By Andy McCue, 23 October 2006 17:15
NEWS
The government's ID cards plan and cost estimates remain "worryingly vague", according to academics at the London School of Economics (LSE).
The LSE response follows the Home Office's first "section 37" report, which will be given to parliament every six months, on the latest cost estimates for the UK's national ID cards scheme.
The first report earlier this month said the ID cards scheme will cost £5.4bn to set up and run over the next 10 years, with 15 per cent - £810m - relating to investment in the technology.
Dr Edgar A Whitley, from the LSE's Department of Management, said the report is "worryingly vague" about the timeline for implementation and does little to increase public confidence in the scheme.
He said in a statement: "We remain concerned about the government's ability to start issuing the first biometric identity cards to UK citizens by 2009, given the ongoing uncertainties about the testing and procurement of biometric and secure database technologies."
silicon.com Public Sector
Get the latest public sector news straight to your inbox. Sign up for the PS newsletter today!
The LSE said future Home Office reports should provide annual cost estimates - not just the 10-year totals currently used - as well as details of any independent scrutiny of those assessments. The academics also want a new round of reviews by the Office of Government Commerce because of the changes that have been made to the ID cards scheme since the legislation was approved by parliament.
Just this week the Home Office also admitted the ID cards project will go live without all the technology being tested first.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Quite apart from the blinding obvious risks and issues about technology - its efficiency, reliability and integration and the gung-ho approach to selection of options - can anyone actually say what all this is for? For what pupose are we potentially spending billions? What are we getting for our money - what public services will have reduced costs or improved services or make any efficiency gains as a result?
What risks are avoided or opportunities enabled - why even try to avoid the Human Rights Act? Why reject the right to know who looks at or uses our own personal data? Why reject consent management as the most appropriate approach to gain access to personal data? We know the issue is personal identity - but what is this business requirement for taking without consent in the majority of cases - why force this through regardless?
A common reason for system failure is not involving the system users and so not gaining their commitment.
2. anonymous
Cue government statement that actually, we should believe politicians over LSE academics. Hmmm, let me think... nope, maybe not.