Ten reasons why we need a data debate

is urging the government to review its multiple parallel database projects and in the process encourage a much-needed public debate about the role of citizen data and identity in the digital society.

That's not to suggest there should be a single monolithic database holding all citizen information from health records to driving licence number to tax details.

It is a matter of consistency.

Quite sensibly, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) plans to create a central register of core information - name, address, unique number - to act as an identifying index to which the many specific public sector databases will be linked.

Less sensible is that the Home Office is to create its own core information register to support ID cards. At the same time the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is in the process of digitising the electoral register.

And a central tenet of the National Programme for NHS IT is the creation of a 'spine' of core information to provide authorised access to electronic health records held by hospitals and doctors' surgeries.

Data quality is already a problem. The Passport Agency and DVLA systems were originally to be used as the basis for ID cards, but were deemed too inaccurate. And there are many millions more National Insurance numbers than there are citizens.

If the government goes ahead with the uncoordinated creation of a whole new set of supposedly definitive registers, these problems will only be exacerbated.

And when the confusion may impact on the ID card project - the so-called 'gold standard' of identification authorising access to healthcare and benefits - the situation requires urgent attention.

Computing here offers 10 reasons why we need a review of the data base issue:

COST

Home Office officials have put a price tag of £186m on the development of the new database and related infrastructure links to support ID cards, and the ONS project is billed as a multi-million pound scheme. Clearly replicated projects mean replicated costs.

'If you do anything multiple times it will cost you more money - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work that out,' said Iain Campbell, public services director at database giant Oracle.

'The technology is not the issue - if you accept the 'spine' is the way to go forward, then government wouldn't need different databases for each silo but could do the index centrally and make it available to the independent elements of government to use as an identifier.

'Public money should be put to good use but it is not about what you are designing, it's about how you go about determining what it is you are going to do,' he said.

CONFUSION

The more systems that exist, the greater the chances of error. There is already confusion about the Data Protection Act - witness the Bichard Enquiry into the employment of Soham murderer Ian Huntley in a school. A further profusion of overlapping databases will only increase the problem.

Simon Stokes, partner at law firm Tarlo Lyons said: 'There must be a clear debate before all these bodies go off and create their own systems.

'It has to be a cross-government view, a coherent political decision reached through consultation so there is a clear logic and consistency behind it.'

EFFICIENCY

The efficiency question works in two ways. First, more than one definitive database has clear effectiveness implications. Second, potentially there are major efficiency gains to be made by clarifying policy on identity and developing systems accordingly.

'In a house with more than one clock, you never know the right time,' says John Newton, government consultant for supplier Fujitsu Consulting.

'The existing systems - particularly older ones like DVLA and National Insurance - were built as functional databases, not designed to be identification systems.

'If it could get a central register right the government could get rid of a lot of errors, which would make services more efficient and perhaps give people more confidence in their transactions,' he said.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

The lack of clear, well-debated policy, and the multiple projects that result, threatens civil liberties with the insidious creep of incompetence rather than the machinations of an overweening state that can at least be tackled head-on. The danger is that individuals will slip through the gaps between what is held on one register and what on another.

'Congratulations to Computing - we clearly need people who understand these issues to be raising the questions,' said Barry Hugill, spokesman for civil liberties pressure group Liberty.

'Our concern is that, while we are not against the collation of data per se this is a worrying trend without much public discussion,' he said.

DATA PROTECTION

Multiple parallel developments increase the danger of data protection problems.

Assistant information commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: 'Our worry with all the multiple developments is at what point they get joined together.

'There is a danger that something might start in one context, with lower data quality requirements, and jump to another that is completely inappropriate,' he said.

INTEROPERABILITY

Increasing reliance on cross-checking between databases makes interoperability vital.

Philip Virgo, secretary general of parliamentary lobby group Eurim, said: 'The issues are not to do with technology, they are to do with registering identity and then managing it on an on-going basis across different types of file.

'The idea of a definitive database is probably illusory but we could get something that is a lot more reliable than what we have at the moment,' he said.

DATA QUALITY

With more than one central index, data quality issues already dogging existing major databases are liable to mushroom.

'Government needs to be careful it respects that data that is already held is not necessarily as reliable as we would like, so there need to be human systems to iron out the problems that will inevitably arise,' said assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford.

'The Home Office intends to cross-check other government sources of information and some, though perfectly fine for their own job, are not necessarily good enough for a proper identity check,' he said.

IDENTITY AND FRAUD

An incoherent fog of policies and a multitude of different databases with potential inconsistencies between them increase the opportunities for fraudulent applications and identity theft.

Eric Woods, government practice director at analysts Ovum said: 'The government is avoiding the debate we need to have about identity and privacy.

'The data held by the government and what it means to be citizen in the digital age are fundamental discussions society has to have and a piecemeal approach driven off specific projects hinders that debate.

'The scenario we are heading for is one of increasing confusion, with individual projects not as efficient as they should be and ultimately an expensive backwards re-engineering process to fix the gaps.'

AUDITING

A key feature of any state use of data must be the ability to audit what was accessed, when, by whom and for what. Without a coherent, cross-government policy on citizen information, inter-departmental audit trails will not be possible.

'We need to know what individual agencies need to do in order to share data and whether all these things are going to be fully auditable,' said IT security expert Peter Sommer.

'There are two reasons we get a multiplicity of systems. One is the lack of joined up government and the other is concern about data protection legislation and the problems of data,' he said.

HUMAN COST

We must not forget that this is about real people.

While the debate centres on databases and information policies, behind it all are individual citizens whose lives can be saved or wrecked by where and how their information is held.

MPs from all parties lend their support to our campaign

It seems as if government departments are not talking to each other, as usual. This is another example of different groups doing the same thing, when talking together would save money and reduce a lot of wasted time. A review of the situation is an absolute necessity.

Ian Gibson
Chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee

If the UK is to become a place in which ebusiness can find a comfortable home then we have to have leadership from a joined up government. At the moment there are a number of individual initiatives which are likely to be less than the sum of their parts unless government shows a bit of serious leadership. We will certainly incorporate the points made by the Computing campaign into our enquiry into the knowledge economy.

Martin O'Neill
Chairman of the Commons Trade and Industry Committee

My worry is that this is the tip of the iceberg. The ID cards project is shaping up to be another IT fiasco.

Mark Oaten
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman

The government has not even begun to have a proper debate that takes in account people's sensitivities about data, how data would be shared and who can access it. They are spending money without provoking public discussion about the use of data, not just the compilation of it but accessibility and sharing and who should have access to what.

Ian Taylor, Conservative
Former Science Minister

An enquiry into databases is a very sensible idea and any campaign you undertake will be very welcome.

Edward Leigh
Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee

The Conservative Party backs Computing's campaign on national databases. We have concerns that many different departments are separately collecting data in individuals when they should be working together.

David Davis
Shadow Home Secretary

I have asked Sir John Bourn at the National Audit Office to look into this before too much money is committed so the government has objective advice available to it from someone who looks right across government.

Alan Williams
Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission

Government has to think this through or it will spend a lot of money and end up with lousy systems.

Richard Allan
Liberal Democrat IT spokesman