It is not true that the Audit Commission matches data only to show up inconsistent situations. This is partly because it does not also understand the legal frameworks sufficiently well to realise that a situation is not inconsistent but perfectly legal. But it is also the case that it denies that any such requirement exists.
What amuses me is the way that it introduced a Code to Scotland from which almost every single protection for privacy had been removed, and told the Scottish Parliament that the new Code brought things into line with England. Whether anybody in Scotland knew or cared that this was not the whole truth, and nothing much like the truth is another question.
But the Scottish Parliament was treated to all the usual examples of data matching showing up prima facie inconsistent situations. Do they cross their fingers behind their backs when they come out with this?
And of course there was lots of consultation, except consultation of the people whose right to live in peace without being subjected to an abortive fraud investigation was going down the pan.
These consultations about 'sharing' our data never consult us!
