Lead letters: ID database

1.

I share the concern of many at the Scottish Government's plans effectively to create a national identity database ("An unjustifiable intrusion on the part of the state", The Herald, March 5). What worries me particularly is the proposal to hugely widen access to such a database.

Over the years there have been many instances of the misuse or loss of digital and electronic devices, and even old-fashioned paper records, containing the personal data of clients of public and private bodies. Yet, as far as I know, no organisation or individual has ever been effectively called to account for such neglect.

If more and more people are now to have easier access to even more of our personal data, surely it should now be made a criminal offence to misuse or lose any such data. Categories of data could be given a monetary value reflecting their degree of sensitivity, and the culprit made to pay the total value of that data to each individual victim. This may sound draconian, but it seems to me the only way to instil in those who are trusted with access to our data a true sense of its worth, and of the consequences of their not treating it with the utmost respect and security.

Yours sincerely

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent,

Perth

2.

There has been a huge amount of scaremongering on this issue so let me set the record straight ("Super database plan is backed despite fears over ID cards", The Herald, March 5). We are not and we will not create a new database. Neither are we integrating existing databases. Service provider information and any associated databases will remain separate to the NHSCR and the myaccount system.

We are proposing to improve the completeness of a database that has existed since the 1950s. This is about identity verification not about handing over data to public bodies. Through verification, organisations can make sure they have accurate and up to date information they need to deliver services.

Only a limited amount of data would be shared to check that the data held is current. Medical records are not part of the register and there are no plans to share medical records. We will listen carefully to all consultation responses and decisions will only be taken after full scrutiny by parliament of any eventual proposals. That is the principle upon which our government is run and will remain so.

John Swinney,

Deputy First Minister,

The Scottish Parliament,

Holyrood, Edinburgh

3.

While I applaud Iain Macwhirter, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens on their stand against a national identity database, it is a case of bolting the gate long after the horse has fled or telling the emperor that, really, he has been naked for many a year ("All power to the LibDems for standing up for our liberties", The Herald, March 5).

The practical theory of personal liberty versus a data base has not existed for many years. Looking at my own records I have a National Insurance number; an NHS number; three credit card numbers; two bank numbers; a passport number; a shotgun certificate number; a utilities number; three supermarket numbers; a driving licence number; an AA roadside assist number; an army number, now defunct; a car insurance number - and so it goes on. On top of all of that, my wife and I have a registered address and phone number in the electoral register and the BT phone book.

Privacy - what privacy?

Hector MacLennan,

28 Kenilworth Road, Bridge of Allan

4.

In regard to this ongoing debate, am I correct in stating that at the conception of the NHS in 1948 it was the number on the basically wartime National Identity Cards that we still held that gave us our individual National Health Service number?

When the the abolition of these cards came to pass it would, naturally, mean that citizens born since that time will have had a number created from elsewhere. I take it that this is the NHS register with its Unique Personal Reference Number that Iain Macwhirter refers to in his article?

John Macnab,

175, Grahamsdyke Street,

Laurieston, Falkirk