Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

226 The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005costs of the scheme; indeed, it outlines some costs at a level of detail that has not sincebeen seen in a Home Office document.A feasibility study on the use of biometrics in an entitlement scheme, commissioned bythe Home Office, and conducted by experts at the National Physical Laboratory andBTexact, was released in February 2003. 546 The NPL/BTexact report deals with thefeasibility of implementing a biometric in a national identity system that would apply toall British citizens and residents. The UKPS study on biometrics was released only inMay 2005, and included results of the testing of the technology, as well as participantobservations regarding the techniques involved. 547These documents apart, the only detailed description of the Government’s vision andexpectations appears in the Regulatory Impact Assessments. The first such RIA wasreleased in November 2004, and re-released in May 2005 with slightly changedcostings.Essential InformationCost estimates provided in the various Government reports cover a 10– 13 year periodcomprising three years to install the infrastructure, six years to roll out the scheme andfour years of ‘steady state’ operation. 548 The costs are divided into ‘set up costs’ and‘operational costs’, and have been increased or decreased from a ‘central estimate’dependent upon the level of risk involved in the particular component of the scheme. 549The number of participantsThe 2002 consultation document suggested that the number of people who would needto be enrolled in the scheme by the end of year six would be just over 51 million. Thiswas calculated using population statistics from National Statistics. The number ofadditional people joining the scheme in the remaining four years was calculated fromNational Statistics estimates of the number of young people attaining 16, plus estimatesfrom Home Office figures of non-casual visitors to the UK. 550 The final figure isestimated at 67.5 million people. 551 This is 35% higher than the figure quoted in thebiometric feasibility study, which estimated that there would be only50 millionparticipants. 552It is likely that the number of cards issued will exceed the number of people enrolled.This is because some individuals will hold more than one type of card, and also thatreplacement smartcards will be required because they are expected to wear out after 3-5years. 553 The Home Office therefore anticipates that:546 ‘Feasibility study on the Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme – For the UKPS, DVLA and the HomeOffice’ By Tony Mansfield (National Physical Laboratory) and Mark Rejman-Greene (BTexact Technologies).Version 3/Issued February 2003.547 The findings of both of these reports are summarised and analysed in our section on Biometrics.548 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 2.549 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 3.550 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 6.551 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 8.552 NPL/BTexact study, 2003, paragraph 11.553 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 7
The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005 227- Allowing for those who hold more than one card (for example, a passportand an ID card), instances of loss or theft, and the 10-year lifespan of eachcard, 140 million cards would be issued- If it were necessary to re-issue each card once during the 10- year perioddue to surface damage, the total number would be 230 million cards- If the cards needed to be re-issued twice during the 10- year period, the totalnumber would be 314 million 554Though the suggested scheme in the 2002 consultation document was based around theexisting passport and driving licence systems, the DVLA’s role in the national identitysystem was ultimately downplayed. 555Furthermore, the UKPS is considering a reduction in the period of validity of a passport,from ten years to five years, 556 which implies that for many individuals, passport feeswill be payable every five years. The UKPS acknowledges that this will represent amajor financial burden on customers, and that it could be operationally challenging, butit would remedy potential problems caused by chip damage and allow for the updatingof biometric information. 557Type of Card selectedThe choice of the type of card has implications for general system design and, in turn,the costs. In calculating draft estimates in the 2002 documents, the Home Office triedto assess the number of cards people possess and the frequency with which they have tobe replaced as a result of loss, theft or amendment. 558 The total number of cards hasbeen estimated using the current number of licences and passports issued by UKPS andDVLA each year and the additional number of people who need to be covered. It isassumed this latter category will require replacements at the same rate as thoseobtaining licences (8% of licence holders each year). 559 The cost of each card alsodepends on its longevity. Smartcards generally need replacing every 5 years (despitethe Home Office’s previous estimate of 3-5 years) and would cost slightly more than asimple plastic card. If a smart chip were incorporated, this would need to be replacedmore frequently. In addition to costing more, it is estimated that it would need replacingtwice during a 10- year period. 560The selection of the type of card has tangible cost effects. According to the 2003figures, a traditional card, such as the driving licence, costs £2.50 per card. A smartcard is predicted to cost a further £1. A more sophisticated smart card would cost £5. 561Using this information, a plain plastic card system would cost £240 million over tenyears; a simple smartcard re-issued once would cost £670 million over ten years; and asophisticated smartcard reissued twice would cost £2007 million over ten years. 562554 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 8.555 Consultation Document, Section 4, 2002, paragraph 2.556 UKPS Corporate and Business Plans 2004 –2009, page 18557 UKPS Corporate and Business Plans 2004 –2009, page 23558 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 28.559 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 29.560 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 30.561 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 31.562 Consultation Document, Section 5, 2002, paragraph 31.
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:
Page 189 and 190: 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?