WRITTEN ON January 14th, 2007 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Data nitwittery, Design: Co-creation, Foundation of Trust, What do we want?
The Beeb reckons there’s to be a mother-of-all-databases announcement tomorrow
A giant database of people’s personal details could be created at Whitehall under government plans which ministers say will help improve public services.
What’s more, the the piece suggests, there will be an element of co-design as they decide how to go down this route.
However, the government wants to involve the public in deciding how to balance individual privacy against possible improvements in customer care in the public sector.Five citizens’ panels of 100 people are being recruited by the polling organisation Ipsos Mori.
In a process known as “deliberative democracy”, the panels will be briefed on the pros and cons of different approaches to public services and then invited to make their decision.
Their views, say ministers, will then feed into government policy.
Among the issues the panels will consider are: the role of the citizen and state; rights and responsibilities; and customer care within public services including the idea of data-sharing.
Is this is first encouraging step towards a true co-governance process? Or merely chucking some money at Mori for a crap consultation which serves an authoritarian and introspective leadership as a figleaf when they’ve decided what they to do anyway thanks to their divinely inspired leader? This could go either way so we should observe dispassionately, with a fair and critical mind. But it looks like the generation-long war the PM calls for may be accompanied by a war on those of us at home who see this differently.
2 Responses to ““Whitehall plan for huge database” – BBC”
I think this is a perfect example of where a much more intelligent, properly deliberative approach to citizen engagement is required. Trustguide (www.trustguide.org) whose praises have been sung on these pages before is the exemplary forerunner. You need to enable the public to explore what these new technologies mean in practice before you can ask them to consider what the impliations might be, whether they like the idea, and how it might be made to work most sensibly. I dpn’t think being ‘briefed’ (by whom??) on pros and cons is nearly good enough for people to think through the logical ramifications of decisions in this area.
Hmm a few issues here.
Firstly the data-sharing aspect.
This will as others have mentioned drive a massive hole in through the Data Protection Act and make it meaningless for national and local govt.
However, I do admit that there are times when an individual wants to provide a piece of information to multiple aspects of government. For example if granny dies you might need to tell the local council (for council tax), the tax office, pensions etc. As far as I can see this can be done quite effectively without linking databases together.
Secondly, I want to talk about the “citizens’ panels”.
There are some obvious possible problems with them with regards to how representative they can be. For example it is easy to reflect ethnic, gender and age representation. However in respect to other aspects it may well be harder to remain representative. Many types of individual may choose not to participate – either on the grounds they would not want to be involved with the govt. in this way, can’t be bothered, too time-consuming to travel to the panel, or simply they are too busy with work.
Next, as I understand it the govt. ideas will be presented to the panel before discussion begins. As no presentation of an informed contrary nature are likely to be presented I feel this stacks the deck a little too much towards positive outcomes. It seems that the only counteracting presentation of the opposite opinion will be through the media (which has hit the ground running with this story). Would it be better if the panel could call for countering opinion from the opposition parties and experts?
Also what happens when the panels give positive outcomes but public opinion (through polls, letters to MPs, and organised groups) swings against the government. Will the government try and absolve themselves of responsibility and blame the panels? Will they consider the panels opinions more highly than public opinion (because the panels have had it all explained to them).
I feel that citizen’s panels are an OK means of grabbing a handle on general opinion (esp. in the cases where the panels are not led by the nose too much). I am unsure if they are an effective means of altering policy and feel that there is a danger of the government of the day using them as a “get out of jail free” card when public opinion goes against them.