I think this Early Day Motion in Parliament deserves wide support, and would chime with many people's sense of what is necessary in public procurement.
It baffles me why such policies do not exist already:
ETHICAL CONSUMER AND USE OF TAX HAVENS BY COMPANIES OPERATING PUBLIC SERVICES
- Session: 2010-12
- Date tabled: 08.11.2011
- Primary sponsor: Lucas, Caroline
- Sponsors:
That this House congratulates Ethical Consumer for its work exposing the poor ethical record of the companies being awarded contracts to run our public services; is deeply concerned that 13 of the 20 companies surveyed avoid tax through the use of tax havens; believes that the huge scale of Government procurement, at around 200 billion a year, has the potential to have a major positive impact on the market for ethical goods and services; notes that whilst the Government has guidelines for reducing its environmental impact through operations and procurement, no such equivalent guidelines exist for wider ethical concerns; and calls on the Government to bring forward a set of legally binding procurement rules that subject companies delivering and bidding for the delivery of public service contracts to high ethical, environmental and anti-tax avoidance standards as measured against the criteria developed by Ethical Consumer.
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:
Dear Richard, You may recall the one of the reasons (the only reason?) the early Thatcher government brought in CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering) was to prevent the GLC and other large Labour Councils from specifying exactly such ethical constraints on Local Government suppliers. No specifiying anti-racist, or pro-feminist or labour-friendly, or any other such criteria. No, under CCT price – and ONLY price – was the effective criterion, once again proving how Thatcherites/neo-liberals are tailor-made to fit the epithet of cynics, since they “know the pricve of everything and the value of nothing”, and certainly not the price of the truly good society. Why need to ask, then, why this has not been the case, since New Labour was just as corrupted by Thatcherite twaddle as the Iron Lady’s own Party was, and is.
Andrew
A perfect reminder of Thatcher’s deep cynicism for all that mattered in life
I had forgotten that aspect of it!
Richard
The Isle of Man recently announced that it is NOT a Tax Haven:- This garble delivered by the island’s Chief Minister Allan Bell MHK and confirmed by no lesser person than President Nicolas Sarkozy,
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/island_exonerated_1_3954881
Any of the 13 out of 20 companies awarded contracts to run our public services surveyed by the Ethical Consumer as avoiding tax via tax havens using the Isle of Man?
And why are the thousands of companies (and banks) registered on the Isle of Man being “supported” by a multitude of “offshore” auditors, lawyers and other “financial services”?
Pigs might fly?
This is a very good idea. It could have mass appeal.
So, please, don’t spoil it with left wing dogma.
The Ethical standards have to be well defined, no PC games
So you’d prefer standard – that is right wing – dogma instead, you know, the stuff that has stuffed us?
Somebody a while ago wrote a piece in the comments section of the Guardian explaining the basis for a lot of the tax haven related deals that the banks do. He was obviously someone that either worked in a bank or a tax lawyer. What surprised me was that he siad the actually tax structuring had nothing to do with the use of the tax havens, it was all about the two non haven countries involved and the tax havens was merely used as a convenient jurisdiction in which to have the vehicle used. And that it could quite easily be done without the tax havens being involved. The other surprising things is that he claimed there was always full disclosure to the tax aurthorities due to the time and cost involved, he even gave an example of a commonly used structure in the UK that HMRC was perfectly happy with mainly because it resulted in the UK getting tax at the expense of the US!!
It’s a lie to say tax is not involved – but sometimes the only tax is stamp duty – which is why it is not done onshore
But because that’s true of some deals it’s not true of all
Hundreds of thousands are tax driven. Do you really believe all you read in the papers?
I don’t doubt that hundreds of thousands are tax driven, but this guys point was that the tax haven leg didn’t need to be there for it to be tax driven, which surprised me. The point I was making is that the companies don’t need the tax havens, so forcing them to stop using them may not achieve anything. Surely if you are trying to hide a tax deal, you don’t then situate with a vehicle in a known tax haven where it is easily visible! i am of course not claiming the tax havens haven’t been used, obviously individuals have used them extensively and non-residents continue to use them for things like property ownership to avoid SDLT.
I am sorry – as ever you make a blanket observation out of the fact that some deals do not need these steps
This extrapolation to a generalisation is just very poor logic – and fundamentally wrong
These massive leaps cannot be supported by evidence – meaning your conclusions are wrong
Sounds remarkably like Guernsey PR …
Imponderables fabricated on imponderables incapable of exact appraisal.
Perhaps the explanation lies in your note:- “He was obviously someone that either worked in a bank or a tax lawyer.”
Which of course would explain everything.
Well at least to those regular readers of this blog.
i will rephrase my previous comment which you must have objected to.
This will kill the Guardians readership if this idea is taken up…………given their known use of tax haven companies.
And you are as ever so far from the truth
It makes no difference to Guardian readers since they are not public authorities
But it would stop gov’t placing adverts in Guardian – and I think all national press – but that shows the power of the idea – you will lose if you do offshore so you won’t
In other words – you prove my case, but as ever you get everything wrong on the way
but why shouldnt this idea be extended to consumers RM – surely all the protestors in their tents would support such an idea…………although obviously they would have to ditch their mobile phones, starbucks snacks and the Guardian.
I dont think the Guardian can afford to give up advertising revenue given their current financial position – so the idea as forumalted would help to kill it off.
It can’t be extended because right now as you point out integration in mainstream life would be just about impossible – so your demand is obviously fatuous and intended as such
Which does not mean that pressure should not be brought to bear by economic players with real clout – like the gov’t to end this abuse
So the government would have to without:
– IT hardware (IBM, Dell, Apple, Cisco all seem to have some business in so-called tax haven)
– IT software (Microsoft)
– Advanced medical devices (General Electric)
– New generation medicines (Merck)
etc., etc., etc.
Do we really want to go back to the stone age (kind of) only because we object to the fact that a large number of (foreign) companies seek to maximize returns for their (non-UK) shareholders?
Not at all
The reality is pressure is brought to bear for reform
And reform would follow