The government has resorted to personal attacks rather than
address the concerns over the cost and technical feasibility of ID
cards and the difficulties of managing such a large project,
according to academics from the London School of
Economics.
The LSE has published a damning report criticising plans for an ID
card system that ministers estimate will cost 5.8bn.
The LSE proposed an alternative model for the ID card project based
on federated identities, which it said would cost between 1bn and
3bn less than the Home Office proposal, which is based on a central
population register.
"The government has never responded to the technology questions. It
has never responded to our alternative model for ID cards. I was
really hoping some debate could have been sparked," said Simon
Davies, visiting professor at the LSE.
During a six-hour debate in the Commons, home secretary Charles
Clarke devoted little time to the technology necessary for the
scheme to work.
"Our approach to technology is straightforward. When the bill has
passed through Parliament, we intend to conduct trials of the
technology, including small-scale tests and large-scale testing
during roll-out," he said.
As examples of successful large government IT projects, Clarke
quoted an IT project at the Department of Work and Pensions which
aims to save more than 1bn over the next five years, the success of
chip and Pin, and research showing high customer satisfaction with
the Passport Agency.
"It was a very cute way of saying 'these three projects work' when
they have spent billions on projects that don't work," said Gus
Hosein, one of the authors of the LSE report. "One of the projects
was not even a government project - it was chip and Pin."
Information commissioner Richard Thomas backed the LSE's proposals
for an alternative decentralised ID card system.
"The measures in the ID Cards Bill go well beyond establishing a
secure, reliable and trustworthy ID card," he said. "Recent
research has provided an alternative model avoiding the intrusive
government-controlled register of personal data altogether."
Clarke dismissed Thomas' conclusions as "wrong".
Analyst firm Ovum said the government had changed its position on
the main objectives of the programme, making the design and
implementation of a successful programme more difficult.
"An ID card that was designed principally to give power to citizens
to control and secure their identity in a digital world, rather
than for the government to monitor and validate that identity,
might not only be more popular but more useful," said Eric Woods,
public sector practice director at Ovum.