Sky: 21st Century Fox Takeover Bid

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The first I knew about the takeover bid was at the same time as everyone else in the House, when it was announced in the press.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Given the concerns that have been raised about the timing, and the fact that it could well be that the Secretary of State will have to fulfil her quasi-judicial role during the recess, if she could not answer questions about what she has previously read today, will she ensure that when she does take a decision, on which she will be questioned in the House, she will be able to answer that she did read all of that relevant material? On understanding the parliamentary and public interest, does she accept that most of it goes to those points that are in the public interest grounds in the legislation?

[Karen Bradley]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will fulfil my role exactly in line with the legislation and I will of course be answerable to Parliament in the decisions that I take.

Independent Advocates for Trafficked Children

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I believe that it is not the first occasion, but I hope it is not the last. I welcome the opportunity for the House to focus on what we all agree is a most challenging and important topic, and for me to set out clearly the Government’s position.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate and on her contribution to this country’s leading work on modern slavery and human trafficking. Through her position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern day slavery and on the Modern Slavery Bill Committee, she has contributed more than many other people and deserves great credit. There are other Members, both here and in the other place, who have also devoted themselves to promoting the issue of child victims of trafficking and making their lives better. I have been grateful for and impressed by the individual and collective achievements on the issue.

Let me be clear from the outset: supporting trafficked children remains a key priority for the Government. I appreciate how many hon. Members are impatient for progress—so am I. We are talking about a vulnerable group of children, who deserve the utmost support and protection. We must ensure that our response is the right one to best support trafficked children. I value the conversations that I have had with many Members who are here today, with those in the other place and with other key stakeholders including Barnardo’s, to which I pay tribute for its work on the trial, ECPAT, UNICEF and the independent anti-slavery commissioner. We have discussed the critical issues and developed better solutions, and I am particularly grateful for all the frankness and honest insights.

The right hon. Member for Slough and others have referred to the delay. It is not a delay to procrastinate; it is about getting it right. She mentioned the Government’s commitment to report in March. I had hoped that we could fulfil that commitment but, when her all-party group and others voiced significant concerns, I did not want to make an announcement that we would need to go back on. I wanted to work with her and other stakeholders to ensure that we got it right.

I do not intend to go into the details of the trial but I want to address a few points regarding its effectiveness. I have listened carefully today and in earlier discussions, and although many good things came from the trial, I cannot agree that it was an unequivocal, resounding success. The outcomes were equivocal. The trial showed some benefits—the children felt listened to and other professionals reported that the advocates were able to co-ordinate different agencies effectively—but in other areas, there were severe limitations.

The evaluation raised a number of operational issues that required further work, including the process for referring children to advocates; the high incidence of missing children, which I will come to shortly; the fact that advocates did not have the legal powers that had been invested in them by the Modern Slavery Act; and the fact that, in some areas, the service was not visible to many agencies.

The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) expressed concern about whether the country was compliant with the EU directive. We are already fully compliant with the EU directive and the Council of Europe convention. Existing provisions ensure that the relevant statutory agencies meet the international obligations. With the trials, we are looking to do additional work to support trafficked children over and above those obligations.

I have to disagree that children going missing is just something that will happen. We should not see that as acceptable. I understand that there is a problem, and I have a round-table discussion on missing children later this week. I am determined that we make the police response and other responses to missing children part and parcel of everyday work. Those are the children who are trafficked. They are the adults who have mental health problems and find themselves locked up in police cells when they should not be. They are the children who are sexually exploited. We cannot stand by and say that it is acceptable that children go missing. A child’s safety and welfare must be the overriding consideration of any child in the care of the Government, where we are acting as their parent.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have not heard anyone suggest today that it is somehow acceptable that children are going missing. What people find unacceptable is that the enforcement and implementation of section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act is missing. There seems to be dereliction in the name of perfection. The fact that the pilot showed a need for improvement does not disprove the need for the provisions of section 48.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will address the next steps later in my speech.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do apologise for that.

It is important to make it clear that victims who go through the national referral mechanism and who have a conclusive grounds decision that they are a victim of slavery will, at that point, have the right to claim six months to stay and work here in the UK. Whether they take up that claim is entirely down to the individual. If that victim assists police with their inquiries, they will receive an additional year and a day discretionary leave.

Returning to my former point, the Government believe that, given the very different views on the effect of the visa tie, this independent review—the one being conducted by James Ewins—is a great opportunity for a careful and objective look at the issue, and we should not pre-judge its findings. It is particularly important that we allow the review to do its work, because I am deeply concerned that the approach in the Lords amendment will not encourage victims to report the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, so that they can be held to account, or help victims access the support they need to recover.

If an overseas domestic worker who has fallen victim to modern slavery on their short stay in the UK has the ability to change employer, the likelihood is that, if they can escape, they will simply look for another employer and not tell the authorities what has happened to them. The perpetrator would then remain free to go on to abuse other domestic workers either in the UK or in their home country.

If we are to catch these very serious criminals and stop them offending again, we must incentivise overseas domestic workers who suffer abuse to come forward; it is absolutely crucial that we do that. My main concern is to ensure that victims, who are often deeply traumatised and vulnerable, receive the care and support they need to recover from the abuses they have suffered.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Given that the Minister has said that the Government amendment requiring victims to go through the national referral mechanism is aimed at ensuring that there are prosecutions, what is the evidence to date that shows that such cases have led to successful prosecutions and convictions?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman, who was a distinguished member of the Bill Committee, knows that there are not enough prosecutions. But this Bill is designed to secure more. Increased prosecutions combined with the reviewed national referral mechanism, which we will be piloting shortly and hope to roll out nationally very soon, will mean that we will get the evidence and information that we need. This is about not just legislation but the modern slavery strategy. We want all the agencies working together to ensure that we identify victims and treat them as victims, and that those victims get the support they need, so that they can give us the information we require to find the perpetrators of these awful crimes.

A victim who manages to leave an abusive employer and who is not receiving appropriate support would be very vulnerable and at risk of moving on to yet another abusive employer, leaving the original abuser free to abuse again. There is a real danger that Lords amendment 72 will allow abuse to go unchallenged. However good the intentions, that would not protect overseas domestic workers. It risks giving a free pass to the criminals who abuse them, creating the conditions for yet more victims. Quite frankly, if eliminating modern slavery was as simple as being able to change employer, we would have no UK nationals or EU members as victims as they could simply move on. As we all know, the truth is very different, and we have all heard the traumatic accounts of those abused by unscrupulous agricultural gangmasters or tarmac gangs.

This is a complex topic, and simplifying the issue to whether an overseas domestic worker can change employer risks doing a grave disservice to victims. That is not just the view of the Government. I have taken advice from the law enforcement professionals responsible for investigating modern slavery. Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer, the national policing lead for modern slavery, and Ian Cruxton, the director of the Organised Crime Command at the National Crime Agency, have both expressed concern that the Lords amendment would inadvertently undermine the fight against modern slavery because victims will not come forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

As any evidence emerges, we will have to consider what it suggests about this sector of employment in general and individual employers in particular. This goes back to some of the arguments the Government have used in support of their own amendment and against the Lords amendment. If a domestic worker were to change their employer under the visa entitlement the Lords amendment would give them, it would be known to an authority, and the authority should be duly asking questions. It would then be for somebody else—perhaps not the victim—to notify the national referral mechanism and for issues to take place there.

In separate interventions today, the Minister seemed to make different arguments. On the one hand, the Government amendment was defended on the grounds that it would lead to more prosecutions of abusive employers by ensuring that victims co-operated with the national referral mechanism and therefore that their victimhood would translate into active cases. That is what we were being told by the policing lead and the National Crime Agency. Then, in another intervention, the Minister made the point that the national referral mechanism was not of itself hidebound in achieving prosecutions and not necessarily police or prosecution-driven in any way. We cannot have both arguments being used in contradictory ways here.

I ask the Government to listen to their own arguments and to think about some of the things they are relying on in respect of their own amendments. They should think again about pressing those amendments; the chances are that they will have to revise them in the light of subsequent reviews and evaluations. The sensible thing to do—and most in keeping with the spirit claimed for this Bill, as being “world-leading” legislation—would be to accept the Lords amendments and, if necessary, qualify them by revisiting the issues in the light of subsequent reviews.

[Karen Bradley]

rose—

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

On consumer action, what are the Government’s intentions with regard to public procurement, because the public purse will be a significant consumer? On sourcing and supplying, will there be a Government public procurement standard for companies?

[Karen Bradley]

I addressed that point briefly in my opening comments, but I will come on to it again in a moment. I will just finish the point about enforcement.

The courts can force companies to disclose, but that is different from the issue that some companies may make disclosures that consumers, shareholders and campaigners feel show that inadequate steps are being taken to eliminate slavery from supply chains. The courts can act if no disclosure is made, but there is action that civil society can take if it feels that companies are not making appropriate disclosures. The Government believe it is for civil society to put pressure on businesses that are not doing enough to eliminate modern slavery from their supply chains. The Government’s new clause makes this as easy as possible by ensuring that disclosures are easily accessible. The link to disclosure must be in a prominent place on a business’s website home page.

Before coming on to public sector procurement, I would like to address the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the extent of the new clause. I can confirm that the new clause on supply chains will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is made plain by later amendments to be taken later. I want to put it on the record that I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Executive and all the devolved Administrations for the excellent work we have done together to ensure that this provision can extend to the entire UK. He will know, from our discussions in Committee, that there were points on which we needed agreement—not just on this matter, but on many others as well. I am pleased that we have made so much progress. It was important throughout that this was not Westminster imposing on the devolved Administrations. Action has been taken because the devolved Administrations wanted to take that action.

On public sector procurement, all public sector suppliers are required to comply with applicable law, including relevant human rights and employment rights law. UK public procurement policy is that social, environmental or ethical issues can be taken into account in the procurement process where that is relevant, proportionate and non-discriminatory. We expect public sector procurement to be as transparent as other procurement, which is covered elsewhere. We will consult on this matter, and I encourage people who are concerned to respond to the consultation. It should be noted that whatever action is taken will be taken only following the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has its say. We will ensure that points are put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to my amendment 138, which is mainly what I wish to address. However, I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said about the amendments standing in his name and the wider issue of consent, which is also touched upon in amendment 143.

Amendment 138 aims to make good a clear deficit in the Government’s provision in the Bill for a statutory defence. That defence is inadequate and certainly is not fit to deal with the position of children. The amendment seeks to change that so that child victims of trafficking would be fully protected. Clearly, children have already suffered if they are detained in the process, and if they find themselves subject to a prosecution or even the speculation about a prosecution. That becomes traumatic for children who have come through trafficking, slavery or exploitation, as it would for any victim. So it would be wrong to have a requirement that children have to show that there was compulsion—that should not exist in law. The presence of any other means including compulsion should be irrelevant when defining a child as a victim of trafficking or exploitation. Children in such a situation will be frightened, confused and traumatised. They should not face further isolation and distress and all the other psychological pressures as they go through what will be to them a fairly unknown process.

Despite the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, children are still prosecuted. It should be an imperative for us in this legislation to stop that occurring in the future, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to do that.

I point out to the Minister that in July the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the Government, in relation to trafficked children and to all children covered by the optional protocol on the sale of children, to establish

“a clear obligation of non-prosecution in the criminal justice system and ensuring that [children] are treated as victims rather than criminals by law enforcement and judicial authorities.”

Basically, that is what amendment 138 tries to do; it tries to bring the Bill up to that standard. However, I recognise that there is the wrinkle in relation to schedule 3, and for that reason amendment 138 addresses a very important issue that needs to be considered further. I will not be pressing the matter to a Division, because, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, there is an outstanding issue in connection with it.

[Karen Bradley]

I am grateful to all Members for tabling and speaking to a number of amendments that relate to the offences set out in clauses 1 and 2, the ability to seize the assets of those convicted of offences and the defence for victims who are compelled to commit an offence, as outlined in clause 41.

We had a thorough, detailed and lively debate on the offences and their practical application in Committee. I am extremely grateful to all Members of this House and others who have contributed to the debates on the offences and have made their thoughts known to the Government to enable us to continue our thinking.

I made it clear in Committee that the Government’s approach is to consolidate and simplify existing offences into a single Act, which will make it easier for law enforcers to understand. We want to see clear offences that can be used effectively by prosecutors and others to convict serious criminals who will now face a potential life sentence.

The offences in the Bill deliberately tackle serious criminal conduct that can be said to amount to modern slavery. Given the time available and the amount of discussion that we have had, I want to put it on the record at this stage that the Government continue to listen to all points that are made on this matter. We want to ensure that we reflect the concerns that have been raised and that we have clear and simple offences that achieve the convictions that we all want. Members should remember that we are looking here at international conventions and protocols that are written in civil law, which is a different type of law. Putting them straight into UK common law sometimes creates unintended consequences, and I am keen to ensure that we do not do that.

Clause 1 targets those who hold a person in slavery or servitude or who require another person to perform forced or compulsory labour in this country, without any requirements for movement. The clause 2 offence targets a different type of wrongdoing, which is the movement of human beings with a view to exploiting them. That different type of wrongdoing has been the subject of international legal instruments such as the Palermo protocol and the EU directive. That is fully justified because we know that there is an international and national trade in human beings. It is right that we have a separate offence targeting those involved in the movement of people to be exploited, and that is what this offence achieves.

These measures are part of a wider strategy to improve the law enforcement response to modern slavery, and to increase the number of successful prosecutions. Let me highlight that there is no magic bullet by which we can transform the situation simply by amending the technical definition of the offences. The Committee heard from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the offences set out in this Bill are clear and welcome. However, the issue is often not the definition of the offence, but getting the evidence required for a conviction, which is a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall).

I want to touch on the Kinsella case, which the shadow Minister raised. We discussed a number of cases in Committee. It is important to put it on the record that the offenders in that case were convicted of false imprisonment, and that offence carries a maximum of a life sentence, whereas under the current law, slavery carries a maximum of only 14 years. It is completely understandable that those offenders faced the criminal charge conveying the highest possible penalty, but this Bill will ensure that slavery and trafficking offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and I want to see those offences used in prosecutions in the future. So the solution to obtaining more prosecutions is better work by law enforcement, better support for victims and witnesses, and clear offences with the more severe penalties set out by this Bill.

New clauses 3 and 4 and the amendments seek in different ways to widen the scope of the offences to create a new criminal offence of exploitation, which will carry a life sentence. I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members have tabled such amendments. I share the concern to ensure that this Bill criminalises modern slavery effectively. The wider criminal law needs to tackle exploitation that should properly be criminal but might fall short of the conduct required for the serious offences in this Bill.

I know that we debated this issue at length in Committee and I continue to look seriously at where there may be any gaps in the legislation. I have been absolutely clear throughout that our approach to offences is to take seriously how they will work in practice. For example, we have taken advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director gave evidence in Committee that

“We much prefer the clarity of the offences in the Bill as drafted by the Government.”––Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 4, Q2.]

rather than the more complicated and confusing alternative presented by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which included exploitation and child exploitation offences.

Introducing exploitation offences would risk causing confusion. “Exploitation” is potentially a very broad term, and there is a real risk that we would capture much wider behaviour than was ever intended in this Bill, which focuses rightly on the very serious crimes of slavery and human trafficking. The risk is that, by making the offences too broad, the public will no longer be clear on the conduct that we are targeting through very serious criminal offences that carry a life sentence as a maximum. And the effect of the Bill on law enforcement will be diluted, as the conduct we are targeting will be less clear and so will law enforcement’s focus on the victims of serious crime. It is only right and proper that, where we are dealing with less serious conduct, we prosecute those responsible using less serious offences.

A second issue raised by new clauses 3 and 4 is whether separate child offences are needed in this Bill. In some circumstances, child offences are helpful to enable a tougher sentence to be given to criminals who target and abuse children. This Bill introduces a maximum of a life sentence for the main offences in relation to slavery and human trafficking and current sentencing guidelines already highlight offences against children as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. There is no practical benefit in establishing a separate child-specific offence when offenders already face the maximum penalty possible—life. That is why there is no need for a separate child murder offence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions gave clear evidence to the Committee that

“If you separated out offences into adults and children, it would make it more complicated because we know from the number of cases we prosecute that defining and identifying someone’s age is often extremely difficult…There is absolutely no need for it to be separated out; that would make it more complicated and more difficult to prosecute some of these offences.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 6, Q11.]

So I do not believe that a separate child offence would help to deliver the objectives of the House.

Amendments 135, 136, and 143 seek to remove any requirement for consent to be considered by the court when looking at clause 1. While I do not favour the wording of the amendments tabled today, which could make prosecution harder, I want to be clear that the Government are open to clarifying this aspect of the offences. We have already altered the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny to make it clear that the court could look at all the circumstances when determining whether an offence had taken place, including any vulnerability of the victim. I am now seriously considering the issue of consent in clause 1 and whether the law could be clarified to make it clearer that consent does not preclude a determination that a child is being held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Turning to the trafficking offence, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also raised a concern that the offence in the draft Bill might not be as broad as the international definition, for example on receipt or harbouring of the victim. We responded and made it clear in the Bill that arranging or facilitating the travel of another person includes all of the ways through which human trafficking may be committed, as set out in the Palermo protocol and EU directive. So a person may arrange or facilitate travel by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving, or transferring or exchanging control over a person—words reflecting those used in the international instruments.

In Committee, we debated whether there should be a requirement for travel in the offence. Those instruments are explicitly concerned with “human trafficking”. The evil that we are trying to tackle is trafficking, and clearly trafficking involves movement or travel of the victim.

On asset recovery, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for raising the important issue of asset recovery in relation to modern slavery offences. We have amended the definitions of modern slavery offences to make them lifestyle offences for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and introduced a reparation order, but we are seeking through the Serious Crime Bill to look at a number of other measures that would tighten up asset recovery overall. I hope that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to have that debate when the Serious Crime Bill reaches this place.

The provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act are already tougher—

National Crime Agency

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

No. I am sorry, I need to make progress. My right hon. Friend, a former Minister for Northern Ireland—there should be a collective noun for former Ministers of Northern Ireland, because we have many in the room today—explained clearly the importance of the issues in the light of his great experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that, in a way, he has a land border with another member state—the only such non-Northern Ireland Member in the room—and expressed clearly the need for the NCA to operate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

A number of Members, including the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham, talked about the need for proceeds of crime measures to be extended to Northern Ireland. I very much agree with those points. Depriving organised criminals of their assets makes it harder for them to return to crime and perhaps acts for many as a bigger deterrent than jail. I refer Members to the changes we are putting through in the other place through the Serious Crime Bill, which will assist us in dealing with asset recovery. Clearly, extending those provisions to Northern Ireland would be very important in improving that recovery rate.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the oversight mechanisms, and usefully clarified her party’s concerns about accountability. It is probably useful if I make some points now about the accountability proposals. There are no statutory mechanisms, about which she asked, providing for NCA accountability in Northern Ireland at the moment, but David Ford’s proposals provide that the NCA director general will attend meetings of the Policing Board on request—including urgent meetings, with reasonable notice—and this will be in statute. NCA officers will need the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to exercise policing powers in relation to an offence, and the PSNI will then produce a community impact assessment.

On covert techniques, in all cases the NCA will obtain the agreement of the PSNI prior to their use, save for where the request is related to a case of police corruption. That would be enshrined in a memorandum of understanding, made under schedule 24 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The human rights adviser of the Northern Ireland Policing Board will have access to the surveillance commissioner’s report on the NCA, in a non-redacted form, in connection with the NCA work associated with criminality in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot, I am afraid; I have been given strict warnings by the Deputy Speaker. The—

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Karen Bradley and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I entirely agree. Clearly 50% of nothing is not as much as 45% of something, It is important for us to tell the world that the UK is open for business, and to say “Bring your business to the UK”. That applies very much to the financial services sector.

We have already discussed how much money the banks might or might not pay towards reducing the deficit. What we are considering now is just the additional amount that they are paying as a result of the increase in the bank levy. They are, of course, paying an awful lot more to the Exchequer. I believe that the financial services sector contributes about £32 billion to our economy, and I think it important for us to retain and increase that amount of revenue. I firmly believe that we should have taxes that raise the maximum amount of revenue to be spent on our schools, hospitals and police officers, and that ideology should not determine how we set our tax rates.

The main point that I want to make about the bank levy is that it will raise the money irrespective of the amount of bonus paid. I remember when the previous Chancellor announced, in his 2009 pre-Budget report, that the banks would pay

“a special one-off levy of 50 per cent.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 367.]

At that time I was working in a large accounting practice, and was analysing the Budget. The biggest surprise came when the then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected the bonus tax to raise £500 million. Those of us who were in that firm at the time—it was one of the big four—were staggered that the Treasury should think that only £500 million-worth of bonuses would be paid, given that the tax meant that an equal amount would be paid to the Exchequer, and I think we have now seen that that did not happen.

The purpose of the levy was to drive behaviour. The point of it was that the banks would not pay the bonuses. The then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected a reduction in the level of bonuses that would be paid that year, but that simply did not occur: the bonuses were still paid. I personally believe that tax is a very blunt instrument for the purpose of driving behaviour, and that people will behave in the way in which they wish to behave, whether it involves charitable giving, buying pasties or paying bonuses. Tax is something that businesses “manage around”. They do not think of it as a behaviour driver, and it clearly did not drive behaviour in the way that the Treasury expected in that instance.

[Mark Durkan]

Has the hon. Lady not just contradicted what she said a couple of minutes ago? She suggested then that if we entertained this idea, we would ensure that banks became financial refugees in all sorts of other places in the world.

[Karen Bradley]

I do not agree about the contradiction. If it is suggested to the banks that the rate of tax will be at a certain level and that there will be a bonus tax, that will discourage them from remaining in the UK but it will not stop them paying the bonuses, which is what the Treasury wanted the special one-off tax to do.