Emails shared between Jim Harra and/or Ruth Stanier and/or Mary Aiston between 16 February 2021 and 29 April 2021

The request was refused by HM Revenue and Customs.

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please provide all emails shared between Jim Harra and/or Ruth Stanier and/or Mary Aiston between 16 February 2021 and 29 April 2021.

Yours faithfully,

F Thompson

FOI Team, HM Revenue and Customs

Our ref: FOI2021/12840

Dear F. Thompson,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement

Thank you for your communication of 7th June which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.

We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.

The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we
think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the
Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it
on to a more appropriate part of the Department for answer.

As you will appreciate, the coronavirus pandemic has provided
unprecedented challenges for Government Departments including HMRC. Over
the coming weeks our priorities are to provide critical existing and new
Public Services for Government to support customers during this difficult
time. As a result, resources may be diverted away from usual compliance or
information rights work. HMRC aims to respond to all FOIA Requests within
20 working days. If for whatever reason this timescale cannot be complied
with HMRC will, where possible, write to you explaining the reason for the
delay and providing an estimated time for response.

Yours sincerely

HMRC Freedom of Information Act Team

FOI Team, HM Revenue and Customs

1 Attachment

Dear F. Thompson,

We are writing in response to your request for information, received 7
June.

Yours sincerely,

HMRC Freedom of Information Team

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Thank you for your response dated 18 June.

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 'Emails shared between Jim Harra and/or Ruth Stanier and/or Mary Aiston between 16 February 2021 and 29 April 2021'.

You have refused my request, citing the use of section 14(1) and claiming that you consider this request "to exhibit the ‘scattergun approach’ associated with a vexatious request provided in ICO guidance on this matter. This is where a request appears to be part of a completely random approach, lacks any clear focus, or seems to have been solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed".

This request is not vexatious, nor does it exhibit a 'scattergun approach'. It was purposefully and deliberately submitted with specific, targeted dates based on documented events, and the information being requested is directly associated with the names of the three HMRC officials referenced.

You will be aware of the ICO publication on 'dealing with vexatious requests'. When assessing the purpose and value of a request under the Freedom of Information legislation, the Act is generally considered to be applicant blind, and public authorities cannot insist on knowing why an applicant wants information before dealing with a request. However, this doesn’t mean that an authority can’t take into account the wider context in which the request is made and any evidence the applicant is willing to volunteer about the purpose behind their request. The authority should therefore consider any comments the applicant might have made about the purpose behind their request, and any wider value or public interest in making the requested information publicly available.

Whilst I would have expected HMRC to have been able to easily identify the reasoning behind my request - based on the dates I specified - and the fact that you, as a public authority, are unable to insist on knowing why I want the information, I will, all the same, still attempt to assist your understanding by volunteering the relevant purpose.

The first date - 16 February 2021 - was the date that the Loan Charge All-Party Parliamentary Group sent a letter to Mr Harra on the subject of the use of contractors by HMRC/RCDTS. The second date - 29 April 2021 - was the date of Mr Harra's response on that subject to the Loan Charge All-Party Parliamentary Group. Between those (inclusive) dates, it is unquestionable that Mr Harra would have consulted, and exchanged opinions and views on how to reply, with both Ms Stanier and Ms Aiston - both of whom have given evidence to Parliamentary Committees on this same matter. It is those COMPLETE exchanges of information, views and opinions contained in the emails I have requested which are therefore the clear and obvious purpose of my submission.

Thus, to counter your claim, the purpose and approach is neither random, nor does it lacks clear focus, nor was it ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed. The ICO expect a request to have 'a serious purpose and raise a matter of substantial public interest' making it then 'more difficult to argue a case that the request is vexatious'.

The ICO goes further in describing these types of refusal, stating that "the emphasis should be on an objective standard and that the starting point is that vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester or to the public or any section of the public".

As one member of the public, alongside many thousands of others attempting to challenge the misleading rhetoric and continued misinformation from HMRC, there is no doubt that any and all evidence which provides conclusive proof of this is INDEED of great value - as has been ably demonstrated by numerous other FOI requests to date.

The ICO once again - 'as most requesters will have some serious purpose behind their request, it will be rare that a public authority will be able to produce evidence that their only motivation is to cause disruption or annoyance'. As the Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) observed: “public authorities should be wary of jumping to conclusions about there being a lack of any value or serious purpose behind a request simply because it is not immediately self-evident”.

The ICO extends this principle by stating 'serious purpose and value will often be the strongest argument in favour of the requester when a public authority is deliberating whether to refuse a request under section 14(1)'.

Let me reiterate in case of any continued misunderstanding on your part - my purpose and value could not, under any terms or circumstance, be more serious.

As you may be aware, the ICO advises that 'public authorities must keep in mind that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and annoyance'.

An UNDERLYING COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS - let us examine that in more detail.

You state in your reply that 'an initial search of records in excess of 100 emails within the scope of your request'. I suspect you meant to include the word 'found' between the words 'records' and 'in'. You say that it would 'impose a burden by obliging HMRC to sift through a large volume of information to isolate and extract the relevant details'. Searching the email accounts of those three named individuals for any shared exchanges between (and including) the specified dates would be a straightforward exercise for anyone with even the most basic technical ability. Assuming you have a technically competent person to perform those searches and extracts, I would therefore challenge your claim that, over the course of three and a half working days, that even 200 (let alone 100+) emails would impose a burden.

A previous FOI to HMRC (FOI2020/00053), requesting 'all correspondence between Sir Amyas Morse and HMRC on the Loan Charge review' prompted the disclosure of many hundreds of emails (and attachments, within a separately provided file) covering a period of approximately five and a half months. With such a precedent being set, it is clear that you were able to extract the relevant information within the time frame and cost limit set out in the FOIA then, so I can see no reason why the same should not apply on this occasion.

You also attempt to justify the initial refusal by reason of it encompassing 'information which is only of limited value because of the wide scope of your request'. I have clearly laid out approach, purpose and value, so this does not apply.

You also claim it would 'create a burden by requiring HMRC to spend an inordinate amount of time considering any exemptions and redactions'. The Code of Practice is clear that 'redaction time or any other expenses likely to occur in cost limit calculations CANNOT be included', so I am disappointed to see that you would publicly attempt to make the disingenuous and incorrect claim that time for redactions would need consideration - when it clearly CANNOT be included. It is highly probable that you already know this, yet have still attempted to mislead in this underhand manner.

Finally, I would point out Mr Harra's very own comments in a recent oral evidence session (on 15 July) with the Economic Affairs Committee, where he emphatically volunteered the following (taken from Hansard):
"First, I can assure you that when I send emails I do not have regard to them being made public, so there is no wording in them that is couched in terms because of any concern that they will be made public. I am probably well known within this department for my candour in my emails, hence the comments earlier".

Upon hearing - or reading - that, it would be reasonable to claim there is categorically no doubt that statement makes his own position abundantly clear to all, and cannot be misinterpreted in any way.

Please now provide ALL those emails shared between Jim Harra and/or Ruth Stanier and/or Mary Aiston between 16 February 2021 and 29 April 2021.

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

Yours faithfully,

F Thompson

Dear FOI Team,

Please provide a reference number for my recent request for an internal review, which was submitted and sent to you on 06 August.

Yours sincerely,

F Thompson

HM Revenue and Customs

Our reference: IR2021/18397

Dear F. Thompson,

Thank you for your email our team received today and above is our reference for your Internal Review submitted on Friday 6th August 2021.

Kind regards

HMRC Information Rights Unit

OFFICIAL

show quoted sections

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Thank you for the internal review reference number.

From the available message logs on the WhatDoTheyKnow mail servers, this was successfully delivered to you at 19:58:15 on 6th August, so (as per the ICO guidance), you should have acknowledged receipt and provided a target date for response, which should usually be within 20 working days. As this was delivered to you on the evening of 6th August, I accept that it would probably not have been read until Monday 9th August.

Please therefore now confirm that the target date for your response is 7th September. Should you be unable to meet this date, then ICO guidance states that you should inform the requestor that you will need more time and provide a reasonable target date. This should be no more than an additional 20 working days, unless there are 'exceptional circumstances', as defined by the ICO, which should then be fully explained.

Yours faithfully,

F Thompson

FOI Team, HM Revenue and Customs

1 Attachment

Dear F. Thompson,

We are writing in response to your request for information, received 6
August.

Yours sincerely,

HMRC Freedom of Information Team