Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR DAVE
HARTNETT CB AND
MR NICK
LODGE
17 DECEMBER 2007
Q200 Mr Williams: Who gave you that?
Miss Mawhood: I am not entirely
sure but I think it was the person from March, who said, "I
am no longer doing the job". I am speculating a bit here,
but my recollection is, that is normal procedure when somebody
moves to another job, they say, "This is the individual taking
over my job".
Q201 Mr Williams: Your presumption
was that although it was not the same person it was an official
at the same level that you contacted on both occasions?
Miss Mawhood: I would imagine
that was the case, yes.
Q202 Mr Williams: Does that not present
you with a problem?
Mr Hartnett: I am not sure it
is quite like that, Mr Williams, and, again, this is something
we have got to get to the bottom of. My understanding is that
the arrangements in March came through what I will call the "proper
channels". What I know—
Q203 Mr Williams: So we are not pussy-footing,
explain the difference between proper channels and this particular
incident.
Mr Hartnett: There were discussions
with the right junior people to get access to the material.
Q204 Mr Williams: The right junior
people, so people possibly at the same level but different individuals.
Mr Hartnett: In emails which I
have seen, again an incomplete picture, and they are not emails
before you today, there is some evidence that the March people,
or at least one of them, was involved in October. There were a
variety of people involved in October and I believe there are
emails which suggest the same official played a role in March
and in October.
Q205 Mr Williams: If it was all right
for the official who was at that level to send information in
March, why was it not all right for the official at that level,
even if it was not the same person, to send it later in the year?
If the protocol stated that was right or wrong—
Mr Hartnett: Mr Williams, if I
have given you any suggestion that any official could properly
have agreed to part with the complete Child Benefit database to
an NAO auditor to take off our premises in March, I am sorry because
I have never meant to say that, but I am not sure that I have.
This material should never have left our premises.
Q206 Mr Williams: Would that have
applied to the information on 13 March as well?
Mr Hartnett: I am sorry, I am
not sure I understand the question.
Q207 Mr Williams: Would the 13 March
information be allowed to leave the premises or not?
Mr Hartnett: No, nothing should
have left our premises.
Q208 Mr Williams: On that occasion
either?
Mr Hartnett: On that occasion
either.
Q209 Mr Williams: This is interesting.
So now we have got duplication of the same fault. When he came
in, was he not told what his duties were and were not?
Mr Hartnett: My understanding,
based on the evidence available so far, is that in October there
was no understanding at a more senior level that something wrong
had happened in March. When the disk was put in—
Q210 Mr Williams: You are saying
what happened in March was wrong in March?
Mr Hartnett: Absolutely.
Q211 Mr Williams: So the precedent
had been created and the NAO was working according to precedent.
No-one was aware of the exchange of information in March except
the poor little individual at the bottom of the pile who is least
able to defend himself who sent the stuff?
Mr Hartnett: My understanding,
based on the evidence available, is that junior officials knew
that the NAO auditor had gone away with the disks, I am assuming
given to them by our people, and that absolutely should not have
happened.
Q212 Mr Williams: On both occasions.
Mr Hartnett: That broke our procedures
and our procedures were broken again in the October.
Q213 Mr Williams: That is interesting.
Incidentally, at your end, Sir John, there seemed to be a certain
lack of concern because we are told that HMRC contacted NAO by
email about the missing disks on 1 November and yet it was not
until 15 November, ten days later, that your security officer
sent an email to all NAO staff asking them to see if they had
received it. Why did it take so long? You had been waiting for
it for weeks. Why was it that the security man at your end did
not show a greater sense of urgency? I do not want to land him
in trouble, I just want to know the circumstances.
Miss Mawhood: During that period
we were in contact with HMRC and we were getting indications that
they thought they might have found the disks, so there was not
confirmation that the disks had been lost until 8 November when
they contacted us to say they had raised a security incident.
Q214 Mr Williams: That clarifies
it a bit. Again, I may have misunderstood an answer and if I have
just tell me so and we will move straight on. When Austin was
asking a question, and I may have misunderstood you, you may have
said "low" risk but I noted you saying you thought there
was "no" risk to the public at the beginning.
Mr Hartnett: No, I have not said
that, Mr Williams. The advice we had was that there was a risk
but that it was a comparatively low risk.
Q215 Mr Williams: "Low"
not "no".
Mr Hartnett: I apologise if I
was not clear.
Q216 Mr Williams: It is my geriatric
ears, do not worry. In your evidence at the Treasury Committee,
and it was in answer to Mr Dunne when he asked about writing to
25 million people, you said you had not written to 25 million,
you had written to 7.25 million. Why?
Mr Hartnett: Because the overwhelming
majority of the individuals in the 25 million are children of
the 7.25 million.
Q217 Mr Williams: That is interesting.
That has not come out very clearly. When you say the overwhelming
majority, what numbers are we talking about?
Mr Hartnett: 15-point-something
million.
Q218 Mr Williams: So the 25 million
whose bank accounts the press have been reporting as being at
danger were not 25 million, although it is still a lot of people.
Give me that figure again?
Mr Hartnett: Can I break down
the 25 million?
Q219 Mr Williams: Yes.
Mr Hartnett: I will be helped
if I get it wrong. 7.25 million of households and then 15 million
and something of children in respect of whom Child Benefit is
claimed, a number of alternative payees, some agents and then
there is a tiny number of some thousands—I do not mean to
demean the number but I just cannot remember it—of another
group.
| 
