My thanks to a loyal reader who directed me to Hansard 28 April 2016 wrt
There are numerous mentions of our old friends at Mapeley and the significance of 2021.
suspect that the word “Mapeley” will come up in the course of this
debate, so let me touch on it. I referred earlier to the more than 700
offices formerly used by HMRC. Mapeley Estates snapped up more than 130
of them for its offshore property portfolio after loading itself up with
debt in order to front up its side of this rotten charade with the then
Government: 84% of the funding that Mapeley obtained to acquire that
lucrative contract came in the form of loans. That shabby deal with a
shabby company comes to an end in 2021. For the privilege of renting
publicly built offices sold off for a song, HMRC will have the right to occupy buildings, with leases based on market terms” after that date. That is very generous of Mapeley.
I commend the National Audit Office on its 2009 report on the deal. It is redolent with phrases such as, “the
Department has not achieved value for money…The Department did not
fully appreciate the risks… The Department has not had strong processes
to monitor the overall cost of the contract and whether it is achieving
value for money”.
is part of the truth behind the closures—a private finance initiative
deal worth billions from the public purse, used to enrich a
Bermuda-domiciled corporate entity, with the public left with nothing at
the end of 20 years, except the right to sign a commercial lease.
will end with the words of a PCS member and HMRC employee, my
constituent Bobby Young, who is chair of the PCS Revenue and Customs
“Whilst my branch
welcomes the news of a slight increase of jobs in Glasgow, we absolutely
oppose it if it comes at the cost of jobs elsewhere. Communities from
Bathgate to Bootle will be devastated by these closures—that is not a
price worth paying for the sake of a few extra jobs in Glasgow.”
anyone should know about prices, it is an employee of Her Majesty’s
Revenue and Customs. Sadly, it seems that their superiors know very
little about value.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Tax does have to be taxing.
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations
recently discovered that the ownership of the leases of HMRC
offices—this has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend—was
transferred to a company called Mapeley in 2001. You could not make this
up, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where is Mapeley based? In the Bahamas. That is
right: HMRC pays rent to a company registered in a tax haven. To quote
the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this Government have
scored a “massive own goal”. Who stands to profit from the sales of HMRC
local offices? You guessed it: Mapeley again. Why not use local council
offices that may be available, and then any profits from the rents
would go straight to the Treasury?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Minister will be able to answer some of our questions today, but I must
emphasise that debates alone will not be enough. We need the people
behind these proposals to come here to explain them directly to
Parliament. That would allow Members to get stuck into the nuts and
bolts and to get behind the management-speak and buzzwords that are too
often passed off as answers. If that does not happen, staff and
taxpayers will be left questioning whether HMRC is really “building our
future”, as the glossy brochure states, or whether this is in fact a
question of buildings forcing our future. It has already been pointed
out that this is taking place in the context of the expiry of the
extraordinary contracts that were entered into in 2001, when 600 or so
properties were sold to the offshore company, Mapeley Steps, and then
leased back, PFI-style, to HMRC. Those contracts expire in the years
leading up to 2021. In the absence of answers to our questions, many
will conclude that this is more about digging HMRC out of the hole that
it jumped into in 2001, rather than being about any kind of strategy.
That is the only conclusion open to us.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Well, Minister, it’s all a bit of mess, isn’t it? I
congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on
securing the debate. He touched on staff morale, the workforce figures
and the fact that there has been no ministerial statement. Along with
several other hon. Members, he also mentioned the shameful Mapeley
contract, signed—I am sad to say—by a Labour Government who did not
realise at the time that it was an overseas company.
Insurance to protect you against the cost of enquiry or dispute with HMRC is available from several sources including Solar Tax Investigation Insurance.
Ken Frost has negotiated a 10% discount on any polices that may suit your needs.
However, neither Ken Frost nor HMRCISSHITE either endorses or recommends their services.
What is Solar Tax Investigation Insurance
Solar Tax Investigation Insurance
is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.
To find out more, please use this link Solar Tax Investigation Insurance
HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com
), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com
, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com
"The Living Brand