By Tom Espiner, 12 November 2007 09:40
NEWS
The government has been warned increased data sharing between departments and services could result in a decline in citizens' confidence in public bodies.
The current push by the government towards increased data sharing could backfire, with negative effects for public confidence, according to Merlin, Earl of Erroll, a member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. He said schemes such as the National Identity Register - on which the government plans to hold the personal data of every UK citizen - could lead to an over-intrusive state when combined with data sharing between government departments and services.
Lord Erroll said: "With increased sharing of data, there is a greater risk of failure of public services due to the greater complexity of systems, but also people may become frightened of being caught."
He added: "If you don't tell the DVLA of a change of address, after a month you're liable to a fine of £1,000 and it will be the same under the National Identity Register. I see a problem of linking up government departments and services, like law enforcement, that are seen as enforcers and those seen as helpers, like [social services]."
silicon.com Public Sector
Get the latest public sector news straight to your inbox. Sign up for the PS newsletter today!
If someone had, for example, notified their doctor of a change of address but forgotten to notify the DVLA and this resulted in a penalty, it could undermine public confidence in both bodies, according to Lord Erroll.
He also said he was concerned about the possible data-mining implications of the scheme and added "the amount of fraud they will detect is probably less than they think".
However, Sir David Varney, the Prime Minister's adviser on public-service transformation, said the nature of the data to be shared between government departments was still under discussion.
Varney said: "There has to be a lot of careful thought about what data needs to be shared. If names, addresses and national insurance numbers were shared, people would benefit from a more personalised service."
Varney added making policy out of operational activities makes policy more credible to "customers", as it is co-produced.
Naomi Eisenstadt, director of the Cabinet Office's Social Exclusion Task Force, said a large amount of informal data sharing already exists. She said: "There can be an incredible level of intrusion. There is massive information sharing on an informal basis, as professionals chat to each other."
Tom Espiner writes for ZDNet.co.uk
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. Jerry
I think Lord Errol is missing several points.
Fear of being caught is surely a benefit. There is far too much lawless behaviour because the consequences are negligible.
I would like to think that registering a change of address on one part of a joined-up government system would also deal with the rest of the departments. Tax-dodgers and others may not like this but I'm sick of paying for them anyway - bring it on.
What scares me rigid and will probably make me oppose vigorously any such scheme is security. I have absolutely no confidence that my information will remain where is is supposed to be and will not be lost, stolen or otherwise compromised. Organised crime is very wealthy and utterly unscrupulous where large gains are to be made or terrorism is to be advanced. What more lucrative target than the theft of countless identities?
2. Richard Davies
This all sounds great but the bottom line is that the government will mess it up and the tax payer will be left with a massive bill...again!
This is what history tells us and we never learn from it and let them get away with no consequences to those involved!
The government should be at least held to service level agreements...punishments and incentives put in place to ensure they don't screw it up.
Until they have the confidence in their ability to offer these types of guarentees then I don't have confidence in them delivering what they are saying; instead it will be something thats massively over budget, insecure and open to abuse and also only contain details of people they know about anyway!
3. Karen Challinor
what public confidence ?
apart from voting day in a general election, when has the government given a toss what the electorate think ?
"can we have a referendum on europe please sir" - "no that might mean government has to change it's plans"
"can we have a referendum on the id card please sir" - "absolutely not, we might have to change our extremely lucrative plans to sell off the information we gather"
"can we have a referendum on a motto for the uk" - "well it won't make the slightest bit of difference to anything important, so *pat on head* you go right ahead if it makes you happy"
condescending hyppocrites, they are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
want a motto for the uk ? how about "every step you take"
4. Roger Huffadine
Data Sharing??
We don't yet have joined up government web systems - the whole thing is a botch job of disparate systems.
Chances of any government joining up shared information = NIL
I'm against the whole ID card, shared data manifesto not on civil liberties grounds but because it is a TOTAL waste of money = my taxes.
I just wish I could get a slice of this action where dimwits are channelling HUGE amounts of money down the throats of avaricious contractors, come on guys give me some money I've got lots of 'old rope'
5. anonymous
What woul dconcern me most is if the government started to earn money out of our data by selling it on ....
Oh silly me, the DVLA already does that!
6. Anon
Since the govt does not listen to the voters but is trying to push thru ID cards & as much intrusiveness as they think they can get away with I have started making sure that every official form I have to fill in contains at least one lie & I always give my Flextel mobile number on the basis that at least it'll cost them if they want to track me down. Petty? Yes, immensely so, but at least I feel I'm fighting back.