One of the frustrating things about sitting in the House of Commons watching a debate is you're not allowed a computer in the public gallery. The members are below you, but the public aren't. It's another stupid rule to be overturned in the place, but it meant that I could not comment yesterday on the debate on tax avoidance and evasion that took place in the Commons yesterday as I did sit and watch it.
Let me be honest: there were some exceptionally dull speeches yesterday, a number of them (Nigel Mills standing out in this respect, closely followed by Steve Barker and Stephen Williams) by relatively new members, recently ex the tax and related professions and remarkably uninformed despite that. But there were definite moments of interest and I'm not going to apologise for highlighting them this morning in a number of blogs.
However, I should start with a note of thanks to Michael Meacher MP. He secured this debate. It did, of course, happen the day before he presents the second reading of the General Anti-Tax Avoidance Principle Bill that I have written for him, which did feature in debate. He also kindly said of me during the debate, referring to that Bill:
It was prepared and drafted by Richard Murphy, one of the founding members of the Tax Justice Network and, I can say without any exaggeration, one of the country's leading tax accountants.
It is fair to say that not everyone agrees.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
[…] I’ve already mentioned yesterday’s debate in the Commons on tax avoidance and evasion. There were, as I noted, some highlights. Catherine McKinnell provided some during the Labour front bench response.  It was the first time I’d seen her at the Dispatch Box. […]
Interesting to hear that Stephen Williams was speaking, as he’s my MP. Just read the transcript. It’s slightly depressing that he’s the token ‘expert’ in the debate — he doesn’t show it. He just mouths the coalition line that avoidance is bad and so we should follow the Aaronson report since that’ll have all the answers and in the meantime we should stop paying cash-in-hand at B&Bs. Argh!
He was very, very lame
John Pugh was better for the LDs and Simon Hughes’ interventions better still
Good to know. I wrote to him a few days ago asking him to support Meacher’s bill. I’ll be interested to see what he says in reply.
“It is fair to say that not everyone agrees.”
When you rattle the cages of powerful vested interests you are going to make enemies of them and their bag carriers (I think we all know of whom I speak).
Take it as a marker of success and drive ever onward!