Cover up or cock up?

There has been an enormous amount of talk since yesterday of how Darling and the Bottler misled the Commons by claiming that the HMRC fiasco was the work of a single junior official operating outside normal rules governing security. As has since become clear, this is not so. Similarly, claims that banks had asked that news of the blunder not be released so as to give them time to put anti-fraud measures in place have also been shown to be untrue.

I find this very odd. It is perfectly clear that once the full horror of what had happened had sunk in, the Bottler decided, or at any rate agreed, that only a full and frank admission of fault would do. Hence Darling's repeated apologies. Hence, too, the Bottler's apologies (apparently the only time he has ever apologised in the House of Commons).

So why should they have lied – or at best have attempted to mislead?

There are only two explanations.

1) That they weren't being fully briefed. No one told them about the various e-mails that went back and forth between HMRC and the NAO or that these were going to be published. Worse, someone also falsely claimed that the banks had asked for more time.

If this is the case, then what remains – and it is not very much – of their claims to competence is damaged further. Once they had decided that honesty was their only hope, they must have stressed and stressed and then stressed again that it was imperative that all the facts be given them.

Are their officials sufficiently incapable as not to have been able to unearth such vital information in almost two weeks? Or are they perhaps merely frightened of the Bottler and couldn't quite bring themselves to tell the truth?

Either way, it's very damaging.

2) That they did know and they lied.

For so 'formidable' a politician as the Bottler, it is again all remarkably inept.