Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

In HMRC's reply to FOI 2021/30392 a number of emails were released.
A number of these emails related to providing the response to the chairman of the EAC, Lord Forsyth with a response to the question he raised in two separate letters. Specifically asking HMRC to confirm that no current or former HMRC contractors have used disguised remuneration schemes.

The directors involved in putting the response to Lord Forsyth had been informed in another Email-3 that there were 3 confirmed and 2 possible contractors that had been contracted when an exercise to determine this had been conducted in February 2018. The knowledge that there were 5 contractors was confirmed in Email-6 where a decision was made not to reveal the numbers to Lord Forsyth.

Questions
Were the 5 contractors identified in February 2018 fully confirmed as using disguised remuneration schemes.
When was this confirmed?
Why did HMRC choose to respond to Lord Forsyth with an answer that was incorrect?

Yours faithfully,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,

Thank you for pointing me to the letter written by Jim Harra on 29/4/2021 where he has claimed that the response by Ruth Stanier to Lord Forsyth stated:-
"We were aware that five contractors who had previously worked for HMRC had been involved in DR schemes prior to their engagement. At the time, we did not believe their scheme use was concurrent with their HMRC work.
There was no decision to withhold information from the Committee and I am confident that we answered the questions that were asked of us accurately and openly. "

This appears at odds with a statement in email 3 chain provided in FOI 2021 30392 timestamped 2/11/2018 12:36 where the Assistant Director:Employment Status and Intermediaries stated
"That gave 87 potential matches. When further work was undertaken, we were confident that there were 3 definite matches and 2 more that looked likely. So overall only a small issue and only 1 of those matches was still engaged by HMRC at the time the exercise was completed (February 2018)."

Question 1
Was any further evidence found that the author of the above email was incorrect ?

The emails provided in FOI 2021/30392 provided an email from Nick Jones with a timestamp of 5/11/2018 13:41. (Labelled as Email 3 - 1 attachment)
"Mary and I agree that it's still important to sight Commissioners on the context to this line and to highlight that there could be a a very small number of current/former contractors within DR. See attached background note, with a number of important bullet points. It is up to Jim/Ruth how far they want to go, but I'd suggest sticking with the main line above"

Question 2
Please provide a copy of the attached background note that Nick Jones referred to in this email.

In an Email FOI 2021 30392 ) from Juliet Roche timestamped 5/11/2018 09:27 titled Urgent - Workers engaged via PSCs
"Both
Can we say that the 3 matches are being investigated or did we consider them insufficiently risky?
I have copied Nick John (Jones?) as he is pulling together the briefing for Penny and Ruth"

Question 3
Please provide and emails/mail trails that Juliet Roche received in response to the question she raised in the email. Of course I fully understand the need to protect the privacy of the less senior civil servants and would expect that they remain anonymous, (redacted). However the contents of their responses are material to the research I'm undertaking

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,

You have requested clarification.

Question 1
I stated
“Thank you for pointing me to the letter written by Jim Harra on 29/4/2021 where he has
claimed that the response by Ruth Stanier to Lord Forsyth stated:- "We were aware that five
contractors who had previously worked for HMRC had been involved in DR schemes prior to
their engagement. At the time, we did not believe their scheme use was concurrent with their
HMRC work. There was no decision to withhold information from the Committee and I am
confident that we answered the questions that were asked of us accurately and openly. "
This appears at odds with a statement in email 3 chain provided in FOI 2021 30392
timestamped 2/11/2018 12:36 where the Assistant Director, Employment Status and
Intermediaries stated "That gave 87 potential matches. When further work was undertaken,
we were confident that there were 3 definite matches and 2 more that looked likely. So
overall only a small issue and only 1 of those matches was still engaged by HMRC at the
time the exercise was completed (February 2018)."

Was any further evidence found that the author of the above email was incorrect?

HMRC response on the 6/4/2022
HMRC has previously provided that in November 2018 it was aware of five contractors who
had previously worked for HMRC had been involved in DR schemes prior to their
engagement. At the time, we did not believe their scheme use was concurrent with their
HMRC work.
As the highlighted email relates to these five contractors and is an accurate representation
of information known at that time, it is unclear what information you are now seeking

There is a mismatch in the response you have provided on 6/4/2022 with the letter that Jim Harra gave on the 29/4/2021 and with the email from 2/11/2018 12:36 where the Assistant Director, Employment Status.
The Email on the 2/11/2018 was very clear that there were 5 contractors and that at least one of them was engaged by HMRC at the end of the exercise in February 2018.

Question 1 - Clarification
The author of the email dated 2/11/2018 stated that
"So overall only a small issue and only 1 of those matches was still engaged by HMRC at the
time the exercise was completed (February 2018)."
Ruth Stanier and Jim Harra both wrote formal letters stating that HMRC had not engaged contractors concurrently with the contractors use of DR schemes. Please can you explain the apparent mismatch in what Ruth Stanier/Jim Harra had been informed of in November 2018, namely that at least one of them had been engaged by HMRC in February 2018. The purpose of my question is focussed on the fact that it appears that Ruth Stanier and Jim Harra both purposefully misled Lord Forsythe.

Question 2
I asked:
The emails provided in FOI 2021/30392 provided an email from Nick Jones with a timestamp of 5/11/2018 13:41. (Labelled as Email 3 - 1 attachment) "Mary and I agree that it's still important to sight Commissioners on the context to this line and to highlight that there could be a very small number of current/former contractors within DR. See attached background note, with a number of important bullet points. It is up to Jim/Ruth how far they want to go, but I'd suggest sticking with the main line above"
Please provide a copy of the attached background note that Nick Jones referred to in this email.

HMRC stated
With regards to your second question, I can advise that you requested this information on 31 January 2022 and it was disclosed to you under reference FOI2022/02274
Question 2 - Clarification
Thanks for pointing me back to an earlier FOI response. Please also provide a copy of the attachment related to Email-4 in FOI2021/30392. This actually appears to refer to several attachments not just a single one.

Question 3
I asked:
Please provide and emails/mail trails that Juliet Roche received in response to the question she raised in the email. Of course I fully understand the need to protect the privacy of the less senior civil servants and would expect that they remain anonymous, (redacted). However the contents of their responses are material to the research I'm undertaking”

HMRC Stated:
Your third question asks for responses received to a specific email. As you have already been provided with this chain in its entirety, it is again unclear what information you are requesting.

Question 3 - Clarification
Juliet Roche said in an email 5/11/2018 09:27
"Both
Can we say that the 3 matches are being investigated or do we considered them insufficiently risky?"
This was a question to either members of her own team or non-senior civil servants in another team. However I would have expected them to respond to this question.

What was the response from the two people she referred to in this email?

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,
Thank you for providing this information

I think it confirms what I was looking to determine. Namely that Ruth Stanier misled Lord Forsythe

Lord Forsythe asks the question on 1/11/2018
I note that you have omitted the Sub-Committee's question, communicated in writing by the Clerk after the meeting, on whether any current or former HMRC contractors have used disguised remuneration schemes. I request an answer to this as a matter of urgency.

Ruth Stanier responds 5/11/2018
The Sub-Committee have asked whether any current or former HMRC contractors have used disguised remuneration schemes. HMRC has never participated in disguised remuneration schemes when paying its employees or contractors, and carries out diligently the checks required by both specific central government guidance and the law. As the tax authority HMRC also carries out compliance activity in relation to all government departments to ensure compliance with tax legislation.

The emails clearly show that Ruth Stanier was aware that HMRC had engaged contractors that had used schemes even if not concurrently. Lord Forsythe asked "whether any current or former contractors" and Ruth Stanier knowing the answer did not provide the information she had been given.

It is now understood that HMRC have found a number of contractors that were engaged in DR schemes whilst engaged by HMRC either directly or via an agency arrangement.

One final question if I may.

Please can you provide the meta data associated with this request , reference FOI2022/17515. This should include all associated emails, any Teams chats or other communications such as SMS, Whatsapp, Telegram, Slack etc.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,

Please can you provide a response to this request which is now long overdue. It should have been no later than the 19th of June and it is now the 18th of July

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,

Thank you for the information provided, but it does not appear to be complete.

It is interesting that HMRC as part of this response consider that they need a 'handling plan' for what it reveals.
Email from HMRC Comms 11/5/22 1-:14
"I’m happy with the line. We will just hammer home, verbally, the point to any journalist that the
requester has understandably misunderstood the data – it wasn’t concurrent."

I think I need to be very clear here. I have not misunderstood whether or not the engagement of the contractors was concurrent with their use of a scheme.

Lord Forsyth in his letter dated 13/11/2018 asked a very clear question to Ruth Stanier.

"In your 5 November letter, you stated "HMRC has never participated in disguised
remuneration schemes when paying its employees or contractors, and carries out diligently the
checks required by both specific government guidance and the law." The Sub-Committee
noted in its meeting on 12 November that you did not say directly that no current or former
HMRC contractors have used disguised remuneration schemes. Could you please confirm
whether this is the case?"

Note that it says "no current or former HMRC contractors"

Email exchanges revealed in this FOI and others including Jim Harra and Ruth Stanier in November 2018 provided direct evidence that they were aware of contractors that had been engaged by HMRC that had used schemes.

However, on the 19th November 2018 Ruth Stanier responded to Lord Forsyth

"As set out in my letter of 5 November, HMRC has never participated in disguised
remuneration tax avoidance schemes, for example by remunerating contractors through
loans or payments to trusts. It is possible for contractors to use disguised remuneration
without the participation or knowledge of their engager. Any HMRC contractor identified in
the course of our compliance work as using a disguised remuneration scheme would be
investigated in the same way as any other contractor."

She wrote this knowing full well that she was attempting to mislead Lord Forsyth. She had been informed by subordinates of five contractors that had used schemes. Of course since then a number of others have come to light. Nevertheless it is clear that Ruth Stanier lied to Lord Forsyth.

I do not consider this acceptable behaviour under the civil service code of conduct.

The letter written by Jim Harra on 29/4/21 to the Loan Charge APPG provides a refreshing level of honesty in revealing that HMRC had used many more than five contractors and that some of them were concurrent with their engagement at HMRC. It does not exonerate the words of Ruth Stanier which were clearly meant to mislead the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee.

I have purposefully repeated some of the statements that have been in the chain of FOI requests that HMRC confusingly renumber with every interaction, to ensure continuity and understanding of the requirements and purpose of this FOI request.

It is not an attempt to repeat the same questions, but to obtain the full picture of how the misleading information presented to Lord Forsyth came about.

More FOI detail requested
------------------------------------------
Whilst I have asked for the meta data associated with FOI2022/17515. It appear that it may not be complete.

1) Email from Alison Woodhouse 11/5/2022 09:21 said
"I just wanted us to consider the potentially unfavourable reading
of the email, and know how we would approach any queries that might arise."

The same email seems to be referred to by Rob Woodstock on 6/5/22 17:38
"The attached email for release relates to question 3"

Please provide a copy of this email as it would appear to be part of the meta data associated with this request.
Please provide any draft versions of the email.

2) Several of the emails mention a 'handling plan'. Please provide details of the 'handling plan'. Does HMRC have a standard 'handling plan' ? Email 12 mentions that a handling plan is being worked up.
Please provide a copy of HMRC's standard handling plan/process
Please provide a copy of the handling plan or draft handling plan for this FOI as this would also be part of the meta data.

3) The meeting on Tuesday 10/5/22 was to discuss the FOI. 2022 17515. Was the meeting minuted. If so, please provide the minutes related to the discussion of the FOI.

4) A draft version of the FOI response was produced, but was withdrawn in an email to Nicole Newbury on 10/5/22 18:12
Please supply a copy of the draft that was withdrawn.

5) An email to Alison Woodhouse 11/5/22 10:14 said
"I’m happy with the line. We will just hammer home, verbally, the point to any journalist that the
requester has understandably misunderstood the data – it wasn’t concurrent.
FYI - the corporate report is being updated today"
Please provide copies of the changes that were made to the Corporate report?

6) The letter to the Loan Charge APPG on 29/4/2021 from Jim Harra stated that some contractors had been using schemes concurrently.
Please clarify whether Jim Harra's statement to the APPG that some contractors were concurrent is correct and that the Communications that was to be distributed to journalists VERBALLY specified in the email to Alison Woodhouse 11/5/22 10:14 was not correct.
I am concerned that the instruction to only communicate such information verbally is an attempt to mislead. (Perish the thought).

7) Email from SOLS office on 10/5/22 11:48
"As discussed, I have added some additional wording to the response to directly explain the content of the email and address the ‘mismatch’. I have also sent a separate message on Teams stating how the content of this email has actually already been disclosed at page 28 of FOI2022/30392"
Please provide a copy of this Teams conversation

8) Whilst Jim Harra has attempted in his letter of 29/4/21 to provide the impression of candour and openness. It is clear that both he and Ms Stanier knowingly misled Lord Forsyth . What disciplinary action will be taken against these civil servants?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear Team, FOI,

Thank you for the information provided.

I am still concerned that you are incorrect with point 8 where I asked
"Whilst Jim Harra has attempted in his letter of 29/4/21 to provide the impression of
candour and openness. It is clear that both he and Ms Stanier knowingly misled Lord
Forsyth . What disciplinary action will be taken against these civil servants?”

HMRC response
"Emails released in response to FOI2022/23193 show that Mr Harra and Ms Stanier
did not mislead Lord Forsyth"

This appears to be at odds with the evidence.
1/11/2018 Lord Forsyth asked in a letter
I note that you have omitted the Sub-Committee's question, communicated in writing by the
Clerk after the meeting, on whether any current or former HMRC contractors have used
disguised remuneration schemes. I request an answer to this as a matter of urgency.

5/11/2018 - Ruth Stanier replied
The Sub-Committee have asked whether any current or former HMRC contractors have
used disguised remuneration schemes. HMRC has never participated in disguised
remuneration schemes when paying its employees or contractors, and carries out diligently
the checks required by both specific central government guidance and the law. As the tax
authority HMRC also carries out compliance activity in relation to all government
departments to ensure compliance with tax legislation.

13/11/2018 - Lord Forsyth asked again
In your 5 November letter, you stated "HMRC has never participated in disguised
remuneration schemes when paying its employees or contractors, and carries out diligently the
checks required by both specific government guidance and the law." The Sub-Committee
noted in its meeting on 12 November that you did not say directly that no current or former
HMRC contractors have used disguised remuneration schemes. Could you please confirm
whether this is the case?

19/11/2018 Ruth Stanier responds
As set out in my letter of 5 November, HMRC has never participated in disguised
remuneration tax avoidance schemes, for example by remunerating contractors through
loans or payments to trusts. It is possible for contractors to use disguised remuneration
without the participation or knowledge of their engager. Any HMRC contractor identified in
the course of our compliance work as using a disguised remuneration scheme would be
investigated in the same way as any other contractor

HMRC - Corporate report
Tax compliance of HMRC suppliers
Annex 1 - data on use of disguised remuneration
Updated 11 May 2022
Following analysis in November 2017 and November 2018, HMRC is aware of 5 contractors (2 contingent workers and 3 contractors who worked for one of HMRC’s suppliers) who had provided services to HMRC/RCDTS, who had a non-concurrent history of using disguised remuneration schemes.

Ruth Stanier and Jim Harra were in possession of the above information at the time Ruth Stanier responded to Lord Forsyth on 5/11/2018

Please explain why these civil servants are not being disciplined for misleading the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, Lord Forsyth.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Heavyside

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'DR LC Contractors response to Lord Forsyth'.

HMRC have provided a number of emails that when taken in context and the timeline of letters exchanged with Lord Forsyth (chairman of the economic affairs committee) demonstrate that Ruth Stanier and Jim Harra knowingly misled the Lord Forsyth.

HMRC maintain, despite this evidence that these two officers did not break the civil service code of conduct.
It appears unlikely that HMRC will change their stance, but prior to escalating to the ICO then it will first be necessary to allow HMRC to conduct an internal review.

Hopefully the ICO will consider the evidence provide some guidance and a way forward on this.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Ian Heavyside