He was once (briefly) my boss, and he’s told me he reads this blog, so you won’t be surprised that I have some sympathy with Anthony Inglese, the Solicitor to H.M. Revenue & Customs, over his experience before the Public Accounts Committee on Monday. The committee was so dissatisfied with his approach to answering questions that he was forced to give his evidence on oath – an unusual step. Here’s a BBC report of what happened, or you can see his evidence in full on Parliament’s website.
The Committee’s looking into how HMRC handled settlements of tax disputes with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs, which appear to have been very favourable to the companies. UK Uncut is threatening a judicial review claim over the settlements – something Anthony Inglese was anxious to stress to the committee, as he sought repeatedly to rely on legal professional privilege to deflect their questioning.
A couple of things were interesting about this incident, from my point of view. First, I think Anthony was ill-advised to approach answering the committee in such an extremely cautious, hesitantly insistent-on-precision way. It seemed to me the committee (especially the chair, Margaret Hodge, and Richard Bacon MP) were riled as much by Anthony’s manner as by his actual answers. I know he’ll have wanted to do the opposite, but unfortunately contrived to look as evasive as James Murdoch did before the Culture committee today. He certainly ought to have changed his approach more quickly as he got the feel of the committee’s mood.
But the committee wasn’t completely fair to him, either – I do think Margaret Hodge ought to have allowed him to answer her questions in his own way, rather than try to bludgeon him quite so much into what I can understand from his viewpoint were potentially misleading yes/no alternatives.
Most interesting of all, though, was that the committee did not in the end get him to answer anything that was legally privileged. Once the oath was taken, strangely they seemed to ease up on him, gave him more space to answer, and apparently became more satisfied. Odd, this; legal professional privilege puts a lawyer in an awkward situation professionally speaking (although no disciplinary action could ever be taken against him for his answers, since Parliamentary privilege applies) but it doesn’t override the obligation to give full and frank answers to the committee, as I’ve written before. They seemed simply to give up after they’d roughed their witness up a bit.
Many people will also I think find it extraordinary that H.M. Commissioners of Revenue & Customs don’t seem to accept it’s lawful for them to answer these questions (there was a debate about the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 at one stage between Steven Barclay MP and Anthony Inglese), and have not given a standing instruction under section 20(1) that disclosure to the PAC is in their view in the public interest, at least as regards corporate taxpayers. It’s not at all clear this legal position – assuming it’s correct – is in the public interest, and I think HMRC officials should be exposed to much more pressure on the issue than the committee, ultimately, applied to Anthony Inglese.
A tough and embarrassing experience then. But in the end I think he left without having given away anything he didn’t want to.
Carl Gardner2011-11-10T17:57:32+00:00
To this layman, it is hard to understand why a man who is a solicitor in the employ of the public needs to put be under oath to account for his activity to the House of Commons Committee looking after the public interest. Your last sentence may say it all.
I applied for a job with HMRC was made a conditional offer of employment and Anthony Inglese withdrew on the grounds that I did not meet the ‘high standards of a Government lawyer’. Some high standards that he follows.
Not many people’s idea of a relaxing Boxing Day maybe, but I accidently found this on the BBC Parliament channel today and now realise why the PAC have taken the stance they have. Having – in a different field this year observed a succession of judicial reviews on public consultation – the latest of which is the Solar Panels feed-in tarriffs case – I have an interest in the posture adopted by Government legal officers.
What this incident illustrates – and my parallel experience confirms is that the default position of too many lawyers is completely hostile to the principle of transparency which politicians have been trying to promote for years. Local Government is similarly plagued by over-caution leading to either deliberate or inadvertent obstruction that amounts to a serious stumbling block to the culture of openness in this country.
Rhion Jones, Programme Director,
The Consultation Institute
I think he gave away more than he intended. The PAC did manage to get him to state that he advised Hartnett not to try and renegotiate, but to accept the mistake and let it lie… (after all, what’s a few million between friends).
I don’t know the salaries of the people involved and I have no legal qualifications whatsoever. I do, however, feel that I could have come up with the same advice, especially if I thought that the details of it were never made available to the public.
I’ve dealt with many legal people in my time mainly in the music industry. This guy was weak, ineffectual and appeared to be lacking in every respect with regards to what one would ordinarily expect from someone in such a position.
The above was written in November 2011. Since then Inglese has had another less than impressive session with the Public Accounts Committee. In June 2012, he was again questioned by the PAC about the Vodafone sweetheart deal negotiated and signed off by Dave Hartnett, again under oath. Inglese repeated the mantra-like “lawyers were involved throughout” the negotiations. Margaret Hodge MP (Chair) was able to point out that this was not the truth, according to the facts as revealed by Sir Andrew Park’s investigation for the National Audit Office.
The PAC has to take a tough line when questioning Inglese and the new Permanent Secretary of HMRC, Lin Homer, because they do not otherwise give clear and straight answers to straight questions and resort to generalised obfuscation given half a chance..
I remember watching a whole session of the PAC with Anthony Inglese, followed by Dave Hartnett being chaperoned by Gus O’Donnell. As far as I remember, the whole system is open to abuse. These sweetheart deals were signed off by Hartnett after enjoying the hospitality of the hosts (adversaries?).
Hartnett involved Inglese in the negotiations after he had shaken hands and agreed the deal. Hartnett was concerned that he had done the wrong thing and asked if the deal could be rescinded. Inglese advised that the agreement COULD be rescinded, but not to bother.
(Nobody was expected to find out).
It was also divulged that only the very senior personnel (very few people) are allowed to know the machinations of these people because of, yes, you’ve guessed it, client confidentiality!