Tax Avoidance Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury
Wednesday 11th February 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me put it this way. It was, and is, the case that UK residents can have bank accounts in Switzerland without committing any illegal acts. It is also the case that a Swiss bank can provide banking services to a UK resident without committing any wrongdoing. It was the case, in terms of what was known at that time, that a disc was acquired by HMRC relating to HSBC accounts. The question that HMRC was asking was whether the UK residents whose names were listed within those data had paid the tax they should have. Were they declaring their income as required under UK law? That was what the investigation was about. [Interruption.] I am afraid that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) is making a non-point. It was known that there was an investigation into HSBC account holders—that was in the public domain. However, regarding the evidence we have seen of, for example, bricks of cash being handed out and advice being given to keep several steps ahead of the taxman who is dealing with tax evasion, that information has come to light in the public domain—and, indeed, to Ministers—in the past few days.

Ian C. Lucas Portrait Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

If the information was in the public domain, will the Minister answer the question that the Prime Minister refused to answer four times today? Did the Prime Minister discuss these matters with Lord Green when he appointed him to the Government?

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The position is this: Lord Green was appointed in January 2011 and at that point the information about the fact that there was an investigation into HSBC account holders was in the public domain. There was no big secret about that. Of course, I was not privy to the specific conversations that were held, but there is no suggestion that Lord Green had acted improperly, that he was complicit in tax evasion or that he was involved in this particular activity. That could not be clearer.

--- Later in debate ---
David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and the fact that some Opposition Members do not appear to agree with it is troubling. The role of the Government is to set out the policy. Our philosophy is clear: individuals and businesses must pay what they owe, just like the vast majority of UK taxpayers. That point has been reiterated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor again and again. Aggressive tax planning and, indeed, tax evasion are simply not acceptable. As I will set out, this Government have a proud record on that front.

Ian C. Lucas Portrait Ian Lucas
- Hansard - -

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), but let me come back to the question of what the Prime Minister discussed with Lord Green about the political matter of his appointment as a Minister, and these allegations. Why will the Prime Minister not tell us whether he had conversations with Lord Green about these matters?

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have nothing further to say on that point. The position is that Lord Green was appointed as a trade Minister. His appointment was supported across this House; many people from both sides of the House welcomed it.