COULD 25m PEOPLE SUE HMRC?

On reading Iain Dale's post about this, I couldn't resist looking up the relevant text of the Data Protection Act. Section 13 seems to be the most pertinent provision. It states:

"13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements

1. An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
2. An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—
   (a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
   (b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.
3. In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned."

I'm no lawyer but, on the face of it, anyone affected by the HMRC fiasco could sue for not only "damage" (i.e. financial loss, identity theft, or what-have-you) but also "distress" (i.e. mental anguish caused by the whole sorry episode, &c). Interesting.

But what really tickled me about this was the prospect of the Government, as a defence, seeking "to prove that [it] had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required" should anyone choose to take action against them. That really would be interesting!

NORTHERN ROCK: CLOUD CUCKOO LAND

There was a quite extraordinary exchange about Northern Rock and the tripartite system of regulation for the sector in the House of Lords yesterday.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry had asked the Government "Whether they are proposing any changes in the relationship between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and HM Treasury." In response Lord Davies of Oldham offered these (specious) crumbs of comfort (my emphasis): "... he will recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was explicit about the way in which the tripartite system works. It has been tried and tested on a number of occasions ... Of course, evaluation is going on on the operation of the system, but it should be recognised that it has stood this country and its economy in good stead. It should also be recognised that it is much admired elsewhere in the world and others are eager to follow a similar strategy to tackle what we all recognise is a very difficult situation."

Which planet is he living on? As Baroness Noakes subsequently asked: "... how can the Minister stand there and say that this system has been tried and tested? At its first trial, it failed dismally ... It is clear that the Government have to take some action." And of course the Government have already acceded to the latter point as legislation in this area was trailed in the Queen's Speech.

Could it be that, in the face of Northern Rock, the HMRC debacle, the worsening economy, &c, an utterly delusional bunker mentality is developing and deepening amongst Treasury ministers?

GOVERNMENT SECURITY FAILURE (2)

In my post about this yesterday, I inferred that the fall-out from this fiasco would be protracted and far-reaching. And, judging by current reaction, one of the first major planks of Government policy to feel the fall-out is the NIR and ID cards.

Of course, this figured prominently in George Osborne's response to Darling's statement with him saying that the debacle is "the final blow to the Government’s ambition to create a national ID card." Cameron ran with it again taday at PMQs, describing retention of the policy as "weird" and "truly bizarre" . Like Ross Anderson, Alice Miles in The Times has put a wider gloss on it: "The Government's entire public IT agenda — all those systems and databases and supposed safeguards — is now under threat. [Darling's] statement was fine and comprehensive, but it became risible at one point: when he claimed that ID cards would somehow have made this lost information safer ..." Even The Sun, not renowned as being especially libertarian on this issue, insists: "The shocking blunder means Labour’s plan to bring in ID cards now looks doomed." All good stuff and, of course, grist to NO2ID's mill. Anyone with even half a brain should be able to see the sense of this train of thought. At the very least there should be a moratorium on development of the project - and a host of others including the Children's Index, the NHS NPfIT, &c - until such time as the security features of the plethora of databases that the Government has on us have been properly reviewed.

But ... but ... but!

Paradoxically it could well be that this "beyond farce, past comprehension, criminally irresponsible and beneath contempt" (to borrow Alice Miles' words) fiasco could entrench The Great Bottler's (possibly unwilling) support for ID cards. The trouble for GB in his bunker is that, on the back of the election-that-never-was, the political initiative has been sacrificed. In stark contrast to his honeymoon period from July of last year, the Government now looks like a victim of "events, dear boy, events" rather than being in control of the overall situation. So there is no advantage, political or otherwise, to the Government bowing to the pressure of those events and tossing ID cards onto GB's earnestly-to-be-wished-for Bliar-rite funeral pyre. Quite the reverse in fact. Politically the last thing GB and his Government want to be seen doing right now is 'collapsing' or flip-flopping in the face of difficult circumstances. Undoubtedly there's a huge storm out there at the moment (which could get even worse before it gets better) but they are reckoning that the best, if not only, route to redemption is to ride it out and hold the line, although it has to be said that the pressure of events may force their hand anyway,

But, then again, ... but ... but.

There is room for supposing that the Government actually had taken a decision to scrap the ID cards policy. While it is always difficult to decipher Westminster Village smoke signals, you, dear reader, will recall that two or three weeks ago - actually on 4th Nov, the timing's important (i.e. before the shit hit the ministerial fan over the HMRC debacle) - the Sunday Mirror dropped exactly this bombshell on to an unsuspecting public: "... the proposed roll-out to force all Britons to carry [ID cards] will be shelved indefinitely, according to Whitehall sources." The ever-reliable and ever-acerbic John Lettice's take on this can be found here at The Register. Now, from outside the bunker, it's impossible to say how authoritative the Mirror's line was. But what we can say is that, as a matter of course, there is 'no smoke without fire'. Equally The Mirror isn't exactly known for being backward in coming forward in support of and/or to help out Labour administrations. So could it be that some underlings from the No. 10 bunker were tasked with preparing the ground for a major policy announcement on ID cards by briefing the line to the Mirror? Well, stranger things have happened - but I suppose The Great Bottler would say, "Not on my watch, not any more!" Still (after 10 years of Bliar) there is a discernible strategy here which could/should have run something like this: spin and/or leak a major story to a tame tabloid; issue junior ministerial denials while letting the story run; bide one's time before conceding that the spin/leak was accurate and that the policy change has been arrived at because of the arrival of an authoritative and unarguable piece of evidence commissioned (of course) by one's good self; QED off the Bliar-rite hook!!!

Here you've got to throw the Crosby Public Private Forum on Identity Management into this potent Witches' Brew. This was instigated by GB - though first touted by him in February 2006 in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute* - in July of 2006 when he appointed Sir James Crosby, formerly of HBOS, to head up the Forum, the terms of reference of which are:

• a) Review the current and emerging use of identity management in the private and public sectors and identify best practice.
• b) Consider how public and private sectors can work together, harnessing the best identity technology to maximise efficiency and effectiveness.
• c) Produce a preliminary report for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministerial Committee on identity Management by Easter 2007.

The word on the street about this - endorsed in part by this from The Ideal Government Project - is that the Forum is leaning heavily towards a federated structure with extensive use of/reliance on 'infomediaries' and 'trusted third parties' rather than government (i.e. a system wholly at odds with the existing legislation for and architecture of the ID cards project) as the primary movers of identity management.

Now, whatever else one might say about GB, he is one of the archest politicians of his age. From his fastness in the Treasury he would surely have recognised the potential downsides of the ID card policy in both financial and political terms, not least because the parliamentary debates on the relevant Act had thrown up all sorts of nasties (the statutory requirement for the twice-yearly Cost Report, the concept of a "plastic poll tax", &c). So, whatever he may have been saying publicly about ID cards at the time, what was his motivation in setting up a wholesale review of an established and (supposedly) agreed line of Government/New Labour policy? Surely it is not too incredible to suppose that he was aiming to cover his back against these pitfalls.

One can speculate, as Ideal Government do, why it is that the Forum hasn't published any of its results yet, despite the inference in their terms of reference that something would be forthcoming by Easter of 2007. Of course , it may be as straightforward as their thinking being wholly antipathetic to the ID cards project - perhaps we'll never know. But it could also be that The Great Bottler knows full well the flavour of any Report and is witholding its release until a moment of his choosing so that he can play it to his maximum political advantage.

I make no bones about it. I may well be adding 2 + 2 and making 5 in all this. Nonetheless it's intriguing stuff. Time alone will tell. So, as they say, watch this space.

* In fact, a large section of the speech is devoted to GB's thinking on ID cards and makes for interesting reading.

GOVERNMENT SECURITY FAILURE

Not surprisingly the blogosphere is awash with the fall-out from HMRC having 'lost' 25m - yes, 25 MILLION!!! - data records. I don't have a great deal to add to what others have already said on the subject - notably in no particular order Dizzy, Iain Dale, Man In a Shed, Ian Brown at Blogzilla, SpyBlog, et al. But, for me, Ross Anderson at Light Blue Touchpaper is absolutely spot-on in his reaction. As he says:

"It’s surely clear by now that the whole public-sector computer-security establishment is no longer fit for purpose."

I should coco!!!!

For my part, I make these observations:

• The Great Bottler's dandy wheeze, when still Chancellor under Bliar, to expand his empire by combining tax and benefit functions under one roof at HMRC has come back to haunt him - he certainly looked pretty nervy as Darling delivered his Statement. A case perhaps of the biter bit?
• The fall-out from this will resonate for many weeks and months (and, as Dizzy suggests, Darling falling on his sword over it is a wholly viable prospect; it may even leech towards The Great Bottler himself). It is impossible to exaggerate how serious and damaging this could potentially be to the stability of the economy not only at the level of individual families but also much more widely;
• For anyone who has shrugged their shoulders and assumed that they are content that Government should be the primary manager and/or administrator of their personal data, this is proof positive (not for the first time) that they have been deluding themselves (as suggested above by Ross). And, while on the subject of shrugging shoulders, the litany of security lapses and failures perpetrated by Government and its departments is now so long that we should be demanding that effective action be taken to remedy the situation, not sitting back and let them repeat the same old mistakes time and time again;
• there is an urgent requirement to review and re-balance the legal position vis-a-vis the ownership of personal data. Currently the individual citizen has no rights of ownership whatsoever and inevitably therefore control over how the data is administered, processed, manipulated, &c is severely constrained and limited. At the very least the law should grant us some enforceable rights in this increasingly important area;
• at this stage, the Information Commissioner is quite right to reserve judgment. But, as a general principle, these sorts of security lapses need to be proceeded against with the full force of the law. Too often, they are dealt with internally by resort to what are, compared to what would happen in the private sector, relatively soft disciplinary measures. Rather, because of the position of trust in which Government and its staff find themselves, they should be prosecuted to the max.

No doubt this story'll run a bit in the coming days so I may well return to it. But for now, my mind is just boggling at how incompetent this whole sorry affair is - I've got to lie down with a wet towel over me head to try to recover!!!

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH DEBATE

It can be quite revealing to see which Ministers/Spokesmen are allocated to which days in the debates on the Queen's Speech (or more correctly, "on the Motion that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty").

So, on Wednesday in the House of Lords the expected topics for debate will be "Consumer Affairs, Industry, Energy and Economic Affairs". All good and well. Now, normally one would anticipate that the Government would put up their Treasury spokesman (as it happens Lord Davies of Oldham) either to open or close the day's debate, the more so given that substantial Treasury bills were trailed in the Queen's Speech - certainly the proposed legislation "to protect depositors and ensure confidence in the banking system" (in the wake of Northern Rock) and, perhaps not quite so meaty, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. But, as revealed here on the Government Whips' web-site, the Government will in fact be represented by Lord (Digby) Jones of Birmingham (DBERR and FCO) and Lord McKenzie of Luton (DWP).

Of course the former is a Minister of State and the latter is a PUSS so, nominally, they are both 'senior' to Lord Davies (as Deputy Chief Whip in the Lords) and that may account for this slightly off-key arrangement. But equally could it not be possible that Lord Davies is being 'punished' for his gaffe a month or so back - as commented upon by Iain Dale here? Or - and probably more likely bearing in mind the gist of Iain's last paragraph - could it be that the Government's business managers are trying to circumvent their Lordships from being able to indulger in detailed and effective scrutiny of the current state of the UK economy?

It seems to me that this could be a trend well worth watching.