WRITTEN ON November 2nd, 2004 BY Richard S AND STORED IN Across the Board

Put simply, e-government should be used to reduce the inconvenience and cost of dealing with Government. It should not be used to extend the scope of Government or to amass extra data about citizens. Usually, less Government is better Government.

To most people, Government is a “necessary evil:” We pay our taxes; some of us vote; and we all expect decent, efficient, reliable services. We want the minimum of Government intrusion as we get on with our lives. Where practical, we also want free access to government information.

Naturally, many of us go through periods in our lives where we have more contact with Government. Some people have greater needs and so have more contact. Some people need extra help or special facilities. However, most people wish to live their own lives independently and free of Government intrusion.

Unfortunately, some of the early products of e-government reflect Whitehall’s usual tendency to believe that the government always knows best how people should run their lives. They seek to make e-government web sites central to people’s lives. At its worst, e-government is seen as an ideal opportunity to introduce a “command economy” where “subjects” (rather than citizens) are dependent on services and information from the State. Hence the apathy and poor take up of some e-government services.

Internal Systems
In order to make government efficient and cost effective, we expect civil servants to have modern e-government services for internal use. However, people’s privacy must be respected. The government must obtain only the minimum necessary information from people, have robust methods for ensuring its security and accuracy, and permit only closely controlled use of the information.

For example, the medical records of many NHS patients contain serious errors and inappropriate material. While these faulty records exist only on paper, the potential damage to the patient is localized. However, if these same faulty records were simply digitized and made readily available throughout the NHS without correction, there could be great damage to patients. Cleansing the data would be a major but very worthwhile project.

External Systems
Amongst the good examples used by individuals outside government are:

1. Inland Revenue Online Self-Assessment
www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk
Filing the annual Self-Assessment form is a complicated transaction requiring the entry of a host of data, accurately and in time for the annual deadline.

In spite of its flaws, the IR Online Self-Assessment service does reduce the annual pain of completing this form. Some information is copied automatically from previous years. The form is checked. The tax due is calculated automatically. Online payment is possible. The service issues a delivery receipt. The result is transferred electronically to the IR computers without the need for a further stage of data entry.

The online service is now available both for personal taxation and for corporation tax.

However, continual changes to tax laws mean that the self-assessment form and the IR software change each year, resulting in a new format with new problems and bugs each year. The current IR online forms cannot be completed “off-line,” so you have to stay online for several hours. Terms are not explained in “plain English.” Passwords and log-in details are overly complicated. The service has been known to crash!

2. Commonwealth War Graves Commission Web Site
www.cwgc.org
The online “Debt of Honour Register” helps people to trace their relative’s “last resting place.” Often, it gives a description of the relevant military action. Although this information had previously been available in paper documents, its publication on the Internet has made it much more readily accessible to ordinary people throughout the UK.

This service emerged from the previous government’s “open.gov.uk” initiative. The CWGC was one of the first government and quasi-government organisations to make information freely available over the Internet. It is a good example of a relatively simple idea which has brought great benefit to many people.

Conclusions
The “open.gov.uk” and “e-government” initiatives have brought real benefits but have also exposed some real problems and dangers.

Politicians must stop making such frequent changes to taxation, benefits and other services. Otherwise we are unlikely to see attractive, reliable e-government services.

When data is digitized, merged or used for new purposes it must be carefully cleansed, validated and controlled.

E-government should be used to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness rather than to make government more intrusive.