Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Debate between Mark Durkan and David Winnick

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If we are all for fairness in income tax arrangements, perhaps action can be taken.

I want to illustrate my point about the tax arrangements of the very rich, and I shall return to Sir Philip Green. He is not a non-dom. He resides and works in the United Kingdom, and he no doubt pays a fair share of tax. That is not in dispute. However, the well-known shops with which he is associated are actually owned by his wife, and she lives abroad, in Monaco, where apparently no tax is paid. That is an example involving one person—there are others—that illustrates the unfairness in the United Kingdom. A great deal of revenue is undoubtedly being lost as a result of the arrangements of that very rich individual and others, and I do not believe that that is fair. It seems that, few years ago, Sir Philip paid himself a modest £1.2 billion bonus, a lot of which went through various offshore accounts and tax havens and finally ended up in Monaco, where his wife resides.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned the amount of revenue that is lost as a result of such arrangements; I do not think that the figure he mentioned was disputed. Obviously, we can imagine how that money could be spent on hospitals and other essential facilities. In any case, it is absolutely wrong that there should be two or more different tax arrangements: one for the vast majority of our constituents and others for those who are very well off. That is why these points are being made today, especially from this side of the House.

When the Prime Minister tried to score political points by mentioning a particular candidate in the recent mayoral election, he did not of course mention Lord Ashcroft, a long-time deputy Conservative party chairman. I know that some of the Ashcroft money helped to provide funds for Conservative candidates in marginal constituencies. Lord Ashcroft apparently gave a pledge to give up his non-dom tax status in order to sit in the House of Lords. As far as we know, nothing was signed but a pledge was given, and the current Foreign Secretary, then leader of the Conservative party, was satisfied. We know now—it came out in the last weeks of the previous Parliament—that no such arrangements were made by Lord Ashcroft, who remained a non-dom.

It is interesting to note that in the United States—the least socialist country among all the democracies—no offshore tax arrangements are in place for its citizens. Wherever US citizens work abroad or wherever their money goes, they are subject to US tax regulations. It is very different from here. I must admit to being somewhat surprised when I learned that this was the position in America. All these offshore arrangements, tax havens and the rest simply need to be tackled, although whether this Government will tackle them is another matter.

Let me take up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said. One issue relates to billionaires using these arrangements; another is the matter of personal service companies. I must confess that until someone was appointed to a public institution—a very high-profile one—in 1993, I was not aware of personal service companies, the purpose of which is to minimise one’s tax. I wrote to the director-general of the BBC before the Public Accounts Committee took the matter up. I asked how many of the BBC’s most senior managers—those earning £100,000 or more—had personal service companies. I received a prompt and courteous reply—there was no attempt to evade the question, although I would have used freedom of information facilities if need be—and I was told that there was only one such person. That is one manager, but the different position regarding presenters has arisen from the PAC.

Some of the most prominent broadcasters—not confined by any means to those of the BBC, as there are the commercial channels and others—and some other very prominent people in the media, including some who perhaps have liberal leanings, have arrangements whereby the amount of tax they pay is considerably less than it would be through PAYE. For all I know, there could be complications and administrative difficulties with personal service companies, but it is unfortunate, to say the least, that these highly paid individuals, perhaps receiving £500,000 or over £1 million a year—good people in many respects, I am sure, and very professional, as no one would doubt, irrespective of their private views—use an arrangement that substantially minimises the amount of income tax they pay. That is absolutely wrong.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) complained earlier about misinformation relating to tax avoidance. Was it not misinforming for the Government, at a time of high public indignation, to promise a “general anti-avoidance rule”, but then come up with something that is too narrow and limited to be deemed “general”, too indifferent and inert to be called anti-anything, and far too weak to be regarded as a “rule”?

[Mr Winnick]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I would not expect a Conservative Government to take effective action, and it is most unlikely that they will do so. In fairness to my own side, we took some action in some respects, although I would have liked bolder action. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I certainly hope that the next Labour Government—may that come about soon—will be far more stringent in dealing with these matters, which really need to be dealt with.

This country’s tax arrangements seem peculiar and odd, so let me repeat my earlier point. Whereas the large majority of people—my constituents and, I would imagine, the constituents of nearly every Member in the House—pay their taxes according to what has been agreed to by Parliament, there are those, be they billionaires or those whom I have described who earn very large sums, who pay less than what the House has determined. The sooner we end that position, the sooner we can be satisfied that not just our constituents but those with very substantial wealth and those who earn large incomes pay their tax as they should. This issue should continue to engage the House of Commons.

British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly

Debate between Mark Durkan and David Winnick

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I have a different view of history from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), so I will quickly record that without long rehearsing it.

Many hon. Members, including the current chairman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), have rightly paid tribute to those who first established BIPA—in fact, it was a tier first, then it was a body and now it is an assembly. It should be remembered that all of them have made a huge contribution to changing the nature of relationships and attitudes between and within these islands, and they reinforced a dynamic that did spur the peace process in many positive ways. It should also be remembered that when John Hume first argued that there were three sets of relationships at the heart of our problem—those within Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between Ireland and Britain—which he said all needed to be accommodated and reflected in the solution, that was contested. It is now accepted by everybody, and those three sets of relationships are the three strands at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I was not here earlier. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that when we met for the first time in February 1990, when the troubles were continuing, and crimes and atrocities were being committed by the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries, we were not certain whether it would be the only meeting we would hold, as both sides were so apprehensive? I am so pleased—obviously, given that I later become a co-chairman—that we were highly successful in continuing the dialogue for the first time between parliamentarians from both countries.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The point that I was about to make was that by creating a framework of British-Irish relationships, through the Anglo-Irish agreement, the inter-parliamentary tier and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, space was opened up for dealing with the problems that were then vexing the narrow ground of Northern Ireland politics. By changing the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland, we, in many ways, opened up possibilities for politics in Northern Ireland and indeed between north and south. That is why I want to pay tribute to all those who made a huge contribution to British-Irish relations in this context.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned the fact that, peculiarly, no Northern Ireland Members of this House are members of the assembly; we seem to be banned persons. Four Members of the House of Lords who live in Northern Ireland are members of the assembly, and a further one is an associate member. Apparently, if someone from Northern Ireland has a mandate, they are somehow subversive and are not accepted for the purposes of that assembly—I regret that. As the one party that was always on the body and that first advocated such a thing, we perhaps feel a wee bit peculiarly disadvantaged in this regard.

As has been pointed out, great work has been done in many of the reports. I also wish to endorse what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) have said: we need to get the assembly better connected with the work of the British-Irish Council. I am talking about not just taking reports from BIC and tracking its work, but acting as more of a policy outrider at times for BIC, exploring some of the issues, and perhaps scoping some of the problems and making suggestions about how things might be looked at or advanced.

The marine environment is one of the areas we should look at, as that is one thing that all eight Administrations in these islands and their territories actually share. The different jurisdictions have made moves towards various marine legislation and have made different moves on marine management organisations. Surely we need to ensure that we have a coherent framework for marine management, where the regimes are at least compatible and comparable.

The issue of communications is another that should have been addressed more heavily at a British-Irish level. We are left with the situation in Ireland where we have two, rival digital platforms. I have a border constituency, where people have to buy one device if they want to get their Saorview digital TV and another if they want to get Freeview. That is nonsense and it has been a failure. The issue could have been addressed only at the British-Irish level, not at the north-south level.

The digital economy presents challenges and opportunities, some of which also extend to things such as minority languages. We need to think about how our digital platform is catering for the different minority languages and the Celtic regions within these islands. So there is more that we should be thinking about in these areas, and the assembly again provides an area where we can do that. In that context, I wish to share the concerns expressed by others about the RTÉ presence in London.

Human trafficking is a huge issue in the eyes of many people in this Parliament, and it has been discussed in different devolved Assemblies and in the Oireachtas. That issue needs to be examined at the British-Irish level, because we need to deal not only with the international trafficking into our common travel area, but with the internal trafficking both within the different jurisdictions in these islands and between them. We need to address those issues.

Organ donation may also be an issue that we need to examine, as the various legislatures in these islands are perhaps examining it differently. We need to examine not only whether we should have opt-out legislation, but whether we have the right infrastructure to ensure that where we do have donors, we are maximising the number of organs that become available. Is there the right sharing and transfer of the organs that are available throughout these islands? Many people suggest to me that there is not. That could be looked at, too.

There is also the issue of adoption apology to address. In the previous Parliament, the then Prime Minister told us that he wanted to make an apology in relation to what had happened to people who were forced into orphanages and then transported. There are serious issues between Ireland and Britain in that regard. The whole issue of adoption apology should not be an issue for just one Government; it is a common issue throughout these islands. It is a crying shame in our historical social relationship and it is one that should be addressed.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Mark Durkan and David Winnick

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is unlikely that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I agree on anything, except what we are now debating. We certainly see eye to eye on this question and have done for a considerable time.

The figure of 28 days was not picked out of the air in November 2005, when the maximum period was 14 days and 90 days was proposed. It should be remembered that, in July that year, there had been a massacre—there is no other way to describe it—of 52 innocent people, with others seriously injured. A fortnight later, on 21 July 2005, there was another attempted atrocity. That was the situation that faced the House of Commons when we were debating the issue in November that year. Given those circumstances and the fact that the Government—wrongly in my view—wanted to increase the 14 days to 90 days, it is understandable that the House agreed to 28 days.

As far as I know, no one actually suggested that the 14 days should stay. There was no vote on whether 14 days should remain the status quo. There was more or less agreement—apart from in the Government and among those who supported the Government at the time—that the number of days of pre-charge detention should be doubled from 14 to 28 days. Those were the circumstances in which we debated the issue at the time.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The facts of the situation were that the provision on the face of the Bill was for three months’ detention but at the key stage of the Bill, two amendments were listed. One changed the limit from three months to 90 days and the other changed it to 28 days. Those were the only two options on offer. When the Government’s 90 day amendment was defeated, the 28 day amendment was the only way that anybody had of preventing the limit from staying at three months.

[Mr Winnick]

I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but what I am saying is that there seemed to be general agreement, given the circumstances of the atrocities that occurred in July 2005, that the limit should be increased. However, I do not particularly want to pursue that further because I am now of the view—I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—that we should return to 14 days, because I do not really believe that there is any justification for extending the order for another six months. I know the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench but, again, I disagree with them.

We must always bear it in mind that for non-terrorist cases the maximum remains, rightly, only four days—96 hours. No Government, fortunately, has suggested that there should be any change to that whatsoever. Where terrorism is concerned, we are going beyond the four days allowed in non-terrorist cases—that is crucial. Until 2003, the maximum for terror suspects was just seven days. It has continued to increase—to seven days, 14 days and then 28 days. Fortunately, all attempts to increase it beyond 28 days—first to 90 days and then to 42 days—were defeated. The 42 days provision was passed by a majority of nine in the House of Commons but rightly rejected by the Lords.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has said, there is of course the added provision now that did not exist in 2005—namely, post-charge questioning of terror suspects. That is an important element. The fact that the provision has not come into force is not a reason not to take it into consideration. Only the Home Secretary or the shadow Home Secretary can explain why it has not come into force. If there is a feeling that 14 days is not sufficient and that the terrorist threat remains acute—I could not agree more on the latter—one would have thought that the provision in the Act on post-charge questioning could be brought into force sooner rather than later.

I am the last person in any way to minimise the continued terrorist threat. I have always worked on the assumption that, as the police said at the time, it was a question of not if but when. The police were proved absolutely right, unfortunately and tragically, by the mass murder in July 2005. Surely no one would now say that the threat does not exist to the same level. I do not know if it is smaller or not, but I do know that if al-Qaeda could carry out the sort of atrocities that it carried out the other day in Uganda, it would do so without the slightest hesitation whatsoever. I mention that to make it absolutely clear that in no way do I argue that the terrorist threat does not exist or is minor—far from it. I am sure that the same applies to other hon. Members.

As far as the 28-day period is concerned, the Home Secretary has confirmed today that no one has been held for longer than 14 days since July 2007, so the provision is not in use. One argument for voting against it today is that we need not keep it if it is not absolutely essential. The Home Secretary is on record as saying that she would prefer a period of 14 days, so if that is the position, why not agree to a 14-day period today? Protecting the public from terror must be one of the highest priorities for all concerned, particularly the security services, the police and the Government of the day. The job of Parliament is to ensure that funding is provided to ensure that the police and security services can do their jobs. Obviously, that is essential, but we have another responsibility to protect, as far as possible, our traditional liberties. That is one of the most essential jobs of Parliament. It is relatively easy to defend civil liberties when there is no terrorist threat, but the real challenge is when there is such a threat, be it from the most obvious sources, or from dissident republicans or whoever.

When there is an acute threat, how do we protect the liberties that are so essential to the tradition of our country? The right of an individual not to be held by the police except for a very short time has become very much a part of the tradition of this country. The right of habeas corpus existed even when civil liberties as such did not, so a person could not be held indefinitely. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why I believe that it is not necessary, at this time, to extend the 28-day period. To repeat what I said nearly five years ago, every generation of parliamentarians has the responsibility to make sure that the freedoms and the civil liberties that we inherit from our predecessors should be passed on to our successors. That is important and it is why I have always been very wary of giving the police and the security authorities more power than is absolutely essential.

The Home Secretary said that there was a whipped vote for Labour Members on this issue at the time, and there was, not surprisingly—one would not expect otherwise. However, some of us broke the Whip because we decided that the matter was so important that we should vote against the Government, who were duly defeated. Without being patronising, let me ask Conservative and, perhaps, Liberal Democrat Members something: even if they are whipped today, do they really believe that it is absolutely essential to renew this order? If they do, they will vote with the Government, obviously but if they do not, I hope that they will do what so many Labour Members did in November 2005.