HMRC’s use of powers against whistleblower ‘indefensible’, say MPs
|
Version 0 of 1. The decision by tax officials to use intrusive investigative powers to try to prove that a whistleblower had spoken to the Guardian has been severely criticised by MPs. HM Revenue and Customs used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) to examine the belongings, emails, internet search records and phone calls of their own solicitor, Osita Mba, and the phone records of his then wife. HMRC justified the use of these powers by claiming that they wanted to find out if Mba had spoken to the Guardian’s former investigations editor, David Leigh. Related: Prosecute financial advisers who assist in tax avoidance, say MPs Mba had not spoken to Leigh. Using the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the solicitor had written to the National Audit Office (NAO) and two parliamentary committees in confidence in 2011 saying that the head of tax, Dave Hartnett, had “let off” Goldman Sachs from paying at least £10m in interest. A report by MPs on the Commons public accounts committee praised Mba for exposing the “sweetheart” deal and called for further scrutiny of HM Revenue’s use of Ripa powers. “We consider that HMRC’s use of powers, reserved for tackling serious criminals, against Mr Osita Mba was indefensible ... HMRC should tell us when it makes use of the powers granted to it under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act against whistleblowers from within HMRC,” the report said. By using Ripa, HMRC can see websites viewed by taxpayers, where a mobile phone call was made or received, and the date and time of emails, texts and phone calls. According to the revenue website, these powers “can only be used when investigating serious crime”. HMRC’s use of powers, reserved for tackling serious criminals, against Mr Osita Mba was indefensible Mba, who trained as a barrister in Nigeria and completed his master’s degree at Oxford, worked in the personal-tax litigation team that dealt with the Goldman Sachs tax issue. He told the NAO and two parliamentary committees that the bank’s settlement had been agreed with a handshake by Hartnett, the permanent secretary for tax at HMRC. Mba believed the deal could be illegal, and told auditors he was making the disclosure under whistleblowing legislation. His evidence led to Hartnett being accused of lying to parliament over his role in the Goldman Sachs deal, which he denied. He admitted, however, that his organisation had made a mistake by approving the deal. Mba eventually left the Revenue. |