APPENDIX 5
Memorandum from the British Computer Society
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The British Computer Society (BCS) has
a strong and positive relationship with the Home Office on the
subject of ID cards as detailed below. Such a good example of
collaborative working could easily be expanded to other IT related
areas. Although not directly associated with the questions asked
here, BCS currently provides advice to the Cabinet Office on information
security and has strong relationships with Government through
EURIM and PITCOM, particularly on the subject of Transformational
Government. BCS also endorses the scientific papers submitted
by the UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC).
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 BCS is pleased to respond to the Parliament's
Select Committee on Science and Technology Inquiry on "Scientific
Advice, Risk and Evidence: How Government Handles Them".
2.2 BCS is the leading professional body
for the IT industry. With over 50,000 members, the BCS is the
Professional and Learned Society in the field of computers and
information systems.
2.3 BCS is responsible for setting standards
for the IT profession. It is also leading the change in the public
perception and appreciation of the economic and social importance
of professionally managed IT projects and programmes. In this
capacity, the Society advises, informs and persuades industry
and government on successful IT implementation.
2.4 BCS is determined to promote IT as the
profession of the 21st century especially as IT is affecting every
part of our lives. Therefore, BCS is pleased to take this opportunity
to comment on such an important issue.
2.5 In this response, BCS addresses, in
particular, the case study of "The technologies supporting
the Government's proposals for identity cards", and is therefore
providing evidence on the following questions regarding the above-mentioned
case study.
3. WHAT ADVICE
HAVE WE
GIVEN?
3.1 The following summarizes BCS engagement
with policy to date regarding "The technologies supporting
the Government's proposals for identity cards":
(a) September 2005—BCS organised a
Thought Leadership Debate entitled "Identity Management—a
"must have" or a "lost cause".
(b) March 2005—A number of submissions
were made on behalf of BCS by BCS members with expertise in the
area. BCS was also part of an advisory group which provided input
to the London School of Economics interim report on Identity cards
(issued in late March 2005). BCS has maintained contact with LSE
with a view to a more substantial BCS contribution to the final
report.
(c) July 2004—BCS responded to the
Home Office Consultation: Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation
(Cm 6178). BCS Disability Specialist Group also gave written evidence
to this Legislation on Identity Cards regarding the use of biometrics
in the enrolment process.
(d) May 2004—BCS provided input to
the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Identity Cards on the
draft bill: Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation (Cm
6178).
(e) January 2004—BCS provided a statement
to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee enquiry into Identity
Cards.
(f) BCS is also actively involved in the
ongoing EURIM work on Identity Cards.
(g) BCS dealt directly with the Home Office
ID Cards team, taking along a team of experts in the area.
(h) BCS members have been very active in
the advisory panels for several Foresight Directorate projects.
3.2 BCS also supported the views which are
part of the responses by the UKCRC—an Expert Panel of BCS,
the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) and the Council
of Professors and Heads of Computing (CPHC), a policy committee
for computing research in the UK whose members are leading computing
researchers from UK academia and industry. In particular:
(a) December 2005—UKCRC briefing for
EURIM Parliamentary members on the National Identity Cards Scheme
on the discussion of the technological feasibility of ID Cards
set out in the briefing paper written by the ID Technology Advisory
Group.
(b) January 2004—UKCRC responded to
House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the
Government's proposals for ID Cards and a National Identity Register.
This was followed up with a meeting with the Home Office official
managing the ID card project, and then two meetings organised
by the Law Society, attended by a Home Office Minister and officials.
3.3 Details or copies of any briefing papers
can easily be provided on request.
4. ANSWERS TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Sources and handling of advice
4.1 What impact are departmental Chief Scientific
Advisers having on the policy making process?
The impact appears to be continually growing
with CSAs expanding their portfolio of knowledge by consulting
appropriate advisers, such as the BCS and providing policy based
on or influenced by this advice as appropriate.
4.2 What is the role of the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser in the policy making process and what impact
has he made to date?
The Chief Scientific Adviser should be able
to elucidate the evidence that contributes to the debate on policy
and appropriately argue where its impact is paramount and the
policy in respect of this information as appropriate.
4.3 Are existing advisory bodies being used in
a satisfactory manner?
The Science and Technology Reference Group is
being used appropriately and BCS advice has been sought, received
and welcomed. Naturally there is always room for improvement and
the example of ID cards could be expanded to other IT related
areas.
4.4 Are Government departments establishing the
right balance between maintaining an in-house scientific capability
and accessing external advice?
As identified in section 3.2(b) regarding ID
Cards this is rapidly becoming much more evenly balance, and as
mentioned before this example could be used as an exemplar for
other areas.
Relationship between scientific advice and policy
development
4.5 What mechanisms are in place to ensure that
policies are based on available evidence?
BCS is not aware of such information and is
therefore not able to provide any useful feedback.
4.6 Are departments engaging effectively in horizon
scanning activities and how are these influencing policy?
From the BCS relationship with the Home Office
this is on the increase. A fair amount of amount of good activity
is being established by consulting advisers (as detailed above)
and also appointing internal Government staff of high quality
and capabilities.
4.7 Is Government managing scientific advice
on cross-departmental issues effectively?
Experiences from all relationships with Government
suggest that cross-departmental issues cause communication barriers
leading to a reduction in effectiveness.
Treatment of risk
4.8 Is risk being analysed in a consistent and
appropriate manner across Government?
Within the ID arena this seems to have been
successful. However in general poor risk analysis and risk management
is often identified as a significant factor in the failure of
public sector IT-enabled business change projects. Some small
areas are handling risk very positively however and this is perhaps
a sign of rapid improvement.
4.9 Has the precautionary principle been adequately
defined and is it being applied consistently and appropriately
across Government?
In the ID card arena, this is a positive area.
Such attitude could be easily expanded into other situations and
thus improvements made.
4.10 How does the media treatment of risk issues
impact on the Government approach?
There is a connection between the media portrayal
and Government approaches. BCS has a PR department and from experience
BCS suggests that the "connection" is often that "over
emphasis on a subject" or "emphasis in a way to cause
maximum interest/selling factor" by the media often causes
the Government to overreact or react without gathering the precise
evidence.
Transparency, communication and public engagement
4.11 Is there sufficient transparency in the
process by which scientific advice is incorporated into policy
development?
BCS is unable to comment here. There is very
little feedback on where the advice influences policy and perhaps
if this happened it would be possible to make comment.
4.12 Is publicly-funded research informing policy
development being published?
Yes, a great deal of excellent research that
could inform policy development is published every year by the
academic community. For example, in addition to ID Cards, security
information is published.
4.13 Is scientific advice being communicated
effectively to the public?
BCS communicates its papers and work on its
website and publishes its member magazine, ITNow. UKCRC and other
bodies operate in similar ways. However, this could be better
coordinated. In addition, the media's appetite for scientific
advice is sporadic and tends to focus on post hoc discussions
about problems (such as difficulties with the Inland Revenue systems
or the Child Support Agency), rather than on policy formation.
Evaluation and follow-up
4.14 Are peer review and other quality assurance
mechanisms working well?
The consistency of this is not clear to BCS.
There are some areas of excellent practice such as the Gateway
reviews. Within BCS, review is a continual process and leads to
healthy debate about important topics. The BCS "Thought Leadership
Programme" takes a current hot IT related topic and provides
a forum for a wide spectrum of influential and intellectual individuals
from across society to debate such areas. The data are then collated
and utilised as best possible by the BCS. This initiative may
be a source of advice for the Government.
4.15 What steps are taken to re-evaluate the
evidence base after the implementation of policy?
None are apparent. The response to Question
14 above (the precursor to this) is similar.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 The BCS offers advice to Government
in IT areas whenever approached. BCS feels that this has been
highly successful in the area of ID Cards. However, once advice
has been offered there is a lack of feedback or follow through
process. BCS would recommend that the whole area of feedback/follow
through is reviewed with new processes identified and put in place.
Where such advice actually informs policy those involved should
be acknowledged and communicated with to ensure full understanding
of the advice given,
5.2 The follow through once this advice
has been offered however, seems to be a little lacking. Therefore
BCS recommends that this whole area is considered and new processes
put in place where such advice may genuinely inform policy and
those involved both acknowledge and understand the advice given.
5.3 The example of ID Cards can be an exemplar
for other areas of activity and BCS wishes to assist in whichever
appropriate way Government recommends.
January 2006
| 
