Leading article: The tax system is credible only if fair

Thursday 16 February 2012 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, was summoned to the House of Commons to explain why the head of the student loans company was being paid as a private contractor, rather than as a government employee, he just about defused the scandal. He announced that Ed Lester would in future have his tax deducted at source, he said that he, Mr Alexander, was setting up a review to discover the extent of the practice throughout Whitehall, and he gave the impression that such pay arrangements were highly unusual.

Not so unusual; it now transpires that two dozen or more senior staff paid by the Department of Health benefit from a similar tax status. The department has now apologised for denying in a Commons written answer that any of its civil servants were paid through private companies. It turns out this was true only in the narrowest sense. All anyone had to do was apply the duck test – if it walks like one, talks like one and looks like one, it probably is one. If the employees concerned are not classified as civil servants only by dint of being paid through a private company – even though they are doing essentially government jobs – any distinction is spurious.

It is also worth noting that the Health Department produced its apology only after documents were leaked to a newspaper, which must fuel the suspicion that paying senior staff through companies has become rather more widespread across Whitehall than ministers might have divulged, or even realised. Mr Alexander's review has much work to do.

The Government now finds itself steering welfare reforms through Parliament that will have the effect of cutting many people's benefits, while appearing to connive with tax avoidance by some of its own best-paid employees. This is as absurd as it is unjust. The only remedy is full transparency from the Government about who it employs, on what terms and why. At present, some departments publish such information, but many others do not. Any evidence that Whitehall operates one tax rule for senior employees and another for the rest risks discrediting the whole system. It is in the Government's own interest to get its house in order.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in