24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Pressure continues to grow for action to cut taxpayer funding of trade unions

Dec 19th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

A new dossier of evidence demonstrating how trade unions are abusing the subsidies they get from the taxpayer has today been published by Witham MP, Priti Patel.

Citing our recent research note, Taxpayer funding of trade unions 2011,  Ms Patel’s dossier – as previewed over the weekend in the Sunday Express  – makes the case for urgent reforms.

Ms Patel has uncovered:

  • Examples of how unions encourage their members to abuse taxpayer-funded facility time by stretching the definition of what counts as legitimate union activity. She cites a Unison guide to facility time which instructs its members: “…Although you’re entitled to unpaid time off to attend conference, branch meetings, etc., why not try to get those activities covered by your paid time off?”;
  • Examples of trade unionists with public sector jobs using taxpayer-funded time for political campaigns against the cuts being implemented by the Government. Cases highlighted in the dossier include a PCS union official abusing taxpayer-funded resources to promote the “Blackpool Against the Cuts” campaign (alongside evidence that the PCS trade union has formally advised its reps to abuse facility time);
  • How the taxpayer subsidy to the unions is increased further when councils or other public sector organisations provide them with free office space. Camden Council has been providing free of charge a disused council building for nine taxpayer-funded union officials organising anti-cuts campaigns – resources worth hundreds of thousands of pounds;
  • Abuse of the money given to unions by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Union Learning Fund – with over £20,000 now being repaid by the TUC, by order of the Skills Minister, after the cash was found to have been used to publish politically inappropriate material;
  • Details of the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money channelled to unions through European Union funds, some of which is merely paying to train trade unionists in organising and activism, and for which they are then awarded Diplomas and Certificates.

Ms Patel’s dossier – which you can download here – has been passed to David Cameron and Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, for further consideration and is an extremely valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about taxpayer funding of trade unions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance will continue to make the point that while it is perfectly legitimate for trade unions to represent their members’ interests, it is simply unfair and wrong that taxpayers’ money should be subsidising them: all union activities should be funded by their members’ subscriptions.

Pressure continues to grow for action to cut taxpayer funding of trade unions

Dec 19th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

A new dossier of evidence demonstrating how trade unions are abusing the subsidies they get from the taxpayer has today been published by Witham MP, Priti Patel.

Citing our recent research note, Taxpayer funding of trade unions 2011,  Ms Patel’s dossier – as previewed over the weekend in the Sunday Express  – makes the case for urgent reforms.

Ms Patel has uncovered:

  • Examples of how unions encourage their members to abuse taxpayer-funded facility time by stretching the definition of what counts as legitimate union activity. She cites a Unison guide to facility time which instructs its members: “…Although you’re entitled to unpaid time off to attend conference, branch meetings, etc., why not try to get those activities covered by your paid time off?”;
  • Examples of trade unionists with public sector jobs using taxpayer-funded time for political campaigns against the cuts being implemented by the Government. Cases highlighted in the dossier include a PCS union official abusing taxpayer-funded resources to promote the “Blackpool Against the Cuts” campaign (alongside evidence that the PCS trade union has formally advised its reps to abuse facility time);
  • How the taxpayer subsidy to the unions is increased further when councils or other public sector organisations provide them with free office space. Camden Council has been providing free of charge a disused council building for nine taxpayer-funded union officials organising anti-cuts campaigns – resources worth hundreds of thousands of pounds;
  • Abuse of the money given to unions by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Union Learning Fund – with over £20,000 now being repaid by the TUC, by order of the Skills Minister, after the cash was found to have been used to publish politically inappropriate material;
  • Details of the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money channelled to unions through European Union funds, some of which is merely paying to train trade unionists in organising and activism, and for which they are then awarded Diplomas and Certificates.

Ms Patel’s dossier – which you can download here – has been passed to David Cameron and Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, for further consideration and is an extremely valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about taxpayer funding of trade unions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance will continue to make the point that while it is perfectly legitimate for trade unions to represent their members’ interests, it is simply unfair and wrong that taxpayers’ money should be subsidising them: all union activities should be funded by their members’ subscriptions.

David Cameron challenged at strike day PMQs about TPA report on taxpayer funding of trade unions

Dec 1st, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

There has already been much publicity in the media for our report last week into Taxpayer funding of trade unions. We found that at least £113 million of taxpayers’ money was last year given to trade unions either in direct grants or through taxpayer-subsidised “facility time” – and we believe that it should be stopped.

At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions – coinciding with the strike by many of the unions which are benefiting from that taxpayer funding – Tewkesbury MP Laurence Robertson cited our research as he raised the issue with David Cameron.


The Prime Minster agreed in his answer that it was indeed time to review the situation and said that he would end the practice of “full-time trade unionists working in the public sector on trade union business”. The exchange is the subject of a report in this morning’s Guardian and you can watch if for yourself above.

This is the second week running that TPA research has been discussed at Prime Minister’s Questions. Last week our report into excessive motoring taxes was raised with David Cameron.

David Cameron challenged at PMQs over TPA report on motoring taxes

Nov 24th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

In case you missed it, our recent report into the excessive motoring taxes paid by British drivers took centre stage in Parliament on Wednesday. We found that the residents of Maldon in Essex are clobbered by higher motoring taxes than anyone else in the country, so their local MP, John Whittingdale, asked David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions what he was going to do about this “intolerable burden”.

The Prime Minister replied by saying that he is “absolutely committed” to helping people with their motoring expenses at this time of economic difficulty – and you can be sure that we at the TPA will hold him to that. The Prime Minister added that the TaxPayers’ Alliance was doing “a good job” of highlighting the issue. Here’s the full exchange:

TaxPayers’ Alliance reveals November’s “Pin-Up” and “Pinhead” of the Month

Nov 24th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Today the TaxPayers’ Alliance announces the latest recipients of its monthly awards to celebrate those in power who have sought to save – and waste – taxpayers’ money.

The man, woman or organisation to be congratulated for saving public money or acting in the interests of the hard-pressed taxpayer is named the TPA’s “Pin-Up of the Month”, while whoever is found to have shown the greatest disregard for taxpayers’ cash is shamed as the TPA’s “Pinhead of the Month”.

November 2011’s Pin-Up of the Month is Martin Callanan MEP, the Conservative MEP for the North East of England who also leads his party’s delegation in Brussels.  This month he has consistently put country and constituency before loyalty to his party or the Coalition Government, most recently in his reaction to the closure of the Alcan aluminium smelter in Northumberland. It will shut as a result of soaring energy costs and punishing green taxes – an issue the TPA highlighted last week in a paper, Industrial masochism: The carbon floor price and energy intensive industry.

Mr Callanan observed that the workers being made redundant in his constituency were seeing “their livelihoods sacrificed to the obsession with all things green”, and that alongside the previous Labour administration and Brussels-inspired regulations, “our Government is partly to blame”. On the Eurozone crisis, he has given a refreshingly honest assessment of the situation, calling for Greece to default on its debt and leave the euro, whilst he has also fervently opposed any increase in the EU budget while national budgets are being cut.

Meanwhile, the TPA’s Pinhead of the Month for November is Cllr Jason Kitcat, a Green Party councillor in Brighton and Hove, where he is Cabinet member for Finance & Central Services in the Green minority administration. He has been boasting this month about his administration’s decision to refuse the Government funding which would allow for a freeze in council tax next year and to instead impose a 3.5% increase in council tax for Brighton and Hove residents.

Jonathan Isaby, Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, commented:

“TheTaxPayers’ Alliance has always believed that key to delivering taxpayer value for money is exposing those in power to public scrutiny by ensuring that there is transparency and openness in how they spend our hard-earned cash. And as well as making examples of those who have shown a disregard for public money, it is important to recognise those who have tried to do the right thing by taxpayers.

“Martin Callanan has shown himself to be a doughty defender both of British interests when it comes to fighting increases in the EU Budget and also of his constituents in the North East, whose jobs are being destroyed by the Government’s misguided green taxes. It has also been refreshing to hear a British politician saying about the Greek economy what so many others are thinking but have dared not say. He is a worthy Pin-Up of the Month.

“Sadly, Jason Kitcat seems to revel in being part of the only council administration anywhere in the land currently planning to increase council tax next year, when most others are seeking to implement a freeze or a cut. Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed that their civic leaders have so little regard for their hard-earned cash that they want to snatch even more of it.

“Council tax virtually doubled over the last decade – without an equivalent increase in quality or quantity of services – so Cllr Kitcat and his colleagues should be looking at how to make savings from what they are already taking. Earlier in the year we found the council’s mileage rate to be 65p, rather than the HMRC-recommended level of 45p, whilst it was still employing three “European Officers” and three political advisers. Has anything been done to rectify that waste of taxpayers’ money? Other councils are cutting their coats according to their cloth: Brighton and Hove should follow suit.”

Not a penny more of taxpayers’ money should be handed to political parties

Nov 22nd, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Today has seen the publication of the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life into political party finance. You can read the full 116-page report here, but to cut to the quick, the proposal which will alarm taxpayers up and down the country is for political parties to get a subsidy from the taxpayer to the tune of around £23 million per year.

Here’s how the report summarises its plan:

“Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties”

Quite simply, when the Government and local councils are making cuts to their budgets, the idea that some of those savings should be channelled into the coffers of political parties is monstrous.

The scheme as envisaged by the Kelly Committee would have seen the following amounts thrown at the parties after last year’s general election, based on the idea of a £3 subsidy per vote:

  • Conservatives – £32,179,842
  • Labour – £25,828,581
  • Liberal Democrats – £20,510,472
  • Scottish National Party – £1,474,158
  • Sinn Fein – £515,826
  • Democratic Unionist Party – £504,648
  • Plaid Cymru – £496,182
  • Social Democratic and Labour Party – £332,910

That amounts to a handout of nearly £92 million. And it would mean you pay a fortune to support political parties you don’t support.  Labour voters funding the Conservatives and Conservative voters funding Labour, whether they like it or not.

But of course that’s not all; you then have to factor in the grants that would be given after elections to the European Parliament, which would have amounted to the following if the £1.50-per-vote scheme had been in operation after the 2009 elections:

  • Conservatives – £6,297,591
  • UKIP – £3,747,339
  • Labour – £3,572,640
  • Liberal Democrats – £3,120,920
  • Green Party – £1,955,618
  • BNP – £1,415,397
  • Scottish National Party – £481,511

That comes to more than £20 million. And that’s before you factor in the figures to be given after devolved elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the report notes, millions of pounds are already given to political parties: opposition parties in the Commons and Lords get financial support to assist them in their parliamentary activities, in recognition that they don’t have the civil service back-up enjoyed by Government ministers. That funding should be cut, not supplemented.

But taxpayers will be aghast at the sums Kelly is now proposing be diverted to parties. The report’s spin is that his plan amounts to “only about 50p a year for each UK elector”. But just the £92 million in core funding is the equivalent of the entire annual pay of well over 4,000 people on average earnings.  If Kelly thinks voters are so keen to see their hard-earned cash go to political parties, they should be given the free choice as to whether they make such donations of their own free will out of their own paypackets.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance takes a robust view on this: not a single penny more of taxpayers’ money should be handed to political parties.

Mixed messages from the Government on tax transparency and simplification

Nov 14th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Campaigning for the tax system to be more transparent and simpler has always been one of the core missions of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

And so in broad terms we very much welcome the consultation which was launched this morning by Treasury Minister David Gauke entitled Modernising the administration of the personal tax system: Tax Transparency for Individuals.

The opening line of the document states:

“The Government wants to hear views on how increased transparency and accessibility to tax information can build greater awareness and understanding of how the system works.”

Frankly, it ought to read: “Increased transparency and accessibility to tax information DOES build greater awareness and understanding of how the system works – so we are going to get on and do it.”

Frustrations about the pace at which the wheels of government turn aside (the document is now subject to a 12-week consultation, which should at least allow the Chancellor to deliver some action in the Budget next March), most of the substance and direction of it is to be welcomed.

The Government is already looking at how in some other countries there are systems in operation whereby individuals can go online to see how much they are paying in tax month-by-month and year-on-year.

At the event launching the consultation this morning, David Gauke showed prepared mock-ups of what a personal HMRC web page could look like for Britons. This would enable people easily to see how much of their income goes on income tax and national insurance contributions – including the oft-forgotten employer’s element of the NICs. This would show people year-on-year whether they were paying more or less in tax and would indeed be a welcome leap forward in transparency. As this video produced by the Treasury itself demonstrates, there is widespread public ignorance about how much tax they are actually paying:

Also today, the Government published its latest position on the integration of the operation of income tax and National Insurance Contributions, in response to a consultation it held on the issue earlier this year.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has called for a complete merger of National Insurance and Income Tax, as explained in our recent report, Abolish National Insurance, and that is what we recommended in our response to the consultation: National Insurance is almost indistinguishable from Income Tax in its function of raising revenue and the current system obscures public understanding of tax on earnings.

It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government has not been persuaded of the merits of this case, concluding as it does that that it wishes NICs to “retain an identity distinguishable from income tax” as part of maintaining the so-called contributory principle.

It does, however, accept that “closer integration of the operation of income tax and NICS has the potential to reduce burdens on business, remove economic distortions and improve fairness” – although does not foresee being able to implement any changes until “around 2017”.

At a time when businesses are crying out for red tape to be reduced, five years does seem an extraordinarily long time to wait for any action on this.

The EU’s accounts are not signed off… again

Nov 10th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Benjamin Franklin once observed that “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” I would venture that we could add a third: the inability of the European Union to guarantee that it has legitimately spent all of the taxpayers’ cash which the British and other EU member state governments have given it.

For today the European Court of Auditors – the body charged with auditing the EU’s accounts – has presented its annual report to the European Parliament and for the 17th – yes, seventeenth – year running, it has concluded that the payments underlying the 2010 accounts are “still affected by material error”.

Should you wish to wade through it, the full 250-page document is here, but here are the killer extracts:

“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.

“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”

What does all that actually mean?

As the ECA’s press release this morning explains, the “error rate” represents “the degree of non-compliance with the rules governing the spending, such as breaches of public procurement rules, ineligible or incorrect calculation of costs claimed to EU co-financed projects, or over-declaration of land by farmers”.

And that 3.7% error rate is as a proportion of the EU’s annual budget of €122.2 billion (£104.2 billion), which means that serious questions remain about a staggering €4.5 billion (£3.9 billion) of payments which have been made by Brussels – a figure which has increased since 2009.

And the error rate across the “Cohesion, energy and transport” budget alone was no less than 7.7%.

The fact that this happens year after year does not make it any more acceptable. Moreover, it underlines just how outrageous it is that the European Commission is seeking another increase in its budget when there are question marks over billions of its spending.

UPDATE: With a press release that anyone who knows the first thing about accounting concepts like material error would find hilarious, the EU is claiming that failing to get their accounts past the auditors yet again is some kind of triumph.  They claim that: “For the fourth year in a row, the EU’s annual accounts have received a clean bill of health from its external auditors.”

Let them eat carbon gets raised twice in a week on the floor of the Commons

Oct 25th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Matthew Sinclair’s recent book, Let Them Eat Carbon, continues to attract the attention of parliamentarians at Westminster. Last week it was mentioned twice in the House of Commons chamber, firstly by Wycombe MP Steve Baker during a debate on Wednesday, while explaining his concerns that government-backed EU climate change policies are distorting energy prices and increasing bills for every British family. Watch what he said here:

Then on Thursday, there was an exchange at Energy and Climate Change Questions between Bury North MP David Nuttall and DECC minister, Charles Hendry. The clip below begins with the minister’s reply to David Nuttall’s question asking what the Government is doing to reduce the cost of gas and electricity for consumers:

It was somewhat surprising to hear Charles Hendry so merrily dismissing the figures on the relative costs of meeting environmental targets as cited in the book: they come from table four on page seven of this Citigroup analysis which the Department for Energy and Climate Change itself has used as a source – see footnote 9 on this official DECC document, for example.

I await Mr Hendry’s response to my email pointing this out with interest…

Some food for thought for Polly Toynbee and the Occupy London protesters

Oct 18th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

In her piece for today’s Guardian, Polly Toynbee describes her trip to the protest camp outside St Paul’s in the City of London on Sunday night, shortly after her “fierce argument” with me on Sky News on the subject.

I’ll overlook the fact that she misquotes me in the piece – and for branding me “disgraceful” in a Tweet yesterday – in the hope that she can be persuaded that not only are there more useful responses to the economic crisis than setting up camp in the City, but also that there is much on which all of us frustrated  about the situation should be able to agree.

In the initial statement agreed by Occupy London – which Toynbee commends – there are key points on which the TaxPayers’ Alliance can find common cause, namely in our opposition to bailing out the banks and in wanting “regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate”. (more...)

Trade Union fatcats report raised at PMQs

Oct 12th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Last month the TaxPayers’ Alliance published an updated edition of our 2011 Trade Union Rich List which identified the 38 trade union bosses who took remuneration of more than £100,000 last year.

The MP for Crawley, Henry Smith, brought this to David Cameron’s attention at Prime Minister’s Questions today. Watch the exchange from the House of Commons chamber:

Trade Union fatcats report raised at PMQs

Oct 12th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

Last month the TaxPayers’ Alliance published an updated edition of our 2011 Trade Union Rich List which identified the 38 trade union bosses who took remuneration of more than £100,000 last year.

The MP for Crawley, Henry Smith, brought this to David Cameron’s attention at Prime Minister’s Questions today. Watch the exchange from the House of Commons chamber:

Brussels’ new £15 million propaganda temple

Oct 12th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

It may well have escaped your notice – probably because you have better things to do than to be looking for things to do in Brussels – but as of this week the Belgian capital has become home to a new “tourist attraction”.

On Friday the so-called Parliamentarium is opening – a brand new European Parliament visitor centre which has been paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayer at a cost of £15.5 million – nearly £5 million over budget and opening three years later than originally planned.

The official blurb about the exhibition – which aims to present the history of the EU to its citizens – could not make it sound more ludicrous:

“A highly varied presentation spread out over three floors holds the visitor’s attention. It consists of carefully harmonised narrative spaces, which lend three-dimensional expression to the contents of the exhibition… The Parliamentarium conveys the motto of the European Union, “United in Diversity”, in an emotional manner.”

And be in no doubt, it is propaganda central. The room entitled “United in Diversity” features “a walk-on map spread out over the floor, showing a Europe without borders” and enables visitors to “interactively acquire information on events that caused the European Parliament to draw up regulations that are valid and applicable throughout Europe”.

It includes a “light installation” entitled “Sky of Opinions”, while a special effort has been made to indoctrinate children of the need for the European Union to exist, with a mock-up of the Parliament chamber. Again, according to the official blurb, this will enable them to “learn what it means to actively participate in the idea of a united Europe”.

Some have dubbed it the EU’s very own theme park; I’m not sure about that, but it certainly seems like we’re being taken for a ride…

Send the Government a message on fuel duty

Aug 19th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

The Government’s recently launched e-petition website is a small but welcome step towards giving people more say over the country’s affairs: the TPA believes that an online petition gaining sufficient support should be able to trigger a referendum, although for the time being we have to be content with it being eligible for a debate in Parliament.

And the second most popular e-petition right now is one to which I hope TPA supporters will lend their backing.

Organised by Harlow MP Robert Halfon and backed by FairFuel UK, it highlights the fact that many motorists are now having to spend 10% of their income on petrol and calls on the Government to scrap increases in fuel duty planned for next year and the rest of this Parliament.

The TPA has previously demonstrated how motorists are taxed excessively and in his new book out this week, Let them eat carbon, Matthew Sinclair has exposed how green taxes such as fuel duty are excessive compared to the harms they are meant to address.

100,000 signatures would make the petition eligible for a debate in Parliament, and it has just passed the halfway mark – 51,849 people have backed it as of this morning.

Click here to add your support.

The EU approaches a crossroads

Aug 18th, 2011
by Jonathan Isaby.
Comments are off for this post

As Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy this week put forward another set of proposals aimed at trying to rescue the Eurozone from its crisis, the European Union and its peoples are getting ever nearer to a crossroads where fundamental decisions will have to be taken about its future.

The German Chancellor and French President have resurrected the idea of an EU-wide financial transactions tax – which would massively hit the UK due to the sheer volume of such transactions done in the City of London.

Matthew Sinclair set out the case against the so-called Tobin tax (named after the economist who initially proposed it) just last year.

Treasury sources are indicating they would oppose such a plan (see today’s Times £) on the basis that unless it applied globally, the transactions would end up being done elsewhere and we would lose out big time.

It goes without saying that it is absolutely essential that we hold David Cameron, George Osborne et al to vetoing any such tax.

What George Osborne had suggested earlier this month (in this Telegraph article) but which was rejected by Merkozy (as City AM’s Allister Heath has called the Franco-German duo) was for the Eurozone to issue euro bonds allowing for its strongest economies to underwrite the debts of its weakest members.

Such a measure would require a new EU Treaty – unanimously agreed by all 27 member states, of course. And if such a Treaty were agreed, then it would be the first time that the Coalition Government’s EU referendum lock would be tested – the recently passed measure that states that any further transfer of powers to the EU should be subject to a vote of the British people.

Whatever ends up being proposed in the coming weeks and months, the fact that the consent of the people of most European countries has not been sought as the juggernaut of EU integration has ploughed on regardless makes the status quo unsustainable for very much longer.

The current discussions about moving towards “true economic  governance” for the Eurozone within the European Union certainly seem an obvious juncture for all EU member states to assess their role in the club going forwards.

Moreover, here in the UK a consultation with the British public over Britain’s relationship with the EU through a referendum is long overdue.

And I can only see the clamour for such a vote growing as our continental cousins continue to propose measures that would clobber Britain whilst the Brussels bureaucrats ignore calls for austerity and insist that they need bigger and bigger budgets.

Switch to our mobile site