| | By Mick James
Shadow Home Secretary
David Davis’ bizarre
attempt to dissuade the
UK IT and consulting
industry from getting
involved with the
government’s ID card
scheme, on the basis
that an incoming
Conservative government
would cancel it, has had
several repercussions.
John Higgins, head of
trade body Intellect,
decided to respond on
behalf of his members.
For his measured
response he’s been
universally vilified.
What Higgins actually
said in his letter was
that “the UK technology
industry was neither for
nor against” ID cards,
but was merely working
with government to
implement policy, voted
on in Parliament, and
ensure that the ID card
scheme was “practical
and deliverable”.
He warned that the
nature of Davis’
intervention would
“undermine the
confidence of the
supplier community in
any future Conservative
Government
honouring...contractual
commitments...it will
potentially make
companies wary of
entering into any public
sector contracts at all”
(which, let’s not
forget, was the whole
thrust of Davis letter). | |
|
| | He also pointed out that
the obvious reaction for
companies selling into
the public sector would
be to seek “stronger
break clauses...to
protect themselves”.
Finally, Higgins made a
plea for the industry
not to be used as a
“mechanism for scoring
political points”.
Fat chance! Despite
having just left a
horse’s head in the bed
of the IT industry,
Davis has the gall to
turn on Higgins to
accuse him of “thinly
disguised threats”, of
being “disingenuous” in
claiming that the
industry is neither for
nor against ID cards. Of
being “incredible and
insulting” to interpret
the Conservatives’
intentions as
“indicative of a general
commercial bad faith”.
The very idea of penalty
clauses “at the
taxpayer’s expense” is
“inappropriate and
ill-judged”.
What, amid all the
bluster, is Davis saying
here? ID cards will
clearly create masses of
work for the IT
industry, and many
suppliers are doubtless
looking forward to the
work. They’ll equally be
looking forward to
implementing whatever
schemes the Tories have
up their sleeves – that
doesn’t mean you can | |
|
| | company-opt them as
implicit supporters of
those schemes. Political
neutrality is pretty
much de rigeur for
public sector suppliers
– it’s hard to see how
it could work any other
way. If a firm that
implements government
policy, is henceforth
seen as a supporter of
that policy – and
therefore persona non
grata for the next
Government – that’s
pretty much the end of
the UK IT industry.
I’m also intrigued by
Davis’ insistence that
his attitude to ID card
contracts is not
indicative of a “general
commercial bad faith”.
Is it a “particular” bad
faith then, to be
applied in this case
only? And that, in the
face of this, is it
“inappropriate and
ill-judged” for the
custodians of public
companies to protect
their shareholders from
this risk when writing
contracts? As a former
chairman of the Public
Accounts Committee he is
well aware of the break
clauses that are likely
to be written into the
contract, even saying
that “the PAC...has
frequently recommended
(that) large IT projects
should be segmented into
several contractual
phases to protect
against the risks | |
|
| | involved”. What makes
him think that civil
servants won’t structure
the ID card contracts in
exactly this way and
with one eye on the
political calendar? Why
involve the IT industry?
You’d have thought
that some in the Tory
commentariat might have
spotted the oddity of
Davis’s position but, in
fact, there’s been a
chorus of approval for,
in their view, giving
the IT industry a “good
kicking”. Matthew
Parris writing in the
Times, describes
Higgins’ response as
“squealing”, invoking
the metaphor of the IT
industry as pigs with
their snouts in the
trough of government
money. He also accuses
Higgins of
“inappropriate lobbying”
and even of trying to
overturn our unwritten
constitution by
insisting on penalty
clauses if contracts are
revoked.
“When a project’s
future is precarious,
projects must take
account of that...such
is the price of
democracy,” he intones.
Well quite, and it’s
clearly a price that
should be paid by the
demos, the people
themselves, for changing
their minds. We gave Mr
Blair and Mr Brown
temporary custody of the | |
|
| | chequebook, and we can
take it back if we like,
but we’ll still have to
pay for all the stuff
they’ve ordered. When
the Athenians kept
vacillating over whether
or not to invade a rival
city-state, sending
trireme after trireme to
convey their latest
thoughts, they were
exercising their
democratic prerogative –
but they didn’t try to
bully the shipbuilding
industry into footing
the bill.
I’m second to no-one
in my detestation of ID
cards. But the political
battle has been held and
lost, not just in
Parliament but in the
general election (when
the scheme was a major
part of the Labour
manifesto but did not
warrant a mention from
the Conservatives). By
all means let the debate
continue but can we
please keep it out of
the gutter? The Tory
attempt to harass
suppliers in this way is
more worthy of the
Animal Liberation Front
than a future party of
government. This does
not, I fear, bode well
for the future
relationship between IT
and government.
| |
|
Previous Page 