The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

LSE clarifies ID Card cost claims

Huge variants in estimates for scheme fuel spats

SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had

The London School of Economics (LSE) has issued a statement clarifying its position on its National ID card research. The announcement follows press reports that project costs could go as high as £40bn. The LSE says that its original estimate of a £19.2bn high watermark stands and no other figure should be attributed to them.

The original figure, published in its June report, The Identity Project: An assessment of the UK Identity Cards Bill and its implications, was more than triple the government's £5.8bn estimate, a number qualified by a report from international consultancy firm KPMG, which concluded the Outline Business Case for the scheme was "robust and appropriate". The government has recently published extracts from this report in response to the LSE estimate. The cost of a stand-alone ID card was put at £30 and £93 for a passport and ID card package.

Recent press reports have suggested that the cost of the compulsory document may reach as high as £300.

The LSE believes that, the true cost to the taxpayer may be higher than the Home Office estimate, because the figure encompassed "design costs." Factors such as implementation or interaction and integration with other public sector bodies were not taken into account. The School is unwilling to put any further figures out at this point and draws attention to the fact some costs may even go down given the Government's huge existing investment to upgrade its IT infrastructure over the next decade.

Professor Ian Angell of LSE's Information Systems department has written to Andy Burnham the Home Office minister responsible for rolling out the ID card scheme seeking a detailed response on integration and cost points so it can update its research.

The June report was the result of a six-month study guided by a steering group of 14 professors and involving extensive consultations with nearly 100 industry representatives, experts and researchers from the UK and around the world.

In its conclusion, Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, said, "The Home Office... has not yet justified its [£6bn] estimate in detail. By contrast, we recognize considerable uncertainties ahead with such a novel, high tech scheme and we show how these uncertainties might affect costings."

The three-way spat between the LSE, the government and the media comes in light of reports that Tony Blair is facing a fresh rebellion from the House of Lords. Rebel peer are unhappy about the uncertain cost of the cards to taxpayers and seem set to win amendments requiring a vote in both houses before the scheme is made compulsory.

The figure of £40bn has been dismissed as 'nonsensical' by the Home Office.

Related link

LSE Report: The Identity Project: An assessment of the UK Identity Cards Bill and its implications (PDF: 2.48MB)

Copyright © eGov monitor Weekly

eGov monitor Weekly is a free e-newsletter covering developments in UK eGovernment and public sector IT over the last seven days. To register go here.

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

More from The Register

 breaking news
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
 breaking news
BBC lied to Parliament about doomed £100m IT monster, thunder MPs
Axed DMI ballooned and burst while watchdogs sang Kumbaya
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights
 breaking news
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Silicon Valley digiterati to brainstorm at 30,000 ft
Nothing spurs creative thinking like 11 hours in a flying tube
Confidence in US Congress sinks to lowest level ever recorded
So why the %$#@! do we keep re-electing the same politicians?