29/01/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week In Parliament.

Tax affairs needn't be taxing, as the saying goes,

except when they're Google tax affairs.

Why is there one rule for bhg multinational companies and another

for ordinary, small businesses and self-employed workers?

It could be June, it could be September.

Whenever the EU referendum hs, what will the issues be,

and who will turn out to vote?

Will it only be the motivatdd voters who are very keen to leave

the European Union, or will it also be those who are wavering

or perhaps more pro-European?

That will depend, to a largd part, on other parties.

And could do better.

A senior MP gives the Officd for National Statistics low marks.

We've been getting some duff statistics.

Poor statistics lead to poor decisions, not only for polhcymakers

in the Bank of England in the Treasury and elsewhere

across Whitehall, but also for all those who rely on statistics.

But, first, Boris Johnson called it derisory.

George Osborne said it was a major success.

Never before has ?130 million attracted so much comment.

But could and should the technology giant Google have paid the TK

a whole lot more in tax?

The payment covered the last ten years and resulted from secret

talks between the firm and officials at HMRC.

If the Chancellor thought the large Google cheque would be a catse

for celebration, he was quickly proved wrong

in the Commons on Monday.

There was ?24 billion of UK revenues over this period,

but people have said, experts have said,

Google should have paid around ?2 billion.

Does ?130 million really medt the test of no tolerance?

There is a very important distinction between profits

attributed to sales versus profits attributed to economic

activity and assets.

Given that this week all of our constituents and small

businesses will be filing their tax returns and don't have the luxury

of negotiating their own swdetheart deals, what sort of message does

the Chancellor think he is sending to those individuals and businesses

by saying this paltry sum of money by Google can possibly be

considered, as he says, "a major success"?

The Chancellor has managed to create an unlikely alliance between myself,

the Sun newspaper, the Mayor of London...

I'm proud of the work this government has done to make our tax

system internationally compdtitive.

But also to make sure that those taxes are paid.

Time and again, we've taken the lead, domestically

and internationally, when it comes to getting

international companies to pay their fair share of tax.

And the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, focused

on the Google tax issue at Prime minister's questions.

The Mayor of London describdd the payment as quite derisory.

What exactly is the governmdnt's position on this 3%

rate of taxation?

We have put in place the diverted profit tax that means this company

and other companies will pax more tax in future.

And more tax in future than they ever paid under L`bour,

where the tax rate for Google was 0%!

That is what we faced.

We've done more on tax evashon and tax avoidance

than Labour ever did.

The truth is, Mr Speaker, they are running to catch up

but they haven't got a leg to stand on.

I've got a question here, Mr Speaker,

from a gentleman called Jeff.

Now, you might well laugh, but Jeff actually speaks

for millions of people when he says to me...

"Can you ask the Prime Minister if, as a working man of over 30 years,

"whether there is a scheme which I can join that pays the same

"rate of tax as Google and other large corporations?"

What does the Prime Minister say to Jeff?

What I say to Jeff is that his taxes are coming down under this

government and Google's taxds are going up under this govdrnment.

And, let me say to him, if, like me, he's genuinely angry

about what happened to Google under Labour, can I tell him

a few people he could call?

Maybe he should start by calling Tony Blair.

You can get him at JP Morgan.

Call Gordon Brown.

Apparently, you can get him at a Californian

bond dealer called PIMCO.

You could call Alistair Darling

I think he's at Morgan Stanley, but it's hard to keep up.

Millions of people this week are filling in their tax returns

to get them in by the 31st.

They have to send the form back

They do not get the option of 2 meetings with 17 ministers to decide

what their rate of tax is.

Many people going to their HMRC offices or returning them online

this week will say this - why is there one rule for bhg

multinational companies and another for ordinary,

small businesses and self-employed workers?

All those people filling in their tax returns are gohng to be

paying lower taxes under this government.

That is what's happening.

Now, the Shadow Chancellor's pointing.

The idea that those two right honourable gentleman would stand up

to anyone in this regard is laughable.

Look at their record over the last week.

They met with the unions and they gave them flying phckets.

They met with the Argentini`ns, they gave from the Falkland Islands.

They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais,

they said they could all come to Britain.

The only people they never stand up for are the British people

and hard-working taxpayers.

David Cameron in the Commons on Wednesday.

Although a Labour MP objected to the Speaker

about the Prime Minister's "bunch of migrants" phrase,

John Bercow ruled that it was not unparliamentary.

Now, speculation about the date of the referendum on Britain's EU

membership was stepped up considerably when news brokd

of the deal offered to David Cameron on his desired four-year ban

on benefits for migrants.

Could that mean an early referendum rather than a later one?

On Tuesday, we got to know what the ballot paper

for the referendum will look like.

It's not a matter of yes or no.

The question will ask voters if they want the UK to be in or out

of the European Union.

So, what sort of referendum campaign are we in for?

In a moment, I'll be talking to an expert on European politics

from the London School of Economics.

But, first, here's the Foreign Secretary,

Philip Hammond, telling a Lords committee this week that Brhtain's

renegotiations on EU membership are definitely

not about more integration.

Integration in the EU context to me implies the transfer of powdr

from the nation states to the European Union institutions,

and I think I can't think of any areas where we would advocate

the transfer of further powdrs from the nation states.

Indeed, there are many people in Brussels, including people

in the commission, talking about the European Union

in the future needing to do less and do it better,

needing to focus on the things that really need to be done

at European Union level.

The Dutch have a phrase, "Europe where necessary,

"national where possible."

We are very much thinking along those lines, that the Europdan Union

will work best for its membdr states if we ruthlessly apply the principle

of subsidiarity, making surd that we only do from Brussels that

which needs to be done from Brussels for the proper operation

of the Union and, particularly, the single market.

Philip Hammond talking therd about David Cameron's EU renegoti`tions.

So, in the forthcoming referendum, which issues will be highlighted

by those campaigning for Britain to remain in,

and which by those campaignhng for Britain to come out?

I was joined in the studio by Professor Sara Hobolt

from the European Institute at the London School of Economics.

Was it the case that the out campaign as were favouring

September for the vote?

I mean, it is impossible for either side to pick the optimum date

because so many things are going to be uncertain,

not only in terms of the dynamics of the campaign here

in the United Kingdom, but also in terms of extern`l events

that can impact on the referendum campaign, so what's going to happen

with the migration crisis in Europe?

I mean, that is going to affect how British voters look at stayhng

in the European Union, but it's not something

the Prime Minister can control.

And, of course, any kind of unforeseen incidents,

even a terrible terrorist incident could occur and that might

influence people's thinking.

That's exactly right.

And we see that affecting ptblic opinion polls whenever something

like Paris happens, and so on.

And public opinion on issues going into a referendum are highly

volatile so if we look at the polls now, we might say it looks

sort of neck and neck, or the remain side a bit ahdad.

But that has happened in many referendums, even one side

being 20 points ahead, and in one or two months

during the referendum campahgn, that lead has evaporated,

so the campaign is really crucial when it comes

to referendum campaigns.

At the moment, it looks like the people who are campaigning

for an exit are a bit split.

There is Vote To Leave, Leave.eu, Labour Leave.

It needs a bit of binding together, doesn't it?

I don't think necessarily there needs to be one campahgn

on either side because diffdrent arguments are going to appe`l

to different voters.

And by representing, sort of, some parts the leave campaign might

emphasise very much the immhgration argument, and the sovereignty

argument, and so on.

And that could be a strength on both sides.

In order to win a referendul campaign, you don't necessarily need

one unified movement.

Of course, all the way back in 975, it was just a common market

referendum, and the issues just seemed to be the price of apples

and oranges, and what have xou.

It seemed much simpler.

There are far more issues this time, aren't there?

There are far more issues, `nd it's not just about what are we voting

for to stay in, but it is also what is going to happen if Britain

leaves the European Union.

Even the leave side hasn't given one answer to that.

And, of course, also, it is impossible at this st`ge to do

because that would be a matter of protracted negotiations

with European partners, where Britain was not

totally in control.

So the uncertainty is reallx on both sides of the argument.

But particularly when it coles to what would happen if we leave.

And that's crucial to voters because often we know that voters

don't like too much uncertahnty they like the status quo,

and that will favour the remain side.

And, also, assuming that David Cameron is coming down

on the side of staying in, of course we know that largd

sections of the Conservativd party are Eurosceptic,

large parts of the grassroots of the Conservatives openly

hostile to the EU.

David Cameron really needs friends outside of the Conservatives if he's

going to be part of the in campaign.

That's right.

It's crucial the mobilisation of voters by the main opposhtion

party, the Labour Party will be crucial in this.

Conservative supporters are generally split 50-50.

There's a big part of Conservative voters who are very Eurosceptic

who are going to vote to leave no matter what.

Whereas if we look at Labour voters and Liberal Democrat voters,

they are generally more pro-European.

The question is, are these voters going to turn out to vote?

If Jeremy Corbyn and trade unions and so on are going

to mobilise these voters.

Cos it's not just a question of persuasion but also a qudstion

of who will turn out on the day

Will it only be the motivatdd voters, who are very keen to leave

the European Union, or will it also be those who are wavering

or perhaps more pro-European?

And that will depend on a l`rge part also on other parties.

And a question about celebrhties.

One or two have emerged, not very many, maybe,

but the film star Michael C`ine has said he is in favour of a Brexit.

We have Karren Brady, Richard Branson wanting Britain

to stay in the European Union.

I think celebrities can plax an important role in referendums,

and we see they did back in 197 .

They were quite important in the sense they can often

represent the people, the ordinary voter.

Whereas right now we have the political establishment

and business leaders talking facts and figures,

and debating different stathstics, whereas celebrities,

they can speak to voters more generally.

And that's important in particular to the remain side so that this

referendum doesn't become a sort of these are the elites,

the establishment, the monexed people against the masses,

the ordinary people.

So they will want to have, sort of, celebrities,

popular celebrities, on thehr side.

Professor Sara Hobolt, thank you very much for joining us

on the Week In Parliament.

Let the referendum campaign begin.

Well, maybe not just yet.

Now a look at some of the other stories in Parliament

in the last few days.

The government was defeated in the House of Lords on Wednesday

over planned cuts to the disability benefit,

employment support allowancd, or ESA.

The government hopes to incdntivise people to get back into work,

but opposition peers saw it rather differently.

The DWP is penalising peopld with mental health problems on ESA

and WRAG by cutting their bdnefit as though this will improve

their health and will make them better sooner.

That is not true, and there is no research which demonstrates it.

Does the Minister believe that anyone currently unfit for work due

to Parkinson's or motor neurone disease will become fit for work

in the near future - or ever?

It defies logic and common sense, surely, to say that you will help

disabled people to get into work by cutting the money that they have

to engage in work-related activities.

ESA was set up by a previous Government to support peopld

with health conditions and disabilities into work but it

has unfortunately failed thd very people who it was designed to help.

Is the battlefield becoming cluttered with "ambulance chasing"

lawyers?

Or are there legitimate grotnds for mounting legal actions

against British soldiers following incidents in Iraq?

The Prime Minister says a bogus industry has sprung up,

and a former soldier isn't happy.

That we would take a battlefield and all that goes into it and train

hard and work hard, and be the best that we could possibly be to ensure

success, and then have our homework marred by those whose love of this

country does not wander far beyond their own bank balance

is just beyond me.

The allegations were made that conduct has not met the high

standards we expect as a society, and as of the armed forces

themselves, these must be taken seriously.

Whether it is a case to answer, that must be investigated

fully and fairly.

But the steady creep of extdnding the meat of European human rights

legislation, not written for conflict situations,

that is eroding the international humanitarian law, and it is

the behaviour of parasitic law firms churning out spurious claims

against our armed forces on an industrial scale

which is the enemy of justice and humanity.

It is not our armed forces or the Ministry of Justice.

Those red doors along the streets of Middlesbrough,

where asylum seekers live.

Are they a magnet for abusers?

When the owner of the properties comes to Parliament,

he says "Problem?

What problem?"

If it is true that you or your company painted the doors of asylum

seekers in red, then that of course would be despicable,

would it not?

Well, those doors were painted red probably 20 years ago.

The Home Office have been inspecting these properties for 20 years,

they have been well aware that they've been painted red.

Shouldn't you have taken it upon yourself, knowing that this

is a contract that you valud, to make sure that you act

in a humane way?

There hasn't been a reported incident regarding a red door

There hasn't been a reported incident regarding a red door issue

received by my company or bx G4S,

in all of the time that we've been providing this service.

The legal battle over the "Bedroom Tax", or the "spare

room subsidy removal" - whatever it is, the Court of Appeal

ruled the cut in housing benefit for tenants with a spare room

was unfair in two cases.

Ministers say they'll appeal against the verdict.

There's anger in the Commons.

We've now heard, Mr Speaker, over half an hour of non-answers

from this hapless minister, when actually we wanted his boss

the Secretary of State to come to this dispatch box to defdnd this

disgusting and pernicious policy.

How much is this Government wasting of public money

to defend the indefensible?

That level of anger pretty luch matched that of many of the families

that I met on the waiting lhst that you turn a blind eye to.

Does my honourable friend not agree that given that the party opposite

introduced this very principle for the private sector,

their outrage now is hypocrhtical?

And ticking that gender box: A second woman Church

of England Bishop takes her seat in the House of Lords.

I, Christine, Lord Bishop of Newcastle, do swear

by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance

to Her Majesty Queen Elizabdth, her heirs and successors,

according to law, so help md God.

The latest new member of thd Lords.

75 years ago this week the Government set up

the Central Statistical Offhce.

Its modern-day form, the Office for National Statistics,

was in the news on Thursday.

It produced the official figures showing the UK economy grew by .5%

in the three months to the end of December.

But there are concerns that not all the data coming from thd ONS

is keeping pace with the changing economy.

Gary Connor has this report.

From the goods we buy to how we travel to work or go on holiday -

our choices produce data vital for Government planners.

Gathering statistics has gone on for centuries.

It's what the Domesday Book was all about.

But it was only 75 years ago that the Government decided that

all this information should be centralised.

The Central Statistical Offhce was set up in 1941,

and Winston Churchill was fdd up with people bringing differdnt

and conflicting statistics together.

He said if we're going to rtn the country properly,

we have to have numbers that we can rely on,

and that we agree on.

So he set the Central Statistical Office up,

and it's from that that all of the development

since the war has happened.

It has evolved into an independent body, the Office for

National Statistics, overseen by the UK Statistics

Authority.

So we have the job of making sure that the Office

for National Statistics is producing the right statistics -

we also have the job of makhng sure that people don't abuse statistics,

so if anybody sees a statistical use they think isn't quite right

they can write to me and we will investigate it.

So over the last three or four years we've had to criticise the tse

of statistics of the leaders of the major political parthes,

and sometimes also we've bedn complained to BY the political

parties about the use of st`tistics by charities and others.

So our job is to try to makd sure that everyone knows statisthcs

when they are being discussdd are being discussed fairly.

Labour claims about job cre`tion, or Tory claims about hospit`l

waiting times, are among those he's scrutinised.

So sometimes there is this genuine confusion, and I think sometimes

people make mistakes inadvertently.

Sometimes people are less precise than they need to be,

and one of the glories about statistics is they force

you to think carefully.

But there are concerns that some of the ONS's own data is not keeping

pace with economic change.

Well, it's clear that we've been getting some duff statistics -

poor statistics lead to poor decisions, not only for polhcymakers

and the Bank of England and the Treasury and elsewhdre

across Whitehall, but also for all those who rely on statistics

right across the country.

So it affects millions of pdople and their livelihoods

and their well-being.

So some of the statistics that we produce, have been produced

for a long, long time still need to be produced -

but there for example they can be heavily focused

on the manufacturing industry.

It's much easier to measure manufacturing industry

where there is something th`t comes at the end of the production line

than it can be to measure the output of the service sector for example,

so I think there are certainly ways in which we need to modernise

economic statistics and othdr areas of statistics.

The world changes very rapidly statistics need to change whth it.

The Government has asked Sir Charlie Bean, former

Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to carry out a review.

When the Governor of the Bank of England comes before

the Treasury Committee as he did a few months ago,

and tells the committee that in his view some of the statistics

he is having to use in order to work out what monetary policy we should

have in this country are not up to snuff,

we know that we've got quitd a big problem to address.

And so I'm very pleased that Sir Charles has been given the job

of sorting this out.

We've been pressing on the Treasury Committee

for several years for an improvement in statistics, and now finally

with a bit of luck we're going to get there.

So Charlie Bean's been asked to look in particular at economic statistics

- he published an interim rdport in the run-up to Christmas,

we were delighted to see what he was suggesting therd.

One of the points he made there was the importance

of using administrative dat`.

Statistics have often in thd past been the result of sending out

surveys and asking people qtestions but now with modern technology

there is a lot of data colldcted automatically by government

departments in the run of their own business -

at the moment we don't have easy access to that for statistical

purposes; that seems a very important part of the way

in which we can modernise the use and production of statistics.

And Sir Charlie Bean's final report is due in March.

A public advocate to advise and protect the interests

of the bereaved in major incidents such as the Hillsborough st`dium

disaster has been called for by peers.

The former justice minister Lord Wills said the appointlent

of an independent advocate could help to prevent

the "alienation" felt by bereaved people during official procdedings.

He was introducing his Public Advocate Bill

in the House of Lords.

The intense difficulties experienced by those bereaved at Hillsborough

have been experienced by those bereaved in other public disasters

including for example the Lockerbie terrorist atrocity,

the sinking of the Marchiondss in the Thames, and the wreck

of the Derbyshire in the South China Sea.

And those bereaved families have not all made the progress

the Hillsborough families h`ve eventually been able to makd.

It is really important that we pick up what is an excellent ide`,

that we hone it into a mech`nism that will work for the future,

and we will ensure I hope that we won't put people

through years and years of distress and very often of anger.

My Lords, I don't think we can understate how intimidating

it is for families thrust bx tragedy into the public limelight to deal

with public authorities, government and the state.

How huge the information gap is when you're outside the system

unable to access it.

And that Bill now goes on for more detailed consideration.

There was a special farewell in the House of Lords on Thtrsday.

The former Labour Cabinet Mhnister, then co-founder of the SDP

and finally senior Lib Dem, Baroness Williams of Crosby,

made her very final speech in Parliament.

In this special edition of our countdown, Ros Ball now looks

back at the remarkable political career of Shirley Williams.

Dubbed the schoolgirl candidate when she first ran for Parlhament

in 1954, Shirley Williams rounded off what has been a very long

political career this week with a valedictory speech

in the House of Lords.

That schoolgirl had nearly become a child film star and narrowly lost

out to Elizabeth Taylor for the lead role in the film National Vdlvet.

But she quickly swapped acthng for politics and rose to thd heights

of Labour Education Secretary in the Callaghan Government.

In 1981 Williams was one of the infamous "Gang of Fotr"

Labour defectors who launchdd the SDP, pledging to heal

divisions between classes.

It made Williams the first woman in British history to launch

a major political party.

Baroness Williams continued to make history when she became the SDP s

first elected MP in the 1980 Crosby by-election.

Previously thought to be a rock-solid safe Conservathve seat,

she also somehow beat the Monster Raving Loony Party's Mr Tarpuin

Biscuitbarrel.

And how many times have you seen Shirley Williams on Question Time?

The answer is probably quitd a lot as she's clocked up more appearances

on the BBC's topical debate show than any other person.

Ros Ball summing up the manx appearances of Shirley Willhams

A busy few days coming up in Parliament.

The issue of the tax paid bx large companies resurfaces

in the Commons on Wednesday.

So do join Alicia McCarthy for the next Week in Parlialent

But from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.