HMRC’s Paul Gray never resigned, Cruickshank did

Surely there are fines applicable to breaches of Data Protection?

One would assume that the loss of 26m records is a breach of DP and therefore would trigger fines.

If these fines are in the order of £50-£300 per record then there may well be a cost involved - even taking say £50 for 26m records this is a substantial sum by any reckoning

Accountability would seem to be an issue and since we have had an 'admission' by the person in charge can we look forward to him contributing to the extent of his worth ?

There was no incorrect assumption in the dodgy dossier issue: the Government did actually lie.

I can't believe Richard Murphy's comment.

He always gives the impression of a "goody two shoes" uttering pronouncements on how the tax system must be fair and a model of economic perfection. But, when it transpires that the public have been sold a pup and the Government spin machine has been operating at full throttle to cover up what really happened, his answer is "What do you want?"

I'll tell you what I want:

1) A little less cant from Mr Murphy. In fact a lot less - has he thought about standing down - a la Paul Gray? He could always describe this as sick leave, we would all understand.

2) Stop this non stop spinning. Basically the story that has been planted in the public mind is that Mr Gray fell on his sword and took responsibilityb for the data loss scandal when the powers that be knew this not to be the case. A blatantly untrue story has been implanted without correction. At the very least that is duplicitous.

3) I want openness, honesty and integrity in public life

That;'s what I want Mr Murphy. Presumably as a chartered accountant you will understand these terms.

so 2 wrongs make a right

...but it was a three-year contract commencing on 18 December 2006 per HM Revenue & Customs 2006–07 Accounts (page 21).

The accounts go on to say he and another Director General "have standard notice periods of three months from the employee and five weeks from the employer. No provision for compensation payments or other arrangements have been made in their contracts in the event of early termination of the contract."

So Cerberus not perfect on the facts, not that makes too much of a difference on what is said. Will be interesting to see what compensation he gets in the HMRC 2007-08 A/Cs.

William has got hot under the collar. Quite inappropriately, I think.

My question was not aimed at exonerating HMRC. I am frequently a critic of that organisation. In case William has not noticed, my recent submission on income splitting says that its proposals are not well enough thought through. I have also criticised it on domicile, for selling its property portfolio offshore and numerous other acts. I am certainly no stooge for HMRC.

Nor do I have any love of misinformation. I do ;ittle else but argue for openness, honesty and integrity in public life. Unlike others though I ask for4 a level playing field and ask the same of the commercial sector as well.

With that in mind, I think this story is a 'non-event' at best, and is more of a spin than anything HMRC did. As such it brings no credit on this site, or accountants who take succour from it.

As a matter of fact Paul Gray ceased to be HMRC Chairman. He does not say he was sacked. Nor does anyone else. So he must have resigned since his term of office had not ended. The claim he resigned is, therefore, correct. The evidence supports it.

His resignation would however have triggered a notice period. That's what employment contracts do. Of course the government could have put him on gardening leave. They did not, or so it would appear. He worked for another part of the civil service, a hardly uncommon occurrence. As such they sought to get best value for money. I applaud that. When his notice period ended he retired, as no doubt given his age he was entitled to do.

Nothing, and by that I mean not one element of that story justified the style of reporting used here, which is nothing but a cheap and unsubstantiated jibe at HM Revenue & Customs. I'm not interested in such jibes. I'm interested in constructive criticism.

So my comment, cryptic as it was, was justified. Paul Gray got no special treatment, he did resign, he got no compensation and when the government had extracted value from his contract he was allowed to move into retirement as was no doubt his right. I drew deliberate contrast with the private sector, where failure always seems to be heavily rewarded. My comment of 'what do you want' was a follow on to that asking if that would have been the preferred option of the unnamed writer of this story.

In the circumstances I think my comment reasonable, reasoned and appropriate. And whilst accountants seem only capable of expressing unreasoned comment and bias I will happily draw attention to that fact. If it annoys William I have one comment:: raise your game.

Richard, Cerberus feels compelled to offer the following:

Cerberus has remained in contact with the Cabinet Office, and a spokesperson there has confirmed that as Grey was 59 when he left the payroll, he was offered early retirement. This is not something he would have been automatically entitled to. And that Gray (and HMRC, and the Cabinet office) felt he was entitled to it sits ill at ease with the idea that he genuinely and sincerely holds himself personally responsible for Britain's biggest ever data loss scandal.

The Cabinet Office maintains that Gray worked his notice and not a day beyond it. If Gray resigned on 20th November and left the payroll on 31st December he had a notice period of 41 days. This atypical time span casts serious doubts over that claim. By its own admission, the Cabinet Office was still negotiating Gray's severance as of 22nd November. Then on the 3rd December Channel Four broke the news that Gray was working for Sir Gus O'Donnell and all of a sudden the Cabinet Office were certain that Gray would be going at the end of the year no matter what. Strange how Channel Four breaking that story – or non-story, as you would have it – seemed to resolve negotiations so swiftly.

While Gray plainly ceased to be chairman as of 20th November, he obviously remained in employment. The assertion that Gray triggered a notice period on the 20th does not ring true. It seems more likely that the date of Gray's departure was dictated largely by external circumstances. If you really wanted to resign with immediate effect, and your employer no longer wanted you to work for them (plainly the case), why would there be a notice period anyway?

So Cerberus believes you are in the wrong to assert that "when his notice period ended he retired, as no doubt given his age he was entitled to do." Gray had no notice period to speak of, and his early retirement was a negotiated deal, not an entitlement. By all means keep the stuff about "cheap and unsubstantiated jibes" if you want.

Despite Darling’s promises that the Poynter and the Hannigan reports would be completed in the spring, it now appears they will be delayed until after the local elections in May. Cerberus is aware you never thought the data loss was much of a story at all, Richard, but you must concede the government’s handling of it has been dishonest. In fact, the truth has been so deeply hidden it will, eventually, have to come out – as long as we all keep asking questions.

Thanks to all who have commented so far, particularly the individual who pointed out Steve Lamey and Stuart Cruickshank were both on three year contracts.

Cerberus is a duplicitous sod who has no intention of revealing his identity, but he has resigned enough times to know what it looks like if you are truly serious about carrying the can.

Sadly, you are correct on one point. It would appear that Gray’s departure really is par for the course these days. As for the cost of the missing discs, it clearly cost him nothing (and what purpose did it serve, other than to take the heat off Alistair Darling?). But there is a hidden cost to this matter, although it only seems to be hidden to you.

There is no evidence that the missing data has been used for fraudulent purposes (you are again correct in this). In terms of costs, I suppose there has been the Poynter review, the Hannigan review, the cost of the search, the costs incurred by the police, the man-hours spent “minding” the “junior official” in his “safe house”, and the mail-out. Perhaps there are a few other items, but fingers crossed, that is all. We have been very lucky. But it should not have been a matter of luck.

The Ministry of Defence lost a laptop this week with the records of 600,000 individuals on it; individuals who had been or were considering a career in the armed forces. Many of them will already be serving. In previous decades, obtaining this information would have been a hard job for a foreign intelligence agency. Now you can pick it up from a car park. It’s just as well the Good Friday Agreement is still holding water, or there would be a lot of worried families in Northern Ireland right now.

The government has for a very long time failed to provide adequate data security for its citizens, across several departments, and has conspired to obfuscate the fact. To you this would simply appear to be a form of incompetence that doesn’t matter, and ergo the dishonesty surrounding it doesn’t matter either. And Gray's departure is only one part of that. If you cannot concede that, even as a general point, then we are destined to disagree.

Cerberus believes you to be a person with strong moral views, and so finds it surprising that you cannot – at least publicly - accept any of this. As innocent as you believe HMRC to be, you cannot defend them without also defending by proxy the actions of the Cabinet Office and the Chancellor. It may be your personal loyalties to Gray have left you in an awkward position.

However, Cerberus accepts that your (much learned and well researched) writing output on the injustice of tax havens far exceeds his own. As far as he can determine, this is a stigma he shares with the rest of the English-speaking world.

...name yourself.

As for what you have written - so what?

Have you lived in the real world? A departure was negotiated after a resignation was announced. That's 100% normal. There is no story here. You are clutching at straws to spin a story that does not exist - all to try to prove that HM Revenue & Customs spun a story. It's not a credible line of argument. So I withdraw not one word of what I wrote.

As for the data loss - apart from the cost of looking for the discs and mailing people to say sorry (which would seem appropriate) is there any evidence that as yet one single penny has been lost? If that's the case, why pursue the matter? What's your motive?

Why not tackle something real - like the abuse of tax havens - which the Treasury does allow, and about which I argue with it regularly.

Richard Murphy

I think you are confused.

I never met Paul Gray. I have no idea if he knows who I am. I have no loyalty to him. My comments sought to be objective. I do happen to think the story of Paul Gray's resignation as told here is a complete non-event. I do happen to think the 25 million data discs probably had little on them that could cause harm, even of there was a lot of alarm.

That does not make me a poodle for HMRC or the Treasury. I criticise both. Let's talk small business tax, domicile, tax havens, the tax gap and on and on. I have a relationship of respect with both bodies. But I'm certainly very critical. I just seek to be constructive in that process and find it profoundly annoying that other accountants will not be so, relying on cheap jibes and dogma instead. It's that that is not good enough.

As for indifference for data concerns - again, far from it. But I continually wonder how much is because the private sector sold the government a pup. Mind you, taking the lowest bid is rarely the best way to get a good deal, so the government shares the blame.

Nut again - I make the point - please do some analysis when criticising. It would really help our profession to be seen as thought leaders, rather than just claim to be so.

Richard Murphy

Presumably have paid Paul Gray several million as well.

What do you want?

Richard Murphy