WRITTEN ON November 6th, 2007 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, Identity, What do we want?
At yesterday’s morning press briefing
ID Cards
Asked whether the Prime Minister was considering shelving the role-out of ID cards, the PMS replied that there had been no change on the Government’s position on ID cards. There had been one newspaper report on Sunday and the Home Office had made clear that there was nothing to substantiate it. Asked if the report was “garbage,” the PMS said that he did not want to use such language, but the Government had been denying those suggestions quite forcefully.
Asked on the report in the Guardian saying there was to be a review on the technology used, the PMS reiterated that the position on ID cards had not changed. The PMS added that these things were kept constantly under review as people would expect, but nothing had changed in regards to ID cards.
Asked whether the Prime Minister had ordered any fresh review into the technology since he became Prime Minister, the PMS said he was not aware of any review.
What they should have been asking, of course, is who is the Cliffe’s Enemy of Bonfire 2007? The improbably answer is a giant seagull sitting on a signpost..something to do with planning applications and a mediocre local football club, we’re told.
4 Responses to “ID Cards: the Pea-Moss says”
The global network has reported back. Sorry it took 20 minutes.
The Mirror story appears to have come from a pub briefing, probably from a former Minister Blunkett or Clarke, with sufficient background noise that the word “biometric” was misheard as “isometric” by a reporter who is neither a fantasist, nor much of a tech specialist. The story got sexed up (“hardened”) to the exacting standards of the tabloid headline mode.
So the Mirror story says something the “Ideal Gov” community really wants to hear (Brown scraps ID cards) but which may not be true, yet.
The Guardian reporter is not a fantasist either (although new Labour did talk of making him High Commissioner in one of the Caribbean islands to get him of their backs).
It seems Brown now sniffs a disaster in the ID system, and wants to put in an extra level of check and take a final look before he commits himself. In this case having a reputation as a bottler doesnt make it easier for him to do the right thing.
The Brown camp rejects the Mirror story as overstated (or premature). But it does not reject the Guardian story.
We’re working (idly, and with distractions) on a generic risk assesment for the ID suppliers. As we write the risks increase.
“We’re working (idly, and with distractions) on a generic risk assesment for the ID suppliers. As we write the risks increase.”
If I may make a few contributions to your risk assessment:
1. Working on the National Identity Scheme (NIS) may look like a case of arbitrage, of risk-free investment, as long as people keep voting Labour. But every day reduces that expectation. The traditional Labour party has been destroyed. Its dispossessed adherents will either vote Lib Dem or not vote at all.
2. Labour is unique. They are the only party advocating ID cards. The other parties have promised to tear up supplier contracts on day one. Would you, as a supplier to the NIS, fancy your chances against David Davis? With only the ineffectual IPS as your champion?
3. It is a truth universally upheld that when government contracts fail, the suppliers are bailed out. But not Metronet. They are in receivership. And not NPfIT. When Accenture pulled out of that disastrous NHS project, they swallowed a loss of eight or even nine digits. How sure would you be, as a supplier to the NIS, that you would be compensated in the event of failure?
4. Political will is all very well but there has to be a feasible project in there somewhere. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee don’t think there is. They reviewed IPS’s plans for the NIS and published their report [1] in July 2006. The Committee identified 15 or so cases of confusion in the ID card plans, four cases of inconsistency and about 50 cases of lack of clarity. The Committee declared themselves concerned more than 20 times, surprised four times, regretful three times, sceptical twice and incredulous once. Equity analysts can read, too. Your share price, as an NIS supplier, could go south, your shareholders would not be amused and your hopes of future non-executive directorships could dry up.
5. The only UK trial of the biometrics on which the NIS depends was a fiasco [2]. Far from making it easier for people to prove their identity, these biometrics would make it harder for about 20 percent of people. With 50 million ID cardholders, that’s about 10 million dissatisfied customers. That’s about 10 million people who can’t prove their right to work in the UK or get non-emergency state healthcare or get state education for their children. Equity analysts can read, too. See 4.
6. BT and Qinetiq are thought to have decided not to bid for NIS work [3]. If true, is there a lesson there?
7. There is no sign of the Crosby Forum report being published to provide a fig leaf. Indeed, according to the Guardian [4], Gordon Brown is thought to want yet another review. If true, is there a lesson there?
8. Other countries seem to be implementing NISs quite successfully. Are they? Do these NISs work?
9. IPS already refuse to sign their letters. (I have about 20 examples.) They daren’t put their name to their own letters. Get involved in the NIS, and you may have to lie about what you do for a living when you’re at dinner. Indeed, you may have to be escorted to dinner by Blackwater.
10. The NIS is and will be a political football. It is not comfortable being kicked from one end of the pitch to the other. And dissident insiders are already briefing against the scheme. Remember the Sunday Mirror exclusive ‘Brown scraps ID card plans’ [5].
…
———-
1. http://dematerialisedid.com/PDFs/1032.pdf
2. http://dematerialisedid.com/PDFs/UKPSBiometrics_Enrolment_Trial_Report.pdf, see para. 1.2.1.3 and 1.2.1.4.
3. http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/channel/TechnologyInnovation/news/744570/id-cards-cash-bonfire-making/
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/story/0,,2205324,00.html
5. http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/11/04/brown-scraps-i-d-card-plans-98487-20058224/
“We’re working (idly, and with distractions) on a generic risk assesment for the ID suppliers. As we write the risks increase.”
…
11. The NIS is bound to fail. It cannot deliver the benefits expected. People don’t like failed projects appearing on their CVs. So those who can will leave the company. That will tend to be the better staff. So, to bid for NIS-related work, is to reduce the average quality of your staff.
“What they should have been asking, of course, is who is the Cliffe’s Enemy of Bonfire 2007?”
You may be right.
There are a few other questions they should have been asking.
Is Vincent Moss, Political Editor of the Sunday Mirror, a fantasist? Did he make up his story ‘Brown scraps ID card plans’ [1]? If not, who briefed him? And what was their objective?
Is David Hencke, Westminster Editor of the Guardian, a fantasist? Did he make up his story ‘ID cards could be delayed as PM calls for review into technology’ [2]? If not, who briefed him? And what was their objective?
We all know how bad journalists are. Don’t we. Except that they’re not. Are they.
The PMS may well not know the answer to these questions.
Ideal Government, on the other hand, could use its global network of ruthless agents to find out the answers — who briefed two reputable newspapers and led them to publish stories which five ministers on Sunday and the PMS on Monday flatly deny? What was the point? And what is the effect on the prospective suppliers to IPS of National Identity Scheme-related goods and services?
Let’s broaden the investigation a little bit.
On 28 September 2007, Richard Ford wrote in the Times that “a multi-billion pound government organisation to prevent criminals re-offending and to protect the public is to be scrapped three years after it started. It is part of a shake-up at the Ministry of Justice aimed at preventing the new department gaining a reputation as a failure … Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is studying the plans and the shake-up is to be announced on October 11” [3].
Not the sort of thing you write by accident. But 11 October came and went without NOMS being scrapped. Who misbriefed Richard Ford? And why?
On 15 October 2007, the Daily Telegraph website said “there is no dishonour in a politician listening to his constituents. On the contrary, the readiness of those in power to do what the rest of us want is the basis of representative government. So we applaud Gordon Brown’s welcome decision to ditch a national road pricing scheme: a move for which this newspaper has campaigned these past 12 months” [4].
Fine sentiments. Except that Gordon Brown has not ditched the national road pricing scheme. So where did that story come from? And why?
The government are famous for trying to manipulate public opinion? What are they trying to do with these misbriefings? If it is not the government, who then? And why?
1. Link to Sunday Mirror story
2. Link to Guardian ID cards story
3. Link to Times online story
4. Link to Telegraph story