RSS feedsGerman statesman Otto von Bismarck said: 'A fool learns from his experience. A wise person learns from the experience of others.' Sadly, it seems the government never learns at all.
In our approach to reporting public sector technology, Computing works hard not to slip into the all-too-easy condemnation of every hiccup as further evidence of an unavoidable rerun of the failures of the past.
Such an approach is lazy, and entrenches negative perceptions of technology that do not help the government, the IT sector or society in general. It also ignores the considerable progress that has been made.
But there is one major programme that even the most favourable critic can only conclude exhibits all the signs of impending disaster. And it is not only one of the most expensive of the government's plans, but one of the most high profile.
The national ID cards scheme is one of the largest, most ambitious IT programmes ever attempted. Yet it is ignoring just about every lesson that should have been learned from the past.
It lacks clear aims; it has a politically-motivated timetable; it is likely to go into procurement before the details are finalised; it belongs to everyone and no one. The list goes on.
In the interests of brevity, let us stick to only the two most arresting issues. First, the timetable. The government announcement that the first ID cards would be issued at the end of 2007 was made before the legislation was even in Parliament, let alone passed.
Because of the General Election, the bill's passage was cut short and the original schedule for the technical procurement, which was to have started by this summer, was held back. With the second bill due to take its time through Parliament this autumn, the bidding is now unlikely to start until next spring. So there is already a nine-month delay, but the 2007 start date remains unchanged - not a good sign.
Second, what are ID cards trying to achieve? In the two years since the plan was first mooted, its primary purpose has skidded from public service entitlement, to fighting crime and terrorism, to cutting identity fraud, and back again, in a frenzy to keep up with the news agenda of the day.
Even the government is mixed up. As MPs went through their line-by-line consideration of the proposed legislation last week, Home Office minister Andy Burnham told colleagues that the UK would not turn into a 'flash and go' society where every adult carried their card, because the central biometric database would mean they would not have to. A primary focus for the plan is to cut health tourism, he said. And while no one will be turned away from emergency medical care because they cannot prove their identity, GPs, dentists and so on may use either the card or the register to ensure their patients are entitled to the care they receive.
The implications are enormous: card scanners and networked biometric readers in every GP surgery and NHS dental practice in the country.
But the Home Office says the minister is confused and there is no such plan. Not only would it only be possible once ID cards are compulsory, and therefore at an indeterminate time in the future, it says, but it would be down to the individual department - in this case the Department of Health - and would require authorisation by another vote in both Houses of Parliament.
So it appears that a 'primary focus' of the plan is entirely up in the air and will remain so for another decade, even though procurement is due to start in nine months, and PA Consulting has been working with the Home Office for more than a year. This is costing in excess of £62,000 a day, according to figures recently released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The most interesting parallel is with the much-maligned £6bn NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) programme. While critics have continually predicted disaster, CfH at least has specific goals, robust leadership and a structure, both technical and contractual, tailored specifically to the unique challenges of the sector.
It would be the height of irony if CfH turned out to be a beacon of good practice. And more than foolish if its lessons were ignored.
