8 Conclusion
142. This inquiry has uncovered several areas in
which the Home Office's treatment of scientific advice and evidence
appears to be following good practice. The establishment of committees
of experts, the use of OGC Gateway Reviews, discussions with international
experts and the commitment to trialling technology are examples.
In particular, we welcome the Home Office's assertion that it
will take a cautious approach to the scheme and that implementation
will be gradual. The Home Office is currently in the process of
gathering evidence and advice; how it uses that information will
have an impact upon the scheme.
143. There are however also several areas of the
scheme that cause us great concern. Firstly, the identity cards
programme team appear to have concentrated on biometrics because
it is an emerging technology. This focus has seemingly detracted
attention from other technological and scientific aspects of the
programme. Whilst several processes for feeding in scientific
advice from experts have been established for biometrics, similar
processes are lacking in ICT and social science. We recognise
that ICT is not the responsibility of the departmental Chief Scientific
Adviser but, despite correspondence with the Home Office, we are
still unclear about who actually has this responsibility within
the programme. It seems that this lack of clarity might have been
exacerbated by the recent creation of the Identity and Passport
Service. This is undesirable, particularly in a scheme that is
as reliant upon a complex and large ICT solution as the identity
cards programme. Furthermore, it seems that the Home Office appears
to be isolating itself from the wealth of expertise available
in other departments and this may cause problems with interoperability
in the future.
144. The division between biometrics and other aspects
of the programme has been emphasised by an inconsistent approach
to scientific advice and evidence. Whilst some aspects of the
scheme, such as the types of biometrics to be used have been determined,
other areas, such as the architecture of the ICT system have been
left to industry. This inconsistency has caused confusion in the
wider community and the extent to which the scheme will be prescriptive
is not clear. Such confusion has been exacerbated by the lack
of transparency of the scheme. In addition, there is a lack of
clarity regarding the overall scope of the scheme, the scenarios
when the card might be used, the procurement process and the OGC
Gateway reviews. With regard to the procurement process, it is
particularly important if the Home Office is intending to take
a flexible approach to its timetable that it keep the relevant
communities informed. In relation to this inquiry, greater clarity
regarding the Home Office's approach to risk management, costs
and systems architecture may have allayed the concerns expressed
in this Report.
145. We emphasise however that the identity cards
scheme has at least another two years before identity cards begin
to be introduced and the scheme has still not entered the procurement
phase. There is still time for the Home Office to make alterations
that would improve the prospects of the project. Firstly, given
that the programme is still in the pre-procurement stage we encourage
the Home Office to employ a systems architect and establish an
ICT assurance committee to provide advice on ICT, particularly
the scheme specifications, and to review proposed solutions when
that stage is reached. Secondly, we reemphasise the importance
of communication with stakeholders, including scientists and technological
experts. It is crucial that the Home Office increases clarity
and transparency, not only in the areas identified as problematic
but across the programme. Thirdly, we reiterate that once trials
commence, if the evidence gathered indicates the need for changes
in the programme, such changes should be made even if the timescale
of the project is extended in consequence. If appropriate changes
are made, the identity cards scheme could still become an example
of good practice in the handling of scientific advice, risk and
evidence.
|
