I mentioned in two blogs earlier today that I spoke at an event at the Social Market Foundation this morning.
In one of those blogs I referred to comments made by an HMRC director.
This afternoon the Social Market Foundation called me. HMRC had rung them asking them to ask me to take down the name of the director in question. They did not ring me directly, although I'm pretty easy to find ***.
I refused at first. The meeting was not stated to be under Chatham House rules. But now I'm told it was. So I'll respect the retrospective notification from the Social Market Foundation and take down the Director's name but not the fact she works for HMRC.
But I make three comments in addition. The first is that literally the first thing the director in question said to me this morning was "I hear you met David Gauke recently". I did. Not that he agreed to the meeting in question - we bumped into each other, almost literally. He's assiduously avoided such a meeting ever since being in office whilst happily making speeches about me, no doubt drafted by HMRC staff on his behalf. Who knows, perhaps the Director in question is his ghost on such issues? If so she is then she follows in a tradition of HMRC briefing against my work on the tax gap - all from behind a convenient veil of anonymity that they're obviously very keen to maintain.
Secondly, the director in question admitted that country-by-country reporting will definitely help developing countries collect tax today - but clearly that was not enough to make her think it was of any benefit from a UK perspective. I should have added that in the original post.
Third, the Director in question made the most absurd claims on the corporate tax gap - whilst utterly ignoring the fact that it's calculated on the basis of the 65% or so of corporate tax returns that HMRC collects out of those that they demand be submitted - a failure to collect data on HMRC's part that she happily swept aside saying "we know these small companies don't make money". "How", I asked, "when you don't collect tax returns from them?" That she never answered, tellingly.
No wonder she wanted her blushes spared.
Addition at 19.45:
*** Now the Social Market Foundation say this is not true. They say now HMRC did not call them. They apparently just communicated to the SMF that they wanted the Director's name to be taken down. But according to the SMF HMRC said they "didn't want to censor me."
With respect to the SMF, I've faithfully reflected what I was told by them earlier today in this blog. And if they don't make clear at the start of a meeting it's under Chatham House rules - that's their problem.
I think you can take it as read that I won't be doing another gig for the SMF if this is the hassle they deliver.
Addition at 20.15:
The Chatham House Rule says:
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed
To be operative it has to be said to be operative. As Chatham House say:
The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.
It wasn't invoked in this case. Therefore it did not apply. Therefore I did not break it. Therefore HMRC and the SMF were both wrong to seek to retrospectively invoke it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
[…] This blog has been amended at the request of HMRC, not that they had the courage to ask me to do so …. Apparently they don’t like me reporting what they say – although they’re ready […]
It’s a bit of a bugger that HMRC haven’t got their wee heads around folk who read blogs via RSS readers.
The name’s still there on my reader.
HMRC seems to be a wholly owned by Crony Capitalists.
Perhaps if it was “privatised” and then “incentivised” like ATOS more monies would be collected from tax-dodgers? Just a thought.
Regards
Oh no.
What we need is a proper civil service
I’m sorry to report that you have has form on this – shortly after a meeting held under Chatham House rules last year, a number of quotes attributed to named attendees of the meeting (and I’m afraid ad hominem attacks) appeared on this blog.
I’d be curious to know to what you refer. I repeat, I have not knowingly breached the Chatham House rule. I stress – it has to be invoked to apply and I respect it when it is. But if it’s not invoked it does not apply. It’s really rather simple.
I suspect I know the meeting you refer to – at which Mike Devereux amongst others spoke – and the rule was never invoked.
In which case you are wrong. Reporting crass comments is not the same as breaching the Chatham House rule
OK.
Some people might find it odd, however, that you have now been accused of breaching the CHR on two occasions and each time you have pleaded ignorance.
You admit that both HMRC and the SMF (the organiser!) understood the meeting to be under CHR. I am sure your readers can make up their own minds as to who is likely to be correct.
But if it’s not said in the meeting and it’s not advised in advance – even in the speaker’s notes then it isn’t.
Just go and read the Chatham House rule. The rule has to be invoked to apply. It was not, so it did not
And I repeat, I always respect it when it is invoked
Put simple, you’re wrong
[…] admit I was pretty annoyed yesterday to find that I had been accused of breaking the Chatham House rule when speaking at and blogging on […]
“I think you can take it as read that I won’t be doing another gig for the SMF if this is the hassle they deliver. ”
And I think you can take it as read that you won’t be getting another invitation from them, too.
Which won’t worry me! In the slightest
So let’s get this clear. Do we no longer have freedom of speech in this country? How can someone who is paid to work for the public sector i.e. whose wages are paid for by the general public, not be totally transparent in all her dealing? We should be allowed to scrutinise
her change of direction via a qualified professional acting on behalf of the general underdogs!
Please don’t change Richard and keep blogging!
This is about power – including control of the messages
That’s the beginning and end of it
“They say now HMRC did not call them. They apparently just communicated to the SMF that they wanted the Director’s name to be taken down.”
So how did HMRC communicate to SMF – mental telepathy?
I wondered that! I just reported accurately what they said
Methinks they got min a hole and just kept digging
But whatever was the case – this meeting was not under Chatham House rules
I couldn’t be at the event (thankyou RailTrack/FCC) but nowhere on the invite or the flier was CH mentioned, and others I know who did attend (and would have been aware of the relevance of it) were equally unaware that CH might be invoked – not great practice on the part of the organisers at a free registration event, effectively open to members of the public who’d have no idea what CH is all about…
Precisely
But thanks
I so want to write something unprintable about the spin/lying machine that is in perpetual motion just now….but I’ll spare you that. Just don’t stop irritating the unprincipled bastards in your principled way.