Scientific advice to Government
inquiry
1. The Committee announced a broad inquiry into the
handling of scientific advice, risk and evidence in policy-making
in November 2005.[1] As
part of this inquiry, the Committee chose to focus on three case
studies considering the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields)
Directive, the classification of illegal drugs, and the technologies
supporting the Government's identity card proposals. The lessons
learnt in the case studies will feed into the general conclusions
drawn in the over-arching report from the broad inquiry.
2. The Committee chose to focus on the role of scientific
advice, use of evidence and handling of risk within the identity
cards programme for several reasons. First, the identity cards
programme provided a case study that concentrated on a technology-driven
policy. The scheme critically involves more than one technology,
which increases its interest. Secondly, the programme uses technologies
that are continually developing and in this context, the ongoing
need for scientific advice and evidence is particularly important.
Finally, the inquiry was particularly timely given the contemporaneous
passage of the Identity Card Bill through the House.
3. The identity cards scheme is a major project that
will use information and communication technology (ICT) and biometric
technologies in recording, holding and verifying personal identity
information. As such, it is reliant upon sound scientific advice
and requires an appropriate approach to the handling of risk.
The cost of failure of this project would be enormous, both financially
and politically in terms of public trust.
4. In the course of our inquiry we held three oral
evidence sessions and took evidence from the following:
a) Ms Katherine Courtney, the then Director of
the Home Office identity cards programme; Dr Henry Bloomfield,
the then Technical Lead in the identity cards programme; Mr Nigel
Seed, the then Project Director of the National Identity Register
and Operational Technology Infrastructure, and Mr Marek Rejman-Greene,
Head of the Home Office Biometrics Centre of Expertise;
b) Nick Kalisperas, Director of Markets at Intellect;
Jerry Fishenden, National Technology Officer at Microsoft; Dave
Birch, Director of Consult Hyperion; Professor Martyn Thomas from
the UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC); Dr Tony Mansfield
from the National Physical Laboratory (NPL); Dr John Daugman,
Reader in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition at the University
of Cambridge; Dr Edgar Whitley, Reader in Information Systems
at the London School of Economics (LSE), and Professor Angela
Sasse, Professor of Human-Centred Technology at University College
London (UCL); and
c) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for nationality, citizenship and immigration, Home Office, Joan
Ryan MP.
5. The transcripts of these sessions are published
with this Report, along with the 19 written submissions we received
in response to our call for evidence and as answers to supplementary
questions. We also held informal meetings with the Department
of Homeland Security, the International Biometrics Group and Ultra-Scan
during our visit to the United States in March 2006. In July,
the Chairman held a private meeting on risk management with Katherine
Courtney, Executive Director of Business Development and External
Affairs at the Identity and Passport Service (IPS), Dr Henry Bloomfield,
Technical Lead, National Identity Register and Operational Technology
Infrastructure at the IPS, and Catherine Kimmel, Risk Manager
at the IPS. We would like to place on record our thanks to all
those who contributed to this inquiry, by giving evidence or by
assisting us on our visit. We would also like to thank our specialist
adviser, Professor Brian Collins, Head of the Department of Information
Systems, Defence College of Management and Technology, Cranfield
University.
1 
