"The former head of HM Revenue and Customs, who resigned over the loss of data discs containing the personal details of 25 million people, has returned to work in Whitehall on a £200,000 salary. Paul Gray has taken up a position under Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, after just 13 days out of work." - Telegraph
I think this is more outrageous than anything that happened last week.
It cannot, of course, be a reward for diverting the blame from the real source of the scandal.
Posted by: Martin Cox | December 04, 2007 at 09:08
Yes, if this doesnt persuade the public that Labour mean absolutely nothing of what they say or do, then i give up.
If any of us had resigned in disgrace of that, we wouldnt be allowed to work out notice or let anywhere near the building but obiously for Labour workers it means, you just move round the corner to a cushy new office. I'm disgusted to the core. I'd love to hear how Labour spin this one and I hope the tories grab it between their jaws and shake it very very hard until Brown looks like a complete lying shit.
Posted by: Laurance Allen | December 04, 2007 at 09:10
Couldn't they even wait a decent interval before giving him a job?
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | December 04, 2007 at 09:12
New Labour: Even the resignations are fake!
Posted by: James Burdett | December 04, 2007 at 09:12
I would say this is extremely believable. I thought Labour had form in the past 10 years for this...
Posted by: James Maskell | December 04, 2007 at 09:16
Thanks James B... I wish I'd chosen that as the headline for this post!
Posted by: Editor | December 04, 2007 at 09:30
We must only hope that Nulab is a house of cards and that one resignation (Hain? - some hope, Wendy Alexander? Harman? Mendelsohn? Brown??) will bring the rest tumbling down.
More seriously, we really do have to rewrite the rules and separate party politics from government and government from the civil service, judiciary etc.
Codes of conduct must be established and accountability brought back. It would also help if taxpayer funded pensions were put onto the same basis as good private sector pensions, same retirement ages and money purchase schemes only.
Then we can start with a more level playing field.
Posted by: David Belchamber | December 04, 2007 at 09:49
Much as I'm loth to refrain from criticising New Labour I don't think there is a story here. This guys notice period lasts until the end of the year and he's working in the Cabinet office for a few weeks rather than wasting his time at home.
Posted by: MD | December 04, 2007 at 09:57
I hate to break up this merry little gathering but have you lot actually read the whole article?
"He will be leaving the civil service at the end of this year.........
When he resigned with immediate effect, Paul Gray's period of notice meant that he would be paid until the end of the year.
As a result, he could receive payment for no work, or receive payment for doing some work."
So he is doing a short piece of work while he works his notice. Editor makes it sound like his been given a 200k job for life!!!!
Posted by: Comstock | December 04, 2007 at 09:57
I think someone needs to point out to the journalist the difference between 'resigning with immediate effect' and 'handing in your notice'.
In the real world if you quit as a result of a scandal, you stop being paid immediately. Only in the civil service can you resign in disgrace a) still be paid and b) still actually be working in the civil service.
Posted by: James Burdett | December 04, 2007 at 10:03
New Labour:
1.The cost of a peerage is £1m
2. The cost of planning permission for a business park is £600k
3. The cost of a civil servant resignation to save a Chancellor's face is....another job in Whitehall
New Labour knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing at all
Posted by: orlando | December 04, 2007 at 10:03
With New Labour collapsing into a mire of sleaze and incompetence, we need a people's champion to sweep away the whole mess.
But what's on offer?
An opposition that is actually going to prop up the current political class by supporting the nationalisation of political parties with the extension to state funding and will also work to ensure there is never a referendum on the EU treaty.
No wonder people have given up caring and just stick with their regular choice come what may.
It is not just New Labour that is collapsing, the political system is too.
Posted by: Chad Noble | December 04, 2007 at 10:04
"I think this is more outrageous than anything that happened last week."
Lots of outrageous things are going on. Cameroon attacks Broon for not knowing what is going on with his donors but he refuses to answer questions about Ashcroft. Cameroon attacks Broon for wanting to increase taxpayer funding of political parties but he wants to increase it himself. Cameroon attacks Broon for a 'do as I say not as I do' culture but...you get the point.
Posted by: Unbelievable | December 04, 2007 at 10:16
The Telegraph article reads: "In a statement, the Cabinet Office said that for contractual reasons Mr Gray will remain a civil servant until the end of the year."
In the real world, if someone was to resign "with immediate effect" in the face of an act of gross incompetence on his own part - whether self perpetrated or by reference to where the buck must stop - the ordinary man in the street would read this as immediate resignation to avoid the stigma of summary dismissal, not merely giving in future dated notice.
It may be the case that civil service terms provide (however hard to swallow it may be) that Mr Gray must remain on the payroll until the end of the year, in which case taking advantage of his expertise (?) may be a more constructive use of resources than a period of garden leave.
If so, the real scandal is in the spin - we were all led to believe that Mr Gray had chosen to fall on his sword with immediate effect.
Posted by: David Cooper | December 04, 2007 at 10:18
Whats your bet, like that fire chief that come new year, he'll be offered a new contract somewhere in the civil service, you watch.
Posted by: Laurance Allen | December 04, 2007 at 10:25
Well, he was the sacrificial lamb at HMRC, so he really cannot be blamed for the inherent failings in his department. He does not set the budgets or staffing levels, these are dictated by outside influences, the government, and he has to plus away as best as possible.
The fact that HMRC sends data unencrypted in the post on CD's needs to be very carefully anlysed, as to why this practice is best practice and why commercial standards do not apply. Or for that matter why the Data Protection Act is so resolutely ignored.
Paul Gray as a civil servant should not have needed to fall on his sword, his failings were systemic of the government and its short term, cash based attitudes.
Having been given a second chance one hopes that he will recognise the toxic nature of this administration and take great care.
If meeting a NuLab chappie Paul, I would recommend wearing a very thick and BSI tested condom.
Posted by: George Hinton | December 04, 2007 at 10:25
http://timworstall.com/2007/12/04/good-lord-how-sensible/
Posted by: Mike A | December 04, 2007 at 10:28
'I hate to break up this merry little gathering but have you lot actually read the whole article?'
Sorry to disappoint but as James Burdett states, resignation in the commercial world means cleared desk and gone for good. You fire yourself, to the same effect, and disappear.
It is 'unbelievable' that following a resignation in the context of systemic incompetence that this man is still part of that system. What is he doing? Scouring the Whitehall bin bags for my bank account details?
And you can bet that he'll be back as a consultant in the New Year.
Posted by: englandism.com | December 04, 2007 at 10:31
What's Paul Gray's date of brith. Wouldn't be early 1948 would it. If so, he'll have been doe to retire in 2008 anyway.
This all has a whiff of Yes Prime Minister about it whereby it's impossible to sack a civil servant. Instead they put out a resignation notice, and hang about until retirement date.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | December 04, 2007 at 10:46
Come on, be fair. All he is doing is working out his contractual three months' notice period. It is one thing to offer one's resignation but the employer's decision how to handle it is another matter. The employer had a choice of letting him go but paying during the notice period, or getting work in return during that period.
Unlike so many people in the world of Nu-Labour (Sir Ian Blair being the worst example), Paul Gray has done the honourable thing by resigning. He has accepted accountability for something that went wrong on his watch.
I'm sorry to say this, but stating that doing a stop-gap job is worse than Donorgate shows a singular lack of judgement.
Posted by: Martin Wright | December 04, 2007 at 11:07
Paul Gray is due to retire at the end of December 2007 anyway, and for contractural reasons has been given a "special project" by the Cabinet Secretary to help him while away the next 4 weeks.
ED: May we have an article from yourself and / or a posting debate on the increasingly ludicrous, inept and partisan fisure that is Speaker Martin ? Surely our front bench and Chief Whip should be formally instigating some sort of campaign now to get this guy removed. He is embarrassing Parliament on a daily basis.
Posted by: London Tory | December 04, 2007 at 11:19
Sorry, "figure" not "fisure" !
Posted by: London Tory | December 04, 2007 at 11:22
Well, we shouldn't be surprised. The New Labour tactic has always been that anyone in trouble should resign, wait until the heat dies down, then come back unnoticed while another big new story is playing. This really is a government of deception.
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 04, 2007 at 11:46
More unbelievable is that Wendy Alexander has called in the police to hunt out the mole, which speaks volumes about the Labour party's arrogance, when found to have breeched electoral laws and lying about it, their only desire is to hunt out the mole!
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1891282007
Posted by: Iain | December 04, 2007 at 11:59
If Paul Gray was expecting to retire at the end of 2007 / early 2008, why was he made head of a service undergoing massive change and crying out for continuity?
If it was his fault, and not just where the buck stops, then Paul Gray should have gone straight away and stayed away.
However, as the blame lies with our illustrious ex chancellor, then it could have been an interesting claim for unfair dismissal!
This government now is becoming an embarrassment.
Posted by: Ken Creek | December 04, 2007 at 12:15
In the real world if you quit as a result of a scandal, you stop being paid immediately. Only in the civil service can you resign in disgrace a) still be paid and b) still actually be working in the civil service."
Bollox. Have you never heard of the term "Gardening Leave"?
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 12:31
Shame on Conservative Home for printing this story in as misleading a fashion as C4 news chose to headline with it last night. You are manipulating news to invite us to believe that a disgraced civil servant has wormed his way into another job. You are aware that, in fact, he is working out his notice period in another department. This means he is working, rather than sitting at home on garden leave doing nothing. I think the spin you have put on this story is as unpleasant as Labour at its worst.
If you choose to show ire to the HMRC and wish this chap to have been punished, then your resentment should have been with his line manager, who allowed him to resign rather than to be dismissed.
Where your ire should actually be directed, of course, is not against this man, who honourably resigned from his functional role, but against his minister, who has ultimate accountability and should have resigned - with immediate effect.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | December 04, 2007 at 12:58
"Have you never heard of the term "Gardening Leave"?"
I have, however talk to the average person in the street about what they understood by the fact that Mr Gray had 'resigned'. They would not expect him to still be being paid let alone still be actually working at a desk in the same organisation albeit a different department.
Posted by: James Burdett | December 04, 2007 at 13:13
Graeme,
How can you support local government then demand the national head for having 'ultimate responsiblity' when something locally goes wrong?
Doesn't such a demand actually fuel more central control, as if the minister is going to be blamed for all errors below them anyway, they're bound to want to be more active in controlling things.
If the tories succeed in devolving NHS control to their planned quango, will the minister for Health still resign if they make an error?
Posted by: Chad Noble | December 04, 2007 at 13:18
It's an interesting point Chad (honestly). I wrote a post on Platform 10 the other day here on why I think accountability is so important to the health of any organisation & on why I don't think it's just responsibility.
But -- I can't actually give a yes/no answer to your question regarding the outcome of devolution - I will think about it - and come back.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | December 04, 2007 at 13:25
I have, however talk to the average person in the street about what they understood by the fact that Mr Gray had 'resigned'.
What has that got to do with anything? And how difficult is it to understand the concept that he is working out his notice, not been "given another job"? Would you rather he was doing nothing at taxpayer's expense just so "the average man in the street" would not feel conned?
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 13:32
Unbelievable leftie, your retaliation is pretty thin stuff, and obviously you tried to find stuff that would compare equally with what your friends are doing on a daily basis!
Whatever Mr. Gray is doing until the end of the year in the Cabinet Office, this time at least Brown cannot make out that it is 'nothing to do with me', or words to that effect, he would have had to be the one to take the decision to employ Mr. Gray in whatever capacity it is. Also some posters seem to be saying that it is really not that much because he is only 'working out his time', well he doesn't HAVE to 'WORK out his time', even if he still gets his salary. Of course Scrooge probably feels that he should be giving something back in terms of work, in return for his salary!
I am afraid that I think that Mr. Brown has made or agreed to this appointment, just because he can, if you like - to show that he can. As he is a totally political animal, there may well be a hint of hoping to get up David Cameron's nose by this action! What he doesn't appear to care about or consider, is that as he is supposed to be the head of the government - the 'representatives of the people' - he is demonstrating, and very clearly, that as far as he is concerned HE can do whatever he likes - as the representative of the people?.........
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 04, 2007 at 13:43
What a ludicrous post, Patsy S. You may think that Paul Gray shouldn't do another day's work for the govt on account of his resignation for something which he was probably not directly responsible for (so doesn't call into question his ability to do high level work).
But to imply that it's some sort of scandal that he is effectively working for free! Incredible!
And incidentally civil service staff matters are not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. He would have to have a pretty compelling reason for interfering, of which most people would think "doing some work for free" is not. You should be directing your ire at the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O'Donnell.
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 13:49
And:
"Of course Scrooge probably feels that he should be giving something back in terms of work, in return for his salary!"
Make your mind up! Is Brown a careful guardian of the public purse, or a tax raising wasteful bigspender?
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 13:51
And:
"Of course Scrooge probably feels that he should be giving something back in terms of work, in return for his salary!"
Make your mind up! Is Brown a careful guardian of the public purse, or a tax raising wasteful bigspender?
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 13:52
n the real world, if someone was to resign "with immediate effect" in the face of an act of gross incompetence on his own part - whether self perpetrated or by reference to where the buck must stop - the ordinary man in the street would read this as immediate resignation to avoid the stigma of summary dismissal, not merely giving in future dated notice.
Gosh, that's so true! Just look at the private sector, and Northern Rock. Those directors really got screwed for taking enormous and ill-advised risks.
Posted by: passing leftie | December 04, 2007 at 14:02
This is a non story.
Lets not start sounding like spotty 6th formers embellishing the next Govt cock-up, we don't need to manufacture them and turn mole hills into mountains. Lets concentrate on the serious stuff like Northern Rock, and carry on hammering home our positive case on Stamp Duty and Inhertitance Tax.
Posted by: London Tory | December 04, 2007 at 14:05
"Would you rather he was doing nothing at taxpayer's expense just so "the average man in the street" would not feel conned?"
I would rather he wasn't being paid, it appears that he has 'resigned' in words only. He isn't losing much. If it were anyone in the private sector instead of a plum civil service job, they probably wouldn't have been afforded the luxury of resigning, wouldn't have 2 months extra money and would be sat at home perusing the job ads.
Posted by: James Burdett | December 04, 2007 at 14:07
Greg I don't find Patsy's post at all "ludicrous"! On the contrary I think she makes some good points and the whole thing shows Brown's and NuLab's utter contempt for the British People. The sooner the whole corrupt bunch are gone, the better!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | December 04, 2007 at 14:19
This is a thoroughly stupid decision. Likely Gray is serving notice (and bumping up his gold plated pension rights as well).
To put him in such a high profile role is ridiculous. It would have been better overseeing the benefits payments for South Georgia!
Still if Brown and O'Donnell want to trash their own reputations even more then so be it. It just demonstrates what a nasty nepotistic cabal Brown has created.
However, they should not be allowed to drag the reputation of the British goverment and our democratic system further into the sewer system.
It really is time that the management and control of such matters were taken away from the Government and what was once known as the 'First Division'. It's more like a Sunday afternoon football team these days.
Posted by: John Leonard | December 04, 2007 at 14:43
If it were anyone in the private sector instead of a plum civil service job, they probably wouldn't have been afforded the luxury of resigning, wouldn't have 2 months extra money and would be sat at home perusing the job ads.
Thank you so much for this laugh. Do the words "Northern Rock" and "£380,000" mean anything to you?
Posted by: passing leftie | December 04, 2007 at 14:59
"If it were anyone in the private sector instead of a plum civil service job, they probably wouldn't have been afforded the luxury of resigning, wouldn't have 2 months extra money"
Of course they would. When was the last time you heard of senior executives at top companies being sacked. They resign.
You seem to think that notice periods are in place for the benefit of the employee! Of course they aren't - they are put in people's contracts for the benefit of the employer so that people can't leave at the drop of a hat leaving the employer in the lurch. Neither the public, nor the private sector can ignore basic employment and contract law just because "the man in the street" doesn't like it.
"To put him in such a high profile role is ridiculous. It would have been better overseeing the benefits payments for South Georgia!"
What "high profile role"? Nobody would have known about it if Channel4 News hadn't reported on it. Hardly high profile! One would have thought, considering what he had to resign for, that putting himself of any system of benefit payments wouldn't really make much sense!
Posted by: greg | December 04, 2007 at 15:02
Greg - Gus O'Donnell is ultimately responsible to Gordon Brown, as you must know, and nobody denies that Brown keeps a tight control over the members of his government, ergo......
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 04, 2007 at 17:21
Minor civil servants make 200K a year!?
Posted by: Goldie | December 04, 2007 at 18:48
As much as I hate to agree with passing leftie , and greg too, they are right. In the private sector executives negotiate a severance package before they are employed which is why they often appear to be "rewarded for failure" - it is just both sides keeping their side of the deal.
I don't know whether the public sector operates the same way.
Posted by: oxymoron | December 04, 2007 at 19:09
Greg:
What "high profile role"? Nobody would have known about it if Channel4 News hadn't reported on it. Hardly high profile! One would have thought, considering what he had to resign for, that putting himself of any system of benefit payments wouldn't really make much sense!
So you reckon Brown was trying to bury his dirt again do you?
Gray is working in the Cabinet office reporting directly to Gus O'Donnell and its managed to get all over the blogs, the TV and the newspapers. If that ain't high profile I don't what is.
And for your information South Georgia is an UNINHABITED island (unless you count the penguins). So there would be no worry of him losing any sensitive data would there?
Obviously a product of Labour's education system! Doh!
Posted by: John Leonard | December 04, 2007 at 20:41
I have to admit this story seems a bit silly. On the other issue raised, the tendency for people to be on gardening leave etc, this happens in private as well as public organisations.
Posted by: Matt Wright | December 05, 2007 at 00:48
I gather that David Hartnett acting head of Inland Revenue has admitted to the Treasury select committee to a further 7 breeches of data protection since Brown amalgamated Customs with the Inland Revenue, a situation he described as systemic failure. So more egg on Brown's face, for he tried to deny that there was systemic failure at the Inland revenue, and tried to deny that his amalgamation of the departments had anything to do with the problem.
Posted by: Iain | December 05, 2007 at 17:39
Its also unbelievable that the Labour Government are going to renege on the Police pay award, just when the police are investigating them for breaking the law.
Are they stupid or something?
They don't half ask for it!
Posted by: Iain | December 05, 2007 at 19:29