Dave Hartnett resigned from HMRC last week. That's the official story. But since he was saying he was saying he was staying for some time to come only a month beforehand that looks very unlikely to be the real case. It looks very likely he was pushed in haste. The fact that he has been replaced in such disorderly fashion by Lin Horner who had only been in her existing job for a few months makes that look all the more likely. And don't presume she is replacing Lesley Strathie alone - Hartnett's job was a one off.
But is this the new broom to restore good governance to HMRC - for that is what has been missing? I really doubt it. There are real doubts about her leadership of Birmingham - and her role as returning officer there when things went mightily wrong whether or not her fault. The UK Borders Agency, which she headed until January is a right mess - and she must accept some responsibility for that. And now Transport have shuffled her one as fast as possible. It's not a good sign.
And of course, she knows nothing about tax of any consequence.
But worse than that Hartnett's failure was one of poor governance. Weak Chairs of HMRC matched by a coterie of non-execs mainly recruited from major tax avoiders and Hartnett being the only Board member with any knowledge of tax led to his having unaccountable power - and from my own experience of dealing with him, it materially changed him.
I see no evidence that this governance weakness is being addressed.
And there's no sign that the culture of favouring big tax avoiders will change. That's what's really worrying.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
whose idea was it to appoint Homer to the post? this is a clear attempt to further weaken HMRC’s capacity to tackled the biggest tax dodgers.
HMRC, today we have the report into RBS failure, and how FSA made errors,
FSA, HMRC, SEC, BoE……. there is probably a long list of alphabet soup, they are all crap and designed to be crap so the elites can plunder and rape at will,
good point, ivan. i was reading the HMRC’s whistleblower’s evidence to the PAC and it struck me that the way HMRC and NAO used (taxpayer) confidentiality to frustrate the PAC and the TSC before the whistleblower’s intervention was exactly the way the FSA used confidentiality to hide the RBS report until the TSC threatened to invoke parliamentary privilege. these corrupt institutions and their captured regulators have cost us dearly. we need more whistleblowing and other measures to ensure transparency and accountabilty.
the FSA now say they got their regulation wrong on RBS so how are we to believe they got it right in deciding that there is no case for enforcement action? i think we need an inquiry or a judicial review to get to the bottom of this.
Add to your list the acronym ICAEW.
An investigation into the “Big4” would make the rest of them look like angels!
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Not quite the full story.
Lin Homer was appointed last Dec to Dept of Transport.
She is replacing Leslie Strathie.
Dave Hartnett is retiring next June – 15 months or so after the normal retirement date.
No announcement has been made on a replacement or no replacement for his post.
Mike Clasper’s contract ends and a new Chairman will be appointed.
PAC hearing on 7 November 2011 (when Dave Hartnett was beyond the normal retirement date):
Q751 Chair: Finally, given the sort of coverage there has been over the Goldman Sachs deal and over the Vodafone deal, which we touched on this afternoon, have you considered your own position? Have you considered resigning, or do you feel that you still have the confidence of Parliament?
Dave Hartnett: I have thought very hard about both those issues. I have read just about everything that has been written about them. It is incomplete. I have work to do and I have no plans to resign.
Quite
What’s your point?
He doesn’t have plans to resign…he is retiring at the end of summer 2012…not the same.
Oh come on
For all practical purposes he has resigned
No sorry, think you’re reading too much into it.
If a person resigns, they tend to give a month or two’s notice, 3 at most. Sometimes they go immediately…especially those in higher office (remember HMRC’s Paul Gray resigning immediately in the aftermath of the Child Benefit data loss in 2007?). They certainly do not give 7 or 8 months notice.
He is retiring.
If Mr Hartnett is offered employment with Goldman Sachs, how long will he have to wait before he can start?
After a Parliamentary Ombudsman committee into the Equitable Life debacle found that the FSA had “actively misled” policyholders the FSA was confirmed as the City’s puppet. Now the HMRC joins the puppet show as they are jostle neck-to-neck in the anti-humanity league table. Just a few of the scores….
* RBS = 50 £billion
* Vodafone = 6 £billion
* Goldman Sachs = 10 £million
* Lost Tax Revenue (courtesy of tax havens) = 35 £billion
Not forgetting the generosity of the British taxpayer, who kept Netherlands Government out of the eurozone intensive care ward by paying-off ABN-AMRO’s toxic debt
Lord Turner recently stated:- “It is very difficult to put together a legal case against senior RBS staff. You need to prove people were fraudulent, reckless or incompetent in a way you can pin down, precisely and on a personal basis, as having led directly to the failure that occurred. But you also have to show it was criticisable and outside the bounds of reasonableness, a key phrase, at the time and not with hindsight. Our lawyers went through it and believe they did not have a case that would stand up in a court of law.”
So the establishment (the City, the FSA and HMRC and the 1% elite including Cameron) has now closed ranks; leaving the remaining 99% to be screwed.
And yes – half the problem is the auditors.
perhaps the premier shareholders group could exercise their right to vote at the AGM in relation to the issue of auditors then – assuming you actually hold any shares that is.
The Premier Low Risk Fund plc has an authorised share capital of £200,100 divided into 100 Management Shares of £1.00 each (all of which are held in a secret Caribbean company with no known directors or beneficial owners) and 200,00 Unclassified Shares of £0.001 each, available for issue as Nominal Shares.
The Ordinary Shares are held by the hundreds of pensioners who were fraudulently misled into transferring their life savings to the Fund. They carry no right to vote at the AGM (general meetings).
Do you think the directors are stupid?
The auditors, Deloitte supported the ICAEW, have declared (in writing) that it is nothing to do with them.
Anything else?
In 2005, the FSA allowed the take-over of Singer & Friedlander by Kaupthing, despite severe reservations expressed by Singer & Friedlander’s CEO Tony Shearer and other board members who warned the FSA that their experience of Kaupthing and its management lead them to believe that the Kaupthing management were “not fit and proper people to control a UK bank”. Questioned on this by the Treasury Select Committee into the impact of the failure of the Icelandic banks, Hector Sants’ response was that the FSA was obliged to take the word of the Icelandic regulator and was thus effectively impotent. A somewhat astonishing admission, of little comfort to those who lost money as a result.
As Tony Shearer wrote recently in a comment on the ongoing SFO investigations related to Kaupthing: ” … the circumstances raise so many questions about the border between acceptable practice, naivety, incompetence, negligence, and criminal behaviour. And that applies to management, borrowers, auditors, regulators, and other advisers. The authorities need to put into the public domain what happened so that the lessons can be learned, and people in the future will know what is, and is not, acceptable practice and behaviour. In addition those who lost money as a result deserve to have some explanations.”
http://uti.is/2011/09/how-fares-vincent-tchenguiz-after-the-kaupthing-settlement/
With regard to treatment of whistle-blowers, this extract from part of Tony Shearer’s evidence to the Treasury Select Committee (memorandum of 5 March 2009) seems typical:
“Also the sequence of events (in addition to the comments referred to above that we made about the Kaupthing management), all of which was known to the FSA at the time, was:
1. the board of Singer recommended a cash offer as they refused to countenance an offer in Kaupthing shares as we did not trust the Kaupthing management;
2. I decided I would not stay and work with Kaupthing and left at the end of November 2005;
3. then the Finance Director resigned and left for the same reason;
4. then the Head of the Bank resigned and left for the same reason; and
5. then both the Heads of Risk and Compliance were fired, and, based on what they both told me, explained the facts orally to the FSA.
Accordingly there were a number of warning flags for the FSA to respond to, other than what might, or might not, have been said in the forms completed by the Heads of Risk and compliance.
Nor Mr Sants did say that neither of the Non-Executive directors that he placed so much reliance on asked to see either of the Heads of Risk or Compliance to ask why they were leaving. Nor did he refer to the results of the Arrow report into Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the autumn of 2008.
For all these reasons Mr Sants’ answer was at best so incomplete as to be misleading.
Mr Sants was also asked about the protection that the FSA gave to whistle-blowers. He did not answer this question but chose to answer the question of whether he took whistle-blowers seriously.
The facts are that the FSA never took seriously the opinions of any of the people from Singer & Friedlander in 2005, 2006, 2007 or even when I wrote to him in April and May 2008.
Since my evidence he and the FSA have tried to downplay my evidence. Hardly the actions of taking whistle-blowers seriously, let alone encouraging them to come forward by their treatment of them. This, as far as I can see, is also the situation relating to the former Head of Compliance at HBoS, regardless of whether his allegations are correct or not. Rather than protecting him, Mr Sants and the FSA have attempted to ridicule and marginalise him.”
In its final report, the Treasury Committee found it “laudable” that Mr Shearer brought to the attention of the FSA his concerns over the takeover of S&F, but refrained from any direct criticism of the operation of the FSA when they concluded:
“While the [FSA] appears to have investigated these concerns, this episode shows the paramount need for the [FSA] to be open to those that may wish to contact it to register their disquiet over problems they encounter in the financial markets. We also note with great concern the impotence of the FSA to tackle directly the concerns brought to its attention as a consequence of its lack of jurisdiction, which we discuss below.”
The Treasury response to these (and several other) concerns expressed by the Committee was that they were “a matter for the FSA”. The FSA, not surprisingly, agreed that “individuals should be encouraged to share concerns with us …” and assured the Treasury that it would “continue to take any allegations brought to our attention seriously, and ensure they are properly and professionally investigated.” Well, they would, wouldn’t they?
Those who lost out when Kaupthing collapsed (including depositors in the Isle of Man who, unlike those in London, were not bailed out) are still waiting for answers. All requests for an independent inquiry have met with a brick wall.
Not forgetting good old Bernie Madoff who stole 65 billion dollars — some of it courtesy of lax regulation in the equally good old City of London!
The swanky offices in Mayfair’s “Hedge Fund Ally” of Madoff Securities International Limited(conveniently outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but inside the ineffective FSA jurisdiction) played a significant role in helping hide his fraud.
This office allowed Madoff (employers) to log directly onto the NASDAQ exchange from offshore; and because the City is offshore Madoff was able to wire money from his U.S. operations to London, invent transactions worth hundreds of millions of dollars to replicate fake trades, or simply wash the funds out of his American accounts, then spend them on luxury items, including buying his million dollar yacht named the “Leopard”- this is otherwise known as money laundering.
If Bernie had moved all his operations to the City of London he may still be around.
Instead of in jail.
I don’t go with all this 99% vs 1% stuff, I’m defintely not one of the 1% but nor am I part of the 99% either. It’s just a left wing slogan. But as I have said before HMRC is an organization not fit for purpose, Quite frankly it is amateurish, and I mean that in the sense of the word in that it is not as professional as many private sector organizations. I can give you chapter and verse on that. But be careful here lefties, it might be that HMRC might be better privatised
(pause for lefty hissing fit), or run by a Courageous State, I don’t know, I’ll go with whatever works- that’s the rub
Privatisation wil mean even more capture
Surely you ate not serious?
Calm down Stephen.
The 99% is EVERYONE who has the moral decency to recognise that the City of London (along with its nasty elitist cliques and chain of tax havens) has no rightful place in our world.
If you are NOT one of the 99% then you are sitting on the fence.
Please justify the existence of the City (here) so we can share your knowledge.
A genuinely progressive taxation system, where the most well off individuals and companies are required to pay the most, i.e, those earning £80,000-£100,000 a year pay 60p in the pound income tax is probably the major component for dealing with a structural deficit.
That, along with tight regulation of the banking and finance sectors, capital controls, renationalisation of electricity, water and gas as well as transport and massive investment in housing, infrastructure and transport will go some way to address this.
Of course, under the present consensus, anything that requires the rich and capital to pay more towards addressing this economic malaise would be anathema and thus would never, ever happen.
Only the poor and vunerable are required to pay, not the rich.
This is ENTIRELY OFF TOPIC but posted in the knowledge that many well-informed accountants read this column and (presuming on the generosity of Mr. Murphy) in the hope that one (or two) may respond.
Questions:
* Why would plc “company secretaries” continually resign?
* Why would a ten year old plc get through nearly as many Secretaries?
For example this year’s annual report informs shareholders that in the space of four months there were two resignations and three different Secretaries.
Obviously without specific knowledge of company culture, employee relations and perhaps access to the “books” any response can only be afforded as very general indicators.
Just interested.
can you tell us what company you are talking about?
In view of the number of months (if not years) that you have been a regular member of Richard’s family of “contributors” would you consider this to be a dumb question?