Devil's Advocate: Does the UK need ID cards?

Whether or not you believe in the benefits of ID cards, the campaign for them in the UK may well be a cover-up for deeper seated agendas such as a national database - and a redefinition of all public sector services, says Martin Brampton.

UK Home Secretary David Blunkett figures in this year's silicon.com Agenda Setters poll because of his advocacy for schemes such as ID cards for all. A question worth asking is whether the ID card is driving the need for a database of all citizens, or vice versa.

Usually, the assumption is that ID cards are justified and that to make them practical, a huge database has to be built. IT people then run around thinking about the practical issues. Ian Watmore, recently appointed head of the new e-government unit, thinks there should be an end to information silo culture in government.

Is the ID card justified? If the construction of a huge national database is required solely to support ID cards, then there is certainly a very large cost at stake. There are also considerable concerns about personal privacy and community relations.

The cited benefits are tenuous. The favourite justification for almost any government scheme nowadays is that it combats terrorism. Yet the recent bombing in Madrid that caused serious loss of life was actually carried out by Spanish citizens, who had perfectly genuine Spanish ID cards.

Other justifications include cutting fraud and crime. What is ignored is that ID cards create a whole new business for organised crime through the sale of forged cards. In countries where cards are in use, this has happened, sometimes on a massive scale. Only the most sophisticated, and therefore costly, cards would be proof against forgery.

Indeed in countries that have ID cards, nobody has ever offered proof that the cited benefits can be realised. And there are proven drawbacks, with minority ethnic groups being required to produce ID card disproportionately often. Without proven benefits, what can be the justification for the cards?

Now suppose the real goal is the database and the ID cards merely a political ploy to justify the cost of a huge IT project that would never be accepted on its own merits. Then we would need to ask about the real reasons for building an all-embracing database of personal information. Is a desire to eliminate a silo culture an end in itself or is there another political goal behind the enthusiasm?

For comparison, we can look at the rules as they are applied to commercial businesses by the information commissioner, who has been severely critical of government plans. To some degree the individual is protected by the fragmented nature of the business sector. The data protection rules then restrict each business, requiring it to gather only information that is needed for its immediate business and demanding that it ask permission.

In the past, government has been somewhat similar, in that each part of government has kept its own records and the records have related only to the relevant aspect of the individual's life. So the NHS has records on just about everybody but the information has been confined to strictly health-related matters and has mostly been kept confidential. Achieving this has led to considerable complexities as the NHS attempts to share data with outside organisations that have a legitimate interest in health matters.

But if government policy is reflected by Watmore's statements, it seems a new view is prevalent. No longer is the public sector to be seen as a bundle of services and enterprises, each of which exists to provide some public good. Instead, the public sector is to be seen on the model of a conglomerate, with Watmore as group CIO.

The consequences of such a view have implications far beyond the confines of mere IT efficiency. It is one thing to suggest that different arms of government should avoid inconsistency and undue overlap. It is quite another to see the public sector as a monolith. Without far more genuine public accountability than is presently available, it risks creating a system where huge power is concentrated in the hands of an unresponsive executive.

Does government need to have extensive information on every individual? Or is the citizen entitled to live independently of government, revealing only what information is needed in particular circumstances? That is the real question, even if government is reluctant to ask it.