Councillor Barry moved and Councillor Bambos Charalambous seconded the following motion:

“While many ordinary people in Enfield face falling household incomes and rising costs of living, some multinational companies are avoiding billions of pounds of tax from a tax system that fails to make them pay their fair share.  Local Governments such as ours in the UK and others in developing countries would all benefit from a fairer tax system where multinational companies pay their fair share, enabling authorities around the world to provide quality public services.  The UK Government must listen to the strength of public feeling and use its powers effectively to end the injustice of tax dodging by large multinational companies in developing countries and the UK

The council therefore resolves to support the campaign for tax justice, for the benefit of those living in Enfield and beyond.”

During the subsequent debate, Councillor Hurer moved and Councillor Rye seconded the following amendment to the motion:

To delete all remaining wording after “avoiding billions of pounds of tax” and replace with the following:

“Multi-National companies based in the UK employ hundreds and thousands of British nationals both directly and indirectly, through the payment of  Employers’ National Insurance, VAT, Business Rates, Stamp Duty, Corporation Tax and a whole raft of other taxes contribute billions of pounds in taxes to the public purse and their presence in the UK is welcome.

A small number of these  companies however use legitimate  tax avoidance schemes to minimise the Corporation Tax they pay on profits they generate in the UK to move these profits into low tax territories.

Between 1997 and 2010 the Blair and Brown Labour Governments failed to deal with this practice.

This Council therefore welcomes George Osborne’s “diverted profits tax” which will put an end to this practice and encourages other nations to copy the coalition governments example.”

Given the changes proposed, a ruling was sought by the Majority Group on the validity of the amendment.  Having considered the matter the Mayor advised that he was minded to rule out the amendment on the basis that he did not feel it related directly to the Council’s powers or duties or was worded in such a way as to be regarded as an issue directly affecting the Borough.

The amendment was therefore ruled out for consideration and debate on the substantive motion continued.  Following a short debate the motion was put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:

For: 32

Against: 21

Abstentions: 0