This review confirmed much of what the accountancy profession has been telling HMRC and the Treasury in recent months. The story has already been written about an organisation that, as a result of efficiency cuts, has lost some of its more experienced staff and is struggling to deliver a quality, frontline service.
So if the data loss was the lowest point in HMRC’s short history, let the capability review be the catalyst for the process of turning the organisation around. It is in all of our interests – government, the profession and of course HMRC itself – that we work together to solve the problems. We want to play a constructive role in ensuring the service is resourced effectively and is able to do the job it needs to efficiently and effectively.
The short term aim has to be to restore confidence in HMRC, something which has been badly damaged by the data loss episode. Openness and transparency in terms of dealing with the long term issues will be the keys to achieving this.Post your commentComments
I read my previous blog and realised that I had not given the tax authority the correct abbreviation, it should be , of course, HMRC, and for that I apologise. However , it got me thinking as to why the merger/re branding seems to me a bit muddled. Is it a compromise choice between two government agencies, or is it trying to find a title that means something.If I go back to my earlier riff and reiterate that a serious review needs to take place, ask yourself this, what would a new CEO do? How about re branding/changing the language? let's not have Chancellors/Inspectors/Collectors/Sheriffs/bailiffs;these are arcane terms and give images of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Cancel Christmas!!) let's use the vocabulary of the the modern business age, talk about CEO's, CFO's /Managers/ Credit Controllers/Marketeers, let's try a rebrand and maybe call the whole thing 'The Treasury' and change peoples mindsets about paying taxes as a necessary evil and perhaps seeing taxes as a price we pay for efficient public services. If I was Dave Hartnett, I would start at the top and maybe look at some of the values of what is going on in the Treasury and try to make it a more friendly and pleasant place to work (thus retaining quality staff) Even the mindset of the Government/Civil Service in appointing him as an 'Acting Head'seems a bit myopic and doesn't lend itself to strategic long term thinking. If you google 'Dave Hartnett' you will see he appears a reasonable bloke who given a decent chance would make a go of this, but I fear he may be sucked into the Westminster Village mindset and any enthusiasm for change may be knocked out of him in a barrage of naysayers. If we talk about the current issue of the lost CD's , what does it tell you about the decision making processes within the Civil Service that the man who thought fit enough to resign over the fiasco now is appointed to the Cabinet Office?
I think some element of Commercilaism needs to creep into the thinking about how to market the payment of tax correctly. Do the Americans have it right when they talk about Service?