Blair defends 'super-database' plan

The prime minister has rejected claims that a new Whitehall 'super-database' will result in an increasingly 'Big brother' state.

Tony Blair outlined plans for the new computer system which would bring together information held on citizens in a bid to improve the delivery of public services.

Current rules often prevent different government departments from sharing information on individuals, ensuring it can only be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

But under the new system these rules will be relaxed.

Ministers believe the NHS and the benefits system could be made more efficient if people only have to give their details once, rather than handing them to a host of different agencies.

However the proposal has brought fierce criticism from civil liberties groups which fear the creation of a 'Big brother' state.

The Liberal Democrats said the database would be too intrusive.

And shadow home secretary David Davis criticised the government's record on managing existing databases, citing failures with the Sex Offenders' Register, the Criminal Records Bureau and the recent problems tracking criminal records from overseas.    

"We could spend that money much better: on border controls, policing - you name it," he said.

However, speaking at Number 10 on Monday, the prime minister defended the plans as "perfectly sensible".

He insisted that allowing such a move would prevent people having to give details repeatedly to different parts of Whitehall.

"This is a very good example of how a perfectly sensible thing can be misconstrued," Blair said.

"The purpose of this is not to create a new piece of technology at all or a new database.

"This is about sharing data in a sensible way so that the customer gets a better public service."

The database idea has emerged from the government's policy review on public services - led by work and pensions secretary John Hutton.

But Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "Blair's Britain now has the most intrusive government in our history.

"There is no part of people's lives which is free from snooping. State intervention and control expands every day. It is time we put a halt to this."

And human rights group Liberty argued it would "allow an information free-for-all within government - ripe for disastrous errors and ripe for corruption and fraud".