As GSK is exposed, the government must clamp down on tax dodging

Panorama adds another company to the list of tax-dodgers

The BBC’s Panorama tonight will add to a long list of allegations of corporate tax dodging. Companies like GlaxoSmithKline, which Panorama claims has used complex offshore structures to avoid millions in UK tax, now join Barclays, Vodafone, Amazon, Apple, Boots, SABMiller and Topshop (amongst others), accused of aggressive tax avoidance.  In a time of austerity, public anger continues to grow against those companies believed to be operating under different rules to the rest of us. 

In an interview last year, GSK’s own chief executive Andrew Witty lamented that:

one of the reasons we've seen an erosion of trust, broadly, in big companies is they've allowed themselves to be seen as being detached from society and they will float in and out of societies according to what the tax regime is. I think that's completely wrong.

Recent polling by ActionAid supports this view (pdf): 79 per cent of UK citizens want to see tougher action from government against tax avoidance. This is an issue that unites voters from all parties; 74 per centof Conservative voters, 83 per cent of Labour voters and 87 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters want to see tax loopholes for big multinationals closed.

Rhetorically at least, the government has responded. George Osborne branded aggressive tax avoidance "morally repugnant" in this year’s Budget speech.  But at the very same time, tucked away in the technical detail of the Budget, are changes that would actually water down the UK’s anti-avoidance rules for multinationals, making it easier for them to avoid taxes. 

These "Controlled Foreign Company Rules" have protected the UK tax base for the last 25 years, making it less lucrative for companies to siphon profits into tax havens, as HMRC have simply topped up the company’s overall tax rate to match the standard UK rate.

While some have inevitably found loopholes in these rules, they’ve been an important tool to discourage profit shifting into tax havens. Not only have they helped protect the UK tax base – they’ve also protected developing countries from tax avoidance by UK companies.

The Government's new proposals in the Finance Bill, currently being scrutinised in parliament, will radically alter this. The Treasury's own figures show they’ll lose revenues of almost £1bn as a result.

Developing countries, meanwhile, could lose as much as £4bn a year – almost half the UK aid budget. The OECD estimates that developing countries currently lose three times more to tax havens than they receive in aid.  This means less money that can be invested in schools, hospitals and roads, keeping countries locked in the cycle of poverty. With the government staunchly (and rightly) defending its decision to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid, it seems nonsensical to be making it harder for developing countries to reduce their dependency on aid by raising their own revenues.

One chink of light is an amendment to the Finance Bill tabled by the Liberal Democrats and supported by Labour, that the changes are not made without a proper impact assessment (recommended by the IMF and World Bank), and measures to mitigate the damage. Hopefully the Conservatives on the Bill Committee will join this emerging consensus.  

Another important remedy would be to open up tax haven operations to scrutiny.  Low headline tax rates – like those in Luxembourg that Panorama claims UK companies have exploited - are just one of the attractions of tax havens for tax dodging (over half of FTSE100 companies have a total of 336 subsidiaries registered in Luxembourg). The other is secrecy. As with impenetrable Swiss bank accounts, this veil of secrecy prevents effective scrutiny of deals done in tax havens. Indeed, ActionAid research has shown that 98 of the FTSE100 use tax havens, where they locate almost 40 per cent of all their overseas subsidiaries. 82 also have operations in the developing world.

If the government is serious about tacking tax avoidance, and serious about sustainably ending poverty, it needs to be putting its weight behind international efforts to break tax haven secrecy, making multinationals publish accounts of their tax haven subsidiaries. 

Right now, though, it should urgently rethink its plans to water down the UK’s anti-tax haven rules. It should be making it harder – not easier – for British multinationals to siphon their profits into tax havens, and make sure they pay their tax bills right around the world. 

Update: Response from GlaxoSmithKline

A spokesperson for GlaxoSmithKline responded to Panorama's investigation with the following statement:

GSK is very disappointed with this programme which was extremely misleading and lacking in context.  Specifically, the programme’s selective use of facts led to a misrepresentation of GSK’s actions and a failure to recognize GSK’s significant UK tax contribution.

GSK strongly refutes any allegation of wrongdoing. At all times the company proactively disclosed its tax transactions to the relevant authorities and both the UK and Luxembourg tax authorities are agreed that GSK paid all the taxes due.

GSK is a global company with 95% of its sales outside the UK however 20% of the company’s tax bill is in the UK. In total, over the period covered in the broadcast, GSK paid around £1billion in UK corporation and business taxes, plus an additional £1.3bn through income taxes of its UK employees.

The difference between UK and EU laws in this area has always created uncertainty for global organisations like GSK. GSK supports the new Controlled Foreign Company tax rules developed by the UK government related to the taxation of overseas earnings which will provide greater certainty despite the fact that they will increase the company’s UK tax bill.”

Treasure Island: Grand Cayman, which has no income tax or corporation tax. Photograph: Getty Images

Mike Lewis is a tax justice campaigner at ActionAid

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.