- BETTER GOVERNMENT HOME
- NEWS
- POLICY
- PARLIAMENT
- Liberal Democrat Lords pile on the pressure over electoral reform
- Now it's three million learner drivers whose data has been lost
- Government must come clean over data loss scandal
- More positive steps forward are needed for Committee recommendations
- Donations scandal is a matter of concern for all political parties
- View All
- FEATURE
- ISSUES
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS
17 December 2007
Vince Cable responds
to the Chancellor’s statement on HMRC lost discs
Acting Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable stated that the loss of discs containing unencrypted personal data would mean that the public would “completely lose confidence in government in general at all levels” and warned that schemes such as ID cards could potentially be at risk as a result. Dr Cable also questioned the specifics of the Chancellor’s statement on the data loss.
Dr Cable said:
“I welcome what the Chancellor said about the ban on the transfer of data without encryption. That is clearly the way forward. Has he secured the full agreement of the IT companies to use outside encryption specialists to enable that work to proceed? More generally, has he now agreed that it would be completely inappropriate to try, as he has been doing, to block through the courts the publication of the gateway reviews on the way in which the IT companies manage their affairs in Government Departments?”
“In terms of the Chancellor’s comments about the integration of the work of the Poynter study and the wider 2006 study of Government Departments, what is the significance of the work that David Varney, the former head of the HMRC, is doing on so-called transformational government? Is not the purpose of the study to break down barriers in data transfer between Government Departments? Is there not a danger that if that proceeds without proper safeguards it will merely compound the danger of the kind of error that we have already experienced?”
“Finally, I want to ask two or three specific and narrow questions. The Government have been asked some parliamentary written questions about whether there are protocols that govern data transfer within government. None of those questions has been answered, including those asked of the Chancellor’s own Department. Are we to infer from that that there are no protocols? Is that what that obfuscation is designed to achieve?”
“When the Government sent out their letter of apology, they sent out millions of letters containing large amounts of personal data that far exceeded what was necessary to communicate an apology to their recipients. Since, according to information from the Courts Service, it seems that 8 per cent. of all official letters go astray, have not the Government compounded the original disaster by putting out large amounts of personal data that will simply finish up in the wrong hands?”
Click here to read the exchange in full
Acting Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable stated that the loss of discs containing unencrypted personal data would mean that the public would “completely lose confidence in government in general at all levels” and warned that schemes such as ID cards could potentially be at risk as a result. Dr Cable also questioned the specifics of the Chancellor’s statement on the data loss.
Dr Cable said:
“I welcome what the Chancellor said about the ban on the transfer of data without encryption. That is clearly the way forward. Has he secured the full agreement of the IT companies to use outside encryption specialists to enable that work to proceed? More generally, has he now agreed that it would be completely inappropriate to try, as he has been doing, to block through the courts the publication of the gateway reviews on the way in which the IT companies manage their affairs in Government Departments?”
“In terms of the Chancellor’s comments about the integration of the work of the Poynter study and the wider 2006 study of Government Departments, what is the significance of the work that David Varney, the former head of the HMRC, is doing on so-called transformational government? Is not the purpose of the study to break down barriers in data transfer between Government Departments? Is there not a danger that if that proceeds without proper safeguards it will merely compound the danger of the kind of error that we have already experienced?”
“Finally, I want to ask two or three specific and narrow questions. The Government have been asked some parliamentary written questions about whether there are protocols that govern data transfer within government. None of those questions has been answered, including those asked of the Chancellor’s own Department. Are we to infer from that that there are no protocols? Is that what that obfuscation is designed to achieve?”
“When the Government sent out their letter of apology, they sent out millions of letters containing large amounts of personal data that far exceeded what was necessary to communicate an apology to their recipients. Since, according to information from the Courts Service, it seems that 8 per cent. of all official letters go astray, have not the Government compounded the original disaster by putting out large amounts of personal data that will simply finish up in the wrong hands?”
Click here to read the exchange in full
Applicability: this item refers to the UK.
