I have posted Ed Miliband's speech on tax avoidance this afternoon in full because it touches on so many issues on which I have campaigned and some which are solely down to me. In the circumstances I think that fair. But it does also need a detailed response.
I am not going to touch much on the detailed policy issues to which he refers: I have already done that, here. The one thing that I should add is that Ed Miliband has said something this afternoon that was not in announcements earlier this week, and that is that he has made a commitment to additional resources for HMRC; that is very welcome indeed and absolutely essential.
What I am going to do is welcome three other things.
The first is the fact that Ed Miliband is saying these things. Five years ago it would have been impossible to imagine any politician addressing issues in this way. It would also been impossible to imagine tax avoidance being so high on the political agenda, although it had emerged by that time. In that case the very fact that Ed Miliband has been willing to take this issue on is vital. The fact that he has been willing to continue with it despite personal criticism, and will, I hope, continue despite the fact that, inevitably, the right-wing press will be fighting back, including, no doubt, with exposure of tax avoidance behaviour by Labour MPs or donors, is also vital. This issue has to be seen as much more than a case of "who did what, where, and when" and should instead be addressed as an issue that is fundamental to justice, as I and others in civil society have long argued.
In that case, secondly, I welcome Ed Miliband's suggestion that this issue is about equality of treatment for everyone in this country because tax justice is nothing less than a human rights issue. I also welcome the fact that he makes it quite clear that this is also an issue of economic justice: he makes clear free riding is unacceptable. He also very clearly understands that providing preference to some taxpayers and businesses at the expense of others also undermines the chance of honest business in this country being able to compete on a level playing field. As such it is clear that he understands that having an honest tax authority in the UK is fundamental to the creation of fair, honest, open and effective markets in this country, and that is good news.
And in that case the review that he has announced using the following words is especially welcome:
That's why Ed Balls and I are today announcing an independent, root and branch review of the culture and practice of HMRC when it comes to tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
While this government has had five years of inaction, we will begin from the first days we are in government and it will report within three months.
It will shine a light on parts of our tax system that have been shrouded in secrecy under this government.
But, and I stress this point very strongly, that review has to be seen to be effective. That means it cannot, in any circumstance, be led by somebody who is currently holding a senior position in the private tax sector or big business or any organisation linked to or sponsored by it. It is the undue influence of that private tax sector and big business that has pushed HMRC into its current state where it is out of control. As a consequence whilst it would, of course, be appropriate to consult with the private tax sector, they cannot be seen to have control of this review. It is also vital that those who put this issue onto the agenda ( and I will be quite clear, this does include Richard Brooks, John Christensen, some NGOs, and me) must be consulted by any such review if it is to have any chance whatsoever of being considered credible. When it is now very clear that we been right on so many issues, for so long, if our voices are not heard then this review would be bound to fail any public acceptability test.
What is more, the brief for the review cannot be restricted. It would, for example, be absurd to say that the review could only look at the way in which HMRC handled tax evasion or avoidance cases, without looking at the issue of resources, the estimation of the scale of the problem, the range of legislative responses currently available, and the need for better information that may impact upon other government departments, or the private sector. A broad scope is, therefore, essential, and any review must be invited to offer any recommendation it considers appropriate, without restriction.
There is at this moment a golden opportunity to reform the way in which we run our tax authority in the UK, created by its obvious failure to act appropriately, and by the obvious ability of the private sector to exploit HMRC's weaknesses to create advantage on behalf of the few in society. We must take that opportunity for change, and use it well. Anything less than a review that is permitted to suggest a complete overhaul of the structure, governance, management, systems and audit of HMRC will not meet that brief.
That is a tough demand in the 90 days that Ed Miliband has said will be available for this review, but it is deliverable if the review team is competent, kept tight, is provided with adequate administrative resource, and is driven by people who are solution focused and have the necessary experience of tax, governance, management and law to deliver thorough recommendations. I'm sure that such people are available, and a review team of no more than five should be involved in this process, but with a minimum of three being necessary to ensure that balance and a broad perspective is shown to be the basis for the recommendations made.
I look forward to it having a chance to get to work. And to giving evidence.
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:
miliband’s commitment is a big step in the right direction, and I entirely agree with you about the composition of the enquiry panel – we really must `avoid` the usual faces getting their ore in.
Can’t tell you how pleased I am with this move by EdM. I think he really is on to a winner here. I liked this analysis in the Morning Star: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a15e-Medias-feeble-tax-plot-fails#.VN-DLi5W-zk
I welcome Mr Miliband’s stance on tax avoidance, even if it does bring exposure to Labour MPs. Lords and supporters. If Miliband continues, despite the inevitable onslaught it will only tell the public one thing, he really is prepared to do something “without fear or favour!”. No PM can be held responsible for what their MPs and supporters/donors do do, what they can be held responsible for is how they act when it’s discovered and here David Cameron falls woefully short.
I’m not looking for an X-factor PM, I’m looking for w someone who is solid, strong, honest and has integrity, even if it means exposing his own party, guess what I’m looking g for is country before party. I think we at last have this in Ed Miliband.
Would not a root and branch review of what has to be the most complex tax system in the world, be more appropriate? A simpler, more rational, system would make evasion and avoidance more difficult and people who currently engage in tax planning might be persuaded that there is little or no benefit in complicated arrangements. Oh, and Ed should come clean about his own couple of tax planning escapades, rather than mud slinging.
Neil, Richard has responded to the ‘make it simpler’ troll many times.
It’s not a troll – it’s an entirely valid point of view as part of the debate. You and Richard may not agree but…..
It’s only valid if your aim is to create giant loopholes
I don’t entirely disagree with Neil, in the sense that it would be possible to make some simplifications which improve progressivity of the tax system – for example income tax and NICs could be merged into a single tax, as Richard and I recommended in a paper for CLASS a couple of years back. Having said that, a lot of the complexity of the system emerges from efforts to prevent tax avoidance, rather than the other way round. Many of the avoiders are very sophisticated. A General Anti Avoidance Rule, as proposed in a private members bill by Michael Meacher MP, would be the best way to reduce the extent of tax avoidance.
Howard
We also suggested merging NIC with IT
And a basic income
That is a way to simplification
I agree
Richard
I don’t agree with the merging of NICs and Income Tax. NICs should be more clearly defined as contribution to State Pension, in which case it should clearly be only applied to income from work at a single rate, or at least not the crazy system we have now. The rate would need to be bumped up massively over time whilst concessions to private pension provision is withdrawn (simply because private pension schemes are part of the inefficient financial gambling club). Bring back SERPS! Since this contribution would be paid by workers only, it could arguably be used to fund unemployment benefits.
The term ‘National Insurance’ could be used for a hypothecated ‘tax’ to fund health and social care so people could understand what their contribution is for.
There were 3 separate reviews of the taxation system started when Labour were last in power: The Fabian Society Tax Commission of 2000, Mirrlees 2011 and an earlier one by Nicholas Stern, commissioned by Labour but never published (I’m trying to get it released under FoI, but don’t hold out much hope). There does indeed need to be a root and branch reform of the UK tax system.
I confess that I am surprised Richard differs with Carol on this point because I thought Richard was in favour of NICs remaining separate from IT.
The only reason I thought this was because when I suggested it would be a great simplification back in December 2011 he disagreed, his reasoning being:
“Because the contributory principle is vital and pensioners suffer in a merger”
People will only accept National Insurance as funding health and social care if those things aren’t available to people that haven’t paid National Insurance, but I don’t think that is practical. In the meantime people will continue to see it as a tax.
The condition for merging is a basic income
Without that additional step I would not agree with merger
And tax pays for pensions and the NHS and not NIC
So you think complexity is the answer? That’s just silly. The simpler, and better defined the rules are, the harder it is to find loopholes. But I suppose a simple system wouldn’t require too many accountants and economists 🙂
See my reply to Howard