Report - Guardian

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.