 0:19:07imperious at that stage, gave the subject a grand total of eight lines

0:19:07 > 0:19:12in the Conservative Party manifesto. After seven years in power, the

0:19:12 > 0:19:17government's record is still there to see. Another example of the

0:19:17 > 0:19:22government's desire to be seen to be doing something, when in fact the

0:19:22 > 0:19:27changes proposed are artificial and amount to little, while the

0:19:27 > 0:19:32exemption for offshore trusts remain intact. I will give way.I am

0:19:32 > 0:19:36grateful to the honourable member for giving way. On this question of

0:19:36 > 0:19:41bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and on compliance, would he

0:19:41 > 0:19:45recognise that since 2010 we have brought in £160 billion in clamping

0:19:45 > 0:19:52down on avoidance. Last week, we have had an announcement that the

0:19:52 > 0:19:55tax gap, between what we should be bringing in and what we are bringing

0:19:55 > 0:20:00in is at a low of 6%, a lower level than at any year than under the last

0:20:00 > 0:20:05previous Labour government?I am pleased the minister Razorback,

0:20:05 > 0:20:09because no doubt in future we'll have another debate on that

0:20:09 > 0:20:13particular point. I have an interesting assertion. When we have

0:20:13 > 0:20:20that debate, the question of the tax gap, but that is for another day, Mr

0:20:20 > 0:20:24Speaker. I am happy to come back to it and debate that with the Minister

0:20:24 > 0:20:32in due course.I thank the member for giving way. Would he not agree

0:20:32 > 0:20:35with me that a tax gap that is one of the lowest in the world is

0:20:35 > 0:20:41something we should be celebrating on a bill that is debating taxation.

0:20:41 > 0:20:47We should be thanking the government for making sure taxes are collected.

0:20:47 > 0:20:51Actually, it doesn't include the multinationals. And that this point

0:20:51 > 0:20:56I am trying to make, I am happy to come back to that in another debate

0:20:56 > 0:21:01if the government do wish to. I will give way.Would he not recognise on

0:21:01 > 0:21:07this question of the tax, it is 6% currently. If you went back to the

0:21:07 > 0:21:13last Labour government in 2005, it was 8%. If you applied that a

0:21:13 > 0:21:18percent today, it would be £11.8 billion less in tax, the equivalent

0:21:18 > 0:21:22of funding every police officer in England and Wales. The tax gap

0:21:22 > 0:21:25matters and I think the honourable member should address the question

0:21:25 > 0:21:33is being put to him on it.The tax fell every year from 2005 to 2010,

0:21:33 > 0:21:39so I will bring his attention to Labour's record. It is important, as

0:21:39 > 0:21:45I said, if we want the debate about the tax, we can do that. I am more

0:21:45 > 0:21:50than happy that my colleagues will do in relation to that. I have said

0:21:50 > 0:21:54many times in this debate, it is a question of trying to also look

0:21:54 > 0:22:03forward. We can all talk about our record, how good or bad it might

0:22:03 > 0:22:06have been, but let's move on and try to deal with the issues that face

0:22:06 > 0:22:11us, not the issues that might have faces. I will give way.I don't want

0:22:11 > 0:22:15to talk about the tax and move forward, to move forward, at the

0:22:15 > 0:22:23very least can you welcome...I am not doing anything. Order, I am not

0:22:23 > 0:22:26doing anything. I don't want to talk about this, I don't want to talk

0:22:26 > 0:22:32about that. The debate goes through the chair, as the honourable lady

0:22:32 > 0:22:39knows.If the honourable member doesn't want to discuss the tax gap

0:22:39 > 0:22:42in this debate, can the honourable member acknowledge an extra billion

0:22:42 > 0:22:47pounds has been collected under this government, more so than under

0:22:47 > 0:22:53Labour? Surely he would want to welcome that at this opportunity?As

0:22:53 > 0:22:57much as I would like to debate with the honourable lady on the issue

0:22:57 > 0:23:01about the tax gap, it shows an ignorance of the issue, the issues

0:23:01 > 0:23:07around the nature of the tax gap and the type of issues we have to

0:23:07 > 0:23:11discuss. So, as far as I am concerned, I am happy to come back

0:23:11 > 0:23:16to this, I am happy to come back to this in due course. More than happy

0:23:16 > 0:23:20to debate this in due course at another time. I am making the point

0:23:20 > 0:23:25in relation to this issue that we have to move on. I want to make

0:23:25 > 0:23:28progress and I will come back to the honourable lady in a few moments. In

0:23:28 > 0:23:37the past month alone we have seen the government face a barrage of

0:23:37 > 0:23:39criticism from European Union about its poor record on tackling tax

0:23:39 > 0:23:43avoidance. The European Parliament report into money laundering, tax

0:23:43 > 0:23:47evasion has accused the government of directly obstructing the fight

0:23:47 > 0:23:51against tax avoidance. The European Commission has opened an

0:23:51 > 0:23:58investigation into the government's changes for company rules which has

0:23:58 > 0:24:02made it easier for international companies to shift their taxable

0:24:02 > 0:24:06income offshore. And that goes to the heart of the point I am making

0:24:06 > 0:24:11about the tax gap and the intricacies of it. I will give way.

0:24:11 > 0:24:15He has been very generous with his time. He has made it clear he wants

0:24:15 > 0:24:20to talk about this issue. The issue on the order paper is the amendment

0:24:20 > 0:24:25says they want to review in relation to this issue after 15 months.

0:24:25 > 0:24:28Which, despite speaking now for over ten minutes, the honourable member

0:24:28 > 0:24:35hasn't stress. Can the honourable member tell us, have Labour assessed

0:24:35 > 0:24:39how much a review would cost and whether that is a diversion of

0:24:39 > 0:24:45resources from the Treasury?I would like to thank the honourable lady

0:24:45 > 0:24:48for that intervention and I think the members opposite have taken

0:24:48 > 0:24:52about seven minutes of the time I have been on my feet. 6.5, the

0:24:52 > 0:25:00minister says. I am quite happy to have these issues debated. The point

0:25:00 > 0:25:05about this and the issue about the review is precisely that. Why not

0:25:05 > 0:25:09have a review? It is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate way

0:25:09 > 0:25:15forward, given the nature of the matter, why not have a review? If

0:25:15 > 0:25:20there is nothing to hide and the government are happy to have this

0:25:20 > 0:25:24open, transparent, in public, tell everybody how wonderful they are

0:25:24 > 0:25:27doing in relation to this matter, let's have the review. The

0:25:27 > 0:25:31honourable lady will no doubt be supporting this new clause in due

0:25:31 > 0:25:42course?I don't think the honourable member heard my question is, how

0:25:42 > 0:25:48much would the review cost?I suspect the amount of money that

0:25:48 > 0:25:54will be brought in, if we have a review, identify areas where there

0:25:54 > 0:25:58isn't compliance, I suspect it will bring in more money, once we have

0:25:58 > 0:26:02had the review and identified the problems, than it would cost to have

0:26:02 > 0:26:06the review. That is why we have reviews. I am sure the honourable

0:26:06 > 0:26:13lady will support this new clause. The opposition, the government's

0:26:13 > 0:26:18opposition to any action which would crack on offshore trusts isn't new.

0:26:18 > 0:26:23In 2013 while G8 leaders tried to push forward with new tax evasion

0:26:23 > 0:26:26measures, the last Prime Minister was undermining them by writing

0:26:26 > 0:26:31personal letters to the EU president at the time, begging him to stop

0:26:31 > 0:26:37offshore trusts from being included. In contrast, the last Labour Prime

0:26:37 > 0:26:40Minister, Gordon Brown, to his credit actively spend his last year

0:26:40 > 0:26:45in office to get world leaders to agree to strict measures on offshore

0:26:45 > 0:26:49tax havens. All the more reason for a review, let's have the review. I

0:26:49 > 0:26:55am speaking directly to that. If there is nothing to be fearful of,

0:26:55 > 0:27:02let's have the review. Our opposition to the exemption of

0:27:02 > 0:27:04offshore trusts is well noted. We have called for its removal since

0:27:04 > 0:27:08March. I called for its removal at the ways and means resolution

0:27:08 > 0:27:11debate, at the second reading and the public bill committee and I call

0:27:11 > 0:27:16for it once again. I am happy to give the Minister an opportunity to

0:27:16 > 0:27:19reconsider, because the British public are no fools and they are

0:27:19 > 0:27:23more educated than ever as to what an offshore trust is and what it is

0:27:23 > 0:27:32used for.He has been generous in letting us intervene so Moly times,

0:27:32 > 0:27:37but just to bottom out one particular point that came up at

0:27:37 > 0:27:41committee, did he at least accept, albeit he may feel are measures

0:27:41 > 0:27:46proposed here are imperfect, does he at least accept we have made more

0:27:46 > 0:27:51progress and are going further in terms of raising fair taxes from

0:27:51 > 0:27:56non-doms than any other government in the past?I recognise any

0:27:56 > 0:28:02progress whatsoever, that anybody brings. If the government have

0:28:02 > 0:28:06brought progress to this process, fine, it is wonderful. I think there

0:28:06 > 0:28:13should be more progress. I am absolutely convinced that under the

0:28:13 > 0:28:19stewardship of the Minister, they will be having even more progress on

0:28:19 > 0:28:24this particular matter. So whilst the Minister may be able to use

0:28:24 > 0:28:28arcane rules this House prevents the opposition from removing the

0:28:28 > 0:28:31exemption for offshore trusts and entries in the public register, you

0:28:31 > 0:28:35cannot hide from the fact his government have a pretty poor record

0:28:35 > 0:28:41in this particular area. The heart of the disagreements of the

0:28:41 > 0:28:46government here today is simple, it is whether all UK citizens are to be

0:28:46 > 0:28:50treated equally under the eyes of the law and for the purposes of

0:28:50 > 0:28:54taxation, or whether they are not. Throughout this bill, it has been

0:28:54 > 0:28:58clear the government is content to actively ensure we have a tax system

0:28:58 > 0:29:04that favours the wealthy few at the expense of many. Mr Speaker, the

0:29:04 > 0:29:08government could act to close this tax avoidance measure. It could act

0:29:08 > 0:29:13to send a message to those who want to dodge taxes that the UK will not

0:29:13 > 0:29:17tolerate it. It could send a message to those who don't avoid their

0:29:17 > 0:29:22taxes, that the government is on their side. It could even send a

0:29:22 > 0:29:27message of support to the hard-pressed public servants by

0:29:27 > 0:29:30taking up the suggestion of the right honourable member for West

0:29:30 > 0:29:33Dorset, by hype of the catering taxes raised by clamping down on the

0:29:33 > 0:29:39Dodgers.

0:29:39 > 0:29:43I thank the honourable member for giving way. I am a bit concerned if

0:29:43 > 0:29:48the Honourable member wants to give up messages, the one message he

0:29:48 > 0:29:51should give out is the changes proposed on the side of the

0:29:51 > 0:29:56Government will bring in an extra 1.6 billion over five years. That is

0:29:56 > 0:30:03money that will be supporting all of our public services for everyone.I

0:30:03 > 0:30:07suspect that is a starter. I'm sure much more can be brought in. I'm

0:30:07 > 0:30:12sure the Honourable lady will, in an endeavour to get the figure up that

0:30:12 > 0:30:18support new clause one later on. The reality is, the only message this

0:30:18 > 0:30:22government wants to send is one of superfine support for these tax

0:30:22 > 0:30:26dodgers. The Dodgers may want to hear the message that those public

0:30:26 > 0:30:31sector workers who have not had a pay rise for years do not want to

0:30:31 > 0:30:35hear it. People waiting for an operation for months to not want to

0:30:35 > 0:30:40hear it. Police and firefighters do not want to hear it. Mr Speaker, I

0:30:40 > 0:30:43can assure the members opposite that at the next general election, the

0:30:43 > 0:30:51public will hear that message loud and clear because Labour will be

0:30:51 > 0:30:53there to remind them of the Government in chaos, disarray, and

0:30:53 > 0:31:05beginning to have a putrefying decay about it.Has the honourable

0:31:05 > 0:31:12gentleman completed his speech?he has. Sima could I am immensely

0:31:12 > 0:31:19grateful to the honourable gentleman. We are shortly going to

0:31:19 > 0:31:28be available to the services of the clerk.I think we are all agreed in

0:31:28 > 0:31:32this house that we need to collect substantial revenues to have decent

0:31:32 > 0:31:37public services. I think we are all agreed in our condemnation of people

0:31:37 > 0:31:41who break tax laws and who evade taxes and commit crimes against the

0:31:41 > 0:31:47tax codes. Tax avoidance, legal avoidance of taxation, is a more

0:31:47 > 0:31:53difficult issue. Many Labour MPs have trotted through the lobbies

0:31:53 > 0:32:03under a Labour government to make sure that Isas have tax advantages

0:32:03 > 0:32:07for the many supported an idea that there should be tax breaks for

0:32:07 > 0:32:10members of parliament choosing to save for their retirement through

0:32:10 > 0:32:15the pension scheme. This is a kind of tax avoidance. Is the honourable

0:32:15 > 0:32:19member saying that the Labour Party no longer agrees with that kind of

0:32:19 > 0:32:22avoidance recommended by previous Labour governments in the interests

0:32:22 > 0:32:27of spreading saving or is he now of the view there are certain kinds of

0:32:27 > 0:32:31orders that are perfect reasonable, undertaken by Labour MPs, and other

0:32:31 > 0:32:35types of tax avoidance which are also perfectly legal he does not

0:32:35 > 0:32:45approve of?I think there is a bit of a difference between an Isa and

0:32:45 > 0:32:51institutional systematic avoidance and abuse of the tax system. There

0:32:51 > 0:32:54is a huge difference between breaking the law and living within

0:32:54 > 0:32:59the law. Where government is both persuasions have put provisions

0:32:59 > 0:33:02entered the tax code encouraging people to save or invest in a

0:33:02 > 0:33:06certain way in order to pay less tax, that surely is the will of

0:33:06 > 0:33:11Parliament and the will of those parties and we cannot object to

0:33:11 > 0:33:14people and institutions taking advantage of it. The right thing to

0:33:14 > 0:33:19do, as I think in some ways the Labour Party is now trying to do, on

0:33:19 > 0:33:23which people who come into our country to undertake part of their

0:33:23 > 0:33:28affairs but not all of them, it is to make sure we have settled in law

0:33:28 > 0:33:35which is fair and we enforce it and take a tough line for any of those

0:33:35 > 0:33:41who break the law. We cannot, if they take advantage of things put

0:33:41 > 0:33:44into the tax codes to encourage certain types of investing on

0:33:44 > 0:33:49savings behaviour in the same way that MPs, most of them can take

0:33:49 > 0:33:51advantage of the avoidance provisions to save through a pension

0:33:51 > 0:33:58scheme or an Isa. And so, the subject at debate today, is the

0:33:58 > 0:34:03issue about very rich people and should their assets, often

0:34:03 > 0:34:06productive assets which they have saved for and earned and a keen

0:34:06 > 0:34:12related before they came to the UK, the suitable object for taxation if

0:34:12 > 0:34:16they come and choose to do some things in the UK where they are

0:34:16 > 0:34:21clearly subject to our codes and have to pay our taxes. In the past

0:34:21 > 0:34:25Labour governments and Conservative governments have taken a pragmatic

0:34:25 > 0:34:29view there is an advantage in very rich entrepreneurial, success of the

0:34:29 > 0:34:33becoming to the country were setting up businesses and making investments

0:34:33 > 0:34:37here, committing part of their capital to our country and we will

0:34:37 > 0:34:42tax that fairly but in the same way as you or I would be taxed, Mr

0:34:42 > 0:34:47Speaker, it will making such investments on a much smaller scale.

0:34:47 > 0:34:58That is fair to us as

0:34:59 > 0:35:02taxpayers and investors but it is not our business to say that we are

0:35:02 > 0:35:04also going to try to tax their assets and income accumulated and

0:35:04 > 0:35:06earned elsewhere, which they have established by other means before

0:35:06 > 0:35:08which are presumably being taxed in other countries that are being

0:35:08 > 0:35:11governed by a double taxation arrangement or agreement. And so I

0:35:11 > 0:35:16would just say to Labour, when they think there is a huge crock of gold

0:35:16 > 0:35:21here, which for some unknown reason successive Labour coalitions and

0:35:21 > 0:35:25Conservative governments have been reluctant to pluck that they did not

0:35:25 > 0:35:29do it in the past because there was not. Maybe you are quite close to

0:35:29 > 0:35:34that point. If you go further and further encroach on the legitimate

0:35:34 > 0:35:40income and assets of foreigners coming here, which is assets and

0:35:40 > 0:35:43income not in this country, then you might get to the point where one of

0:35:43 > 0:35:46them said, I would rather go somewhere else for that there are

0:35:46 > 0:35:50plenty of other countries around the world he would welcome the money,

0:35:50 > 0:35:55investment, and income, which is going to be taxable in that country.

0:35:55 > 0:36:00If they are prepared not to tax another income and other assets

0:36:00 > 0:36:04elsewhere, they will have the benefit rather than not. I think the

0:36:04 > 0:36:09art of taxation is finding the right balance, where the host country gets

0:36:09 > 0:36:13enough out of it and where it is obviously a fair imposition of tax

0:36:13 > 0:36:18on anything they do in that country alongside fellow residents of that

0:36:18 > 0:36:23country was not deterring so many that we are no longer a great centre

0:36:23 > 0:36:27for people with money and investment and talent, who would otherwise come

0:36:27 > 0:36:33here.I am grateful for giving way. On the point he is making, would he

0:36:33 > 0:36:38agree with me that we do not make these decisions in isolation. We are

0:36:38 > 0:36:42competing with other countries in the world who might also like to

0:36:42 > 0:36:44have very rich individuals and investors. While we are making in

0:36:44 > 0:36:49the UK the climate more hostile difficult in order to raise more

0:36:49 > 0:36:52money for public services, many other countries, the opposite is

0:36:52 > 0:36:56true for stud within the UK at Malta, Portugal and latterly most

0:36:56 > 0:37:01prominently Italy are moving in the other direction and creating their

0:37:01 > 0:37:05own non-Dom regimes to draw away these individuals from the United

0:37:05 > 0:37:13Kingdom.We live in a very global world. The richer people are the

0:37:13 > 0:37:17more footloose they can be the better the tax and legal advice they

0:37:17 > 0:37:21can get because most of them loosely want to obey the law in the country

0:37:21 > 0:37:25they choose to live in and the consciously choose to operate in.

0:37:25 > 0:37:29They usually operate in several countries, not just one, which

0:37:29 > 0:37:32creates genuine definition problems about where they are truly resident,

0:37:32 > 0:37:37where the main centre is. They'll be comparing all the time good advice

0:37:37 > 0:37:41the different regimes available. It is obvious in the EU there is a lot

0:37:41 > 0:37:46of jealousy of London and the wider UK success in attracting talent and

0:37:46 > 0:37:51investment from around the world, as my honourable friend says, regimes

0:37:51 > 0:37:55are being put in to tempt people away by giving them a better deal in

0:37:55 > 0:37:59other European countries. I was about to draw the attention of the

0:37:59 > 0:38:04Has two hugely important debates about to be undertaken in both the

0:38:04 > 0:38:06Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States

0:38:06 > 0:38:10of America, with New York and other great centres that are already very

0:38:10 > 0:38:16attractive magnets for which people and large-scale universities. They

0:38:16 > 0:38:22are suggesting that they might take their top rate of tax down from 39.6

0:38:22 > 0:38:26to 35. They might simplify their income tax rates from seven to just

0:38:26 > 0:38:32three. They might take their corporation tax rate from a very

0:38:32 > 0:38:36high headline 35% effective rather lower rate to 20% or even lower

0:38:36 > 0:38:40because they are very serious about becoming tax competitive again and

0:38:40 > 0:38:46they will be a year, just as surely some European countries on the

0:38:46 > 0:38:52continent are trying to be more of lower. The opposition must

0:38:52 > 0:38:56understand how global the world is, how dynamic it is and how in order

0:38:56 > 0:39:01to maximise your tax revenue you need to set ways of taxing and rates

0:39:01 > 0:39:07of taxation that people will stay and pay.Will you agree with me that

0:39:07 > 0:39:13the greatest threat to tax havens is not the blustering is of the party

0:39:13 > 0:39:16opposite but countries like the United States of America reducing

0:39:16 > 0:39:20their tax rates so much that it does not become effective in anyway to be

0:39:20 > 0:39:26using these kinds of places for any form of functions and business.That

0:39:26 > 0:39:30is right. We can see that tax havens have been helping to drive tax rates

0:39:30 > 0:39:36down in other centres. We only have to look across to Ireland to see how

0:39:36 > 0:39:42attractive it can be if the mainstream country decides to take

0:39:42 > 0:39:49the corporation tax rate down to very low levels and attract a lot of

0:39:49 > 0:39:53company based investment. Each country has to decide where once to

0:39:53 > 0:39:58be in that spectrum you need a high enough rate to attract serious money

0:39:58 > 0:40:04but not to track the best prospects for paying taxes. I think this

0:40:04 > 0:40:07country is now in danger of becoming uncompetitive in taxation when we

0:40:07 > 0:40:12look at what America is about to do and what some of the European

0:40:12 > 0:40:19partners smaller countries are doing.He makes an important point

0:40:19 > 0:40:22about how important it is this country does not deter the people

0:40:22 > 0:40:26who bring the Muniain, which in turn funds public services. Would he

0:40:26 > 0:40:31agree with me that if we were to take the sort of action imposed upon

0:40:31 > 0:40:36us by the Labour Party, we would put at risk £9 billion worth of

0:40:36 > 0:40:40investment into our office which is brought in each year by those are

0:40:40 > 0:40:46non-domiciled in this country.That is the kind of sum of money I am

0:40:46 > 0:40:50talking about. It is a serious sum of money for the economy and it is a

0:40:50 > 0:40:55nice balance. All of us want to collect serious revenues. We want

0:40:55 > 0:41:00good quality public services and productive growing and exciting

0:41:00 > 0:41:07economies. We need tax rates which are realistic and tax rules. Each

0:41:07 > 0:41:13time the Conservative government has had to cut rates more revenue has

0:41:13 > 0:41:17been raised. Our rates have been on the high side for optimising the

0:41:17 > 0:41:23revenue.Will he accept the opposition fully understands and

0:41:23 > 0:41:28acknowledges the arguments are made here today? The fact is, when they

0:41:28 > 0:41:32were in power, they did not take the steps recommended now because they

0:41:32 > 0:41:36recognised a reality. It is easy for the opposition to argue this bit

0:41:36 > 0:41:41different when you are in government.I pointed it out at the

0:41:41 > 0:41:46beginning that Labour in office were probably more gentle on this group

0:41:46 > 0:41:49of people than the Conservative Party has been in office. I think

0:41:49 > 0:41:54they came to that judgment for good reasons. I see they all do is agree

0:41:54 > 0:41:57with the previous governments but they will discover that is a luxury

0:41:57 > 0:42:00of opposition and when you are in government you are responsible for

0:42:00 > 0:42:04sustaining as well as growing the revenue it is very easy to get rid

0:42:04 > 0:42:09of revenue by annoying people and companies. It is far more difficult

0:42:09 > 0:42:13to help systematically build up the good tax base by promoting economic

0:42:13 > 0:42:19growth.I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. Would he

0:42:19 > 0:42:29agree with me that, when opposition refer to Isas as Dodgers, they are

0:42:29 > 0:42:34not just referring to the tax wealthy that the many thousands of

0:42:34 > 0:42:39individual people coming here who make a contribution to our economy

0:42:39 > 0:42:47and pay all the taxes in the normal manner in this country.It is

0:42:47 > 0:42:50offensive language to call people tax dodgers. If they have made a

0:42:50 > 0:42:55good investment in our country, they are paying all legal dues that this

0:42:55 > 0:43:00parliament requires them to do full I don't think calling them tax

0:43:00 > 0:43:04dodgers is wise, friendly or helpful. That is why I began my

0:43:04 > 0:43:07remarks by asking the honourable member if he could draw a

0:43:07 > 0:43:17distinction between a non-Dom who came here and paid legal taxes and a

0:43:17 > 0:43:22Labour MP who deliberately put their savings money into an Isa or a

0:43:22 > 0:43:27pension fund in order to avoid paying tax on that. It seems to me

0:43:27 > 0:43:34they comparable things will stop I do not regard either as tax dodgers.

0:43:34 > 0:43:41I don't begrudge taking advantage of savings breaks which are offered to

0:43:41 > 0:43:48British taxpayers as dodging. I think they are a welcome contributor

0:43:48 > 0:43:53to greater growth and prosperity to our country and we could think of a

0:43:53 > 0:44:00nice way to sum them up. I would urge the House to resist the

0:44:00 > 0:44:03blandishments of the Labour Party remember the stands of the Labour

0:44:03 > 0:44:06Party in government which was wiser and unite behind what I had my

0:44:06 > 0:44:11colleague from the front bench will be saying, which is that we welcome

0:44:11 > 0:44:14talent and industry and enterprise and money into this country and we

0:44:14 > 0:44:18want to have a fair basis of taxation which does not deter them

0:44:18 > 0:44:27from coming.Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I want to start

0:44:27 > 0:44:33by telling the Has about the sad death of my predecessor. Frank Doran

0:44:33 > 0:44:38was the MP for Aberdeen North. He also represented other Aberdeen

0:44:38 > 0:44:44seats during his 30 year career in Parliament. He was incredibly well

0:44:44 > 0:44:47respected across the House. I know people who worked with him will

0:44:47 > 0:44:53remember him and will have respected the work he did. He was a principled

0:44:53 > 0:44:58man. He helped a lot of people who are now my constituents and they

0:44:58 > 0:45:04often talk fondly about him. I just want to know to particularly he

0:45:04 > 0:45:08worked incredibly hard of the papa dashes in the Piper Alpha oil

0:45:08 > 0:45:16tragedy. At this time, our thoughts are with his wife, Joan and is

0:45:16 > 0:45:19tragedy and any colleagues across the House who are friends and

0:45:19 > 0:45:24colleagues of his. I would like to pass on the condolences of the SNP

0:45:24 > 0:45:30to his family. Thank you very much. I don't want to talk at much at

0:45:30 > 0:45:33length about this particularly. The SNP has consistently been critical

0:45:33 > 0:45:40about the situation we are in around non-domiciled individuals and the

0:45:40 > 0:45:46issue of offshore trusts. We have also consistently been critical

0:45:46 > 0:45:51about the complicated nature of the UK tax code. It has regularly been

0:45:51 > 0:45:56said the UK tax code used to be a bit and no need a van to cart the

0:45:56 > 0:46:02tax code around. The attentional is for the loopholes and the more

0:46:02 > 0:46:07difficult it is for people to comply and also for government agencies to

0:46:07 > 0:46:14make sure that compliance occurs. We have raised the issue. I know the

0:46:14 > 0:46:21member previous to me was talking about not conflating tax dodging

0:46:21 > 0:46:26with nom-doms. What I am suggesting is the more corrugated the tax code

0:46:26 > 0:46:30is the more likelihood there are loopholes that people can exploit.

0:46:30 > 0:46:34-- complicated. In this regard we have concerns and these have been

0:46:34 > 0:46:50raised. We will continue to raise our concerns.

0:46:50 > 0:46:53Suggestions is from the backbenches of the Conservative about moving the

0:46:53 > 0:46:59UK towards some sort of tax-haiven post Brexit and I'm sure some in the

0:46:59 > 0:47:04Conservative Party would completely reject. Absolutely.The honourable

0:47:04 > 0:47:08lady was saying she would like to not to see Britain and the people in

0:47:08 > 0:47:13Britain enjoying lower taxes, if it were possible.What I suggested was

0:47:13 > 0:47:18the issue around tax havens. I think people have a goot understanding of

0:47:18 > 0:47:21the difference of what is a tax haven and what is a country with

0:47:21 > 0:47:26lower taxes. But I think it's completely reasonable and I think

0:47:26 > 0:47:32colleagues, on individuals across the House, if we want to have

0:47:32 > 0:47:38excellent public services, and we want to have public service that is

0:47:38 > 0:47:42are best served we need a tax system that suits that. We have a tax

0:47:42 > 0:47:46system that means people are paying for those excellent services. I'm

0:47:46 > 0:47:50not in anyway trying to dodge that question. I think we should have a

0:47:50 > 0:47:57tax system that ensures we have excellent public services. I give

0:47:57 > 0:48:00way one more tienchts doesn't the honourable lady see the opportunity

0:48:00 > 0:48:06of Brexit that we can use or tax system to getting big businesses to

0:48:06 > 0:48:10pay a fair share of taxes and give hard working people of modern

0:48:10 > 0:48:16Britain a tax cut? The opportunity for Brexit is that Scotland will be

0:48:16 > 0:48:21£30 billion worse off as a result. My city will be the worst-off place

0:48:21 > 0:48:25in the UK outside the City of London, as a result. This is work

0:48:25 > 0:48:31that has been done by the LAP. This is not work, this is not some sort

0:48:31 > 0:48:37of biassed point of view. This is LSE work specifically around the

0:48:37 > 0:48:44cost...They don't like the experts. They don't like experts.In terms of

0:48:44 > 0:48:47Brexit, I do not see positive outcomes from the UK as a result of

0:48:47 > 0:48:55Brexit. However, I want to talk, specifically around this issue, the

0:48:55 > 0:49:01tax code and make clear we reject moving towards a tax haiven Britain.

0:49:01 > 0:49:05We would reject anything that would increase the amount of possible

0:49:05 > 0:49:10loopholes that there are. We're pleased at changes that the

0:49:10 > 0:49:13Government is making around anti-avoidance, we would like them

0:49:13 > 0:49:17to gut but that will always be the case, we are pleased they are making

0:49:17 > 0:49:20positive moves in some of the anti-avoidance moves they are

0:49:20 > 0:49:23putting forward. The shadow minister's speech I agree with,

0:49:23 > 0:49:28almost everything he said in relation to the issues around

0:49:28 > 0:49:32non-domiciles and around off-shore trusts and as I Saud I won't speak

0:49:32 > 0:49:35for very long, Mr Speaker but we'll support the Labour Party if they

0:49:35 > 0:49:40intend to push new Claws 1 to the vote today. -- new clause 1 to the

0:49:40 > 0:49:46vote today. THE SPEAKER:James Cleverly.Mr Speaker, we all and I'm

0:49:46 > 0:49:50sure that you agree with me on this Mr Speaker, we all love a familiar

0:49:50 > 0:49:56tune, we all love a tune we can-up along to or whistle along to, the

0:49:56 > 0:50:00bars and notes of which fall effortlessly from our minds.

0:50:00 > 0:50:05Therefore, I would imagine that all members of the House were as washed

0:50:05 > 0:50:10over with a warm feeling of familiarity when they heard the tune

0:50:10 > 0:50:14being played by the Labour front bench opposite and the tune that

0:50:14 > 0:50:17they were playing was a familiar one, that the Conservatives don't

0:50:17 > 0:50:21take tax seriously and that we are on the side of tax dodgers and that

0:50:21 > 0:50:28kind of stuff. We've heard had so many times before. It's nice to see

0:50:28 > 0:50:33that this gargantuan Finance Bill was used as a stage from which the

0:50:33 > 0:50:36honourable member from Bootle played that particular tune. But it comes

0:50:36 > 0:50:45to mind, Mr Speaker, that wonderful wonderful sketch from the 1970s with

0:50:45 > 0:50:49Morecambe and Wise and Andre Previn, I don't know if you are familiar

0:50:49 > 0:50:57with it, where Eric Morecambe is at the piano with a discordant notes

0:50:57 > 0:51:01flooding from it and Previn says - stop, stop, stop, you are playing

0:51:01 > 0:51:08all the wrong words, to which he replies - no, sweetheart I'm playing

0:51:08 > 0:51:11all the right notes, not necessarily in the right order. An awful accent.

0:51:11 > 0:51:16I apologise. And the member of Bootle opposite was playing neither

0:51:16 > 0:51:19the right note and definitely not in the right order because actually

0:51:19 > 0:51:23when you look at the truth behind some of the claims being made from

0:51:23 > 0:51:31the Labour front bench, you see they are built on fan, because far from

0:51:31 > 0:51:38being on the side of tax dodgers and tax avoidance this party since being

0:51:38 > 0:51:49in Government, have put measures in place which since 2010, have

0:51:49 > 0:51:52generated an extra £160 of tax revenue. You were singing the wrong

0:51:52 > 0:52:00tune then. This Bill puts things in place, which will, if enacted will

0:52:00 > 0:52:04bring in additional extra billions of pounds to the Treasury, so again,

0:52:04 > 0:52:11you were singing the wrong note then. This Government has ensured

0:52:11 > 0:52:16that the closing of the tax gap, Which? Was initiated under a

0:52:16 > 0:52:21previous Labour Government, I think it'll be churlish not to concede

0:52:21 > 0:52:27that but far from preventing that or rowing back on that tax gap this,

0:52:27 > 0:52:29Government has actually continued the pressure to make sure the gap

0:52:29 > 0:52:33between the taxes that should be collected and the taxes that are

0:52:33 > 0:52:41actually collected reduces and reduces and reduces and I, as a

0:52:41 > 0:52:46Conservative, am proud of the role that this Conservative Government

0:52:46 > 0:52:50has taken, to make sure that the people who should be paying taxes

0:52:50 > 0:52:53are paying taxes, and that they are paying taxes at the appropriate

0:52:53 > 0:53:00level. But my right honourable friend, the member for Woking, is

0:53:00 > 0:53:05absolutely spot on, when he says it is corrosive, when we start blurring

0:53:05 > 0:53:09the definition between tax avoidance and tax evasion. When we start

0:53:09 > 0:53:13talking about people who are acting in a financially pragmatic way and

0:53:13 > 0:53:18completely within the law. When we start talking about them, in the

0:53:18 > 0:53:25same way that we talk about conmen and criminals, it sends a massively

0:53:25 > 0:53:30corrosive message. At a point in time when the world is getting

0:53:30 > 0:53:35smaller in terms of where people can base themselves and where they can

0:53:35 > 0:53:47base their businesses. And whilst it is perhaps fun for the members

0:53:47 > 0:53:50office to vilify these people who transact their businesses

0:53:50 > 0:53:53internationally, they choose where they rest their heads at night.

0:53:53 > 0:53:58Whilst it is fun to vilify them and to make them sound as if they are

0:53:58 > 0:54:04some Hallowe'en villain, to try to be topical for a moment, it is

0:54:04 > 0:54:09actually counter-productive to do so. Because whilst each individual

0:54:09 > 0:54:17utterance will itself make very little difference, the fact that

0:54:17 > 0:54:23they combine, they build to create the background, the background music

0:54:23 > 0:54:27of intolerance to international business and successful people, will

0:54:27 > 0:54:31ultimately mean those people will locate themselves somewhere else.

0:54:31 > 0:54:36And rather than getting the tax income from them that this country

0:54:36 > 0:54:41deserves, there will be a different country that will generate those tax

0:54:41 > 0:54:56revenues. And a pound that is taxed, or a euro or dollar, is a nund

0:54:56 > 0:55:02cannot be used by this Government for the public services and the

0:55:02 > 0:55:06public servants o who deserve our thanks and rewards and whilst it

0:55:06 > 0:55:09might feel superficially pleasant to see an international business flee

0:55:09 > 0:55:13from these shores or an international business person flee

0:55:13 > 0:55:17from these shores or a non-domicile to flee from the shores. People say

0:55:17 > 0:55:23- if they don't want to be here, let them G it is a nice sound bite but

0:55:23 > 0:55:26ultimately it is massively counter-productive to the job that

0:55:26 > 0:55:30we should be doing as parliamentarians and the job the

0:55:30 > 0:55:34Government should be doing in office.Will my honourable friend

0:55:34 > 0:55:38give way?I will.I'm enjoying the very good speech my honourable

0:55:38 > 0:55:43friend is making and I don't want obviously to get into some sort of

0:55:43 > 0:55:49Brexit debate or heaven forbid that he and I might fall out in some way

0:55:49 > 0:55:53or even worse do impersonations of bygone sketches which he clearly

0:55:53 > 0:55:56couldn't remember, because he wasn't born then. But on a serious point

0:55:56 > 0:56:01does he share my concern that already we are seeing great

0:56:01 > 0:56:06businesses, looking at relocating, as that time comes when we leave the

0:56:06 > 0:56:09European Union, along with individuals who actually don't feel

0:56:09 > 0:56:19welcome in our great country?I take thank The Right Honourable lady for

0:56:19 > 0:56:22her intervention and whilst she and I might not necessarily agree on our

0:56:22 > 0:56:27Brexit decision and whilst she and I might not necessarily agree on the

0:56:27 > 0:56:31impact that that decision will have on international businesses and

0:56:31 > 0:56:34British businesses that might be international, I think it is fair

0:56:34 > 0:56:42for her to highlight the fact that we should do nothing which gives

0:56:42 > 0:56:47businesses cause for concern and it would be unfair to suggest that the

0:56:47 > 0:56:51decision to leave the European Union has no impact on business decisions,

0:56:51 > 0:56:55and as someone that campaigned for Brexit, I think I have an additional

0:56:55 > 0:57:00duty to prove her wrong. I know that she is of such a generous nature,

0:57:00 > 0:57:03that if some point in our dotage we are sharing a glass of wine together

0:57:03 > 0:57:06and we were to look back at the events in the immediate aftermath of

0:57:06 > 0:57:13Brexit and if I were to proved right I'm quite sure that she would be

0:57:13 > 0:57:18more than willing to concede that point. But, yes, we do have a duty

0:57:18 > 0:57:20to give businesses as much confidence as possible, about being

0:57:20 > 0:57:24based here in the UK and actually having a tax regime that supports

0:57:24 > 0:57:28business and enterprise is a really important part in doing that. I'm

0:57:28 > 0:57:31more than happy to give way.Would he also agree that there is a duty

0:57:31 > 0:57:34on the part of the Bank of England and the Treasury to talk this

0:57:34 > 0:57:39country up, not talk this country down and it make sure that when we

0:57:39 > 0:57:45talk about the interests of balance and investment, not to make up

0:57:45 > 0:57:48terrible numbers as a continuity of project fear from last year, where

0:57:48 > 0:57:54they say it'll mean a lot of jobs, growth and tax revenue, particularly

0:57:54 > 0:58:01non-domicile tax revenue but we saw that's not the case and lowest

0:58:01 > 0:58:05unemployment has continued for and it would be wrong to continue today

0:58:05 > 0:58:09I thank the honourable member for the intervention and at this end of

0:58:09 > 0:58:16day's party that I seem to be throwing where my honourable friend

0:58:16 > 0:58:19from the nothing Hampshire, Broxtowe, that's exactly the point I

0:58:19 > 0:58:26meant and my honourable friend from Dover, I'm more than happy to also

0:58:26 > 0:58:32invite Treasury officials and Mark Carney and we can sit down, sharing

0:58:32 > 0:58:34my beautifully aged claret, discussing such things and I do

0:58:34 > 0:58:42think that... Or indeed some wine from my honourable friend's - she's

0:58:42 > 0:58:48not in her place at the moment, which produces fantastic wine. And

0:58:48 > 0:58:53we'll discuss the implications of fear mongering in the British

0:58:53 > 0:58:58economy.I would like to thank my honourable friend for giving way. We

0:58:58 > 0:59:01are of course debating the amendment to suggest that within 15 months of

0:59:01 > 0:59:06passing there act there should be another review. And picking up on

0:59:06 > 0:59:09the earlier interventions, 15 months, of course would be the

0:59:09 > 0:59:14February, two months, or a month before Brexit. Just at the time when

0:59:14 > 0:59:17financial services companies are already having to rethink their

0:59:17 > 0:59:21operations, to cope with Brexit. Would my honourable friend agree

0:59:21 > 0:59:28that this is a destruction that this sector does not need, and that this

0:59:28 > 0:59:32sector contributes over £70 mill billion in tax to the UK economy

0:59:32 > 0:59:38which we want to keep?

0:59:38 > 0:59:43My honourable friend is absolutely spot on. I cannot help but think

0:59:43 > 0:59:49that this new clause 1 is more to do with the members opposite feeling

0:59:49 > 0:59:56that they need to put in amendments and revised clauses because a call

0:59:56 > 0:59:59for a review of this kind is invariably the thing you say when

0:59:59 > 1:00:02you are not actually sure what you should say, so you decide to say

1:00:02 > 1:00:07that instead. Mr Speaker, you will be disheartened to hear that I am

1:00:07 > 1:00:14about to conclude my comments for today. I strongly urge colleagues on

1:00:14 > 1:00:19both sides of the house to reject this new clause and do everything we

1:00:19 > 1:00:23can to send a very, very positive message, but for businesses

1:00:23 > 1:00:26currently in the UK, for businesses that might think to come here in the

1:00:26 > 1:00:29UK, for business people that are deciding about where they are going

1:00:29 > 1:00:37to domicile and where they are going to pay tax, that the UK is open,

1:00:37 > 1:00:42ready to do business, it welcomes business people, as long as they pay

1:00:42 > 1:00:44their fair share in tax and help support public services that we

1:00:44 > 1:00:47value.

1:00:49 > 1:00:56Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that as I was going to speak this

1:00:56 > 1:01:01afternoon I felt that I should listen to speeches made by

1:01:01 > 1:01:08colleagues in this house. In particular, I listened... I know, a

1:01:08 > 1:01:13controversial view. In particular, I listened very carefully to the

1:01:13 > 1:01:15speech made by the Honourable Member for Bootle, from the opposition

1:01:15 > 1:01:23front bench. He made some interesting remarks. I am going to

1:01:23 > 1:01:30pick him up on one phrase. Think about it and bear that fact in mind

1:01:30 > 1:01:34as we look at not only the implications of this proposed new

1:01:34 > 1:01:42clause one, but the bill as a whole. The phrase that comes to mind is the

1:01:42 > 1:01:46honourable gentleman said that the British public are no fools. As I

1:01:46 > 1:01:53listened to him expound on this, using this phrase from my thought to

1:01:53 > 1:01:58myself, well, the British public, whether they be in the public

1:01:58 > 1:02:01gallery, whether they be the many millions undoubtedly watching this

1:02:01 > 1:02:11debate at this moment... Billions! They are no fools and they will

1:02:11 > 1:02:14realise that this government, this Conservative government, since 2010,

1:02:14 > 1:02:20has brought in more than £160 billion of anti-avoidance and tax

1:02:20 > 1:02:24evasion measures. The British public are no fools, Mr Speaker. They will

1:02:24 > 1:02:29realise that this Government, a Conservative government, since 2010,

1:02:29 > 1:02:33has reduced the tax gap, the gap between what should be collected by

1:02:33 > 1:02:38tax and what actually is, to 6.5%. Indeed, the lowest that anybody can

1:02:38 > 1:02:44recall. The British public are no fools, Mr Speaker. They will see

1:02:44 > 1:02:47that this government, a Conservative government, since 2010, has

1:02:47 > 1:02:53abolished permanent... Will be abolishing permanent non-dom status

1:02:53 > 1:02:58for the first time. These are the practical achievements which this

1:02:58 > 1:03:06bill helps to build upon. In respect of the precise nature of this

1:03:06 > 1:03:12proposed Clause one, I can do no better than to agree with my dear

1:03:12 > 1:03:18and honourable friend, the member for Chelmsford, when she suggests

1:03:18 > 1:03:22that, in my view entirely accurately, that the disruption that

1:03:22 > 1:03:27might be caused due to the timing of such a review may be a significant

1:03:27 > 1:03:30disincentive and, frankly, difficult from a business perspective at that

1:03:30 > 1:03:35time because of the Brexit negotiations and situations at that

1:03:35 > 1:03:43time. Also, it is important as a house, from whatever party, to

1:03:43 > 1:03:49recognise that this government is making the case for a sustainable

1:03:49 > 1:03:53fiscal policy that makes sense in the modern world. We have already

1:03:53 > 1:03:56heard from many speakers on both sides about the international

1:03:56 > 1:04:03context in which we operate. We are in a smaller world. We all know the

1:04:03 > 1:04:10impact that technology and ease of travel is having on every aspect of

1:04:10 > 1:04:12life. Bearing in mind the international context, frankly

1:04:12 > 1:04:20things are more competitive. We cannot rest on our laurels.Match

1:04:20 > 1:04:24point, would he care to reflect on the issue of footballers? The front

1:04:24 > 1:04:29bench for Labour said footballers often get away with things under

1:04:29 > 1:04:32this heading. I thought that a lot of people in Britain liked the fact

1:04:32 > 1:04:37that talented footballers could come here for a limited amount of time,

1:04:37 > 1:04:42and a sensible arrangements for tax affairs. Does he think that is

1:04:42 > 1:04:45reasonable?Not only do I agree with him about footballers, I do think

1:04:45 > 1:04:49that, Frankie, most people, as I said, the millions watching the

1:04:49 > 1:04:53debate, many of them will recognise, because they see and enjoy the

1:04:53 > 1:04:57top-quality Premier League in this country, they will recognise the

1:04:57 > 1:05:02impact that some top foreign players bring. I would add that it is not

1:05:02 > 1:05:08just footballers. It is music stars, artists, creatives, writers,

1:05:08 > 1:05:13financiers, businesspeople, entrepreneurs. Of these people can

1:05:13 > 1:05:18prove such an asset to this country. Footballers are a very visible

1:05:18 > 1:05:23example of that. But we should not forget the more hidden, less public

1:05:23 > 1:05:27face. That is what Britain is good at and Britain should continue to be

1:05:27 > 1:05:30correct. We should be proud of that here in this house.

1:05:34 > 1:05:37In relation to the bill, I thought that I should make clear to the

1:05:37 > 1:05:44house that when this Government is making a case for a sustainable

1:05:44 > 1:05:49fiscal policy, we do need to bear in mind the case for support vocational

1:05:49 > 1:05:57taxes. -- for simplification of taxes. The point made by the

1:05:57 > 1:06:01honourable lady for Aberdeen North, she always makes very good speeches.

1:06:01 > 1:06:07In particular, I thought her point on simplifying taxes being a good

1:06:07 > 1:06:13game for us to always think about is very important. I think the

1:06:13 > 1:06:15minister, the Government, everybody in this house should always be

1:06:15 > 1:06:19thinking of ways in which we could make things simpler. We should also

1:06:19 > 1:06:24be thinking about ways in which we can make things fairer. Ways in

1:06:24 > 1:06:29which we can make sure there is a genuinely level playing field for

1:06:29 > 1:06:36all businesses that seek to work in this country. I think that is not

1:06:36 > 1:06:43just fair from an ethical perspective, but having a level

1:06:43 > 1:06:46playing field is an integral part of what makes Britain a good place to

1:06:46 > 1:06:52do business. If we can focus on making sure that our tax code is

1:06:52 > 1:06:57more simplified, also focus on making sure our tax code is

1:06:57 > 1:07:03fairer... I give way.I thank my honourable friend for being so

1:07:03 > 1:07:07generous in taking interventions. I believe I am correct in saying that

1:07:07 > 1:07:09he has returned from the Finance Bill committee. He will have seen

1:07:09 > 1:07:14the size of the Finance Bill, which resembles a doorstop. Does he think

1:07:14 > 1:07:20that we ought to shrink Finance Bill and have simple tax codes?I thank

1:07:20 > 1:07:24my honourable friend for that intervention. Yes, I did have a huge

1:07:24 > 1:07:28pleasure of sitting on the Finance Bill Committee, fascinating as it

1:07:28 > 1:07:37was. And yet there is no doubt that the Finance Bill itself is a

1:07:37 > 1:07:44whopper. This is huge! There is a good case, and I am sure the

1:07:44 > 1:07:47minister will come to this in his remarks, that we do need to perhaps,

1:07:47 > 1:07:51and this is not distracting from the substance of what the Government was

1:07:51 > 1:07:54saying, which I completely support, but I think if we could think or

1:07:54 > 1:08:01actively in which we can make things shorter and more easily

1:08:01 > 1:08:05digestible...If it would assist on tax complexity, the size of the UK

1:08:05 > 1:08:11tax code is now 22,000 pages and 10 million words. Would he agree with

1:08:11 > 1:08:14me that it is a complexity that I think we need to change if we are

1:08:14 > 1:08:18going to be globally competitive into the future?I agree with my

1:08:18 > 1:08:26honourable friend. Actually, coming to this bill, and as we know our

1:08:26 > 1:08:32government is a very complicated thing. Rome was not built in a day

1:08:32 > 1:08:35full stop I think that this bill can be the start of, or continue, should

1:08:35 > 1:08:39I say, do work that I know the Minister under Treasury have already

1:08:39 > 1:08:48begun, and worked on. How do we deal with the difficulty with making

1:08:48 > 1:08:51things fairer and simpler, but also making sure we have the right

1:08:51 > 1:08:55incentives for businesses to come to our country and really grappling

1:08:55 > 1:08:59with that in the context of trying to make sure that the tax code

1:08:59 > 1:09:04simpler and the office for taxable vocation is something we should

1:09:04 > 1:09:08definitely... Yes, I give way.Does he think perhaps that leaving the

1:09:08 > 1:09:13European Union is a real opportunity to take back control of our tax

1:09:13 > 1:09:16system and make it a lot simpler? And perhaps some of the reason it

1:09:16 > 1:09:21has got so long and complex is all of these EU rules?

1:09:25 > 1:09:35I hugely respect my honourable friend. It is worth mentioning to

1:09:35 > 1:09:42the house that, for those that don't know, my honourable friend was a top

1:09:42 > 1:09:46tax lawyer. He knows the value that complexity brings to tax lawyers in

1:09:46 > 1:09:52the City of London. On the precise point he makes about the European

1:09:52 > 1:09:56Union, I am no expert in these matters. I defer to the Minister and

1:09:56 > 1:10:01other members of the house. My view is that, actually, we have got to be

1:10:01 > 1:10:07more realistic and accept that a lot of things are of our own making. We

1:10:07 > 1:10:10now need to make sure, yes, with the advent of leaving the European

1:10:10 > 1:10:16Union, that we have the opportunity to make sure that we make ourselves

1:10:16 > 1:10:20even better as a place to do business. That, I am sure, is

1:10:20 > 1:10:24something that my honourable friend and the Minister would support. I

1:10:24 > 1:10:29give way to my right honourable friend.I am grateful to my right

1:10:29 > 1:10:32honourable friend for giving way. The problem with the statement from

1:10:32 > 1:10:36the lady for Aberdeen North is that she both wanted a simpler tax code

1:10:36 > 1:10:40and she wanted to stop loopholes. As I understand it, a great deal of the

1:10:40 > 1:10:44complexity and lens has come from detailed ways of trying to stop

1:10:44 > 1:10:52loopholes of a simpler system. So there is a conflict there. Genuinely

1:10:52 > 1:10:55simple tax codes have fewer taxes, which would be a great start, and

1:10:55 > 1:11:00lower rates with a common tax space would be a good start. At the moment

1:11:00 > 1:11:02we have too much publication, partly because they are trying to stop

1:11:02 > 1:11:11loopholes.I would accept that point from my right honourable friend. We

1:11:11 > 1:11:17appear to be reaching some form of consensus from members here that it

1:11:17 > 1:11:22is the case that the government should again always be thinking of

1:11:22 > 1:11:27how to balance the need for fairness and simplicity, and yet also closing

1:11:27 > 1:11:30loopholes so that people don't take advantage of the fair laws in this

1:11:30 > 1:11:37country. One thing that has been talked about a lot in the speeches

1:11:37 > 1:11:43so far, and I told you, Mr Speaker, that I was listening, is that many

1:11:43 > 1:11:46members have talked about the importance of businesses bringing in

1:11:46 > 1:11:51money to fund our public services. We recognise that is important.

1:11:51 > 1:11:57Indeed, it is the reason why many, if not all of us, became members of

1:11:57 > 1:12:01Parliament. Also, I think it is worth making the point that

1:12:01 > 1:12:07actually, having a thriving economy, in which individuals through their

1:12:07 > 1:12:10own effort, money and time, and make the most of themselves. In itself,

1:12:10 > 1:12:15that is a good thing. We should not always revert to thinking about

1:12:15 > 1:12:21business as something simply something to be milked by the

1:12:21 > 1:12:26Exchequer. The Exchequer, Government and Parliament should set, and is

1:12:26 > 1:12:30setting, a clear, simple, as low as possible framework through which

1:12:30 > 1:12:36individuals and corporations can thrive. That is the sort of fiscal

1:12:36 > 1:12:43and economic policy that I myself support. I'm going to be coming to

1:12:43 > 1:12:50the close of my remarks. I give way to the Honourable Member for

1:12:50 > 1:12:56Chelmsford.I thank my honourable friend for giving way and the word

1:12:56 > 1:13:00he has done on this bill. On the issue of loopholes, does he agree

1:13:00 > 1:13:03that clauses 29-30 to remove the loophole of permanent non-dom

1:13:03 > 1:13:12status? But Klaus 8 means that the UK can continue to benefit from the

1:13:12 > 1:13:19approximately 9 billion a year from overseas investments. But if we

1:13:19 > 1:13:23accept the amendment from the party opposite, then we put that £9

1:13:23 > 1:13:31billion at risk.Again, I thank my honourable friend the member for

1:13:31 > 1:13:37Chelmsford, who is very expert in these matters and serving in the

1:13:37 > 1:13:40European Parliament. She knows about a lot of these issues in immense

1:13:40 > 1:13:47detail. One thing that has come to mind, when serving in the Finance

1:13:47 > 1:13:53Bill committee and in this debate so far, is the real keenness of this

1:13:53 > 1:13:59government to be fair. Of the same time as being competitive. It is

1:13:59 > 1:14:04fairness and competitiveness together that makes Britain the best

1:14:04 > 1:14:08place to do business in the world. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1:14:11 > 1:14:14Has the honourable gentleman completed his oration? He has? We

1:14:14 > 1:14:16are very gratefully obliged.

1:14:19 > 1:14:22Thank you, it is an honour and a privilege to be talking at this

1:14:22 > 1:14:26stage of the Finance Bill. As you all know, but some of my colleagues

1:14:26 > 1:14:30and friends on the opposite benches may have forgotten, I am the MP for

1:14:30 > 1:14:42Brentwood and Ongar. Women's Hour has announced that it is the best

1:14:42 > 1:14:46place for women to live and work in the UK. That is something for us all

1:14:46 > 1:14:49to celebrate. What underpins that achievement is that Brentwood is a

1:14:49 > 1:14:58fantastic place to work and do business. That sense of business

1:14:58 > 1:15:07acumen is very much depend itself by a hard-headed pragmatism. What my

1:15:07 > 1:15:12constituents always ask me when I bring them convex pieces of

1:15:12 > 1:15:18legislation, perhaps even complex pieces of financial legislation, is

1:15:18 > 1:15:33twofold. Is it fair? Are we going to get a good deal out of it?

1:15:33 > 1:15:37The truth is when we look at the relevant clauses in the bill we are

1:15:37 > 1:15:40discussing this morning, these are fair and I do believe British tax

1:15:40 > 1:15:44payers, and tax payers in my constituency are going to get a good

1:15:44 > 1:15:50deal from them. As a number of my honourable friends have mentioned,

1:15:50 > 1:15:53the people who are referred to as having these off-shore trusts are

1:15:53 > 1:15:58not breaking the law. Indeed, it is wholly unfair of us to suggest that

1:15:58 > 1:16:05they are. They are reputable business people who are bringing

1:16:05 > 1:16:10wealth to our country, and they are doing so in such a way that is

1:16:10 > 1:16:17totally legitimate and that we should recognise as being such. In

1:16:17 > 1:16:31committee stage the minister pointed out that many people set up overseas

1:16:31 > 1:16:35trusts before they move to the UK. They put their affairs in order in

1:16:35 > 1:16:39that and it would be wrong for us to go after money secured in that

1:16:39 > 1:16:45fashion. I'm very glad to give way. I thank my honourable friend for

1:16:45 > 1:16:52giving way in this matter, and he is making an excellent speech. I am

1:16:52 > 1:16:57intrigued to understand why he said Brentwood, of all places, is more

1:16:57 > 1:16:59favourable for women and as we are talking about the financial Bill and

1:16:59 > 1:17:02the important points he is making about the economy, would he agree

1:17:02 > 1:17:06with me, it really is critical that in any tax system you get the

1:17:06 > 1:17:10balance right, so that, yes, people who should pay their taxes pay the

1:17:10 > 1:17:15right and proper amount. But if you start to be overly ownerous, we know

1:17:15 > 1:17:19that what happens is people absolutely look for those loopholes,

1:17:19 > 1:17:23they exploit those loopholes and actually tax revenues begin to drop

1:17:23 > 1:17:28and would he agree with me, that it is under a skefr Government that we

1:17:28 > 1:17:32have begun to get that balance absolutely right. So people don't

1:17:32 > 1:17:37resent paying their taxes, revenues rise because wave got a good, fair

1:17:37 > 1:17:42system?I couldn't agree with the honourable lady more, and she can

1:17:42 > 1:17:46rest assured that she's always welcome in Brentwood and that there

1:17:46 > 1:17:50will always be a place, you know, next to me in the tea shop to sit

1:17:50 > 1:17:56down and discuss exactly why Brentwood is such a wonderful place

1:17:56 > 1:18:00for women to work and raise their families and be part of the

1:18:00 > 1:18:06community. The points she raises are absolutely right. We have to get the

1:18:06 > 1:18:11balance right. If we are to ensure that we maximise the amount of tax

1:18:11 > 1:18:16take that the Treasury can get, because only with that tax take,

1:18:16 > 1:18:22will we be able to fund our world class public services. Any attempt

1:18:22 > 1:18:26to do anything more will undoubtedly lead to money, there being less

1:18:26 > 1:18:30money available for us to put into our police service, into our health

1:18:30 > 1:18:34service and into our education system and thereby, our

1:18:34 > 1:18:42constituents, our citizens will all suffer. So, getting that balance

1:18:42 > 1:18:49right is absolutely the ka.s I don't believe we can do that if we are

1:18:49 > 1:18:51effectively discouraging people, wealthy people from abroad,

1:18:51 > 1:18:54successful business people from bringing their money here, so they

1:18:54 > 1:19:00can invest in our country. As she points out, it is by getting that

1:19:00 > 1:19:04balance right that the Treasury, under the great guidance of my

1:19:04 > 1:19:12honourable friend and his predecessors, have managed to bring

1:19:12 > 1:19:16in an extra £160 billion since 2010 and narrowed tax gap to historically

1:19:16 > 1:19:23low levels. This is a great achievement. I will give way.So

1:19:23 > 1:19:27that our constituents appreciate what we have achieved with the tax

1:19:27 > 1:19:33gap would he agree, putting it into persect spentive, the 6% tax gap

1:19:33 > 1:19:37here, is 34% in Italy. If the European Union want it tackle tax

1:19:37 > 1:19:40gaps they should look in other countries, in the United States the

1:19:40 > 1:19:47tax gap is 19%. 6% is a huge achievement by this Government.I'm

1:19:47 > 1:19:50very grateful to my honourable friend for bringing those figures to

1:19:50 > 1:19:56the debate. They are extraordinarily impressive. You know, that's an

1:19:56 > 1:19:59achievement of successive Conservative chancellors, working to

1:19:59 > 1:20:11improve the situation that they inherited in 2010. My honourable

1:20:11 > 1:20:17friend, the member for chess fed raised a point -- Chelmsford. Raised

1:20:17 > 1:20:22a point about timing. Do we want this to click in when the Brexit

1:20:22 > 1:20:26process is reaching its climax. I don't think the members opposite

1:20:26 > 1:20:30have thought about that and I'm glad to have her pointers on that. And as

1:20:30 > 1:20:34I said to the Speaker earlier, Madame Deputy Speaker, it is my

1:20:34 > 1:20:40first Finance Bill. I have enjoyed it immensely. I have enjoyed

1:20:40 > 1:20:52everything about it, even enjoyed the Shadow Minister's speeches, his

1:20:52 > 1:20:55panache and dapper dress and ties, which makes me feel slightly

1:20:55 > 1:21:07underdressed. In the committee stage he enlightened us with his knowledge

1:21:07 > 1:21:12and other timely references to the Beatles. I believe the reference was

1:21:12 > 1:21:19to the discussion of a victory over the Romans which obviously you know,

1:21:19 > 1:21:26led to Piris saying - one such more victory and we are lost. Were this

1:21:26 > 1:21:33clause to be successful Madame Deputy Speaker, I think it would be

1:21:33 > 1:21:35a phyrrhic victory of great consequence. We would see billions

1:21:35 > 1:21:40of pounds in the Treasury at risk and public services at risk and we

1:21:40 > 1:21:48would see my constituents very angry. I know he is fond of the

1:21:48 > 1:21:54Beatles Azam I and a comic turn from one MP from Essex today and the

1:21:54 > 1:22:00House may recall that once upon a time John Lennon was asked why The

1:22:00 > 1:22:04Beatles were the greatest band in the world and he said it is because

1:22:04 > 1:22:10we have Paul McCartney the greatest singer songwriter in the world and

1:22:10 > 1:22:12George Harrison, the greatest guitarist in the world and the

1:22:12 > 1:22:19interview said - what about Ringo, isn't he the greatest drummer in the

1:22:19 > 1:22:23world, to which Mr Lennon said, "He is not even the greatest drummer in

1:22:23 > 1:22:29the Beatles."With great pleasure.I am only rise because it is dreadful

1:22:29 > 1:22:33to hear this wrong story perpet waited in the House of Commons. It

1:22:33 > 1:22:37is unfortunately a myth that that conversation took place in my

1:22:37 > 1:22:44opinion and people can check this now in Google because we have in

1:22:44 > 1:22:47Birmingham a fine comedian, Jasper Carrot, who told this story as a

1:22:47 > 1:22:52joke once and such is the way that Google works these days, you tell a

1:22:52 > 1:22:57joke like that, it is entered on a website, the myth is perpetuated and

1:22:57 > 1:23:00even here, now today in the House of Commons, we are hearing this story

1:23:00 > 1:23:06told again. So, for the record I'm just concerned, that it would be

1:23:06 > 1:23:09recorded inappropriately, I would be grateful if my honourable friend

1:23:09 > 1:23:16would consider that.When the honourable gentleman responds, he

1:23:16 > 1:23:22will ensure that it is directly relevant to new clause 1 because

1:23:22 > 1:23:26this is an important issue and I hope that members will understand

1:23:26 > 1:23:32I'm sure people wouldn't want to think that we were treating it light

1:23:32 > 1:23:37heartedly, treating it very seriously.Quite right, Madame

1:23:37 > 1:23:41Deputy Speaker, I assure you that my comments were directly relevant to

1:23:41 > 1:23:47the Bill. It is just it was cruelly interrupted by my honourable friend

1:23:47 > 1:23:52who has now set the record street and of course in the process

1:23:52 > 1:23:57destroyed of the great anecdotes about The Beatles in the process.

1:23:57 > 1:24:02Well I was going to say that this isn't even the best amendment the

1:24:02 > 1:24:05opposition have put up. As the minister made clear in committee,

1:24:05 > 1:24:12with regard to a review of the legislation, as was stated in the

1:24:12 > 1:24:17tax information impact note published in December 2016, HRMC

1:24:17 > 1:24:19will monitor the effect of the provisions through information

1:24:19 > 1:24:23collected in tax returns. So there is a form of review already under

1:24:23 > 1:24:30way. So, in drawing my remarks to a clerks Madame Deputy Speaker, I

1:24:30 > 1:24:36would say that this is, you know, a Bill and an area within the Bill

1:24:36 > 1:24:40that is fair, it is one that is going to get all of our constituents

1:24:40 > 1:24:45a good deal. And...Will my honourable friend give way

1:24:45 > 1:24:49Delighted.I think my honourable friend is making a great speech but

1:24:49 > 1:24:53I think one of the other important factors that we need to consider is

1:24:53 > 1:24:58the element of trust and I think this is something that will come up

1:24:58 > 1:25:01repeatedly as we discussed amendments later on this afternoon,

1:25:01 > 1:25:08and this is vitally important. It is important that people, people who

1:25:08 > 1:25:11pay tax in this country understand that they can trust this Government

1:25:11 > 1:25:17to ensure that we are collecting the maximum amount of tax and then

1:25:17 > 1:25:20deploying that tax appropriately in the provision of excellent public

1:25:20 > 1:25:24services. So, my honourable friend is suggesting it is important that

1:25:24 > 1:25:30this Bill is fair but for me it is also important that it is

1:25:30 > 1:25:37trustworthy, and that people who are watching this debate at home, as my

1:25:37 > 1:25:40honourable friend suggested, millions of them, have faith in this

1:25:40 > 1:25:45Government to be firm, fair and trustworthy.I thank my honourable

1:25:45 > 1:25:52friend for that wonderful speech. But, he is, of course, entirely

1:25:52 > 1:25:56right that this is - these measures are fair, they get a good deal for

1:25:56 > 1:26:01the British taxpayer, they will help to underpin future investment in our

1:26:01 > 1:26:04fine public services.Will my honourable friend give way?Of

1:26:04 > 1:26:09course.Thank you to my honourable friend. Clarifying non-dom status is

1:26:09 > 1:26:12absolutely the right thing to do, yet it is also crucial to ensure our

1:26:12 > 1:26:17tax regime is clear and we've heard from other members on how it is

1:26:17 > 1:26:21contributing £9 billion. In my own constituency, the member of Aberdeen

1:26:21 > 1:26:27South is also involved in, we have seen a lot of activity and it is

1:26:27 > 1:26:31important that the tax regime in this country has clarity, is

1:26:31 > 1:26:37simplistic and is straightforward and that people are encouraged,

1:26:37 > 1:26:46there is a headquarter of a 100 FTSE company and there are other

1:26:46 > 1:26:51companies, including Continpental Shell. Would he agree with me unless

1:26:51 > 1:26:55we keep the tax system attractive to inward investors in regards to

1:26:55 > 1:27:00non-doms, we could lose some of that and that would damage my

1:27:00 > 1:27:03constituency and othersI entirely agree with the words of my

1:27:03 > 1:27:09honourable friend. It is absolutely crucial now perhaps more than ever

1:27:09 > 1:27:16that this country is entirely open to money, to investment, to good

1:27:16 > 1:27:19business practice from around the world and it is incumbent upon the

1:27:19 > 1:27:23Government to ensure that they create the environment that will

1:27:23 > 1:27:28bring jobs and investment into his constituency and into mine and into

1:27:28 > 1:27:34all parts of our country. So I strongly support that. I also,

1:27:34 > 1:27:39Madame Deputy Speaker wish to voice my whole hearted support for

1:27:39 > 1:27:44Government clause 17, a fine clause if ever there was one which sets the

1:27:44 > 1:27:52Treasury record as straight as ever it should be thank you very much.

1:27:52 > 1:27:57Minister?Madame Deputy Speaker could I begin by thanking the

1:27:57 > 1:28:00honourable member for Bootle for his interesting and his informative

1:28:00 > 1:28:04contribution but alas I'm going to have to disappoint him and tell him

1:28:04 > 1:28:09that I'm going to be urging the House to reject his new clause. I

1:28:09 > 1:28:14say so, Madame Deputy Speaker, whilst thanking him, most sincerely,

1:28:14 > 1:28:18actually for the generosity with which he gave way to the wave upon

1:28:18 > 1:28:23wave of members on our side who wished to challenge him earlier on

1:28:23 > 1:28:28in this debate. It was a veritable intervention fest, I think, Madame

1:28:28 > 1:28:35Deputy Speaker. I think the honourable member for Braintree

1:28:35 > 1:28:40raised the 1980s' programme. The Morecambe and Wise, and I think in

1:28:40 > 1:28:44the 1990s, it was Game for a Laugh that it would remind me of. But

1:28:44 > 1:28:50perhaps that was unkind, but we had some fun along the way. Madame

1:28:50 > 1:28:55Deputy Speaker, can I, firstly, before I return to the remarks in

1:28:55 > 1:28:57the honourable member's opening address just speak briefly about

1:28:57 > 1:29:02some of the fine contributions that actually we have had this afternoon,

1:29:02 > 1:29:07from members on both sides of this House, as reflects, I believe,

1:29:07 > 1:29:14Madame Deputy Speaker, as you have exhaulted us to, to take the matter

1:29:14 > 1:29:17in hand with due seriousness because this is a very serious matter

1:29:17 > 1:29:22indeed. In fact the arguments were put extremely powerful, I thought by

1:29:22 > 1:29:27my right honourable friend, the member for Wokingham who talked

1:29:27 > 1:29:31about the importance of recognising that many of the taxed activities of

1:29:31 > 1:29:38individuals in this country are not driven by evasion, or a desire to

1:29:38 > 1:29:42cheat the system or bend the rules or however one might term it, but in

1:29:42 > 1:29:46fact to have sensible tax planning, to use the rules in fact in

1:29:46 > 1:29:55precisely the way in which they have been designed.

1:29:55 > 1:29:57And associated point, he rightly pointed out that it is most

1:29:57 > 1:30:02important, in dealing with individuals who bring with them

1:30:02 > 1:30:07great wealth to our country, we have heard £9 billion per year, a record

1:30:07 > 1:30:11amount, in fact, for non-domicile individuals today, that we don't

1:30:11 > 1:30:14drive these individuals overseas. That we don't drive away the

1:30:14 > 1:30:18business investment that they bring. The Honourable Member for Google

1:30:18 > 1:30:24will recall the lengthy debates we have had about business investment.

1:30:24 > 1:30:34-- the Honourable Member for Bootle. That we don't drive away the people

1:30:34 > 1:30:38that are funding our army, our nurses and our police. The 1.6

1:30:38 > 1:30:43billion extra that will come as a consequence of the changes proposed

1:30:43 > 1:30:48within this bill. My right honourable friend, the member for

1:30:48 > 1:30:51Wokingham, also spoke very finely about the importance of the tax

1:30:51 > 1:30:56system being competitive. We got on briefly to what I think is a very

1:30:56 > 1:30:58important point, raised by many members in this debate. That is how

1:30:58 > 1:31:06we term these individuals. I will certainly give way to the right

1:31:06 > 1:31:09honourable lady.I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman and my

1:31:09 > 1:31:14honourable friend for giving way. There is a really important point to

1:31:14 > 1:31:19make about non-doms. This idea that all non-doms are multimillionaires,

1:31:19 > 1:31:26if not billionaires, is an absolute fallacy. Many non-doms have a state

1:31:26 > 1:31:32as a non-domicile, but the idea that these are fat cats with oodles of

1:31:32 > 1:31:36money, up to dodgy dealings and the rest of it, it is absolute myth.

1:31:36 > 1:31:40Many of them are on modest means. Invariably, those that are of more

1:31:40 > 1:31:44substantial means our great entrepreneurs. We need them in our

1:31:44 > 1:31:46country, arguably more than ever before.

1:31:48 > 1:31:53My right honourable friend is entirely right. In fact, pre-empts

1:31:53 > 1:31:59the point I was going to make, which is that it was quite wrong of the

1:31:59 > 1:32:01opposition to castigate and characterise all non-domicile

1:32:01 > 1:32:08individuals in this country as Dodgers, tax dodgers. This is not

1:32:08 > 1:32:11right. The Honourable Member for brutal in his opening remarks made

1:32:11 > 1:32:14the point that there are over 100,000 non-domicile individuals in

1:32:14 > 1:32:20the United Kingdom. The vast majority of these do not have lots

1:32:20 > 1:32:27of overseas assets, or maybe even non-. They are not opening up trusts

1:32:27 > 1:32:30and putting assets within trusts. They are coming over here, sometimes

1:32:30 > 1:32:33for a period of a couple of years or so, to work and contribute to our

1:32:33 > 1:32:40economy. I certainly give way to the Honourable Member.It is true, so

1:32:40 > 1:32:49far as he goes. I was with the man who runs the biggest hedge funds,

1:32:49 > 1:32:53£100 billion across Europe, who said that in terms of regulation they

1:32:53 > 1:32:56want robust, predictable and understandable regulation, to

1:32:56 > 1:33:03provide certainty for investors rather than some slackness so that

1:33:03 > 1:33:06people can creep through holes and exploit loopholes. So they will know

1:33:06 > 1:33:09where they are, and it is not necessarily a race to the bottom,

1:33:09 > 1:33:15just a reliable system to invest over the long-term.In terms of the

1:33:15 > 1:33:19proposals that we are debating in this bill, that is precisely what

1:33:19 > 1:33:23these proposals deliver, which is certain to going forward. As the

1:33:23 > 1:33:26Honourable Member will know, they were extensively consulted upon

1:33:26 > 1:33:32during the months and years before they came into effect. We are

1:33:32 > 1:33:34providing exactly the kind of certainty that the Honourable Member

1:33:34 > 1:33:39wishes to see. Can I turn to the honourable lady the member for

1:33:39 > 1:33:43Aberdeen North, who, as is characteristic of her, made some

1:33:43 > 1:33:47fairly thoughtful comments about the importance of making sure that the

1:33:47 > 1:33:53tax code is not overly complicated. She will be aware of the work we are

1:33:53 > 1:33:59doing for the office of taxable vacation in that regard. I was very

1:33:59 > 1:34:02grateful for her welcoming, her partial welcome to be fair, or some

1:34:02 > 1:34:06of our anti-avoidance measures that many members here this afternoon

1:34:06 > 1:34:14have rightly pointed out have brought in £160 billion since 2010.

1:34:14 > 1:34:18I also wanted to turn to the speech by the Honourable Member, the member

1:34:18 > 1:34:25for Braintree. He referred to the Finance Bill as gargantuan. Which,

1:34:25 > 1:34:28having spent what seems to have the most of my life reading every

1:34:28 > 1:34:31syllable of it, I think it is a rather polite description of this

1:34:31 > 1:34:37colossus of a bill, 760 pages. He introduced Morecambe and Wise, which

1:34:37 > 1:34:42was a very nice touch, to characterise the way in which the

1:34:42 > 1:34:48debate plays the same old tunes on the other side. On this side, it is

1:34:48 > 1:34:53a case of bring me sunshine. That is what we believe in. In an economy

1:34:53 > 1:34:57that can work for everybody, in bright, sunny uplands,

1:34:57 > 1:35:01possibilities, we believe in the future. Above all, we believe that

1:35:01 > 1:35:05while I am minister in my role at the Treasury, we believe in fair

1:35:05 > 1:35:09taxation. The Honourable Member for Braintree also mention the 160

1:35:09 > 1:35:13billion and he was right to do so. He did particularly stressed the

1:35:13 > 1:35:17importance of getting away from this corrosive message of always beating

1:35:17 > 1:35:21up those that are apparently an easy target. We need to talk our country

1:35:21 > 1:35:26up, not do our country down. I will give way again to the Honourable

1:35:26 > 1:35:32Member.Does he understand, in the aftermath of the Panama Papers,

1:35:32 > 1:35:36there are deeply set concerns about the need for transparency,

1:35:36 > 1:35:41legitimacy and fair returns. What specific actions have the Government

1:35:41 > 1:35:44taken following that, or have they just said it doesn't matter, we will

1:35:44 > 1:35:52get on as normal?In writing the vanguard, the erosion of profit

1:35:52 > 1:35:55shifting initiative, the OECD which, amongst other things, has brought in

1:35:55 > 1:35:59the transfer of information between countries exactly around the very

1:35:59 > 1:36:03issues he has raised. We are no slouches when it comes to addressing

1:36:03 > 1:36:07the kind of issues that he has raised. Third Eye now turn to the

1:36:07 > 1:36:14Honourable Member for future manned Harpenden -- can I now turn to the

1:36:14 > 1:36:20Honourable Member for Harpenden. He turned this into a bit of a novelty,

1:36:20 > 1:36:23have a listen to the Honourable Member for Bootle, which I thought

1:36:23 > 1:36:26was a little harsh. I think I will have to learn a lot from listening

1:36:26 > 1:36:29to the Honourable Member. He talked about the importance of attracting

1:36:29 > 1:36:33the best into our country from all walks of life and he is absolutely

1:36:33 > 1:36:37right. The Honourable Member for Brentwood and Ongar made a very

1:36:37 > 1:36:43important point about the setting up of these trusts. The trusts that we

1:36:43 > 1:36:47have looked at in terms of those that are deemed domicile under these

1:36:47 > 1:36:50arrangements, they have to be trusts that have been in place before that

1:36:50 > 1:36:56particular moment in time. It is worth stressing that it is only in

1:36:56 > 1:37:01respect of income that is taken out of that trust that... Sorry, when

1:37:01 > 1:37:05income is taken out of the trust, taxation falls due in a normal

1:37:05 > 1:37:14manner. He also managed to get us tangled up in a debate about the

1:37:14 > 1:37:17Beatles and Ringo Starr. Then we have an intervention from the member

1:37:17 > 1:37:22for Walsall North, telling us it was all about Jessica Carrott all along.

1:37:22 > 1:37:28We are grateful to him for that. Could I begin, in terms of my

1:37:28 > 1:37:36addressing the point is made by the member for Bootle, of reminding

1:37:36 > 1:37:41house of the significant changes introduced into the way that

1:37:41 > 1:37:44non-doms are treated into the United Kingdom for non-tax purposes. The

1:37:44 > 1:37:48new rules that the government is introducing fundamentally change the

1:37:48 > 1:37:54way non-doms pay tax in the UK by ending permanent non-dom status.

1:37:54 > 1:37:58Under this Finance Bill, non-doms who have been resident in the UK for

1:37:58 > 1:38:0315 of the last 20 years will no longer be treated as such by the tax

1:38:03 > 1:38:09authorities. Instead, they will pay tax on the same way as everybody

1:38:09 > 1:38:13else, bringing £1.6 billion in much-needed extra revenue for our

1:38:13 > 1:38:19public services. In order to maintain fairness, Madam Deputy

1:38:19 > 1:38:25Speaker, and to keep our tax system competitive, the clauses protect

1:38:25 > 1:38:27nonresident's trusts from being wholly introduced to the UK tax

1:38:27 > 1:38:33system. Madam Deputy Speaker, the new Clause 1 would impose an

1:38:33 > 1:38:39obligation on HMRC to review the operation of these protections for

1:38:39 > 1:38:42nonresident trusts. The review would consider the cost of these

1:38:42 > 1:38:47protections and the efforts, the effects that they have on taxpayer

1:38:47 > 1:38:53behaviour, including the effect of removing the protection. While I

1:38:53 > 1:38:55understand the intentions behind this new clause, I do not think it

1:38:55 > 1:39:02is necessary to legislate for such a review to take place. Madam Deputy

1:39:02 > 1:39:06Speaker, HM Revenue and Customs and HM Treasury have hundreds of

1:39:06 > 1:39:10officials who spend their time monitoring the tax system and,

1:39:10 > 1:39:16indeed, assessing the risks. This is right and proper. Given the

1:39:16 > 1:39:18Government's response ability to ensure the tax system delivers,

1:39:18 > 1:39:25value for money for the UK taxpayer. There is a more fundamental case

1:39:25 > 1:39:30against this new clause, a case around fairness and unintended

1:39:30 > 1:39:37consequences. Madam Deputy Speaker, the trust these provisions seek to

1:39:37 > 1:39:40protect others created before an individual is deemed to be UK

1:39:40 > 1:39:45domicile. Many of these complex trust structures will have been set

1:39:45 > 1:39:49up long before the individual even thought about moving to the United

1:39:49 > 1:39:54Kingdom, and will not have been set to comply with the UK tax rules. In

1:39:54 > 1:39:58this circumstance, it is not unreasonable that the new domicile

1:39:58 > 1:40:03are introduced in a way that protects the trusts from unintended

1:40:03 > 1:40:08consequences. It would be unfair to ask a non-dom to pay taxes on money

1:40:08 > 1:40:10they never intended to bring into contact with the British tax system

1:40:10 > 1:40:16in that way. I will certainly give way to the Honourable Member.Is the

1:40:16 > 1:40:21minister saying that it is fair for someone to plan to leave the

1:40:21 > 1:40:26country, make money, hide it in places that don't pay tax, come back

1:40:26 > 1:40:29and live in the British environment they always wanted to live in and

1:40:29 > 1:40:35avoid all of this tax?We're not saying that at all, Madam Deputy

1:40:35 > 1:40:40Speaker. Just to clarify, what we are saying is that where there is a

1:40:40 > 1:40:43situation where a non-dom may not have been in this country at all,

1:40:43 > 1:40:48for that matter, at that particular stage, has a trust, a family trust,

1:40:48 > 1:40:52all sorts of those perfectly legitimate arrangements, and they

1:40:52 > 1:40:56come into the country and are deemed domicile, it is not unreasonable

1:40:56 > 1:41:00that the contents of the trust should be protected, given the

1:41:00 > 1:41:04important caveat that as soon as income is taken out of that trusted

1:41:04 > 1:41:07falls due to the UK authorities.

1:41:11 > 1:41:16In terms of tax planning, a person in their 20s that is an emerging

1:41:16 > 1:41:19banker or whatever, they could plan to leave Britain for a number of

1:41:19 > 1:41:22years, make a lot of money, protected in a tax haven, come back

1:41:22 > 1:41:31and just not pay tax in Britain, receive all of the benefits and just

1:41:31 > 1:41:38spend the money on public school and the rest of it?Given the time, I

1:41:38 > 1:41:41think I have answered that question. Even with the protections in place,

1:41:41 > 1:41:44those non-doms who become deemed UK domicile will only be protected on

1:41:44 > 1:41:54income and gains that remain in the trust. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is

1:41:54 > 1:41:57a fair system that has been very carefully considered and consulted

1:41:57 > 1:42:02on since it was announced over two years ago. It is simply a necessary

1:42:02 > 1:42:06to introduce legislation to place additional bureaucracy and

1:42:06 > 1:42:10additional reporting burdens on HMRC, who have already scrutinised

1:42:10 > 1:42:15compliance of non-doms with the UK tax regime. Madam Deputy Speaker, in

1:42:15 > 1:42:18addition to the new clause one, we are also debating government

1:42:18 > 1:42:22amendment 17, which seeks to remove and correct a minor inaccuracy in

1:42:22 > 1:42:25schedule eight to ensure that the policy is delivered as intended. The

1:42:25 > 1:42:29change applies to part four of the scheduled cleansing mix fund. For

1:42:29 > 1:42:32the purposes of the rules, the qualifying individual is one that

1:42:32 > 1:42:36was not born in the United Kingdom and his domicile of origin is not in

1:42:36 > 1:42:44the United Kingdom. It simply corrects the bill, where it country

1:42:44 > 1:42:51reads or, in place of and. I urge the house to accept amendment 17. In

1:42:51 > 1:42:54conclusion, the reforms have been carefully drawn up to make sure we

1:42:54 > 1:42:56get the right balance between protecting public finances,

1:42:56 > 1:42:59remaining internationally competitive and showing how much we

1:42:59 > 1:43:02value the contribution of non-doms in the UK. I therefore urge the

1:43:02 > 1:43:09house to reject new Clause 1.I would like to thank the Honourable

1:43:09 > 1:43:20Member for Brentwood. He referred to somebody who was not actually a

1:43:20 > 1:43:23non-dom in that country. The new clause requires a review to be

1:43:23 > 1:43:27undertaken for the effect on provisions for protecting overseas

1:43:27 > 1:43:32trusts from the new provisions in relation to deemed domicile is and,

1:43:32 > 1:43:40art in Hamlet, I think the members opposite protest too much. Why can't

1:43:40 > 1:43:43we have a review? That is all is asked for, a review. What is wrong

1:43:43 > 1:43:50with a review?The question is that new Clause 1 be read a second time.

1:43:50 > 1:44:02As many of that opinion say Clause 1. To the contrary, no? Division!

1:44:02 > 1:44:07Clear the lobby. -- as many of that opinion say aye.

1:46:22 > 1:46:28The question is that new clause 1 be read a second time. As many of are

1:46:28 > 1:46:35of that opinion say aye. Aye. The contrary no. No. Ayes to the right,

1:46:35 > 1:46:43noes to the left. Tellers for the ayes, Jude i Cummings and Nick...

1:46:43 > 1:46:48Tedders for the noes, Craig Whittaker and Stewart Andrews. --

1:46:48 > 1:46:51tellers.

1:52:24 > 1:52:25Lock the doors.

2:00:26 > 2:00:31Order order. The ayes to the right to hundred and 79 the noes to the

2:00:31 > 2:00:45left 309. -- 279.The ayes to the right to hundred and 79, the noes to

2:00:45 > 2:00:51the left, 309. The noes have it. Unlock.

2:01:06 > 2:01:10Order minister to move government amendment 17 formally. The question

2:01:10 > 2:01:23is that amendment 17 be made. As many of that opinion say aye and no.

2:01:23 > 2:01:31The ayes have it. We now come to amendment one with which it will be

2:01:31 > 2:01:41convenient to consider amendments to macro and three.-- two and three.

2:01:41 > 2:01:45Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Labour amendment on redundancy

2:01:45 > 2:01:50payments focuses on ensuring there is proper democratic scrutiny of any

2:01:50 > 2:01:53attempt to reduce the £30,000 threshold for the taxation of

2:01:53 > 2:01:58termination payments rather than the power residing merely in regulations

2:01:58 > 2:02:01and secondary focus on ensuring that injured feelings are included rather

2:02:01 > 2:02:07than remove from the definition of injury for the purpose of tax

2:02:07 > 2:02:13excluded payments. It is frustrating to be back in this House, again

2:02:13 > 2:02:16debating these issues with no indication from the Government of

2:02:16 > 2:02:19any change in its position in this area. The previous discussions of

2:02:19 > 2:02:25the Finance Bill and in committee showed many ways in which provisions

2:02:25 > 2:02:29against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion could be tightened. Rather

2:02:29 > 2:02:32than heed these reasonable suggestions for removing loopholes,

2:02:32 > 2:02:37the Government is keen to target those being made redundant as is

2:02:37 > 2:02:41potential. Revenue. This is harrowing in a context by the

2:02:41 > 2:02:49Government is determined to adjust corporation tax rates. There is no

2:02:49 > 2:02:58link between this and changing tax rates. The opposite may be true.

2:02:58 > 2:03:03While the cuts in corporation tax have not manifestly increased

2:03:03 > 2:03:07business investment. We have discussed many loopholes which have

2:03:07 > 2:03:12been retained. Whilst new measures will corporations mean some firms

2:03:12 > 2:03:19have Labyrinth theme business arrangements and not public

2:03:19 > 2:03:22infrastructure companies. One wonders why the Government has

2:03:22 > 2:03:27decided to focus tax increases on those being made redundant that is

2:03:27 > 2:03:30effectively what these measures promote. We have been repeatedly

2:03:30 > 2:03:37reminded by the minister there are no plans to adjust the threshold

2:03:37 > 2:03:42below which tax is payable. Why create the power if that is the

2:03:42 > 2:03:49case? To use an appropriate analogy on today, Halloween, to use an

2:03:49 > 2:03:53appropriate analogy on Halloween as we all know, I would not Madam

2:03:53 > 2:03:59Deputy Speaker have bought a pumpkin last weekend to expect it to sit on

2:03:59 > 2:04:05the shelf. Would have bought it to carve. I would not purchase

2:04:05 > 2:04:09something if I did not think I was going to use it. Why are we spending

2:04:09 > 2:04:12valuable Parliamentary time debating a measure that will never be

2:04:12 > 2:04:18enacted?The Honourable lady is very generous. I was simply going to

2:04:18 > 2:04:20point out that the statutory instrument that would have to go

2:04:20 > 2:04:25through the House in relation to changing the £30,000 threshold is an

2:04:25 > 2:04:31affirmative side. It would be voted on by the House.Thank you, Madam

2:04:31 > 2:04:36Deputy Speaker, and thank you, minister. This has exemplified what

2:04:36 > 2:04:39I anticipated might happen. Was about to say the second line of

2:04:39 > 2:04:42defence from the North went after proclaiming they abstain from using

2:04:42 > 2:04:47the powers they are so keen to give themselves, as mentioned in any case

2:04:47 > 2:04:51they would state they would have to bring any change to the House for a

2:04:51 > 2:04:56vote. That is what has occurred now. We're all aware in this House of the

2:04:56 > 2:04:59difference between passing a measure through the ordinary legislative

2:04:59 > 2:05:10procedure and the amount of scrutiny that receives compared to the type

2:05:10 > 2:05:12of approach the minister has just mentioned to us now. I regret this

2:05:12 > 2:05:15appears to be part of a peace with a broader trend to accept new policies

2:05:15 > 2:05:17from the Parliamentary scrutiny they deserve in which the British public

2:05:17 > 2:05:22has rightly come to expect from its elected representatives will stop

2:05:22 > 2:05:26arrangements for those facing redundancy are not and should not be

2:05:26 > 2:05:31a matter of purely technocratic interest. Government failures to

2:05:31 > 2:05:35raise the tax-free threshold for statutory redundancy pay have meant

2:05:35 > 2:05:39it has already lost much of its original real value. This perhaps

2:05:39 > 2:05:42explains why when the Government consulted on this issue there is no

2:05:42 > 2:05:46conclusive evidence either of widespread abuse in this area, nor

2:05:46 > 2:05:52was there a clamour for reduction in the threshold in the consultation.

2:05:52 > 2:05:56We are of course also asking for the Government to reconsider plans to

2:05:56 > 2:06:02injury to feelings payments as part of termination payments.I thank my

2:06:02 > 2:06:06honourable friend for giving way. She is making an excellent speech.

2:06:06 > 2:06:11Would my honourable friend agree with me that the watering down of

2:06:11 > 2:06:15injury to feelings compensation is just another part of the

2:06:15 > 2:06:20Government's and to undermine and erode workers' rights?I am very

2:06:20 > 2:06:24grateful to the point is made by my honourable friend from Slough was

2:06:24 > 2:06:30the concern is this could be part of a piece of a broader movement to

2:06:30 > 2:06:35erode some rights that have existed for working people in the past.I am

2:06:35 > 2:06:40grateful for the honourable lady giving way. The £30,000 threshold,

2:06:40 > 2:06:4885% of payments under this, are not touched by these changes. Where

2:06:48 > 2:06:52there is the potential for manipulation of amounts above 30,000

2:06:52 > 2:06:58does the honourable lady not agree that that loophole, that potential

2:06:58 > 2:07:04tax avoidance loopholes should be closed?I am very grateful to the

2:07:04 > 2:07:09honourable member for her comments. I must say the consultation on this

2:07:09 > 2:07:12measure did not reveal widespread evidence of such manipulation of the

2:07:12 > 2:07:17rules. It was quite clear in that regard that actually there was not

2:07:17 > 2:07:23widespread evidence and that when advice was sought about appropriate

2:07:23 > 2:07:26measures in the future in this area, there was actually a range of

2:07:26 > 2:07:30different views coming from stakeholders and consultees about

2:07:30 > 2:07:33the way forward. She is absolutely right to say we're not talking about

2:07:33 > 2:07:37everyone who is made redundant being affected by these changes. I would

2:07:37 > 2:07:41agree with her on that this is applying to a minority people. Of

2:07:41 > 2:07:45course it could be a number of people who have had a very, very

2:07:45 > 2:07:50difficult time and really rely on the redundancy payment. In some kind

2:07:50 > 2:07:56of quality-of-life into the future. It is absolutely important than we

2:07:56 > 2:07:58have a proper debate in Parliamentary scrutiny around any

2:07:58 > 2:08:01changes here, which is exactly what our members are intended to do.

2:08:01 > 2:08:05Moving on to the other area which my honourable friend from Slough

2:08:05 > 2:08:09mentioned, which had started to talk about, the new plans for injury to

2:08:09 > 2:08:14feelings payments as part of termination payments, I noted there

2:08:14 > 2:08:18were many claims from the Government side on this topic during the first

2:08:18 > 2:08:23and second readings of this bill. Not least example of the claim that

2:08:23 > 2:08:26payments allotted by tribunal 's will not be affected by these

2:08:26 > 2:08:34measures. We have to be very clear, it is not the case first that

2:08:34 > 2:08:36employment tribunals can decide whether payments are subject to tax

2:08:36 > 2:08:41or otherwise. That is not within their power. In some cases, with an

2:08:41 > 2:08:45employment tribunal award, it is grossed up to take account of the

2:08:45 > 2:08:49tax. That is different to deciding whether an award is in itself

2:08:49 > 2:08:53taxable. That seems to be implied by previous debates on this issue for

2:08:53 > 2:08:57the in addition the measures in this bill would cover the far more common

2:08:57 > 2:09:01payments made directly by an employer to settle discrimination

2:09:01 > 2:09:09complaints as part of a redundancy or other dismissal. And we sadly...

2:09:09 > 2:09:16The honourable lady asserts that those awards made by tribunal is not

2:09:16 > 2:09:23necessarily nontaxable. But those made for discrimination would be

2:09:23 > 2:09:28completely nontaxable.I am grateful to the Minister for that comment

2:09:28 > 2:09:33about if we are talking about payments made for discrimination in

2:09:33 > 2:09:37the context of a redundancy payment and yes, they are. That is the exact

2:09:37 > 2:09:41point that they are. That is why we are discussing this matter about

2:09:41 > 2:09:48injury to feelings. Just around that, I would also say we had some

2:09:48 > 2:09:52comments in this House that appeared to misunderstand the nature of

2:09:52 > 2:09:57injury to feelings payments in the first place. In some cases these are

2:09:57 > 2:09:59almost trivialised, almost suggesting the payments were made

2:09:59 > 2:10:03because an employer's nose has been put out of joint rather than

2:10:03 > 2:10:08something potentially more serious. Injury to feelings is a substantive

2:10:08 > 2:10:11legal category. Where there is genuine evidence of misuse of this

2:10:11 > 2:10:15category that should be stamped out, of course was that we have not been

2:10:15 > 2:10:19provided this is part of our deliberations around this bill.

2:10:19 > 2:10:23Injuries to feelings are related to discrimination experienced by the

2:10:23 > 2:10:26person because of their characteristics as an individual

2:10:26 > 2:10:31will stop the age of agenda, sexual orientation, disability or

2:10:31 > 2:10:44ethnicity. It should be taken seriously and should

2:10:46 > 2:10:49not be the focus for penalising individuals as is the case under

2:10:49 > 2:10:51these proposals. As my honourable friend from Slough suggested, it

2:10:51 > 2:10:53does appear to be part of a piece with more general measures towards

2:10:53 > 2:10:55damn protection from individual suffering from dissemination at

2:10:55 > 2:10:57work. Whether or not this goes to tribunal, tribunal fees have been

2:10:57 > 2:10:59struck down because of their discriminatory impact which is clear

2:10:59 > 2:11:03for everyone to see. Now we find measures popping up which watered

2:11:03 > 2:11:08down individuals protections in other ways. Labour's message on this

2:11:08 > 2:11:15finance...Just so that our constituents appreciate what is

2:11:15 > 2:11:19happening in a broader context, would she welcomed the presidents of

2:11:19 > 2:11:23employment tribunal is in England and Wales and announcing in

2:11:23 > 2:11:27September that in each case, each of the three bands for injury to

2:11:27 > 2:11:34feelings, the maximum award is actually rising.Thank you. Again I

2:11:34 > 2:11:40would be very careful to split out tribunal awards that are made in the

2:11:40 > 2:11:44context of discrimination at work, which is not what we are talking

2:11:44 > 2:11:48about from awards that might be in relation to redundancy, which is

2:11:48 > 2:11:51what we are focused on. But in relation to discrimination

2:11:51 > 2:11:56generally, I think there has been a non-running discussion about what

2:11:56 > 2:12:00the rate should be four different bands full if one looks at the

2:12:00 > 2:12:04average awards, or even better the median award, we're not talking

2:12:04 > 2:12:09about massive sums of money. It is very important that the public

2:12:09 > 2:12:13perceives that message. For example, someone who has experienced

2:12:13 > 2:12:16dissemination on the basis of sexual orientation generally is receiving

2:12:16 > 2:12:22much less than £10,000, for example. I regret I cannot recall the exact

2:12:22 > 2:12:26figure. It is important we do not give an impression that people

2:12:26 > 2:12:30somehow holding companies to ransom in this area. That is perhaps

2:12:30 > 2:12:33underlying some of the change that were I suppose all is on the

2:12:33 > 2:12:36Government, through the court decision we should not have tribunal

2:12:36 > 2:12:40fees because these tribunal is not being used in excess of. They are

2:12:40 > 2:12:48being used purposefully. Just to conclude, if I may, Madam Deputy

2:12:48 > 2:12:51Speaker, Labour's message on the Finance Bill is very clear. We felt

2:12:51 > 2:12:54it offered an opportunity to reboot the ecology that is not the economy

2:12:54 > 2:12:59and deal with challenges as well as the cost of living crisis and shore

2:12:59 > 2:13:01up public finances by sealing loopholes for the very best of

2:13:01 > 2:13:09people and biggest multinational companies. We have missed

2:13:09 > 2:13:12opportunities focusing on soft targets rather than those who can

2:13:12 > 2:13:18afford expensive accountants and engaging complex schemes to avoid

2:13:18 > 2:13:28tax. Thank you.My question is, should the amendment be made? I will

2:13:28 > 2:13:37not speak for very long. We have discussed this a number of times

2:13:37 > 2:13:41before in the House. It is really important to note this is a revenue

2:13:41 > 2:13:50raising measure for the Government. However you paint this, these

2:13:50 > 2:13:54workers are facing redundancy. They are receiving this pay out at the

2:13:54 > 2:13:59same time as they are losing their jobs. So, they are by their very

2:13:59 > 2:14:02nature, people who are far honourable, people who are in a

2:14:02 > 2:14:06situation where they are having to think carefully and reassess how

2:14:06 > 2:14:09they go forward into the future. This is additional money that will

2:14:09 > 2:14:14go to the Government rather than to these workers where they are being

2:14:14 > 2:14:18made redundant. For that reason we will be supporting the Labour Party

2:14:18 > 2:14:24in their calls around the termination payments particularly. I

2:14:24 > 2:14:33think the SNP has been cleared throughout the process.

2:14:33 > 2:14:42Does the honourable lady put in that category, Fred Goodwin who received

2:14:42 > 2:14:46a £2.7 million advance on his pension as part of his package when

2:14:46 > 2:14:50he left the Royal Bank of Scotland? Madame Deputy Speaker I'm not sure

2:14:50 > 2:14:54it was a redundancy payment that would be counted within this. I

2:14:54 > 2:14:57don't know exactly the tax status of the gentlemen or how much tax he

2:14:57 > 2:15:01would've paid on that or any other payments he received. I don't think,

2:15:01 > 2:15:06certainly this, doesn't appear to me to be the Government looking to

2:15:06 > 2:15:12pursue people like this, it seems to me to be the Government looking to

2:15:12 > 2:15:16make tax changes. I give way.I thank the honourable lady for giving

2:15:16 > 2:15:23way on that point. The coalition had a chance to do something about Fred

2:15:23 > 2:15:27Goodwin do you not agree with me about that?This is before my time

2:15:27 > 2:15:33in this House, and I'm not sure what power Parliament would've had in

2:15:33 > 2:15:40relation to these payments, these changes, obviously I don't think

2:15:40 > 2:15:43somebody who has demonstrably behaved well should get huge sums of

2:15:43 > 2:15:47money as a. Are you the SNP has been clear about the position, we have

2:15:47 > 2:15:50been clear about the fact that we feel this does not offer were text

2:15:50 > 2:15:53to workers who have been made redone tact that we would like to see

2:15:53 > 2:15:56happen. I think the Government are understanding that this is our

2:15:56 > 2:16:03position and we would ask them to make moves on this.Thank you,

2:16:03 > 2:16:07Madame Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak once

2:16:07 > 2:16:11again in the debate about taxation of termination payments. Before

2:16:11 > 2:16:14entering this place I was an employment rights lawyer for more

2:16:14 > 2:16:19than a decade. This is an issue that's very important to me. I have

2:16:19 > 2:16:22represented employee who was' been dismissed and discriminated against

2:16:22 > 2:16:27day in and day out and very often this would involve negotiating term

2:16:27 > 2:16:30nation packages for them or settlement agreements and this bill

2:16:30 > 2:16:34seems to make it harder for people to get proper compensation for their

2:16:34 > 2:16:41ill-treatment. Having seen first hand the devastating effects that

2:16:41 > 2:16:45dismissal and discrimination can have on someone's life, I'm

2:16:45 > 2:16:48concerned that this bill seeks it narrow the scope of termination

2:16:48 > 2:16:53payments. At the moment we know an poliee can receive up po £30,000 in

2:16:53 > 2:16:57compensation tax-free as part of a set ylment package. That figure

2:16:57 > 2:17:00already excludes from the tax-free amount things that would generally

2:17:00 > 2:17:05be considered pay, such as accrued, untaken holiday pay, any unpaid

2:17:05 > 2:17:11wages or bonuses due and pay in lieu of notice provided for in the

2:17:11 > 2:17:14contract of employment. However some for future loss of injuries or

2:17:14 > 2:17:18injury to feelings, provided they do not exceed £30,000 are generally not

2:17:18 > 2:17:23subject to tax. Far from this being about tax avoidance, instead it's

2:17:23 > 2:17:27about properly compensating people who've been wrongly treated, rather

2:17:27 > 2:17:32than treating them as a means to topping up the coffers. Despite

2:17:32 > 2:17:36this, the Government wants to give itself the power to decrease the

2:17:36 > 2:17:41tax-free amount that can be paid to an employee upon termination. Under

2:17:41 > 2:17:45the proposals, the threshold could be reduced using secondary

2:17:45 > 2:17:49legislation, without the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament. And

2:17:49 > 2:17:54we've heard the minister says that they've got no intention to reduce

2:17:54 > 2:17:58the threshold, but... I will happily give way.I thank my honourable

2:17:58 > 2:18:04friend for giving way. The previous Conservative Government changed the

2:18:04 > 2:18:08redundancy legislation. The purpose of redundancy money is to tied you

2:18:08 > 2:18:11over until you can get another job, therefore it shouldn't be taxed at

2:18:11 > 2:18:22all.I thank the honourable member for that point. And we know that

2:18:22 > 2:18:28redundancy payments and the way they're capped means they actually

2:18:28 > 2:18:31don't often adequately compensate people after they have been

2:18:31 > 2:18:34dismissed from work but the fact that the Government wants to give

2:18:34 > 2:18:37themselves the power to decrease the threshold does beg the question -

2:18:37 > 2:18:40why do they want to do it, if they don't want to exercise that power?

2:18:40 > 2:18:44It seems to me that the Government would rather treat those who've

2:18:44 > 2:18:50suffered wrong treatment in the workplace, as a source of rev new,

2:18:50 > 2:18:54rather than victims worthy of support. This is all the more

2:18:54 > 2:18:58important when taking into account the fact that the tax-free threshold

2:18:58 > 2:19:04has not increased since 1988. Had it risen... I will give way.Even given

2:19:04 > 2:19:08the fact that as you said perhaps that threshold perhaps hasn't

2:19:08 > 2:19:12increased for some time, it still covers 85% of payments made in this

2:19:12 > 2:19:22country. Surely that's an acceptable amount?Well, the amount should

2:19:22 > 2:19:25reflect someone's loss of earnings, their ability to get back on their

2:19:25 > 2:19:30feet, the injury they've suffered after redundancy, so actually so

2:19:30 > 2:19:35say, for 15% of people who are in this position, actually we don't

2:19:35 > 2:19:40care about you, isn't good enough. If had it had arisen in line with

2:19:40 > 2:19:43price it is would be £71,000 today. Surely it seems to me that the

2:19:43 > 2:19:49Government should be going after the billions hidden in tax havens, the

2:19:49 > 2:19:52corporations avoiding tax and properly resourcing HRMC rather than

2:19:52 > 2:19:56going after those treated badly at work, being dismissed or

2:19:56 > 2:19:59discriminated against at work, can have a catastrophic effect on

2:19:59 > 2:20:03someone's life the Government should not be attacking those who might be

2:20:03 > 2:20:07at their most vulnerable. It also seems curious - I'll make some

2:20:07 > 2:20:13progress - that the Government wants to make a priority for legislation,

2:20:13 > 2:20:20enshrining into statute, the compensation for injury to feelings

2:20:20 > 2:20:23awards, connected to the termination of employment. This is an example of

2:20:23 > 2:20:27the Government, rather than going after big corporations avoiding tax,

2:20:27 > 2:20:30would rather penalise those who've been unlawfully discriminated

2:20:30 > 2:20:35against at work. When the House last debated the finance Bill at

2:20:35 > 2:20:40committee stage it was suggested on the Government stages that injury

2:20:40 > 2:20:46were feelings were a new concept la I were trying to introduce. Yet it

2:20:46 > 2:20:50is enshrined in the Equalities Act and in the various

2:20:50 > 2:20:54anti-discrimination legislation that proceeded t including the sex

2:20:54 > 2:20:58discrimination Act going back to 1975. Guidance for the level of

2:20:58 > 2:21:12awards was given some years ago and £42,000 for the most series

2:21:12 > 2:21:17discrimination, and the lowest being £800 for a one-off comment thchls an

2:21:17 > 2:21:21established legal principle. Under the proposals such awards would be

2:21:21 > 2:21:26taxed aes as a matter of reteen where the £30,000 is exceeded. Not

2:21:26 > 2:21:31only does it seem unfair to the victims, in practical terms, I

2:21:31 > 2:21:35suspect it'll lead it all sorts of litigation and drafting issues about

2:21:35 > 2:21:40whether an award is in connection to termation or to a previous act of

2:21:40 > 2:21:43discrimination unconnected to termination. For example, a woman is

2:21:43 > 2:21:48subjected to sexual harassment at work over a sustained period. She

2:21:48 > 2:21:53subsequently tells her employer she's pregnant and is dismissed as a

2:21:53 > 2:21:57ultimate R she persues a claim for Sykes harassment, unfair dismissal

2:21:57 > 2:22:02and maternity discrimination. She is awarded £30,000 for loss of earnings

2:22:02 > 2:22:05and another £o 10,000 for injury to feelings. Who determines what part

2:22:05 > 2:22:10of the award is for the harassment, unconnected to the termination of

2:22:10 > 2:22:15her employment, and therefore not taxable and who determines what part

2:22:15 > 2:22:17is in relation to the pregnancy-related dismissal and

2:22:17 > 2:22:21therefore, taxable. Moreover, because personal injury claims would

2:22:21 > 2:22:25be exempt for tax, but injury to feelings won't be, we are likely to

2:22:25 > 2:22:30see more employment tribunal claims leading personal injury, ie,

2:22:30 > 2:22:33psychiatric damage which will leave to complex medical evidence and

2:22:33 > 2:22:38longer hearings. We are training already on the employment tribunal

2:22:38 > 2:22:41system and on HRMC, surely this is not the route we should be going

2:22:41 > 2:22:45down, or is it just the start of a slippery slope where ultimately the

2:22:45 > 2:22:48Government wants it tax all injury to feelings awards and all personal

2:22:48 > 2:22:52injury awards? For these reasons I urge the Government to accept our

2:22:52 > 2:22:57amendment, go after the real tax avoiders, not hard-working

2:22:57 > 2:23:04individuals who've been treated unlawfully at work.Minister?

2:23:04 > 2:23:08Mrnchts Deputy Speaker, following our vigorous and constructive debate

2:23:08 > 2:23:11during the Committee of the Whole House last month I welcome the

2:23:11 > 2:23:14opportunity to reiterate the importance we are making to the

2:23:14 > 2:23:18changes to the taxation of termation payments today and in doing so I

2:23:18 > 2:23:23would like to acknowledge and thank the members for Oxford East Lewisham

2:23:23 > 2:23:26and Penge and asher Dean North for contributions. Before I respond to

2:23:26 > 2:23:31some of the detailed points made, let me reiterate the objectives of

2:23:31 > 2:23:34the changes we are making, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have outlined

2:23:34 > 2:23:38previously, the current laws around the tax igs of termation payments

2:23:38 > 2:23:42can be unclear and complicated. Unfortunately this complexity has

2:23:42 > 2:23:45led to a small minority of individuals and employers,

2:23:45 > 2:23:49particularly those with the most generous pay-offs seeking to

2:23:49 > 2:23:56manipulate the rules to avoid paying tax owed. They do so by

2:23:56 > 2:23:58characterising large pay-offs as termation pay-awes rather than

2:23:58 > 2:24:04earnings meaning they qualify for the £30,000 tax exemption and an

2:24:04 > 2:24:07unlimited employee NICS exemption. As both sides of the House have

2:24:07 > 2:24:14agreed it is clearly unfair for the vast majority of employee who are

2:24:14 > 2:24:18unable to manipulate payments in this way. So this is to make the

2:24:18 > 2:24:21rules fairer and prevent manipulation. Mr Deputy Speaker as

2:24:21 > 2:24:28we have heard amendments 1 and 2 would remove the power to reduce the

2:24:28 > 2:24:31£30,000 tax exemption threshold for termination payments by regulation.

2:24:31 > 2:24:34The Government has no intention for reducing this tax-free amounts

2:24:34 > 2:24:38despite the best efforts of the party opposite to suggest otherwise.

2:24:38 > 2:24:42Let me asure the House again any reduction of the threshold would be

2:24:42 > 2:24:46subject to a statutory instrument and a firmtive procedure so the

2:24:46 > 2:24:51House would have to approve any such proposal. The House rejected this

2:24:51 > 2:24:54amendment during the Committee of the Whole House and I urge it to do

2:24:54 > 2:24:59again. Amendment 3 would exempt all taxation payments for injured

2:24:59 > 2:25:05feeling. This would prevent further opportunities for those seeking to

2:25:05 > 2:25:09manipulate the system by opening up a large loophole, to account for

2:25:09 > 2:25:12injury to feelings without any medical evidence, simply to pay no

2:25:12 > 2:25:16tax. This is hard to prove or disprove and it would be very

2:25:16 > 2:25:19difficult for HMRC to regulate. In any case, payments for injured

2:25:19 > 2:25:23feelings will continue of course to qualify for the £30,000 tax

2:25:23 > 2:25:27exemption like any other normal termation of payment. The House

2:25:27 > 2:25:30wisely rejected this amendment earlier this month and I urge it to

2:25:30 > 2:25:35do so again. Mr Deputy Speaker, the changes being made by clause 5 are a

2:25:35 > 2:25:39fair and proportionate way to close the loophole in the rules that have

2:25:39 > 2:25:42been opened to be mylation in the past. The Government has repeatedly

2:25:42 > 2:25:45shown many of the concerns raised by the party opposite are unfounded and

2:25:45 > 2:25:50frankly, give the appearance, at least, of misconstruing an important

2:25:50 > 2:25:53tax avoidance necessariure as some kind of attack on those losing their

2:25:53 > 2:25:58jobs. This politicking is unworthy of the opposition. I have heard no

2:25:58 > 2:26:01new arguments for evidence today to convince me for the need to

2:26:01 > 2:26:05reconsider this clause, I therefore, urge the House to reject these

2:26:05 > 2:26:10amendments.The question is that amendment 1 be made, as many of that

2:26:10 > 2:26:18opinion say aye. Aye.The contrary no. No.Division. Clear the lobbies.

2:27:13 > 2:27:16The question is that amendment 1 be made, as many of that opinion say

2:27:16 > 2:27:27ayeAye.The contrary no.No. Tellers for the eye Nick Cummings

2:27:27 > 2:27:32and the tellers for the noes include Stewart am bres. -- Ambrose.

2:34:32 > 2:34:34Lock the doors.

2:41:08 > 2:41:20Order, order.The ayes to the right to hundred and 74, the noes to the

2:41:20 > 2:41:30left, 308. -- two 74.The ayes to the right, 274, the nose to the