There is a debate in Westminster today on the closure of HMRC's Enquiry Centres, all of which are due to close in the next three months with up to 1,300 compulsory redundancies arising as a result.
PCS is the union that represents many of these staff, and as many readers of this blog will know, I have worked with that union over a number of years. They have issued the following briefing in advance of this debate and I think it worth sharing it here:
PCS welcome the Westminster Hall debate secured by Ian Lavery MP on the closure of HMRC enquiry centre closures.
Enquiry Centres provide a vital public service, which allows taxpayers to access free, expert advice from highly skilled HMRC staff.
On 12 February HMRC announced that a Needs Enhanced Support (NES) service model will be rolled out and will result in the closure of HMRC's entire Enquiry Centre network, consisting of 281 offices, would close by the end of June 2014, putting 1,300 HMRC jobs at risk of compulsory redundancy.
The most likely taxpayers who will be prevented from accessing the proposed new service due to cost are the unemployed, those on low incomes such as migrant workers, pensioners and child benefit and child tax credit claimants. These taxpayers rely heavily on the free service currently provided at enquiry centres.
During 2012, 2.5 million taxpayers visited HMRC enquiry centres and 340,885 made a face-to-face appointment with a member of staff in order to comply with their tax duties and receive advice on their benefit entitlement. Enquiry Centres also provide free telephone lines and internet access to taxpayers.
If the closures go ahead, taxpayers will no longer be able to walk into an enquiry centre to receive assistance. The current service will be replaced by a tailored telephony service and customers will be required to phone a contact centre that, after vetting them, may refer them to another advisor. Only if the ‘tier two advisor' deems it appropriate will a taxpayer who is classed as ‘Needs Enhanced Support' be given the option of a ‘tier three' face-to-face appointment.
HMRC commenced a pilot of the NES model in the North East of England in June last year.
The NES model consists of a triage function to identify customers that require extra support at the point of contact. However, all initial customer contact, with the exception of deaf customers or those with speech impairments (who have the option to use an online form to request a face to face appointment) will be by telephone to HMRC's Contact Centres.
By the end of September, with only 10 per cent of the anticipated call volumes for the enhanced support telephone advisors, HMRC extended the scope so that any caller could qualify for extra support, whether they needed it or not, even if they lived outside of the pilot area. The pilot, which was due to end in October, was extended the pilot until the end of 2013, leaving little time for a thorough evaluation to take place prior to the decision being made. PCS is concerned that HMRC changed the criteria to justify their predetermined conclusion of the pilot.
The enquiry centres in the pilot area have remained closed in 2014. However, some had to be reopened in late January to allow customers to use the free internet facilities because contact centres were struggling with caller demand ahead of the self assessment deadline.
HMRC's contact centres are significantly under staffed and not resourced to deal with additional calls. The Public Accounts Committee has been critical of call handling and set HMRC a performance target of 90% of calls for 2013-14. Performance for December 2013 was 76.2% with HMRC accepting that it is unable to meet their 2013-14 targets. Poor performance levels are likely to decrease significantly from April 2014 when HMRC decide whether to end the contracts of the 3,000 Fixed Term Appointment staff recruited in 2011. 89.84% of calls went unanswered on the tax credit renewal date on 31 July 2013.
It was identified early on during the pilot that significant numbers of customers will not be able to call contact centres or interact with the website due to cost and low or mobile/internet access in many parts of the UK. HMRC have agreed that alternative access solutions would need to be identified if the new model was to be successfully rolled out nationally without reducing the number of taxpayers who voluntarily engage with HMRC. PCS is concerned that such solutions have not been found.
The inability to access the service via broadband was highlighted in the public consultation exercise responses as a fault in the proposed new service model by stakeholders, particularly those in Wales - as detailed in the response submitted by Powys County Council.
PCS is concerned that unless a solution is found to address access it will increase the number of taxpayers prevented from engaging with HMRC. The department has done no work to estimate the amount of revenue that could be lost from uncollected tax due to this problem. Similar concerns were raised by a large number of stakeholders in their consultation responses, including the Association of Taxation Technicians, Citizen Advice Bureau, Diverse Cymru, Gingerbread, Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales, Lancaster City Council, Milton Keynes Council, TaxAid, a number of individual tax payers.
PCS is concerned if a decision is taken to close its enquiry centre network HMRC have not provided evidence that they have complied with Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the PSED) and Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires Government Departments and Ministers of the Crown to have 'due regard' to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
HMRC has refused to negotiate or consult with PCS over these plans. A detailed evaluation and options paper were presented to HMRC's Executive Board prior to their decision in January — neither document was shared with PCS before a decision was taken on the future of enquiry centres.
The first meeting scheduled with the Minister David Gauke MP over the closures, will not take place until the morning of this Westminster Hall debate. A meeting that was agreed to by his office after the debate was announced.
We urge MPs to use the opportunity of the Westminster Hall debate to raise concerns about the closures with the Minister.
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:
Richard, in the interests of transparency you really should disclose if you just “work with” PCS, or if they have paid you – and if the latter, how much. Otherwise your criticism of the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation looks unfair.
Tom
I think the implication of work is very clear
Yes they have paid me
Less than £4,000 in the last year, I think from recall
I was unambiguous in making this evident
Richard, yesterday I had to contact HMRC after receiving an incorrect notice of coding for 2014. I called the 0300 number shown on the form and an automated voice asked for my NI number and date of birth. After 4 attempts, the voice kept repeating my NI number incorrectly (I speak standard southern English.)
In the end I just said yes to the incorrect number and after pressing various numbers and listening to music for about 15 minutes I was put through to a young lady who, after various id. questions, immediately agreed with my point and said she would issue a new notice of coding today. Why is the access procedure so difficult?
I wish I knew
Because HMRC no longer have any commitment to public service!
How else would they pump huge sums of money ( in the form of IT contracts ) into the private sector!
I thought these days failed IT projects had become another form of government subsidy !
I am still struggling to see the rationale behind this decision, other than (cynically) making it harder for normal taxpayers to resolve issues like overpayment.
Two or three years ago my girlfriend got a letter from HMRC demanding around £3,000 in underpaid tax. We had no idea why this was, as she was on PAYE throughout the year at the same employer. We eventually worked out that the employer had cocked up when she moved to a new position midway through the year, and somehow HMRC had got the impression that she had been working two jobs simultaneously. We tried resolving it over the phone, but it didn’t really work, and it was only when we visited the local HMRC Enquiry Centre and spoke to someone in the flesh and were able to show them the documentation that we could make the situation understood and got it resolved. I dread to think how long the situation would have dragged on if all done over the phone or online…
Regarding the evaluation that HMRC carried out, Richard, one of the things I teach my research students is about the hidden functions of research (which includes evaluation, obviously). Having reminded them that ‘…research can be used for purposes other than those that are stated or that many people would regard as legitimate or ethical.’, two of the four hidden functions that I draw to their attention are particularly pertinent here:
‘Ducking responsibility: using research to support a decision which would otherwise attract criticism or hostility to a group/individual (e.g. the management or owners of an organisation, or a government)
Window dressing: using research to provide legitimacy for a change in a development, project or programme where the decision to make that change had already been made but not made public.’
I have little doubt that HMRC are guilty on both counts.
I agree
What are the other two?
Postponement: using research to delay a decision
Public relations: using research to promote the standing and/or visibility of the person/people associated with a successful development or project.
If I remember correctly they are all based on Carol Weiss’s (1998) excellent discussion of psuedo-evaluation: research that arrives at a particular outcome that is then suitable for a particular ‘hidden’ purpose or agenda.
They sound about right!
The gratuitous trashing of HMRC Enquiry Centres shows how unfit for purpose the current leadership of HMRC are. They care for nothing except cutting budgets and staff. They would rather cut a £25,000 salary than have that officer bring in £250,000 in tax, and service to the public is completely off their radar.
It is disappointing that MPs have not realised that 1000s of the 100s of 1000s that visit HMRC Enquiry Centres will eventually be bothering them at their surgeries. By the time they get there rather than having a situation that can be quickly resolved many will have a fistful of penalty notices, and mayny more will have plenty to complain about!
The HMRC argument seems to be based on “low demand, no need”. This apparently comes from statistics collected after shutting down or restricting access to local Enquiry Centres. It’s a worry, regardless of whether PCS pay you or not.