Margaret Hodge shrugs off “tax prat" line

Interview with the PAC chairman.

It’s been an interesting year for tax, and in particular the debate about where the line is drawn between legitimate tax planning and aggressive avoidance. The focus on whether everyone is contributing their fair share is a consequence of austerity and is being played out all around the world, where every pound, dollar and euro of income is more valuable than ever.

In the UK, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the body responsible for shining a light into the murkier corners of government finance and making sure taxpayers get value for money, has been at the heart of this debate. The current chairman of the committee is Lady Margaret Hodge. Lady Hodge (the title comes from her second husband) is proud of the PAC’s work on tax, a project it kicked off after a whistleblower reported a so-called sweetheart deal between Goldman Sachs and HMRC. In getting the committee to focus on the issue, Hodge has turned tax into something of a personal crusade.

In the process she rounded on tax advisors, including accountants and lawyers, who devise tax-minimising schemes. The PAC hauled the top tax partners at the Big Four in for a challenging session. In the process she has earned the ire of parts of the profession. Taxation dubbed her its “Tax Prat of the Year”, in a cover story that challenged almost every aspect of the PAC’s report.

Sitting in her Westminster office, Hodge shrugs off the “tax prat” line and claims she doesn’t have a view about the accountancy profession as a whole. “There are people who do a good, honest job. But there is a divide. There are others, in accountancy and the legal profession, who take a different view to mine about the role of tax in society.”

Anyone who has followed the work of the PAC, or indeed who has followed Hodge’s career, won’t be surprised to hear her mount a passionate defence of the positive redistributive role of tax.

“There is a civic duty on all of us to contribute according to our means to the common good,” she says. “In very practical ways all your readers want a public transport system that works and want the realm defended and so on. Even if you can manage on your own and don’t need the support of the state, there are all sorts of things you want from the state and there is a moral imperative to pay a fair contribution to society.

"I know there are people who don’t think that way, I just disagree with them.”

Hodge admits the PAC stumbled onto tax avoidance as an area for investigation, but she is clear why it has become such a defining issue.

“The reason it’s become a big issue is because we’re living in hard times and everyone is feeling the pinch. People want to know everyone is paying a fair share. And it is about fairness. There are those who see tax as just a legal obligation, but I don’t agree. There are legal obligations, but they arise out of a civic duty.”

The rest of this interview can be read on economia.

Margaret Hodge MP. Photograph: Getty Images

This is a news story from economia.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.