As the Mirror (and others) report this morning:
HM Revenue & Customs is to close all 170 of its offices across the country in favour of 13 new regional tax centres.
The major restructuring aims to slash hundreds of millions of pounds from its budget.
Thousands of HMRC's 56,000 staff could be made redundant in the long term.
The cuts are expected to be so severe that there will be no tax office in south-west England west of Bristol, with little or no coverage in East Anglia.
I have, of course, written extensively on this issue. It is simply impossible to collect tax without people without appropriate local knowledge in the UK. To think otherwise is insanity. And to take HMRC out of the communities it is meant to serve is to deny the fundamental role tax plays in all our lives.
At every level this is the wrong policy for the UK's tax authority and can only increase the tax gap.
But then, that increasingly seems to be the aim of a government whose only goal is to shrink the state, come what may.
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:
I’ve been speaking to some HMRC people from a specialised counter avoidance team who think the closure of their workplace will be announced today. They will be faced with a coerced and unwelcome career change in which everything they know about how compliance efforts can be thwarted will be put at the disposal of the tax avoidance industry.
Is it only me that finds a dark humour in today’s reports of Mr Cameron’s concern about cuts to services in rural areas, such as his constituency? Welcome to the real world Mr Cameron.
I wouldn’t normally think to draw a parallel between my university and HMRC, Richard, but on this occasion I think it valid. As has been widely reported in the press, the OU plans to close most of its regional centres in favour of a more centralised model of distance teaching (ie. more of everything delivered online). Meanwhile it also plans to increase its investment in the MOOC based model of (so called) social learning, FutureLearn.
These plans and those of HMRC are both underpinned and driven by the belief that new digital technologies, and very importantly, their acceptance and availability, have now reached a point where face to face, and thus by definition, localised, provision of a service is no longer necessary – whether that’s tax, education, health, or any kind of retail activity.
In terms of government and public services in the UK the death knell of localised, face to face, service was signalled some years ago now when the government adopted the “digital by default” policy – effectively signalling that it would increasingly be the case that if citizens didn’t have access to online services they could basically go hang.
What’s been interesting observing these development over many years (my first paper on “electronic democracy”, written with my then colleague Jeff Webb,was published in 1994 if memory serves me correctly) is two things. Firstly, that in similar fashion to the capture of economics by people whose foremost interest was maths related, so government and public service policy has increasingly come under the influence of techies. Specifically, people claiming to have a technological fix for that holy grail of public services (for politicians of any stripe and senior management), doing more (or at least the same), but cheaper.
Secondly, the creation of a culture where regardless of whether senior management actually believes in the determinist viewpoint that new technology can pretty much fix anything, they are prepared to throw almost endless amounts of money at techie projects to the exclusion of considering other options, or indeed hybrid models of old fashioned, human centred delivery enhanced by new technology, which are by definition incremental examples of change, and therefore not radical enough for most senior managers/government ministers to put their names to.
Of course, since the early 1990s a whole industry has developed around selling/advising/consulting on technological “solutions” for government and public services. And this received a major boost with the austerity agenda, which drives the pursuit of the holy grail of more for less (most obviously seen in the now manic belief that it’s possible to eliminate almost any back office function in any organisation through new technology).
This is, of course, not a set of developments limited to the UK. But one thing’s for sure: UK government, allied with those commercial entities and individuals who promote and benefit so much from promising that a digital nirvana lies just over the horizon, if only more money is spent on such projects, have for many years seen themselves as in the forefront of such developments. And I see no evidence whatsoever that this obsessive, but frequently misplaced (or at the very least, over-promoted and very expensive), approach will ever be reigned in (not least because it echoes a recurrent theme in human history: that ultimately technology can rescue us for all our ills).
This was a Blair ideology, from a man who could not write an email
I agree with you
Ivan, having worked in the HQ O&M Department of STC, a high-tech conglomerate (part of the American ITT Group, and so involved in telephony and digital switching, and manufacturer of the TXE4A and System X digital switching and telephony systems) between 1981 (the start of the telecoms and PC explosion) until 1993 (the start of the worldwide web explosion) how I sympathise with your view about the baleful influence of “techies”.
Time and again, as O&M practitioners rather than “systems” (meaning Office Automation fans, peddlers of the famous “paperless office” Hah! As if!), we found ourselves recommending much simpler, more “bread and butter” solutions to business needs – like re-organising the way something was done, rather than pushing a “one push of the button” solution, which was frequently way ahead of the technology, and even then, probably not achievable.
Today we have two, glaring, examples of the wrong approach – the incredibly mired and limping implementation of IDS’s Universal Credit (will it EVER run? I suspect not!), and the ghastly “voice recognition” system of HMRC, which has me screaming down the phone, when it asked me my age, and proceeded to waffle on about OAP benefits, when what I was after was a re-imbursement of tax wrongly paid.
I ONLY these “Option A to Z, and 1 to a 1,000” companies would understand that a REAL person can a) deal with queries more effectively and b) capture the choices as they go along and c) route the person more effectively to the source of a solution to their request or problem, FAR more effectively, both in terms of customer satisfaction AND data collection than any robotic option system? And they would be creating meaningful customer interface and advice jobs, where people could learn, and deploy, real skills. Some hope! Techies and automata rule, alas!
Andrew,
On the subject of IDS’s UTC nonsense our local weekly newspaper (known as the two minutes silence) is advertising a local workshop next Tuesday to explain the workings of this system run by what appears to be either a private company or possibly one these publically incorporated third sector organisations that rely on constant rounds of funding bids for their continued existance.
I might go down and have a look to see what they are selling and how they are selling it. I’ll keep you posted.
Andrew. Coincidences never cease! Apart from both getting a mention in Richard’s latest book I have to confess that my father worked for STC at their facilty in Paignton (having previously worked for English Electric in Chelmsford). Mind you, I think he’d retired by your time.
But anyway, you’re right to point out that this form of technological determinism isn’t only limited to the public sector. For my sins my discipline at the OU is technology management, and given that specialism and the fact that most of my students come from the private sector I routinely read of examples similar to your own.
Just to add another example to your Universal Credit and HMRC cases. This September I hired a car while in Corfu. Before I left the UK I accessed the DVLA site to get the code necessary to access my driving licence details online as the paper part of the licence is no longer valid (for the purpose of checking for motoring offfences, etc). When I produced it at the Enterprise car hire office at the airport the staff just laughed and explained that they routinely have no internet access. Luckily my wife was able to access the DVLA site via her smartphone and over a very slow link find the details. I’ve heard of many other people having similar problems. So, a technological fix to save DVLA money has simply pushed the cost on to citizens – yet again.
“Time and again, as O&M practitioners rather than “systems” (meaning Office Automation fans, peddlers of the famous “paperless office” Hah! As if!)”
As someone who had to use half a rainforest or printed A4 paper for my college course work, I always laughed at the bitter irony of that statement. 🙂
Sounds interesting! Can you cite some sources to read more about this? Your write up reminds me of evgeny morozov’s writing where he says something similar to you but explores this logic of technological solutionism in a time of austerity even further.
Ivan,
As a former OU graduate in the 80’s I’m aghast and disappointed that Jenny Lee’s creation is being abused in this way. I found the mixture of distance learning and face to face tutorials with the social support dynamic they offered, of great help, particularly with the technical and maths courses.
Your observation about the attitude towards people without Internet access misses out another factor, which is the wherewithal, ability, gumption, call it what you will, to use and engage with this technology.
I ‘ve been using computer technology since the BBC Acorn Model B days but like anything else there are functions for which new technology is not suited for. A substitute for human interaction is one of them.
Back in the 70’s, on two separate occasions, I had the task of sorting out the affairs of elderly relatives who passed away. At that time it was a doddle compared to the nonsense you have to go through today, which I have once again on two further occasions these past three years. Back then you could easily and quickly resolve and sort out an issue with a face to face with a human being at a local shop or office, be it the nearby gas or electric shop, the phone store, the local insurance man, the local council offices etc. It was easy, if required at all, to take the surviving relative to look into the whites of another human beings eyes.
Today it’s like being Josef K in The Castle. There is no local contact anymore. What you have is a metal Micky automated phone system which if you are lucky will get you to an offshore call centre thousands of miles away after 20 minutes button pressing and listening to Mantovani or the organisations specially written Corporate Chorus signature tune where they cannot understand your accent, and vice versa, and they will not speak to you because you are not the elderly and infirm “consumer” whose details need sorting. The fact that the elderly person(or even a physically or mentally disabled or stressed and depressed person for that matter) whose details need sorting is incapable of engaging in this way but is capable of resolving things face to face with a familiar human being who is locally based and therefore part of the local community is not, apparently a problem for those who design these nonsense systems.
I’m often reminded of E M Forsters short story, written I think in 1912, The Machine Stops. It might have the appearance of efficiency, for an extremely narrow definition of efficient, but it’s not effective.
Good to hear from an OU graduate, Dave. There are many hundreds of thousands of you, as you know. Sadly, the part time student market has been decimated since the loan regime came in under the previous government, so unless there’s some serious rethink by government of the value of PT education (highly unlikely) the OU will take a big hit when the transitional funding of students who were already in the system prior to 2010 comes to an end in 2017. This is what’s driving current development – which many at the OU believe to be ill thought through.
But anyway, on the broader point of replacing people with machines, a few years ago I was involved in the evaluation of a range of egovernment projects for the EC. I have to say that the attitude of a lot of techie people I met to the question, “what do we do about the many millions of people (9 million across the EC at the time) who don’t have internet access, or if they do are perhaps not physically or mentally able to deal with it?” was frequently totally dismissive. They were simply collateral that was not going to be allowed to get in the way of the “inevitable” march of technology.
I’m sure Goldmans could be persuaded to run a few “peoples” tax clinics.
Or maybe TaxAvoiders INC may be able to operate a virtual taxpayers collection center?
But since the entire globe is soon to be run by a conglomerate (AppLockhBaesysGoldBarc Inc) and democracy will be a rude work, spoken in mental health clinics by the certifiably insane, I find this to be just another sell-out by the party best known for selling people down the river..
We may need new nuclear weapons to use against the corporations (all US ones at that)
I’m actually surprised they haven’t outsourced HMRC to the private sector yet. Surely one of the big four would be willing to take on such a simple back office task for a small fee. They could even offshore it to Manilla or India for maximum cost reduction and profitability.
Oh hang on a minute, that could be a far too obvious conflict of interest!
No far better to keep it in-house, run it down so it can’t effectively do what it’s supposed to do while making sure the dirty laundry can be kept out of public view.
They hived off the buildings to the private sector years ago. This from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/24/uk.economy
It was a classic cock up
Or was it a cock up?
They’ve hived of plenty of other stuff as well …. IT, inbound & outbound mail handling , debt collection , tax credit error & fraud reduction,
banking functions etc
Dear Mr Murphy
It would be nice if there was a simultaneous rationalisation of the tax code.
Unfortunately the tax system is becoming ever more complicated while the opportunity for taxpayers to speak in person with a member of HMRC declines. One cannot show documents during a telephone conversation, assuming of course the telephone is answered.
Remote control of the public by public servants doesn’t work.
DP
The problem with the analysis in that final sentance is that it proceeds from a false assumption and therefore has no congruence with the reality which exists.
The label of “public servant” does not exist in isolation of its meaning. The question has to be asked, rather than willfully ignored as so many do, as to what differentiates the public role from a private role. Once upon a time there existed a philosophy, a way of doing something, a practice, known as the public service ethos.
Unfortunately, that is considered by what passes itself off as modern management as equivalent to the religious crime of blasphemy. Citizens (now a non PC word replaced by the term consumers) and workers (another non PC word replaced by the term staff) who try to approach their work in a now nominally (in name only) public sector organisation using a public sector ethos are viewed in the same way that the colonial British considered those in Scotland who spoke Gaelic or Australian indigenous people who spoke their own language; something to be stamped out in favour of so called “modern” private sector ways of doing everything trend anything.
Those in what you mistakingly still believe is the public sector who carried out their duties using a public service ethos have long been managed out of the service (another non PC word in the lexicon of those with their Micky Mouse MBA’s). It’s all private sector customer service at a distance based on the notion that the aim is to do more and more with less and nd less until the point is reached where you can do everything with nothing.
I saw this happen in my organisation of work, which was privatised in the 80’s, over a period of thirty five years.
Ignoring facts, information and the reality and blaming a public sector which no longer functions as a public sector because it’s structures and processes are now run completely along private sector lines using a private sector ethos may well be personally satisfying, but it does not address the issues thrown up.
The choice therefore is either the easy option of ignoring reality by discarding relevant information which does not fit a position that provides easy satisfaction or getting the brain cells to put in a shift and trying understand the deeper complexities which exist.
In my early days in accountancy, Tax Office staff noted people in their area letting out rooms,trading in used cars, carrying out building work at weekends etc but etc and went into work to check out whether the income was being declared. Highly effective and cheap but sadly no longer possible.
Does anyone have any insider’s look into the conservative party’s thinking? They seem to be actively doing things that will destroy the economy. I highly doubt no one’s telling them this. Why would any party do this if its a political shot in the foot? ARE THEY SERIOUSLY ThAT BLINDED BY THEIR IDEOLOGY??
Yes
Ysaac, if they destroy the economy, they’re still ok (tons of money) and the rest of us are screwed. I did say, years ago now, in these comments that Cameron and Osborne, being entirely creatures of privilege, once in authority would do nothing else than seek to reinforce that privilege. This they are indeed doing by deliberately impoverishing the rest of us. Expect more of the same until they’re stopped. I note theremustbeanotherway suggests this might be bought about by civil disobedience. I admire the author’s restraint. Perhaps it’s because I’m disabled and so have been more in the firing line than most, but I’d like to see heads on poles myself. Seriously. It’s recently come to light, for example, a coroner advised the DWP years back that the WCA, the test sick and disabled folk face before being granted the benefits they need to live on, was dangerous to people with mental health conditions, had led to one death, and would probably lead to more. Grayling and IDS went ahead and rolled it out anyway. Now there are thousands of untimely deaths being related to this testing system, likened by many to an ordeal designed specifically to obstruct people, especially the sick and disabled, in their bid to make a claim. It’s being credibly suggested that the figure of thousands may very well be only the tip of an horrific iceberg. Whatever the figure, there remains no doubt, people are dying out here. My view is those who live by the sword should be prepared to die by it. I’m not alone either.
Bill, I have personal experience of the impact of the DWP assessment on people. My son’s partner is physically disabled and also suffers mental health problems. Earlier this year she was assessed at a level (ie. points) that meant she lost her motability car. 18 weeks later she got it back after appealing the verdict. But the experience and stress has seriously undermined the self confidence of someone who was already in a bad way in that respect, to the extent that I doubt she could now function (perhaps even survive) without my son being around. It’s awful to see.
Ivan
I am so sorry to hear that
Richard
Ivan, my sympathies. You may already be aware of the good work Mo Stewart’s done in researching the involvement of the American insurance company with these so-called welfare reforms, if not, I recommend you start here http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusinessunum.html
Things may be changing. The PACE trials, where sufferers from ME/CFS were deemed to be much improved on the very flimsiest of evidence and apparently by ignoring any which suggested otherwise, are finally, years later, coming under very heavy fire indeed from academics recently made aware of them. Now that the pseudoscience behind the PACE results is being debunked, one hopes it won’t be too long before the so-called biopsychosocial model, the scientifically merit-less foundation on which the WCA is built, becomes similarly discredited.
I’m sorry but you can blame all on the sociopathy of the elite.
This trend will continue until control is wrested from them step by step, little by little and bit by bit. This has to be at the grass roots level using every type of peaceful action imaginable including civil disobedience.
It is I think becoming increasingly obvious that centralisation of everything is simply one massive power grab.
And that power infects them so instead of serving the people they help themselves to the enviable revolving door of ever increasing rewards. My good friend, an intelligent mental health nurse with an ever dwindling budget for her clinics has been told by her manager to get a grip of her staff. Says it all.
An extract from Bill Bryson’s recent Guardian article – sums it up really.
‘This is the sixth richest country in the world. We can afford to have things. When I first came here this country was much poorer, but much better looked after. Roundabouts had flowerbeds in them and things like that. There is this mania that we can’t afford things, which is not true. If we could afford it then we can certainly afford it now and as a society we can afford to put some geraniums in a planter. And if government really can’t afford to meet its bills then it should tax us more. It shouldn’t be cutting all the time and diminishing the quality of life for everybody.’
I am working on an explanation for all this
is this an article you’ll be posting on this blog explaining what’s happened over the years with the uk? ‘why we are rich yet not’?
We’ll see
It is not diminishing the quality of life for everyone, only for the everyones who are nobodies.
It is a well-know, but little commented upon, fact that it is no good having loads of money if everyone else also has loads of money.
The whole point of being rich, is that others are poor. It is nice having money, but even better if others don’t [have money].
I’m rather afraid that the whole point of WCA was to get people off benefits by any way possible. So much better if they were no longer living too. Soon, given the number of them, the state is going to have to solve the population problem….at least the part of it relating to having a lot of old people sapping the life out of the economy.
So much for the protection of the NHS (ringfenced to death)
Now, about the pension ringfencing…..
David
Bill Bryson should visit Hertfordshire, where roundabouts have flowers on them. He probably doesn’t get out of central London very much.
Ah but which corporate sponsors those flowers?
Meanwhile as to Ysaac’s question ARE TORIES SERIOUSLY ThAT BLINDED BY THEIR IDEOLOGY?
it is to me at least very worrying that Cameron has written to Oxfordshire County council to complain about front line closures suggesting they could find other economies, when the council has already made 2400 back office staff redundant. Cameron started as a PR man and this leads me to think he is now just Osborne’s PR man. He seems to have no clue as to what sort of government he is Prime Minister of..
Jordan
‘Roundabouts with no flowerbeds’ I think, is a metaphor. Perhaps it does’t resonate in Hertfordshire.
MayP,
And have those corporate sponsors of the flowers received a taxpayer subsidy or sweetheart tax evasion/avoidance deal from HMRC to sponsor those flowers?
When I was in Customs and Excise making VAT visits I used to visit several local very large businesses every 3 months and regularly found (unintentional) VAT errors totalling many thousands of pounds. When large business work was centralised visiting largely ceased and no additonal revenue was detected. With this plan to centralise HMRC staff in only 13 offices then you can expect more of the same !
That’s my concern
presumably all these redundant HMRC people will end up in the employ of the accountancy firms giving tax advice – fun times
I had always thought that the point of the automated phone systems and the like was that yes it took longer and took more effort, but it’s your time and effort which costs the organisation running the system nothing. So as long as they save time and effort on their side then the business case is all good.
Of course if your gov’t you don’t have to even worry about lost customers, the DVLA phone system being a good example
The DVLA phone system…..
I really hope you are never in the position of having to use the DWP/JC+ phone system.
The phone is rarely answered, and that includes the pay-lines. Even phoning them from the phones within the jobcentre is a high-stress event, but at least it is warm!
When it is answered, the staff are remote, obstructive and ignorant.
Bearing in mind that appointments are a two-week-in-arranging event, and that failing to contact them is a three-week sanction (second time around it is three months)……..
But you cannot blame the Tories…all of it started under N[ude] Labour….with that well-known Conservative in sheeps clothing, Blair, in charge.
In fact, all the rubbish the Tories are getting blamed for [deservedly]started under N[ude] Labour… (except the PFI (make your friends rich] scheme [scam], which was started by that Major guy….
Richard
Yesterday’s announcement was even worse than expected.
Not just 13 regional centres rather than 14 as HMRC appear to have leaked to the press, but also many closures sooner than expected, and fewer specialist or “transitional” sites.
A new blog on the PCS demand for a Parliamentary review would be welcome.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs_comment.cfm/devastating-hmrc-closure-plan-must-be-subject-to-parliamentary-review
Done!