Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

224 The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005procurement processes used for placing the contracts, whether contracts are likely todeliver good value for money, how the department is implementing the programme, andthe progress the programme has made. There would seem to be a case for waiting untilthe results of this report are known and its findings can be incorporated into theGovernment's assessment.The legislative uncertainty and the constantly shifting goals give the UK one of the leastadmirable track records on large-scale IT projects. The infrastructure for the identitycard, as envisioned by the Bill, is arguably one of the largest IT projects in the world. Adatabase that will in time contain over 60 million records holding a vast amount ofinformation, with on-line access, an advanced security model, and with hundreds ofthousands of users, is not only difficult to design and implement, but will most likely becostly. It is for this reason that the general consensus outside of Government is that thecard system will cost significantly more than the Government envisions.In the following sections we will re-present what is known about the likely costs of theGovernment's proposed programme. More importantly, we will also draw out whatremains unknown, rendering an enabling bill such as the one in question not onlypremature, but unlikely to achieve its stated goals.
The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005 22516Cost Assumptions – Costing the Government’sProposalsCost AssumptionsBefore examining details of the costings for this proposal, it is important to have a fullunderstanding of the nature of the system that the Home Office is proposing.Unfortunately there is little detail available in the Bill itself, and the Home Office hasbeen reluctant to disclose key data because of commercial confidentiality.Significantly, the Home Office has not supplied essential figures. For instance, howmany cards will be issued over a period of ten years? It has also been mute on potentialchallenges, such as how the ID card will be integrated into existing IT systems or towhat extent the system will take account of the needs and wants of commercialorganisations. However it is possible to reconstruct the Government’s vision, and thechallenges and costs that they foresee. This section reviews key Governmentdocuments that indicate some of the details of the proposed scheme. These include:- The Entitlement Card Consultation document from 2002;- The ‘Feasibility Study on the Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme’produced by NPL/BTexact 544 and issued in February 2003 for the UKPS, DVLAand Home Office;- UKPS Corporate and Business Plans for 2003-2008; 2004-2009 and 2005-2010;- The Identity Cards Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment, November 2004;- The Identity Cards Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment, May 2005.These documents bring together the design principles and considerations behind theGovernment’s costing scheme.When concrete plans for an identity cards system were first discussed in 2002, it wasunder the guise of an “entitlement card”. The Home Office consultation report reveals tosome degree the proposed structure and costs of the system. 545 Specifically, Annex 4 ofthis document, entitled ‘How a Scheme might work in practice’, gives the most helpfulindication of the Government’s aims. Annex 5 to this same Consultation document,‘Indicative Cost Assumptions’, provides fuller information about the perceived set up544 Written by Toby Mansfield (National Physical Laboratory) and Marek Rejman-Greene (Btexact Technologies)545 As we have noted in the section of this report on Consultation, the Government’s goals have shifted very littlesince the 2002 Entitlement Card consultation.
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:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 199: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 202 and 203: 188 The LSE Identity Project Report
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?