13/04/2016 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello there and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament.

On this programme: In the wake of the Panama papers

Prime Minister's questions is all about tax.

Since 2010, we've put over ?1 billion into HMRC to increase its

capabilities. The Government defends plans to turn

all English schools into academies. And a handful of MPs get

the chance every year to bring in their own laws -

but there are demands The procedure for debating and 14 on

private members bills is dishonest and misleading. It is an expensive

and frustrating waste of time. But first, the Panama Papers tax

revelations dominated The leaked documents showed how

the rich moved money offshore The whole row prompted

David Cameron, the Chancellor George Osborne and Labour leader

Jeremy Corbyn to publish At Prime Minister's questions

Jeremy Corbyn turned to how much tax was being collected in the UK

and questioned how many people were being employed

by Her Majesty's Revenue Wendy HMRC says that the tax gap is

?34 billion, why then is he cutting HMRC staff I 20% and cutting down

tax offices, which loses the expertise of people to close that

tax gap? I'm glad he wants to get onto our responsibilities to pay our

taxes. I think that's very important. His tax return was a

metaphor for Labour policy, it was late, chaotic, inaccurate. Turning

to the specific questions, he's absolutely right to identify the tax

gap and that is why we closed off loopholes in the last Parliament,

equivalent of ?12 billion. We aim to close off loopholes in this

Parliament equivalent to ?16 billion to the HMRC is taking very strong

action backed by this Government, backed by the Chancellor, legislated

for by this House and I think I'm right in saying that since 2010, we

have put over ?1 billion into HMRC to increase its capabilities to

collect the tax that people should be paying. I am grateful to the

Prime Minister for drawing your attention to my own tax return,

warts and all. I made a generous to nation to HMRC. I paid more tax than

some companies owned by people that he might know quite well.

A reference there to George Osborne's family firm.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is cutting tax abuse, he's cutting down

on tax collectors. The tax collected helps to fund our NHS and all the

other services. Last month, the OBR reported that HMRC doesn't have the

necessary resources to tackle of -- offshore tax disclosures. The

Government is committed to taking ?4 million out of HMRC's budget by

2020. Will he reversed that Carter we can collect the tax that will

help to pay for services? Rather than his tax return, his figures

aren't entirely accurate. At the summer budget 2015, we get ?800

million to HMRC to find additional work and tackle tax evasion and

noncompliance between now and 2021. This will enable HMRC to recover

?7.2 billion in tax. 3250 DWP staff have been specifically investigating

benefit fraud whilst only 300 HMRC staff have been systematically

investigating tax evasion. Surely we should care equally about people

abusing the tax system and those abusing the benefit system. Why has

this Government had ten times more staff dealing often with the poorest

in society abusing benefits than with the super rich invading their

taxes? I will look carefully at those statistics but the centimetre

entirely bogus. For this reason, the job of the DWP is to make sure that

people receive their benefits, the predominant job of HMRC is to make

sure people pay their taxes. The 26,000 people I spoke about early,

all of them are making sure that people pay their taxes. The clue is

in the title. As ever the subjects

raised by back bench MPs ranged far and wide,

including to the forthcoming If the British people vote to leave

the European Union, will the Prime Minister remained in office to

implement the decision? Yes. Over 200,000 economic migrants came from

the European Union and yet the propaganda sheet sent out to the

British people claims we maintain control of our borders. Having

withdrawn from the free movement of people or is that she simply untrue?

-- sheet. The truth is economic migrants who come to the European

Union do not have the right to come to the UK, they are not European

nationals. They are nationals of Morocco or Pakistan or Turkey. None

of those people have the right and so this is very important. Frankly,

this is important why we do send information to house can see the

truth about what is being proposed. What might honourable friend is

classic of the scare story we get. Britain has borders, Britain will

keep its borders. We got the best of both worlds.

The Government has defended its plan to force every school in England

The proposal has led to teachers calling for a one-day strike

as part of a campaign against the proposed changes.

The cross-party Local Government Association has said the move defies

reason and the leader of backbench Conservative MPs, Graham Brady,

But the Education Secretary has said she has no intention of backing down

and at Question Time, David Cameron, too, was adamant that there'd be no

Research by the Sutton trust shows that turning schools into academies

doesn't necessarily improve them. Thousands of excellent primary

schools, parents want them to continue to be maintained by local

authorities. Why are ministers are planning to overrule periods and

force those schools to become academies? I think the evidence

shows academies work as part of our education reforms. Let me give you

the evidence. If you look at those schools that converted into

academies, 80% of them are either outstanding or good schools. If you

look at the sponsored academies, often failing schools, but which are

actually now sponsored by academies, there has been an average 10%

improvement over the first two years so the evidence is that the results

are better, the freedoms we to improvements and also where there

are problems, intervention happens far faster with academies.

Later, Labour used a debate to urge the Government to put

The Government's plan has been met with such concern even by the very

school leaders they claim to be supporting because it is a bad

policy with no evidence base. It is yet another policy from this

Government that obsesses with school structures instead of standards.

What's more, given the very real pressure being faced by schools

today, huge teacher shortages, real terms cuts to school budgets for the

first time in 20 years, major overhauls to curriculum is and

exams, the idea that headteachers should be spending time, money and

energy on a ?1.3 billion top-down reorganisation of our school system

is at best a distraction and at worst will have a very damaging

impact on the School standards. The academies programme takes our core

belief that public services should be run by front-line professionals,

heads and teachers and governments running our schools. Evidence shows

autonomous schools leads to improvements and must be in place.

Test scores are higher when schools manage their own budgets and recruit

their own teachers. Schools don't have too follow a single way of

doing things. Each can choose a different way that works. A third of

primary schools will be academies by 2020 even if we didn't do anything

else which as my honourable friend said, make it increasingly difficult

for local authorities to manage an expensive bureaucracy with fewer and

fewer schools. And while we're on the subject

of youngsters, there were calls in the House of Lords

for the Government to introduce a standard system of concessionary

fares for young people travelling The plea came from a Liberal

Democrat former teacher. Young people are twice as likely as

the rest of us to rely on buses. They use them to access education

and work. Some councils and bus companies to provide concessions but

the situation is very patchy. Given the concessions to all the people

that have proven very popular, isn't it time we played fair by young

people by giving them a similar scheme? She is quite great to raise

the issue of young people's travel and I appreciate the challenges that

she has also put into context. If we look across England and 89 travel

concessionary programmes outside of London and about 22 currently

practised young people's schemes and I do think we look to ensure there

is good practice but at the moment, there are no provisions being made

for statutory provision across the country. The select committee on

social mobility, which I had the privilege to chair, reported last

week on the transition from school to work. Evidence we took from

organisations including Barnardos was that young people who live in

rural areas who would like to go to college or take up apprenticeships

are prevented from doing so because of the cost of transport. Surely

young people like that, if the Government is truly honest in its

apprenticeship level levy should be given the opportunity to get to

training or study with something of concessionary scheme. I will review

the Lady's full report which I have not yet done so in terms of

recommendations and perhaps we can meet in that regard after I had done

so but she is quite great and I agree with that we do to ensure

concessionary schemes across the country that provide access to those

that require it but we do need to emphasise that local authorities do

carry responsibilities in this regard. Would it not be sensible to

look at the whole pre-bus scheme again and try to make some

distinction between those who can actually afford a full fare and

people like children who very often can't? I think the issue of

affordability is an important one to recognise and of course the

definition is one area which sometimes causes confusion because

there are different definitions in different concessionary schemes

about what constitutes a young person and I will take on board what

my honourable friend said but anecdotally across Europe, I was in

Spain recently will need to be confronted by a Spanish inspector

who spoke no English. I speak very little Spanish, to be told that my

four-year-old also required to pay an adult fare so I think we need to

look at the schemes in a wider context.

You're watching Wednesday in Parliament with me, Alicia McCarthy

The green MP Caroline Lucas has pleaded for funds to be made

available for community led flood prevention schemes. Five months have

passed since storm Desmond and storm either brought havoc to large parts

of northern Britain. 16,000 houses were flooded in Cumbria and

Yorkshire alone. The North Yorkshire town of Pickering avoided any

serious flooding, partly as a result of the resident initiative that

became known as working with nature. The area was protected by the

planting of the woodland and the building of a set of leaky dams made

up of logs to slow down heavy flows of rainwater. Caroline Lucas

referred to the scheme at the Commons committee. How do we get

more funds going into it? There are lots of good examples like Pickering

and yet what we're hearing from some of the giving as evidence is in

terms of accessing the funding for those kinds of measures, the King --

the people in my constituency wanted for Brighton, the point being that

they are trying to access funds they are finding it really difficult,

they find the kind of criteria they have to fulfil in order to access

funds are not ones that are easily reached. They probably need to look

at individual cases but Pickering was funded by us, a government

funded project, money from the government. But to replicate that,

these good -- what are the sources? You can look at using countryside

stewardship scheme money, you can look at the Environment Agency money

and save money from the capital programme. The fundamental challenge

at the moment and this is true even of Pickering is specifying exactly

what the consequences or benefits are of these particular schemes.

That is why the Cumbria Flood partnership and the work they are

doing is so central. We basically have two kinds of models we use for

cost benefit analysis around flooding. One of them is about

football rates and the second is river levels. In constructing your

full rate model for specified catchments, so let's take a

catchment about that big, you have two feed into that model various

kinds of data so you feed in projected rainfall,... The MPs at

the minister's answer was going on too long. You must look at ground

water... Maybe it is really hot in this room, but I do not understand

if the key question I am trying to ask which has been raised by many

witnesses is that they want more funding, their perception is they

cannot get funding for natural flood management, I don't understand if

your answer is telling me that this is because we need more information

about the different situations before funds can be leased, your

answer is not relevant to my question. - Rory is try to tell you

something very deep and it is worth going into later but let me answer

the question, you're presupposing something that is leading to you

asking a question that cannot be added as the wrong question. We are

not going to be dealing with catchments on the basis of people

coming up with their own schemes and applying for money. It is not a

question of whether some local group has an idea comes along for a dot of

money, this is very contributed interactive stuff so what you have

to do is build up a picture of the whole catchment, work out what the

sensible thing to do is, and that is the work of some months or years and

then find the whole... I am not talking about scientists, I am

talking about... We will be funding, any particular site is that one

particular point cannot solve this... I am not suggesting that,

Pickering wasn't bad. If the whole catchment is being modelled on the

whole catchment has a complete plan what I'm telling you is we will then

find that plan, fully. The session turned to a report highlighting

serious flood risk to the London Underground. The reports this week

said that 20% of London's tube stations are at risk of flooding,

including London Bridge and Waterloo. The nation has invested

very heavily over the past many years in flood defences in London,

London is significantly better protected than any other course city

at almost any other key city, in fact the four times better

protected. We are currently looking at the other course cities before we

get to London to bring them up to the level of London, that is another

strength of the review. It will not be complete this year. We will be

working on it. Back now to the main Commons chamber where MPs returned

to the subject of tax. Following the lead of the Panama papers, Labour

put forward the topic for debate, wanting the government in an -- to

implement a policy of tax transparency. One Labour backbencher

talked about why many people felt the current system is unfair. The

last majority of people in this country play by the same rules and

have little choice about the contribution they make to the public

purse. It is not about envy or anger at 12 whether it be terrible

inherited, but it is about the fact that those at the top of the income

scale seem to play by an entirely different set of rules and it

understandably makes people angry, and the government must take genuine

steps to level the playing field and to regain the public trust. We do

not measure success in terms of wealth but neither should be

penalised those who have done well. It will be a sorry day of this

country becomes a place where if you have done well and set up a

successful business and are contributing to your local economy,

you are employing people, that you should be penalised and not just

penalised but be frowned upon. It is right that parents want to help the

kids, every parent wants to do that, and in principle if your dad or

mother has experience you would expect them to use their knowledge

on behalf of their kids, that implies -- that applies to

stockbrokers as much as stockmen, bakers and bankers. What is the real

problem is that has as the range of opportunities that are only open to

the rich and wealthy. This is what proves we simply aren't all in this

together. Whichever way this is dressed up, what is clear is that

those in the know have not just the opportunity or good fortune to make

money, it is also clear that when they get that money that are many

more avenues open to them to keep their hands on that money. Yes we

need strong measures against tax avoidance, we need the public to

feel we are all in this together and altering our fair share. On the

point of everyone paying their way does he welcomed the fact that it is

under this government that the top 1% of earners is only paying 28% of

tax, which is a far higher percentage than the Labour

government? This point was made earlier by me. But it is worth

repeating. And deleted my friend mentioned it. It is such a strong

point. At this point about the rich -- the writ is 1% paying the largest

rid of tax has been battered out today, what it is a sign of is the

gross inequality in the country and that is something that needs to be

addressed. The rich pay more tax! And SNP MP called for cross-party

action. Ignore all those people who operate under a cloud of anonymity

to tell as we would not understand that it is too difficult, that's

just allows them to keep doing what they have gotten no limit to this

point because failure to do so will keep on feeding the cancer this,

cancer this way in which our politics is going on and that will

be to the detriment of all of us. Stuart MacDonald. A system of MPs

trying to get their bills through Parliament is a disgrace according

to a former deputy speaker of the Commons, at the start of every

session a handful of backbenchers get the chance to bring in what is

known as a private members bill. They debated on 15 sitting Fridays

but frequently fall foul of being talked out by other MPs are

government ministers. There have been some high profile recent

examples, including a bill to exempt carers from hospital parking

charges. The Commons procedure committee is currently looking at

the issue. Opening a debate in Westminster Hall, one MP argued the

time of company change. The system is broken, the procedure for

debating and voting on private members bills is dishonest and

misleading, it is expensive and frustrating waste of time. I believe

that what happens on Fridays in this place not only brings Parliament

into disrepute but feed into the cynicism and the increasing numbers

of people feel about politics and politicians, it does us no good

service. I absolutely agree with the honourable member about the

absurdities of Fridays, it doesn't do any good for the image of

parliament, it is wearisome even for those who are here and I think I can

make the claim from what it is worth that in all other members of this

house have set that resided over as many Friday the and it really is a

disgrace. And other concerns disagreed. We have transferred

sitting Fridays, we are sent here in Westminster to represent their

constituents and we have turned it into constituency days. If these

issues are important then we should be able to sit constituents, we will

not be at the opening of the fate of the school, because I am discharging

my duties as a member of Parliament in sitting Friday of which we only

ever actually have 13 in one year. I think that there are things about

timetabling it on a different state, because for all of us who live out

with the commutable distance, Friday is our time in the constituency. We

can still use Giuliani Monday morning before coming to the house,

we can attend meetings on evenings and therefore it is a big deal and

the fact that when a member gives up the time and attendance it is such a

farce, that does not result in a vote, may not even lead to a debate,

means that in actual fact most member - attend. One Labour member

told MPs about the furious reaction when her bill to exempt carers from

hospital parking charges was talked out. I had hundreds of people

contact me, they could not believe it. He did not understand the

system. How could it be that the great British democratic system

could behave in this fashion? Sometimes week after week. Points

were made about, if a Private members Bill is brought and it is

against the will of the government then it cannot hope to succeed, I

accept that, we live in a democracy. But should not we have the

opportunity fully democratic vote? Because what is happening is

dishonest. The minister argued that private members bills could

encourage change even if they did not become law. Particularly the

ones that have been successful at either change the lead, government

policy or maybe modest change to the law, something people agree with. In

this particular session six of such bills have made it through the House

of Commons in which they have received Royal assent are in the

Lawrence. It is important to say that those the government does not

and should not have the monopoly on legislation it does have the

mandate. Private members Bill to not necessarily have the mandate that

has been elected by the country. That is it for now. Join me at the

same time tomorrow when among other things there is a debate about

reducing the amount of plastic in our seas. Until then, goodbye.