The government quite naturally is intent on launching a counter-offensive in the political debate on tax avoidance, money-laundering and other forms of corruption among the very, very rich. It would have defied political logic had it not chosen to move onto the front foot in this way.
Ministers were, of course, forced onto the back foot by the fallout from the mega-leak of information – very much in the public interest, in my view – on some of the financial arrangements that have been used by the very, very rich to enhance further their own wealth.
The operative word here is ‘some’, for we know there is a whole range of techniques being used by people around the world with unthinkable amounts of money, influence and power, to pull further away from the rest of us.
One of these techniques is the purchasing of property, mainly in central London, through a trust or some other form of subsidiary, merely for tax or money-laundering purposes. Many such properties bought in this way inevitably remain unoccupied once they have been purchased. The idea that these properties lie empty while tens of thousands of poor families in the city languish on council waiting lists is deeply troubling.
That is why I presented this week to the House of Commons a bill which would ensure that the owners of all London properties, both homes and other buildings, had to have the actual ownership of the building registered at the Land Registry. Most of us do this, of course, when we own a house or flat. But an increasing number of properties in London are owned by trusts that conceal the true identity, and nationality, of their owners.
My bill would for the first time, therefore, expose which parts of London have been bought up for the purposes of money-laundering and other forms of corruption. I hope the requirement could then be extended across the whole country, so as to shine a bright light upon the ways in which much needed land is being used to fuel corruption, tax fraud and all sorts of immoral or illegal behaviour.
It is on these practical grounds that I hope the government will use the contents of my bill to come up with its own legislation in the Queen’s speech. A cross-party group of London members of parliament and I are writing jointly to ministers urging them to do so.
But equally significant are the symbolic grounds upon which I believe the government should adopt this measure.
Recent developments have contributed to the political debate a stark reminder of the gross inequalities that exist between those who hold immense wealth, power and influence, and those at the very bottom of the pile who, for want of food and other basic essentials, now hold hunger and darkness as their most frequent companions.
I very much hope therefore that the government will see the measures outlined in my bill as a means of showing it is capable of delivering a fairer society, in which all of us, rich and poor alike, play by the same set of rules.
———————————
Frank Field MP is chair of the work and pensions select committee. Follow his tweets @FrankFieldTeam
———————————
I believe many of the properties are bolt holes that the owners can occupy if they are no longer welcome in their home countries, irrespective of whether their identity is known or not. It is time for all ownership of property to be on the Land Registry, including that large proportion that has never been sold since it was given by some King or Queen as a reward for services rendered in some war in the distant past. No property should remain unoccupied for so long that people forget who bought it, or why it was bought. Time, indeed to make the cost of allowing any property to remain unoccupied so expensive that the expense acts as a disincentive for owning it in the first place.
I appreciate, Frank, that the problem in London requires immediate action and hope the Cameron and his Chums can be persuaded to get off their butts for long enough to do something about it.
There are two things wrong with trying to identify who owns property.
First it cannot be made to work. If an individual wants to keep their identity secret they can. Second, what business is it of government to know?
You are wrong on both counts. I have no choice when I buy or sell a property as the Land Registry is informed and the price I paid or was paid for the property is posted on the Land Registry. How can anyone prevent such documents being posted? Simple; you never sell the property. It passes down the family from generation to generation. I want to know who owns all the property in the UK and I want that property identified by boundary markers, as all property is on the continent. The government have a right to know who owns what within the UK as it should be administering inheritance tax but as most of these properties are Trusts they pay not inheritance tax as the title does not change. Time for reform of this entire area.
I dont know how to set up off shore companies (nor on shore) or trusts, but Im sure there are expert lawyers out there prepered to sell their skills to keep the names of those with enough money off government registers. With regard to anonymity and government right to know; to collect inheritance tax governments do need to know who owns what. I understand that. But that leads to the question, is it right to tax people when they die? I dont think it is. I am insticntively repelled by Inheritance Tax. (VAT as well but thats another argument).
We are all entitled to hold an opinion. Politics is not a science. Norfolk29 you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine and so when I read an article by a politician titled “Who owns it?” I ask myself, what business is it of yours and what makes you think it is an opportunity to raise tax revenues from that knowledge. It is my right to do so.
In conclusion Norfolk29, when you say to me ” You are wrong on both counts” and you omit the words ‘in my opinion’, the exclusion of that three word clause, that would have made your statement accurate in logic and a contribution to this piece of discourse, means that it is possible that you could be wrong on one or two counts.
Quite right. All comment is opinion, including the opinion of the author of this article. In my opinion society is divided between those who want to expose knowledge and the majority who wonder why we are interested in knowledge. Karl Popper actually wrote a number of philosophy books on the subject. I believe that the rich should shoulder a larger proportion of the burden of financing the state as they gain more from a well run state than the rest of us. The reason why there is so little knowledge about property is because it is the main source of wealth of the rich. One example: when Michael Heseltine divided the Council Tax in 1991 he set the top category at £350,000 despite owning an estate worth £4,000,000.