The United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill had its second reading in parliament yesterday, as I noted at the time. Michael Meacher presented the Bill with an able speech, but it was clear from the start of business on the day that the Tories were intent on talking the Bill out so that a vote could not be reached.
An uncontested Bill - the Deep Sea Mining Bill - was filibustered so that its unopposed second reading took almost four hours of parliamentary time. The MPs responsible were Tory Minister Alistair Burt and Tory MPs Barry Gardiner, David Nuttall (especially), Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Of the latter the Speaker had to say at one point:
Order. I am all agog at the racy and intoxicating oration that the hon. Gentleman is delivering to the House, but I have two concerns. First, if the hon. Gentleman leads a lengthy sojourn, either accompanied or unaccompanied, in the terms that he describes, he may be sorely missed in North East Somerset. Secondly, I feel sure that, ere long, notwithstanding the quite legendary eloquence that the hon. Gentleman has thus far deployed, he will turn his attention to the contents of the Deep Sea Mining Bill itself.
The result was that only just over an hour was available to the House to debate the Bill I had drafted for Michael.
Michael's argument can perhaps be summarised in the following quote:
It is no exaggeration to say that the effect of these measures on the UK system's capability would be nothing less than transformational. We have repeatedly been shocked by multinational corporations and their armies of City lawyers and accountants regularly running rings around the UK tax authorities–sometimes, one might think, with the apparent complicity of Government–but that is not inevitable or irreversible. My Bill will redress a massive injustice in tax burdens, put a stop to enormous tax abuse by large companies which has persisted for far too long and make a huge contribution to reducing the budget deficit. I commend it to the House.
The aim of the Bill is simple: it is to beat tax avoidance and tax evasion by transparency. It asks no one to pay a penny of tax they do not owe; what it does demand is that companies pay what they owe, and no more.
But not only had the Tories tried to talk the Bill out before debate even started, they did so again once the debate got under way. Jacob Rees-Mogg was on his feet again straight away, saying:
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), partly because I disagree with almost everything he has said, but also because it is rather refreshing that Opposition Members are willing to say it. Most of them hide their true socialist credentials, but the right hon. Gentleman is a socialist red in tooth and claw. That is admirable, because it gives us on the Conservative Benches something to get our teeth into and oppose.
And so we got a political response that ignored what the Bill says. Instead we had this form Rees-Mogg (again):
[This Bill} would undermine the right of property–again a fundamental right that we ought to enjoy. Going back to the Magna Carta, the Crown cannot take property away from people unless there is a judgment–a judgment in a court–against them; it cannot be done on the basis of some failure to meet some bureaucratic standard. This seems to me to illustrate where the Conservative, a believer in the rights of property and a believer in the individual, stands up against the socialist, a believer in the collective and the rights of the collective to override the rights of property. I stand four-square in favour of the rights of property and four-square, too, in favour of the rights of the Crown dependencies, by and large, to regulate their own affairs.
This is utter nonsense. The right to enjoy an income stream is entirely dependent upon having paid the tax due on it. And this Bill would make it clearer who had and had not done that - so creating a level playing field on which all honest businesses could operate.
But Rees-Mogg and those Tories who followed him opposed the creation of that foundation for honest business in this country. Which says a great deal about their supposed commitment to free enterprise, which is in fact a commitment to the anarchy of a free for all in which those who abuse most, and even break the law, win most.
If opposing that is being a socialist, so be it: I'm proud to be accused of being so in that case.
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 am not a socialist, but I agree that Jacob Rees-Mogg was talking utter nonsense. You only have to hand over money to the Crown out of your income if the law says so, you can go to court to dispute a tax assessment, and none of this would be changed by a proposal to make some people and companies disclose additional information. Your bill gave the power to raise assessments (clause 8(3)(b)) and to make regulations which imposed penalties, but those assessments and penalties would still presumably have been subject to the normal opportunities for appeal, claims of innocent mistake, and so on. The “joint and several” point in clause 8(3)(b) might have needed further consideration, particularly when it came to the question of appeals against the liability falling on one person rather than another, but that could have been sorted out in Committee.
More generally, talking bills out is the tactic of the playground. It is very disappointing that Parliamentary procedure allows it to happen at all. If MPs are opposed to a bill, they should stay in the House to vote against it, not rely on their mates to use such underhand means to kill it off. If votes are held at inconvenient times, Parliament should reform its working hours.
Thanks
Good points, well made
It’s really one big playground filled to the rafters with overgrown (public) schoolboys. They have no shame.
I think Rees-Mogg argument is on one level nonsense, but on an another, “the leopard is showing its spots”. These comments of his should be preserved for posterity and used as ammunition against the Cameron government; because although they (the Tories)have publicly decried tax evasion and tax crime, their true feelings are “Who cares?”. What they are basically arguing is that’s ok to tax the lower and middle classes, but the upper classes should be ‘free’ to follow their ‘dreams’.
By the way this Rees-Mogg is related to William Rees-Mogg is he not? Truly following in his father’s ideology.
He’s his son….
Rees-Mogg essentially arguing that tax is theft, there. What a guy.
If *additional* powers to prevent tax avoidance are an affront to the property rights of the individual citizen then surely it follows that all powers to prevent tax avoidance are wrong and that tax itself is illegitimate.
Pah, there’s no use trying to reason with these people.
Another wretchedly awful Tory MP who gets away with it by playing the role of the adorable, buffoonish toff to placate the easily distracted.
That is exactly what he said, I think
it must be disappointing for you and Michael after all your hard work. The bill was not defeated on its arguments but by manipulation of rules and underhand tactics.
The opposition to it is plainly defence of sectional interests over that of the country. I would call myself a patriot (not a nationalist: the old saying is patriots love their country and nationalists hate other people’s)and it’s a pity that the party which is the most keen to wave the union flag, doesn’t live up to that concept of the common good. As Dr. Johnson said “the last refuge of a scoundrel is to warp himself in the flag”-or, I would add, invoke Magna Carta!
(although the Great Charter was written, in the main, by the barons to protect their interests and re-interpreted later. Sorry, the former history teacher just popped out)
Ian
The chance of getting this through was always low
But the debate goes on – and that is vital
BIS have noticed it. And I’m being asked to talk about it to professional bodies
There is a long way to go yet
And there will be further opportunities to debate this when the government’s own legislation on the issue is tabled. I expect my Bill will then be tabled as an amendment
Richard
I don’t believe these guys anymore, it’s all smoke and no cigar.
It just crossed my mind that my tax is used to pay Jacob Rees Mogg’s salary. But then I thought I had better check the register of member’s interests. I suspect he hardly needs my contribution.
1. Directorships
Somerset Capital Management LLP (partner), 146 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9TR; investment management
March 2012, received £11,090.24. Hours: 35 hrs. (Registered 23 July 2012)
April 2012, received £11,092.22. Hours: 35 hrs. (Registered 23 July 2012)
May 2012, received £11,091.26. Hours: 35 hrs. (Registered 12 June 2012
June 2012, received £11,140.33. Hours: 35 hrs. (Registered 16 July 2012)
July 2012, received £11,141.53 for 35 hours work. (Registered 9 August 2012)
Received £11,137.85. Hours: 35 hours in August 2012. (Registered 27 September 2012)
Received £11,133.93. Hours: 35 hours in September 2012. (Registered 12 October 2012)
Received £11,134.48. Hours: 35 hours in October 2012. (Registered 27 November 2012)
Received £11,135.10. Hours: 35 hours in November 2012. (Registered 14 January 2013)
Received £11,134.32. Hours: 35 hours in December 2012. (Registered 14 January 2013)
Received £11,132.70. Hours: 35 hours in January 2013. (Registered 4 February 2013)
Received £11,134.15. Hours: 35 hours in February 2013. (Registered 11 April 2013)
Received £11,135.45. Hours: 35 hours in March 2013. (Registered 15 April 2013)
Received £11,135.80. Hours: 35 hours in April 2013. (Registered 3 May 2013)
Somerset Capital Management Ltd; investment management
Somerset Capital Management Singapore PTE Ltd; investment management
2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
Payment of £75 from Drew University, 36 Madison Avenue, Madison, NJ07940, USA, for speaking to students of the University. Hours: 30 mins. Payment donated to local organisation. (Registered 29 November 2012)
8 February 2013, I received a case of wine worth £148 from Devonshire House, One Heddon Street, London W1B 4BD, for speaking at an event for them on 31 January 2013. Hours: 1 hr. (Registered 4 March 2013)
Payment of £270 received on 12 April 2013 from the Telegraph Media Group, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT, for an article published in the Daily Telegraph on 27 March 2013. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 24 April 2013)
3. Clients
Of Somerset Capital Management (SCM):
Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund, Adelaide Street West, Suite 2400 P.O. Box 23, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1T1.
The Chestnut Fund; investment fund. (Registered 27 November 2012)
8. Land and Property
Farmhouse, land and related buildings in Somerset, from which rental income is received.
Residential property in London, from which rental income is received.
9. Shareholdings
(a) and (b) Saliston Ltd; holding company
(a) and (b) Somerset Capital Management LLP; investment management
Register last updated: 7 May 2013.
I didn’t agree with everything in your bill, but the concept was good.
Not sure I can say much more than what has already ben said here – My summary is tha the whole system for the hearing of private members bills, and the schoolboy/playground antics of many MP’s leaves much to be desired. It was a shame it was not properly debated at least.
I think I saw there was a proposal to reform the hearing of private members bills – have set/scheduled time for debate of bills post some vetting procedure presumably. That has got to be a good thing, but I am not sure it will cure the schoolboy problem.
I shall be very interested in your follow through, particularly in how you will build a consensus to actually achieve change. OK it is an achievement to get a Bill so far,
the reactions so far being utterly predictable.I just hope your next steps are not dogged by its birth being stained as Left wing nonsense. Personally I think you should have got the professions on board first, (it was not impossible), but it’s your baby, I just hope you have not still born it.
I await to see the professions responses to the BIS transparency consultation
You would expect nothing less from Rees-Mogg.
Democracy and transparency leading to an equitable division of the nation’s tax bill between “capital” and “labour” is socialism.
The same attitude classes “corporate welfare” and “tax breaks” for the extremely wealthy as “business incentives”.
Isn’t that “doublespeak”?
I wonder what Orwell would have made of current events had he been alive today?
Anyone for corporate totalitarianism?
Last word. You should not have to be doing this kind of thing. If we had an effective and talented HM Revenue & Customs leadership and the organization was properly run and resourced then they ought to be e pushing for the kind of reforms you advocate.
Some of us in the Accountancy profession know how useless HM Revenue & Customs is
at tackling Evasion (and the Treasury)- albeit under working onerous conditions – it’s just that it is thought it is bad for our business if we raise our heads above the parapets to say so.
Thanks