Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

214 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005Fifteen days later the Home Office “concluded that the balance is in favour of nondisclosure”.506 The Home Office did release some “background information containedwithin the two Gateway 0 Reviews”. The background documentation on the GatewayZero review from 2003 merely repeated Home Office policy on the need for an identitycard. The background documentation for the Gateway Zero review of 2004 heldadditional information that eventually became part of the draft Bill of April 2004,merely updating the Home Office existing public policy statements.While appeals were being filed with the OGC for an internal review, a furtherparliamentary question was posed.“Mark Oaten (Winchester, LDem): To ask the Chancellor of theExchequer what traffic light status was awarded to the identity cardsscheme by the Office of Government Commerce at the GatewayReview 1 stage.”“Paul Boateng (Brent South, Lab): The ID Cards programme has notyet undergone a Gate 1 Review. It has, however, undergone two OGCGate 0 Reviews, in June 2003 and January 2004 respectively. Thetraffic light status awarded by these reviews is exempt from disclosureunder the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as disclosure would belikely to prejudice both the ability of OGC to examine theeffectiveness, efficiency and economy with which other GovernmentDepartments exercise their functions and also the formulation anddevelopment of Government policy. I believe the public interest indisclosure of such information is outweighed by the public interest innon-disclosure.” 507The Home Office did not respond to a request for Internal Review. As a result, to thisdate we are unable to ascertain the details of the Gateway reviews, and weconsequentially cannot fully ascertain the levels of knowledge, appreciation, andconcern within the Home Office regarding the risks and costs involved in taking theIdentity Cards programme forward.The purpose of this section was to review the reasons for past failures in government ITprojects. These failures have led to serious problems with sometimes dangerousrepercussions. A system on the scale of the Identity Cards programme will have similarproblems and repercussions, particularly because of the architecture selected by theHome Office. Some innovations have been introduced into the Government ITprocurement process, but because the Home Office is unwilling to disclose either itsprocess of consultation with industry organisations or the details of the risk managementprocess under the OGC, we are unable to ascertain whether these innovations were ofany benefit to the Identity Cards Programme.This leads us to conclude that there is a risk the Government is not adequatelyprotecting this project from the fate that lay in store for its other large and complex506 Response to Freedom of Information request, From the Information Policy Team of the Home Office, February22, 2005.507 House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for March 16, 2005.
The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 215systems. The UK Computing Review Committee is sceptical of the feasibility of theprogramme, even with the OGC process:“We are aware of the improvements made through the OGC Gatewayprocess, but we see nothing in that process which would deal with theengineering complexities of this (or any similar) project, and enablethe procurement to proceed at reasonable levels of risk.” 508This situation is also hurting the deliberative process. Parliament is being asked toapprove a bill that will involve significant costs, but Parliament is not being informed ofthese costs. When the Home Affairs Committee reported this concern, the HomeSecretary responded:“I do not accept that it is appropriate to release detailed, marketsensitiveinformation about the financial and contractual aspects of thescheme at this stage. I understand the desire for more information, butwe need to balance this with our duty to ensure we get the best valuefor money for the taxpayer.” 509We believe, in view of the Government’s track record, that the balance should veermore towards disclosure.The Challenges of UK Government IT ProjectsTo better understand the likely implementation challenges – and associated costs – ofthe National Identity scheme we need to look at the dynamics of the use of informationtechnology by the UK Government. In many ways the UK Government IT environmentis unique, and the dynamics of this environment will influence the level of success ofthe identity card proposals.We will draw lessons from some of the challenges faced by other government ITprogrammes. One significant factor in public sector procurement is that in recent yearsthe UK Government has tended to make substantial amendments to projects once theyhave commenced. This binds the Government to the existing contractors, and raisescosts.In light of the problems that have arisen in the NHS programme for IT, we recommendthat Parliament wait for the results of outstanding research reports before approving aproject of the size and complexity of the national ID system.We also recommend against the UK model of ‘enabling legislation’ and instead movetoward developing a clearly defined project with specific guidelines based on primarylegislation.508 ‘Memorandum submitted by the UK Computing Research Committee’.509 ‘Response to Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Identity Cards’, Home Office press release issued July30, 2004, available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1047.
Page 1:
The Identity Projectan assessment o
Page 5 and 6:
The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
22 The LSE Identity Project Report:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
100 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179: 164 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 183 and 184: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 199: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317:
show all

Report - Guardian

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?