Sue Cameron's column in the FT on a Wednesday has caused a few flutters in Whitehall and Westminster ever since this piece revealing disaffection with the Brown regime.

She turns to Kieran Poynter's review of HMRC this morning (subscription required), whom she refers to as having shown 'heroic reticence' in not criticising HMRC. I'd agree with that description.

She goes on to discuss just how much PwC is being paid for the review, saying industry figures estimate it at £1,000 an hour. That's also probably correct (if you remember, the Rover investigators were racking up bills at £10,000 a day).

The combination of those two things is perhaps a mite unfair of course. But Poynter ought to realise there is a big risk in doing what he is doing.

Reviews of this kind are for politicians often an elaborate exercise in what you might call 'truth avoidance,' whereby the essential truth that everyone knows and feels (that HMRC is feeling the pinch from successive cuts) is hedged around and ignored in favour of literal truths ('I have seen no evidence thus far that would lead me to conclude that the statement given by you to parliament was inaccurate') designed to do nothing more than let politicians off the hook.

Like tax avoidance, the essence of what is happening is obscured by the letter and detail of what is happening. None of us, however, are ultimately fooled.

December 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

There'll be much more to say about Kieran Poynter's report into the data failures at HM Revenue & Customs, but my initial thoughts were weighed down by one heart-sinking choice of phrase:

I am pleased to report that all the HMRC officials I have met, from Dave Hartnett the acting Chairman down, have been cooperative. He has expressed his determination to learn from these events and create the world class data security environment you would expect in HMRC.

Is there a worse phrase in the world than 'world class'. It is world class nonsense.

Beloved of New Labour politicians (Ed Balls is especially fond), it is more importantly not a very useful term in this context.

What do we mean by world class? As far as I remember the term is more often used in football (as in 'Brazil have world class players'). It means they are some of the best in the world.

What we need with the taxman's data system is not something that is the best in the world, just something that actually does a basic job. Let's not pretend this is like writing a symphony or scoring the winning goal in the World Cup Final. We don't need the Ronaldinho of data security, we just need some basic controls and enough money to do the job without leaving us open to fraudsters.

The same, incidentally, goes for all the other silly times the word is used in relation to public services. Lets stick to the basics and worry about the 'world class' stuff later.

December 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)