midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 5

BIS have no communicable reason whatever
to support their contention that midata would expand the economy

Giving people access to their transaction data will cause the UK economy to grow. That is the logic behind midata according to the department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS).

It may seem obvious to you that the argument is valid. If you're a mooncalf.

But it isn't obvious to David Miller.

David Miller is an economist at BIS. He attended the 9 August 2012 open forum on midata and was asked what reason there is to believe that accessing our transaction data would result in an expanded economy.

Properly brought up, he answered truthfully: "obviously there would be costs at first, setting up midata, and running costs thereafter, and the expected competition could have the effect of driving prices down but the general feeling is that in the end the economy would grow as a result". By how much? "It's very difficult if not impossible to say what the macroeconomic effect would be."

No notes were taken and Mr Miller's words here are paraphrased but the implication is clear – they're flying blind. BIS have no communicable reason whatever to support their contention that midata would expand the economy.

midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 5

BIS have no communicable reason whatever
to support their contention that midata would expand the economy

Giving people access to their transaction data will cause the UK economy to grow. That is the logic behind midata according to the department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS).

It may seem obvious to you that the argument is valid. If you're a mooncalf.

But it isn't obvious to David Miller.

midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 4

In short, BIS want the power to force companies to do something
that they're already doing.

Some readers may by now have forgotten what the point is of midata. In their own words, with a view to empowering consumers and growing the economy, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) say, in their midata consultation document (para.6, p.11):

... we are consulting on the possibility of taking an order making power. If utilised, this will compel suppliers of services and goods to provide to their customers, upon request, historic transaction data in a machine readable format.

The banks already provide us with "historic transaction data". We've had bank statements for as long as anyone can remember and they're already available on the web "in a machine readable format". The energy companies ditto. And the phone companies. And Amazon. And ...

Futile inanity
In short, BIS want the order-making power to force companies to do something that they're already doing.

They're holding a number of open forums as part of the midata consultation process. Anyone can go. It's easy. As BIS say, "... please email midata@bis.gsi.gov.uk to attend".

Anyone who can get along to the 4 and 6 September 2012 sessions may care to ask BIS what the difference is between midata and futile inanity.

---

Cribsheet – deregulation
By taking powers to make companies do something it may seem that midata increases the regulatory burden on UK business. Nothing could be further from the truth. As BIS tell us (para.4, p.11):

Increased data transparency and greater consumer choice will help promote innovation and competition and could also have a deregulatory effect. By giving people access to their data in a format which is machine readable it may be possible to avoid the need for some types of regulation, for example, specifying product characteristics.

midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 4

In short, BIS want the power to force companies to do something
that they're already doing.

Some readers may by now have forgotten what the point is of midata. In their own words, with a view to empowering consumers and growing the economy, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) say, in their midata consultation document (para.6, p.11):

... we are consulting on the possibility of taking an order making power. If utilised, this will compel suppliers of services and goods to provide to their customers, upon request, historic transaction data in a machine readable format.

The banks already provide us with "historic transaction data". We've had bank statements for as long as anyone can remember and they're already available on the web "in a machine readable format". The energy companies ditto. And the phone companies. And Amazon. And ...

Andrew Dilnot and honest political debate in the UK – 1

Time was when Sir Michael Scholar was the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and he said, among other things:

“One of the reasons I took this job is that having good statistics is like having clean water and clean air. It’s the fundamental material that we depend on for an honest political debate ...”

You may want to tweak Sir Michael's point a bit. You may prefer to say that there are many fundamental materials, not just "good statistics", whatever "good" means. But if you're interested in honest political debate it's hard to gainsay him, Sir Michael is onto something.

Now he has passed the baton, and it is Andrew Dilnot who is chairman of the UKSA and who leads the Government Statistical Service and thus the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Mr Dilnot has investigated the problem of social care for the elderly and recommended to the government that there should be a cap of £35,000 on the amount anyone is expected to pay for their care. Thereafter, the government should pay for it, he says, even if the elderly person has assets of their own, such as a house which could be sold to pay for their care.

It is impossible now in the UK to get insurance cover for social care in your old age. Mr Dilnot recently described that to the BBC as a "market failure". He's wrong, isn't he? If the market values your house at £350,000, say, then thanks to the market you can afford about 100 months in a decent old people's home. The market has not failed and Mr Dilnot is wrong to say that it has.

In the same BBC interview, Mr Dilnot describes the state stepping in and taking over the payment of your social care as you "taking control of your life". Surely it's the opposite. It's the state taking control.

The cost of implementing Mr Dilnot's £35,000 cap is estimated – very possibly by the ONS – to be £750 million p.a. That is just over one one-thousandth of current public expenditure ("one per mil" or "1‰") and so, Mr Dilnot says, his plan should be adopted as government policy.

An annual contribution of £750 million to the DMossEsq executive pension plan would also represent only about 1‰ of public expenditure. Is that a reason to make such a contribution?

It's all very well chatting about what individuals can afford but there are other questions:

• How much can the state afford?
• Public spending in the UK stands at about £700 billion p.a. at the moment, of which about £150 billion is borrowed. Is it sustainable to continue increasing the tax burden and the level of borrowing? How long can we go on printing money, through quantitative easing or any other technique? What happens to inflation? And interest rates? And exchange rates?
• With our £2 trillion national debt*, aren't we supposed to be looking for ways to cut public spending, and not increase it? When do we have to confront reality?
• If we can raise another £750 million in tax, or borrow it, why spend it on social care for the elderly who own a house? Why not eye care? Or dental care? Or subsidised taxies? Why not reduce the excise duty on tobacco?
• Why spend the money on a problem that doesn't need solving? People just need to sell their house and then they're in funds. Why not try to solve a real problem?
• Is social care for the elderly who can afford to pay for it themselves a legitimate matter for the state to involve itself in? If so, is there any limit to state involvement?
• Could the budget on some other less vital public services be cut by £750 million to pay for Mr Dilnot's dream?
• The standards of some care homes for the elderly are exemplary and in other cases the standards fall below the level we expect of a zoo. How does Mr Dilnot propose to ensure that public funds will provide dignified care and not sub-zoo care?
• Mr Dilnot considers individuals on the one hand and the state on the other. That doesn't exhaust the cast of actors in this play. Among others, there are families in between. Are families avoiding their responsibilities? Is the problem of social care for the elderly a failure of families? What does Mr Dilnot propose to do about that?

He doesn't burden the BBC with any of these questions. Or any answers to them.

With Mr Dilnot now in charge, the water is just a little cloudier and the air just a little less Swiss – what price "honest political debate" in the UK?

----------

* The Times, 27 August 2012, Confusion reigns over the state of British debt:

A poll for the Centre for Policy Studies found that far more people wrongly believed that the coalition intended to cut debt over the next few years than correctly believed that it expected to increase it ... While planning to bring down the annual deficit — the difference between what the Government spends and the money it receives and the amount of extra borrowing it incurs each year — the coalition nevertheless expects to lift total government debt by £600 billion between 2010 and 2015 ... Total government debt is £1.03 trillion, equivalent to 65.7 per cent of Britain’s total national output. Add in liabilities kept off the balance sheet and it doubles to more than £2 trillion ...

Andrew Dilnot and honest political debate in the UK – 1

Time was when Sir Michael Scholar was the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and he said, among other things:

“One of the reasons I took this job is that having good statistics is like having clean water and clean air. It’s the fundamental material that we depend on for an honest political debate ...”

You may want to tweak Sir Michael's point a bit. You may prefer to say that there are many fundamental materials, not just "good statistics", whatever "good" means. But if you're interested in honest political debate it's hard to gainsay him, Sir Michael is onto something.

Civil servants are accountable to ministers ... or is it the other way round?

Whitehall is flying a kite in today's Times:

Whitehall looks to Labour as coalition tensions grow Senior civil servants want closer links with Labour before the next general election, including helping with the party’s manifesto, The Times has learnt. Informal discussions have taken place at the top of Whitehall on how to ease the Opposition’s possible transition to government and avoid a repeat of the policy fiascos and U-turns that senior mandarins believe have hampered the coalition since the election. One option being considered is whether officials should be seconded to work with Labour as part of their career development. The move coincides with fears in Whitehall that the coalition is breaking up, with the two parties in government pursuing different paths over the next two years. Civil servants argue privately that climbdowns on NHS reform, forestry privatisation, tax measures and the Lords could have been avoided if Whitehall had been involved earlier in some of the decisions ...

The polite myth is that civil servants are accountable to ministers and ministers are accountable to parliament.

No-one believes that, of course.

Civil servants don't seem to be accountable to anyone. Not to parliament, not to the common law, and not to any of the conventions of rational and responsible and dignified businesslike behaviour.

Nevertheless, it is as well to maintain the myth and avoid any Constitutional quibbling. Lady Jay and her House of Lords committee on the constitution are currently conducting an enquiry into the accountability of civil servants. No less than four former cabinet secretaries have appeared before the Committee and reaffirmed the doctrine.

If this kite flies, Lady Jay may have to invite their lordships back to clarify the position.

Civil servants are accountable to ministers ... or is it the other way round?

Whitehall is flying a kite in today's Times:

Whitehall looks to Labour as coalition tensions grow Senior civil servants want closer links with Labour before the next general election, including helping with the party’s manifesto, The Times has learnt. Informal discussions have taken place at the top of Whitehall on how to ease the Opposition’s possible transition to government and avoid a repeat of the policy fiascos and U-turns that senior mandarins believe have hampered the coalition since the election. One option being considered is whether officials should be seconded to work with Labour as part of their career development. The move coincides with fears in Whitehall that the coalition is breaking up, with the two parties in government pursuing different paths over the next two years. Civil servants argue privately that climbdowns on NHS reform, forestry privatisation, tax measures and the Lords could have been avoided if Whitehall had been involved earlier in some of the decisions ...

The polite myth is that civil servants are accountable to ministers and ministers are accountable to parliament.

No-one believes that, of course.

midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 3

The prospectus for midata, the new stock being touted around the market by the department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), offers consumers not just access to their transaction data but also control of it. Due diligence reveals that this is just hot air. Control of your data is not on the menu. This sort of deception annoys subscribers. No reputable stockbroker would back the issue and no stock exchange would list it.

There's not much more than that to say – BIS is trying to float a wrong 'un – but for train-spotters, chapter and verse are quoted below:

On 3 November 2011 the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) issued a press release about midata:

The Government today announced a ground-breaking partnership with 26 major organisations that will see them working together to deliver a new era of consumer empowerment ... Today’s announcement marks the first time globally there has been such a Government-backed initiative to empower individuals with so much control over the use of their own data ...

Heady stuff. midata was going to empower us. What does "empower" mean?

Control. We were going to get unprecedented control over our data.

But what does that mean?

Take an example. When you book a flight, for example, the travel agent/website passes on your data to the airline. Your name and address, starting point and destination, dates and times, credit card number, expiry date and security number, your passport number, your date of birth and so on. Obviously. They have to.

• ALON, the Airline Liaison Officer Network, operated by UKBA, Airline Liaison Officers' "main tasks include the provision of comprehensive training for airline staff on the United Kingdom's passport and visa requirements as well as basic techniques of passenger profiling and forgery awareness"
• ATC, the Authority To Carry scheme operated by UKBA, based on API/PNR and watchlists, airlines and other carriers can have their authority to carry refused
• BERR, the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, previously the DTI, Department of Trade and Industry
• BIODEV, an EU project to study the use of biometrics in visa applications
• Business Express, a registered traveller scheme like IRIS and miSense Plus
• CTA, the Common Travel Area = the UK + the Channel Islands + the Isle of Man + the Republic of Ireland
• DCMS, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport
• DCSF, the Department of Children, Schools and Families
• DfT, the Department for Transport
• DIUS, the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills
• Eurodac, the "European fingerprint database designed solely to identify asylum seekers"
• FCO, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• Frontex, an intelligence driven "EU agency [which] complements and provides particular added value to the national border management systems of the Member States"
• HMRC, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
• IATA, the International Air Transport Association = 265 airlines
• Interpol, "the world’s largest international police organization, with 187 member countries"
• IPS, the Identity and Passport Service, an executive agency of the Home Office
• IRIS, the Iris Recognition Immigration System, a registered traveller scheme like Business Express and miSense Plus
• J-BOC, the Joint e-Borders Operations Centre, part of UKBA
• members of the travel, tourism and hospitality sectors
• miSense Plus, a registered traveller scheme like Business Express and IRIS
• NDFU, the National Document Fraud Unit, part of UKBA
• other organisations, professional, educational and NGOs with an interest in migration and border and visa issues
• overseas law enforcement and security agencies
• Project Semaphore, the database system operated under contract by IBM to collect and disseminate advance passenger information and passenger name records (API/PNR), this is presumably the database that will now be sited in Wythenshawe, as Jacqui Smith inadvertently told everyone, and used by J-BOC
• Registered Traveller Schemes, including Business Express, miSense Plus and IRIS, any accelerated entry scheme, often biometrics-based
• Sea Carrier Liaison, an equivalent to ALON, being considered, may never exist
• SISII, the Schengen Information System II, "a database containing alerts on stolen objects and persons who are wanted for extradition, who are missing or who are subject to an entry ban for a particular country", the UK failed to connect to SIS for several years and may similarly fail with SISII
• SOCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency
• SPT, Simplifying Passenger Travel, "a joint initiative amongst a number of key parties involved in the passenger's journey: passengers, airlines, airports, control authorities, and technological suppliers"
• the EU
• the Four Countries Group = UK + US + Canada + Australia
• the Islamabad Consular Immigration Link Team
• the police
• the Risk Assessment Unit (RAU) in Accra, RAUs process 90% of visa applications at FCO overseas posts on behalf of UKVisas
• the Sponsored Family Visitor scheme, one of four categories of visa, the other three being tourist, business and student
• the Welcome to Britain Group, brings together "representatives from transport, travel, hospitality, border processes and public diplomacy organisations" under the aegis of VisitBritain
• UKBA, the UK Border Agency, previously the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), = Home Office + FCO + HMRC
• UKTI, UK Trade and Investment, part of BERR, "can help you rise to the exciting opportunities and challenges that globalisation offers"
• UKvisas, previously a joint venture between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now part of UKBA
• VisitBritain, "Britain's national tourism agency"

But it doesn't stop there. Your data goes further. We live in a big and complicated world and if you care to read the joint Home Office and FCO paper on eBorders, you'll find that your travel data is passed on to all or some of the hundreds of organisations listed alongside.

If you had control over your personal data, you'd be able to delete it from ALON's database. If ATC had made a mistake in recording your personal data, you'd be able to correct it. You could say which individuals at BERR could see your personal data and which individuals couldn't. At BIODEV, you could say that you only want people to see if you're over 21, yes or no, not your actual birthday.

That sort of control would be revolutionary – as things stand, you have no control whatsoever over your personal data once you've handed it over. It would take a worldwide change of the law to give you control. That would be a revolution. Without that revolution, you can't properly be said to have control. Was midata intended to be a revolution?

Several of us asked Ed Davey, the minister responsible for midata at the time. There was no answer.

That was back in 2011. Now roll forward to the joint BIS/Behavioural Insights Team document, midata 2012 review and consultation.

Norman Lamb has replaced Ed Davey as the minister responsible for midata, and in his Foreword he says (p.8):

A key project in the [consumer empowerment/economic growth] strategy is ‘midata’ which aims to give consumers more control and access to their personal data.

There it is again. "Control". And this time there's an explanation (p.23):

The programme defined the initial vision and principles and adopted “TACT” (Transparency, Access, Control and Transfer) as key stages in the sharing of data ...

where "control" is defined as:

Providers give consumers the ability to correct, update, change settings, preferences, permissions etc.

Those quotations seem to suggest that a revolution is on offer.

Against that, the midata consultation issued by BIS (pp.10-19) makes no reference to consumers being able to correct or delete the data held on them by suppliers and there is no hint that the laws concerning access to that data by consumers are about to be changed in the UK or anywhere else. Despite all the talk, control does not seem really to be on offer, midata is arguably a false prospectus.

At the midata open forum held on 9 August 2012, Kirstin Green seemed to confirm that point – access is on offer but not control. If anyone is going to the 23 August 2012 open forum, or the newly arranged forums on 4 and 6 September 2012, perhaps they could check this point with her. You can invite yourself. As BIS say, "... please email midata@bis.gsi.gov.uk to attend").

midata, the loneliest initiative in Whitehall – 3

The prospectus for midata, the new stock being touted around the market by the department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), offers consumers not just access to their transaction data but also control of it. Due diligence reveals that this is just hot air. Control of your data is not on the menu. This sort of deception annoys subscribers. No reputable stockbroker would back the issue and no stock exchange would list it.

There's not much more than that to say – BIS is trying to float a wrong 'un – but for train-spotters, chapter and verse are quoted below: