Income tax in the open
Does government need a 'private space' for policy formulation? Do public authorities need the ability to explore the pros and cons of different policy options in private before choosing between them?
It's accepted by many that there is some need for this, not least by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas. In one recent decision (about House of Lords reform) he argues that the fact that a policy making process is 'live' may increase the public interest in disclosing information, but it also strengthens the countervailing case for secrecy. 
This issue is raised by yesterday's Politics Show on BBC1, which revealed that the SNP government in Scotland is considering changes to its proposals for a local income tax.
The initial plans stated that there would be 'exemptions for savings and investment income'. However the Politics Show discovered that Scottish ministers are now considering including such income under the tax. This was thanks to a freedom of informatiion request which discovered that the Scottish Government had been asking HM Revenue and Customs to help calculate how much money could be raised in this way.
Interviewed on the programme, Scotland's Finance Minister John Swinney confirmed that this option is indeed now under consideration. So in this case FOI has poked a hole in the secrecy covering the policy formulation process.
It's interesting to note that the information was released not by the Scottish Government itself, but by Revenue and Customs, for whom it is a much less sensitive issue.
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
FOI issues aside, your last paragraph implies that FOI has been used in this case almost as a political weapon by HMRC in order to inconvenience or embarrass the Scottish Government.
Surely, that wouldn't happen.
Would it?
Complain about this comment
"Does government need a 'private space' for policy formulation? Do public authorities need the ability to explore the pros and cons of different policy options in private before choosing between them?"
It depends on how you define 'private space'. The tabloid press are more than happy to blow actual statements and policies way out of proportion and so allowing them to do that with every possible option that's considered would paralyse government. An idea that's rejected in 10 seconds would be reported as 'government plans' the next day and everyone would spend their time defending themselves against media accusations.
People in that situation are just going to end up discussing everything in private first to decide what things are acceptable for them to consider in public without being villified. Unofficial secret discussions have a lot more potential for abuse than official secret discussions.
The only practical solution is to allow them a certain amount of privacy while discussing ideas, but to make sure that the discussions are recorded so that all ideas that were considered can be seen along with the reasons they were rejected.
Complain about this comment
An eminently sensible and accurate post from MonkeyBot
Complain about this comment
When considering policy it only makes sense for politicians to have all the availabile information in front of them.
If this is all published, then no inference can be drawn on what the 'solution' is going to be.
If however the politicians are not looking for the 'best' solution, but one based on their own preconceived prejudices/ideas - then the sooner the public know, and can correct them, the better.
You need the facts whether you are for or against any particular policy - otherwise you are operating as an ignorant fool.
Complain about this comment
The problem in this case seems to be that an area of revenue raising was ruled out at the start and is now being brought back in.
That is a flawed framing of proposed policy before the facts where established, nothing to do with secrecy.
The embarrassment could have been avoided by changing the approach to policy determination which would be an altogether more robust approach anyway.
If a policy cannot stand scrutiny it is not worth having anyway. It is as simple as that. The issue is not secrecy - it is in ensuring a better approach to policy development.
It can be argued that openness is far more democratic. At the end of the day who pays - the voter - in which case the voter should be aware of what is being proposed and discussed. It is difficult to see any sound argument to support the view that domestic policy determined in camera is somehow better. The only exception possibly being strategic or security policy issues of national importance. Domestic revenue collection is hardly a matter of national security.
Government, whether national, regional of LGA, is going to have to adapt policy development in the information age as it can no longer argue that dissemination is a problem. I do not believe the Information Commisioners support for localised secrecy, if that is what it is, is a sustainable position. It will get washed aside rapidly.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS