This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/03/unthinkable-publish-and-be-damned

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Unthinkable? Publish and be damned Unthinkable? Publish and be damned
(5 months later)
The high court was told this week that it is extremely rare for the facts of any of the tax settlements between the revenue and large businesses to become public. The National Audit Office came to the same conclusion. What they called "bespoke governance settlements" represented good value for the country and were properly carried out. That is, of course, until the details of any such "sweetheart" deal are leaked – such as the "handshake" deal between Dave Hartnett, former permanent secretary of HMRC, and Goldman Sachs. As we now know, this was anything but transparent. It nearly came apart when it was rejected by the revenue's high-risk corporate programme board because it failed to collect any interest on the sum owed, but was nodded through to prevent the bank pulling out of a new code of conduct George Osborne had just announced. Up to £20m waived? All in a day's work. According to Hartnett, deals in excess of £1bn are "not uncommon". HMRC say that a lot of dosh is collected by protecting taxpayer confidentiality. But Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee, surely has a point when she asks that if we got £4.5bn from four settlements alone, how many more billions have slipped under the thickly piled carpet? The fact is that major deals are being struck about which we know nothing. If they are such good value, why be so shy? Wherefore the modesty? Why not publish the details of each one as a matter of course and let the public judge for itself?The high court was told this week that it is extremely rare for the facts of any of the tax settlements between the revenue and large businesses to become public. The National Audit Office came to the same conclusion. What they called "bespoke governance settlements" represented good value for the country and were properly carried out. That is, of course, until the details of any such "sweetheart" deal are leaked – such as the "handshake" deal between Dave Hartnett, former permanent secretary of HMRC, and Goldman Sachs. As we now know, this was anything but transparent. It nearly came apart when it was rejected by the revenue's high-risk corporate programme board because it failed to collect any interest on the sum owed, but was nodded through to prevent the bank pulling out of a new code of conduct George Osborne had just announced. Up to £20m waived? All in a day's work. According to Hartnett, deals in excess of £1bn are "not uncommon". HMRC say that a lot of dosh is collected by protecting taxpayer confidentiality. But Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee, surely has a point when she asks that if we got £4.5bn from four settlements alone, how many more billions have slipped under the thickly piled carpet? The fact is that major deals are being struck about which we know nothing. If they are such good value, why be so shy? Wherefore the modesty? Why not publish the details of each one as a matter of course and let the public judge for itself?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.