Live House of Commons House of Commons

will, of course, talk to her about

what we can do more.

THE SPEAKER:

Order. Urgent question,

John McDonnell.

To ask the

Chancellor of the Exchequer if he'll

make a statement on the Government's

actions to kerb aggressive tax

avoidance schemes in the light of

the paradise papers revelations.

Mr

Speaker, this Government believes in

a fair tax system where everyone

plays by the rules. It is this

Government that has taken decisive

action to tackle tax avoidance and

evasion and who improve the

standards of international tax

transparency. The UK has secured an

additional £160 billion in

compliance revenue since 2010, far

more than was achieved under the

last Labour Government. Under this

Government, the UK now has one of

the lowest tax gaps in the world. We

have provided HQ Iraq with tough new

-- HMRC with tough new powers. In

2015 HMRC received £800 million in

additional funding to go on tackling

tax avoidance and evasion. Turning

to recent events, yesterday evening,

several international news

organisations, led by the

international consortium of

investigative jurch lifts --

journalists reported on financial

affairs of a large number of

individuals. I should remind the

House that ministers do not

intervene in the tax affairs of

individuals or businesses, as to do

so would be a breach of taxpayer

confidence salt. -- confidence salt.

This information will be compared

with the vast amount HMRC already

hold. They have yet to respond to

this request. Since this datesa was

retrieved in 2016, this gfd has

implemented international agreements

that have changed the game for those

seeking to avoid and evade taxes.

HMRC have already benefitting from

the automatic exchange of financial

account information through the

common reporting standard, an

initiative in which the UK has led

the world with over 100

jurisdictions signed up. The Crown

dependencies and overseas

territories are signed up to this

initiative and have been exchanging

information with HMRC for over a

year. The Crown dependencies and

overseas territories have committed

to holding central registers of

beneficial ownership information

which the UK authorities are able to

access. It is important to note and

I quote the ICIJ's disclaimer here,

there are legitimate uses for

offshore trusts and companies. The

ICIJ do not intend to suggest or

imply that any people, companies or

other entities included in the ICIJ

database have broken the law or

otherwise acted improperly. So Mr

Speaker, notwithstanding the

generalised aspersions made by the

Opposition, the use of offshore

accounts or trusts do not

automatically mean dishonesty but

this House should be assured under

this Government the HMRC will

continue to bear down with vigour on

any tax avoidance or evasion

activity, wherever it may be found.

Unless there's a critically

overriding reason for the Chancellor

not to be here, I believe the House

will consider it unacceptable that

he's not here to address the biggest

tax scandal of this generation. The

minister's response today was the

same bluster. He quotes a figure of

additional tax revenues which cannot

be verified from any publicly

available data. He refers to a tax

gap which doesn't include the likes

of Apple, Facebook, Google and

others. He boasts of his

Government's efforts to address

avoidance yet last week they voted

to protect non-domes in the finance

bill. Last month, the European

Parliament accused this Government

of obstructing the fight against tax

avoidance, evasion and even money

laundering. Doesn't he appreciate

the outrage in our community at this

tax dodging? Every pound in tax

avoided is a pound taken away from

our NHS, our children's education

and care for the elderly and

disabled. Given the chairman of the

Conservative Party and Chancellor

Duchy of Lancaster is responsible

for and I quote "administering the

etights and rents of the Duchy, has

the Chancellor or minister discussed

these with the right honourable

member for Derbyshire Dales and will

he apologise to Her Majesty for

this? With regard to Lord ash croft,

a fund irof the Conservative Party,

who contributed reported £500,000 to

the Conservatives in the general

election campaign. Can the minister

tell the House what information he

has had about the domicile status of

Lord ashcroft between 2010/2015 and

when he was paying taxes on overseas

wealth? The Chancellor now has an

immediate opportunity to tackle tax

avoidance. Can he assure the House

that in the forth coming Budget he

will adopt Labour's proposals to

remove exemptions from non-doms and

secure full transparency of trusts?

Will he now also agree to Labour's

proposals to establish an

independent public inquiry into tax

avoidance? Because I tell them, if

this Government refuses to act, this

next Labour Government will.

Mr

Speaker, the honourable member

raises the issue of the veracity or

otherwise of our figures. £160

billion collected through clamping

down on avoidance, evasion and

non-compliance. That is a figure he

will find published in the HMT's

annual report and accounts. He

refers to Lord ashcroft, I'm not

going to start getting into the

individual tax affairs of any

particular individual, regardless of

their political allegiance or

whoever they may be. But he raises

the issue of non-dom status and

non-doms. He raises the issue of the

measures that he and his party put

forward in the last finance bill.

Can I just remind him of two things,

it is this party, that has put an

end to permanent non-dom status. It

was the party opposite that sought

by voting against that bill at third

reading to stop that from happening.

There seems to be an extraordinary

misunderstanding by the Shadow

Chancellor between avoidance and

evasion.

Evasion is wholly illegal,

avoidance is normal. People who put

their money into an Isa are avoiding

tax, but there is a moral issue, and

if you are a political party that

spends £1 million a year on rent in

a tax-exempt company, that is what

people are upset about. It's not

avoidance, it's morally wrong

avoidance, and isn't that what your

party does?

My party doesn't do

anything, as people know I don't

have a party. I'm just the leader of

the good order and fair play party,

or I try to be. Minister.

I thank the honourable member for

this question which I take to be

directed at myself and it is for the

Labour Party to account for any

situation at which their

headquarters may or may not be owned

by an overseas trust.

It may well be

that sheltering for the tax

authority here sums of money greater

than the GDP of many countries is

not illegal. That I would ask the

Minister to agree with me, that is

precisely the problem. I would also

ask him to agree that the Paradise

Papers revelations and massive sums

involved, now offer no hiding place

for those who would deny the public

register of beneficial ownership of

funds and trusts as well as

businesses. This tax avoidance is a

driver of global inequality, which

runs to the very top of business

politics stomach, politics,

entertainment and the establishment

force of these papers shine a light

on the hidden ownership of large

corporations by foreign state

institutions and individuals. I hope

the Minister will agree with me

finally that to allow the public,

customers and small investors to

know who is really behind the most

trusted of brands, the government

now throw their weight, not simply

behind local and global transparency

for the beneficial ownership of

businesses through offshore trusts,

funds and other opaque devices.

Of

the honourable member will know that

this government has been at the

forefront of clamping down on

international tax avoidance and

evasion and noncompliance. The

OECD's base erosion and project

shifting project that we have been

at the vanguard of reporting, and

standards that we have introduced

amongst our crown dependencies and

overseas territories. He will find

we are no slouch is on the side of

the House when it comes to grappling

with the items that he raises.

Could

my Right Honourable friend confirm

that this country is now leading the

world on tackling tax avoidance, and

how does the action of consecutive

Conservative chancellors compare

with the nonaction from consecutive

Labour chancellors?

Has my Right

Honourable friend will know, Mr

Speaker, one of the measures of how

on top or otherwise a country is of

its tax affairs is the tax gap, this

is at an historic low in this

country of just 6%. Under the last

Labour government in 2005 it was at

8% and if we had the level of tax

gap we had under Labour we would be

£11.8 billion short on tax, enough

to employ every policeman and woman

in England and Wales.

Dame Margaret

Hodge.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

real problem with all the action

that has been taken so far is that

it hasn't got to the heart of the

problem. And that is that we need to

have openness and transparency about

who owns what company where, who

owns what trust. There is a very

simple action that the government

could take without any legislation,

which would immediately slice

through a lot of the problems that

we have seen in the Paradise Papers,

the Panama Papers, in the Falciani

leaks and in the Luxembourg leaks.

Why will the government not insist

that our overseas territories, that

our tax havens, have to have public

registers of beneficial ownership?

Why will they not do that now?

As

the Honourable Lady will know that

there are many good reasons why for

perfectly honest and decent reasons,

individuals use trusts. She will

also know that we have made a great

deal of progress on the common

reporting standards across 100

different countries, including those

to whom she alludes, and that we are

also bringing forward the registers

of beneficial ownership across those

particular jurisdictions so that our

HMRC has the information it

requires.

Nigel Mills.

I wonder if

the Minister could use this latest

leak as a spur to bring forward the

publication of certain issues we

have been waiting for for a while.

The anti-corruption strategy

promised for last December and got

lost when the then champion stood

down at the election. We're still

waiting for the publication of

properties owned here by overseas

companies. Can we get those moving

forward to give people the

confidence that our own regime is

robust?

The honourable member, my

honourable friend, will know there

are several areas we are currently

examining that also will know that

in June this year very recently we

brought in the money-laundering

regulations to make sure that banks

and lawyers and accountants are

properly focused in real-time and in

ensuring that corrupt practices are

established and born down on as

appropriate.

Is the Minister not

worried about the tangled web of

Russian money that appears to be

involved at very high levels as

shown by these leaks? And will he

not agree that there is now a great

public interest in transparency of

ownership and getting these

registers published as soon as

possible? Why doesn't the government

just make an announcement that the

overseas territories are going to do

that and get on with it?

As I

already explained to the House and

Right Honourable lady the register

of beneficial ownership is now an

element within these tax

jurisdictions, and accessible by

HMRC, who after all are the

authority that we rely upon to bear

down on tax avoidance. As to her

comments about Russian money, I have

no doubt that if HMRC is able to get

the information it has requested

from the BBC, Guardian and a group

of journalists then they will be

even better prepared to clamp-down

on those issues where they are found

to be inappropriate.

James

Duddridge.

In looking at these

issues of the overseas territories

and Crown dependencies, can I urge

the Minister to bear in mind states

in the US that have worse standards

than some of those Crown

dependencies and overseas

territories and standards need to be

raised globally, not just in some of

these island paradise states.

My

honourable friend is absolutely

right, we do need to work

internationally with our

international partners, which is why

as I said earlier we have been

working closely with the OECD on the

base erosion of profit shifting

project on which we are well ahead

of the pack in terms of implementing

those recommendations.

Sir Vincent

cable.

What sanctions has the

government taken from or propose to

take in respect of those British

Overseas Territories that pursue tax

policies that are damaging to

Britain?

As the Right Honourable

member will know we are currently

engaged in a variety of discussions

with our international partners, not

least with the European Union in

terms of the so-called blacklist,

and we are looking closely at the

that they and others have order to

strike an appropriate balance in

protecting what are very important

services to this particular

jurisdictions and making sure that

tax is paid fairly and as it should

be.

With the Minister consider it's

not just a question of countries

such as the Cayman Islands,

Bermudez, those territories, but

also the European Union, the

Republic of Ireland and the

Netherlands are regarded as

jurisdictions where there may be tax

advantages to be set up? Would he

agree that rather than singling out

those jurisdictions we should

recognise that in a global

environment where capital is free

the importance is the UK tax

structure on wealth and that is

something this government has

definitely got right?

My honourable

friend raises an important point,

which put simply, is that it is not

just the tax rate in particular

regime that is pertinent in terms of

the issues we are discussing today,

and he said he mentioned a Republic

of Ireland where the rate is just

12.5%. It is those other factors

that we need to be looking at in

order to come to those judgments.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many more

panorama programmes and leaks should

be expect until we see full and

proper action on tax avoidance and

evasion in this country? Could I

suggest to the Minister that they

reinstate the thousands of tax

office Dummett Officer posts they

have cut in Liverpool and across the

country?

This government, as the

Honourable Lady will know, has

brought in £160 billion in tax

avoidance since 2010, brought in 2.8

billion of that in respect of

individuals attempting to hide funds

overseas. She raises the issue of

HMRC which is going through a

reconstruction, reassignment scum at

the moment, and that is quite right

and proper so that we have a series

of hubs that have a critical mass of

individuals present within them that

has the right technology, the right

infrastructure, in order on a risk

basis to go after those who are

avoiding taxation.

I welcome the

lead the government is taking

internationally in tackling tax

avoidance, because clearly this

isn't a problem we can solve on our

own in isolation. Could my Right

Honourable friend advise what the

government is doing to use

transparency to make sure

individuals, trusts and companies

pay their fair share to the

Treasury?

I thank my honourable

friend for her question and as I've

pointed out a few times we are

looking at the current

implementation of the reporting

standards, we are also looking at

various recommendations coming out

of the regime, some of which were

present in the Finance Bill, to stop

flagrant tax avoidance, sometimes on

the part of the largest corporations

in the country. And of course, Mr

Speaker, as I mentioned earlier,

that was a Bill the party opposite

sought to kill at its third reading.

When I asked officials at the

Department for trade whether tax

transparency was required in our

trade treaties, they said that this

was a novel idea and certainly not

something that was included in the

text for TTIP, yet it's exactly this

kind of secrecy that lets the rich

hide billions while the people pay.

Will the Minister ensure that in the

trade treaties presented to this

House in the future, we demand and

insist on tax transparency in every

single one?

As the Right Honourable

gentleman will know, we are

committed to country by country

reporting, we are going to push

forward on a multilateral basis on

that as to our future trade treaties

they are for the future and for the

Department for trade.

Low rates of

tax and growing tax revenues depend

critically on every penny of tax to

you being paid. What is the position

if someone receives a fee and then

sends it to a trust fund in

Mauritius, only then to receive the

money back as Ilonen? -- as a lone.

I cannot comment on a specific tax

structure put to me in these

questions, other than to say that if

it falls foul of our very rigorous

disguised remuneration arrangements,

some of which put through in the

latest Finance Bill, then clearly

that would be an area where those

people involved would expect to

receive a hand on the shoulder from

HMRC.

Dennis Skinner.

Doesn't the

publication of these papers show us

that this government is more

concerned about hounding those

disabled people applying for PIP and

DSA and taking their disabled motors

away from them -- ESA, than they are

concentrating on the real people

that are dodging paying tax, as

revealed in these papers? People

that are close to the Conservative

Party. Sort it out.

I'm afraid the

honourable member overlooks the

simple fact that when it comes to

paying tax in this country we have

one of the most progressive tax

system is in the world, with the

wealthiest 1% of income tax payers

paying no less than 28% of all

income tax. As I mentioned earlier,

Mr Speaker, £2.8 billion has been

raised from the wealthy who may have

been trying to avoid paying the tax

going forward. Are far stronger

record than for the party opposite.

Does my Right Honourable friend

agree with me that by far the

biggest threat to UK tax revenues is

the run on the pound and the flight

of capital, predicted by the party

opposite themselves? Should they

ever get into government.

My

honourable friend is absolutely

right. One of the measures that a

future Labour government have said

they would take would be to stick up

the Corporation tax rate to 26%

which will do nothing to create

jobs, nothing to create wealth,

nothing to improve our economy and

most of all nothing to raise the

vital taxes that we need to support

our vital public services.

Given what the paradise papers

reveal about the industrial scale of

tax dodging together with the

shaming fact that some of the UK's

overseas territories and Crown

dependencies are the largest tax

havens and secrecy jurisdictions in

the world, will the Government now

drop its morally indefensible

blocking of the development of a

credible and meaningful EU blacklist

of tax havens?

Well, the honourable

lady is, I'm afraid, simply wrong.

The discussions are ongoing at the

European Union at the moment on the

issue of the blacklist. The United

Kingdom Government has done

absolutely nothing to attempt to

block those discussions. We are

firmly and deeply engaged within

them and we expect them to conclude

by the end of this year.

Mr Speaker,

in a world of increasingly global

businesses, it is the reality

whether the party opposite like it

or not that we have to tackle this

on a global scale. Isn't that why

it's right that David Cameron used

the G7 as a crucial method to tackle

this and why it's right that we

continue to do take an international

approach?

My honourable friend is

absolutely right. We seek to move

forward on the basis of unity with

our overseas partners and that is

why we have played such a full role

with the OECD.

Like me, two thirds

of British taxpayers are taxed at

source. They're PAYE. They just

can't understand why anyone would

want to put money into a small

island like Bermuda, the Cayman

Islands or Jersey. The minister says

there are legitimate reasons. Will

he educate me - what are the

legitimate reasons?

As the right

honourable member knows there are

many reasons people use trusts. It

may be I decide I want a trust for

my children and I may decide that I

don't want that to be known

publicly, exactly the way in which

that trust is going to operate, for

reasons of confidentiality. There

are reasons for using overseas

trusts that you may be looking at

dollar denominated trading so you

node a jurisdiction where dollar

denominated trading is occurring.

There are a variety of reasons. This

idea that every time this is

mentioned it's something grubby or

illegal is just plain wrong.

With

the tax gap at a record low, and at

the same time, with corporation

taxes in this country amongst the

lowest in the industrial world does

it not confirm we have achieved a

balance of a tax system that is

competitive and fair?

My honourable

friend is absolutely correct. We

have brought corporation tax rates

down from 28% now to 19%. They will

go further down to 17%. The

consequence of that is that we are

now actually raising twice as much

corporation tax today as we did in

2010.

Can the minister confirm what

justification there was for voting

against Labour's proposed amendments

to the finance bill last week, which

sought to kerb the number of

individuals claiming non-dom status

and improve transparency with

regards to offshore trusts?

If the

honourable member is referring to

the actual trust arrangements for

those who become deemed domiciled,

as a consequence of this Government

actually deciding to put an end to

permanent non-dom status, something

his party never did in its 13 years

in office, then we will know all is

not quite as the Labour Party

presents it. Any funds coming out of

such trusts will, when they are

remitted, fall due to tax by that

deemed domiciled individual in the

exactly the same way as if would be

the case for any other UK citizen.

Is it not the case that with the

criminal finances act 2017 this

Government has created a new

criminal offence for firms who don't

stop staff facilitating tax evasion?

My honourable friend is absolutely

right and that is just another

example of the 35 additional

measures that this Government is

taking between now and the end of

this Parliament to ensure that we

clamp down on tax avoidance, evasion

and non-compliance.

... After nearly

a decade of austerity and living

standrd facing the biggest squeeze

in a century, the public will be

outraged at these revelations. The

Treasury cannot run with the foxes

and the hounds on this one. Will

they back the ordinary working

people or the super rich?

The

honourable member talks about us

having to live within our means.

It's right that we do that. He talks

about the amount of money that we

need to bring in. What has been most

unhelpful is that under the last

Labour Government because they were

so ineffective at bringing in tax

and the gap was so high, it has cost

our country over £40 billion as a

consequence. If they had had the

same average level of tax gap in

their last seven years in office as

we have had in our seven years, we

would be about £45 billion better

off.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Does my

honourable friend friend agree with

me that the Opposition agree with me

the Opposition is disingenuous this

their approach. They had 13 years

and did nothing, voted against

measures to close loops and

confirming that it is only this

Government which will act to tackle

avoidance?

My honourable friend is

absolutely right. We hear a lot of

talk from the Opposition but I'm

afraid, Mr Speaker, that the results

of what they did or rather didn't do

when they had their turn in office

speak for themselves.

Mr Speaker,

does the minister not recognise that

it is obscene that rich people

should seek to get even richer by

salting away their billions in

offshore bank accounts whilst

working people suffer the longest

stagnation on wages for 150 years?

Well, the honourable member will

know that those wealthy in this

country pay their fair share. Of the

1% most wealthy income taxpayers

they pay 28% of all income tax. What

was that figure, Mr Speaker, under

the last Labour Government? It was

below 24%. I'll take no lectures

from the honourable member.

When I

sat on the Public Accounts Committee

we used to hear about mechanisms

like the double Irish and Dutch

sandwich none of which are UK

jurisdictions, would the minister

agree that things like the diverted

profits tax would put to an end some

of the tricks used to move things to

other tax jurisdictions?

My

honourable friend is right. The

diverted profits tax works every day

of the week. It works where HMRC

have to step in and sort out

companies that fall better than it.

But it prevents and deters many

companies from behaving in an

inappropriate fashionment

The

minister says HMRC are seeking to

investigate this matter, ahead of

the Budget, when I suspect the

Government may wish to put in public

spending commitments, will the

minister commitment to a moratorium

on any public contracts going to

companies that have offshore trusts

whilst this is being investigated?

Well, I'm not going to get into the

business of providing moratoriums on

any particular matter at the

dispatch batch, tempting -- box,

tempting though the honourable lady

as she suggests that. Is not a path

that I'm going to go down.

I wanted

to highlight the new criminal

offence that we created for firms

who don't stop their staff

facilitating tax evasion. For the

first time, under the criminal

offences act 2017, companies will be

held criminally liable if they fail

to stop their employees facilitating

tax evasion, so does my right

honourable friend agrow with me this

truly demonstrates this Government

is taking tax avoidance extremely

sear list -- seriously, indeed has

done more than our colleagues over

there has ever done.

My honourable

friend is absolutely right. This is

a further example making companies

criminally responsible where their

employees try to facilitate tax

avoidance. It's the right way to go.

It is but another measure this

Government has brought in.

Does the

minister accept that the scale after

depressive avoidance -- aggressive

avoidance shows that the general

anti-abuse rule introduced in 2013

isn't really working and what we

really need is general

anti-avoidance legislation so

there's no room for doubt and no

room for manoeuvre?

The honourable

member talks about the amount that

has been revealed by these

disclosures. I assume he is centring

his remarks on the television

programme last night. We don't yet

know the extent to which this will

reveal. That's why HMRC have asked

those with the data to make it

available so that we can use it to

get on with the job in cracking down

on those who may have behaved in a

way they shouldn't.

The minister has

confirmed we have one of the lowest

tax gaps in the world, yet the party

opposite still complains. How does

today's position compare with the

one we inherited in 2010? ?

I thank

my honourable friend for his

question. He is right to point out

the difference. The reality is that

today we have a tax gap of 6%, about

the lowest in the world. It's the

lowest in the history of our

country. As I said earlier, Mr

Speaker, if we had the same tax gap

on average that Labour had during

their term in office, we would be

over £40 billion out of pocket, less

money as the Shadow Chancellor put

it for the nurses, for the doctors,

for the paramedics, for the police,

for the army and the others in our

public services.

There are some

things we do know and we do know

that some large accounting firms are

being investigated currentsly for

poor practice, which assists and

colludes with tax avoidance, evasion

issues. Could the minister clarify

what is to be done to clamp down on

those who collude with those who do

not want to do the right thing?

The

honourable lady I would refer her to

the finance bill, which has just

gone through this House, which has

some important provisions within it

to make sure we clamp down on those

who enable tax avoidance, which the

category of individual and company

to which she refers. Those are some

pretty stiff penalties.

Would my

right honourable friend confirm my

understanding that the profits of

the Duchy of Cornwall are used

exclusively for official purposes,

that the investment board of the

Duchy of Cornwall is at arms length

from the Government and if anyone

wanted to question who was

overseeing the investment board at

the time that any suspicious

transactions were made, they could

see the Labour ministers at the

time?

Well, I would say about the

Duchy of Lancaster, Mr Speaker, is

that their accounts are readily

available. They are transparent and

audited in the normal fashion.

There's no, had been no suggestion

to date, as far as I'm aware,

certainly not in the television

programme last night, that any

particular mischief related to any

aspect of their dealings.

Account

minister confirm that the latest

figures available demonstrate that

there are 420 employees in HMRC's

high net worth unit and there are

3,765 employees in DWP chasing

Social Security fraud? If those

figures are correct, does the

minister agree with many of us in

this House that the same level of

resources were applied to tax

evasion as opposed to Social

Security fraud we would have

billions of pounds more for our

vital public services?

What I can

confirm is that in £2015800 million

was -- 2015 £800 million was made

available to HMRC. That is expected

to bring in over £7 billion in

additional revenue by 2021/226789 --

22.

My constituents are rightly

angry about tax avoidance but

they're angry about avoidance of

action exemplified by the last

Labour Government, who talked tough

and did very little. Account

minister remind me -- can the

minister remind me, how many times

has this Government acted and how

many more times is it likely to act?

My honourable friend is right. The

figures speak for themselves. We

know how much we have brought in

through clamping down on avoidance

and evasion. 160 billion since 2010.

We know we have about the lowest tax

gap in the world. With eknow it's

far lower than it was under the last

Labour Government. I think those

figures speak for themselves.

Further to the minister's response

to my honourable friend's question

from Tottenham, can he explain why

he thinks people saving for their

children's future would need to make

use of accounts in per meweda and

the British virgin -- Bermuda and

the British Virgin Islands, when my

constituents manage it with the use

of local building societies?

I think

the honourable lady, if she checks

in Hansard on the answer to my

question to her honourable

colleague, will see that wasn't the

totality of my response. I referred

to dollar denominated trading and

the complexities there of. So I

think if she checks Hansard she

might be able to answer her own

question.

Can the Minister told a house in the

assessment of the government how

many UK citizens and how many UK

registered companies have these

offshore accounts and how much money

the UK as represented by these two

entities?

As he will know those are

not figures that I have at my

fingertips, and as he will know

confidential arrangements that are

quite rightly place in many of the

structures he refers, and indeed he

and perhaps the headquarters of his

Labour Party headquarters might even

be held within one of those

arrangements. These are of necessity

not fully available to have that

particular information.

David

Hanson.

Could the Minister clarify

for the House his understanding of

what the position is with regard to

non-doms donating to political

parties in the UK, and in the

interests of transparency, would he

arrange for all parties to publish

lists of non-doms who have donated

to their parties?

There are

requirements around transparency in

the donations to political parties.

In the case of non-doms the one

thing we have done as a government

is to put an end to permanent

non-dom status.

My constituents pay

their tax in the usual way so can

the minister explain to them why

they're public services are being

cut while the rich are using tax

havens to avoid paying their fair

share?

The Honourable Lady might

know from my earlier comments that

the wealthiest 1% in this country

pay 28% of all income tax. She

should also be aware of the fact

that during her party's time in

office in 2010 it was down at about

23%. This is the party that is

standing up for the poorest and

least well off in this society, and

as part of that process we have

taken almost 4 million of the lowest

paid out of tax altogether.

Jim

Shannon.

Would the Minister and government

consider writing a letter to all of

those mentioned in the Paradise

Papers news leaks to gently relined

Dummett remind them not only of

their financial obligations but also

moral obligations to all citizens of

the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland? -- gently

remind them.

I totally agree with my

honourable friend that everybody has

a moral obligation to pay their fair

and legal Ligier and out of tax --

legally do you. Where some have

failed to do that as a consequence

of these disclosures HMRC will be on

their case.

Last year my Right

Honourable friend and the member for

Don Valley led work across the

Public Accounts Committee for

country by country reporting

amending the Finance Bill which the

Minister has alluded to. The

government can now lead the way

across the world, implement the

provision, while still pursuing

multilateral provisions.

The

government is leading the way in

exactly that endeavour, as I have

said earlier, a very important point

here is that we have a multilateral

approach to this particular issue

and we are working hard on

delivering that.

Most people haven't

heard of dollar-denominated trading

but they look at this matter and

seek one rule for the rich and

powerful and another rule for the

weak and vulnerable. Surely the way

to lance this boil is to have full

transparency and a transparency that

is of publicly available, not one

where you have to ask for the

British territories.

As I have

explained the transparency we need a

sweetie to sure that HMRC does get

the information it requires to

satisfy itself that the dealings --

the transparency that HMRC does.

That's the position we are working

towards at the moment.

Last week, Mr

Speaker, I met with some of the

representatives of our overseas

territories. A number of them said

they governments isn't working for

them, they have little say over

defence and foreign affairs. Is

there not a win-win here where we

give overseas territories

representation in this place and we

enforce tax and public transparency

in our overseas territories?

Taxation with representation all

equal under the law, surely a

rallying call for all of us here

today.

I hope the honourable member

will forgive me if I don't start to

opine on the constitutional

settlement that we have with our

overseas territories and Crown

dependencies. But I do make one

quite important point that relates

to the issue he has raised command

that is we must not forget they do

not have representation in our

Parliament and we, therefore, have

particular responsibilities towards

listening to them and cooperating

with them rather than, perhaps as he

suggests, coercing them.

Diana

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

wonder if the Minister could arrange

for the publication of full details

of the merits of sending money

offshore so my constituents in Hull,

many of whom are low paid, but pay

their taxes, can see whether it

would be appropriate for them to go

offshore?

I think the most important

message for the Honourable Lady's

constituents are the merits of

getting on top of tax avoidance and

evasion and noncompliance, which is

exactly what this government has

done, which is raising vital taxes

for our public services so that we

can have the kind of public services

that are a hallmark of a civilised

society.

Grahame Morris.

Thank you,

Mr Speaker. I think we probably need

time out for a fact checked on the 6

billion tax cut figure the Minister

is consistently quoting. I wonder,

can I refer him to be Private

Members Bill that was promoted by

the Right Honourable Michael

Meacham, which set out in detail

plans for a general principle of tax

avoidance. You can get round a rule

but you can't get round a principal.

That seems to be a solid and

sensible way forward.

The honourable

member referred to £6 billion tax

cut, it is not 6 billion, 86% of all

tax which should be collected. In

terms of there being a general

principle or a general rule there is

already a general anti-avoidance

rule for exactly the purpose to

which the honourable member has

alluded -- a 6%.

With the Minister

recognised that with 100,000

properties in the UK with £122

billion owned by overseas registered

companies in the British Virgin

Islands and Channel Islands and that

represents a conservatively

estimated £2 billion of tax

avoidance every year, enough to

close the benefits fraud gap in one

fell swoop. What he recognised that

is not just a conservative estimate,

the third properties in the land

register don't have property

transaction data. Do you think it

will be an opportune moment to

ensure the land Registry have

compulsory registration of land and

property in the UK and values to

understand the full scale of

exploitation of UK land and property

for tax avoidance purposes.

This

government has brought far more

property into the scope of taxation

than his party ever did in the 13

years in office so I really won't

take any lectures on that point.

I

wouldn't want the honourable

gentleman to get Uber excited.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has

set out for us the reasons why the

eye watering the rich would benefit

from a tax haven. Can he explain to

me why my average taxpayer in Eltham

would benefit from this and why they

should tolerate it in British

Overseas Territories?

The honourable

member characterises those involved

in overseas trusts being eye

watering the rich, many of them are

not, there are many pension funds

and many who rely on those pension

funds to lives and many of them

indeed lives in his constituency. I

think this general characterisation

of it all being about super wealthy

people, all being about tax dodgers

etc, is rather crude and frankly not

worthy of the opposition.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. 130,000 UK

companies have not completed their

persons with significant control

registers and not one of them has

been fined. If we can get our own

house in order how can we credibly

get others to act on transparency?

I'm quite happy to look into the

specific point the honourable

gentleman has raised and I will come

back to him.

I'm grateful.

Point of

order, Angela Rayner.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. On a point of order, oral

questions earlier today, the

Secretary of State for Education

told the House about her first class

degree in economics. She went on to

state that Labour's spending plans

would lead to school budgets being

absolutely frozen in cash terms.

Now, Mr Speaker, I may not have the

Secretary of State's economics

degree but I think the Institute for

Fiscal Studies certainly have a feud

between them, and they said that our

spending plans would reverse real

terms cuts to spending per pupil

since 2015 over the course of the

next spending of around 4.8 billion.

Mr Speaker, I am sure the Secretary

of State didn't intend to mislead

the House, so can you advise me on

how I can seek a retraction and

correction of this remark for the

record?

What I would say to the

Shadow Secretary of State is every

member of this House is responsible

for the veracity of what he and she

says to it. If a member believes

that he or she has made a mistake,

that member has a responsibility to

correct the record. However, I would

point out both for Members of the

House and all others interested in

our proceedings, that sometimes

these matters are, let me put it

this way, notably political, and

there are issues of interpretation

and of argument, notwithstanding the

Shadow Leader of the House shaking

her head frowning at me. That

nevertheless remains the case. What

I would say to the Honourable Lady

was that if I didn't know her better

than I do I would think that she was

using the device of a point of order

in a rather bogus way to continue

the debate that had been taking

place in education questions. But

because I know her as well as I

would do I can't believe she would

be guilty of such impropriety and

opportunism.

Never!

I am saving the

honourable gentleman up, he is too

precious to waste in the early

proceedings. Point of order.

In the

questions in the Minister's

responses to the statement just now,

the Minister was asked for some

information pertaining to the levels

of the usage of offshore accounts

and the Minister said he could not

put his hands on that information

immediately. Is there a method by

which I could prevail upon the

Minister to find the information and

put it in the library? Or perhaps is

there a way you could assist in

having that information put in the

library itself?

I'm grateful for the

honourable gentleman taking this

opportunity. If the Minister

genuinely didn't have it to hand but

would otherwise be willing to

provide it he may think it is a

collegiate thing to do, to provide

it, either to the honourable

gentleman or to all members by

depositing it in the library of the

House. But the Minister isn't under

any obligation to do that. He has

always struck me as an agreeable

fellow and he may think that is an

agreeable thing to do. But if he

doesn't it isn't a matter for chair

sanction. The honourable gentleman

has an indomitable spirit and if he

doesn't get what he wants, I rather

have a sense that he will be Peter

Lim into the Table Office and

tabling a flurry of questions to the

Minister which the Minister might

find rather irksome to have to

answer, so he may think that this

simple thing is to lob the material

in the honourable gentleman's

direction and that might find you

satisfaction. Point of order,

Matthew Pennycook.

On a point of

order, following last week's passing

of omission of an imposed return

with late the sectoral impact

assessments carried out by the

Department for exiting the European

Union, the Secretary of State this

afternoon wrote to the chair of the

Brexit Select Committee to say, "It

is not the case that 58 sectoral

impact assessments exist. This

despite the fact that the government

has published a list of those 58

sectors. He adds in his letter that

it will take my department time to

collate and bring together the

information in a way that is

accessible and informative for the

committee. Mr Speaker, you made

clear last week that the motion

President suggesting was binding and

effective and I'm concerned the

government is not treating the

motion for the House with the

respect or seriousness it requires.

Is still your opinion that this is a

matter which should not... Something

that should not be limited Dummett

deliberated over over a period of

days? If the government is seeking

to take weeks to provide the

information, what more can the House

do to expedite this matter? And

finally, is there a case for the

Secretary of State to come to the

House tomorrow to explain the

handling of this matter by the

Department?

I thank the honourable

gentleman for his point of order and

characteristic courtesy giving the

advanced notice of it. The motion

passed on Wednesday obliges

ministers to provide the Committee

on Exiting the European Union with

the impact assessments arising from

sector analyses. That should be done

very promptly indeed. Failing that,

I expect ministers to explain to the

House before we rise tomorrow

evening why they have not provided

them and when they propose to do so.

I should say, and will out of

courtesy to the Secretary of State

and for the information of the

House, that the Secretary of State

has contacted me to say that the

government will comply with the

ruling from the chair, and by

implication with uncontested vote by

providing the material. Moreover,

the Secretary of State offered me a

sense, I had not asked for it there

and then, but before I had even

contemplated whether to ask for it,

he offered me an indication of

Whitey timescale. That was by way of

him informing me. But I must say

that informing me of an outline plan

is one thing and I don't cavil on

the Secretary of State for doing

that, but importing Dummigan forming

the House is another and the

obligation is to the House. The

House's interest in this will be

protected by the Brexit Select

Committee chaired by the Right

Honourable gentleman the member for

Leeds Central, who was elected by

the whole house. I know that if he

considers that his committee, and by

extension the whole house, is not

being treated with due respect, he

will not be slow to alert the House

and to seek redress. We may have to

return to this matter very soon. My

feeling is that the best course of

action is for the government to set

out in terms and in public its

intended modus operandi and

timescale.

That must

timescale.

That must happen

timescale.

That must happen before

timescale.

That must happen before we

timescale.

That must happen before we rise

timescale.

That must happen before we rise

tomorrow. Point of order, and a

Subaru.

Further to that point of

order, would it be in order for

members of this place to see a copy

of this letter and compare it with

Hansard? I did not sit in for the

entirety of the debate, 90% of it,

and I do not recollect any Minister

saying there were 58 papers and it

would take it very long time to

collate them in any event. I think

it would help to compare Hansard to

the contents of the letter.

The answer to to the right

honourable lady to whom I am

grateful, that is a matter that is

in the hands of the Secretary of

State. The Secretary of State has

written to the chair of the Brexit

Select Committee and the Secretary

of State courteously and properly

copied me in on that correspondence.

Whether the right honourable

gentleman wishes to furnish a copy

to the right honourable lady is a

matter for him. Now, he may readily

do so. The Secretary of State is a

fearless fellow, X SAS and all the

rest of it. On the other hand, he

may view the right honourable lady,

I say this in all courtesy, with

very considerable trepidation. I

don't know, that is a matter for the

Secretary of State to judge. He may

wish to release the letter. But I

rather imagine by one means or the

other, and knowing the right

honourable lady, she will discover

the contents of that letter. We will

leave it there, for now. If there

are no further points of order, my

appetite has been satisfied at least

for today. We come to the Secretary

of State for communities and local

Goodman and his statement.

Sajid

Javid.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would

like to make his statement on the

independent recovery task force

working with the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea in the wake

of the tragic fire in June at

Grenfell Tower. The people of North

Kensington had been failed by those

who were supposed to serve them, by

a system that allowed the buyer to

happen and once again, by a sluggish

and chaotic response in the

immediate aftermath. It was clear

that if RBKC was to get a grip on

the situation and reach gained the

trust of residence, it would have to

gain the trust of the residents.

There was a change in leadership of

the Council, new support brought in

from other councils and from central

government. To insure that this

translated into better service for

the victims and people of North

Kensington and to assure me that the

council will be capable of

delivering, I announced on the 5th

of July that I was sending in a

specialist independent task force.

Made up of experts in housing, local

Goodman, public services and

community engagement. I deliberately

appointed independent minded

individuals who would not hesitate

to speak their minds. I have

received the first report from the

task force, reflecting on its first

nine weeks on the ground. The report

has been shared with the right

honourable gentleman opposite and I

will be placing copies in the

library of the House and it will be

published in full on the website. It

is clear from the report that

progress is being made. Much-needed

change has happened and continues to

happen. The council today is a very

different organisation from the one

that failed these people so badly

back in June. And the task force is

satisfied that RBKC, under its new

leadership, recognises the

challenges it faces and is committed

to delivering a comprehensive

recovery programme. For that reason,

they do not see any practical

advantage for further intervention

at this time, which would risk

further disruption. But while the

green shoots back, the report pulls

no punches about the fact there is

still significant room for

improvement. The task force has

identified four key areas in which

the council need to step up. The

first is pace. The speed of delivery

needs to be increased, more work

needs to be done more quickly. The

second is innovation. The scale and

impact of the buyout was

unprecedented in recent history, but

RBKC is relying too much on tried

and tested solutions not up to the

task. The council should be much

braver in its response. The third

area is skills. Too much of the

officers and councils work on the

response lacks specialist training

in how to work with a traumatised

community, this needs to change. The

final area, arguably the most

important, is a need for greater

empathy and emotional intelligence.

The people of Grenfell Tower,

Grenfell Tabak walk and the wider

community have already suffered so

much, yet the task force has heard

too many accounts of the suffering

compounded by bureaucratic resources

that are not appropriate when so

many deeply traumatised men, women

and children have complex individual

needs. So a greater degree of

humanity must be put at the heart of

all of RBKC's recovery work. I have

discussed these recommendations with

the council's leadership and they

have accepted them all, without

question. Culture change is never

quick or easy to achieve in any

organisation, but I am in no doubt

that the leadership and the staff of

RBKC genuinely do want to do better.

It is their community as well and

they desperately want to help it

heal. I am particularly encouraged

that the Council are now during an

NHS expertise to secure specific

training for those front line staff

responsible for providing direct

support to survivors. I have assured

the Council that I will continue to

support them in building capacity.

But I also made it clear that my

support will not be uncritical or

unqualified. I expect to see swift,

effective action to deal with all

the issues highlighted in the

report. I am not taking any options

off the table, if progress is not

made, I shall continue to monitor

the situation closely. Until now,

one aspect of that monitoring has

involved weekly meetings chaired by

myself that bring together ministers

from across government and senior

colleagues from RBKC. Although these

have proved effective, the tax force

expresses concern that meeting so

often is becoming to become that is

beginning to become

counter-productive and the time to

prepare is cutting into the time

available for front line work. So

the report recommends that we meet

less often. I have accepted this

recommendation. But let me reassure

the House that this does not mean

that our priorities are shifting

elsewhere or the level of scrutiny

is being reduced. It is simply a

matter of ensuring time and

resources will be focused to the

maximum on those affected by the

fire. One area to which the House

knows I have been paying particular

close attention is the rehousing of

those that have lost their homes in

the fire. I have always been clear

that rehousing must proceed at a

pace that represents the needs, the

once and situations of survivors,

but I have always been adamant the

bureaucratic inertia must not add

the delay. Clearly, some progress is

being made. The latest figures but I

have from RBKC that 122 households

out of a total of 204 have accepted

an offer of either temporary or

permanent accommodation. 73 of these

have now moved in, of which 47

households have moved into temporary

accommodation and 26 have moved into

permanent accommodation. However,

the report is also clear that the

process is simply not moving as

quickly as it should. RBKC's latest

figures show that 131 Grenfell

households still live in emergency

accommodation. Behind every one of

these numbers are human faces. There

can be no doubt that there are

families who desperately want a new

home, but for whom progress has been

painfully slow. Almost five months

after the fire, this must improve.

Responsibility for re-homing

ultimately lies with RBKC, however

in Central governors, we cannot shy

away from our share of the

responsibility. I expect the council

in line with the task force report

to do whatever is necessary to

ensure households can move into

settled homes as as possible. I will

continue to do all I can to ensure

that this is done. When I announced

the creation of the task force, I

said it would stay in place for as

long as it was needed. Based on this

first report, there is still much

more to be done, so the task force

will remain for the foreseeable

future. I have asked the task force

to ensure that proper action is

taken on all the fronts they

identify and come back to me in the

New Year with a further update,

which I will of course share with

this House. I must, of course, bank

of four members of the task force

for their tireless efforts so far.

Mr Speaker, this weekend, I read the

Right Reverend James Jones's

excellent report on the appalling

experiences of those who lost loved

ones in the Hillsborough Disaster.

It is a sobering piece of work.

Reminder that, and I quote, the way

in which families bereaved through

public tragedy are treated by those

in authority is in itself a burning

injustice. We saw that all too

clearly in the hours and the days

after the Grenfell fire. The clock

cannot be turned back, the woeful

inadequacies of the early response

cannot be undone. But I can say once

again that as long as I am in public

life, and will do all I can to

ensure that the failures of the past

are not repeated and that the people

of Grenfell Tower get the help the

support that they deserve. The

Hillsborough family is had to fight

for a quarter of a century to get

their voices heard. To be taken

seriously, be treated properly by

those in authority. We cannot allow

that to happen again. I will not

allow it to happen again. The public

enquiry established by the Prime

Minister will play the major role,

but for its part, I am confident

that the continued work of the task

force will help ensure that the

survivors receive the support and

the respect they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank

the Secretary of State for the

advance copy of his statement this

afternoon. I also wish to join with

him in banking the members of the

Grenfell task force for producing

this report -- banking. On all sides

of the House, we recognise the

totally avoidable tragedy at

Grenfell and also an official

response that was not good enough.

The support on the ground for

families who needed help or basic

information in the initial hours was

not provided for by the council. The

council was too distant from the

residents it serves and it meant

that there was little effective and

structured support from RBKC at a

time when the residents needed it

the most. Instead, support came from

the many volunteers, charities,

emergency services and aid workers.

And as we know only too well,

without them, the situation would

have been much worse. But for many

survivors, the situation is far more

bleak than the information provided

to us to Dave by the Secretary of

State. Can he personally confirm

that figures that have been

presented to do not include people

from the property surrounding the

tower, in the three walkway

buildings? Mr Speaker, residents of

Barrington were up, Hurst Way walk

and tested to walk did not run out

off a burning building, but they

still lived through an unimaginable

tragedy and they still saw

unspeakable things. My understanding

from the council's figures is that

if we are to include these

additional people made homeless from

the fire, dream and 76 households

were made homeless comprising 857

people. 311 of these households are

in bed and breakfast accommodation

and 87 households in temporary

accommodation. I asked the Secretary

of State in future will provide the

full data and providing an update to

the House including a full account

of the numbers made homeless and

progress made in rehousing

survivors. There are also additional

issues for those in the walkway

blocks under the suggested rehousing

policy from the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea. Tenants

would not be given priority for

rehousing while remaining in bed and

breakfast accommodation.

I agree with them, it means that

they would either be required to

move into temporary accommodation or

back in to their old home

overlooking the tower, having to

relive the tragedy every day.

Even then, priority for housing will

be removed if residents reject two

offers, leaving some residents

fearing they would be made

intentionally homeless. Hotel

accommodation is not a substitute

for a home, especially after such a

traumatic event and there are

growing concerns ant people

beginning to lose hope. Mr Speaker,

Dr John Green said last week that he

had found 667 adults in urgent need

for treatment, for post-traumatic

stress disorder. 360 are undergoing

treatment. The capacity issues we

often see nationwide are amplified

here at times of tramming disuch as

this. The it is a, force reports

that -- tragedy. Describing how

support services are stretched, and

there have been issues reported by

survives on the appropriateness

accessibility and lack of cultural

and faith seasonstivety. Fundamental

problems remain with NHS staff being

unable to get timely and accurate

location lists from the council, so

will the Secretary of State

recognise that the impacts of this

tragedy go beyond those within the

tower, and ensure that steps are

taken to ensure that severely

traumatised people have the support

they need, and are not facing an

unnecessary burden none finding

somewhere safe to live. The

Government conceded the failure of

Kensington and Chelsea Council was

real, and they sent this taskforce

in, yet the Government also left the

council in charge, something that we

on this side of the House strongly

cautioned against. Now we welcome

the four key findings of the

taskforce as a way to rebuild public

trust in the council but the

Secretary of State says he will

continue to monitor the situation

closely, but with his announcement

of fewer meetings and I understand

the reasons for that, between his

ministers, the council and the

taskforce, how will he ensure that

the level of scrutiny, that is so

desperately needed going forward,

will not be reduced. Now it is worth

noting that in contrast to the

findings of the task force, and the

comments of the Secretary of State

said, that the leader of the

council, Councillor Campbell praised

the response from the council,

describing their efforts at the

immediate response as being

incredible. Frankly, I find those

comments incredible. So not

withstanding the view of the Task

Force, of a significant change in

the senior leadership team, it

appears that little has changed

between the gap of the council

leadership, and the communities they

seek to represent. It is still far

too distant. Finally children are

still being failed by this council.

227 children are still in testimony

preaccommodation following the fire.

While not all of them have been

there for nearly five months, some

will have been. The Secretary of

State will, of course, by a wear of

the six week legal limit on

emergency bed-and-breakfast

accommodation for families with

children. The taskforce recognised

this in its report, describing a

distinct weakness in the response of

the council. Will the Secretary of

State please clarify, if it is his

view, that the council has failed in

their statutory obligations to their

residents, and the 227 children

still in emergency accommodation,

and if he does, what further actions

will he be taking against the

council, and more urgently, to help

families.

We are 145 days on since the

dreadful fire and yet it appears

that many of the promises that were

so hastily made, are still not being

actioned quickly enough. Without the

full use of the Secretary of State's

powers to rectify the inadequate

governance arrangements at

Kensington and Chelsea Council, will

is still a long way to go before the

local community will feel any trust

in their council again.

Secretary of State.

Mr Speaker,

thank you, can I first thank the

honourable gentleman for his

comments and also for his support of

the members of the taskforce which I

very much welcome. He raised a

number of issue, let me begin round

rehousing and the honourable

gentleman talked about the walk-way,

so-called walkways, first of all I

am sure the honourable member and

the House will understand that from

day one the priority in terms of

rehoursing have been the victim, who

have permanently lost their homes

but at the same time, working with

those in the walk-way, many of those

initially their homes were unIran

habitable and many required support,

including emotional and mental

health support. The council and

others have been working with people

in the walk-way, providing them with

whatever support is needed, he

raised the issue of a number of

people from the walk-way, still in

emergency accommodation hotel rooms.

I can tell him the latest informs I

have is there are 161 hotel rooms

occupied by residents of the

walkways, there were a lot more, I

think it was one point closer to 300

room, so the number is thankfully

coming down, many people have moved

back in to their homes, and a number

of people have said that they are

not ready to move back or in some

cases they have said they don't want

to move back in to their own home,

and the council rightly has accepted

that, if no-one, if will is anyone

from the walkways they doesn't want

to move back to their previous

accommodation, that should be

listened to, nobody should be forced

to move back.

The honourable gentleman also raised

the issue of rightly so of emotional

support, that is one of the most

important areas of support for

people where they where Grenfell

Tower, Grenfell Walkways or the

walk-ways of the larger community,

that is where the NHS, the CCG, the

other councils, the and the

voluntary groups have been involved.

The honourable gentleman will know

that there has been considerable

support for example through the 247

dedicated NHS hotline, there have

been outreach effort, almost 4,000

contacts have been made in outreach

there is support in hotels with

emotional support in 13 of the

hotels. Much available across the

night, as well as funding for

community group, including ridges

you groups and others to make sure

that support can be provided in all

ways to all members of the

community. One thing I would ask for

a couple of weeks ago, was for a

round table with, including

voluntary groups and the NHS and

others that have been providing the

support to Mick sure we looked at

all options of support and provided

every way question, last week

reported back to my through my

ministerial taskforce we have taken

up any of the recommendations to

make sure we are providing the

emotional support. The honourable

gentleman talked about support for

children, he is right to highlight

that, and he will know in terms of

the housing, the rehousing policy

that the council set out, consulted

with, survives and set it out

through a consultation process, that

there is a priority system in

players I am sure he understands

that the priority in terms of

permanent homes has been those

families who have been bereaved,

whether they have had children or

not, and then also, next is any

family with children, that also

includes support through education

alservices and he may know for

example that the Kensington school

that was, wasn't available, the

original school building because of

the fire, the school was rebuilt as

a temporary building. It re-opened

again on time in September, that is

as far as I know, that is the

fastest school building programme

that has ever been chived. I mention

that as a demonstration to show how

far we need to go to do everything

we can to support the council, the

DFE and others in helping children

as well. Lastly, the honourable

gentleman raised the issues of the

findings of the report, he asked how

will we retain scrutiny? I make it

clear, I want, the all members of

the House are independent, as you

would expect very independently

minded in their approach to this and

I think it was important to listen

to the recommendations and then most

important act on them. I am glad the

council have said and they are

publishing a report today, making it

clear they have accepted every

single one of the recommendations

that came from the members of the

task force and I have accepted every

recommendation that applies to

central Government. One of their

recommendations was to have the

Ministry of taskforce meet less

frequently for the reasons I said,

and I have scened for the reasons

they have given, to ignore that

would have not been the right

approach, having said that, it is

absolutely right we maintain

scrutiny, so my taskforce will

continue to meet the ministerial

taskforce, he will know alongside

that the members of my department

are working both in the council with

taskforce members and other, the

taskforce work continue, they are

meeting regularly with the council,

the council officers and community

representative, he will also know

that my honourable friend is the

minister is the Grenfell victims

minister and meet almost weekly with

victims and the housing minister has

regular surgeryings as well with the

victims. -- surgeries.

Thank you you. As the chair of a