Why Britain's biggest businesses are addicted to tax havens

The government is making it easier for multinationals to dodge taxes in developing countries.

What's a billion pounds to the government these days? Well, it's the amount that George Osborne spent slashing corporation tax from 28 per cent to 25 per cent over two years. But fewer people seem to have noticed that plans put out for consultation by the Treasury recently will give another £840m specifically to British multinational companies who use tax havens. Unmentioned in the government's consultation document is that these reforms will also make it much easier for British multinationals to use tax havens to dodge taxes in developing countries.

Research published by ActionAid today shows just how big this giveaway is likely to be. For the first time, we've been able to show the massive extent of tax haven use throughout the FTSE 100. 98 of the companies are using tax havens, where you'll find a whopping 38 per cent of all of their overseas companies located.

Our high street banks are the heaviest users with 1,649 tax haven companies shared between Barclays, HSBC, RBS and Lloyds. Barclays has 174 companies registered in the Cayman Islands alone.

Our research also raises real questions about the impact on developing countries, which lose three times more to tax havens than they receive in aid each year. The biggest ten tax haven users have a total of 3833 companies between them in tax havens (see chart), but they also have 1951 companies in developing countries. If we want these countries to become independent of development aid, as well as to end poverty, they need much more tax revenue to pay for public services.

A

This all seems a little inconsistent. First, there is Britain's commitment as part of the G20 (albeit under the Brown government) to "take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems." Tax havens will be on the agenda again at the G20 summit in Cannes next month, and it's unlikely that Presidents Sarkozy or Obama, both facing election next year, will be keen to give up the fight they championed in 2009.

Second, there's the current government's commitments: Vince Cable has said that "much of the shadow banking sector, a major contributor to the economic crisis, was only possible because of tax haven secrecy," while George Osborne has promised to "target tax evasion and off-shore tax havens.Everyone must pay their fair share."

Third, there's the government's development agenda. David Cameron made "effective tax systems" a part of his vision for Africa earlier this year, and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell told an audience of campaigners that "everyone should pay their taxes due...we champion transparency."

The government's coalition agreement commits to "deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid budget," and "make every effort to tackle tax avoidance." So our new research not only raises big questions for the FTSE100, it also demonstrates the need for more coherence in government policy. Making it easier for British multinationals to dodge taxes in developing countries is a false economy for British taxpayers, because it takes money away from the very same governments that we are supporting through our overseas aid.

Asha Tharoor is the senior media officer of ActionAid.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

Daniel Hannan harks back to the days of empire - the Angevin Empire

Did the benign rule of some 12th century English kings make western France vote Macron over Le Pen?

I know a fair amount about British politics; I know a passable amount about American politics, too. But, as with so many of my fellow Britons, in the world beyond that, I’m lost.

So how are we, the monolingual Anglophone opinionators of the world, meant to interpret a presidential election in a country where everyone is rude enough to conduct all their politics in French?

Luckily, here’s Daniel Hannan to help us:

I suppose we always knew Dan still got a bit misty eyed at the notion of the empire. I just always thought it was the British Empire, not the Angevin one, that tugged his heartstrings so.

So what exactly are we to make of this po-faced, historically illiterate, geographically illiterate, quite fantastically stupid, most Hannan-y Hannan tweet of all time?

One possibility is that this was meant as a serious observation. Dan is genuinely saying that the parts of western France ruled by Henry II and sons in the 12th century – Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine – remain more moderate than those to the east, which were never graced with the touch of English greatness. This, he is suggesting, is why they generally voted for Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen.

There are a number of problems with this theory. The first is that it’s bollocks. Western France was never part of England – it remained, indeed, a part of a weakened kingdom of France. In some ways it would be more accurate to say that what really happened in 1154 was that some mid-ranking French nobles happened to inherit the English Crown.

Even if you buy the idea that England is the source of all ancient liberties (no), western France is unlikely to share its political culture, because it was never a part of the same polity: the two lands just happened to share a landlord for a while.

As it happens, they didn’t even share it for very long. By 1215, Henry’s youngest son John had done a pretty good job of losing all his territories in France, so that was the end of the Angevins. The English crown reconquered  various bits of France over the next couple of centuries, but, as you may have noticed, it hasn’t been much of a force there for some time now.

At any rate: while I know very little of French politics, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the similarities between yesterday's electoral map and the Angevin Empire were a coincidence. I'm fairly confident that there have been other factors which have probably done more to shape the French political map than a personal empire that survived for the length of one not particularly long human life time 800 years ago. Some wars. Industrialisation. The odd revolution. You know the sort of thing.

If Daniel Hannan sucks at history, though, he also sucks at geography, since chunks of territory which owed fealty to the English crown actually voted Le Pen. These include western Normandy; they also include Calais, which remained English territory for much longer than any other part of France. This seems rather to knacker Hannan’s thesis.

So: that’s one possibility, that all this was an attempt to make serious point; but, Hannan being Hannan, it just happened to be a quite fantastically stupid one.

The other possibility is that he’s taking the piss. It’s genuinely difficult to know.

Either way, he instantly deleted the tweet. Because he realised we didn’t get the joke? Because he got two words the wrong way round? Because he realised he didn’t know where Calais was?

We’ll never know for sure. I’d ask him but, y’know, blocked.

UPDATE: Breaking news from the frontline of the internet: 

It. Was. A. Joke.

My god. He jokes. He makes light. He has a sense of fun.

This changes everything. I need to rethink my entire world view. What if... what if I've been wrong, all this time? What if Daniel Hannan is in fact one of the great, unappreciated comic voices of our time? What if I'm simply not in on the joke?

What if... what if Brexit is actually... good?

Daniel, if you're reading this – and let's be honest, you are definitely reading this – I am so sorry. I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

I owe you a pint (568.26 millilitres).

Serious offer, by the way.

 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496