argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew John Bower Mitchell (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with such a narrow, partisan comment. Britain was the first G8 country to stand by its commitment to the poorest people in the world, and we are very proud that it was this Government who did it The highly respected Africa Progress Panel, in a recent study on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made it clear that stolen funds and stolen taxes cost that country £1.5 billion, which is more than it spends on health and education. It is a deep irony that some of the world’s poorest people live on top of some of the richest real estate, as is clear in the DRC. Credible World Bank studies make it clear that the money stolen from the people of Africa through unpaid taxes or concealment dwarfs all the foreign direct investment and international development money that flows into Africa each year.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): We know a lot of that money ends up not in the overseas territories but in places like Dubai. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need to engage with other partners around the world, particularly in places like Dubai, where a lot of this money is to be found?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew John Bower Mitchell (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend makes a good point; the key point on all of this is transparency and openness. Let all these matters be published in the way they are published through the open register in Britain. That is the way in which we make progress We look to the Government to advance this agenda, probably in the Finance Bill. We hope that those on the Treasury Bench will hear clearly the will of the House on this matter today and that progress will indeed now be made.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Thomas Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I did not expect to be called so early I am a little at a loss about what we are trying to achieve here: is this about tax evasion or is it about offshore companies? The reality is that offshore companies are legal entities, and a lot of them, especially across the Commonwealth countries and the overseas territories, have been set up using HMRC guidelines. That has to be clarified here and now: is this about tax avoidance per se or is it about overseas territories having tax advantages? What is it about? Yesterday, when the debate was being granted, I was standing to the side of you, Mr Speaker, and I was absolutely of the mind that this was about overseas territories or tax evasion under certain forms of tax advantages in certain countries. The UK can do its bit, as it is doing and as this Government have done The Labour Government did very little for 13 years, to be quite frank. Now, it is about the perception of who pays the taxes in this country. I can give the House a basic economic argument. It is like a piggy bank. Someone earns their money and puts it in an offshore piggy bank, and they pay tax on it at source and when they take it back into this country. So there is really no tax evasion there I can remember the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Isle of Man Government. I have lot of time for the Isle of Man Government and they have a lot of links to my constituency. The problem I have is that the Isle of Man is the most highly regulated offshore tax haven, if we want to call it that, in the whole world The Isle of Man Government told me: "Amongst other things, the Customs and Excise Agreement removes the need for customs barriers between the Isle of Man, the UK and the EU"— even the EU is loth to draft any legislation on this matter— "and makes the Island part of the European VAT territory. The Agreement also makes provision for the Revenue Sharing Agreement (RSA), the agreed formula by which VAT and most other indirect tax revenues are split between the UK and the Isle of Man." On the subject of private jets, the Isle of Man Government told me: "Since 2011, Isle of Man Customs and Excise has raised more than 30 assessments for under-declared or over-claimed VAT against businesses in the aircraft leasing sector, protecting approximately £4.7million of VAT" for the Exchequer. So what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about reforming tax laws or reforming tax havens? I might add that most tax havens in overseas territories have been sorted out by this House I shall keep it short, Mr Speaker, but I think that this debate is a grand waste of time. More to the point, it is confusing to the public.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Nigel John Mills (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the hon. Lady exactly, but the point I was trying to make was that I do not think that the size of the tax gap is down to a lack of effort or attempts to introduce new rules or measures. The problem is that the avoiders and evaders are perhaps one step ahead and move on to different things. That is why the Panama papers and the Paradise papers show that people are now just going offshore, or finding artificial ways to go offshore, rather than trying to do artificial domestic planning to get around the rules.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I was not aware of that so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention The broad point—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned this earlier—is that we should look to have cross-party agreement on this. I think that we all agree on the simple point that taxpayers want a system where all companies, particularly the biggest, pay their fair share of tax. What concerns me about stories such as the Paradise papers is that there is a huge amount of associated hyperbole, giving the impression that the system is not bringing in as much tax as it could when, in fact, that is not the case Quite simply, I would like a system where we reward success. We must never have a system that discourages enterprise, as we need enterprising businesses to generate the wealth that funds public services. The Government are getting the balance right. We should not get the impression from this debate and from all the leaks in the papers that the Government are failing to get a grip on the issue.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
Craig Mackinlay (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to have caught your eye Much of this issue has an international dimension. We have done more than any previous Government on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, creating capital gains tax for foreign ownership sales and ending non-dom status. We have opened up shared beneficial ownership information through the OECD and the base erosion and profit shifting initiative. We have introduced the diverted profits tax, so that when there is insufficient economic substance to transactions—particularly where intellectual property is held abroad—and undue payments are made to foreign jurisdictions, that can be stopped and taxed accordingly. We have stopped the shifting of debt interest to the UK to prevent artificial deductions in the UK However, there is one tax haven I am really rather proud of, and that is the one for the lower paid in this country. We have created a very low-tax environment for the very low paid. When we look at what Labour did between 1997 and 2010, we see there was a rather paltry increase in the personal allowance from just £4,045 to £6,475 over 13 years. In our seven years in government, we have increased that to £11,500. That is a serious tax cut for every low-paid person We are doing something similar with companies, and that, to me, is the key to this. I would like to encourage more companies back to the UK so that they can pay their fair share of tax, and that is being done. In 2010, the corporation tax take was £35 billion, but it is now up to £53 billion. Of course, the wealthy in the UK—the top 1%—pay 28% of all income tax, which is higher than at any time In this debate, we must not lose an understanding of what foreign jurisdictions and so-called tax havens are there for. They are actually essential in the mix of international trade. For instance, it is not uncommon for a French investing company to choose the Caymans or the British Virgin Islands as the place of contract for a deal to invest in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Though I have great respect for the legal system of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the legal system and common law of the UK are what create legal certainty. These things are not always about saving tax or avoiding tax; they are about trying to make transactions in the right place So let us bear down on egregious tax planning. Let us continue the promotion of data sharing with our international partners. Let us make sure that global profits are taxed in the right place. And let us use our influence on our overseas territories. The Conservative party is doing those things more than the Labour party did in 13 years in government.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
James Philip Duddridge (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you heard from the Foreign Office of an intention for a Minister to come to the House to make a statement on what appears to be an ongoing coup in Zimbabwe?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have received no indication from any Minister from the Foreign Office or any other Department of an intention to make a statement on that matter. However, what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been of great interest to Members in all parts of the House, and, importantly, his remarks will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Knowing him as I do, with his interest in and experience of this subject, I have a feeling that we will hear more about the matter before very long. Meanwhile, he has put his point very firmly on the record.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords, which is of course unelected and which itself decided to pass the European Union Referendum Act 2015, really has no justification whatsoever for attempting to obstruct, delay or undermine this Bill?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Government Operations
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with close attention. Part of the leave argument was to take back control—not just to the House of Commons, but to the country and Parliament as a whole. Is he now trying to undermine the bicameral system?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman has been a political ally of mine in previous cross-party arrangements, but not on this occasion. He has dodged answering the perfectly serious point that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just put to him. As things stand, article 50 will take effect in March 2019 and we will leave. Anything in the Bill is superfluous to that. A problem could arise only if—and this is possible—28 member states all agree that they are near to a conclusion but that they require a few more days or weeks to settle it. Once we are going they will not want us to stay in much longer, because they will not want us around for the European Parliament elections. However, it would be utterly foolish if 28 Governments all agreed to extend the process and the British representative had to say, "But we’ve put into British law a timing that says, to the second, when we are actually leaving." That seems to me a rather serious flaw in the proposed new clause.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know he is concluding. I want to make a simple point. The whole argument about having flexibility falls when we look at article 50 itself. It was very specific for a very simple reason, which is that the timescale determines that those who are negotiating must reach, or agree not to reach, an agreement. Simply changing the timescale will not allow them to reach an agreement; they have the time to do it. That is the whole point about compression—to get an agreement. That is why the date was prompted by article 50.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I very much hope that my voice makes it through these remarks I rise to support clause 1 stand part and to speak to Government amendments 381, 382 and 383. It may help the House and members of the public if I say that the decisions on those amendments will be taken on days seven and eight. Clause 1 reads: "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day." It is a simple clause, but it could scarcely be more significant. In repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the clause will be a historic step in delivering our exit from the European Union, in accordance with last year’s referendum. I hope that all people on all sides of this issue can agree that the repeal of the Act is a necessary step as we leave the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to seeing whether Opposition Members support clause 1 stand part If we were not to repeal the European Communities Act, we would still, from the perspective of EU law, exit the European Union at the end of the article 50 process, but there would be confusion and uncertainty about the law on our own statute book. For example, it would be unclear whether UK or EU law would take precedence if there was a conflict between them. The status of new EU law would also be unclear once the UK left the EU I intend first to set out briefly the effect of the European Communities Act on our legal system and the implications of its repeal. The UK is a "dualist" state, meaning that a treaty, even when ratified, does not alter our laws unless it is incorporated into domestic law by legislation. Parliament must pass legislation before the rights and obligations in a treaty have effect in our law. The European Communities Act gave EU law supremacy over UK law. Without it, EU law would not apply in the UK. The 1972 Act has two main provisions. Section 2(1) ensures rights and obligations in the EU treaties and regulations are directly applicable in the UK legal system. They apply directly without the need for Parliament to pass specific domestic implementing legislation. This bears repeating in the context of the clauses to follow.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Government Operations
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Minister agree that this simple crucial clause is the way in which our democracy is completely restored and that once it has gone through and been implemented any matter that worries the British people can properly be the subject of parliamentary debate and decisions, no laws and treaties withstanding?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has perhaps anticipated my speech by a few paragraphs UK Ministers and Ministers in the devolved Administrations have made nearly 6,000 domestic regulations under section 2(2) on topics as disparate as air fares, public contracts and preserved sardines. The House, of course, has not remained supine in absorbing all this legislation. We have benefited from the tireless work of the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It has scrutinised a vast number of EU documents, supporting this House in holding Ministers to account when representing our interests in the EU. Its work has been of paramount importance in holding Ministers to account and maximising the voice of this House on EU matters. On occasions, deliberations in this House have influenced the laws adopted by the EU, but ultimately this House was, on every occasion, obliged to implement our EU obligations. We could not refuse new EU law because of our obligations to the EU.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend accept that most of this legislation is proposed by the Commission, considered by the Council of Ministers, including a British Minister, and, nowadays, approved by the European Parliament before it becomes law? Can he name a significant European law or regulation that was opposed by the British Government at the time, which the Government are now proposing to repeal? Most Brexiteers cannot think of one.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that those who accuse the Government of a power grab would be very happy for unelected EU officials to continue to exercise these powers, rather than an elected Government accountable to this elected Parliament?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): In response, vicariously to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), may I point out that most decisions taken by the Council of Ministers are effectively made by consensus behind closed doors, with no record of who said what, how the decision was arrived at, or, unlike this House, with no record of any of the proceedings either?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I thoroughly recommend the report of his Committee relating to that subject I think what has been established in this sequence of interventions is that clause 1 could scarcely be of greater constitutional significance. It will repeal the 1972 Act on exit day, removing the mechanism that allows EU law to flow automatically into UK law, and remove one of the widest-ranging powers ever placed on the statute book of the United Kingdom. The repeal makes it clear and unarguable that sovereignty lies here in this Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy that we have announced the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will follow in due course, to establish that legal basis, but for the moment I want to conclude this section of my remarks and move on to the amendments.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): Not just now. [Hon. Members: "Ooh!] I have given way quite a few times. I am now going to make some progress and get on to the amendments How we exercise this restored power in the future will be a choice for this place. The Government are clear that we want a smooth and orderly exit, achieved through continuity in the law at the point of exit, as we shall discuss at later stages. For now, I hope that all Members can agree that it is essential that clause 1 stand part of the Bill I now turn to today’s amendments. It is fitting that the first amendment debated in Committee is from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). He has got to the heart of the matter of when we leave the EU.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not accept that at all. When the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council in March, she set in train the defined two-year process of article 50, which, unless extended by unanimity, will conclude on 29 March 2019. That is why the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU on that day. That is the Government’s policy.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said, I would like to make some progress The Government have, however, listened carefully to the debate about the setting of exit day for the statutory purposes of the Bill. There has been some uncertainty about whether the exit day appointed in the Bill would correspond to the day the UK leaves the EU at the end of the article 50 process. The Government sympathise with this uncertainty. This is also an issue on which the Lords Constitution Committee opined in its report in September. It stated: "We are concerned that the power to define ‘exit day’—a matter that is pivotal to the operation of the Bill—is unduly broad in its scope and flexibility, and that it is not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny procedure." Such concerns were further voiced by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on Second Reading, not least regarding the breadth of the power potentially to set numerous exit days. In fact, there has been a notable disconnect, as we perhaps saw earlier, between Labour Front and Back Benchers on this issue. While several of its Back Benchers have submitted amendments and raised concerns about exit day, its Front-Bench team seem to have refused to acknowledge the need to establish clarity We would like to put this issue to rest. We recognise the importance of being crystal clear on the setting of exit day and are keen to provide the certainty that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and others are seeking. In the light of this, the Government have tabled amendment 381 to clause 14, along with the consequential amendments 382 and 383, which will set exit day at 11 pm on 29 March 2019. Of course, this is slightly different to his amendment, in that it sets a time as well as a date for exit.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I forget for the moment whether the hon. Lady voted for the triggering of article 50, but the House did trigger article 50, and the process is quite clear: two years after that, we leave the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I will come to the implementation period in a moment, but one of the crucial points is that we need to become a third country in order to conclude our future relationship agreement. The Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech the outline of that implementation period, which would allow practical continuity under new arrangements that would enable us to be a third country and conclude the future relationship agreement.