A blazing row broke out this week between the Conservative Party and the IT
industry. Though it has a critically important bearing on the government
policy at issue — Labour’s compulsory identity card scheme — this row is
really about our unwritten constitution. It is a dispute in which David
Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, is absolutely right. The information
technology industry knows it. This explains its fury. The Labour Party knows
it, too. This explains its silence.
The story has hardly broken in the media, except in the financial press. But
an exchange in which a man quite likely to be Home Secretary after the next
election calls the trade association representing many of the world’s
largest IT suppliers “incredible”, “insulting”, “ill-judged” and
“disingenuous” deserves attention.
The correspondence is a joy to read. The website ConservativeHome has
published it in full. John Higgins, Director-General of Intellect (an IT
umbrella body), must be reeling this weekend — unready for what hit him
after he was unwise enough to accuse the Shadow Home Secretary of
“point-scoring”. With evident relish Mr Davis has piled in, fists flying. At
issue is this: Mr Davis has publicly warned the IT industry that in making
arrangements with the present Government for delivering a national ID card
scheme, it should know that an incoming Tory government would reverse the
policy and unwind the private sector contracts that have flowed from it.
Opposition to the ID card scheme is, of course, official Conservative policy.
The party has already said it would not proceed with it. Mr Davis was simply
spelling out the consequences. But Intellect reacted with squeals of
outrage. “I have read with concern,” wrote Mr Higgins in a letter he was
unwise enough to issue as a press release, “your pledge that an incoming
Conservative government would cancel the ID card scheme.” On behalf of the
entire “community of supplier companies operating in the public sector
market” the letter proceeds to insist, first, that “the UK technology
industry is neither for nor against the policy of introducing ID cards in
the UK”. Parliament, says Higgins, has decided.
Well, yes. But Parliament can undecide. Parliament has decided that citizens
may own and drive motor cars, and I suppose the Society of Motor
Manufacturers and Traders could roll its eyes piously and pronounce itself
“neither for nor against” this policy, but simply the ’umble servant of
those who wish to take the opportunities it offers; but a trade association
pretending to be disinterested makes a tempting target. Mr Higgins’s remark
invited both barrels. “Simply disingenuous,” Mr Davis retorts.
Mr Higgins compounded the provocation. “It is wholly inappropriate,” he
writes, “for the industry to be used as a mechanism for scoring political
points.” One imagines the protests that might have come from the Chartered
Institute of Harpoon Manufacturers on being told by the Opposition that
before investing further in the industry, members of the Institute should
know that the Opposition was promising to ban whaling.
Mr Davis went into orbit: “I am afraid that your claim that an honest
assertion of our intentions is somehow indicative of a general commercial
bad faith is both incredible and insulting,” he writes. He accuses Intellect
of a “failure to appreciate” either the nature of the public debate or the
depth of opposition to the ID cards scheme.
Mr Higgins tries some sabre-rattling. “Companies selling into the public
sector market will quite reasonably seek to protect themselves in case a
future government revokes a contract upon coming to power,” he writes. “This
may result in suppliers seeking stronger break clauses in discussions with
government as they seek to protect themselves. This could consequently
result in a less favourable environment for the taxpayer.”
What is he saying? That governments can bind successor governments to its
legislative programmes by insinuating into commercial contracts an unwritten
understanding that a successor government will not revoke them? Mr Higgins
may be right that when a project’s future is politically precarious,
contracts must take account of that; but such is the price of democracy. Mr
Davis’s scorn is unconcealed: “Your thinly veiled threat of penalty clauses,
at taxpayers’ expense, is inappropriate and ill-judged. . . Large IT
projects should be segmented into several contractual phases to protect
against the risks involved. I attach a copy of the Public Accounts
Committee’s 1999 report, Improving the Delivery of Government IT
Projects, which you might benefit from reading.”
Winding up his press-released letter, Mr Higgins makes the mistake of
patronising Mr Davis. He invites the politician to meet his organisation to
learn more about the subject: “Engagement with Intellect’s members will help
you understand the progress suppliers have made around the transformational
government agenda as well as the issues which remain today.”
A former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Davis cannot resist a
final kick: “I was only too familiar with the IT sector’s successes and
failures in delivery of public services. You may be sure that we will have
learnt from those experiences.”
It is good to see a leading Conservative take a hardheaded approach to
inappropriate lobbying by the business sector. Even if I did not share the
Tories’ antipathy to the ID card plan I would find Intellect’s suggestion
that the Official Opposition abandon a central policy simply because the
Government had padlocked its programme to a contract with the private sector
worse than inappropriate: it is outrageous. In opposition, Labour had every
right to announce, as it did, that it would scrap contracts for the
Millennium Dome project, which it would cancel.
Would that Labour had stuck to its guns and done so. Whatever the price of
abrogating those Dome contracts, the nation would have been saved a great
deal more money by aborting the plan. There is hardly a date before December
31, 1999 when this would not have been preferable to the alternative.
New Labour’s national identity card scheme would be likely to prove — were it
ever to happen — another Millennium Dome, this time in plastic. Almost at
whatever point, and at whatever cost, a successor government cuts the losses
on this plan and scraps it, the move will cost less than carrying on. Name
me a state-sponsored white elephant for which, half way through its
development, the argument has not been that, even if in retrospect the
original decision was wrong, it was now too late to cancel the project,
except at disproportionate cost. But in retrospect it seldom was.
Today the Home Office’s ID card plans have a whiff of Eurofighter about them:
escalating costs in pursuit of technically difficult and untested
technology, for a cause for which the specifications keep changing in a
fast-moving situation. It is important for the Tories to get firmly onto the
public record, now, that they have set their face against this circus.
That is what Mr Davis has done, and Mr Higgins has helped to make the occasion
memorable. Ministers dare not complain, for to do so is to concede that we
should not be confident that Labour will win the next election.
I could argue in principle against all compulsory ID card schemes but prefer
to rest the case on an argument that even those who support the idea can
entertain. ID technology is in a state of flux. The day may come when
Britain embraces a compulsory ID card scheme: by the middle of this century
maybe all sophisticated countries will have joined the pack. Fine. So let us
leave other nations to tip their coffers into getting the technology right,
and, once it has settled down, weigh the costs and advantages, and
reconsider. For now, let us drop back, and wait.
After the stand David Davis took this week, that is now the likelihood. The IT
industry had better get used to the fact.
Biometric ID card system will work fine in organisation where everyone concerned is on the database and every point of transaction has reading equipment.
Nationally it is virtually impossible to satisfy both these conditions and that is why Americans have rejected this system.
This system will boost identity fraud by giving fraudsters option to use fakes of these cards as ID where equipment is not present.
Yogesh Raja, Aylesbury, U.K.
Poor "miffed" hasn't heard of Google.
All together .... aaaaaaaahhhhh
Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville,
So where's the link to ConHome - you can't go about referring to online material and not linking it - it's incredibly rude to both the source and the reader.
Miffed, Cheam,
As usual, the IT industry is going to sell the Govenment a lemon posing as an IT system, that doesn't work. The companies concerned will then, as usual, move on leaving the tax payer to pick-up the enourmous bill.
Peter GODDARD from Cheam, who appears to support this ill-conceived scheme, would do well to reflect on how an ID card scheme, together with attendent National Database will solve all the problems he mentions (twice!) above. Every problem cited by the Government could be solved more cheaply and effectively by other means. For instance, if illegal immigration is a problem, strengthen the immigration service and employ officers at ports of entry to stop illegal immigrants from entering the U.K. Much simpler and cheaper than issuing 77 million people with an ID card and forcing them all to be recorded on a database where every move can be monitored. The ID card scheme will rely on all those imaginary police officers that we don't see on our streets, stopping anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant and demanding their ID card. Haven't got a card on you? Never mind. Please produce it at a police station within 24 hours. DREAM ON!
Terry, London,
Running a company is about managing risk. This is the skill for which managers are paid. If you do business with the private sector you run the risk that your customer or supplier will go bust and be unable to deliver. If you do business with the state you are insulated against this risk, but instead run the risk that policy will change. Parliament even has the power to cancel contracts without compensation, though it is rarely used. If managers in the IT industry wish to be insulated against all risk they will find that the market rate for their skills goes down.
Quentin Langley, Woking, England
Mathew you are being bit disingenuous. Mr.Davis lambasts the IT industry and the government for the Id card shambles and the escalating costs associated with it. If I remember correctly when conservatives were in power in this country most of the defnce projects procured by them were running millions even billions above budgets.Of course the defence equipment industry was milking the tax payer with what it could get away with because these companies were run by the establishment with cosy arrangements with conservatives.Mr.Davis is bleating now that the Boot is on other foot. This smacks of sour grapes.The only reason the contract costs go up is variations to the original contract specification and the scope of work.
My view is that Id card project is administered by incompetent civil servants presided by incompetent ministers who have not got a clue what they want and making up the brief as they go along..
Nandkumar, Maidenhead, Berks
In this age of spin, deception and marketing tosh, I find it greatly comforting and uplifting to know that the climate is changing... not only steadfast Times columnists, such as Matthew Parris in this case, but also politicians, in this case David Davis, are prepared to speak out honestly and coherently on thorny issues without adopting an intellectually inept (PC) agenda, instead calling on their knowledge, experience and common sense. If this refreshing trend continues, the government will be well advised to take it as a global warning: the silent majority in the country is growing fast!
Raymond Lipton, Cambs,
The ID card plans cannot be defeated by price or logic. This is because they are driven by political dogma and not by the reasons the government give.The dogma of nu-labour is that the state must control, monitor, and punish its citizens, rather than serve them and answer to them. That many of the current or past cabinets have had strong connections with the Communist party or had such views (Hodge had a bust of Lenin installed in Islington Town Hall) tells the story behind the ID card obsession all too clearly.
George Edwards, harrogate, UK
The big mistake is that in a period of 'phoney Government' when little in the way of action is taking place, the troops are assembled but not manoeuvring is taking place and the big guns are silent, that a government flying on a wing and a prayer is actually allowed to continue making plans for a final conflict even though it is a bunker, has no ammunition and knows the date of the final push of the electorate to end this sordid conflict. It will all end up with a cyanide pill and can of petrol in some desolate place. Friendless, with the noise of past battles in his ears, the delusional PM will reflect on what might have been, how he sacrificed his dreams of lebensraum, the ‘thousand year Labour Party’ and the Jerusalem planned but not ‘builded here’, for government by celebrity. There should be something in our unwritten constitution that allows for this stagnation to be cleared, that stops lame ducks from laying more eggs.
Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England
Anyone in support of ID cards should first read Carl Watners, "National Identity, Essays in opposition, http://www.voluntaryist.com/books/nis/ " before taking the liberty of imposing the 'trademark of totalitarianism' on the rest of us.
Mathew Goldsmith, Lewes, Sussex
Matthew, I wholly support the Conservative stand against a compulsory ID scheme. Having worked in the IT industry, I have no trust in systems to protect the integrity of data. Information is a weapon that can be used against external foes but worryingly could be used against our own citizens. This so-called democratic Labour government, that gained power with barely one in five of the electorate, has done more than any previous government in shifting power from the individual to the State.The Conservative ethos of shifting power back from the State to the individual is a key factor in defining the differences between them and the Labour Government.
Steve Marchant, Torquay, Devon
An excellent piece highlighting once again the common sense that David Davis embodies compared to his leader Cameron. I hope this view is promoted more heavily and pressure put on Labour ministers to respond instead of cowering in their bunkers. New Labour have proved they lack the ability to manage any IT project to deliver the goods or for that matter any project larger than a chimpanzee's tea party. The only reason for their continued obsession in ID cards is an ideological belief that (a) it will actually work, (b) it won't be hacked, (c) it will prevent benefit fraud, (d) it will prevent terrorism and (e) they'll gain control over the population. Even if just one of these factors could be guaranteed the costs would still massively outweigh the perceived benefits. The sooner Labour are forced to drop this expensive crackpot idea the better off the population will be.
Mike, Denia, Spain
Well argued & written Matthew. Unfortunately for me there are two issues:
First to have or not have Identity Cards - I'm very definitely in favour of ID cards.
Second to source ID cards which will work - govenrments tend, as Matthew points out, are likely to produce MD [Millenium Dome] type cards - but how can we know, how do we know that we will not be buying an MD?
Robert Stewart, Eastleigh, Hants
this row is really about our unwritten constitution.
Anything to do with constitution is illegal.
After all, Constitution is the Master Law above all. If there is a flaw in this all the earth is down.
Conservative Party and the IT industry
And what would IT industry know about the law? They are there to sell all the gizmos, good or bad, pirated or fake or good.
The IT is the buzz words. The Conservative Party is the part of the voted people in the frame of constitution and are, well always, right.
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
I carried an ID card in Hong Kong for years, I couldn't leave home without it. The only things that the ID card proved were your identity and your right to be in Hong Kong. The Registrar of Persons defied each and every attempt by the Legislature to 'add value' to the card. He stuck firmly to his independence and his mandate.
Your ID number is your identity; it is your driving licence number, your tax number etc. It also makes life so much easier. No need to produce sheafs of letters and bills to show who you are. One simple card suffices. It's an excellent system and it's FREE.
Why can't a British Government learn from one of it's erstwhile Colonies, a Colony which got it right first time?
S.G.Brown, Selsey, England
Score points for the Conservative party! New Labour has shown its colours here - huge amout of public finances following a slavish ideology which cuts at the heart of democracy and personal freedom, and the pigs with their snouts in the trough squealing at the thought of the money being cut off.
Here's the tail trying to wag the dog - we should go on with this ridiculous scheme because the IT contractors won't make so much money if it's cancelled!
Mrs C Isaksson, Minehead, Somerset
Does anyone know whether this scheme is under the Private Public Financing (PPF) process? Certainly all Mr. Higgins concerns would have been addressed if it were. If not, he probably should follow Mr. Paris' advice and consider learning something about commercial practices in the UK.
Every government (and company) has the right to change its mine. That "right" is restricted by contract. For Mr. Higgins to suddenly start talking about penalities etc., means that he members might have forgotten to protect their interests by defining the obligations of all parties.
Tom Skwarek, London,
much like the Eurofighter, if a government didn't want the ID cards, then the manufacturer could simply sell them to another nation. Let's hope some other poor sods end up with these demeaning cards!
Marco, bhm, uk
What an interesting column. Although I keep up with political events fairly assiduously, this one has passed me by. After a lifetime spent in IT, I cannot believe how incompetently large projects are handled nowadays, but your revelations here move the subject into a new, alarming area.
Joe Richardson, Stokesley, UK
The record of computerisation, in Wessex alone, is awful. One supposes that the government does continually move the requirement goalposts and that doesn't help but that is surely a specious excuse.
I remember that our identity cards appeared quickly, with no fuss, during the war. The numbers we were given then are still relevant and 62 years later My wife and I still have our cards intact!
Sandy Cattanach, Lymington, Hants
Well done David Davis at last a politician doing what hes paid to do. Which is to look after the public and gaurd us against blatent selfish crass cash focused lobbying. From certain buisness leaders who care not a jot for priciples or democracy.
ricard clay, Glasgow,
The principle of ID cards is right, and a responsible Conservative party would do better in supporting it.
ID cards will make life easier and avoid the need to have a passport when travelling throughout the Union.
Only those who the Torys would most like us to fear: illegal immigrants, tax dodgers, SS spongers, NH abusers, not to mention ID fraudsters in general, should fear and oppose such a modern approach to identity
Peter GODDARD, CHEAM, England
Wow! A reason to vote Conservative.
Perhaps Mr Davis can also speak up against Mr Brown's planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.
Vehicle tracking, like the Government's sophisticated ID card system, is another manifestation of the surveillance society.
Wilson, Bromley, Greater London, UK
As always, spot on. Gosh, I sound like a fan. Like one of those girls who used to burst into fits of hysteria before you could actually get the whole word "Beat..." out. And, like them, I am not alone. I can pay no higher compliment than to say I used to buy The Times for Bernard Levin's columns and I now read it for yours. Well, ok, I've been reading The Times since I was 14/15 but you and Mr Levin are the two best writers it has ever had on the books.
I am not a terrorist but, if I was, I do not think I would find it difficult to get myself a fake ID. Microsoft Vista already has security issues. If Microsoft cannot do it then bet your bottom dollar that our "not fit for purpose" government cannot.
It is a waste of time and money just like the ten year passports with a chip that may not outlive it's two year warranty and the billion dollar brain new CSA computer system needed to calculate 15, 20 or 25% of net income. I can still do the latter task without a £5 calculator.
Steven Carrigan, Worthing, England
The principle of ID cards is right, and a responsible Conservative party would do better in supporting it.
ID cards will make life easier and avoid the need to have a passport when travelling throughout the Union.
Only those who the Tories would most like us to fear: illegal immigrants, tax dodgers, SS spongers, NH abusers, not to mention ID fraudsters in general, should fear and oppose such a modern approach to identity.
Peter GODDARD, CHEAM, England
After the DWP pensioner letter 'mistake' we can see how safe data is with State agencies.
Most would welcome a secure & protected ID card but question the State's motives for promoting it, especially a State showing more authoritarian traints; for our security of course.
Parris and readers might note the differences in costs set for ID cards, UK Passports with ID info and look at the US State Department's site on their costs for Passports- approximately a half ours.
Perhaps Mr Davies would further enquire why the British have to pay such a premium for goods and services paricularly from the IT industry.
IT companies that don't perform shouldn't receive Government contracts in the future, nor should IT , Manangement Consultancies or any other companies that support Political Parties.
D Murray, Eastbourne,
I hope today's news about erroneous disclosure by the DWP of personal details will derail this ID project for the foreseeable future.
However, compulsory ID is already with us throught the back door for those who want to buy or sell property. Just have a look at the proposed system requirements for electronic conveyancing, for which the Land Registry is already at an advanced stage of preparation.
David Williams, Eastnor, England
Always believed David Davis would make a better Tory leader and now he has proved it.
The other David should stand down and go hug a tree or hoody, or perhaps just bath his kids, as he doesn't seem to have clue what the people really think or want from their partiamentary 'representatives'.
J Bush, Cambridge,
David Davis would have been a much better leader for the Tories than Dave.I want ID cards though,and eventually the euro.So I couldn't vote Tory.
Joe Dignan, Warrington, England
This scenario is worrying on several levels.
Use of ‘poison pill’ techniques common in the corporate world to block or discourage hostile takeovers in a political context might add inertia drag to preserve the status quo. If this idea were to become mainstream in party strategy, future elections might be fought over possible job losses, for example, in a domestic IT sector with, as you point out, a record of large historic profit from government commissioned work which sometimes turned out, after the event, to have an accelerated obsolescence.
It also highlights how a significant portion of money raised though taxation can end up on the bottom line of commercial undertakings, even after deduction of large consultancy fees, where the price for value received may greatly exceed that available in a competitive non-government business setting.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
Perhaps, before the next election, the Conservative party and Matthew Parris would also express their opposition to New Labour plans for an Electronic Patient Record in the NHS. This is a massively expensive project which will result in the personal health care records of the entire population being stored on a national computer system. Access to this information by doctors will supposedly inprove health care; access to this information by administrators, insurers, commercial organisations and malicious individuals within the NHS will destroy the privacy and confidence of the relationship between doctor and patient. Intelligent opposition to the project would be a vote-winner.
Mike Foley, Middlesbrough,
John Higgins’ appears to suggest that the IT industry’s research and preparatory efforts should be underwritten by the Government. This indicates to me that the industry he represents has become accustomed to being featherbedded.
Mr Higgins should perhaps look at other industries that tend for Government contracts, and in particular the drug industry, which invests vast sums in the hope of developing products that it may eventually be able to sell to Governments.
David Wilson, Sedbergh, UK
The libertarian opposition to compulsary national identiity cards and all other forms of statist innumeration including tax numbers is extremely simple and logical. It is based on the self ownership axiom. We contend that each human being is a sovereign self owner. That one's life is the property of one self and not that of any other. To oppose this view one must necessarily advocate a form of slavery in which the state is the partial owner of the soverign-human-being. With compulsary national ID it is clear the statist wishes to tighten the noose around the sovereign's neck and trap him or her in an orwellian nightmare and especially to increase and enforce the theft of the property and time of the sovereign thru taxation.
Teacher at http://tolfa.us/, London, England
Another stupid Labour plan and another nail in their coffin, roll on Mr Cameron at the helm and the very able Mr Davis at his side, unlike the clowns we are currantly blessed with!
Smashing read thankyou.
D Case, Newquay, UK
How's this extend to a few other IT-related punts, such as the passport chip?:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/chip-pain.html
Peter Martin, Ross on Wye, UK
The IT industry needn't fret.
The EU requires the ID cards/ database, and David Davis's party supports the EU.
David Scott, Chester,
What a shame David Davis is not leader of the Conservative party.
Z. Sokona, Auckland, New Zealand
ID Cards would not have stopped 9/11 - why do I know - because some of the hijackers are still alive and well and the FBI have not updated their most wanted lists after all this time - these very much alive people still have their photos on there as well as their names.
However, certain aspects of ID technology are more than tried and tested. One of the hijackers passports managed somehow to avoid the fireball from the initial impact, and float down from the twin towers miraculously unscathed. When the black boxes wer are told didnt survive, but a hijackers passport does, who is Mr Paris to say that this technology is untried and untested. Hurrah for miraculous indestructable passports.
Si
Simon Ralli Robinson, Leeds, West Yorkshire
Brown 1 point ahead before he even starts on his programme.
Parris should stop trying to flog a dead horse ie Cameron.
r henry, london, uk
I would have thought the worlds' most advanced IT nation (the US) might have an compulsory ID card system. No? The US has a Social Security Number. We have a National Insurance Number. Rocket science, this ain't.
michael murphy, brightlingsea, england
Beyond the matter under discussion, what is of greater concern is the boldness of Higgins in challenging the authority of the elected representatives of the British people, and in making threats against UK taxpayers.
It reflects a dangerous blurring of boundaries between the constitutional powers of Parliament and the self-interested salesmanship of private industry. How dare this puffed up shill behave in such a contemptuous manner towards an MP of any party?
Tim Mougenot, London,
Wow! A sound reason to vote Conservative.
Perhaps Mr Davis will also speak out against Mr Brown's planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.
Vehicle tracking, like highly sophisticated ID cards, is another manifestation of the surveillance society.
Wilson, Bromley, Greater London, UK
Good for David Davis. He should now promise a Bill to make contractors liable for ALL cost overruns on IT projects and promise Real Penalty Clauses and suspension of Limited Liability should any malfeasance be found. The arrogant approach of Intellect invites a sharp rebuke to establish the paramount nature of General Elections over Apparatchiki
TomTom, Leeds, England
Matthew Parris has admirably described the Conservative Party's stance on ID cards and the IT industry's' crass response to it. It is important. however, to go a little deeper. Many of us are not so much opposed to ID cards, as to the National Identity Register. This is to be a central database not only of everyone's personal information but also a record of every time their information is retrieved, and why. This is the awful (and totally unnecessary) aspect of the scheme that worries libertarians. The Conservatives need to need to be clear whether they are opposed to all and any ID card schemes, or whether it is the ID register that upsets them. If we need ID cards we could usefully follow the Germans: they have such cards, but by law authorities are not allowed to keep records of when and why IDs are checked. Their ID programme is effective and costs far less than the complex and monstrous system proposed by the Home Office.
Simon Evans, Devizes,
Another thing about which IT firms are being disingenuous is that there is no such thing as an accurate large database, even where there is great commercial pressure to make it so. At best you get about 95% accuracy. Are we to believe that government staff are going to be so motivated to be this good, or is it more likely that they will do worse than 95%?
95% Accurate of course means 5% inaccurate. 5% Of a potential 60 million population means at least 3 million will be subject to some form of administrative abuse whenever they use their ID cards. Add in the false positives and negatives from the biometric technology, and you have a system which can never be anything other than an abitrary harassment of citizens by the state.
Extending the system for use by other departments of government for purposes other than proof of ID, as is planned by Whitehall, will only make the matter worse.
Paul Meier, Tenbury Wells, England
David Davis should have been leader of his party even before this excellent defence of peoples rights and monetary waste.This will be one more folly to add to all the others,including road pricing.Also,if they are not going to track you, how are they going to bill you?
J PURVIS, newcastle, uk