14/11/2017 House of Commons

abolition Bill. Second reading, what

day? Friday the 16th of March, 2018.

Friday the 16th of March, 2018. We

now come to the emergency debate,

which is colleagues were advised

yesterday, can last for up to two

hours. Dame Margaret Hodge.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. The actions and the

culture of powerful, large

corporations and of the wealthiest

in our society, as revealed in the

Paradise Papers constitute a

national and international disgrace.

What we have learned is tax

avoidance is not only a trivial

irritant practice by a small number

of greedy individuals and global

corporations will stop it is the

widely accepted behaviour of too

many of those who are rich and

influential. --. It is the widely

access debate -- it is the widely

accepted behaviour. It has become a

scourge on our society. The Paradise

Papers reveal the enormity and scale

of the problem. That is what makes

this emergency debate on the issue

so important. Our debate is also

urgent and timely because the

Chancellor, who sadly is not in his

place to hear the debate, is putting

the finishing touches to his budget.

I hope he will read very carefully

the views expressed today by members

of the House and reflect them in the

proposal sees brings to house next

week.

I will give way to the

honourable member? There is no such

thing as a magic money tree, the

prime minister told a nurse who had

not got an increase in eight years.

Does the honourable lady agree with

me that there is? In the Cayman

Islands, Bermuda and in Jersey and

the worthy ill gotten gains salted

away of tax dodging to be picked and

put into our public services, we

would not have police officers and

teachers facing the sack and a

crisis in the health service.

I

completely agree with my honourable

friend's remarks, which are

pertinent to what we are discussing

in the debate. Paying tax is an

essential part of the social

contract... Let me just make this

point and I will come back. Paying

tax is an essential part of the

social contract into which we all

enter as members of the community.

As members of society we agree to

abide by a set of rules and

regulations that make all our lives

better. One of those rules is we

agreed to contribute through

taxation into the common part for

the common good.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I would like to ask why a

family firm has paid virtually no

tax?

I am pleased the honourable

gentleman has given me the

opportunity to explain to the House.

My father and his cousins were

refugees from Germany and my father

was then a refugee from Egypt. He

was a double refugee. I remember as

a child he often said to me, you

will never feel safe in this

country. Always have your suitcase

ready. He did keep money abroad.

When we discovered that after he

died we closed those funds and put

them into a charity. The level of

taxation and who pays is decided by

house here in Parliament, through

our democratic process. That is how

we create a system that is

democratic and trusted by all. When

a menorah to you choose to ignore

and deliberately bypass our laws and

regulations and get away with it,

they undermine confidence in the

fairness of the system. -- when

people choose to ignore. Some people

claim tax avoidance is OK because it

is lawful. Indeed one government

minister from the other place, the

noble Lord Bates, said on Monday

that tax avoidance continues to be

part of the international system and

we recognise and value it. He and

others are simply wrong and they

misunderstand the issues. HMRC's

definition of tax avoidance is

clear, tax avoidance, and I quote,

involves bending the rules of the

tax system to gain a tax advantage

that Parliament never intended. It

often involves operating within the

letter but not the spirit of the

law. Those are the words of HMRC.

Even they say tax avoidance is wrong

for stop I will give way to the

honourable member?

I thank her for

giving way. That she agree that any

feature of a strong tax system is

having a proper network of offices

and the closure and centralisation

like the one in my constituency in

Livingston is a disgrace and will do

nothing to help the situation.

I

agree with the honourable lady. The

resources of HMRC is essential to

the fight against tax avoidance and

evasion. Sorry... These are the

words of HMI C. -- HMRC. Tax

avoidance is completely different

from tax planning, Webber example

Parliament intended to encourage

people to save their pensions by

introducing ISAs and tax breaks. Tax

breaks on the other hand walk the

intention. It means collective will

is ignored. It should not be

tolerated and we must act urgently

to eradicate it.

I will give way to

the honourable member. I thank her

for giving way on that point. Does

she agree one of the best ways of

trying to deal with this

increasingly serious issue is to

have openness and transparency in

all the funds held offshore? So

those who are doing it have to face

the legitimate scrutiny of taxpayers

in this country.

My honourable

friend makes a central point to what

we will be asking for today. Not

only does the behaviour of a feud

damage trust in the system as a

whole but it damages the public

services taxes are used to support.

Can I carry on a little bit and I

will give way? At a time in the NHS

is under such pressure, when public

sector workers have had wages held

down for years, when schools

struggle to deliver the best start

for all our children, for the super

rich and powerful to think they can

opt out of their responsibilities to

contribute fairly through taxes, is

utterly and totally immoral and

wrong. It is our responsibility to

put an end to it.

I thank her for

giving way. I have been helpfully

provided with some facts which I

think should be put to the House. I

am told since 2010 big up and

secured £160 billion from tackling

elevation and noncompliance, 2.8

billion from offshore tax evaders,

invested 1.8 billion in HMRC to

tackle avoidance and evasion. I am

very proud of this. Will the

honourable lady agree with me that

this is a Nixon record from a

Conservative government? --

excellent record. How does it

compare to the Labour government she

is always so keen to support?

I had hoped the honourable lady

would listen to the whole of my

speech. A little progress has been

made but not enough. The previous

Labour government record on tackling

tax avoidance was not as good as I

would have wanted. But the record

and actions of this government are

inadequate. And somewhat

hypocritical. Their rhetoric is

mostly fine but the reality is badly

wanting.

I'm extremely grateful to my

honourable friend. Isn't the

difficulty here that when ordinary

people hear the budget next week and

they have to think about their taxes

against a background of inflation

and food prices, they will wonder

why the people opposite are

hell-bent on avoiding any enquiry

into aggressive tax avoidance?

I

agree entirely with my honourable

friend and I was just going to make

the point that those who do pay

their taxes are completely federal.

By eight o'clock this morning nearly

156,000 people had signed a petition

to go to the Prime Minister. This is

an issue that angers people across

the country, men and women,

supporters of all political parties,

people of all ages, and people in

every income group.

She makes a very

good point. Everybody wants tax

evasion clamped down on. And I also

have some statistics. It is this

government who has invested £1.8

million in HMRC to tackle tax

avoidance, and indeed we have

lessened the gap by 2% more than

Labour did. So we are on the right

track.

If the honourable lady looks

at the HMRC figure on the tax gap,

running about 34 to £36 billion, if

she then looks at the figure that

tax campaigners talk about, which is

a gap of £120 billion, I think she

will share with me a determination

to see much more action to deal with

something which is just an ill in

our society.

I congratulate my right honourable

friend on this debate. Does she

share my concern about the

complacency being Sean -- shown?

Cutting down on global tax abuse

clearly requires international

cooperation. As we exit the EU, does

she share my concern that this is

not damaged in any away by our exit,

but strengthened by our actions

domestically and internationally?

I

completely concur with those very

important remarks made by my

honourable friend. It is my -- our

job as elected representatives to do

what we can to put a stop to tax

injustice. Tax avoidance should not

be an issue that divides us. It

should be an issue on which we work

together. In the interests of all

taxpayers, and to protect our public

services. The Paradise Papers are

the latest in a series of leaks that

have been unmasked by the

international press. I salute the

journalists who have been involved

in making sense of the millions of

documents that have been passed to

them. Especially those at the

Guardian and Panorama, who have been

working on the papers for a year.

And I salute the public spirited

courage of the whistle-blower who

first past the paper to the German

newspaper. Can I just make some

progress? The Paradise Papers

contain 13.4 million files from just

two offshore providers of tax advice

and the company registries of 19 tax

havens. The scale of the data is

what makes the leak so important.

Let me say this. We have had the

Panama papers, the so-called Russian

and Azerbaijani laundromat

revelations on money-laundering. Now

we have the Paradise Papers. And we

will continue to have new leaks

splashed over our papers, filling

our television screen, until such

time as the government acts firmly

to clamp down on the avoidance that

is so blatant and yet so wrong. I

will give way.

She said several

things that I agree with. For

instance, everybody should pay their

fair share of tax to help fund

public services, which is vital, and

also tax avoidance is something we

should work together on. Yet

considering that point, doesn't she

feel a little bit ashamed about her

party's efforts to block steps

before the most recent election,

that would have actually reduced tax

avoidance?

On trying to not make

this overly partisan but I feel more

ashamed as a member of Parliament at

her party's reluctance to adopt the

very clear and simple methods that

could actually really tackle tax

avoidance. I'm going to make

progress. There are a lot of people

who do want to speak in what is a

two-hour debate. Last week our

papers were filled with scams and

scandals concerning celebrities from

the self appointed philanthropist

Bonneau, to the actors in Mrs

Brown's Boys, stories that tainted

the reputation of our much loved

royal family, regulations about

establishment figures and further

evidence that corporations like

Apple deliberately established

artificial financial structures that

have no other purpose than to avoid

tax. But I want to focus on the

systemic history. It is the systemic

issues we need to consider if we are

going to make progress. Let me start

with two comments arising from what

we have learned from the Paradise

Papers. Observations that help us to

understand what is wrong with our

system. The lawyers at the heart of

the Paradise Papers are one of the

few offshore law practices that

belong to the offshore magic circle

of service providers. Indeed,

Appleby was named offshore firm of

the year by legal 520 15. Yet the

Paradise Papers reveal that the firm

was criticised 12 times over a

10-year period in reports issued by

regulators in our UK tax havens, the

British Virgin Islands, the Isle of

Man, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

Appleby was criticised for its

failure to comply with regulations

designed to stop the funding of

terrorism and to prevent

money-laundering. The reports talk

about persistent failures and

deficiencies. Severe shortcomings.

And a highly significant weakness in

the adequacy of organise nation

systems and controls. --

organisation. Appleby simply ignored

these critical reports and failed to

change their procedures, despite the

strong words. Even the authorities

of the British Virgin Islands found

after an inspection of Appleby that

the confirm has contravened

financial services legislation, the

anti-money-laundering regulations

and code practice of prep -- 2008,

and has severe shortcomings, with

the majority of the legislation with

prudential standards and good

standards of practice not been met.

Our regulatory frameworks are so

weak that law firms can break the

law with complete impunity. It is

hopeless having self-regulation,

national and international codes of

practice, and regulatory bodies with

legal powers that can practice...

The lawyers just don't give a dam

and nobody held them to account.

I

thought I understood prior to this

the distinction between tax

avoidance and evasion. I feel the

line is blurred. What is the

honourable lady's understanding of

the disc -- the distinction between

avoidance and evasion?

I have to say

I agree with the honourable member

that the line is extremely blurred

and that some schemes put forward as

legitimate are very frequently then

found to be unlawful when HMRC

finally catches up with them. It is

a very blurred area where it is

difficult to make distinctions.

Worse than that, Appleby helped to

coordinate a well funded and

comprehensive lobby by the

international finance centres for

that took place before it G8 summit

that David Cameron were sharing in

2013. The then Prime Minister had

intended to insist that UK tax

havens should publish public

registers of beneficial ownership in

their jurisdiction. Had David

Cameron had his way, we might not

have been here today. But the group

lobbied fiercely to maintain

secrecy. They lobbied the Right

Honourable member for South West

Hertfordshire, the then Exchequer

Secretary, they lobbied the

permanently -- the permanent

Secretary, they lobbied the senior

official who was director of the

UK's G8 presidency unit, and they

succeeded in weakening David

Cameron's commitment to

transparency.

I am very grateful to

my right honourable friend and

neighbour. Isn't the fact that the

vast majority of these tax havens

are British overseas territories?

And isn't it time that this

government or any government of this

country took seriously the fact that

those places are not doing what is

in the interests of British people

all over the world?

And I would add

to that, particularly not in the

interests of many of the developing

countries who lose more tax through

tax avoidance than we do

proportionate to their budgets.

Her

central contention is that these

territories should have a register

of beneficial ownership. Which he

acknowledged that the UK is now one

of the only countries in the world

to do that under this government?

That was a huge achievement by the

United Kingdom. And secondly, to put

it into international context,

virtually no other major developed

country in the world has done that.

The state of Delaware, in which 90%

of US corporations are registered,

hasn't done...

Order! When I say

order, the honourable gentleman

resumes his seed. That was far too

long.

I would simply observe that the UK

also has responsibility for the

overseas territories and Crown

Dependencies, and I wish the UK

didn't in its own tax court have so

many harmful elements in the cold

that encourage tax avoidance. --

code. Treasury ministers and

government departments only listen

to a very small and exclusive group

of tax professionals when they take

decisions on tax policy. It is one

thing for the government to consult

stakeholders on the issues, but it

is quite another for the government

to be captured by the tax industry

at the expense of the wider public

interest. Tough and active

regulation of the tax industry to

ensure compliance in existing rules

is vital. And making the advisers

accountable for the schemes they

invent and market is central to the

campaign to destroy tax avoidance.

The government's measures represent

one small step in the right

direction. But the small print

suggests that very few, if any, will

get caught by the legislation. The

definitions are too narrow and the

penalties too weak. They have been

brought in so the government can

claim it is acting. But until

advisers are really brought to

account and properly punished for

inventing schemes that are surely

aimed at avoiding tax, the army of

lawyers, accountants and bankers

will continue to prosper. If the

government is serious about packing

avoidance, it must act strongly on

the illegitimate practices of those

who make a huge living out of

peddling tax avoidance advice.

It is

a very powerful case. Does she agree

that another area that has to be

improved is the approach of

prosecuting authorities? When we put

legislation on the statute book,

what is striking is how seldom that

legislation is Excilly proceeded

with by the prosecuting authorities

in this country.

I agree with that

entirely. I'm now going to make

progress, otherwise I'll take up too

much time. Over half of the Appleby

offices are located in British tax

havens. Over half of the entity is

exposed in the Panama papers were

incorporated in just one UK tax

haven, the British Virgin Islands.

Estimates of the wealth held in this

tax haven by their nature difficult

to verify, but they vary from

trillion to a figure of 32 trillion.

-- trillion to a figure of 32

trillion.

Does she agree that

Britain has a unique leadership role

in the light of what he said and the

developing countries lose around 100

billion, between 100 billion to 160

billion, of lost income a year?

Imagine what we could do to tackle

poverty.

I agree with that very

powerful point that she has made.

Unbelievable sums of money I hidden

in these jurisdictions. It is

impossible to measure how much tax

is lost by the presence of tax

havens but it does run into hundreds

of millions of pounds per year. We

know developing countries lose three

times as much in tax avoidance as

they gain from global investment in

international aid. Our tax havens

acting as a jurisdiction is central

to much of the tax avoidance. We

cannot continue to pretend we are

leading the international fight

against tax avoidance and evasion

when what we do and what we failed

to do is allowing tax avoidance to

prosper. It is also money

laundering, bribery, corruption and

other financial crime prospering

through the secrecy we allow to

prevail. Our failure to tackle our

tax havens, weak regulatory regimes

and some tax rules means we are now

seen as the country of choice for

criminals as well as tax avoidance

and evaders, as they look to hide

their money and minimise their tax

bills. We need our government to

hold to the commitment made by the

Prime Minister and Chancellor in

2013-14. They understood

transparency was the key. We need

public registers of beneficial

ownership showing who owns what and

where. That would undermine at a

stroke so much. Would Bono have

invested in tax havens if he thought

we would all know? Would Lewis

Hamilton have created a complex

structure of companies to avoid VAT?

Would the actors in Mrs Brown 's

boys hide their earnings in

artificial financial structures if

they thought we would find out? The

answer is no. David Cameron

understood that when he told the UK

tax savings to Riverside, I quote,

the cloak of secrecy, in 2013. --

rip aside. He urged consultation on

a public registry vital to meeting

the urgent challenge of finance and

tax evasion. When in 2015 he

proclaimed "If we want to break the

best is a model of stealing money

and hiding it in places where it

cannot be seen, transparency is the

answer". In the last two years the

Government has watered down that

commitment to public registers in

British tax savings. Now we hear

ministers say we had to wait for

other countries to go first. Their

proper call for international action

on transparency has become the lame

excuse for inaction in our own

territory. Mr Speaker, we should

lead by example. We should

demonstrate how transparency can and

does change behaviour. We should

compel overseas territories and

Crown dependencies to publish public

registers in all their territory. In

the past, a Conservative government

has used powers to outlaw capital

punishment in our Crown dependencies

and overseas territory. A Labour

government used the same power to

outlaw discrimination against gay

people. Today we should work

together to outlaw the secrecy of

these jurisdictions which leads to

massive tax injustice. Nothing-macro

shows the problems created by

secrecy are much larger and more

complex than we thought possible. --

the Paradise Papers. We should

support behaviours in transforming

economies so hidden wealth,

unsavoury people and questionable

financial practices are stopped. I

cannot think of one good reason not

to do this and to do it now. There

is more that we can do right now. It

simply requires the Government to

have the political will. They will

certainly have the support of the

whole house and the whole country if

they demonstrate by their action,

not words, that they will work to

stamp out tax avoidance. We can and

should implement the legislation

requiring multinational companies to

report their activity and profits on

a country by country basis. The

legislation would be successfully

steered through Parliament by my

honourable friend. We can and should

introduce right now the public

register of property ownership,

enacted before the general election,

promoted by transparency and

supported by members of the

all-party Parliamentary on

anti-corruption. Nobody knows why

this legislation has not been

implemented. It is a key element in

the fight against corruption,

avoidance and evasion. We should

properly resource HMRC right now so

they are capable of pursuing all

those who look to avoid tax, not

just small businesses, who are an

easy target and can be stopped with

little effort. Every pound invested

in HMRC enforcement yields £97 in

additional tax revenue. It is a

no-brainer that we should strengthen

the HMRC and reverse some of the

cuts. The Paradise Papers have

played tax avoidance back at the

heart of the political agenda and

back at the top of the list of

public concerns. The government

needs to grasp the moment to act.

They have an opportunity to do so in

the budget next week. Britain will

never get rich on dirty money.

Public services cannot function if

the most wealthy individuals and the

most powerful companies deliberately

avoid paying their fair share

towards the cost of those services.

This government will not be forgiven

if it fails to heed the lessons we

can all learn from the Paradise

Papers. Proper transparency will

come. The government can choose

whether it leads the changes needed,

or if you would like to be dragged

kicking and screaming it in

fermenting essential reform. I hope

they will listen, learn and act.

--

in in fermenting. The question is

has on the order paper. I call Mel

stride. Financial Secretary to the

Treasury.

Can I begin, Mr Speaker,

by congratulating the right

honourable lady on securing this

important debate? She has campaigned

vigorously on these issues over many

years and has certainly been active

in the past week. I responded to an

urgent question also in terms of the

isle of man and an adjournment

debate last week and now of course

in this debate, as well. She said

tax and tax avoidance was one of

those matters which should not be

dividing us and I believe she is

right. It seems to me in the various

iterations of this debate she and I

have had across the dispatch box

there is a great deal in which we

can be united rather than divided.

Not least on the shared view across

this House and certainly on my side,

Mr Speaker, that aggressive tax

avoidance and evasion are utterly

wrong. They are wrong for the

reasons she has given. Because those

who pay tax fairly should not be

penalised by virtue of the fact some

do not paid fairly. We also know, as

she has pointed out, tax is

necessary to fund vital public

services. It is entirely wrong that

those aggressively evading or

avoiding tax put pressure on public

services, the NHS, doctors and

nurses. I will give way to the

honourable member.

Under the last

government there was an appointment

made as an anti-corruption czar by

the former Prime Minister. I'm

wondering who the anti-corruption

czar is under the current

government.

That is a matter I will

get back to. If I can make a little

progress... We know tax is

important. Clearly for public

services. And we know, has the lady

has quite rightly stressed, it is

important the Government acts and is

seen to act when we come across

aggressive tax avoidance and

evasion. As my friends on this side

of the House have eloquently pointed

out, we have a very strong track

record in that regard. We have ways.

£160 billion in additional revenue

as a consequence of clamping down on

tax avoidance, evasion and

noncompliance since 2010. We have

brought in... Let me make this

point, we have also brought in £2.8

billion tracking down those who have

looked to inappropriately hide their

finances in overseas tax

jurisdictions. We brought in £28.9

billion in additional compliance in

the last 12 months alone. This is

the most telling point, because the

honourable lady is rightly critical

of the last Labour government in

terms of their performance. She

raised it this afternoon and also

the same point in an adjournment

debate last week. If we look at the

tax gap currently between what we

could potentially bring in by way of

taxation and what we actually do is

6%. It is a historic low. A world

beating figure. If we had today the

average tax gap that was pertinent

under the last Labour government we

would be £45 billion less in the

exchequer as a consequence. That is

£45 billion not therefore vital

public services which the right

Honourable lady is keen to discuss.

I think the honourable gentleman is

first.

I thank the Minister for

giving way. Can he confirm HMRC

inform the commercial services union

that in 2017 the equivalent of

17,000 years of staff experience is

leaving the department? How will

that help the Government record

going forward in dealing with tax

evasion and avoidance?

I thank him

for raising the issue in HMRC. We

have a very good record in that

regard. 1.8 billion invested in HMRC

since 2010, in which 800 million

will relate to the period after

2015, bringing in £7.2 billion by

2020 - 21. We will triple the number

of investigations into the wealthy

to make sure they are indeed paying

the appropriate level of tax, as a

direct consequence of that

additional investment. I will give

way.

The Minister is very kind. Can

he explain to the housewife only 420

HMRC staff are engaged in chasing

tax avoidance and get ten times that

number of civil servants are engaged

in benefit fraud in the DWP?

I

challenge the honourable member's

actual figure. It is a far larger

number than the figure he suggested

which are engaged in clamping down

on tax avoidance. For example, in

the 2100 largest corporations in

this country, around 50% are under

investigation not necessarily for

doing anything wrong, but because

they have complex tax affairs at any

one time.

I will give way to the

honourable member again. Can he

confirm to the House he has answered

the question yesterday saying that

there are 522 employees in the

network union in 2017 and that

compares with 4045 full-time

equivalents in DWP chasing Social

Security?

On this issue of the tax

take from the wealthiest in this

country, this government has an

exemplary record. Of the wealthiest

1%, they pay around 20% of all

income tax. Under the last Labour

government it was below 24%. I will

not take any lectures from the party

opposite.

She has a question about the tax

gap...

I will give way to the

honourable member. He is right to

point out HMRC do a very good job in

terms of collection of tax in this

country but it does not mean it

cannot do better. With the Minister

agree that the way in which the tax

take is identified and it is based

on what we think should be paid in

tax, it is not deal with Google,

Amazon, Starbucks and others, who

hides tags and it is not computed

into the actual tax we should take

and therefore the delivery of a tax

gap?

I am pleased she has raised the

issue. The robustness of this figure

is extremely high. The IMF said it

is one of the highest standards in

the world. It is audited and agreed

by the National audit office and

made public in the HMRC annual

report and accounts. I will give way

to my honourable friend.

I thank him

for giving way. He rightly talks

about the need for the wealthiest to

pay their fair share. Does he agree

one of the most obscene things under

the last Labour government was

cleaners have to pay more tax man

hedge fund owners that employed them

and a Conservative government closed

the so-called Mayfair loophole?

My

honourable friend is entirely right.

It is this government that has

raised the personal allowance to

11,500, taking 3-4,000,000 has a tax

altogether. This government brought

in the National Living Wage. This

government will go on to make sure

those with the broadest shoulders

will pay their fair share. I will

give way to the honourable member.

Does the honourable member agree

that the HMRC would be serving this

government and the people in the

United Kingdom better by challenging

those who bend the rules rather than

finding my law-abiding constituent

Sheila £1600 for a £100 -- £135

yearly tax bill when all she failed

to do was press enter at the end of

the form?

The honourable lady raises

a very important point, which brings

me onto my next point. There is an

assumption on the opposition benches

that somehow nothing is being done

about these various issues. The

right honourable lady, the lady --

the member from parking, referred to

one of the instances in the Panama

papers were some income had been

diverted overseas and then loaned

back to individuals, which is known

as disguised remuneration. And quite

rightly she has asked the question,

what is the government doing about

those circumstances? Pointer to the

Finance Bill that has just gone

through this house. -- I pointer.

People will be given until 2019 to

clear up those arrangements or they

will pay the penalty. I will make a

little more progress. I am conscious

of time and the shortness of the

debate. There are other issues were

in fact we have brought in 75

measures since 2010 to clamp down on

these measures. A further 35 will,

growing from 2015, raising £18.5

billion by 2020 - 2021. One of the

problems is we have been so active

in bringing in so many measures that

unfortunately not all of them have

been noticed. The right

honourable... I will finish this

point and I will give way. The right

honourable lady, the member for

barking, raised, for example, the

issue of taking action. She razored

last week in the debate. Taking

action against those who promote

these tax avoidance schemes. Once

again in the Finance Bill. All 777

pages of it, very technical, it will

probably put you to sleep that

night, but within it there are

measures to deal with precisely what

she was urging us to take action on

last week. We have already done it.

I give way.

Whilst I congratulate

the government on specific changes

it has made, as not the biggest

change being the general Anti-Abuse

Rule which catches a number of these

schemes and allows governments to

look at what is tax avoidance,

aggressive avoidance, which

therefore becomes invasion, which is

illegal?

-- evasion. My friend is

entirely right. The rule has had

significant impact. It was brought

in under this government. It is very

effective. There is a certain irony

in the fact the opposition profess

the importance of some of these

measures, some of which have already

been brought into law. The irony is

that when it came to the third

reading of the Finance Bill which

brought these things in, the

opposition voted against them. I

will give way.

I thank the Minister.

The fact remains though that there

is at least £30 billion of

uncollected tax. It could be up to

120 billion. Wouldn't it be better

if we were to invest in and not cut

tax offices, and go after that

multi-billion pound tax gap?

Going

after the tax gap, which is what

this government is doing, and we

have an exemplary record, the lowest

tax gap in the world, the lowest in

history, far lower than under the

last government... As her tax

offices, we need to move to an HMRC

which is ready and equipped for the

21st century. That doesn't mean a

large number of scattered offices.

It means offices where the technical

skills are there, where the staff is

there. Where knowledge and

understanding can be facilitated to

move forward. I will make some

progress. I am aware this is just a

two-hour debate. Many wish to speak.

Mr Speaker, we have covered the

issue of the various measures that

we have taken. We have covered the

issue of the huge investment we have

made an HMRC. Haps I can now turn to

the international aspects, where we

all agree that we need to look

closely at what is happening in the

international sphere. This

government has a record of which it

can be proud. Through the OECD we

have been at the vanguard, in the

vanguard of the base erosion of

profit shifting project. We have

worked very closely with the Crown

Dependencies and overseas

territories. We brought in a

diverted profits tax that will raise

1.3 billion by 2019, common

reporting standards to ensure

information is exchanged to around

100 different countries, a directory

of beneficial ownership, which is

accessible by HMRC, the body, the

authority that needs to have that

information. This is a game changer.

It has happened within the last

couple of years. Many of those items

and issues arising from the Paradise

Papers go back very, very many

years. But these actions are in

position right now. Can I make one

important point? On the issue of

transparency... The Right Honourable

member talks about transparency. I

asked her at the last debate last

week if, when it comes to that --

those 13 million files, which she

join me in calling upon them to

release that information to HMRC so

that we can go after anybody who, as

a consequence of that data release,

has been abusive in terms of our tax

system? Will see support us?

-- will

see support us. It is not in the

gift of the Guardian or Panorama to

release those papers. They are not

able to do so.

What I actually asked

is whether the right honourable lady

would join me in calling for them to

release that information, which is a

slightly different question, and I'm

happy to give way if she would like

to tell us yes or no.

Order. Stop

the clock. There is far too much

noise in this chamber. I say very

gently to the Parliamentary Private

secretary, don't do it. You may

think you are being clever. It

doesn't enhance your application as

a parliamentarian in the end. Please

don't do it. It's juvenile, the

public despise it and I have no

patients for it. Dame Margaret

Hodge. -- patience.

I would

certainly join the Minister in

seeking any documentation HMRC

require to pursue those guilty of

avoidance bird evasion. I would say

to the Minister that when I have

given papers to HMRC in the past,

whether about Google or others, they

disappear and no action appears to

be taken.

I will take that as a yes

and that we can work together to try

and see that that information is

provided to HMRC. I can see no

reasonable reason why it should not.

I will give way.

I very much agree

with my rival harbour front. Will he

confirm that in recent years, made

-- well after many of these papers,

Crown Dependencies have fully

cooperated with the UK in relation

to all tax transparency, all OECD

measures, and have the same

transparency ratings as the United

States, Germany and other Western

democracies?

I thank him for that

intervention. We have automatic

access in terms of corruption

enquiries to are Crown Dependencies

in overseas territories as a result

of that cooperation. I recognise how

important this issue as to the

public and it is of critical

importance to this government. UK

tax authorities have more

information and more power than ever

before to clamp down on evasion and

avoidance because of the actions of

the government, actions the

government she was part of and

failed to take. I conclude with the

words of the right honourable lady,

the member for Berkin, made in last

week's adjournment debate she has,

and I quote, never depended the

record of the Labour government in

this area. That speaks directly to

the heart of this issue. An apparent

legacy of tax abuses going back many

years, framed by the inaction of the

party opposite. And it speaks to the

core of Labour's approach to the

world, that the opportunity lies

always in the criticism and the

derision rather than in action and

justice. It is this government that

is acting. It is this government

that will continue to leave no stone

unturned in the pursuit of those who

seek to duck their responsibilities

at the expense of us all. Whenever

and wherever it is found, this

government will continue to bring

the avoiders, the evaders, the

noncompliant, to book.

Order. Both

the Right Honourable member for

Barking and the financial Secretary

to the Treasury, characteristically

courteously, gave way extensively.

They are not being criticised for

that. But I simply draw attention to

the limited time available for the

debate and ask those speaking from

the front bench to be extremely

sparing in their remarks. First

responsibility for brevity is that

of the honourable member for Bootle,

Mr Peter Dowd.

I will try and take that suggestion

on board rather than a direction.

The minister identifies what should

be done. I'll tell you what should

be done. Labour's tax enforcement

programme, it says an immediate

public enquiry into avoidance,

greater scrutiny of MPs, create a

specialist tax enforcement unit,

public filing of large company tax

returns, of the tax returns of

wealthy individuals earning more

than £1 million. No public contracts

Froch tax avoidance, repatriate

contracts parked in tax havens,

public contract transparency, a

register of ownership of companies,

a register of trusts, a general tax

avoidance rule principle, strict

minimal standards for Crown

Dependencies and overseas

territories, create an offshore

companies levy, full country by

country reporting. A comprehensive

proposal by Labour to begin with.

I

think the Shadow Minister forgiving

way. Would he agree with me that

there is an army of facilitators

around tax avoidance, including,

sadly, the four big accountancy

firms often based just a mile down

the road in the Square mile?

My

honourable friend makes an important

point. What goes to the heart of

this is the question of

transparency. We have the bizarre

situation that when I was on

Newsnight last week, and the chair,

the chairman of the Cayman Islands

stock exchange was on the programme

as well... What an insouciant

attitude of that man had to tax

avoidance. Mr Speaker, he actually

said, there hadn't been any

wrongdoing. Maybe not. What he did

do was he called for the journalist

to be jailed that is what he did.

That is what he did. He called for

the journalist to be jailed. And

that is the position we find

ourselves in. I am going to take the

suggestion, otherwise it will be an

admonition from the Speaker, to push

on. Then I will take some

interventions. I hope that members

across this House will join with me

in condemning those responsible and

offensive comments. All of us or a

debt of gratitude to the

hard-working and diligent

journalists involved to have

demonstrated the importance of a

free press, holding the wealthiest

and most powerful individuals and

multinationals to account. To be

clear, we are talking about tax

avoidance, which covers activities

within the law. But that work

against its effective application.

Most of the people and cases

involved have not broken any law or

acted in a criminal way. That does

not make tax avoidance acceptable

are justifiable in the 21st century.

After all, as has been identified,

tax avoidance costs of us all. Every

pound avoided is taken from her

children's education, from our armed

Forces, the very people who protect

us. From the elderly and disabled.

Even if we were to look, as we -- as

has been identified, at the

Conservative figures published on

tax avoidance, 12.8 billion was lost

to the Exchequer because of tax

avoidance. That is not acceptable.

And frankly, the question about what

a Labour government did in the past,

people have a view about that.

People think it was much better than

the Tories overall. I'm not going

there. The question arises as to

what... I referred the honourable

gentleman to the financial Times, Mr

Speaker. With the greatest of

respect to the honourable gentleman,

I'm not his research. I'm sure he is

capable of doing that.

I'll give

way. I thank you. Does he accept

that if the tax gap we have now was

at the same level it had been on

average on the Labour, that our

deficit would be £12 billion higher?

My honourable friend behind me says,

move on. And I think she is

absolutely right in relation to that

issue. I will reaffirm the point I

made in the Labour document. We have

got to push on with this debate.

It's no good talking about the past.

We want to talk about here and now

and the future. I will give way to

the honourable member.

He does not

had to speak if he does not want to!

The tax gap is now 60%. It averaged

8% under Labour. If it was 8% as

then, we would have a bigger deficit

by £12 billion per year. -- the tax

gap now is 6%.

I am not going to get

into that particular issue. No doubt

we will come back to this at the

time of the budget. I know you are

looking at me with those guys. And a

smile at the same time. I will move

on. Mr Speaker, while tax avoidance

is a global problem it is also a UK

problem. The UK accounts for 17% of

the global market for offshore

services. We are considered one of

the biggest if not the biggest

players in the global offshore

system of tax havens. Accounting for

some of the world's key tax havens,

Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man 's Tom

Bahama, isle of man, Kate Cross and

British Virgin Islands, all British

overseas territories and all

afforded the protection of the

British Government. Despite our

prominence as a country at the heart

of the network offshore tax havens

which helps tax avoidance across the

globe, the Government refuses to

lead the way in relation to tax

transparency. I keep using that

word. I will consistently use that

word, tax transparency.

Thank you.

Would the Shadow Minister agree the

purchasing of a private jet, nearly

£17 million, setting up an offshore

leasing company, with the sole aim

of saving £3 million in VAT is an

affront to our public services.

My

honourable friend is quite right. It

is shocking. The denial of those on

the Government benches is not

something new. In 2013 when the G8

was pushing ahead with strict rules

to clamp down on tax avoidance, the

then Conservative Prime Minister

David Cameron was busy undermining

them, writing to the president of

the European Council demanding

offshore trusts were excluded. The

government record on tackling tax

avoidance is not all that it would

like it to be. Yes, I'm quite happy.

He is being generous with his time.

We all agree this has to be a

priority. He is focusing on our

record but why did the Labour Party

block the three measures we brought

forward by Chamakh it would have

been worth £8.6 billion vital to the

public services the listed earlier.

-- we brought forward?

I am more

than happy to give the honourable

gentleman a narrative. Let's put it

like that. About the proceedings. If

he wishes I have more than happy to

talk to him outside. I think the

information he is getting from his

front bench is nonsense. I'm going

to close to give people an

opportunity, Mr Speaker. First we

had the Panama Papers. Now the

Paradise Papers. How many more tax

avoidance leaks will then need to be

before the Government acts? It is

clear we desperately need a public

enquiry into tax avoidance, the use

of onshore trusts and havens. The

government should listen to this

side of the House and people outside

the House, more importantly, and act

by introducing a public register of

offshore trusts and publishing the

information already provided to it

from overseas territories. It should

also stop cuts to HMRC and make sure

HMRC staff have the staff and

resources needed to enable it to

tackle tax avoidance. Mr Speaker,

this House should be reassured that

if this government continues to

ignore the problem and to act, I can

assure them of the Labour government

will.

I draw the attention of the

House to my entry in the register of

members interests. I congratulate

the honourable lady on securing this

debate. She brings great expertise

and authority on these matters, not

least from her time on the PAC. Mr

Speaker, I think the most important

point for her to focus on this

afternoon is this is not a party

political issue. Although the right

honourable lady had some criticisms

of this government, criticisms of

the Government of which she was a

part, the only plausible criticism

in my judgment which can be made of

the current government is they need

to speed up some of the initiatives

they have already implemented. But

the Government has not done that in

respect of the overseas territories,

because we would rather these havens

took action themselves. And to be

fair, to some extent they have

already started doing so. In terms

of the actions taken by the

Government, David Cameron and George

Osborne led the international effort

at the G8 to clamp down on these

matters. Especially on tax avoidance

and evasion. We introduced publicly

accessible registers in the UK for

people with significant control. We

abolished anonymous shareholders. We

introduced very important

unexplained wealth orders. And the

anti-bribery law, first started

under John Major in Paris in 1995,

was finally introduced into this

country in 2011, after 13 years of

Labour government, by David Cameron.

Let's be clear that this government

has been taking action and has

raised an immense amount of extra

tax as a result. However, the time

has come, this is the third debate

in which I had taken part, to insist

on the same level of transparency

for the overseas territories as we

have in this country. These

territories gain hugely from their

relationship with the UK. As the

Government made clear in 2012, and I

quote, it is a matter of

constitutional law, the UK

Parliament has unlimited power to

legislate for these territories. I

give way.

I am grateful to the

gentleman for giving way. He will go

from his considerable expertise on

international development that the

abuse of these sorts of offshore

schemes not only harm the British

taxpayer but also disadvantage some

of the poorest people in the world.

That is why the Government must

increase greater transparency in

Crown dependencies and overseas

territories.

I am coming onto

exactly that point. The position of

the territories, like many members,

I have had visits from senior

ministers in virtually all of them,

the position of the territories is

best summed up by the prayer of

Saint Augustin, make me chaste, O

Lord, but not yet. They have

double-macro arguments. The first I

will call the Dutch Antilles

argument. -- they have two

arguments. They will head off to the

Dutch Antilles. There is a real

momentum around the world, thanks to

David Cameron and George Osborne, to

attack these unfair nurses. The

havens in bracing and open register

in my view will have an advantage

from being at the front of opening

up for what are billions of pounds

of legitimate business. The second

argument and this is one in a way I

think we must address head-on, is

they already provide the private

registers, they are available to

lawmakers and regulators like the

HMRC, and they proudly say they will

turn around enquiries from the HMRC

within a matter of hours. That is

very good but completely misses the

point, as this recent release of

information shows. Registers must be

open to the media, journalists, NGOs

and those people who can join up the

dots. The regulatory authorities are

not with the best will in the world

in that business. Narrow questions

jaunt from regulatory authorities do

not suffice. -- drawn from

regulatory authorities.

My

honourable friend makes a fair

point. Will he accept that we should

not run all overseas territories

into the same basket? Some are much

more compliant than others.

He makes

a very good point. I would like to

exclude Gibraltar from what I am

saying. Gibraltar is not an example

of what we are talking about. Time

is short. The final point I want to

make is the United Kingdom led on

point seven. Around the world the

United Kingdom is looks to for its

leadership on international

developer on. It is part of this

Parliament's identity. It is who we

are. It is part of global Britain.

We have an obligation, not least to

Oregon taxpayers, the champion

transparency and openness and have

zero tolerance towards corruption.

-- our own taxpayers. When we came

into government in 2010 the

Department for International

development led the way with

transparency guarantees. We

published openly all expenditure

above £500 on the Internet and it

may be a cliche, but sunlight is the

best disinfectant and that is at the

heart of what we are talking about

today.

I am most grateful to him for

giving way and support what he is

saying. Will he agree with me that

actually the market for financial

services in the future is huge?

Jurisdiction with this transparency

is going to attract a loss of

business in the future exactly for

that reason.

My honourable friend is

absolutely right. That was the first

of the two points I was making in

trying to tackle head-on the

counterargument sometimes but up by

some of the territories. In terms of

tackling corruption and having a

zero tolerance towards it, in 2010,

when I was responsible for these

matters, we targeted funding

specifically on to the city of

London police, who have some

expertise in pursuing and recovering

stolen funds. We should do as much

with that as we possibly can. I give

way.

I agree with a great deal of

what he has said. Given the British

Virgin Islands in particular, the

majority of the economy is in

financial services, the islands have

been devastated in the hurricanes.

Is now the right time to impose on

the islanders rather than working

with them?

He makes a fair point in

view of the current humanitarian

crisis which has afflicted the

British Virgin Islands. It is in

fact one of the most transparent is

of these havens. But I do not think

what I hope is a temporary crisis

should in any way mitigate the

argument I am making that maybe in a

short period of time but in a

defined period, these open registers

are absolutely essential. I was

talking about Britain's

international developer and

leadership and I finish on this

point... I will give way to the

honourable member.

Earlier he said

the UK lead on point seven. They

were about 45 years later on the

agreement in 1970 and decades behind

Scandinavia. I do not see the

leadership. Will he come back on

that?

He cannot get away with such a

narrow partisan comment. Britain was

at the G8 country to stand by

commitments to the poorest people in

the world and we are very proud

indeed that it was this government

that did it. Mr Speaker, the highly

respected Africa progress panel in a

recent study on the DRC, made clear

that stolen funds and stolen taxes

was costing their country £1.5

billion. More than the country

spends on health and education. It

is deeply ironic some deeper as

people in the world live on top of

some of the richest real estate.

That is clear in the DRC. There are

incredible studies which make it

absolutely clear that in Africa the

money that is stolen from the people

through nonpaid taxes or concealment

dwarfs all foreign direct investment

and international developer and

money flowing into Africa each year.

I will give way to the honourable

member.

We know a lot of that money

does not end up in overseas

territories. We know a lot of money

ends up in places like Dubai. We

need to engage in other parts of the

world, particularly in places like

Dubai where much of this money can

be found.

He makes a good point. The

key point is transparency. It is

openness. Make all these matters

published and the way they are

published in an open register in

Britain and that is the way in which

we make progress. Mr Speaker, we

look to the Government to advance

this agenda. Probably in the Finance

Bill. We have the Treasury benches

will clearly hear the will of the

House on this matter today and that

progress will indeed now be made.

I

asked the SNP spokesperson not to

exceed ten minutes in the interests

of facilitating others. We are in

her hands. Kirsty Blackman.

It is try to stick to that. -- it is

not common for me to exceed ten

minutes. Thanks for bringing this

debate to the House. I would like to

thank the journalists who have done

the work in the Paradise papers,

they have done it huge amount of

work, investigating this, and

exposing the issues and bringing

this to the attention of the

international media as well as the

attention of this House and they

deserve to be thanked. I normally

have a lot of time for the minister,

I find him to be often wrong, but

generally reasonable.

LAUGHTER

The speech he made today was badly

pitched, frankly. The speech from

the member for Sutton Coldfield was

much better, not just talking about

resting on his laurels, but about

what the government was going to do

and then could do in the future, I

have the minister listens to the

voices across the House on what they

are calling for De Shai Hope. This

is not a party political issue -- I

hope the minister. I don't have much

respect for either government's

actions on tax evasion, Labour or

the Conservatives, and I think

there's more that can be done.

Members across the House would agree

that is the case. Transparency

international look into the issue of

companies dodging tax and they found

766 UK companies that were involved

in corruption and money-laundering

to the June of £80 billion, and a

quarter of those companies that we

investigated are still active. Those

organisations once the government

can take action against. UK

Government is making a number of

incredibly ill advised and not great

decisions right now around things

like closing HMRC officers, round

their continued pursuit of

austerity. The work that has been

done by number of journalists is

helping us, and I appreciate that

the government has taken action on

this, but it took a very long time

for MPs like Roger Mullen... In

order to convince the government to

make any move on this. It is not

just this UK Government, previous

governments have successively failed

to crack down on this, and the UK

tax code is out of hand. It requires

simplification and changes that they

are making around that in

conjunction with the office for

taxing the vacation, have not gone

far enough -- tax simplification.

You cannot no longer carry the tax

code around because it is so

significant, and the potential for

people to dodge things as a result

of that very complex tax code is

ridiculous. The member for Boodle

spoke about the UK Government

previously calling for the EU's

sanctions around tax dodging to be

watered down, and I think this was a

grim action for them to take them

especially in the wake of the

Paradise Papers when this call came.

The UK Government should be leading

by example, they should be doing,

not just saying, we have got the tax

gap down to 6%, they should be

saying, the tax code is still 6%, we

have it huge amount of work to do in

order to crack down on that final

6%, we have, the UK has the

virginity to lead the world in this

regard and I think they should do

that -- UK has the opportunity.

Does

the lady thinks the introduction of

further tax bands in Edinburgh is an

additional convocation to the UK tax

codes? --, location.

You are

confusing the issue of income tax

with other types of tax. What has

happened in Scotland in relation to

the paper that has been produced,

that consults on a number of

options, and lays out the effects

they have, that is way more

transparent than any action that any

UK Government takes in advance of

any budget, where they bring rabbits

out of hats. The Scottish Government

has entered into dialogue with the

other parties and other parties have

got the opportunity to take that

chance to criticise or praise. The

honourable man but should do that.

-- member. The Scottish Government

have called for this to be devolved

to Scotland because we think we

would do a better job. The issue

that was highlighted especially by

the Paradise Papers, is the fact

that everyone knows that tax evasion

is illegal but tax avoidance as

highlighted in these papers is

immoral.

I'm grateful for giving

way. I'd like to share my concern.

Bright house, company that exploits

areas with extortion at APR rates,

is that immoral?

I agree, I'll say

her constituents who are exploited

by organisations like that -- I also

have constituents. It is a company

that no one should be investing in.

It is not that difficult to pay the

tax that you know, it is not that

difficult to say to financial

adviser, if you have bags of cash, I

would like my money to grow, but I

do not want it to grow by avoiding

the tax I/O. It would be very easy

for people to say that. It is clear

that some people lack the moral

compass and where they are taking

the decisions to engage in

aggressive tax avoidance of the

government requires to legislate in

order that they could no longer do

that, to provide the moral compass,

to make sure the tax is paid when it

is owed. We must have the best

possible tax rules in place and we

must simplify the tax code and we

must crack down on evasion and we

must legislate to reduce avoidance,

and the government is in a untenable

position, it cannot continue to

implement austerity while at the

same time leaving a tax gap.

Many of

the tax avoidance, they don't avoid

using our roads and the schools and

they don't avoid using hospitals or

using the police to look after their

lumps of money.

I absolutely agree.

However much they are earning, and

however much tax they are paying,

people are using the public

services. In our party we aspire to

have brilliant public services and

we aspire to have people working in

public services that are paid a

reasonable amount and don't have to

face a pay cut. The only way we can

provide the public services we want

and provide the benefits system that

we want, is to have a system where

people pay the tax they owe. We

continue to call for this to be

devolved to Scotland because we

think we would take better decisions

in the absence of devolution we

would like the UK Government to take

actual action rather than just say,

look how great we are.

Thank you.

There will be with immediate effect

a six minute limit on backbench

speeches. Mr David Morris.

Thank you

very much. I did not expect to be

called so early. I'm a bit at a loss

at what we are trying to achieve, is

this about tax evasion or offshore

companies? Offshore companies are

legal entities, and many of them,

especially across the Commonwealth

and overseas territories have been

set up with HMRC guidelines, and

that has got to be clarified here

and now, is this about tax avoidance

or is this about overseas

territories having tax advantages?

What is it about? Yesterday when the

SA 24 was being granted, I was

absolutely of the mind that this was

about overseas territories or even

tax evasion under certain forms of

tax bandages in certain forms of

countries across the world -- tax

advantages. The problem we have, the

UK can do its bit, and this

government has done, and the labour

government for 13 years did very

little, to be frank. But now it is

the perception, the perception of

who pays the taxes in this country,

and I can give you a very basic

economic argument. It is like a

piggy bank. You earn your money, you

put your money in an offshore

piggybank, and then you pay tax on

it at source and when you put the

money back into this country, so

there is no tax evasion there. I

remember the Leader of the

Opposition talking about the Isle of

Man government, and the Isle of Man

government I have a lot of time for

them and many links with them, in my

constituency, and the problem I have

with this issue is that the Isle of

Man government are the most highly

regulated offshore tax haven, if you

want to call it that, in the whole

world. This is from the Isle of Man

government, amongst other things

customs and excise agreements remove

the need for customs barriers

between the Isle of Man, the UK and

the EU, and even the EU is very

loath to draft any legislation on

this matter. It makes the island

part of the European VAT territory,

the agreement also makes the revenue

sharing agreement, by which tax and

VAT and most other indirect tax

revenues are split between the UK

and the Isle of Man. Since 2011 and

this is on the subject of private

jets, since 2011 the Isle of Man

customs and excise has raised more

than 30 assessments for under

declared and over claimed VAT

against businesses in the aircraft

leasing sector. Approximately

protecting £4.7 million VAT to this

extractor. -- Exchequer. Are we

arguing about reforming tax laws or

are we arguing about reforming tax

havens

are we arguing about reforming tax

havens? Most have been sorted out in

overseas territories by this House,

so I will keep it short, but I think

this is a grand waste of time, this

debate, and it is very confusing for

the public out there.

I am dismayed,

what we are talking about is

openness and transparency about tax,

and the member for Sutton Coldfield

set the tone for this debate along

with the member for Barking, this is

a cross-party issue, it is

important, and I agree with every

word the member for Sutton Coldfield

said, this is something that harms

countries around the world,

developing countries, it hits

taxpayers because the wealthiest and

large corporations find ways to

reduce their tax bills and avoid

paying tax completely, and if you

would let me make some progress

please for the... I congratulate the

member for barking to secure this

debate. And the shining a light on

what has come out of the Panama

papers. The Public Accounts

Committee have shone a light on this

for some years and I pay tribute to

the member for barking for her work.

Some of the worst excesses of

avoidance have come to light and we

saw real change, international

action, and it has to be

international action, it actually

saw change at a faster pace than we

have seen under any government for

many years in making more

information about tax for

corporations public, and we continue

to pursue this, and with political

will we can make progress. In the

last year the Public Accounts

Committee held in international tax

transparency conference and we had

in our own humble way, we thought we

might get some countries from the

EU, but we had countries from around

the world. Over 20 of them signed up

to our pledge on international tax

transparency, pledging to fight for

our citizens, through our

parliaments, to press governments

and to be bolder and faster as the

member for Sutton Coldfield said. We

are not moving at the right pace,

and this release of papers and

information is a real eye-opener for

our constituents who just pay their

tax and have no idea about this.

Public country by country reporting

the large corporations is something

the government could do and the

member for Don Valley, I know has

been a champion of this issue and

managed to work with the government

to change the law on this, and the

Paradise Papers show that these tax

arrangements only come to light when

the information is in the public

domain. We need to see fast change

on this, the establishment of

offshore trusts which then buy homes

and wine and cards for the

beneficiary without tax being paid,

or money being paid into offshore

trusts which makes loans to

individuals which can't be repaid,

and they may be legal, although I

doubt they are in some cases. With

the Panama papers, they were

released in April 2016, and

according to HMRC, who appeared

before our committee last week,

there are 66 criminal or civil

investigations underway, four people

have been arrested and a further six

have been interviewed under caution.

The HMRC only expects an additional

revenue of £6 million, and that is

small fry, and it demonstrates the

lengths that people will go to to

hide their money, and the importance

of making sure that HMRC have the

resources necessary to pursue this.

So what we need is public country by

country reporting enacted, and that

needs to be done internationally,

but if international players will

not lead the way, then let the UK

Government take us forward on this,

be bold, be brave, and make sure we

are setting the tone and standard

for the world. We have urged HMRC to

consider a wealth tax for wealthy

individuals as they have in Japan

and Australia to make it easier to

track down where people hold their

wealth and pay their tax, and we

need continued Parliamentary and

public pressure so that this is

voluntarily move towards more

openness. Already this has been

taken up by 30 companies and we hope

to see it go further. I would like

HMRC to have more prosecutions to

set an example to those who seek to

avoid tax and make sure people

questioned these highly paid tax

advisers that they recruit, and then

they say, I didn't know what was

going on, I paid someone else.

People need to take responsibility

for their actions, whether they are

corporations all wealthy

individuals. As I say, resources

from HMRC to tackle this. There is a

very high return rate for every

pound of taxpayers' money, and it is

important that the Exchequer sees

the benefit of that and ramps up the

money available. We have an

arbitrary target of a hundred

prosecutions which has been set

which seems an odd figure to pluck

out of the hat. We are pressing HMRC

to explain why that figure has come

out of the blue. We need to make

sure that the right number

prosecutions take place, not just a

target. Tax is paid for the common

good, and my committee works hard to

make sure that that tax money is

spent efficiently, effectively and

economically by the Government, but

we do need to speed up on the

measures to crack down on this

aggressive tax avoidance and an tax

evasion, and we need to move to a

world where the impact of not paying

their fair share of taxes is

recognised as something that is