The plot thickens...
I remember when I was interviewed for this piece:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politic ... =589352006
back in April that it wasn't just CIP (i.e. Treasury) who were talking about childe versions of the NIR. I'm pretty sure someone from DfES was quoted to me as saying they would at least be 'aligning' the data in the Children's Index - with the clear implication that at least some of the details would pass over at some point.
The question was, I have to say, poorly drafted. Ryan's answer could be strictly correct but, e.g. still allow for (elements of) records to be transferred
in a one-off transaction when a subject reaches 16. 'Link' and 'data-sharing' are sufficiently vague for HO to later claim, "We've created no direct connection between CI & NIR", or "We're not sharing
, we're checking".
It makes absolutely no sense for ('joined up') government to create an exhaustive index of child data from 0-16/18 but to rule out even checking individuals against this authoritative source when checking their 'biographical footprint' before issuing an ID card.
Ms Ryan's statement was for public consumption, to try to calm down further speculation about the Children's Index & NIR. Nothing more. It is hardly definitive, it is at least partly contradicted by information from other sources and - to my mind at least - it is utterly unbelievable.