Former HMRC impact assessment programme manager Wendy Bradley raises concerns over the direct recovery of debts (DRD) consultation process.
On 9 May, I wrote to HMRC’s consultation coordinator raising some concerns about the consultation on the controversial proposal for HMRC to be given power to take money direct from bank accounts. My concerns related to the process of consultation, rather than the content of the consultation document.
Specifically, I asked why the consultation started at stage two: why were we being asked about the detail of the policy design (see bit.ly/1wlFwAB ) and not whether there was a legitimate policy issue to which this was a rational solution? I also asked about the equality impact assessment, which simply said: ‘HMRC does not hold data which indicates impacts on any protected group.’
On 12 May, I added the concern that the consultation had been published on 6 May, during the pre-election period (purdah) for the European elections (which started on 2 May, according to the guidance).
I was surprised to receive neither a reply nor even an acknowledgement, so on 19 June I forwarded the correspondence to the named lead official on DRD. I thought the consultation coordinator might have moved on or my email might have gone astray for some other reason. Again, neither reply nor acknowledgment, so on 14 July I resorted to making a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for:
Finally, on 8 August, I heard from the new consultation coordinator. He said that the previous coordinator had moved on in January and her name had been included in the 9 May consultation document ‘in error’. His email went on to state that ‘aspects of the consultation coordinator role were covered by other officials until I was appointed at the very end of April 2014. I am sorry that we did not manage this handover process well.’
There is a generic consultation coordinator email address, which seems not to have been monitored during the ‘handover process’. A cynic might say this illustrates the importance HMRC attaches to consultation in general.
As to my specific complaints over the fact that the DRD consultation jumped straight to stage two, I received the response you would expect: ‘The tax consultation framework does not commit the government to carrying out consultation at each stage for every change to tax policy and legislation … For some policies, the government consults only on certain elements of the change.’ One might then reasonably ask why have a ‘framework’ at all – but perhaps the e-petition (by Mike Truman, editor of Taxation) against the DRD proposals may be a better response.
On the equality impact issue, the consultation coordinator elaborated on the lack of data without appearing to understand that ‘due consideration’ surely means looking at what data you have and for any data you need. As for the publication of the consultation during the European pre-election period, I was told that ‘a change to the recovery of tax and tax credit debt at a national level … clearly doesn’t have a particular emphasis on European or local issues’.
Finally, what about my question on how much correspondence went unanswered? The FOI response tells me that, between 15 July 2013 and 14 July 2014, aside from my two emails, the consultation coordinator received exactly two emails. Perhaps we need to use this channel more often before we lose it altogether. On the other hand, would we notice?
Former HMRC impact assessment programme manager Wendy Bradley raises concerns over the direct recovery of debts (DRD) consultation process.
On 9 May, I wrote to HMRC’s consultation coordinator raising some concerns about the consultation on the controversial proposal for HMRC to be given power to take money direct from bank accounts. My concerns related to the process of consultation, rather than the content of the consultation document.
Specifically, I asked why the consultation started at stage two: why were we being asked about the detail of the policy design (see bit.ly/1wlFwAB ) and not whether there was a legitimate policy issue to which this was a rational solution? I also asked about the equality impact assessment, which simply said: ‘HMRC does not hold data which indicates impacts on any protected group.’
On 12 May, I added the concern that the consultation had been published on 6 May, during the pre-election period (purdah) for the European elections (which started on 2 May, according to the guidance).
I was surprised to receive neither a reply nor even an acknowledgement, so on 19 June I forwarded the correspondence to the named lead official on DRD. I thought the consultation coordinator might have moved on or my email might have gone astray for some other reason. Again, neither reply nor acknowledgment, so on 14 July I resorted to making a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for:
Finally, on 8 August, I heard from the new consultation coordinator. He said that the previous coordinator had moved on in January and her name had been included in the 9 May consultation document ‘in error’. His email went on to state that ‘aspects of the consultation coordinator role were covered by other officials until I was appointed at the very end of April 2014. I am sorry that we did not manage this handover process well.’
There is a generic consultation coordinator email address, which seems not to have been monitored during the ‘handover process’. A cynic might say this illustrates the importance HMRC attaches to consultation in general.
As to my specific complaints over the fact that the DRD consultation jumped straight to stage two, I received the response you would expect: ‘The tax consultation framework does not commit the government to carrying out consultation at each stage for every change to tax policy and legislation … For some policies, the government consults only on certain elements of the change.’ One might then reasonably ask why have a ‘framework’ at all – but perhaps the e-petition (by Mike Truman, editor of Taxation) against the DRD proposals may be a better response.
On the equality impact issue, the consultation coordinator elaborated on the lack of data without appearing to understand that ‘due consideration’ surely means looking at what data you have and for any data you need. As for the publication of the consultation during the European pre-election period, I was told that ‘a change to the recovery of tax and tax credit debt at a national level … clearly doesn’t have a particular emphasis on European or local issues’.
Finally, what about my question on how much correspondence went unanswered? The FOI response tells me that, between 15 July 2013 and 14 July 2014, aside from my two emails, the consultation coordinator received exactly two emails. Perhaps we need to use this channel more often before we lose it altogether. On the other hand, would we notice?
