Robin Wilton's esoterica

Look, I know that nothing makes for a better article than the prospect of two people having a punch-up in public, albeit a verbal one. But I think we need to be very careful not to let our natural vicarious blood-lust divert us from the relevant facts. The BBC New site today reports a new row over projected costings for the UK ID Card proposals. As I mentioned last Sunday evening, Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the Home Office) and Simon Davies (one of the authors of the LSE report on the proposals, back in June 2005) had two debates in quick succession on the subject. One on the 8th and one on the 9th of November. I was at the second but not the first, and I don't know for sure to which debate the BBC article refers. However, I can say this with certainty: during the discussion on the 9th., the Minister criticised those who he said were 'making wild claims' about the ID card proposals (for instance, about the possible cost of the scheme) not because they were truly concerned about the costs, but because they had other objections to the scheme in principle (the implication being that those other objections are less rational and/or would rapidly be demolished if aired in open debate). Now, I have two problems with this tactic: First, it may be true that there are people who have deeply-held objections to the scheme but choose to argue against it on the basis of other factors. So, for instance, there may be those who fear the privacy impact of a national ID register, but argue against it on grounds of practicality. That does not mean that either their arguments on grounds of practicality or their underlying concerns about privacy are invalid. Nor would it mean that their arguments on grounds of practicality should be summarily dismissed. Unfortunately, that is what Mr Burnham seemed to be trying to do in respect of the arguments on grounds of cost. Second, it seems clear to me that arguments against the scheme on grounds of cost could be easily proven or refuted if the cost projections were openly and fully published. The LSE report earlier this year was published using the best estimates the authors could get, derive or extrapolate, but without the benefit of a clear set of figures from the Home Office. Similarly, if it is not until now that the scope of the Home Office costings starts to become apparent (for instance, the fact that it will not include the cost of integration with other departmental systems, or the cost of verification systems such as biometric readers), then criticisms of the proposals should not be rejected purely becaue they are based on a 'best guess' in the absence of published figures. 'Mr Burnham said a report from accountants KPMG had concluded the government's estimates were robust".' But only excerpts from the report have been made public. Am I overly cynical to assume that those would be the excerpts which are most supportive of the proposals? I would be interested to know if anyone has requested a copy of the report under the Freedom of Information Act. The broader point about costings is this: it is now clear that the charge a citizen pays for a card will, at most, cover the cost of enrolment, credential issue and renewal, and operation of the register. The Home Office says that will cost £584m. It says it thinks use of the ID cards "could save the government between £310m and £575m in preventing fraud; between £30m and £40m in immigration control; and between £45m and £85m in reducing the cost of crime". But it is clear that the majority of those savings can only be accrued by departments other than the Home Office (for instance in cases such as fraudulent claims for healthcare or benefits payments), and that the cost to those departments of participating in the ID Cards scheme forms no part of the published cost case. That is a substantial hole, and deserves to be highlighted. Casting aspersions on the motivation of critics does not advance the argument. If the government's plans are cost-justifiable, the figures should be published in full and allowed to stand up in their own right.