---

House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank all Members who have supported me in this debate. On the support from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think Lenin once said that communists support social democrats as a rope supports a hanging man and we have now seen how Conservatives support Liberal Democrats. I do not want to go into too much detail, as I welcome the fact that he is on record as supporting the principles of the Bill. I have a couple of specific points. In regard to the noble Lord, Lord Laidlaw, I have been quoting from the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which was set up by this House, and that has been very clearly stated by him. I think we shall return to this matter. There is no defence against what the very clear documents of the Appointments Commission show. I did not pluck the calculation of the tax liability of the noble Lord, Lord Laidlaw, out of the air; it is an easy calculation. He built up a business from almost nothing to £768 million and sold it. That will almost all be profit and the minimum tax rate of capital gains in this country is 10 per cent, so it is probably more likely to be £60 million to £70 million. However, £50 million is a very modest figure, which accountants have looked at. It is not plucked out of the air; it is carefully calculated. On Arsenal Football Club and others, there is a big difference. Emmanuel Adebayor is not sitting in this House passing laws for other people. I would be delighted to take him on. Arsène Wenger would actually be a very good Lord, but there is a complete difference. The noble Lord might like to know that, had the Labour Government had the courage to go into the euro and lead a campaign for it, Arsène Wenger was lined up to play a leading part in that campaign. Briefly, I thank the Minister for giving further publicity to the occasional quotes I have been able to get into the newspapers. Clearly, generating public support for measures like this is very important. However, I hope that I did not detect a hint of jealousy, as he sits Googling away in the small hours, in his remarks. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Desai and Lord Jacobs, both raised whether I was being too hard in the Bill on whether the decision should be irrevocable or people could move abroad later. There is a genuine question of principle here. As noble Lords heard, I had a view that if your take a Peerage from the Queen for life, you should pay taxes in Britain for life, whether you move away or not. However, I accept that there are alternative views. I am sure that we can look at that in Committee, but I would not want to make it too easy for people to pop on and off shore when they are Members of the British Parliament. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for his point about the great majority in this country who do not have any choice about what tax they pay. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was her usual immensely clear and penetrating self. The view that this is just an affront to the people of the country sums up the principle very well. I obviously thank my noble friend Lord Wallace for his excellent work on tax justice and trying to get the message across, even in the Financial Times, that it is not right that only ““little people”” should pay taxes. I have always thought that a powerful phrase. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, for his encouragement and support throughout. If my son was not sitting in the Gallery, I might say that I also pay a six-figure tax bill, but I obviously hope that he is not listening. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has proved that he has the choice, and chooses, because he is a British legislator, to pay his tax fully here. That is an example that we should all follow. I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, in supporting the initiative of Angela Merkel. I am glad that, following that, our Government have started to take serious action to investigate Liechtenstein bank accounts. Finally, I thank the Minister for his remarks. He and the Government need to be a little careful about the argument that they cannot do anything about non-doms because they have said that there will be no change for the next two elections. If he thinks about it, he might rather be encouraging us to help the Conservatives get into power next time on that basis, so it is not a particularly good argument. I do not see why the status of Members of this House should be covered by a general undertaking like that. On the Prentice Bill, I am working shoulder to shoulder with him; we are very much operating together. I had two Bills before; there is no question of anyone copying anyone else. Gordon Prentice told me yesterday that he believes that it is likely that this Bill will make more rapid progress than his, but we are very much both on the same page. With that, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their support. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.