Point of Order
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
Thank you. I will respond, but let me hear the other points of order on this matter.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I concur entirely with everything that has been said by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I see this as a blatant, deliberate and arrogant snub of this Parliament, and I ask you, with your excellent experience, to support us in taking this forward.
I simply add that today’s business has been delayed: it has been deliberately taken off the Order Paper by the Government. Today’s business included an amendment, in my name and that of the right hon. Gentleman, which would have not just extended public registers to Crown dependencies, but reiterated the point in relation to overseas territories. We were so angered by the action of the Foreign Office that we wanted to reiterate the decision of Parliament, which was passed unanimously by Parliament last summer, in the amendment we were proposing today, but that opportunity to reiterate our determination has been removed from us as well. I again urge you, Mr Speaker, to advise us what we can do and what you can do to ensure that the Government do what Parliament tells them to do in legislation.
Tributes: Baroness Jowell
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I first really got to know Tessa when we were both very pregnant—I with my last child, and she with her first, Jessie. In those days, we did try to cuddle each other, but we were both slightly vertically challenged, so with these big bellies, it was—
Dame Margaret Hodge
It was jolly hard to get your arms around her, but that was what you always wanted to do with Tessa: you did want to give her a cuddle. I remember the early days of our relationship, when we would spend the time talking about nappies and sleepless nights on the one hand, and on the other discussing how we would make Labour electable and our latest very good idea. That was her, really; as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, the personal was very much the political with Tessa.
Tessa was already a successful politician before she came into Parliament. I knew her when she was chair of social services in Camden, and she chaired the social services committee at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. She did incredibly radical things on diversity and on care for the elderly in the community. I well remember that she worked for a while for Birmingham City Council and tried to devise its policy for caring for the elderly outside of old people’s homes. She did what Tessa would always do: she spent endless nights in those homes so that she could really feel what the people who were living that life felt. That informed the way in which she devised policy.
As well as being a feminist—she was a feminist with many of us during the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s—Tessa was incredibly feminine. Her home was always filled with fresh flowers, and Friday was Tessa on the splurge, going to buy lots of flowers. While her husband David cooked the meals, she created the ambiance that made people feel positive and comfortable, with beautiful things around the room. She was the go-to person if you wanted any advice on style: for hair—we shared the same hairdresser; for fitness—she went to this absolutely ghastly place in Austria where they really pulled it out of you; and for the most beautiful clothes. When we went to Pontignano for an annual get-together of the Italian and UK left, we would go off for an afternoon to see what was in the Siena shops.
Tessa was a people-focused politician and a feminist, and she showed awesome courage all the way through her life, but particularly in her last years. Death is a part of all our lives, but the people who were with us yesterday remain a part of all our present and our future. Tessa touched countless people’s lives when she lived; their experience will form part of the legacy that she leaves behind. We salute her and celebrate who she was and what she achieved.
Point of Order
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to apologise sincerely to the House for inadvertently acting in breach of our code of conduct when I used parliamentary resources during my independent review of the garden bridge. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have both concluded that I was not motivated by financial gain. I acted in good faith and in the public interest, but I fully accept the judgments of the commissioner and the Committee. I have repaid the sum of £2.97, which represents the cost of House of Commons stationery, to the House of Commons Administration.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she has said, and I think that the House will appreciate it. That is the end of the matter.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The right hon. Lady’s central contention is that those territories should publish open registers of beneficial ownership. First, does she acknowledge that the United Kingdom is now one of the only countries in the world to do so, as a result of action by this Government? That was a huge achievement on the UK’s part. Secondly, in an international context, virtually no other major developed country in the world has done it. The state of Delaware, in which 90% of US corporations are registered—
Mr Speaker
Order! When I say “order”, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I do not wish to be unkind to him. He is always very fluent, but he usually takes too long, and that was not just too long; it was far too long.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I simply observe that the UK also has responsibility for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and I wish that its own tax code did not contain so many harmful elements that encourage tax avoidance.
Appleby’s lobbying illustrates another continuing problem. The Treasury, and other Ministers and Departments, listen only to a very small and exclusive group of tax professionals when making decisions on tax policy. It is one thing for the Government to consult stakeholders on 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 industry to ensure compliance with existing rules is therefore vital. Curtailing the influence of tax professionals on tax policy is essential, and making the advisers accountable for the schemes that they invent and market is central to the campaign to destroy tax avoidance.
The measures in the Finance Act 2017 represent one small step in the right direction of holding advisers to account, but the small print suggests that very few, if any, will be caught by the legislation. The definitions are too narrow, and the penalties too weak. Those measures have been introduced so that the Government can claim that they are acting, but until advisers are really called to account and properly punished for inventing schemes that are purely aimed at avoiding tax, the army of lawyers, accountants and bankers will continue to prosper. If the Government are serious about tackling tax avoidance, they must act strongly to deal with the illegitimate practices of those who make a huge living from peddling tax avoidance advice.
Mel Stride
What I actually asked was whether the right hon. Lady would join me in calling for the ICIJ to release that information. [Interruption.] That is a slightly different question, and I am happy to give way again if she will tell us, yes or no, whether she will do that. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Stop the clock. There is far too much noise in this Chamber. I say gently to the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp): don’t do it! You may think you are being clever, but it does not enhance your reputation as a parliamentarian in the end. Please don’t do it. It is juvenile, the public despise it and I have no patience for it.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I will certainly join the Minister in seeking any documentation that HMRC requires to pursue those who are guilty of avoidance or evasion. I would say to him, however, that when I have given papers to HMRC in the past—whether relating to Google or from other whistleblowers—they have just disappeared and no action ever appears to have been taken.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the systemic issues that facilitated the tax avoidance and evasion uncovered by the Paradise papers. I am supported in this request by many Members on both sides of the House.
The Paradise papers are the most important and shocking data we have seen so far to lift the lid on behaviour that hard-working people in Britain who pay their taxes find deplorable, but which we now know is scarily normal and acceptable among the very wealthy and powerful global corporations. The leaked documents comprise 31.4 million files. These have been analysed over a year by 381 journalists from 67 countries. In the UK, we have The Guardian and “Panorama” to thank for their brilliant investigative work and for placing the data relevant to us under public scrutiny.
The papers come from one of the so-called magic circle of international lawyers: Appleby. More than half of Appleby’s offices are based in UK tax havens. Tax havens are central to most of the tax avoidance schemes uncovered and are where people hide their money. Conservative estimates put the wealth held in tax havens at $7.6 trillion. The UK tax havens are at the heart of this abuse. By stubbornly upholding secrecy, our Crown dependencies and overseas territories enable widespread tax avoidance to take place. The UK Government are not just complicit in but central to their success, and it is our financial institutions—lawyers, bankers and accountancy firms—that are mostly responsible for finding the devices employed to avoid tax.
At the very moment when Simon Stevens was pleading for money for the NHS, we were learning about the enormous range of artificial structures used by the rich, famous and powerful to avoid making their proper contribution, through taxation, to our NHS. The Paradise papers raise hugely significant issues for the House and the Government. We urgently need the opportunity to debate the systemic implications of the revelations. This is not a minor but a mega issue of public concern. A debate now would enable Members to express their views before the Chancellor puts his finishing touches to the Budget.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady’s application and I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper—[Interruption.] Order. Could Members extend the courtesy of listening to the business of the House? If they want to conduct a private conversation, they can do so outside the Chamber. I will return to this very important matter, which might preoccupy a lot of people outside the House.
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Lady, and I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Does she have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Terror Attacks
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In the days following both the Manchester and London Bridge attacks, a number of my constituents were arrested, with suspicions around terrorism. This is the first time that that has happened in Barking and Dagenham. Most of my constituents, of all religions, creeds and ethnicities, share with all of us the horror at the outrages, the praise for the services and the feelings of empathy for those who have been affected by the attacks. However, the Home Secretary said in her statement that those who perpetrate terrorism seek to spread fear, intolerance and hate, and I have concerns that, in the aftermath of the attacks, that is precisely what could happen in my constituency. The Muslim community in particular are feeling very vulnerable and isolated, and the police have not been able to give them the reassurance that they want. Will she take steps to ensure that police resources are made available so that there is a police presence there, the allegations of race hate crime, which are already growing, are dealt with, and other measures that will provide security for all communities in my constituency, and therefore promote tolerance, are put in place rapidly and not left to fester?
Mr Speaker
I have long known that the right hon. Lady is a magnificent woman, but I had momentarily forgotten that she is a Dame. I hope that she will forgive me.
Points of Order
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Every Member of the House is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in it. As she will be aware, and other Members will know, there is a procedure available to Ministers if they need to correct the record. It is open to them to do so by coming to the House and setting the record straight if they judge that appropriate. In so far as issues appertaining to the ministerial code are concerned, the House will be aware that I am not responsible for compliance with the code. That responsibility rests elsewhere. I think it is best to leave it there for now, and I am happy to see whether there is any development that causes the matter to be brought before the House again.
Mr Speaker
That is subject to the appropriateness of hearing a point of order from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Mrs Margaret Hodge.
Margaret Hodge
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you advise us on the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament in this regard? Evidence was given to my Committee yesterday by Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Nicholas Macpherson and Sir Bob Kerslake. When I asked whether the policy was on track, Sir Jeremy replied:
“In its current form, I believe it is.”
When I asked Sir Nicholas whether he had signed off the business case, he replied:
“I believe that at each key milestone of the reset programme there is a Treasury decision to take.”
Finally, after about six or seven questions, it was Sir Bob Kerslake who said:
“I think we should not beat about the bush. It has not been signed off.”
The important thing for Back-Bench Members is that we need to know who is telling the truth—the head of the civil service or the Minister. We need to have a mechanism that enables us to assess that. Smoke and mirrors have been used. Hundreds of millions of pounds are at stake, and millions of benefit claimants will have their future at risk. We, as Back Benchers, need to know the truth.
Mr Speaker
There are two responses to the right hon. Lady. First, by long-standing convention—and I think that it is a wise convention—the Speaker does not comment on proceedings in Committee until the report of a Committee has been published, so I will refrain from commenting on any of the exchanges to which the right hon. Lady helpfully drew my attention. Secondly, if there is a lingering uncertainty or confusion about a factual state of affairs, there are means by which these matters that are judged to be highly topical can be brought to the attention of the House. I do not think that I need to elaborate on what I have said. It will be well known to Members that there are mechanisms available to them, and it is up to them to decide whether to seek to use those mechanisms and for me to decide whether it is appropriate that they should. For today, we should leave it there. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and John Bercow(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
On Wednesday, the Secretary of State told this House that the permanent secretary had “agreed”, “authorised” and “approved” the role of Adam Smith. On Thursday, the permanent secretary refused 10 times to confirm to my Committee that that was the case. On Friday, he then wrote to me stating merely that he was “aware and content” with Adam Smith’s role. Either the Secretary of State failed to provide full and accurate information to Parliament or he failed to require his civil servant to provide full and accurate information to a Select Committee of Parliament. Both are breaches of the ministerial code—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If Members, rather than braying noisily, would allow the question to be finished, we will get on with it. The last sentence, please.
Margaret Hodge
Both are breaches of the ministerial code, both ride roughshod over the rights of Parliament and surely both need to be properly investigated by the independent adviser.