The workshops were being held in advance of the launch of the formal consultation document so no debate was possible on the actual content. Instead it was explained that the workshops would be used to get an early feel for the external appetite and the strength of views on similar documents.
The stakeholders were split into two groups and were asked to look at four separate charters, two for each group. The task had three linked elements. The groups were asked to read each charter and then to:
The following content reflects the output from both workshops and captures the main themes and threads that emerged. All comments made have been captured separately for inclusion in the ongoing consultation.
Overall this charter was disliked with many elements scoring badly on the green/red system, green indicating a feature was liked. The specific areas that brought strong comment were:
More positively two areas scored very highly on the ‘green’ button vote:
Some suggestions were also made:
Overall this document provoked a more balanced scoring of green – v – red when contrasted with Charter 1. Generally the comments were more positive but with some very clear dislikes expressed.
There was a strength of feeling about the lack of the 'individuals obligation' and the apparent 'pasting of a complaints procedure in the middle of the document'. It was also felt that there needed to be some idea of what happens if either side doesn’t live up to it’s side of the bargain.
The clearest and most positive outcomes were around the style of the document:
Of the suggestions made, communication and communication channels brought out some comments that need to be considered. Initial feelings are that there is a play off around the level of detail needed against the drive for a short document that will be hard to balance.
This was the shortest of the charters, taking up just a page. There was twice as much positive (green) scoring compared to red. Because of the bullet point presentation of the document it was far simpler to see the specific elements that were preferred.
Both tone and content were coming across as strong indicators of what the finished document will have to contain and articulate.
Included in the positive comments were the 'use of positive language… like we will'. However the tone also came in for criticism with one contributor saying that although the principle was good 'the way it was written is quite patronising'.
The balance of the document was another key feature. The generally positive view for a short document was tempered by some comments from contributors that felt that there was a danger of losing detail that should be there. You told us there was a time when a layered approach where an overarching document of principle could be used with specific detail in underlying documents.
Typical of the comments reflecting on this were:
Some questions were recorded that challenged any pre conceived ideas. Questions and comments such as:
These capture some of the basic concepts of a document that has to work for both HMRC and customers or shut down the avenues for failure.
This charter ran over two full pages and out of the four on display brought the highest level of positive scores (the green buttons). Of the 44 ‘votes’ made, the green total was 40 with just a handful of red buttons).
Two areas disliked: the contact point being the Chief Executive; and the use of phrases around being treated with respect and as an individual. Comments separately posted suggest these were patronising elements.
The more thought provoking comments came from the free space area where this charter came under fire. The length of it was considered too long for some with a call for a 'one pager' and comments that one reader gave up half way through.
The language used in the charter came under scrutiny also with one contributor feeling that the offer to treat people with respect was 'patronising' and 'insulting to staff'. Another felt that the aspiration wasn’t high enough when phrases such as 'doing our best' were used. Commenting beyond the precise wording one contributor felt that some of the links were made with 'conditional language –we will do this if you do that' and suggested that the starting point should be 'treating everyone the same irrespective of whether they help us'.
There was also some thought given to the structure with a one page document being the central piece with links to detail hanging of that (assumes a web based format).
One suggestion for the eventual document was that it was an opportunity to 'even up the playing field' set out what rights are what responsibilities are and the redress method. The document needs to 'articulate what HMRC expects from individuals and vice versa'.
This was an opportunity for contributors to have their say on a title that the eventual document could be called. In this section there were several phrases that captured the potential essence of a ‘Charter’. One contributor expressed a dislike of both ‘Charter’ and ‘Customer’. Another questioned whether ‘Charter’ carried any baggage from it’s early existence or whether the memories were in fact positive ones.
Others put forward included:
Some potential strap lines were also offered up:
