By Andy McCue, 3 November 2005 17:30
NEWS
The government's ID card plans have again come under fire after the London School of Economics (LSE) revealed the cost of the scheme could now rise to almost £30bn.
The LSE had initially claimed the ID card scheme would cost taxpayers up to £19bn - despite the Home Office maintaining the cost will be just £5.8bn over 10 years.
But in an as-yet-unpublished report the LSE is now claiming that could rocket by another £5bn to £10bn because of the cost of updating all government department IT systems in order to make them work with ID cards.
Dr Edgar Whitley, a member of the Identity Project team at the LSE, told silicon.com the initial cost estimate of £19bn was based on the assumption that there would be just three main government users of ID cards - the Home Office, the UK Passport Service and the Department for Work and Pensions.
But the Home Office's 'market sounding' document published last month revealed that 265 government departments and public bodies are now expected to rely on the controversial biometric ID cards as the much-touted 'gold standard' for identification.
Whitley said that would raise the total cost of the scheme dramatically because all departments would need to update their IT systems and databases to incorporate the new ID number from the card and link with the national identity register and ID verification service.
He said: "The first screen of every departmental system will need a new field to allow a search of records by ID number and there will be a transition period for the first 10 years where every database will need to search by both the new and old indexes."
Whitley said it will involve a time-consuming and costly data cleansing operation to avoid complications arising where departments hold duplicate records for one person.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told silicon.com the government is "in denial" about the cost of introducing ID cards.
He said: "This report confirms the cost of Labour's plastic poll tax will be billions of pounds above Government estimates. It is unacceptable that they have so grossly miscalculated the costs and that estimates keep on rising. It is taxpayers that will pick up the bill for this if the Government's ID cards bill becomes a reality."
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten MP told silicon.com: "These findings confirm what many of us fear - that the ID card scheme will re-shape our whole society. The national identity register will allow the state to control and record our access to a vast range of public and private bodies. The LSE are to be praised for demonstrating both the appalling financial and social costs of this project."
The Home Office had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
I think its is total wast of public funds by the Government, i bet i can introduce a system where it will not even cost anything around the figures the governement is purposing to spend.
In My estimate the cost per individual would no more then £10.00 per person, if you count the popolation of 45million the cost envisaged would be around .5Billion pounds, it is sheer bureuocratic tape and some ministers on the take that is increasing the costs.
2. Kenneth Hall
The LSE, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The Data Protection Registrar, The Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the House of Lords, big business, Small business, and a large majority of the public are now firmly against the ID cards. hardly a few paranoid individuals with something to hide.
The only people that seem to be in favour are the cabinet, a few lickspittle labour backbenchers and the firms hoping for a Big Payout on the contract and some of the public who have not actually looked in detail at the government's plans.
Expensive, intrusive, innaccurate, unproven, illiberal and un-necessary ID cards are not the answer. Labour should be getting hospitals and schools working, or reduce taxes with the money they are going to waste on this.
3. Kenneth Hall
The LSE, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The Data Protection Registrar, The Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the House of Lords, big business, Small business, and a large majority of the public are now firmly against the ID cards. hardly a few paranoid individuals with something to hide.
The only people that seem to be in favour are the cabinet, a few lickspittle labour backbenchers and the firms hoping for a Big Payout on the contract and some of the public who have not actually looked in detail at the government's plans.
Expensive, intrusive, innaccurate, unproven, illiberal and un-necessary ID cards are not the answer. Labour should be getting hospitals and schools working, or reduce taxes with the money they are going to waste on this.
4. Paul wilson
Whilst the costs are going up and up, and the idea of having everyones life mapped out on a bit of plastic, the other problem regarding the security of these cards still has to be finalised. In truth they make it easier for the underworld and other illegal factions to copy the identity of anyone. As a major flaw in the overall project appears to be missed by the departments concerned. The main reasons are because they do not understand the logistics in this is the first place.
1) To secure the data effectively.
2) Building multiple secure networks
3) NO connections to the INTERNET
4) Encryption.
There is the other problems to consider, which is staffing, updating information, etc. Scenario : Person 1, decides to change address, job, bank accounts, becomes ill, leaves country for a couple of years. etc, whatever the information kept on these identity cards. If the gevernment think that the ID cards will let them know more about people, trends, where they live, lifestyle. forget it. To do this, you will have to link every computer to the ID network, this will open the door to phising, electronic theft, and corruption on the scale never seen before. All at the Taxpayers expense. Big Brother state, forget it, Anarchy will reign in a country that already has far to many restriction. Before the Government decide to go ahead with this, they should seriously consider asking themselves do they really want a society that totally mistrusts their politicians..
5. Charles Smith
Hmmm - £10 Billion to add one data field to 204 databases? Seems a bit pricy, but can I apply for the job?
I know that I'm grossly simplifying the task, but are these LSE guys getting a bit excited here? In essence we are talking about Government Departments recording that they have verified any new transactions involving personal identity against a national Id card/Register.
The acronym KISS comes to mind.
6. Lionel A Smith
Absolutely agree with the comment by Kenneth Hall. Perhaps an examination of which organisations are going to benefit financially from the ID card scheme, as currently planned, and who their associates in the corridors of power are – on both sides of the Atlantic, would be revealing.
7. Jeremy Wickins
These are just the potential start up costs. Compliance costs are going to be huge, and there is a serious risk that there will be significant compensation costs payable by the government to large numbers of people who cannot enrol or verify their biometrics. According the the UK Passport Service trial published earlier this year, there could be around 2 million people who will be unable to use their biometrics for the purposes the government proposes, with serious ramifications such as not getting access to benefits or healthcare. These people will go to court for redress, including damages. How much is the government putting to one side to meet these claims? It is likely to cost several million pounds over a few years ...
8. Radical Meldrew
I think we should bang the cabinet members heads together to make 'em see some common sense!
Q: will this render the photo ID useless?
9. Graham Coles
I'd agree with Lionel Smith regarding finding out this information.
However, in the UK we don't really have a freedom of information act (we have something with a similar name, but that's not the same thing.)
But feel free to request the information under that act ... I can already guess the response, and will be along the lines of 'we can't provide that information.'
Apparently, we are not allowed to see how our own money is being squandered by our 'elected' government.
10. Terry Webb
Lionel is spot on. Who's making out of this, stinks of sleaze.
11. Martin Lukes
There is a difference between "in denial" and "lying." Sadly, Blair Labour doesn't seem to know what it is.
12. anonymous
Many years ago when undertaking some consulting work in the public sector I was told that my estimate of £700,000 for the development and delivery of a new system was absurd. The organization in question had commissioned a software house to deliver a working system for a fixed price of £200,000. About a year later I was asked by the same organization to find a way of suing the software house, who were 100% over budget and seeking a further £250,000. I learned that the organization had a litigation budget of £50 million per annum. Extraordinary! Penny pich on the build but squander millions on the penalties.
Even earlier I had been assured it was a legally enfoceable obligation of Government to achieve an 8% internal rate of return on all projects. I imagine today the hurdle rate may be lower; let's say 5%.
A 5% return on the £30 bn publicised by the LSE is £1.5 bn per annum.
As the largest beneficiary is estimated by Charles Clarke to be business to the tune of £425 million I am tempted to ask where the remaining £1 bn has disappeared? Or has the Government given up any pretence of earning a positive return on its "investment" projects.
Government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to manage projects of any complexity (think CSA, Passport Office and others) and its willingness to lie and litigate to cover its incompetence. It will even steal back assets sold to the public (think Railtrack, think windfall tax, think pensions tax raid).
However one dresses it up the ID Card scheme is a device for subjecting everyone to more Government surveillance than hitherto. Any suggestion that there are benefits have repeatedly been found to be false when subjected to scrutiny.
I, for one, have no desire to be obliged to carry an ID card whether initially voluntary or not. I most certainly have no desire to be obliged to fund a £1 bn per annum financial deficit for the privilege.