31/10/2017 House of Commons

the honourable gentleman, with his

persistence, will be able to do so.

I am grateful to the member of

Bolsover.

If there were no further

points of order, we come now to the

ten minute rule motion.

Maria Eagle.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly

heard your homily about the benefits

of assistance. And I hope that the

coach and bus industry have heard it

as well. Mr Speaker, I'd beg to move

that leave be given to bring in a

Bill to introduce limits to the edge

of tyres on buses and coaches for

connected purposes. Such a bill

would aim to make it unlawful to

operate a public service vehicle

with tyres that exceed the age of

ten years. It would require the

annual MOT to check an accord the

age of the tyres and give traffic

Commissioners powers of enforcement

to sanction any public service

vehicle operators found to be using

tyres more than ten years old. Mr

Speaker, late on the 10th of

September 2012, just over five years

ago my constituents -- constituent

Francis Molloy lost her 18-year-old

son, Michael. He was killed when he

was returning home as a passenger on

a coach from an annual music

festival on the Isle of Wight. Two

others Le Carillon Patton, 23, and

the coach driver, Colin Dolby, who

was 63, also lost their lives.

Others were seriously injured. Some

in life changing ways. The crash was

caused when the front nearside tyre

of the coach burst on the northbound

83, causing the vehicle to swerve

out of control, Mount an embankment,

and strike a tree. The Surrey

coroner Richard Travers were found

on the 16th of July 2013 that the

crash was caused by a 19 and a half

year old tyre that had recently been

fitted to the coach. It had 40% of

its tread intact and was thus being

used entirely lawfully. The coroner

found, on the basis of the evidence

before him, that it had burst

catastrophically because it had

perished by reason of its age. I say

again Mr Speaker, this tyre was

being lawfully used. It had no

outward sign to show the perilous

condition it was in fact in. It was

older, Mr Speaker, than my

18-year-old constituent. The Surrey

coroner was so concerned about the

fact is he found that he wrote to

the Secretary of State for Transport

under rule 33 to raise a concern by

which, in his opinion, there is a

risk that future deaths that occur

unless action is taken. He went on

to express his concern and, I quote,

that public service vehicles

carrying passengers are able

perfectly legally to drive on tyres

that have no restriction as to their

age, and which by reason of that

age, maybe in a perilously dangerous

condition, which there is no

realistic means of detecting that

this was not the first such rule 43

letter received by the Secretary of

State for Transport concerning the

dangers of ageing tyres. The

Gloucester coroner had written,

following an inquest he conducted in

July 2010, concerning the dangers of

ageing tyres causing death. Mr

Speaker, when I discussed all of

this with Michael's mother Francis

Molloy, following being quest

verdict at that time, I found it

hard to believe that the use of such

a potentially dangerous old tyre was

in fact lawful. The fact that it

represents a Laguna in our road

safety legislation, the fact that it

was lawful. I quickly became

convinced that this is a gap which

can and should be closed. I'd took

Francis Molloy and Davis Price, an

expert forensic accident

investigator, who had given evidence

at Michael's quest, to see the right

honourable gentleman for Derbyshire

Dales, then Transport Secretary, and

asked him to ban such potentially

dangerous old tyres from our roads.

It would cost the Government nothing

to do because the date of

manufacture of the tyre is printed

on the side of the tyre and can be

easily checked at an MOT or when

every vehicle is stopped by the

authorities. It is not as if, Mr

Speaker, one would have to take a

sample of the tyre and tested in a

laboratory. It is printed on the

side of the tyre. Such a measure

would save lives. It removes

dangerous old tyres from our roads.

I believe that had such a measure

been in place before this crash, the

deaths that were caused in that

accident could have been prevented.

I thought then and I think now that

the case to do this is compelling.

It was disappointing then that the

Government at the time simply

produced guidance which, and I

quote, strongly recommends that

tyres over ten years old should not

be fitted to the front axles of

buses and coaches and goes on to

say, and again I quote such tyres

should be fitted only to the rear

axles of vehicles as part of a twin

tyre combination. Whilst this would

certainly improve safety, because it

would perhaps stop the catastrophic

nature of the crash that occurred, I

do not believe, Mr Speaker, this is

a clear signal. I had hoped that

following my representations, the

signal the Government sent would be

much clearer and I believe that my

constituents, Francis Molloy, and

the campaign which she now fronts,

would also expect more to be done.

Making use of such dangerous old

tyres unlawful is the only clear

signal that can be sent that will

have the desired effect. Now I say

this to the Government now, a new

minister is now in post. Can we just

get on and do this? They will find

widespread support if they back this

measure. My constituent, Francesco

Laporta, has been campaigning for

improved tyre safety but nonstop

since her son's death. -- Molloy.

This summer she launched a campaign

to ban tyres more than ten years old

to be fitted to public service

vehicles. Merseyside is clearly

behind the campaign. Liverpool City

Council and Mayor Anderson,

Liverpool city region and Mary

Rotherham. Mostly metropolitan

Borough Council, Sefton much apology

Borough Council, will match a poet

Council, all have passed motions

backing this campaign. --

Metropolitan Borough Council. There

had been agreement from operators to

ban old tyres from all public

service vehicles operating on the

network across Merseyside, across

our nation, bus and coach operators

like National Express and the big

Green coach company are signed up.

Smaller regional operators like city

sites Liverpool have come on board.

More councils and companies will

back this effort. This change will

be made area by area and company by

company. But it would be so much

better if the Government would

simply accept that these old tyres

kill and agreed to ban them by

supporting the proposed legislation.

Mr Speaker, Michael Molloy was a

talented and creative young writer

and musician. Just making his way in

that exciting world full of his life

was full of enjoyment, love, hope

and promise will stop his life was

needlessly cut short, tragically, in

a totally avoidable crash. His

mother is heartbroken. She thought

coach travel was a safe form of

public transport, yet the coach to

which she entrusted her son turned

out to be a death trap because of 19

and a half year old tyre that no one

could see was going to burst because

of the deterioration caused by its

age. So, let those of us now in this

House, take steps to ensure that no

other family house to ensure what

she has had to ensure. Mr Speaker,

these old tyres kill full let's get

them off our coaches and buses.

Let's get them off our roads. Mr

Speaker, I commend this motion to be

House.

Here, here. Order. The

honourable member have leave to

bring in the bill. As many as are in

favour say, aye. Of the contrary,

no. The ayes habit. He will prepare

and bringing the bill?

Mr George

Howarth, Mrs Louise Ellman, Luciano

Burge, Stephen Twigg, Miss Angela

Eagle, Alison McGovern, Dan Carden,

Bill Esther sent, Miss marry Rimmer,

Jack dryly and myself, sir. -- Marie

Rimmer.

Maria Eagle.

Tyres buses and coaches Bill.

Second

reading what day?

Friday 1st of

December. Friday 1st of December.

Thank you. Order the programme

motion, the minister or whip to

move. Move formally. The question is

the Finance Bill programme number

two motion as on the order paper. As

many as are of the opinions they

aye. Of the contrary, no. The clerk

will now proceed to read the orders

of the day.

Finance Bill is amended

in public bill committee to be

considered. In Anow. Aye thank you

for that we begin with new clause

one which it means it will be

convenient to consider government

amendment 17. To remove new clause

one, I call Mr petered out.

-- Peter

Dowd. This bill is drawing to a

close fought it has been going on

since March, interrupted by the

general election. Not brought back

very much in the post-election

period then back in September will

stop here we are moving towards the

phrase used by the minister, the

denouement of the debate. Mr

Speaker, to solve the problem, it's

his first important to recognise

that there actually is a problem. I

think that sums up the debate

surrounding the Government's

domicile measures today. I don't

think they can say there is a

problem. Non-Dom status is a

hangover from the days of the

British Empire. The non-Dom Stater

is introduced in 1799 and I'm

British colonialists to shelter

property from wartime taxes. --

status. Non-Dom is live in the UK

but claimed to have a permanent home

in another country. There is no

statutory definition of a non-Dom

and status depends on circumstantial

evidence. HMRC says 21,000

individuals claim non-domiciled

taxpayers status via their

self-assessment returns in 2014,

2015. Non-domiciled resident

taxpayers account for around 85,000

of the total figure. The remaining

35,000 or so were non-UK resident. A

famous example of non-doms include

the director of Lloyds and RBS,

Chelsea owner, Roman Abramowitz and

steel magnate, Viscount Rather Mia

and numerous footballers. Non-doms

are allowed to avoid tax and

overseas investment income if it

does not exceed £200,000 a year.

They are all required to pay income

tax on UK earnings but avoid income

tax and capital gains tax on assets

held elsewhere as long as the

amounts are not limited to the UK.

The Treasury's proposals to reform

non-Dom status would mean an

individual resident in the UK for 15

at the last 20 years would be

considered UK domicile for the

purpose of income tax cut capital

gains tax.

Listening to his case

with interest. I am curious as to

why it was the last Labour

government did nothing about

non-domiciled whatsoever until the

first 12 years and then only acted

reluctantly went falls to and he

really to the then Conservative

opposition into taking action. Why

is he not praising the Conservative

government will taking action in

this matter?

If it takes a Labour

government up to 200 years to sort

the problem out what we will sort

the problem out. On paper it agrees

that is what it agrees to be a

sensible idea. Even progressive

until metaphorically speaking.

Someone starts to scratch away at

the very thin veneer. In reality the

Government has purposely and

deliberately emptied offshore

trusts, undermining reforms.

The Panama papers and now the

Bermuda league have brought offshore

trust to the forefront of debate

around international tax avoidance.

The Panama papers have provided us

with an abundance of evidence that

offshore trusts have been used for

tax avoidance over the years. There

are many examples of well-known

people who have set up of soil trust

to ensure that paying inheritance

tax is a mug's game. Politicians and

business leaders are embroiled in

the Panama papers scandal are not

unknown. In one European country the

government was brought down when it

emerged the then Prime Minister's

family had millions hidden offshore.

It is not only restricted to

inheritance tax but income tax, as

shown by the recent case relating to

one of the Scottish football teams.

We have also seen in Spain, the

rising problem of tax avoidance,

relating to football image rights

with high profile players convicted

of shifting profits from image

rights offshore. This is something

that both the front bench and the

honourable member Fodorova have

actually raise. There are reports of

offshore trusts being used by the

banks in the City of London. In

2011, following advice from

Deloitte, Deutsche Bank encourage

people to set up trusts on the backs

of their bonuses. The government

managed to defeat this scheme but

there are others in use today. HMRC,

it has seen its staffing levels

reduced by 70% since 2010, is

woefully understaffed and under

resourced to tackle them. Insiders

within HMRC believe as much as £1

billion a year is lost to wealthy

individuals hiding money in offshore

trusts. The House should be clear,

offshore trusts continue to operate

outside the law and within impunity.

They remain one of the last bastions

for international tax dodgers while

the value of the assets hidden in

these trusts remain unknown and

continue to operate under a veil of

secrecy. A conservative estimate by

the Economist, suggests at least 8%

of the world's wealth is a legally

unreported. Though other estimates

put it actually higher. In short, it

impossible to know how much money

the UK Treasury is foregoing in tax,

as this government continues to

Stonewall any attempts by the side

to introduce a public register for

offshore trusts.

I think his

well-intentioned proposal might

backfire and if it were to be put

through, if you are rich people

would come here and pay as any tax

at all.

I thank the honourable

gentleman for his intervention but

that has been a persistent argument

we have had for years and there

doesn't appear to be any evidence to

back up that assertion. I understand

that HMRC is currently responding to

EU directives on money-laundering

and has begun the process of the

registration of new trusts and those

already operating must provide

additional information by the 31st

of January 20 18. But HMRC has

confirmed it will not penalise

anyone as long as they register

before the fifth December this year.

The rules that state all trusts with

UK tax liabilities must be

registered, but the process is

conveniently silent on the trust

registered in Crown dependencies and

overseas Territories. Also, the

information provided to HMRC will

not be made publicly available. The

Minister and those on the benches

opposite have made much of the claim

that the Conservative Party have

been clamping down on tax avoidance.

In fact, it was considered such a

priority in the general election,

the Prime Minister, at her most

imperious at that stage, gave the

subject a grand total of eight lines

in the Conservative Party manifesto.

After seven years in power, the

government's record is still there

to see. Another example of the

government's desire to be seen to be

doing something, when in fact the

changes proposed are artificial and

amount to little, while the

exemption for offshore trusts remain

intact. I will give way.

I am

grateful to the honourable member

for giving way. On this question of

bearing down on tax avoidance,

evasion and on compliance, would he

recognise that since 2010 we have

brought in £160 billion in clamping

down on avoidance. Last week, we

have had an announcement that the

tax gap, between what we should be

bringing in and what we are bringing

in is at a low of 6%, a lower level

than at any year than under the last

previous Labour government?

I am

pleased the minister Razorback,

because no doubt in future we'll

have another debate on that

particular point. I have an

interesting assertion. When we have

that debate, the question of the tax

gap, but that is for another day, Mr

Speaker. I am happy to come back to

it and debate that with the Minister

in due course.

I thank the member

for giving way. Would he not agree

with me that a tax gap that is one

of the lowest in the world is

something we should be celebrating

on a bill that is debating taxation.

We should be thanking the government

for making sure taxes are collected.

Actually, it doesn't include the

multinationals. And that this point

I am trying to make, I am happy to

come back to that in another debate

if the government do wish to. I will

give way.

Would he not recognise on

this question of the tax, it is 6%

currently. If you went back to the

last Labour government in 2005, it

was 8%. If you applied that a

percent today, it would be £11.8

billion less in tax, the equivalent

of funding every police officer in

England and Wales. The tax gap

matters and I think the honourable

member should address the question

is being put to him on it.

The tax

fell every year from 2005 to 2010,

so I will bring his attention to

Labour's record. It is important, as

I said, if we want the debate about

the tax, we can do that. I am more

than happy that my colleagues will

do in relation to that. I have said

many times in this debate, it is a

question of trying to also look

forward. We can all talk about our

record, how good or bad it might

have been, but let's move on and try

to deal with the issues that face

us, not the issues that might have

faces. I will give way.

I don't want

to talk about the tax and move

forward, to move forward, at the

very least can you welcome...

I am

not doing anything. Order, I am not

doing anything. I don't want to talk

about this, I don't want to talk

about that. The debate goes through

the chair, as the honourable lady

knows.

If the honourable member

doesn't want to discuss the tax gap

in this debate, can the honourable

member acknowledge an extra billion

pounds has been collected under this

government, more so than under

Labour? Surely he would want to

welcome that at this opportunity?

As

much as I would like to debate with

the honourable lady on the issue

about the tax gap, it shows an

ignorance of the issue, the issues

around the nature of the tax gap and

the type of issues we have to

discuss. So, as far as I am

concerned, I am happy to come back

to this, I am happy to come back to

this in due course. More than happy

to debate this in due course at

another time. I am making the point

in relation to this issue that we

have to move on. I want to make

progress and I will come back to the

honourable lady in a few moments. In

the past month alone we have seen

the government face a barrage of

criticism from European Union about

its poor record on tackling tax

avoidance. The European Parliament

report into money laundering, tax

evasion has accused the government

of directly obstructing the fight

against tax avoidance. The European

Commission has opened an

investigation into the government's

changes for company rules which has

made it easier for international

companies to shift their taxable

income offshore. And that goes to

the heart of the point I am making

about the tax gap and the

intricacies of it. I will give way.

He has been very generous with his

time. He has made it clear he wants

to talk about this issue. The issue

on the order paper is the amendment

says they want to review in relation

to this issue after 15 months.

Which, despite speaking now for over

ten minutes, the honourable member

hasn't stress. Can the honourable

member tell us, have Labour assessed

how much a review would cost and

whether that is a diversion of

resources from the Treasury?

I would

like to thank the honourable lady

for that intervention and I think

the members opposite have taken

about seven minutes of the time I

have been on my feet. 6.5, the

minister says. I am quite happy to

have these issues debated. The point

about this and the issue about the

review is precisely that. Why not

have a review? It is a perfectly

reasonable and legitimate way

forward, given the nature of the

matter, why not have a review? If

there is nothing to hide and the

government are happy to have this

open, transparent, in public, tell

everybody how wonderful they are

doing in relation to this matter,

let's have the review. The

honourable lady will no doubt be

supporting this new clause in due

course?

I don't think the honourable

member heard my question is, how

much would the review cost?

I

suspect the amount of money that

will be brought in, if we have a

review, identify areas where there

isn't compliance, I suspect it will

bring in more money, once we have

had the review and identified the

problems, than it would cost to have

the review. That is why we have

reviews. I am sure the honourable

lady will support this new clause.

The opposition, the government's

opposition to any action which would

crack on offshore trusts isn't new.

In 2013 while G8 leaders tried to

push forward with new tax evasion

measures, the last Prime Minister

was undermining them by writing

personal letters to the EU president

at the time, begging him to stop

offshore trusts from being included.

In contrast, the last Labour Prime

Minister, Gordon Brown, to his

credit actively spend his last year

in office to get world leaders to

agree to strict measures on offshore

tax havens. All the more reason for

a review, let's have the review. I

am speaking directly to that. If

there is nothing to be fearful of,

let's have the review. Our

opposition to the exemption of

offshore trusts is well noted. We

have called for its removal since

March. I called for its removal at

the ways and means resolution

debate, at the second reading and

the public bill committee and I call

for it once again. I am happy to

give the Minister an opportunity to

reconsider, because the British

public are no fools and they are

more educated than ever as to what

an offshore trust is and what it is

used for.

He has been generous in

letting us intervene so Moly times,

but just to bottom out one

particular point that came up at

committee, did he at least accept,

albeit he may feel are measures

proposed here are imperfect, does he

at least accept we have made more

progress and are going further in

terms of raising fair taxes from

non-doms than any other government

in the past?

I recognise any

progress whatsoever, that anybody

brings. If the government have

brought progress to this process,

fine, it is wonderful. I think there

should be more progress. I am

absolutely convinced that under the

stewardship of the Minister, they

will be having even more progress on

this particular matter. So whilst

the Minister may be able to use

arcane rules this House prevents the

opposition from removing the

exemption for offshore trusts and

entries in the public register, you

cannot hide from the fact his

government have a pretty poor record

in this particular area. The heart

of the disagreements of the

government here today is simple, it

is whether all UK citizens are to be

treated equally under the eyes of

the law and for the purposes of

taxation, or whether they are not.

Throughout this bill, it has been

clear the government is content to

actively ensure we have a tax system

that favours the wealthy few at the

expense of many. Mr Speaker, the

government could act to close this

tax avoidance measure. It could act

to send a message to those who want

to dodge taxes that the UK will not

tolerate it. It could send a message

to those who don't avoid their

taxes, that the government is on

their side. It could even send a

message of support to the

hard-pressed public servants by

taking up the suggestion of the

right honourable member for West

Dorset, by hype of the catering

taxes raised by clamping down on the

Dodgers.

I thank the honourable member for

giving way. I am a bit concerned if

the Honourable member wants to give

up messages, the one message he

should give out is the changes

proposed on the side of the

Government will bring in an extra

1.6 billion over five years. That is

money that will be supporting all of

our public services for everyone.

I

suspect that is a starter. I'm sure

much more can be brought in. I'm

sure the Honourable lady will, in an

endeavour to get the figure up that

support new clause one later on. The

reality is, the only message this

government wants to send is one of

superfine support for these tax

dodgers. The Dodgers may want to

hear the message that those public

sector workers who have not had a

pay rise for years do not want to

hear it. People waiting for an

operation for months to not want to

hear it. Police and firefighters do

not want to hear it. Mr Speaker, I

can assure the members opposite that

at the next general election, the

public will hear that message loud

and clear because Labour will be

there to remind them of the

Government in chaos, disarray, and

beginning to have a putrefying decay

about it.

Has the honourable

gentleman completed his speech?

he

has. Sima could I am immensely

grateful to the honourable

gentleman. We are shortly going to

be available to the services of the

clerk.

I think we are all agreed in

this house that we need to collect

substantial revenues to have decent

public services. I think we are all

agreed in our condemnation of people

who break tax laws and who evade

taxes and commit crimes against the

tax codes. Tax avoidance, legal

avoidance of taxation, is a more

difficult issue. Many Labour MPs

have trotted through the lobbies

under a Labour government to make

sure that Isas have tax advantages

for the many supported an idea that

there should be tax breaks for

members of parliament choosing to

save for their retirement through

the pension scheme. This is a kind

of tax avoidance. Is the honourable

member saying that the Labour Party

no longer agrees with that kind of

avoidance recommended by previous

Labour governments in the interests

of spreading saving or is he now of

the view there are certain kinds of

orders that are perfect reasonable,

undertaken by Labour MPs, and other

types of tax avoidance which are

also perfectly legal he does not

approve of?

I think there is a bit

of a difference between an Isa and

institutional systematic avoidance

and abuse of the tax system. There

is a huge difference between

breaking the law and living within

the law. Where government is both

persuasions have put provisions

entered the tax code encouraging

people to save or invest in a

certain way in order to pay less

tax, that surely is the will of

Parliament and the will of those

parties and we cannot object to

people and institutions taking

advantage of it. The right thing to

do, as I think in some ways the

Labour Party is now trying to do, on

which people who come into our

country to undertake part of their

affairs but not all of them, it is

to make sure we have settled in law

which is fair and we enforce it and

take a tough line for any of those

who break the law. We cannot, if

they take advantage of things put

into the tax codes to encourage

certain types of investing on

savings behaviour in the same way

that MPs, most of them can take

advantage of the avoidance

provisions to save through a pension

scheme or an Isa. And so, the

subject at debate today, is the

issue about very rich people and

should their assets, often

productive assets which they have

saved for and earned and a keen

related before they came to the UK,

the suitable object for taxation if

they come and choose to do some

things in the UK where they are

clearly subject to our codes and

have to pay our taxes. In the past

Labour governments and Conservative

governments have taken a pragmatic

view there is an advantage in very

rich entrepreneurial, success of the

becoming to the country were setting

up businesses and making investments

here, committing part of their

capital to our country and we will

tax that fairly but in the same way

as you or I would be taxed, Mr

Speaker, it will making such

investments on a much smaller scale.

That is fair to us as

taxpayers and investors but it is

not our business to say that we are

also going to try to tax their

assets and income accumulated and

earned elsewhere, which they have

established by other means before

which are presumably being taxed in

other countries that are being

governed by a double taxation

arrangement or agreement. And so I

would just say to Labour, when they

think there is a huge crock of gold

here, which for some unknown reason

successive Labour coalitions and

Conservative governments have been

reluctant to pluck that they did not

do it in the past because there was

not. Maybe you are quite close to

that point. If you go further and

further encroach on the legitimate

income and assets of foreigners

coming here, which is assets and

income not in this country, then you

might get to the point where one of

them said, I would rather go

somewhere else for that there are

plenty of other countries around the

world he would welcome the money,

investment, and income, which is

going to be taxable in that country.

If they are prepared not to tax

another income and other assets

elsewhere, they will have the

benefit rather than not. I think the

art of taxation is finding the right

balance, where the host country gets

enough out of it and where it is

obviously a fair imposition of tax

on anything they do in that country

alongside fellow residents of that

country was not deterring so many

that we are no longer a great centre

for people with money and investment

and talent, who would otherwise come

here.

I am grateful for giving way.

On the point he is making, would he

agree with me that we do not make

these decisions in isolation. We are

competing with other countries in

the world who might also like to

have very rich individuals and

investors. While we are making in

the UK the climate more hostile

difficult in order to raise more

money for public services, many

other countries, the opposite is

true for stud within the UK at

Malta, Portugal and latterly most

prominently Italy are moving in the

other direction and creating their

own non-Dom regimes to draw away

these individuals from the United

Kingdom.

We live in a very global

world. The richer people are the

more footloose they can be the

better the tax and legal advice they

can get because most of them loosely

want to obey the law in the country

they choose to live in and the

consciously choose to operate in.

They usually operate in several

countries, not just one, which

creates genuine definition problems

about where they are truly resident,

where the main centre is. They'll be

comparing all the time good advice

the different regimes available. It

is obvious in the EU there is a lot

of jealousy of London and the wider

UK success in attracting talent and

investment from around the world, as

my honourable friend says, regimes

are being put in to tempt people

away by giving them a better deal in

other European countries. I was

about to draw the attention of the

Has two hugely important debates

about to be undertaken in both the

Senate and the House of

Representatives in the United States

of America, with New York and other

great centres that are already very

attractive magnets for which people

and large-scale universities. They

are suggesting that they might take

their top rate of tax down from 39.6

to 35. They might simplify their

income tax rates from seven to just

three. They might take their

corporation tax rate from a very

high headline 35% effective rather

lower rate to 20% or even lower

because they are very serious about

becoming tax competitive again and

they will be a year, just as surely

some European countries on the

continent are trying to be more of

lower. The opposition must

understand how global the world is,

how dynamic it is and how in order

to maximise your tax revenue you

need to set ways of taxing and rates

of taxation that people will stay

and pay.

Will you agree with me that

the greatest threat to tax havens is

not the blustering is of the party

opposite but countries like the

United States of America reducing

their tax rates so much that it does

not become effective in anyway to be

using these kinds of places for any

form of functions and business.

That

is right. We can see that tax havens

have been helping to drive tax rates

down in other centres. We only have

to look across to Ireland to see how

attractive it can be if the

mainstream country decides to take

the corporation tax rate down to

very low levels and attract a lot of

company based investment. Each

country has to decide where once to

be in that spectrum you need a high

enough rate to attract serious money

but not to track the best prospects

for paying taxes. I think this

country is now in danger of becoming

uncompetitive in taxation when we

look at what America is about to do

and what some of the European

partners smaller countries are

doing.

He makes an important point

about how important it is this

country does not deter the people

who bring the Muniain, which in turn

funds public services. Would he

agree with me that if we were to

take the sort of action imposed upon

us by the Labour Party, we would put

at risk £9 billion worth of

investment into our office which is

brought in each year by those are

non-domiciled in this country.

That

is the kind of sum of money I am

talking about. It is a serious sum

of money for the economy and it is a

nice balance. All of us want to

collect serious revenues. We want

good quality public services and

productive growing and exciting

economies. We need tax rates which

are realistic and tax rules. Each

time the Conservative government has

had to cut rates more revenue has

been raised. Our rates have been on

the high side for optimising the

revenue.

Will he accept the

opposition fully understands and

acknowledges the arguments are made

here today? The fact is, when they

were in power, they did not take the

steps recommended now because they

recognised a reality. It is easy for

the opposition to argue this bit

different when you are in

government.

I pointed it out at the

beginning that Labour in office were

probably more gentle on this group

of people than the Conservative

Party has been in office. I think

they came to that judgment for good

reasons. I see they all do is agree

with the previous governments but

they will discover that is a luxury

of opposition and when you are in

government you are responsible for

sustaining as well as growing the

revenue it is very easy to get rid

of revenue by annoying people and

companies. It is far more difficult

to help systematically build up the

good tax base by promoting economic

growth.

I thank my right honourable

friend for giving way. Would he

agree with me that, when opposition

refer to Isas as Dodgers, they are

not just referring to the tax

wealthy that the many thousands of

individual people coming here who

make a contribution to our economy

and pay all the taxes in the normal

manner in this country.

It is

offensive language to call people

tax dodgers. If they have made a

good investment in our country, they

are paying all legal dues that this

parliament requires them to do full

I don't think calling them tax

dodgers is wise, friendly or

helpful. That is why I began my

remarks by asking the honourable

member if he could draw a

distinction between a non-Dom who

came here and paid legal taxes and a

Labour MP who deliberately put their

savings money into an Isa or a

pension fund in order to avoid

paying tax on that. It seems to me

they comparable things will stop I

do not regard either as tax dodgers.

I don't begrudge taking advantage of

savings breaks which are offered to

British taxpayers as dodging. I

think they are a welcome contributor

to greater growth and prosperity to

our country and we could think of a

nice way to sum them up. I would

urge the House to resist the

blandishments of the Labour Party

remember the stands of the Labour

Party in government which was wiser

and unite behind what I had my

colleague from the front bench will

be saying, which is that we welcome

talent and industry and enterprise

and money into this country and we

want to have a fair basis of

taxation which does not deter them

from coming.

Thank you very much Mr

Speaker. Mr Speaker, I want to start

by telling the Has about the sad

death of my predecessor. Frank Doran

was the MP for Aberdeen North. He

also represented other Aberdeen

seats during his 30 year career in

Parliament. He was incredibly well

respected across the House. I know

people who worked with him will

remember him and will have respected

the work he did. He was a principled

man. He helped a lot of people who

are now my constituents and they

often talk fondly about him. I just

want to know to particularly he

worked incredibly hard of the papa

dashes in the Piper Alpha oil

tragedy. At this time, our thoughts

are with his wife, Joan and is

tragedy and any colleagues across

the House who are friends and

colleagues of his. I would like to

pass on the condolences of the SNP

to his family. Thank you very much.

I don't want to talk at much at

length about this particularly. The

SNP has consistently been critical

about the situation we are in around

non-domiciled individuals and the

issue of offshore trusts. We have

also consistently been critical

about the complicated nature of the

UK tax code. It has regularly been

said the UK tax code used to be a

bit and no need a van to cart the

tax code around. The attentional is

for the loopholes and the more

difficult it is for people to comply

and also for government agencies to

make sure that compliance occurs. We

have raised the issue. I know the

member previous to me was talking

about not conflating tax dodging

with nom-doms. What I am suggesting

is the more corrugated the tax code

is the more likelihood there are

loopholes that people can exploit.

-- complicated. In this regard we

have concerns and these have been

raised. We will continue to raise

our concerns.

Suggestions is from the backbenches

of the Conservative about moving the

UK towards some sort of tax-haiven

post Brexit and I'm sure some in the

Conservative Party would completely

reject. Absolutely.

The honourable

lady was saying she would like to

not to see Britain and the people in

Britain enjoying lower taxes, if it

were possible.

What I suggested was

the issue around tax havens. I think

people have a goot understanding of

the difference of what is a tax

haven and what is a country with

lower taxes. But I think it's

completely reasonable and I think

colleagues, on individuals across

the House, if we want to have

excellent public services, and we

want to have public service that is

are best served we need a tax system

that suits that. We have a tax

system that means people are paying

for those excellent services. I'm

not in anyway trying to dodge that

question. I think we should have a

tax system that ensures we have

excellent public services. I give

way one more tienchts doesn't the

honourable lady see the opportunity

of Brexit that we can use or tax

system to getting big businesses to

pay a fair share of taxes and give

hard working people of modern

Britain a tax cut? The opportunity

for Brexit is that Scotland will be

£30 billion worse off as a result.

My city will be the worst-off place

in the UK outside the City of

London, as a result. This is work

that has been done by the LAP. This

is not work, this is not some sort

of biassed point of view. This is

LSE work specifically around the

cost...

They don't like the experts.

They don't like experts.

In terms of

Brexit, I do not see positive

outcomes from the UK as a result of

Brexit. However, I want to talk,

specifically around this issue, the

tax code and make clear we reject

moving towards a tax haiven Britain.

We would reject anything that would

increase the amount of possible

loopholes that there are. We're

pleased at changes that the

Government is making around

anti-avoidance, we would like them

to gut but that will always be the

case, we are pleased they are making

positive moves in some of the

anti-avoidance moves they are

putting forward. The shadow

minister's speech I agree with,

almost everything he said in

relation to the issues around

non-domiciles and around off-shore

trusts and as I Saud I won't speak

for very long, Mr Speaker but we'll

support the Labour Party if they

intend to push new Claws 1 to the

vote today. -- new clause 1 to the

vote today. THE SPEAKER:

James

Cleverly.

Mr Speaker, we all and I'm

sure that you agree with me on this

Mr Speaker, we all love a familiar

tune, we all love a tune we can-up

along to or whistle along to, the

bars and notes of which fall

effortlessly from our minds.

Therefore, I would imagine that all

members of the House were as washed

over with a warm feeling of

familiarity when they heard the tune

being played by the Labour front

bench opposite and the tune that

they were playing was a familiar

one, that the Conservatives don't

take tax seriously and that we are

on the side of tax dodgers and that

kind of stuff. We've heard had so

many times before. It's nice to see

that this gargantuan Finance Bill

was used as a stage from which the

honourable member from Bootle played

that particular tune. But it comes

to mind, Mr Speaker, that wonderful

wonderful sketch from the 1970s with

Morecambe and Wise and Andre Previn,

I don't know if you are familiar

with it, where Eric Morecambe is at

the piano with a discordant notes

flooding from it and Previn says -

stop, stop, stop, you are playing

all the wrong words, to which he

replies - no, sweetheart I'm playing

all the right notes, not necessarily

in the right order. An awful accent.

I apologise. And the member of

Bootle opposite was playing neither

the right note and definitely not in

the right order because actually

when you look at the truth behind

some of the claims being made from

the Labour front bench, you see they

are built on fan, because far from

being on the side of tax dodgers and

tax avoidance this party since being

in Government, have put measures in

place which since 2010, have

generated an extra £160 of tax

revenue. You were singing the wrong

tune then. This Bill puts things in

place, which will, if enacted will

bring in additional extra billions

of pounds to the Treasury, so again,

you were singing the wrong note

then. This Government has ensured

that the closing of the tax gap,

Which? Was initiated under a

previous Labour Government, I think

it'll be churlish not to concede

that but far from preventing that or

rowing back on that tax gap this,

Government has actually continued

the pressure to make sure the gap

between the taxes that should be

collected and the taxes that are

actually collected reduces and

reduces and reduces and I, as a

Conservative, am proud of the role

that this Conservative Government

has taken, to make sure that the

people who should be paying taxes

are paying taxes, and that they are

paying taxes at the appropriate

level. But my right honourable

friend, the member for Woking, is

absolutely spot on, when he says it

is corrosive, when we start blurring

the definition between tax avoidance

and tax evasion. When we start

talking about people who are acting

in a financially pragmatic way and

completely within the law. When we

start talking about them, in the

same way that we talk about conmen

and criminals, it sends a massively

corrosive message. At a point in

time when the world is getting

smaller in terms of where people can

base themselves and where they can

base their businesses. And whilst it

is perhaps fun for the members

office to vilify these people who

transact their businesses

internationally, they choose where

they rest their heads at night.

Whilst it is fun to vilify them and

to make them sound as if they are

some Hallowe'en villain, to try to

be topical for a moment, it is

actually counter-productive to do

so. Because whilst each individual

utterance will itself make very

little difference, the fact that

they combine, they build to create

the background, the background music

of intolerance to international

business and successful people, will

ultimately mean those people will

locate themselves somewhere else.

And rather than getting the tax

income from them that this country

deserves, there will be a different

country that will generate those tax

revenues. And a pound that is taxed,

or a euro or dollar, is a nund

cannot be used by this Government

for the public services and the

public servants o who deserve our

thanks and rewards and whilst it

might feel superficially pleasant to

see an international business flee

from these shores or an

international business person flee

from these shores or a non-domicile

to flee from the shores. People say

- if they don't want to be here, let

them G it is a nice sound bite but

ultimately it is massively

counter-productive to the job that

we should be doing as

parliamentarians and the job the

Government should be doing in

office.

Will my honourable friend

give way?

I will.

I'm enjoying the

very good speech my honourable

friend is making and I don't want

obviously to get into some sort of

Brexit debate or heaven forbid that

he and I might fall out in some way

or even worse do impersonations of

bygone sketches which he clearly

couldn't remember, because he wasn't

born then. But on a serious point

does he share my concern that

already we are seeing great

businesses, looking at relocating,

as that time comes when we leave the

European Union, along with

individuals who actually don't feel

welcome in our great country?

I take

thank The Right Honourable lady for

her intervention and whilst she and

I might not necessarily agree on our

Brexit decision and whilst she and I

might not necessarily agree on the

impact that that decision will have

on international businesses and

British businesses that might be

international, I think it is fair

for her to highlight the fact that

we should do nothing which gives

businesses cause for concern and it

would be unfair to suggest that the

decision to leave the European Union

has no impact on business decisions,

and as someone that campaigned for

Brexit, I think I have an additional

duty to prove her wrong. I know that

she is of such a generous nature,

that if some point in our dotage we

are sharing a glass of wine together

and we were to look back at the

events in the immediate aftermath of

Brexit and if I were to proved right

I'm quite sure that she would be

more than willing to concede that

point. But, yes, we do have a duty

to give businesses as much

confidence as possible, about being

based here in the UK and actually

having a tax regime that supports

business and enterprise is a really

important part in doing that. I'm

more than happy to give way.

Would

he also agree that there is a duty

on the part of the Bank of England

and the Treasury to talk this

country up, not talk this country

down and it make sure that when we

talk about the interests of balance

and investment, not to make up

terrible numbers as a continuity of

project fear from last year, where

they say it'll mean a lot of jobs,

growth and tax revenue, particularly

non-domicile tax revenue but we saw

that's not the case and lowest

unemployment has continued for and

it would be wrong to continue today

I thank the honourable member for

the intervention and at this end of

day's party that I seem to be

throwing where my honourable friend

from the nothing Hampshire,

Broxtowe, that's exactly the point I

meant and my honourable friend from

Dover, I'm more than happy to also

invite Treasury officials and Mark

Carney and we can sit down, sharing

my beautifully aged claret,

discussing such things and I do

think that... Or indeed some wine

from my honourable friend's - she's

not in her place at the moment,

which produces fantastic wine. And

we'll discuss the implications of

fear mongering in the British

economy.

I would like to thank my

honourable friend for giving way. We

are of course debating the amendment

to suggest that within 15 months of

passing there act there should be

another review. And picking up on

the earlier interventions, 15

months, of course would be the

February, two months, or a month

before Brexit. Just at the time when

financial services companies are

already having to rethink their

operations, to cope with Brexit.

Would my honourable friend agree

that this is a destruction that this

sector does not need, and that this

sector contributes over £70 mill

billion in tax to the UK economy

which we want to keep?

My honourable friend is absolutely

spot on. I cannot help but think

that this new clause 1 is more to do

with the members opposite feeling

that they need to put in amendments

and revised clauses because a call

for a review of this kind is

invariably the thing you say when

you are not actually sure what you

should say, so you decide to say

that instead. Mr Speaker, you will

be disheartened to hear that I am

about to conclude my comments for

today. I strongly urge colleagues on

both sides of the house to reject

this new clause and do everything we

can to send a very, very positive

message, but for businesses

currently in the UK, for businesses

that might think to come here in the

UK, for business people that are

deciding about where they are going

to domicile and where they are going

to pay tax, that the UK is open,

ready to do business, it welcomes

business people, as long as they pay

their fair share in tax and help

support public services that we

value.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought

that as I was going to speak this

afternoon I felt that I should

listen to speeches made by

colleagues in this house. In

particular, I listened... I know, a

controversial view. In particular, I

listened very carefully to the

speech made by the Honourable Member

for Bootle, from the opposition

front bench. He made some

interesting remarks. I am going to

pick him up on one phrase. Think

about it and bear that fact in mind

as we look at not only the

implications of this proposed new

clause one, but the bill as a whole.

The phrase that comes to mind is the

honourable gentleman said that the

British public are no fools. As I

listened to him expound on this,

using this phrase from my thought to

myself, well, the British public,

whether they be in the public

gallery, whether they be the many

millions undoubtedly watching this

debate at this moment... Billions!

They are no fools and they will

realise that this government, this

Conservative government, since 2010,

has brought in more than £160

billion of anti-avoidance and tax

evasion measures. The British public

are no fools, Mr Speaker. They will

realise that this Government, a

Conservative government, since 2010,

has reduced the tax gap, the gap

between what should be collected by

tax and what actually is, to 6.5%.

Indeed, the lowest that anybody can

recall. The British public are no

fools, Mr Speaker. They will see

that this government, a Conservative

government, since 2010, has

abolished permanent... Will be

abolishing permanent non-dom status

for the first time. These are the

practical achievements which this

bill helps to build upon. In respect

of the precise nature of this

proposed Clause one, I can do no

better than to agree with my dear

and honourable friend, the member

for Chelmsford, when she suggests

that, in my view entirely

accurately, that the disruption that

might be caused due to the timing of

such a review may be a significant

disincentive and, frankly, difficult

from a business perspective at that

time because of the Brexit

negotiations and situations at that

time. Also, it is important as a

house, from whatever party, to

recognise that this government is

making the case for a sustainable

fiscal policy that makes sense in

the modern world. We have already

heard from many speakers on both

sides about the international

context in which we operate. We are

in a smaller world. We all know the

impact that technology and ease of

travel is having on every aspect of

life. Bearing in mind the

international context, frankly

things are more competitive. We

cannot rest on our laurels.

Match

point, would he care to reflect on

the issue of footballers? The front

bench for Labour said footballers

often get away with things under

this heading. I thought that a lot

of people in Britain liked the fact

that talented footballers could come

here for a limited amount of time,

and a sensible arrangements for tax

affairs. Does he think that is

reasonable?

Not only do I agree with

him about footballers, I do think

that, Frankie, most people, as I

said, the millions watching the

debate, many of them will recognise,

because they see and enjoy the

top-quality Premier League in this

country, they will recognise the

impact that some top foreign players

bring. I would add that it is not

just footballers. It is music stars,

artists, creatives, writers,

financiers, businesspeople,

entrepreneurs. Of these people can

prove such an asset to this country.

Footballers are a very visible

example of that. But we should not

forget the more hidden, less public

face. That is what Britain is good

at and Britain should continue to be

correct. We should be proud of that

here in this house.

In relation to the bill, I thought

that I should make clear to the

house that when this Government is

making a case for a sustainable

fiscal policy, we do need to bear in

mind the case for support vocational

taxes. -- for simplification of

taxes. The point made by the

honourable lady for Aberdeen North,

she always makes very good speeches.

In particular, I thought her point

on simplifying taxes being a good

game for us to always think about is

very important. I think the

minister, the Government, everybody

in this house should always be

thinking of ways in which we could

make things simpler. We should also

be thinking about ways in which we

can make things fairer. Ways in

which we can make sure there is a

genuinely level playing field for

all businesses that seek to work in

this country. I think that is not

just fair from an ethical

perspective, but having a level

playing field is an integral part of

what makes Britain a good place to

do business. If we can focus on

making sure that our tax code is

more simplified, also focus on

making sure our tax code is

fairer... I give way.

I thank my

honourable friend for being so

generous in taking interventions. I

believe I am correct in saying that

he has returned from the Finance

Bill committee. He will have seen

the size of the Finance Bill, which

resembles a doorstop. Does he think

that we ought to shrink Finance Bill

and have simple tax codes?

I thank

my honourable friend for that

intervention. Yes, I did have a huge

pleasure of sitting on the Finance

Bill Committee, fascinating as it

was. And yet there is no doubt that

the Finance Bill itself is a

whopper. This is huge! There is a

good case, and I am sure the

minister will come to this in his

remarks, that we do need to perhaps,

and this is not distracting from the

substance of what the Government was

saying, which I completely support,

but I think if we could think or

actively in which we can make things

shorter and more easily

digestible...

If it would assist on

tax complexity, the size of the UK

tax code is now 22,000 pages and 10

million words. Would he agree with

me that it is a complexity that I

think we need to change if we are

going to be globally competitive

into the future?

I agree with my

honourable friend. Actually, coming

to this bill, and as we know our

government is a very complicated

thing. Rome was not built in a day

full stop I think that this bill can

be the start of, or continue, should

I say, do work that I know the

Minister under Treasury have already

begun, and worked on. How do we deal

with the difficulty with making

things fairer and simpler, but also

making sure we have the right

incentives for businesses to come to

our country and really grappling

with that in the context of trying

to make sure that the tax code

simpler and the office for taxable

vocation is something we should

definitely... Yes, I give way.

Does

he think perhaps that leaving the

European Union is a real opportunity

to take back control of our tax

system and make it a lot simpler?

And perhaps some of the reason it

has got so long and complex is all

of these EU rules?

I hugely respect my honourable

friend. It is worth mentioning to

the house that, for those that don't

know, my honourable friend was a top

tax lawyer. He knows the value that

complexity brings to tax lawyers in

the City of London. On the precise

point he makes about the European

Union, I am no expert in these

matters. I defer to the Minister and

other members of the house. My view

is that, actually, we have got to be

more realistic and accept that a lot

of things are of our own making. We

now need to make sure, yes, with the

advent of leaving the European

Union, that we have the opportunity

to make sure that we make ourselves

even better as a place to do

business. That, I am sure, is

something that my honourable friend

and the Minister would support. I

give way to my right honourable

friend.

I am grateful to my right

honourable friend for giving way.

The problem with the statement from

the lady for Aberdeen North is that

she both wanted a simpler tax code

and she wanted to stop loopholes. As

I understand it, a great deal of the

complexity and lens has come from

detailed ways of trying to stop

loopholes of a simpler system. So

there is a conflict there. Genuinely

simple tax codes have fewer taxes,

which would be a great start, and

lower rates with a common tax space

would be a good start. At the moment

we have too much publication, partly

because they are trying to stop

loopholes.

I would accept that point

from my right honourable friend. We

appear to be reaching some form of

consensus from members here that it

is the case that the government

should again always be thinking of

how to balance the need for fairness

and simplicity, and yet also closing

loopholes so that people don't take

advantage of the fair laws in this

country. One thing that has been

talked about a lot in the speeches

so far, and I told you, Mr Speaker,

that I was listening, is that many

members have talked about the

importance of businesses bringing in

money to fund our public services.

We recognise that is important.

Indeed, it is the reason why many,

if not all of us, became members of

Parliament. Also, I think it is

worth making the point that

actually, having a thriving economy,

in which individuals through their

own effort, money and time, and make

the most of themselves. In itself,

that is a good thing. We should not

always revert to thinking about

business as something simply

something to be milked by the

Exchequer. The Exchequer, Government

and Parliament should set, and is

setting, a clear, simple, as low as

possible framework through which

individuals and corporations can

thrive. That is the sort of fiscal

and economic policy that I myself

support. I'm going to be coming to

the close of my remarks. I give way

to the Honourable Member for

Chelmsford.

I thank my honourable

friend for giving way and the word

he has done on this bill. On the

issue of loopholes, does he agree

that clauses 29-30 to remove the

loophole of permanent non-dom

status? But Klaus 8 means that the

UK can continue to benefit from the

approximately 9 billion a year from

overseas investments. But if we

accept the amendment from the party

opposite, then we put that £9

billion at risk.

Again, I thank my

honourable friend the member for

Chelmsford, who is very expert in

these matters and serving in the

European Parliament. She knows about

a lot of these issues in immense

detail. One thing that has come to

mind, when serving in the Finance

Bill committee and in this debate so

far, is the real keenness of this

government to be fair. Of the same

time as being competitive. It is

fairness and competitiveness

together that makes Britain the best

place to do business in the world.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Has the honourable gentleman

completed his oration? He has? We

are very gratefully obliged.

Thank you, it is an honour and a

privilege to be talking at this

stage of the Finance Bill. As you

all know, but some of my colleagues

and friends on the opposite benches

may have forgotten, I am the MP for

Brentwood and Ongar. Women's Hour

has announced that it is the best

place for women to live and work in

the UK. That is something for us all

to celebrate. What underpins that

achievement is that Brentwood is a

fantastic place to work and do

business. That sense of business

acumen is very much depend itself by

a hard-headed pragmatism. What my

constituents always ask me when I

bring them convex pieces of

legislation, perhaps even complex

pieces of financial legislation, is

twofold. Is it fair? Are we going to

get a good deal out of it?

The truth is when we look at the

relevant clauses in the bill we are

discussing this morning, these are

fair and I do believe British tax

payers, and tax payers in my

constituency are going to get a good

deal from them. As a number of my

honourable friends have mentioned,

the people who are referred to as

having these off-shore trusts are

not breaking the law. Indeed, it is

wholly unfair of us to suggest that

they are. They are reputable

business people who are bringing

wealth to our country, and they are

doing so in such a way that is

totally legitimate and that we

should recognise as being such. In

committee stage the minister pointed

out that many people set up overseas

trusts before they move to the UK.

They put their affairs in order in

that and it would be wrong for us to

go after money secured in that

fashion. I'm very glad to give way.

I thank my honourable friend for

giving way in this matter, and he is

making an excellent speech. I am

intrigued to understand why he said

Brentwood, of all places, is more

favourable for women and as we are

talking about the financial Bill and

the important points he is making

about the economy, would he agree

with me, it really is critical that

in any tax system you get the

balance right, so that, yes, people

who should pay their taxes pay the

right and proper amount. But if you

start to be overly ownerous, we know

that what happens is people

absolutely look for those loopholes,

they exploit those loopholes and

actually tax revenues begin to drop

and would he agree with me, that it

is under a skefr Government that we

have begun to get that balance

absolutely right. So people don't

resent paying their taxes, revenues

rise because wave got a good, fair

system?

I couldn't agree with the

honourable lady more, and she can

rest assured that she's always

welcome in Brentwood and that there

will always be a place, you know,

next to me in the tea shop to sit

down and discuss exactly why

Brentwood is such a wonderful place

for women to work and raise their

families and be part of the

community. The points she raises are

absolutely right. We have to get the

balance right. If we are to ensure

that we maximise the amount of tax

take that the Treasury can get,

because only with that tax take,

will we be able to fund our world

class public services. Any attempt

to do anything more will undoubtedly

lead to money, there being less

money available for us to put into

our police service, into our health

service and into our education

system and thereby, our

constituents, our citizens will all

suffer. So, getting that balance

right is absolutely the ka.s I don't

believe we can do that if we are

effectively discouraging people,

wealthy people from abroad,

successful business people from

bringing their money here, so they

can invest in our country. As she

points out, it is by getting that

balance right that the Treasury,

under the great guidance of my

honourable friend and his

predecessors, have managed to bring

in an extra £160 billion since 2010

and narrowed tax gap to historically

low levels. This is a great

achievement. I will give way.

So

that our constituents appreciate

what we have achieved with the tax

gap would he agree, putting it into

persect spentive, the 6% tax gap

here, is 34% in Italy. If the

European Union want it tackle tax

gaps they should look in other

countries, in the United States the

tax gap is 19%. 6% is a huge

achievement by this Government.

I'm

very grateful to my honourable

friend for bringing those figures to

the debate. They are extraordinarily

impressive. You know, that's an

achievement of successive

Conservative chancellors, working to

improve the situation that they

inherited in 2010. My honourable

friend, the member for chess fed

raised a point -- Chelmsford. Raised

a point about timing. Do we want

this to click in when the Brexit

process is reaching its climax. I

don't think the members opposite

have thought about that and I'm glad

to have her pointers on that. And as

I said to the Speaker earlier,

Madame Deputy Speaker, it is my

first Finance Bill. I have enjoyed

it immensely. I have enjoyed

everything about it, even enjoyed

the Shadow Minister's speeches, his

panache and dapper dress and ties,

which makes me feel slightly

underdressed. In the committee stage

he enlightened us with his knowledge

and other timely references to the

Beatles. I believe the reference was

to the discussion of a victory over

the Romans which obviously you know,

led to Piris saying - one such more

victory and we are lost. Were this

clause to be successful Madame

Deputy Speaker, I think it would be

a phyrrhic victory of great

consequence. We would see billions

of pounds in the Treasury at risk

and public services at risk and we

would see my constituents very

angry. I know he is fond of the

Beatles Azam I and a comic turn from

one MP from Essex today and the

House may recall that once upon a

time John Lennon was asked why The

Beatles were the greatest band in

the world and he said it is because

we have Paul McCartney the greatest

singer songwriter in the world and

George Harrison, the greatest

guitarist in the world and the

interview said - what about Ringo,

isn't he the greatest drummer in the

world, to which Mr Lennon said, "He

is not even the greatest drummer in

the Beatles."

With great pleasure.

I

am only rise because it is dreadful

to hear this wrong story perpet

waited in the House of Commons. It

is unfortunately a myth that that

conversation took place in my

opinion and people can check this

now in Google because we have in

Birmingham a fine comedian, Jasper

Carrot, who told this story as a

joke once and such is the way that

Google works these days, you tell a

joke like that, it is entered on a

website, the myth is perpetuated and

even here, now today in the House of

Commons, we are hearing this story

told again. So, for the record I'm

just concerned, that it would be

recorded inappropriately, I would be

grateful if my honourable friend

would consider that.

When the

honourable gentleman responds, he

will ensure that it is directly

relevant to new clause 1 because

this is an important issue and I

hope that members will understand

I'm sure people wouldn't want to

think that we were treating it light

heartedly, treating it very

seriously.

Quite right, Madame

Deputy Speaker, I assure you that my

comments were directly relevant to

the Bill. It is just it was cruelly

interrupted by my honourable friend

who has now set the record street

and of course in the process

destroyed of the great anecdotes