Archive for the ‘Consultation’ Category

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »
h1

Not waving…

October 18, 2013

Yes, I’m still alive.  No, I haven’t posted for over a month.  Long story short: had a ridiculously bad cold at the same time as a short term contract to deliver some training at the same time as the new  university term started.  Blogging, I’m afraid, fell towards the bottom of the “to do” list and, as I never got much beyond “Work.  Eat.  Take medication.  Sleep.” I’m afraid I’ve been out of the tax consultation loop for a bit.

So where are we now?

I started off with a quick gallop through the gov.uk consultations page to see what was open and if anything was coming to a close soon…

…which gave me some odd results.  The page tells me that government has 144 open consultations today, which is a substantial number, and that ten of them are HMRC’s.  But as I glanced down the list of ten I started thinking, hang on, this is odd – haven’t I already answered this one?

So I filtered again, by “all departments” and subject is “tax and revenue”, and got a list of nine tax consultations.

Eight of which are already closed.

Um… hello, gov.uk?  I left feedback on both pages, but I think your search engine is…. (looks for polite alternative to the word that immediately springs to mind.  Settles for:) in need of some remedial attention.

All right then, let’s go back to my own laboriously constructed spreadsheet from July 22, which shows no tax consultations with a closing date after October 14th.  And then let’s go back to gov.uk and search for “all consultations” published by HMRC after 22/7/13.

This brings up a list of 16 results: seven consultation outcomes, four closed consultations and five “open consultations”.  Good: now we’re getting somewhere.

They are:

  • Tax-Free Childcare – closed
  • Alcohol fraud: next steps – closes 28th October
  • Reform of an anti-avoidance provision: Transfer of Assets Abroad – closed
  • Residence of Offshore Funds – extending the scope of Section 363A Taxation Act 2010 – closed
  • Investment Management Exemption and Collective Investment Schemes: expanding the “white list”- closed

So, sorry gov.uk, but something is going wrong with your classification system.  And now I’ve run out of time to blog for today, too, and all I’ve achieved is to identify there seems to be only one open tax consultation.

Which is, I suppose, at least something.  Sigh.

Posted in Consultation, HMRC | Tagged , | 1 Comment »

h1

Revenge of the old gits

September 2, 2013

I’m a pensioner now, you know.  (OK I took early retirement and I’m also a student, but still, I’m probably a member of the Geezer Class rather than the Bright Young Things).  So I really feel as if I ought to care about the consultation that closes today, into Pensions Tax Relief: Individual Protection from the Lifetime Allowance Charge

(Incidentally, would someone in either HMRC or the Treasury please take an executive decision on Random Capitalisation In Consultation Titles?  Sometimes they’re lower case after the first word, and sometimes (as here) they aren’t and instead have Initial Caps.  Update your style guide and do a copy edit, please!)

Yes, all right, I admit it, I found the document to be literally unreadable.  I read the beginning and the end and skipped through some of the impenetrable stuff in the middle.  Because, you know,

Individual Protection 2014 (‘IP14’) is intended to allow individuals to protect from the lifetime allowance charge (‘LTA charge’) any pension savings they have on 5 April 2014, which has been accumulated with UK tax relief with a value of between £1.25 million (the standard LTA from 6 April 2014) and £1.5 million (the current LTA since 6 April 2012)

Oh come on, you glazed over too, admit it!

All right then.  What we seem to be looking at here is a kind of grandfathering provision – the government has decided to bugger about with the amount of money you’re allowed to save for your retirement, and there are a few people who’ve saved a bit more than we’re now going to allow (but a bit less than we used to allow) who would be seriously pissed off if they were shafted by the changes.

I pause to change into my shiny ’80s Ben Elton suit and say “bit of politics” because buggering about with people’s pensions expectations didn’t seem to bother the government when they changed MY pension from being updated by RPI to being updated by CPI each year.  Nor does it seem to have bothered them that they’ve changed my former colleagues’ pensions by introducing what amounts to a Civil Service Tax so that they are now taking home LESS than they were when I left, because of the “contribution” they’re making to the pensions.  You know, the “gold plated pensions” we keep hearing about, that were supposed to make up for the below market rate salaries we got from (to my certain knowledge) the mid eighties when I joined up, till I left.  As I say, bit of politics.  Now back to your regularly scheduled consultation response.

So in general I’m not in favour of buggering about with people’s pension expectations, so protecting the people who get the fuzzy end of the lollipop on this occasion is probably a good thing, no?

Well, except, how many of these people ARE there exactly?  I mean, we’re talking about protecting people who would otherwise lose out when the upper limit is lowered from £1.5m to £1.25m, right?

Let’s turn to the impact assessment.  It’s an odd kind of consultation, because it conflates stages 2 and 3 of the consultation process – we’re being consulted about

Setting out objectives and identifying options. Determining the best option and developing a framework for implementation including detailed policy design.

Drafting legislation to effect the proposed change.

So we’re being asked about how to solve the problem at the same time as we’re being asked to look at the detailed legislation to implement the proposed solution.

The impact assessment is detailed enough that it’s been signed off by Sajiid Javid MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as a “reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impacts of the measure” and who are we to disagree?

And what does it say?  Look at the Exchequer Impact:  It asserts that there will be an extra £100m in the tax take in 2014/15, £80m in 2015/16 and £50m in 2016/17.  Say what?  We’re going to get in a total of £230m over three years from the difference between £1.5 and £1.25 million?  How much tax relief does someone get at 40% on a quarter of a million?  40% x £250,000 = £100,000, right?  But £230 million divided by £100,000 is 2300, isn’t it, unless I’ve got my decimal point in completely the wrong place?

The TIIN says (in the “impact on individuals and households”) that

It is estimated that about 120,000 individuals will have pension savings above £1.25 million in April 2014. Of these, those who don’t have enhanced or primary protection will be eligible to apply for IP14.

I’m weirded out about why it isn’t going to save us fifty times the amount shown in the TIIN if there’s the possibility of affecting fifty times more people .  But I’m more weirded out by the assertion it’s going to cost HMRC £1m to administer – what, for this one change, affecting two to three thousand people?  What are they going to do, write to them individually, in iambic pentameter, on vellum, with a goose quill pen dipped in gold ink?

So no, I’m not going to respond to this particular consultation either.  Except to say, pick a limit and stick to it.  If the government hadn’t put the limit up and then brought it down again they wouldn’t be having to think of grandfathering provisions.

And I have a Modest Proposal on the “simplicity and fairness” front – wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to set a date after which pension tax relief is only given at basic rate in the first place? *ducks and runs for cover*

Posted in Bit of politics, Consultation | Leave a Comment »

h1

Ice. Ice, baby.

August 30, 2013

Dear God but VAT is boring.  I mean it is, isn’t it?  I know my background is in direct tax and I’d probably feel differently about it if my training had been in VAT right from the start, but, be honest, all this stuff about the temperature of pies and when is a biscuit not a cake?  It’s just angels dancing on the head of a pin, surely?

So how would you go about simplifying it?  That’s one of the government’s priorities for the tax system, after all, isn’t it?  Simpler, greener, fairer and more competitive, remember?

Well in the words of the old joke you wouldn’t start from here, obviously.  There’s detailed legislation, shedloads of case law, and a lot of it is European anyway.  You wouldn’t start from there but go back to first principles.  Perhaps something like “if you’re a company, partnership or any other entity, or if you’re an individual in business with a turnover of more than £70k, then you have to add 20% to everything you sell, and hand it over to the government”

And then “if you’re obliged to charge 20% on your sales, you can net off the amount you have paid to other businesses or entities against the amount you receive on your own sales, and the amount you pay over to the government is the net figure.”

Too much “simplicity” and not enough “fairness”?  Maybe so.  Like I said, I know very little about VAT itself.  But I DO know, in a rational world you wouldn’t start from here.

I mean, the writers of the VAT treatment of refunds made by manufacturers consultation have done a bang-up job, so far as I can see.  It’s a sensible enough consultation document, asks the right sort of questions, even has a decent enough impact assessment at the end (yes, I know they’ve forgotten to do the small firms impact test, but the government has pretty much abolished that anyway in their latest guidance, and, yes, I’ll be coming back to that later)

So why am I not responding to it?

Because it’s rearranging the ice cubes in the silver buckets on the occasional tables next to the deckchairs on the port side of the stern of the Titanic.  Instead of, you know, dealing with the bloody iceberg

Posted in Consultation | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

The Guru-Murthy test

August 27, 2013

Goodness, is it that time already?  Sorry, I’ve been hard at work on My First Academic Paper (which will be delivered in September here) and I’ve missed half a dozen HMRC consultations in the meantime!  I wonder if they missed me?

Anyway, we’re still in time to look at modernising the taxation of corporate debt and derivative contracts, although I’m not sure they want the likes of you and me actually reading it: under “who should read this” it says “companies; representative bodies; tax professionals; accountants and accounting bodies”.  Well, tough.  We’re all citizens of the same polity, so we’re all stakeholders in how citizens – individuals and corporate citizens – are taxed.

Anyway, in this consultation “the Government’s aim is to provide simpler and fairer tax treatment, minimising the scope for abuse, reducing uncertainty and improving structural and legislative clarity as well as reducing administrative burdens” and I think we’re all on board with that, right?

Sorry?

Yes, I fell asleep round about page 34 (although I woke up again on page 36, or at least enough to spot that there’s probably a typo in the last of these two sentences:

For example, loan relationships are fairly simply defined, whereas the definitions of derivative contracts are longer and more complex. However, there is no obvious reason why a combined code should be able to accommodate differences of this kind.

Presumably there should be a “not” or an “un-” in the second sentence?  Sorry, it’s a compulsion.)

Round about page 56 I started thinking, I’m not sure I’ve understood one word in ten of the last thirty pages.  I’d like to hear someone explain this to an audience of small businesses.

And then I started thinking that, yes, their heart is clearly in the right place, and clearly the objective is to achieve a significant simplification of what appear to be terrifyingly complicated rules, if only for the very good reason that the complications open up whole worlds of tax avoidance opportunities.  So they’ve done the right thing, and stepped back to take a look at the big picture.

But wouldn’t it be splendid if the people working on this took the opportunity to take a step even further back?

I mean, they’ve stepped back far enough to see the big picture inasfar as  “companies; representative bodies; tax professionals; accountants and accounting bodies” are concerned.  But could you explain it to your mum?  Not a fair test?  Well, could you explain what the loan relationship rules are to (say) Krishnan Guru-Murthy, if you found yourself on Channel 4 news?  Or could you write an article in the Daily Mail that its readers might have a sporting chance of understanding?

In other words, wouldn’t it be a much better attempt at simplification if they thought to consult not just with the tax wizards but the tax muggles?  Wouldn’t the best way of simplifying the tax system be, not to talk to the tax wizards who earn a living out of understanding the difference between a loan relationship and a derivative contract, but to the tax muggles who pay what they’re told and wonder why there’s no money left?   Viva the citizen stakeholder!

(Oh and, while you’re about it, check out page 98?  The “tax impact assessment”?  Didn’t David Gauke issue a written ministerial statement in March 2011 saying that “This new tailored tax impact assessment process will be used throughout the development of tax and NICs policy”?  And “This new approach will consider a wider range of impacts and cover a broader range of policy changes than the existing impact assessment regime for tax.”?  And is that fulfilled by saying, in effect, ‘don’t worry your pretty little heads about it, it won’t cost any more, raise any more, or make any difference really.  But please tell us if you think that’s not true.’

Because, mate, I think there might be smoke emanating from your trouser area…)

Posted in Consultation | Leave a Comment »

h1

Once more, with feeling

August 5, 2013

I wouldn’t usually blog twice in one day, but having sat down in front of the telly with twitter on my phone, I spotted a tweet from the Spartacus group reminding people that the consultation on the hard-won further consultation on the mobility element of the PIP closes tonight.

We have been here before, of course.  But I thought it worth sending another quick response.  You have just got time to do the same yourself: email pip.assessment@dwp.gsi.gov.uk before midnight if you can.  All you really need to say is no: it’s not reasonable to reduce the distance at which you get the kind of enhanced financial support that might enable you to get out and about from “being able to move 50 yards” to “being able to move 20 yards”.  Come on!

Here’s what I sent, although I’ve redacted some personal stuff about my own experiences of mobility issues.

My view is that it is unreasonable to set rigid limits, whether 20 or 50 metres, in deciding whether or not a person is entitled to the advanced rate of PIP.  In my experience disability is a fluctuating condition and fatigue is, in particular, difficult to quantify.  A person might reasonably be able to walk 30 metres one day and 10 another, for example.  They might be able to move about under some circumstances – early in the day, in familiar territory, with the use of aids – and yet unable to move the same distance under different circumstances – late in the day, in a strange place where there is additional stress, or under circumstances which include other stressors, for example.

I believe a more reasonable way of deciding whether a person should receive PIP at the lower or higher rate is to use a test analogous to that used in determining tax avoidance.  Under the General Anti Abuse Rule there is a “double reasonableness” test (see B12.1 middle bullet) Under this test, tax avoidance is not deemed to be “abusive” unless the double reasonableness test is met:

This requires HMRC to show that the arrangements “cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”.

This test could be adapted into the PIP regulations for existing holders of, and applicants for, the higher rate of PIP or analogous mobility allowance by specifying that the PIP will be paid at the higher rate in respect of mobility unless this “cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”.  In other words, rather than testing and (forgive me) harassing fellow citizens with disabilities as if they were trying to pull a fast one, you regarded them as having a legitimate need for the higher rate allowance unless it was reasonable to regard any other course of action as reasonable.

Kind regards

Posted in Bit of politics, Consultation, DDA, Equality | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

h1

A Modest Proposal

August 5, 2013

The problem with actors is that they never know whether they’re going to make any money or not – like a minimum wage worker on a zero hours contract.  The work they do is usually significantly more enjoyable and fulfilling than zero hours contract work, and there is the faint but real possibility of making lottery-winner money out of one successful contract.  After all, someone has to be Obi Wan and walk away with 2% of the Star Wars gross, even if most of us know our fate is to be the equivalent of the unfortunate stormtrooper who bashed his head on the doorway.

But think about this for a moment.  Alec Guiness died in 2000.  His estate still receives his 2%.  But should the payer deduction National Insurance before they pay it?

Yes, you may boggle.  The vexed question of actors, musicians and other entertainers comes up again in the HMRC consultation (which closes tomorrow) on “National Insurance and Self-employed Entertainers“.

What’s it about?  Well, actors are usually self employed for income tax purposes… but because they often need to claim benefits in the early stages of their careers when they are between engagements, they are employees for National Insurance purposes, so that they build up sufficient contributions to be able to claim JSA.

But, well, times change.  There’s a fundamental question about whether the royalties Sir Alec Guinness’ estate is receiving now from Star Wars is actually income from his engagement on the production (the work of acting itself) or from the intellectual property inherent in his performance.  And – not to put too fine a point on it – there’s a growing tendency for films and tv productions to be financed by special purpose vehicles (companies set up just for the duration of the production itself) and for the income stream then to come from various sources like dvd sales and downloads, and there’s an argument that making a cable tv company in Seattle, say, pay a few pence of residuals to an actor in Notting Hill under deduction of NICs is both administratively burdensome and damaging to the UK creative industries’ competitiveness.  And since the government has just introduced a tax break for the creative industries, it makes some sort of sense to make sure you’re not giving with one hand and taking away with the other…

Actually it’s rubbish.  There are two fundamental difficulties with this consultation: the difficulty of distinguishing between employment and self employment, and the difficulty in having different rules for Income Tax and National Insurance contributions.  Instead of faffing about with a piecemeal change like this one, how about doing something radical about simplicity?

So I have a Modest Proposal.

Abolish the differences between employment and self employment.

All of them.

Employment is under PAYE and self employment under SA , and the government couldn’t do without the steady cash flow it gets from PAYE receipts?  Easy!  Make PAYE a requirement of Limited Company status – if you’re a limited company, you can’t pay anyone – and I mean anyone – without deducting the tax first.  If you’re an individual, you don’t have to operate PAYE, you pay any employees gross, full stop.

Expenses are calculated differently for employed and self employed people?  Easy!  Make them the same.  Currently it’s expenses “wholly and exclusively” incurred if you’re self-employed, and “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” if you’re employed.  Abolish “necessarily”.  But if you work for a company and you are paid under PAYE you won’t have to make a tax return… unless you want to claim expenses.  And if you want to claim expenses they’d better be legitimate expenses, because HMRC will have a new squad of auditors who will examine a random selection of PAYE expense claims and you’ll be heavily penalised for, well, taking the piss.

Tax and National Insurance have different rules?  Abolish them!  Abolish the different rates of National Insurance, and instead decide what National Insurance is for.  Does it actually still pay for pensions, maternity pay, unemployment benefits and sickness pay?  Fine.  Calculate how much that came to in the last tax year, divide that by the amount of employment pay and self employment turnover there was in the last tax year, and multiply by 100.  That gives you what percentage NI will be charged at.

Hypothecate it.

Charge the NI rate that will produce the sum you need, and the tax rate that you think you can get away with (where “you” = “the government of the day”)

Employees have different rights from the self employed?  Why?  If I’m employed by a multinational and a piece of their equipment falls on me, I’ll sue them and (depending on the circumstances) they’ll pay me compensation.  If I employ a cleaning lady for a couple of hours and my stepladder breaks under her, she’ll sue me – and my household insurance will cover me (if I read the small print correctly)

Benefits?  You get jobseeker’s allowance, to be replaced by universal credit, if you lose a position as an employee, but not if you’re going through a bad patch as a self employed person.  Why?  (And, if we went with a Citizen’s Income, instead of universal credit, it would be even less of an issue.)

Now wouldn’t THAT be a simplification worth having???

Sigh.

(Here’s what I sent in response to the consultation, if you’re still interested…) Read the rest of this entry ?

Posted in Consultation, Employment, SFIT | 6 Comments »

h1

Podcasting?

July 30, 2013

Dear Hive Mind

Is there anyone who would find a podcast of this blog at all useful/interesting please?

Or, to put it another way, is there anyone who might read this blog if they had the time but thinks they would find it easier to listen to a podcast of it on the train?

(the “just because I have the technology doesn’t necessarily mean it’s such a good idea to use it” post!)

Posted in About me, Consultation, Reference | Leave a Comment »

h1

Gritter on a quad bike

July 24, 2013

If you follow me on twitter (@wendybradley) you’ll know that, as well as linking to things that I find interesting about tax and regulation, I also enjoy the random stuff you find there: the occasional tweet-along of a television programme, for example (like shouting at the television, only the television shouts back) and I can usually be found on twitter on Sunday mornings for the regular tweetalong to the Archers omnibus.

So when I read the response document to the consultation on the use of rebated fuel for gritting in rural areas my eye was arrested by the statement on page seven that

Respondents pointed out that some rural roads are too narrow, not only for purpose-built gritters, but also for tractors to grit and therefore smaller vehicles like quad bikes would be more suitable.

So now all I can see is this wild vision of Josh and Pip Archer on the quad bikes nicked from Bridge Farm doing a ton down the Felpersham bypass with a gritter hitched to the back of each…

Ahem.

Anyway, you may remember that I responded last year to a consultation on The Use of Rebated Fuel for Gritting In Rural Areas.  I thought it was a good consultation – clear and well written, with a good impact assessment that actually made sense – but my main response was to question whether there was any need for actual legislation to achieve the worthy aim of not hassling people who use red diesel when they lay grit in snow conditions in areas not covered by council services.

The response document lists the 105 respondents, aside from the five members of the “general public”.  (I’m assuming mine was categorised as a “general public” response.)  But, frustratingly, the response document is entirely silent on the question I raised, of whether legislation is actually necessary in this instance.

Leaving that aside, we have a further consultation closing on 28th July on the wording of the relevant legislation.  Irritatingly, the consultation is now called “Amendments to Schedule 1 to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979” but it’s clearly the same measure.

Well, after they did so well on the consultation itself, it’s a shame to see them fall down at the final hurdle.  Because the legislation out for consultation is a draft statutory instrument.

Now, a statutory instrument is a bit of legislation that gets through on the nod – there are two kinds, the ones where Parliament has actually to say yes for it to go through, and the ones where it just goes through unless someone actually says no. Since Parliament doesn’t amend them but just accept or reject them, they’re supposed to go before Parliament with all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed – which includes having an explanatory memorandum which tells you things like what the legislation is trying to achieve, how much it will cost, and what kind of consultation happened to get to this point.

And the gritter on a quad bike legislation?  Well, it has a note that says

A Tax Information and Impact Note covering this instrument will be published on the HMRC website at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/tiins.htm.

Which might be enough to get it through a whipped House, but is neither use nor ornament for the rest of us.  Poor show.

Here (under the cut) is what I sent:

Read the rest of this entry ?

Posted in Consultation | Leave a Comment »

h1

Consultation forward look

July 22, 2013

There are twenty-three open consultations listed at gov.uk under “open consultations” and “HMRC”.  And, yes, two cheers to gov.uk for introducing a way of separating out “open consultations” from “closed consultations” and “all consultations” at long last.  Frustratingly, however, consultations are still listed in order of publication rather than the date which would actually be useful, the date on which they close!

Here, therefore, for your delight, delectation, and holiday planning, are links to all 23 in the order in which they close.  However I have to add a caveat that I was about half way through compiling the list when I realised that a small number of the consultations had ancillary documents (powerpoint slides, notes of meetings and other material) linked from the same part of gov.uk but at that point it was clear that compiling this list was going to take me all morning and I didn’t have time to go back and check which ones did and didn’t have ancillary documents.  If you’re interested in a particular document, go check!

But kudos to the Gov.uk people for introducing an “open consultations” tab at last! Woo, and indeed hoo.  But look at this page where they tell you there are, as of today’s date, one hundred and twelve open consultations across government.

Has anyone told the government they’re supposed to be cutting down on regulation, not going for the record?

 Amendments to Schedule 1 to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 28 July 2013 
National insurance and self-employed entertainers 6 August 2013
 Offshore employment intermediaries 8 August 2013 
 A review of two aspects of the tax rules on partnerships 9 August 2013 
 Community amateur sports clubs (CASC) scheme 12 August 2013 
 Office of Tax Simplification: review of unapproved share schemes 16 August 2013
 Strengthening the Code of Practice on taxation for banks 16 August 2013
 Inheritance tax: simplifying charges on trusts 23 August 2013
 Modernising the taxation of corporate debt and derivative contracts 29 August 2013
 VAT treatment of refunds made by manufacturers 31 August 2013 
 Pensions tax relief: individual protection from the Lifetime Allowance charge 2 September 2013
 How to improve HMRC’s collection of debt: coding out 5 September 2013
 Investment Management Exemption and Collective Investment Schemes: expanding the “white list” 16 September 2013
 Interest distributions from Authorised Investment Funds paid without deduction of tax 16 September 2013
 Sharing and publishing data for public benefit  24 September 2013 
 Bank Levy Review 2013 26 September 2013 
 Venture Capital Trusts share buy-backs 26 September 2013
 VAT: Retail Export Scheme 30 September 2013
 Withdrawing relief for interest on loans to purchase life annuities 30 September 2013
 Reform of close company loans to participators rules 2 October 2013
 Simplifying the National Insurance processes for the self-employed 9 October 2013 
 Reform of an anti-avoidance provision: Transfer of Assets Abroad 10 October 2013 
 Residence of Offshore Funds – extending the scope of Section 363A Taxation Act 2010 14 October 2013 

Posted in Consultation | 2 Comments »

h1

Transforming Legal Aid: consultation response

June 3, 2013

OK then – you have until midnight tomorrow (4th June) to reply to the government’s consultation on “transforming” legal aid.  Basically, so far as I can see, they want to cut the cost by moving to a US “public defender” type arrangement, where you don’t get to choose a lawyer and have them paid for, you get appointed a lawyer and you like it or lump it.  Oh, and you’re not allowed to change them.  Ugh!  Here’s what I sent:

This is an individual’s response to the consultation “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system”. It will also be published, with commentary, on my blog, http://tiintax.com.

1. General comments. The document is 157 pages long with 36 consultation questions attached and Chris Grayling describes the proposals set out in those pages as “bold but fair”. I query the “fairness” in asking people to absorb 157 pages of closely argued text with an “executive summary” which appears to summarise what the government would like to get out of the consultation, rather than being a summary of the actual content of the document.

2. The total savings projected from the change are £220 million a year. However the “savings” seem to me likely to undermine the fundamental principles of justice for a comparatively paltry sum (this on a day when the projected £100 million saving from the proposal to abolish pensioner winter fuel allowances are described as “not much more than one thousandth of the projected annual deficit in 2015.”) You do not appear to include a regulatory Impact Assessment with your proposals, summarising the cost/benefit analysis of making these changes. To me as an ordinary citizen, however, a saving of 0.2% of the projected deficit does not outweigh the possibility of being falsely imprisoned because of a mistaken accusation dealt with by a cut-price lawyer wanting me to plead guilty to keep down his costs.

3. When you are dealing with a subject which is key to the relationship between citizens and their government and as important as the criminal justice system the first question shouldn’t, surely, be about how to cut the costs by restricting the eligibility and scope of financial support but, rather, how to improve the system administratively to prevent vital services like criminal advocacy being cut. For example, there are administrative reforms which would greatly cut the costs of the legal system. I realise basic administrative competence isn’t a “sexy” subject likely to gain headlines, but making sure that prisoners are brought to the right court at the right time, that prosecutors have the right papers in front of them (and are in the right place at the right time) and that interpreters are available, competent and, again, in the right place would, surely, contribute greatly to the efficient administration of justice and are all matters where you could make substantial savings via administrative competence rather than by cutting services? Surely this is a proposal which would be actioned before any cuts to services are considered?

In answer to your specific questions:

1) Restricting the scope of legal aid for prison law
Q1. Do you agree with the proposal that criminal legal aid for prison law matters should be restricted to the proposed criteria? Please give reasons.
No. If a person in prison was dealing with public servants then I might be prepared to agree that their rights could be protected by recourse to a complaints and ombudsman system. However when someone has been deprived of their liberty and imprisoned in a privately-run prison where they become a profit-centre for an unaccountable company I think it is vital that they are able to access legal assistance.
2) Imposing a financial eligibility threshold in the Crown Court
Q2. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a financial eligibility threshold on applications for legal aid in the Crown Court? Please give reasons.
No. See para 3.24 of the consultation! This basic “interest of justice” is not overturned by a temporary fiscal panic.
Q3. Do you agree that the proposed threshold is set an appropriate level? Please give reasons.
No. See answer 2 above.
3) Introducing a residence test
Q4. Do you agree with the proposed approach for limiting legal aid to those with a strong connection with the UK? Please give reasons.
No response
4) Paying for permission work in judicial review cases
Q5. Do you agree with the proposal that providers should only be paid for work carried out on an application for judicial review, including a request for reconsideration of the application at a hearing, the renewal hearing, or an onward permission appeal to the Court of Appeal, if permission is granted by the Court (but that reasonable disbursements should be payable in any event)? Please give reasons.
No. Judicial review is a vital way of enabling a citizen to challenge government overreaching its authority. There are already high financial barriers to pursuit of cases, and the fact that a proportion of cases were lost does not mean that arguing them was without merit. I would also like to see an impact assessment showing a cost/benefit analysis of this individual strand of the proposal – my suspicion is that it would not support the proposal.
5) Civil merits test – removing legal aid for borderline cases
Q6. Do you agree with the proposal that legal aid should be removed for all cases assessed as having “borderline” prospects of success? Please give reasons.
No. This takes the decision away from the courts – where such matters should be decided – into a quango having financial prospects as a major decision-making criterion.
Chapter Four: Introducing Competition in the Criminal Legal Aid Market
i) Scope of the new contract
Q7. Do you agree with the proposed scope of criminal legal aid services to be competed? Please give reasons.
No. Putting contracts out to tender does not favour “competition” – there is already competition, between small firms with specialist expertise in different types of law. What you are talking about with “tendering” is encouraging them to band together under the umbrella of a financing organisation and produce representation at the lowest possible cost with no consideration of value or quality. It is, frankly, an appalling idea.
Q8. Do you agree that, given the need to deliver further savings, a 17.5% reduction in the rates payable for those classes of work not determined by the price competition is reasonable? Please give reasons.
No! But please, if that’s a reasonable idea, let’s see all Members of Parliament receive a 17.5% reduction in their salaries and expenses and revert to the idea after three years of successful operation.
ii) Contract length
Q9. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that three years, with the possibility of extending the contract term by up to two further years and a provision for compensation in certain circumstances for early termination, is an appropriate length of contract? Please give reasons.
No response
iii) Geographical areas for the procurement and delivery of services
Q10. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that with the exception of London, Warwickshire/West Mercia and Avon and Somerset /Gloucestershire, procurement areas should be set by the current criminal justice system areas? Please give reasons.
No response
Q11. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to join the following criminal justice system areas: Warwickshire with West Mercia; and Gloucestershire with Avon and Somerset, to form two new procurement areas? Please give reasons.
No response
Q12. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that London should be divided into three procurement areas, aligned with the area boundaries used by the Crown Prosecution Service? Please give reasons.
No response
Q13. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that work tendered should be exclusively available to those who have won competitively tendered contracts within the applicable procurement areas? Please give reasons.
No response
iv) Number of contracts
Q14. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to vary the number of contracts in each procurement area? Please give reasons.
No response
Q15. Do you agree with the factors that we propose to take into consideration and are there any other factors that should to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate number of contracts in each procurement area under the competition model? Please give reasons.
No response
vi) Contract value
Q16. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that work would be shared equally between providers in each procurement area? Please give reasons.
No response
vii) Client choice
Q17. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that clients would generally have no choice in the representative allocated to them at the outset? Please give reasons.
Absolutely not! It is an inquitous idea, that a citizen will be prosecuted by the state and defended by a cheapskate state-appointed lucky-dip lawyer with no right to choice!
viii) Case allocation
Q18. Which of the following police station case allocation methods should feature in the competition model? Please give reasons.
 Option 1(a) – cases allocated on a case by case basis  Option 1(b) – cases allocated based on the client’s day of month of birth  Option 1(c) – cases allocated based on the client’s surname initial  Option 2 – cases allocated to the provider on duty  Other
This is an appalling idea, but if (as I suspect) you go ahead with it anyway, then at least let the person allocated be random. So a duty rota system is preferable to one based on surname, and a day or month of birth option preferable to either – neither the police (by arresting someone when a firm perceived to be less competent was on duty) nor a provider (by avoiding taking surnames beginning with a particular letter because of a perceived racial bias) should be able to game the system, so far as it can be prevented.
Q19. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that for clients who cannot be represented by one of the contracted providers in the procurement area (for a reason agreed by the Legal Aid Agency or the Court), the client should be allocated to the next available nearest provider in a different procurement area? Please give reasons.
No response – I think I lost the will to live around this point in the condoc
Q20. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that clients would be required to stay with their allocated provider for the duration of the case, subject to exceptional circumstances? Please give reasons.
Good god, no! No matter how hostile, unhelpful, incompetent or just plain uninterested your state-appointed lawyer might be, you’d have to stick with them whatever? No!
ix) Remuneration
Q21. Do you agree with the following proposed remuneration mechanism under the competition model? Please give reasons.
 Block payment for all police station attendance work per provider per procurement area based on the historical volume in area and the bid price
 Fixed fee per provider per procurement area based on their bid price for magistrates’ court representation
 Fixed fee per provider per procurement area based on their bid price for Crown Court litigation (for cases where the pages of prosecution evidence does not exceed 500)
 Current graduated fee scheme for Crown Court litigation (for cases where the pages of prosecution evidence exceed 500 only) but at discounted rates as proposed by each provider in the procurement area
No response
Q22. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that applicants be required to include the cost of any travel and subsistence disbursements under each fixed fee and the graduated fee when submitting their bids? Please give reasons.
No response
x) Procurement process
Q23. Are there any other factors to be taken into consideration in designing the technical criteria for the Pre Qualification Questionnaire stage of the tendering process under the competition model? Please give reasons.
No response
Q24. Are there any other factors to be taken into consideration in designing the criteria against which to test the Delivery Plan submitted by applicants in response to the Invitation to Tender under the competition model? Please give reasons.
No response
Q25. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to impose a price cap for each fixed fee and graduated fee and to ask applicants to bid a price for each fixed fee and a discount on the graduated fee below the relevant price cap? Please give reasons.
No. How can you put a price on justice, before you even know what’s involved? What if you need expert witnesses, what if you need to bring in outside expertise. A price cap is an appalling idea.
Chapter Five: Reforming Fees in Criminal Legal Aid
1) Restructuring the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme
Q26. Do you agree with the proposals to amend the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme to:
 introduce a single harmonised basic fee, payable in all cases (other than those that attract a fixed fee), based on the current basic fee for a cracked trial;
No response
 reduce the initial daily attendance fee for trials by between approximately 20 and 30%;
How on earth do you justify reducing fees by 20-30%? What possible basis is there for this – are your figures plucked out of the air? Please see response to question 8 and come back to me when MPs have done it themselves for three or four years and
 taper rates so that a decreased fee would be payable for every additional day of trial?
Actually, you got me. That’s one that I actually think is in principle a reasonable idea. Well done you.
Please give reasons. Because once the research is done and the case is prepared, the actual number of days involved doesn’t add value… although of course conversely if the length of the trial is down to administrative incompetence on the part of the prosecution, then logically the fees should INCREASE rather than decrease, so as to discourage prosecutors from trying to game the system.
2) Reducing litigator and advocate fees in Very High Cost Cases (Crime)
Q27. Do you agree that Very High Cost Case (Crime) fees should be reduced by 30%? Please give reasons.
See response to question 26 point 2
Q28. Do you agree that the reduction should be applied to future work under current contracts as well as future contracts? Please give reasons.
No! Good grief, are you really saying there’s a 20-30% layer of fat in current pricing of legal work? Because I find that a bit improbable.
3) Reducing the use of multiple advocates
Q29. Do you agree with the proposals:
 to tighten the current criteria which inform the decision on allowing the use of multiple advocates;
No. There’s a basic fairness requirement. If the prosecution has two or three advocates, then the defence should be funded to a similar level.
 to develop a clearer requirement in the new litigation contracts that the litigation team must provide appropriate support to advocates in the Crown Court; and
 to take steps to ensure that they are applied more consistently and robustly in all cases by the Presiding Judges?
Please give reasons.
No: surely the state has all of the cards here. If we’re saying the citizen on the other side has to play by a set of cards dealt to them by the state, at least give them the same number from the same deck! Your proposals send the individual into a high stakes poker game with monopoly money.
Chapter Six: Reforming Fees in Civil Legal Aid
1) Reducing the fixed representation fees paid to solicitors in family cases covered by the Care Proceedings Graduated Fee Scheme:
Q30. Do you agree with the proposal that the public family law representation fee should be reduced by 10%? Please give reasons.
See question 8. No!
2) Harmonising fees paid to self-employed barristers with those paid to other advocates appearing in civil (non-family) proceedings
Q31. Do you agree with the proposal that fees for self-employed barristers appearing in civil (non-family) proceedings in the County Court and High Court should be harmonised with those for other advocates appearing in those courts. Please give reasons.
No: barristers get different fees for a reason (not least because they’re self employed businesses in their own right.)
3) Removing the uplift in the rate paid for immigration and asylum Upper Tribunal cases
Q32. Do you agree with the proposal that the higher legal aid civil fee rate, incorporating a 35% uplift payable in immigration and asylum Upper Tribunal appeals, should be abolished? Please give reasons.
No response
Chapter Seven: Expert Fees in Civil, Family, and Criminal Proceedings
Q33. Do you agree with the proposal that fees paid to experts should be reduced by 20%? Please give reasons.
No: see response to question 8
Chapter Eight: Equalities Impact
Q34. Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range of impacts under the proposals set out in this consultation paper? Please give reasons.
You have failed to consider the possibility of a person being allocated a lawyer who is of a different gender, ethnicity or other protected characteristic from their own and of the effect the lack of choice and lack of ability to change might have on the client/provider relationship. In very simple terms, if you are a woman and are allocated a misogynistic solicitor, tough!
Q35. Do you agree that we have correctly identified the extent of impacts under these proposals? Please give reasons.
As above. You do not appear to have considered the intangible elements – trust, support, confidence – vital to the relationship. A take-it-or-leave-it, no choice, no change service will leave people with a much lower degree of confidence that they are being treated fairly.
Q36. Are there forms of mitigation in relation to impacts that we have not considered?
An ability to exercise choice of advocate should be included in the proposals. If necessary you could prevent people “gaming” the system by allowing one change without reasons being given and a second change (perhaps at judges’ discretion) if a reason was put forward.
Regards

Wendy Bradley
http://tiintax.con

Posted in Consultation | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »