Tax returns in Glasgow, 2009. Photo: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Leader: The stench of corruption at HSBC is a reminder tax havens must be closed

Now we've caught wind of the money hidden in Swiss accounts, it's time to turn to other veiled tax affairs.

The tax scandal uncovered at HSBC is one that even the most imaginative conspiracy theorist would struggle to concoct. The Swiss arm of Europe’s largest bank is accused of having colluded with wealthy clients for years to allow them to shield undeclared accounts from their domestic authorities. Detailed information was passed to HMRC in 2010; 1,100 British citizens are thought to have been involved.

Five years later, just one prosecution has resulted. Contrast that with the 1,046,398 sanctions, or financial penalties, imposed on Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants in 2013, or the nearly 200,000 prosecutions of people who failed to buy a television licence. As the tax campaigner Richard Murphy put it: “To the wealthiest criminals and their assistants within the financial system go the rewards and the plaudits. To everyone else goes intimidation and persecution.”

Far from being called to account, Stephen Green, who served as chief executive and then chair of HSBC from 2006 to 2010, was ennobled by David Cameron and appointed as a trade minister in January 2011. He held the position until December 2013. An ordained priest and the author of Serving God? Serving Mammon?, Mr Green is now advising the Church of England on “talent management”.

Both the government and Mr Green must explain how all of the above occurred. But, like many of those on the HSBC list, their response has been one of evasion. “As a matter of principle, I will not comment on the business of HSBC, past or present,” the latter said. This stance is at odds with what he advocated in his book. “For companies, where does this responsibility begin?” he wrote. “With their boards, of course. There is no other task they have which is more important. It is their job ... to promote and nurture a culture of ethical and purposeful business throughout the organisation.” If the HSBC head did know about his bank’s behaviour, he was guilty of collusion. If he didn’t know, he was guilty of incompetence.

Ministers must explain why Mr Green was invited to join their ranks. That he may have been “an excellent trade minister”, as Mr Cameron put it, is irrelevant. The question, as in the case of his former director of communications Andy Coulson, is whether the Prime Minister was “wilfully blind” when he appointed Mr Green.

The laxity of HMRC’s approach to prosecutions suggests a refusal to reckon with the scale of the scandal. Margaret Hodge, the Labour chair of the Commons public accounts committee, observed: “If this had been benefits scroungers, they would have been queuing around the courtrooms.”

Unlike in the US, France, Belgium, Spain and Argentina, where legal proceedings have been launched against HSBC, no action has been taken against the bank by the UK. HMRC asserts: “In most cases, disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention.” Yet to date just £135m has been recovered, less than France, though British citizens hold twice as much money. When governments fail to pursue those who evade tax, they squander their legitimacy with the great majority who pay it. As long as the penalties for this crime remain negligible, the incentives for others to behave in this way will endure. The feeling will grow, too, that the system is rigged against the honest citizen.

Ed Miliband, to his credit, understands this. Two days before the HSBC exposé, he announced that he had written to the offshore financial centres linked to Britain as Crown dependencies or overseas territories to say that under a Labour government they would have six months to open their books or be placed on a blacklist. The angry responses emanating from Bermuda, Jersey and elsewhere were as predictable as those of the business leaders who have recently warned of doom should Labour win power. They were equally wrong-headed. Tax havens denying that their affairs remain “shrouded in darkness”, as Mr Miliband described it, makes little sense when they still have no publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership – documents that show who owns an offshore company.

As a result, HMRC cannot check if a UK resident has set up a company in these havens, let alone whether money is being diverted there. Such secrecy encourages tax avoidance and evasion and costs the Treasury billions of pounds in lost revenue. It needs to change – and soon.

 

This article first appeared in the 13 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Assad vs Isis

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.