06/11/2017 Monday in Parliament

Hello, and welcome to

Monday In Parliament.

Our look at the best of the day

in the Commons and the Lords.

On this programme, Labour calls

for a public enquiry over tax

avoidance after the leak of millions

of documents showing how wealthy

firms and individuals investing

offshore tax havens.

It is obscene that rich people

should seek to get even richer by

putting their millions in offshore

bank accounts.

This Government is

taking -- is taking tax avoidance

very seriously.

Also, pleas for greater support

for the mental health sector.

The sticking plaster approach has

not and will not be in the future,

good enough.

And MPs vent their feelings

about transport issues

in the North of England.

The reality is in recent times we

seem to have hit the buffers.

But first, the Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, has claimed

the Government has failed to crack

down on the biggest tax

scandal of a generation.

It follows the revelations of BBC's

Panorama that millions of leaked

financial documents known

as the Paradise Papers disclosed

by the programme how tax havens such

as the Indian Ocean island

of Mauritius have been

used to shelter funds.

The disclosures include details

of how three stars of the BBC show

Mrs Brown's Boys have diverted fees

into companies in Mauritius and sent

money back as loans.

The papers show how wealthy

individuals, multinational firms,

celebrities and political leaders

have used complex financial

structures to protect their funds

from higher levels of taxation.

In the Commons, a Treasury minister

said the Government had

a good record on cracking down

on tax avoidance.

HMRC are already benefiting from

the exchange of financial account

information to 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 among those signed

up to this initiative

and have been exchanging

information with HMRC

for

over a year.

The use of offshore accounts or

trusts do not automatically mean

dishonesty but this House should be

as sure that under this Government

the HMRC will continue to bed down

with bigger on any tax avoidance and

evasion activities whenever it may

be fun. -- with vigour.

Unless there

is a critically overriding reason

for the chance to not of the year I

believe the House will consider it

unacceptable he is not here to

address the biggest tax scandal of

this generation. The Minister's

response today was the same plaster.

Every pound of tax avoided is a

pound taken away from the NHS, our

children's education and care for

the elderly and disabled. Given the

chairman of the Conservative party

and Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster...

Has the transfer or any minister

discussed these revelations with the

right honourable member for

Derbyshire Dales and will she be

apologising to our Majesty for the

embarrassment this episode has

caused? Will he now also agreed to

Labour's proposes to establish an

independent public enquiry for tax

avoidance. If this Government

refuses to act, this next Labour

Government well.

He raises the issue

of the measures he and his party put

forward in the last Finance Bill. It

is this party that has put an end...

And it was the party opposite that

sought by voting against that Bill

at third reading to stop that

happening.

Seems to be an

extraordinary misunderstanding with

the Shadow Chancellor between

avoidance and evasion. Evasion is

illegal, avoidance is dormer. People

putting their money into an ice are

avoiding tax. -- ISAs arc is

completely legal. It is a moral

issue. If a political party in a

tax-exempt company spending £1

million in rent, that is morally

wrong avoidance. That is what your

party does.

Does the Minister not

recognise it is obscene that rich

people should seek to get even

richer by putting away their

billions in offshore bank accounts

whilst working people suffer the

longest speculation on wages for 150

years?

With the Minister considered,

it is not just a question of

countries such as Bermuda and the

Cayman Islands, but also the

Republic of Ireland and the

Netherlands where tax advantages

could be set up. Rather than

singling out those jurisdictions, we

should just recognise in a global

environments where capital is free

the importance is the UK tax

structure on wealth and that is

something the Government has got

right.

It may well be that

sheltering from the tax authorities

yet some is greater than the GDP of

many countries is not illegal but I

would ask the Minister to agree with

me that that is precisely the

problem and the Paradise papers

revelations and massive sums

involved over no hiding place for

those who were denied a public

register of beneficial ownership of

transcend class as well as

businesses.

Is the Minister worried

about the tangled web of Russian

money that appears to be involved at

very high levels as shown by these

leaks. Will he not agree that there

is now a great public interest in

having 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?

I wanted to highlight the new

criminal offence we have created

problems that don't stop their staff

facilitating tax evasion. The first

time under the criminal offences act

2017 companies will be heard

criminally liable if they fail to

stop their employees facilitating

tax evasion. Does he agree that this

Government is taking tax avoidance

seriously?

Why will the Government

not insist that our overseas

territories, our tax havens have to

have public registers of beneficial

ownership? Why will they not do that

now?

As the honourable lady will

know, there are many good reasons

why perfectly honest and decent

individuals use trust. We have also

made a great deal of process in the

comment using process standards

across 100 different countries

including those to whom she alludes.

Mel Stride.

And at the Paradise Papers

were also being talked about

over in the House of Lords.

Does the Government is not

recognised that the ordinary

taxpayer hearing again this news

today is utterly outraged? That if

you are rich or if you are a

business then you can avoid tax,

there are schemes on an industrial

scale? They are protected by lack of

transparency.

What's we are seeking

is the development of a full public

enquiry into tax avoidance. Nothing

less than that, my lords, will

restore confidence in our nation

that in fact this Government is

inadequate in its approach to the

whole wretched issue.

I declare my

interest as an investor in a wide

range of assets including offshore

investments. Would my noble friend

agree that millions of UK savers and

pensions let alone Her Majesty

benefit directly or indirectly from

offshore investments and to suggest

that they are avoiding taxes simply

fake and false news? For those who

take the time to properly understand

offshore investment vehicles, they

would realise that the underlying

purpose is to provide an efficient

and predictable umbrella structure

to track the widest possible range

of investors from around the world.

They are in fact set up to minimise

the amount of tax paid within the

offshore entity and consequently to

maximise the return is flowing back

to investors, allowing them to pay

tax directly in their own countries.

Coincidentally, the head

of Revenue and Customs -

the taxman to you and me -

was appearing in front of the

Commons Public Accounts Committee.

So what did he know

about the Paradise Papers?

Have you seen the papers that were

leaked to the Guardian and the BBC?

The so-called Paradise papers? No.

Did you know anything about this and

whether it was coming?

We knew there

was a leak coming, we have known for

some time, but we do not have access

to the material provided by the

International Consortium of

investigative journalist to the BBC

ought to the Guardian. We have not

had access to that. We have

requested access two weeks ago. How

long have you known about it?

Rumours have said it was coming for

a few months.

Sue you requested it

two weeks ago?

What has been the

result of the request? We have not

received a reply.

Asking the

international Consortium of

journalists and according to provide

you with more information?

We will

take intelligence from any source.

We have 100,000 meets... We would

happily take the data so we could

investigate whether there is tax

evasion.

From what has been released

so far do you believe that HMRC did

not know already?

Potentially in one

case. I need to be careful because I

cannot get into the particular case

and I understand there is a second

episode of panorama today whether

there will be further information

given. Under the 2005 act, we can't

discuss any individual taxpayer.

You

are prepared to look at every

allegation in full?

We certainly

are. At the same way we did with

Panama, we will look at every case

of tax evasion seriously. We have

secured significant revenues from

overseas for those trying to hide

oversees more than £2.8 million. It

is worth the repeating that because

I don't want anyone to feel like we

are complacent in any way. We will

chase those people down who try to

hide money offshore and update their

attacks.

He said the serious enquiry

regarding the Paradise papers two

weeks ago. You have had no response.

There are key British institutions

here, the BBC and the Guardian. Does

this not become an issue that needs

to be resolved when HMRC makes an

enquiry of a British institution or

taxpayer it should respond to you?

In my opinion, it should. To be

clear, the ICIJ is based in the

United States. We will continue to

request information. They are making

a decision to not give it to us.

This is non-compliance by the BBC

and the Guardian?

They have to make

a decision. I am not responsible for

the BBC regarding bar for the ICIJ.

They have processes they have to go

through over how they obtain the

data and at the minute we have not

received a reply. Clearly, we would

want them to.

The saga of the Paradise Papers.

You are watching our

round-up of the day

in the Commons and the lords.

Still to come, why the north needs

a powerhouse to improve

its transport system.

MPs from all parties have urged

the Government to do more to tackle

mental health problems problems

amongst school pupils in England.

In a debate in Westminster Hall, one

Conservative described the current

situation as a national crisis.

The MPs were considering a petition

signed by more than 100,000 people

calling for mental health education

to the mandatory for all schools.

These statistics are startling.

Education UK highlight some of them.

Some 850 children are affected by

this.

We can actually teach them in

schools through positive psychology

and mindfulness to meet a

flourishing lives. It is the whole

well-being curve of mental health

that could be shifted if we took

this written branch approach to put

mindfulness and mental education

into our schools.

A number of MPs refer to CAMHS -

The child and adolescent

mental health services.

The real scandal is the fact of the

broken CAMHS system. I have

constituents who were facing crisis

and waited months or years for

diagnosis. I am sorry, but the CAMHS

system is just broken.

This is

something of a real national crisis.

This scale is only just beginning to

be realise. I know the Minister will

take this very seriously. This whole

question of training teachers as

Cardinal.

I have concerns and

perhaps sound a note of caution

about the compulsory element for all

schools. Across the country, there

is patchy provision. To my mind, it

is CAMHS provision which is patchy.

I want to be slightly wary that we

don't want to impose upon teachers

yet another burden that just becomes

a tick box exercise that they can

say we have done this, end of, we

have dealt with mental health care

of children. We gave that half-hour

lesson in social education and we

don't have good deal with it any

more.

Norman Lamb was the initiator

of an initiative called future in

mind. It secured some funding during

the Coalition Government of £1.25

billion to be spent over the next

five years. This should amount to

about £250 million each year and

only 143 million has been released

in the first year of the programme

in 2015 - 16. Shouldn't we all urge

the Minister to continue the

commitment that was secured in the

last coalition government budget?

The sad plans is the government's

plans for school budgets will result

in future cuts to counselling and

well-being services. We have said we

will ensure that every secondary

school in England and Wales will

offer of counselling. Sticking

plaster approach of this government

to our children's health will not be

good enough.

The Prime Minister has

committed to a range of other

activity with regard to children and

young People's mental health,

supporting mental health in schools

and colleges. 90% of schools have

offered at least some training to

staff. The Department of Health is

hosting a training offer for every

primary and secondary school in

England. 1000 schools should receive

this by the end of the year. It

should help teach us how to identify

those with mental health problems as

early as possible.

The debate over mental health.

Now, three years have

passed since the

former Chancellor George Osborne

announced a concept of the Northern

Powerhouse.

The idea was to close the wealth gap

between the north and

the South of England.

The then Chancellor

believed a key way to

doing that was by improving

the North's transport links.

Starting with railways to improve

connectivity between the large urban

centres of Liverpool,

Manchester and Leeds.

The powerhouse concept also included

greater investment in

industry and science and more

devolution for the North.

In a general Commons

debate, a Labour MP

contrasted spending on transport

in the North with spending

on transport in London.

Crossrail one, a single project in

London, cost more than the north

will get in this entire put

Parliament, 14.8 billion. The new

station at Tottenham Court Road cost

£1 billion. It takes longer to

travel from Liverpool to halt when

it does from London to Paris. If the

North had received the same

transport investment as London over

the past decade, we would have

received an additional 59 billion.

So we cannot afford to ignore three

regions with a population almost

twice that of London and an economy

larger than the three devolved

nations put together. There are

immense economic games to be realise

of the plug the gap in transport

investment.

The government

recognises the need for investment.

In my constituency, upgrades to the

A1 and a 66 are welcome. But there

is much more to do. The northern

powerhouse is a wonderful phrase.

But the people of northern England

deserve more than a slogan, they

need action.

And many of us were

hopeful that transport for the North

would become a powerful advocate for

rebalancing our economy and closing

the divide in investment between the

North and the South. With the powers

to back that up. But the reality is

that in recent times we seem to have

hit the buffers. As the Transport

Secretary recently seen in the

Yorkshire Post, it was not his

responsibility to invest in

Yorkshire's Railways. This came

shortly after he universally

cancelled electrification projects

planned for some of the busiest

routes in the country outside of

London.

Very importantly, there has

to be political will. This is

critical. At a local level and

national level. All credit to the

government as to a large extent a

start has been made. There is a

recognition of the importance of the

North. And delighted this covers

what I consider to be the true

North, Carlisle.

If the same had

been spent in the North as has been

spent in London over the last ten

years, there would have been £59

billion more spent in the North.

Desai Wedgwood could not get his

product around the country. He had

to persuade governments and

investors to invest in roads and

canals to get product around the

country. Otherwise the Industrial

Revolution would have petered out.

Any business person will tell you

they want the government to put the

infrastructure in place and business

will come in to fill the gap.

I had

to travel to Lewisham via Charing

Cross United go. When I arrived, I

was struck by how quiet it was. All

I could hear were the footsteps of

the commuters as the ignored each

other on our way home. As I watched

my train, I was puzzling why the

station didn't sound the same as the

one in half. I wondered if it was

the stereotype of people from the

North been more chatty and friendly

was true. That wouldn't explain the

difference in the air. As my train

pulled away, the answer struck me.

The reason why the station is silent

and here is different is because all

the trains are electric. There are

no noisy engines spewing out diesel

fumes in London or creating dart.

Now, after a bit of a breather

in the story of Brexit, it is back.

Or at least it will be

back later this week.

On Thursday, the European

Commission's chief negotiator,

Michel Barnier, and the Brexit

Secretary, David Davis, will resume

negotiations on the terms

of Britain's EU departure.

The previous round of talks left

Michel Barnier sounding warnings

about apparent deadlock.

But do we care very much

about the future shape and direction

of the EU after Britain has left?

That was an issue for Question Time

in the House of Lords.

The Minister has given three replies

now which imply that from the day we

leave the European Union we shall

not have the slightest interest in

how it develops but we will not

think it proper to express our views

on how it develops. I think his

successor on those benches may find

that a pretty hard one to swallow.

Could you perhaps consider again

what he has been saying, because

they do not think it is the case

that we no longer have any interest

in the future of Europe, even after

we have left?

I don't think I said

that. We have an interest and

cooperation with our European

partners. We will want to take

forward a close and constructive

partnership, including on Security

and defence matters. Of course we

will have an interest.

If the

government feels to get anything but

the hardest of hard Brexit and these

ideas of the future of Europe

developed, will he confirm that the

government still has the option to

withdraw its Article 50 application.

We had a referendum on the subject

and both houses 42 trigger Article

50. We are leaving the European

Union in March 2019.

With the noble

Lord agree we should be talking to

our European friends about a special

relationship with the EU after March

2019, and not about being at war

with them?

I would agree totally

with the noble lady and I'm sure

she's not asking me to comment on

everything the media and the press

save. We will be here for a long

time if we were going to do that. I

agree with those points.

As his

predecessor accepted, the normal

standard in treaty negotiations is

that nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed. Will he

confirm that today and confirm that

it is on the basis of everything

being agreed that this House, as the

rest of parliament, will have a vote

on what the future relationship

should be?

Yes, I can confirm that

to the noble Lord. Nothing is agreed

and everything is agreed, that is a

standard principle in European

negotiations that I have taken part

in. We are committed to a meaningful

vote at the conclusion of those

negotiations.

Lord Callinan.

And that is it for this programme.

One more day before Parliament goes

off on its brief half term break.

But for now, from me

Keith McDougall, goodbye.