Barnet UNISON have invited Edinburgh UNISON down to speak at our AGM on Thursday 1 March.

Edinburgh Council also have been through massively expensive Competitive Dialogue using expensive consultants and had even named the contractor to take on the 2,000 council workers, when at the eleventh hour, councillors across the political divide woke up and smelt the coffee and reversed the decision. Read the article here

Below are Ten reasons why City of Edinburgh Councillors should oppose privatisation (and they did)

1 – Privatisation doesn’t work. From fatal accidents on unsafe railways, and deaths from hospital infections to the soar away bills of energy companies. Private companies put profit before people, cutting corners and selling the tax payer short.

2 – If private companies are so wise with money why do so many go bust? The residents in Southern Cross care homes have had an anxious year praying that the spectacular demise of the profligate care company doesn’t leave them on the streets. Edinburgh’s preferred bidder for environmental services has only just been rescued from £740 million debt by the intervention of a consortium of banks. Privatisation is laden with risk.

 

3 – Once their feet are under the table, private companies drive up costs. Another Edinburgh bidder, BT, just agreed to refund £27 million to the people of Liverpool after a report found they were massively overcharging the local council.

 

4 – Managing commercial contracts is an art that takes skill to master. We don’t have to remind people of the tram fiasco in Edinburgh, but a recent Audit Scotland report indicated the council still lacks the ability to manage large commercial contracts. We need another tram fiasco like a hole in the head!

 

5 – Along with worries for service users, privatisation brings fear to the workforce. Fear of job losses and fear of pay cuts. Two hundred jobs will go if councillors vote for privatisation on Thursday and the pension scheme will close its door on new employees. The beginning of the end for decent pensions in the capital.

 

6 – Not all private companies are the same but two companies who progressed during the Edinburgh bidding process were caught concealing the fact they had been prosecuted and convicted for unsafe practices which led to workplace deaths. The public sector works to higher standards of safety and integrity.

 

7 – Privatisation plans are hidden behind a veil of secrecy. All the key documents for Edinburgh privatisation are locked in a “data room” away from public scrutiny. Even the MORI report on local attitudes to privatisation is secret. Apparently the views of the people might prejudice the position of the council. We need to preserve openness and transparency in local government.

 

8 – Local service providers should be accountable to elected councillors not shareholders. Neither the Liberal Democrats nor the SNP were elected with a mandate for privatisation yet they could tie the council to a private contract for twelve years. It will be the private contract and not newly elected councillors which will determine how services are provided. Why bother voting in the next three elections? Privatisation undermines local democracy.

 

9 – In addition to having no mandate from the electorate, the council in Edinburgh never went to the public to explain their plans. There has been no public consultation. Council services belong to the people. They have a right to have their say. They have a right to be heard.

 

10 – With the exception of a few failed bankers, the council’s money problems were not caused by the people of Edinburgh. They certainly were not caused by the workers. No street sweeper brought the country to its knees by gambling with the nation’s wealth. Why should we pay with the loss of jobs and services?

These are just the top ten reasons to oppose privatisation. There are many more. If Edinburgh goes private council services across Scotland will be at risk. We ask people to join us in a simple message – Scotland wants services based on public need, not private greed

Barnet UNISON Press release: 07 February 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

On Thursday 9 February hundreds of *UNISON members working for Barnet Council will be taking strike action.

A decision has been made that a team of UNISON strikers will leave the pickets lines to donate their labour to the ‘Larches Community’ a local Charity in Edgware which provides services for adults with Learning Difficulties. Our members are committed public servants and have this to say

“We have withdrawn our labour from the Council but we have not withdrawn our commitment to our community which is why a team of UNISON strikers is heading off to donate their labour to help out a local charity providing services for adults with learning difficulties in Barnet!”

What is happening in Barnet is what is likely to happen across NHS services as Private Sector companies fight to win lucrative guaranteed contracts, all funded by the tax payer.

For many of our members this will be the fourth day of action in response to the One Barnet Project which seeks to transfer the majority of the staff out of the Council. The total cost of these projects will look to exceed £2Billion which is why the Big Private Sector Fat Cats are all lined up to try and win the contracts!

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

“Doing nothing is not an option for our members. I am proud of our members for taking what is always a difficult decision to go on strike. Furthermore their decision to want to go an help out a local charity demonstrates their commitment to their community. I am asking the Leader of the Council to donate all strike pay deductions to be donated to the Mayors Charities.

Barnet UNISON is asking for the One Barnet programme to be put on hold.

 

 

* Council services taking action will be in the following Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria; Parking Services, Revs & Bens, Social Care Direct

 

End.

 

Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

 

Useful Links

 

1. UNISON strikers donate their Labor to local charity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQN8q0nQms

 

2. List of Private Sector contractors involving in the bidding process

 

• Capita Symonds
• EC Harris and FM Conway
• SERCO,
• Capita,
• BT,
• HCL Axon
• NSL

 

 

3. UNISON response to transfer of Housing workers out of the Council

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/?q=node/749

 

4. UNISON response to transfer of social care staff out of the council

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/?q=node/750

 

5. UNISON response to transfer of Parking staff to NSL

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/2011.12.13.UNISONPARKINGresponsetoCRC.pdf

 

 

To view our full report click here

Questions to the Cabinet Resources Committee on the Local Authority Trading Company: Privatising Adults and Housing Services.
1) If the LATC fails to make the profits outlined but makes losses instead will the Council bring the services back in-house?
2) The council wholly owns the LATC. What is the logic of extracting a “profit” from payments it makes and which now incur tax liabilities?
3) How does the drive for the LATC deriving profits from Direct Payments influence the level at which Direct Payments are set?
4) P.25 6.32 “The LATC should charge full market value for the goods or services it provides to the Council given that its tax liability will be based on the market value for such goods/ services.” What effect could this have on the level of Direct Payments issued to service users?
5) In the table 3 p.23 6.15 many of the amounts remain constant over the period of 4 years – is this realistic?
6) If surpluses are liable to Corporation Tax, why is this not reflected in the table?
7) At p.43 2.4 shouldn’t the cumulative figure in the table for year 3 and year 4 be a loss and not a profit? If no, why not?
8) P.64 7.1 Why does this not reflect the profit after tax?
9) Where does the figure of £49 million come from for the BarnetGroup Ltd p.32
9.18 and why is this not reflected in the table p.64 at 7.1 for the Barnet Group?
10) P.16 4.3 “The BarnetGroup Ltd could offset any corporation tax liability with additional trading activities” – what are the additional trading activities?
11) Which services are at risk of coming under a decision to close by April 2013 if they are not viable (p.51 table under 3.17.4)?
12) In the table listing risks p.50-51 there are no strategic risks lists, such as market penetration – what is being done to come up with a list of such risks and
the planned mitigation?
13) Where is the cost reduction programme referred to in the box against “Your Choice” (p.51 table)?
14) P.67 table at 1.1.5 identifies clients with no SWIFT ID – what are the business risks resulting from this?
15) From where will the group and its subsidiaries obtain working capital and where is the cost of this working capital?
Governance and TUPE
16) p.52 3.19.5 makes mention of a Barnet Group Procurement Officer. Who employs this person if BarnetGroup Ltd has no employees?
17) Who is the employer the Chief Executive Tracey Lees?
18) Remuneration has become a national issue therefore, what is the Governance arrangement for determining the remuneration of the Chief Executive and Directors?
Consultation
19) There is mention of unit costs in day services equating to one half day rather than one day. What are the plans for consultation with service users and their
carers with respect to this?
20) There is mention of moving to opening 7 days/ week and extending the opening times. What are the plans for consultation with staff, service users and carers with respect to this?

 

6 September 2011

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

On Tuesday 13 September up to 400 UNISON members working across the following services will be taking strike action

 

Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria; Parking Services, Revs & Bens,

 

The Trades Dispute concerns the identity of the employer. Barnet Council is promoting the One Barnet programme which is just a ‘remix version’ of the ‘contracting out’ ideology from the 1980’s. There are already several contracts out for consultation with the private sector. The value of the contracts (fast approaching almost £2 billion) has already attracted the big Private sector FAT CATS.

 

Up to 70% of the council workforce could be transferred to the Private sector in little more than 16 months time.

 

Dave Prentis general secretary message to Barnet UNISON.

“To the 400 UNISON members taking strike action: UNISON members across the country are standing shoulder to shoulder with you as you challenge this council – a council that refuses to listen to its workforce, a council that refuses to listen to logic or sense, a council now embarking on a reckless gamble”

 

“Last week our union commissioned a report on the impact of outsourcing on the council’s pension scheme. The report gave a damning assessment of the serious financial risks to the pension scheme as a direct result of One Barnet programme.

 

Heather Wakefield UNISON’s head of local government,

‘The widescale privatisation at the heart of One Barnet should be placed under the severest scrutiny by Government, Barnet’s scrutiny committee and the people of Barnet themselves. The council’s failure to ensure procurement procedures and the obvious detrimental impact on the Local Government Pension Scheme of privatisation of local services are just two good reasons for challenging the path that Barnet has chosen. The third is the waste of public money involved in the procurement process through payments to consultants, procurement costs and payments to shareholders – money which should be invested in local people and local services.’

 

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

“The Council need to recognise that ‘political dogma’ also known as One Barnet programme cannot be allowed to continue to expose residents, services and staff to a high risk strategy and expect them to pick up the bill.

What we mean by ‘independence’

A recent article “Greensquare Field – Planning to Outsource Planning posted on the local Barnet Eye Blog encapsulates conflict of interest’s issues:

“At the moment Barnet Council is in the middle of tendering to outsource a number of services, one of which is the planning service. In the running are a number of companies: Capita Symonds, Atkins, Jacobs and E C Harrison. The planning consultants who represent Higgins Homes plc, and have done through 2 planning applications, 2 planning appeals, a village green application and the draft LDF, work for Capita Symonds. If Capita win the tender, they will decide any future planning applications.”

 

As council services for Barnet as a place to live and work, our decisions must be 100% independent and free from any ‘conflict of interest’.

 

Barnet Alliance have recently published a newspaper their front page spells out the dangers of the One Barnet here

Barnet UNISON is asking for the One Barnet programme to be put on hold.

End.

Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

 

Useful Links

 

1. Outsourcing Planning – local blog

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-blog-greensquare-field-planning.html

 

2. The potential impact of reduced active membership of the London borough of Barnet Pension Fund,’ (First Actuarial LLP)

To read summary click on link below

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/UNISON%20Barnett%20Council.31%20August%202011.SUMMARY.pdf

 

To read full report click on link below

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/UNISON%20Barnet%20Council%2031%20August%202011FINAL.pdf

 

3. Barnet Alliance newspaper ‘Our Barnet’

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011-page-011.pdf

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011_centre2.pdf

http://barnetalliance.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/baps_2_aug_2011-page-041.pdf

 

4. Life not so easy for council facing £1.5m outsource bill

http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=100493

 

5. The ‘shrinking by outsourcing’ models – implications for staff

http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/sites/default/files/Barnet_Briefing%20No%206.pdf

6. Directors Cut for Barnet Independence Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3826zTEyhoI

                

7. Obama direct message to striking UNISON members

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H4csb-Sgz4&feature=related

 

Dear Councillors

Please find Barnet UNISON response to the New Support and Customer Services Organisation Business Case going to Cabinet Resources Committee on Wednesday 29 June

For those of you who prefer to read hard copies I have arranged for the report to be posted to you.

In all my time as Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON I have endeavoured to seek engagement with councillors and officers in a non partisan manner it is unfortunate that our reports (and we have submitted over 30 such reports) are still being perceived as simply part of anti-outsourcing agenda, Whilst I can understand that view, I think for those who have read our reports they will find they are quite balanced and reflect the views of our growing membership.

It is now three years since the council embarked on the Future Shape programme and in that time it has changed direction a number of times; at least that is my view. In that time I have been assured by councillors and senior officers that mistakes of the past both local and national in relation to procurement and contract monitoring will not be repeated I have to report that they have become empty words.

It was not amusing or comfortable sitting in the Audit Committee two weeks ago and all the subsequent publicity that has brought to the Council. But I can only reflect that if the Council had been serious in its intentions to engage with UNISON two years ago when we submitted a 100 page draft corporate procurement policy you may never have heard the words ‘Metpro’.

In the hope that perhaps you may understand the level of concern we have over the One Barnet projects I would like to bring you attention to the now infamous Southwest One strategic partnership in Somerset which has been beset by controversy since the project was signed off by the then Lib Dem council. Since the contract was signed off there has been a change and it now a Conservative administration. The contract continue to be subject to criticism that it has not delivered anywhere near the savings first predicted; it is my understanding they have spent £58 million to make £6 million in savings. Following a Freedom of Information inquiry the Council decided to go public about the review they have carried out.

I would ask you to view this BBC southwest interview with the Ken Maddock Leader Somerset County Council it is only 2 mins long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKzSHxz14YI

It is clear to anyone watching this short clip that he is uncomfortable with the contract and is aware that it will cost an ‘awful lot of money to get out of the contract with IBM’. The idea that council has the expertise and skills to take on the big law firms like IBM, Capita SERCO and the rest is a very high risk strategy.

I know Somerset very well and have been following this story for several years. They had consultants that sold the savings concept, but where are they now?

As previously, please do not hesitate to contact me if you want to discuss aspects of our report.

To view report click here

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Standing up for staff and public services

Not for onward transmission in whole or part without permission

In a speech to delegates at UNISON’s National Conference, the union’s General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said:

March 26th, what a day it was. We marched together, But this week we march on. Because this is our week, together not beaten. Here to experience the unique solidarity of our conference. To share, to learn, to inspire. And be inspired by the struggles of others. To show the world that we’re strong, determined, united.

They’ve declared war on our public services. With Tory donors, City firms, hedge funders back in the heart of government. Financiers like John Nash whose private equity firm, sovereign capital, buys and flogs care homes for the fun of it.

Conference, A year ago, we could have been beaten, lost our way. But in this past year we’ve grown our membership for the 17th year running. We’ve strengthened organising, a new army of organisers. Our branches, fighting back where they can.

Mike Tucker, in Southampton, John Burgess, in Barnet – their necks on the line. 40 branches in dispute, 34,000 members, balloted or taking action. Conference, this union salutes them all and what they are doing to save our members jobs and services.

And we are told that there is no alternative. And as long as they keep preaching that mantra that there is no alternative, I will state on every platform that there are alternatives. Clegg and Cameron could have the guts to go back to the banks, the spivs, the speculators, and tell them on our behalf, “you created this mess – you clear it up.” And I’ll say it again; “If there’s money to bail out the banks, if there’s money to protect their bonuses. If there’s money for war and replacing Trident, there’s money available for our local services and our NHS. If there has to be a pay freeze, make it for the bankers, get them to do more for less.

Full speech here and short video here

(above is Barnet resident)

I was proud to be able to take part in the first Barnet community march outside the borders of Barnet.

500 residents/trade unionists/from Barnet congregated outside the Savoy Hotel yesterday morning (site of Peasants Revolt 1381).

As we snaked through the capital, chants of “no to easy council no to easycouncil” provoked some bemused reactions. It was all good fun and the 500 all seemed to be inspired by marching with so many others. The banners and home made placards were fantastic as were some of the chanting.

It took us 5 and half hours to march from Embankment to  Hyde Park! I was exhausted when I reached Hyde Park (a note for me,we must find lighter banner poles for our banner).

It is disappointing to see the media focusing on the violence that took place last night. On the whole, it was a peaceful march,I never saw any violence, n fact it was almost a carnival atmosphere.

We will never know how many were there but it must have been close to a million. Feeder marches kept joining the main march, but even if we say it was as low as 500,000, the media by focussing on the behaviour of 0.04% let themselves down again.

The real story is the open attack on our public services and the resolve of communities everywhere to stand up to defend them.

Unusually I found myself at home and able to watch the Dispatches programme on Channel Four ‘Britain’s Secret Fat Cats’

For those who missed the programme I strongly suggest you watch it on catch up TV here

The thing is that the Public know so little about what has gone on and the serious amount of public money going into the coffers of private sector companies. Whilst Town Halls have become the target of community groups and angry residents and trade unions as a result of massive cuts to budgets, private sector companies are revealing massive profits for shareholders all paid for from public money from ME AND YOU!

Whilst I maybe the last to fight the corner for senior officer pay rates, at least this is subject to public scrutiny. If these companies are allowed to take over the rest of public services the audit trail will disappear altogether.  

I am positive that 99.9% of UNISON members would be shocked, angry and disgusted about how public money can hived off for private sector companies at a time when public services and local communities are being decimated.

A thought which has often crossed my mind, is how much longer will the community continue to put with this nonsense?

Almost every person I speak to either officially and unofficially admit the private sector are in for themselves and whatever happens they never lose, they don’t take the consequences when it all goes wrong.

Worrying was the admission in the programme that ‘privatisation is one way street.’ The collapse of Connaught’s was covered in tonight’s programme (with regards Norwich) and all the things the Norwich councillor claimed, were allegedly taking place in Barnet. Last summer as rumours circulated about the future financial viability of Connaught’s, Barnet UNISON lobbied Barnet Homes asking for the service to be brought back in-house before service collapsed. Needless to say our request was not taken up. Connaught’s went bust, now we have Lovell’s and they are not even waiting 6 months before looking to attack member’s terms and conditions.

No wonder the big private sector companies are getting excited with the prospect of even more lucrative contracts where they make massive profits at no risk to themselves. I saw an article in the Daily Mail; please note I am not a reader of the Daily Mail

“They are private companies but they are also the creation of the Government’s drive to outsource services. The lion’s share of their turnover – and of their executives’ enormous pay packages – comes from the public purse. But there is little in the way of public accountability.

These outsourcers already account for £79 billion of state expenditure every year, a figure which is set to grow if the Government fulfils its pledge to put nearly all state-run services out to contract.

A White Paper on the subject is due soon and the companies with their foot already in the door are delighted.

Over the past few weeks big outsourcing companies have given extraordinarily upbeat assessments of their position.

Paul Pindar, the chief executive of Capita – which does everything from collecting TV licence fees to placing social workers – is gleeful about the prospect of a public-spending squeeze.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-service-Fat-Cats-theyre-immune-cuts.html#ixzz1Gc4gWD8e

The Development & Public Health Services Future Shape Project formerly known as the Regulatory Services Bundle was published online here

Open the PDf and scroll down to page 20. Click on the table entitled Options Scoring Matrix. Copy and paste into a word document and ‘Hey Presto’ you can see the scoring.

I have never seen this sort of thing before, is it deliberate or is it a mistake and why should the details be secret?

The Trade Unions will be producing a report in response to the Options Appraisal which even from a cursory glance is full of contradictions assumptions without supporting evidence and quite insulting to staff. Just what were thinking when they wrote this “But it is also very clear that the services require a fresh injection of intellectual capital..”

Many of our members working in this area have let me know they have been hurt by this comment.

If I was a Barnet tax payer I would be pleased to see that almost all of these services are  high performing and low cost. It is difficult to see where the 25% cuts and the 20% profits for the private sector are going to come from……or is it?

Answers on a postcard.

My guess it has to be staffing or something more fundamental a cut back on what is provided.

It is not too late if you have any question on the content of this Options appraisal please send your comments to john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

The following report has been produced by the PCS trade union in response to the latest proposal to cut posts. The report provides an analysis and data on a major income deficit (£123 Billion a year) which in the current financial climate you would think a responsible government should be addressing. Instead they are targeting Benefit Fraud (£1.5bn a year).

Report begins:

The financial crisis was not caused by excessive public spending. That is vital to bear in mind when we hear all around us that the ‘deficit’ must be cut.

This is not a spending crisis this is an income crisis.

In the above chart the ‘deficit’ is the gap or difference between what the government spends (the top line in the chart) and what it receives in income (shown on the bottom line of the chart). That deficit for this year was originally estimated to be £178 Billion. That original estimate has now been revised using more up to date figures and is now estimated to be £156 Billion. A difference between the two estimates of £22 Billion.

The lack of tax revenue did not cause the current financial crisis. The reason for that substantial fall in government income you can see on the chart in 2008 was as a result of the downturn in economic activity – the recession sparked by the near collapse of the worlds banking system. Bailing out the banks in the UK cost £1.3 Trillion, which is 1,300 Billion pounds. The recession increased unemployment and hit tax revenues.

 What the Con Dem government don’t want to talk about is the Tax Gap.

That is the difference between what the government would receive in tax if everyone paid what they should pay and what it actually receives. The difference between what it should receive and what it actually receives is the tax gap; estimates from the PCS union indicate the gap to be £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds.

I repeat that figure again because members are being bombarded by anti-public services propaganda every day.

Tax Gap £123 Billion

PCS asked Richard Murphy a Chartered Accountant and a Tax expert to research and calculate the size of the tax gap. That research has now been published and the tax gap is estimated at £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds per year.

That £123 Billion is made up of three amounts:

·         £25 Billion avoided.

·         £70 Billion evaded.

·         £28 Billion not collected.

The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is as Denis Healy once said “the thickness of a prison wall”. Tax is avoided by exploiting loopholes in tax law. 

The TUC pamphlet “The missing Billions” estimates that £25 Billion each year is avoided by corporations and rich individuals. The pamphlet gives examples of some of the measures used to avoid tax.

One well known example is the tax avoidance used by rich individuals running private equity firms who by classifying their income as capital gains pay 22% less tax than they would otherwise pay if they declared it as income and were subject to income tax at the top rate. Hence one multi-millionaire private equity partner admitted that he paid less tax than his cleaner. The reason for this was, at the time, Capital Gains Tax stood at a rate of 18% whereas the top rate of income tax stood at 40%, a difference of 22%. In his budget speech on 22 June George Osborne said,

“Some of the richest people in this country have been able to pay less tax than the people who clean for them.

That is not fair – and it stems from the avoidance activity that has exploited the wider gap between the rate of Capital Gains Tax and the top rates of income tax.

These practices are costing other taxpayers over £1 Billion every year”

And he raised Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 28%. Great you may think. However, what he did not point out was that the top rate of income tax is now 50%, so with Capital Gains Tax now at 28% the gap between the two is still 22%. Those richest people in the country will still be exploiting that loophole.

£70 Billion Tax evaded

The Richard Murphy report estimates tax evaded to be £70 Billion. The report shows why the official HMRC estimate of tax avoided and evaded totalling £40 Billion is way too low particularly for tax evaded. This is because HMRC concentrates its efforts on those who do make tax returns and ignore the significant elements in society who evade the system altogether. By definition tax evasion is a criminal offence and (surprise, surprise) those evading tax do not tell HMRC about their activities. By relying on data supplied to HMRC they are missing the evasion that is completely outside the tax system.

However, for indirect taxes such as VAT, HMRC employs a ‘top-down’ approach. The gap is estimated by comparing the net theoretical tax yield, which involves assessing the total amount of expenditure in the economy that is liable to VAT, with actual VAT receipts. The difference is the VAT gap. This approach is rational because it seeks to establish the likely tax due independent of data submitted to HMRC. This ‘top- down’ method is the approach adopted by Richard Murphy in his report.

An example of tax evasion was demonstrated in a recent criminal case where an organised gang were convicted of defrauding HMRC of £4.5 Million. They submitted refund claims in the names of fictitious migrant labourers claiming they had overpaid income tax. Now at this point you may think that there is a bit of a flaw in this cunning plan. Given that the details provided to HMRC are for people who don’t actually exist, and haven’t actually paid any income tax, how can they get a refund on tax they haven’t paid? Not a problem. HMRC made the repayments without checking, the gang got £4.5 million from HMRC. This is because HMRC adopted the attitude of ‘pay now, check later’. The judge Christopher Hardy in sentencing the gang also raised concerns about HMRC’s system, “Trust has become a very risky and unwise basis in this day and age with which to disperse millions of pounds of public money”

We agree with the judge. Hence one of the recommendations in the Richard Murphy report is that HMRC should engage staff to check tax repayments before they are made. This isn’t rocket science.

£28 Billion Tax not collected

This is not an estimate. It is the published figure from HMRC as at 31 March 2010 for monies that have been declared or assessed but not paid to HMRC. That debt does not come in by magic and HMRC employs part of its workforce in the Debt Management and Banking section. A section that has also been cut, in the HMRC drive to close offices and reduce its staffing.

Richard Murphys report and PCS say:-

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax avoidance.

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax evasion.

·         More staff should be employed to recover tax not collected.

·         We want tax justice. We all have to pay our tax. The banks, the big corporations, the super rich and the criminals should pay their tax too.

End.