The e-mails which led to the loss of 25 million names, addresses and bank details have finally been released together with lots of black ink "redactions" to protect civil servants' identity. Along with them are letters from the NAO to HMRC (which you can see ).
The key thing we learn comes not from the detail but the tone of all the exchanges. They demonstrate little concern from either the NAO or HMRC about data protection. The NAO wants, it would appear, simply to reduce the size of the files it is sent. The HMRC is worried about the cost of filtering information in order to send the smaller files the NAO request. What about our privacy and our rights? No mention is made of them.
A few more details do emerge:
• First, as spun in advance, the NAO makes clear that it has no evidence that a senior manager ("the Process Owner for Child Benefit") made the the decision to release the data
• Secondly, the NAO has apologised "unreservedly" to senior management at the HMRC for not informing them of the request for the data implying that they went through more (co-operative?) junior staff
• Finally, there's one bit of fun. The e-mail below from the NAO tells the HMRC to "ensure that the CDs are delivered to NAO as safely as possible due to their content" ! If only….
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have begun sending letters to the over 7 million households affected by the child benefit fiasco. The letter seeks to reassure people by stating that the missing data "is likely to still be on Government property". ().
How on earth does HMRC know that the missing data "is likely to still be on Government property"? When I asked their press office I was told that "this was the indication of the investigation" and that the chancellor had already said as much. A quick check of Hansard reveals that he did not say that. He did say that there was no evidence the data had fallen into the wrong hands but there is a big difference in these statements - one says "don't worry your heads", the other "so far there's no proof crooks have got their hands on your precious personal data".
Meanwhile, the National Audit Office is preparing to release to MPs the exchange of e-mails between its officials and staff at HMRC. These e-mails will, it's claimed, show that the official at the HMRC who sent the e-mail was "a junior official" and that, although the e-mail was copied to a "senior official" there is no evidence that that senior individual took the decision to release the full database in breach of HMRC procedures and, almost certainly, the law.
Note: the term "junior official" has a precise Whitehall definition. It means below Grade 7. Thus, confusingly, someone termed a "senior business manager" may still be a "junior official" in Whitehall speak
UPDATE 1430GMT: Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Apologies for my statement above that "the term 'junior official' has a precise Whitehall definition. It means below Grade 7." That is what I was told. Now I'm told that the only cross-Whitehall definition of junior is someone not in the "senior civil service" i.e. the top brass - permanent secretaries, directors general, who are Grade 5 and above.
So, is a "senior business manager" in HMRC junior or senior? Wish I knew.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
