← Back to imported archive search
Who recommended Ray McCann for the Loan Charge Review (appointment January 2025)
Source: WhatDoTheyKnow
Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Status: HM Revenue and Customs
did not have
the information requested.
Imported path: /opt/loancharge/imports/wdtk/requests/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2
Open original request on WhatDoTheyKnow
Imported text
SOURCE: WhatDoTheyKnow
SOURCE_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2
TITLE: Who recommended Ray McCann for the Loan Charge Review (appointment January 2025)
AUTHORITY: HM Revenue and Customs
AUTHORITY_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc
STATUS: HM Revenue and Customs
did not have
the information requested.
REQUEST_SLUG: who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2
CAPTURED_AT: 2026-05-19T07:25:57+00:00
PROVENANCE: {"first_seen_at": "2026-05-18T12:56:30", "first_seen_page": "1", "first_query_term": "\"Loan Charge\"", "first_date_after": "2026/01/01", "first_date_before": "2027/01/01", "matched_query_terms": "\"Loan Charge\"", "matched_date_ranges": "2026/01/01 to 2027/01/01", "first_search_url_template": "https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%22Loan%20Charge%22/requests?commit=Filter&query=%22Loan+Charge%22&request_date_after=2026%2F01%2F01&request_date_before=2027%2F01%2F01&request_variety%5B%5D=sent&request_variety%5B%5D=response&request_variety%5B%5D=comment&sortby=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&page="}
ATTACHMENTS:
- FOI2026_00651.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2/response/3299861/attach/3/FOI2026%2000651.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 79625 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2/response/3299861/attach/html/3/FOI2026%2000651.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
- IR2026_13488_Response.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2/response/3373982/attach/3/IR2026%2013488%20Response.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 96922 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_recommended_ray_mccann_for_t_2/response/3373982/attach/html/3/IR2026%2013488%20Response.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
================================================================================
MESSAGE 1 [outgoing]
HEADER: Ian Heavyside
10 January 2026
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide information identifying who (person and/or organisation) first proposed / recommended / put forward Mr Ray McCann for appointment to lead the Independent Review of the Loan Charge (commissioned January 2025).
For avoidance of doubt, I am seeking the origin of the recommendation that led to the appointment by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (as stated in the published Terms of Reference), and the immediate documentary trail evidencing it.
GOV.UK
Time period: 1 October 2024 to 31 January 2025 (or from the first recorded discussion of potential candidates up to the date of appointment, if earlier/later).
Please provide:
1. Any emails, letters, messages, or written submissions to HMT (including from HMRC, external stakeholders, MPs/APPGs, campaign groups or individuals) that suggest, recommend, nominate, or propose Ray McCann for the role.
2. Any internal HMT briefings, submissions, advice notes, or ministerial submissions that record who suggested Ray McCann, or that list him among proposed candidates (including any “options” or shortlist documents).
3. Any meeting notes / minutes / call notes where Ray McCann’s appointment is discussed and the source of his nomination is recorded.
4. Any due diligence / independence assessment undertaken by HMT in relation to appointing Mr McCann (for example: conflict of interest checks, independence considerations, risk logs, or mitigation plans), insofar as they relate to the appointment decision and do not require disclosure of sensitive personal data.
Format / scope to avoid section 12:
– Please search the accounts/files of the Exchequer Secretary’s private office, the relevant directorate(s) leading the review, and the central FOI mailbox (electronic records only).
– I am content to receive redacted copies.
– If identifying an individual would engage section 40, please instead provide the identity of the organisation (or the role/capacity, e.g., “Loan Charge campaign group representative / APPG officer / named MP”), and confirm whether the recommendation came from (a) a Loan Charge campaign group, (b) an MP/peer, (c) a professional body, (d) HMRC, or (e) another source.
Public interest context:
The independence of the review leader is central to public confidence. Ministers have stated in Parliament that Mr McCann’s name was suggested by “one of the Loan Charge campaigners”, so there is a clear, recorded public claim about the source of the recommendation.
If any part of this request is refused, please provide the reasoning and consider partial disclosure of the remainder.
Yours faithfully,
Ian Heavyside
================================================================================
MESSAGE 2 [incoming]
HEADER: Information Rights Unit,
HM Revenue and Customs
12 January 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: FOI2026/00651
Dear Ian Heavyside,
Thank you for your request, which was received on 10 January 2026.
Please remember to quote the reference number above if you need to contact
us about this request again.
We aim to respond to all freedom of information requests within 20 working
days. We will either send you the information you have asked for or let
you know why we can't.
If we can't reply by 6th February 2026, we will write to let you know the
reason and when you can expect a response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Information Rights Unit
================================================================================
MESSAGE 3 [incoming]
HEADER: Information Rights Unit,
HM Revenue and Customs
6 February 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
FOI2026 00651.pdf
77K
View
Download
Dear Mr Heavyside,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 10
January 2026.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Information Rights Unit
================================================================================
MESSAGE 4 [outgoing]
HEADER: Ian Heavyside
10 February 2026
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
I request an internal review of HMRC’s response dated 29 January 2026 to my FOI request FOI2026/00651.
While HMRC confirms that it holds information within scope, it has refused to disclose any substantive information on the basis of section 40(2) FOIA. I consider this response to involve a misapplication of section 40 and a failure to engage properly with the scope of my request.
### 1. Misapplication of section 40 to non-personal information
My request was not limited to identifying a named individual. It explicitly sought the *origin and capacity* of the recommendation to appoint Ray McCann, and included a clear fallback position:
> “If identifying an individual would engage section 40, please instead provide the identity of the organisation (or the role/capacity, e.g., MP, campaign group representative, HMRC official).”
HMRC’s response fails to address this at all. Section 40 applies only to personal data. It does **not** exempt information identifying:
* an organisation,
* an institutional source,
* or the role or capacity in which a recommendation was made.
The ICO has consistently held that information relating to actions taken in an official, professional, or political capacity is not necessarily personal data, particularly where disclosure does not identify an individual.
HMRC has therefore incorrectly treated the entire request as one seeking personal data and has failed to consider partial disclosure, redaction, or disclosure of non-personal information.
### 2. Failure to engage with the structured scope of the request
The request was carefully framed to avoid section 12 and to permit lawful disclosure. In particular, it sought:
* whether the recommendation originated from HMRC, HMT, an MP/peer, a campaign group, or another source;
* whether any documentary audit trail exists recording the source of the recommendation;
* whether any due diligence or independence assessment was undertaken, without seeking sensitive personal data.
HMRC’s response does not confirm or deny:
* the category of the recommending source,
* whether more than one candidate was considered,
* whether any independence or conflict checks were conducted.
None of these points inherently require the disclosure of personal data.
### 3. Inconsistency with publicly stated information
The response refers to a Parliamentary Question in which Ministers stated that Ray McCann’s name was suggested by “one of the Loan Charge campaigners”.
Given that the *category* of the recommending source has already been publicly asserted by Ministers, it is not credible to argue that confirming or clarifying the provenance of that recommendation (at a non-personal level) would be unfair or unlawful under UK GDPR.
This strengthens, rather than weakens, the public interest in confirming the accuracy of that statement and the integrity of the appointment process.
### 4. Public interest and governance considerations
The appointment of the lead reviewer of a nationally significant and controversial tax policy engages strong public interest considerations around transparency, independence, and governance.
While section 40(2) is an absolute exemption in respect of personal data, it does not remove HMRC’s obligation to disclose non-personal information or to properly consider partial disclosure where possible.
### 5. Remedy sought
I request that the internal review:
* reconsider whether section 40 has been correctly applied;
* disclose all non-personal information within scope, including:
* the organisational or role-based source of the recommendation,
* confirmation of whether HMRC or HMT proposed or supported the appointment,
* confirmation of whether any independence or conflict assessment was undertaken (in general terms);
* or, if information continues to be withheld, provide a clearer and more granular explanation of why each category of information cannot be disclosed.
I look forward to the outcome of the internal review within the statutory timeframe.
Yours faithfully,
Ian Heavyside
================================================================================
MESSAGE 5 [incoming]
HEADER: Information Rights Unit,
HM Revenue and Customs
11 February 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: IR2026/13488
Dear Ian Heavyside,
Thank you for your request for internal review, which was received on 10
February.
Please remember to quote the reference number above if you need to contact
us about this request again.
We aim to respond to all internal reviews within 20 working days. We will
either send you the information you have asked for or let you know why we
can't.
If we can't reply by 10th March 2026, we will write to let you know the
reason and when you can expect a response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Information Rights Unit
================================================================================
MESSAGE 6 [incoming]
HEADER: Information Rights Unit,
HM Revenue and Customs
9 April 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
IR2026 13488 Response.pdf
94K
View
Download
Dear Ian Heavyside,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 10
February.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Information Rights Unit
================================================================================
ATTACHMENT TEXT EXTRACTION / OCR
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: FOI2026_00651.pdf
TEXT_FILE: FOI2026_00651.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
If you need extra support, for example if you have a disability, a mental health condition, or
do not speak English/Welsh, go to www.gov.uk and search for ‘get help from HMRC’.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001 08/25
OFFICIAL
Information Rights Unit
S1727
Eighth Floor
Central Mail Unit
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Ian Heavyside
By email: request-1386912-
75fb4524@whatdotheyknow.com
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 29 January 2026
Our ref:
FOI2026/00651
Dear Ian Heavyside
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 10 January, for the following information:
“Please provide information identifying who (person and/or organisation) first proposed /
recommended / put forward Mr Ray McCann for appointment to lead the Independent
Review of the Loan Charge (commissioned January 2025).
For avoidance of doubt, I am seeking the origin of the recommendation that led to the
appointment by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (as stated in the published Terms
of Reference), and the immediate documentary trail evidencing it.
GOV.UK
Time period: 1 October 2024 to 31 January 2025 (or from the first recorded discussion of
potential candidates up to the date of appointment, if earlier/later).
Please provide:
1. Any emails, letters, messages, or written submissions to HMT (including from HMRC,
external stakeholders, MPs/APPGs, campaign groups or individuals) that suggest,
recommend, nominate, or propose Ray McCann for the role.
2. Any internal HMT briefings, submissions, advice notes, or ministerial submissions that
record who suggested Ray McCann, or that list him among proposed candidates (including
any “options” or shortlist documents).
3. Any meeting notes / minutes / call notes where Ray McCann’s appointment is discussed
and the source of his nomination is recorded.
4. Any due diligence / independence assessment undertaken by HMT in relation to
appointing Mr McCann (for example: conflict of interest checks, independence
considerations, risk logs, or mitigation plans), insofar as they relate to the appointment
decision and do not require disclosure of sensitive personal data.
Format / scope to avoid section 12:
– Please search the accounts/files of the Exchequer Secretary’s private office, the relevant
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
directorate(s) leading the review, and the central FOI mailbox (electronic records only).
– I am content to receive redacted copies.
– If identifying an individual would engage section 40, please instead provide the identity of
the organisation (or the role/capacity, e.g., “Loan Charge campaign group representative /
APPG officer / named MP”), and confirm whether the recommendation came from (a) a Loan
Charge campaign group, (b) an MP/peer, (c) a professional body, (d) HMRC, or (e) another
source.
Public interest context:
The independence of the review leader is central to public confidence. Ministers have stated
in Parliament that Mr McCann’s name was suggested by “one of the Loan Charge
campaigners”, so there is a clear, recorded public claim about the source of the
recommendation.”
Our response
We can confirm we hold some information within scope of your request. Please note that we
are only able to respond on behalf of HMRC, and any requests for information held by HM
Treasury should be directed to foirequxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Where information is held, you have specified that you seek documents “identifying” any
individual which recommended Ray McCann. However, any documents which identified
such a person are considered withheld under section 40 of the FOIA. This is because your
request relates to an identifiable individual and, therefore, seeks information that is
considered personal data under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
Such information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA, on the basis
that disclosure would contravene the data protection principles (as described under FOIA
section 40(3A)(a)). This part of the section 40 exemption is absolute and we are not required
to consider any public interest arguments for and against disclosure.
Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR requires that personal information is processed lawfully, fairly
and in a transparent manner; processing includes disclosure. Fairness means personal data
should only be handled in ways that people would reasonably expect and not used in ways
that may adversely affect them. The person concerned would reasonably expect that their
personal data would not be put into the public domain. Such a disclosure would be unfair
processing.
Outside of the Freedom of Information Act
Although we cannot answer your request, we can provide some information on a
discretionary basis.
You may be interested in information that is already in the public domain. A Parliamentary
Question was tabled in June 2025 on a very similar theme, the response of which can be
found here:
Parliamentary question 62415 2025-06-24
If you are not satisfied with our reply, you may request a review within 40 working days of
receiving this letter by emailing informationrightsunit@hmrc.gov.uk or by writing to our
address at the top.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: IR2026_13488_Response.pdf
TEXT_FILE: IR2026_13488_Response.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
If you need extra support, for example if you have a disability, a mental health condition, or
do not speak English/Welsh, go to www.gov.uk and search for ‘get help from HMRC’.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
OFFICIAL
Information Rights Unit
S1727
8 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Ian Heavyside
By email: request-1386912-
75fb4524@whatdotheyknow.com
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 9 April 2026
Our ref:
IR2026/13488
Dear Ian Heavyside
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your email of 10 February, which seeks a review of our original response to
your information request.
Original request
On 10 January 2026, you asked for the following information:
“Please provide information identifying who (person and/or organisation) first proposed /
recommended / put forward Mr Ray McCann for appointment to lead the Independent
Review of the Loan Charge (commissioned January 2025).
For avoidance of doubt, I am seeking the origin of the recommendation that led to the
appointment by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (as stated in the published Terms
of Reference), and the immediate documentary trail evidencing it.
GOV.UK
Time period: 1 October 2024 to 31 January 2025 (or from the first recorded discussion of
potential candidates up to the date of appointment, if earlier/later).
Please provide:
1. Any emails, letters, messages, or written submissions to HMT (including from HMRC,
external stakeholders, MPs/APPGs, campaign groups or individuals) that suggest,
recommend, nominate, or propose Ray McCann for the role.
2. Any internal HMT briefings, submissions, advice notes, or ministerial submissions that
record who suggested Ray McCann, or that list him among proposed candidates (including
any “options” or shortlist documents).
3. Any meeting notes / minutes / call notes where Ray McCann’s appointment is discussed
and the source of his nomination is recorded.
4. Any due diligence / independence assessment undertaken by HMT in relation to
appointing Mr McCann (for example: conflict of interest checks, independence
considerations, risk logs, or mitigation plans), insofar as they relate to the appointment
decision and do not require disclosure of sensitive personal data.
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
Format / scope to avoid section 12:
– Please search the accounts/files of the Exchequer Secretary’s private office, the relevant
directorate(s) leading the review, and the central FOI mailbox (electronic records only).
– I am content to receive redacted copies.
– If identifying an individual would engage section 40, please instead provide the identity of
the organisation (or the role/capacity, e.g., “Loan Charge campaign group representative /
APPG officer / named MP”), and confirm whether the recommendation came from (a) a Loan
Charge campaign group, (b) an MP/peer, (c) a professional body, (d) HMRC, or (e) another
source.
Public interest context:
The independence of the review leader is central to public confidence. Ministers have stated
in Parliament that Mr McCann’s name was suggested by “one of the Loan Charge
campaigners”, so there is a clear, recorded public claim about the source of the
recommendation.”
Our response
We replied on 29 January 2026, saying:
We can confirm we hold the information requested, but it is being withheld under section 40
of the FOIA. This is because your request relates to an identifiable individual and, therefore,
seeks information that is considered personal data under the UK General Data Protection
Regulation (UK GDPR). Such information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of
the FOIA, on the basis that disclosure would contravene the data protection principles (as
described under FOIA section 40(3A)(a)). This part of the section 40 exemption is absolute
and we are not required to consider any public interest arguments for and against
disclosure.
Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR requires that personal information is processed lawfully, fairly
and in a transparent manner; processing includes disclosure. Fairness means personal data
should only be handled in ways that people would reasonably expect and not used in ways
that may adversely affect them. The person concerned would reasonably expect that their
personal data would not be put into the public domain. Such a disclosure would be unfair
processing.
Outside of the Freedom of Information Act
Outside of the FOIA, and to be helpful I can direct you to information that is already in the
public domain. A Parliamentary Question was tabled in June 2025 on a very similar theme.
The question and response can be found here:
Parliamentary question 62415 2025-06-24
Internal review request
On 10 February you asked us to review our handling of your request:
“I request an internal review of HMRC’s response dated 29 January 2026 to my FOI request
FOI2026/00651.
While HMRC confirms that it holds information within scope, it has refused to disclose any
substantive information on the basis of section 40(2) FOIA. I consider this response to
involve a misapplication of section 40 and a failure to engage properly with the scope of my
request.
### 1. Misapplication of section 40 to non-personal information
My request was not limited to identifying a named individual. It explicitly sought the *origin
and capacity* of the recommendation to appoint Ray McCann, and included a clear fallback
position:
--- PDF page 3 ---
3
OFFICIAL
> “If identifying an individual would engage section 40, please instead provide the identity of
the organisation (or the role/capacity, e.g., MP, campaign group representative, HMRC
official).”
HMRC’s response fails to address this at all. Section 40 applies only to personal data. It
does **not** exempt information identifying:
* an organisation,
* an institutional source,
* or the role or capacity in which a recommendation was made.
The ICO has consistently held that information relating to actions taken in an official,
professional, or political capacity is not necessarily personal data, particularly where
disclosure does not identify an individual.
HMRC has therefore incorrectly treated the entire request as one seeking personal data and
has failed to consider partial disclosure, redaction, or disclosure of non-personal information.
### 2. Failure to engage with the structured scope of the request
The request was carefully framed to avoid section 12 and to permit lawful disclosure. In
particular, it sought:
* whether the recommendation originated from HMRC, HMT, an MP/peer, a campaign
group, or another source;
* whether any documentary audit trail exists recording the source of the recommendation;
* whether any due diligence or independence assessment was undertaken, without seeking
sensitive personal data.
HMRC’s response does not confirm or deny:
* the category of the recommending source,
* whether more than one candidate was considered,
* whether any independence or conflict checks were conducted.
None of these points inherently require the disclosure of personal data.
### 3. Inconsistency with publicly stated information
The response refers to a Parliamentary Question in which Ministers stated that Ray
McCann’s name was suggested by “one of the Loan Charge campaigners”.
Given that the *category* of the recommending source has already been publicly asserted
by Ministers, it is not credible to argue that confirming or clarifying the provenance of that
recommendation (at a non-personal level) would be unfair or unlawful under UK GDPR.
This strengthens, rather than weakens, the public interest in confirming the accuracy of that
statement and the integrity of the appointment process.
### 4. Public interest and governance considerations
The appointment of the lead reviewer of a nationally significant and controversial tax policy
engages strong public interest considerations around transparency, independence, and
governance.
While section 40(2) is an absolute exemption in respect of personal data, it does not remove
HMRC’s obligation to disclose non-personal information or to properly consider partial
disclosure where possible.
### 5. Remedy sought
--- PDF page 4 ---
4
OFFICIAL
I request that the internal review:
* reconsider whether section 40 has been correctly applied;
* disclose all non-personal information within scope, including:
* the organisational or role-based source of the recommendation,
* confirmation of whether HMRC or HMT proposed or supported the appointment,
* confirmation of whether any independence or conflict assessment was undertaken (in
general terms);
* or, if information continues to be withheld, provide a clearer and more granular explanation
of why each category of information cannot be disclosed.”
Internal review
The purpose of this review is to assess how your request was handled and to determine
whether the original decision given to you was correct.
We received your request on 10 January and replied by email on 29 January. This was
within the statutory deadline in compliance with section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The response set out our review procedure and your right to complain to the Information
Commissioner, as required by section 17(7) of the FOIA.
Conclusion
Having reconsidered your request, I have determined that HMRC’s response was incorrect.
In your representations you have provided that you are seeking the information which
informed the decision of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, to appoint Ray McCann
to lead the Loan Charge review.
Such information would be held by HM Treasury. I note that your request references HM
Treasury and in fact asks for searches of the Minister’s Private Office to be undertaken.
On this basis, I am content that the specific information you seek is not held by HMRC, upon
receipt of your request, HMRC should have clarified this with you.
Appeal process
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs