Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1120-1139)
PROFESSOR SIR
GORDON CONWAY
KCMG, PROFESSOR PAUL
WILES AND
PROFESSOR FRANK
KELLY
7 JUNE 2006
Q1120 Mr Newmark: Do any of your
departments publish all research that is used to underpin policy
development?
Professor Wiles: Any social research
within the Home Office is published subject to three constraints.
The first one is that I say it is of good enough quality to be
published. When I say "I say" actually what happens
is we have external and independent peer review and on the basis
of that peer review I then take the decision as to whether it
should be published. If I decide, as a result of peer review,
it is not good enough to be published, if it is external research
the authors are then free to seek publication if they can. The
other two conditions in which I might constrain publication are
first of all if I think it is in the national interest not to.
I have done that very rarely but to give you a concrete example
we recently had some research done on how the Internet could be
used for child pornography. That actually literally explained
how you could do it. I did not think it was in the national interest
that that should be published. We made it available on restricted
circulation to limited police officers and I thought that was
the right thing to do. The third thing, occasionally, is commercial
confidentiality.
Q1121 Mr Newmark: I can understand
the points you are making but generally expert advice that is
given to ministers . . .
Professor Wiles: Forgive me, that
is a different question. You asked me initially about research
and I am saying when we commission or carry out social research
in the Home Office then that is published subject to what I have
just said. Advice to ministers is quite different. We do not publish
the content of our advice to ministers.
Q1122 Chairman: Do you think you
should?
Professor Wiles: I think it is
sensible to do what we do, which is to publish the underlying
research on which that advice has drawn.
Professor Sir Gordon Conway: In
principle I think all our research is meant to be available. I
would not guarantee it is all out there. We have a new research
portal which is being geared up at the moment so that is where
that research will be published. I do not agree that advice to
ministers as such should be published because I think it changes
the nature and the quality of what you write. There has to be
within government some areas where you can speak very frankly
in a way that if it got out more openly and picked up by the press
it would be distorted and misinterpreted.
Professor Kelly: There will always
be some tension between the quality of something—whether
it is not of high enough quality to publish—and political
sensitivities or media sensitivities. I think a large part of
what I have been doing with great help from the Civil Service
team who work with me is to get routinely the presumption established
that our research management database, the web portal to our research,
that that is populated, that the material is there. It aids with
transparency, peer review and it pushes the quality up for the
writers if they know it is going to be accessible.
Q1123 Mr Newmark: Specifically on
the advice side, advice to ministers?
Professor Kelly: I do not have
anything to add to what Gordon said. I think it is a tricky, difficult
issue.
Q1124 Mr Newmark: You feel you could
not be as open with some of what you would like to say.
Professor Kelly: I think that
a key activity for CSAs ought to be to attempt to separate out
those aspects of the issue which can be debated within, say, a
learned society. For example, debating regression to the mean
in the Royal Statistical Society, it was easy enough because I
had very sympathetic ministers to convince them that this was
a group who would actually view regression to the mean as hugely
sexy and what they wanted to talk about, rather than death on
the road. Similarly the Royal Academy of Engineering was very,
very keen on the technology of road user charging and were not
looking to a newspaper headline. That is part of what the CSA
has to help do to separate out those areas that can be put into
a useful, transparent, open peer review area, and try to separate
off other areas.
Q1125 Margaret Moran: On advice to
ministers you specifically referred to a research done on Internet
child pornography. Would that advice be shared with other ministers
in other relevant departments like DfES?
Professor Wiles: Yes, it was.
It was shared with other departments but its publication was restricted
to officers and police forces.
Q1126 Adam Afriyie: I am a relatively
jolly person. I think that people's happiness should perhaps be
the ultimate goal for politicians and their politics. Poor communication
of risk can cause an enormous amount of stress and unhappiness
for people, especially when it is misperceived or they are worrying
about things which may or may not happen. Public consultation
is the basis of this question and in particular I would argue
that it may well be a cruel trick because it either raises the
expectations of people taking part that something good may happen
or it alerts them to risks that really have no relevance in their
lives in the very long term. In your view what is the primary
role of public consultation when it comes to evidence based policy
creation? The alternatives might be: is it to shake government
policy? Is it to inform the public? Is it to make the government
aware of the public concerns?
Professor Wiles: It is an interesting
question and in a sense I was half guessing at that when I gave
my example of the crime statistics. One of the reasons I gave
that example is that I think that if we are not very careful people
are left with an incorrect and overestimation of their risks.
I think there is a very important balance we have to get right
here. On the one hand you do want people to be sufficiently aware
of the risks in order to take sensible precautions to manage those
risks. I do not want to go around saying that there is no risk
whatsoever of being a crime victim. That would be a silly and
counter-productive thing to say because people do need to take
precautions. What I do try to do—and I think it is important
to try to do this—is to try to make sure that people understand
that risk as much as possible, understand that it may vary from
place to place and from people to people, and more to the point
that as part of making that available we also make available the
evidence we have on what you can do to mitigate the risk. For
example—and I am glad to see the press have been very helpful
on this—we have made very clear over a number of years in
the Home Office that there are things that people can do to reduce
the risk of household burglary and we have got good evidence on
that. Therefore getting that message across that this is the risk
and this is what you can do to mitigate and reduce that risk is
a very important part of that process.
Q1127 Adam Afriyie: In terms of public
consultation what is the aim of it?
Professor Wiles: First of all
I think it would be arrogant and stupid for government to think
that it knows everything and knows best. I think it is extremely
important that we regularly test the assumptions that we are operating
on and our perceptions against a wider public understanding and
sometimes what happens of course is that you go out there and
say, "This is the problem and this is what we propose"
and people blow raspberries at you and tell you you have got it
wrong. I have done that kind of thing myself, going round local
communities, talking about crime rates and local communities saying,
"Look, you've got it wrong; it's not what you're saying it
is, it's something else". It is very important to have that
dialogue because it is one of the checks against the evidence
base you are using.
Professor Sir Gordon Conway: I
would agree with Paul. What works with consultation is that every
answer you get has usually got something new in there in terms
of at least a perspective or maybe some new information. That
broadens the range of views that we can take into account.
Professor Kelly: I have nothing
useful to add to that.
Chairman: We are moving onto just yourself,
Paul. You are quite welcome, Gordon and Frank to leave at this
point, but we are only going to be here for another five minutes
and I am sure you will be fascinated by what Paul has to say and
if you want to add a question you can do so.
Q1128 Margaret Moran: I am sure that
you are aware that the evidence we have had around the scientific
basis for ID cards has been somewhat critical. Can you tell us
what your involvement has actually been in the development and
implementation of the policy? Why does Sir David King chair the
Biometrics Assurance Group rather than you?
Professor Wiles: First of all,
what has my own role been and, I suppose more importantly, what
has the role of a scientific adviser been in the development of
ID cards? You are asking specifically about ID cards; I actually
see the problem as slightly broader than that because ID cards
is not the only Home Office area where the use of biometrics to
manage identity is being used. It is also there in the e-borders
programme; it is also there in the biometrically enabled passports.
There is a broad range of things. What have I been doing on that?
First of all we have an overall Home Office committee which covers
the range of those different biometric identity management processes
but they are in different parts of the Home Office. There is a
technical sub-committee of that which I chair. There is a technical
sub-committee in order to ensure that happens. What I have also
done—and I referred to this earlier on—is to recruit
and appoint a senior biometric adviser for the Home Office, Dr
Marek Rejman-Greene, who is there precisely to ensure that there
is scientific advice and we recruited Marek because of his previous
experience at BT and particularly his involvement in the development
of international standards and so on. I have made sure that additional
advice is brought into the Department as these processes began
to develop. We have, as you know—I think you were told this
by my colleagues when they were before you—a biometric expert
advisory group made up of people from within the Home Office and
we also have the biometrics advisory group chaired by Sir David,
as you have already said. Why does Sir David chair it rather than
me chairing it? Because at the time that I felt it was necessary
to have such an advisory group it was also clear that, although
at the moment the first developments of biometrics identity management
are happening in the Home Office, it was likely to spread to other
departments in government as well. This is a new technology which
I think is probably going to have wider application. It therefore
seemed to me it would make more sense to have an advisory committee
that was chaired by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser
so that it could act as a scientific advisory committee in the
first instance for the Home Office development but then subsequently
for development anywhere else in government. That was the reason
why I asked Sir David to chair it and I am delighted so say he
agreed.
Q1129 Margaret Moran: You focussed
on biometrics but obviously the issue of ID cards within the Home
Office is much wider than that.
Professor Wiles: Yes.
Q1130 Margaret Moran: You said earlier,
as I understood it, that you had halved the number of social researchers
within the Department.
Professor Wiles: Correct.
Q1131 Margaret Moran: How does that
impact on the social science in respect of ID cards? Surely it
means, from the sound of it, you are neglecting that aspect of
scientific policy altogether.
Professor Wiles: No, I do not
think I am neglecting it. We still have about 250 social researchers
and statisticians in the Home Office. This was not a matter of
reducing the numbers to the point where the work that was needed
could not be done. It was a matter of balancing the portfolio
skills, as it were. For example, when I arrived at the Home Office
two things were not happening that are now happening. First of
all there was no social research programme on immigration. Five
years ago now I put that in place because I felt that was important.
There was only one person having any interest in drugs research;
we now have a drugs research team, so that was another re-balancing.
We had a very, very tiny group of economists and we now have a
slightly larger group of economists. Again I thought that was
a necessary thing to do. The reason I referred to biometrics is
because I do not have responsibility for ICT in the Department
and of course if you are talking about ID cards there are I think
two critical areas of dependency: one is the biometric technology
and how well that does or does not work and the other is the IT
platform on which that biometric technology will sit. I have been
focussing on the biometrics side of that problem.
Q1132 Margaret Moran: On the issue
of the requirement for the ID card we have had a lot of evidence
that there is a severe lack of clarity as to what ID cards are
supposed to achieve and the extent that that poses a serious risk
to the entire programme and indeed home security risks because
of the way the proposals have been put together without any clarity
about what they are expected to achieve. Are you satisfied that
the scientific advice that is being provided is being taken into
account in this whole programme?
Professor Wiles: The brief answer
is yes, but let me explain a little bit. First of all, the overall
purpose of ID cards is of course a matter for you in Parliament
and that was debated and put through the House. The bald purpose
is there. The specific requirements for the development are of
course precisely going to go out—and they are about to go
out now—in terms of the start of the procurement process.
We cannot possibly get into a procurement process for ID cards
without being clear what we expect those ID cards to be able to
do, so there will be specification in there. Have I been involved
in that? Yes, I have, and so have my other colleagues. I keep
stressing that it is not just me personally who is involved, it
is other scientists in the Home Office and we have been involved
in that. There are various groups and Sir David's group has also
set up some sub-groups to work on particular issues of that to
make sure those specifications are clear and will deliver the
purposes for which we want ID cards.
Q1133 Margaret Moran: Given that
the objective has changed during this debate, if you accept that
during the course of the debate the issues relate not just to
the Home Office, are other scientific advisers in other parts
of government also involved in informing the outcomes on the ID
cards?
Professor Wiles: You will forgive
me, I am not going to comment on what was an implicit policy question
there about the overall goals, but are there other scientific
advisers involved? Certainly in terms of the Cabinet Office's
responsibility for broad ICT platforms, yes that is happening.
The other thing that has been going on—and it is important—is
to try to make sure we understand the business cases and the potential
business applications of identity management programmes across
government. Clearly there is an important issue here about interoperability
and whether we can ensure there is interoperability. My experience
of that is that the most difficult problem—this is true
both inside the Home Office and elsewhere in government—is
not so much if you ask people "If you had ID cards, if you
had this method of identify management now, what difference would
it make to your business?" People tend to answer that in
terms of their current business model. I think the more interesting
question is: "Would it enable you to change your business
model? Would it enable you to do something in a different way
than you are doing it now?" That is where I think we have
been working across government trying to get a greater degree
of clarity.
Q1134 Dr Iddon: We are doing three
case studies. One is ID cards; the second one is the classification
of drugs. Is the Home Office happy that the current classification
of drugs is working for society?
Professor Wiles: Can I just go
back a little bit? Prior to the current legislation in this country
we did not classify drugs into different categories, we simply
banned drugs. Indeed, I think I am right in that more than half
the EU countries still do that.
Q1135 Chairman: That is not the question.
Professor Wiles: I am answering
the question, I assure you. We decided we wanted that classification
and the question is, is the classification working? In a broad
general sense yes, I think it is. I think there is broad agreement
on the different risks at one end from the possession of a small
amount of cannabis and on the other hand the supply of crack cocaine.
I think there is broad agreement that those are clearly at opposite
ends of a spectrum of harm and risk. I also think that generally
speaking the classification system, since it has been in place,
has provided a framework for those in the criminal justice system—the
police, the judges or whatever—to implement the legislation.
I think broadly it has done that. I think it has also broadly
enabled most members of the public to understand the relative
risks of these different drugs. I think broadly yes, it has. However,
I am well aware—I read your exchanges with my colleagues
from the Drugs Advisory Committee—that of course within
that classification are some very difficult arguments about the
relative rank order and the reason why you have those difficult
questions—and Sir Michael, I know, made this point to you—is
because we do not have a drugs classification system that has
a single criterion running through it. If you had a single criterion
then it might be easier to do that. We have a system that asks
the Drugs Advisory Committee to take into account a number of
different risks and those risks are not necessarily uniform in
the way that they are hierarchically organised.
Q1136 Dr Iddon: Sir Michael Rawlins
and David Nutt (Chairman of the Technical Committee of the ACMD)
told us that drugs are classified in that classification according
to the risk to society and the risk to an individual approximately
50/50. I put it to them that psilocin and psilocybin, which are
class A drugs, I have never seen them for sale on the street,
I have never heard of anybody using them, I have never heard anybody
dying from using either psilocin and psilocybin. If the Advisory
Committee on the Misuse of Drugs is correct in its definition,
why are psilocin and psilocybin in class A?
Professor Wiles: I think, as they
both discussed with you when they were here before you, once you
have a classification system like this there is a problem of historical
accretion, as it were, at which point decisions are made. I think
the point that I know you questioned them on and it is difficult,
is of course that the evidence base is changing. I think what
you are really raising is: should it be the case that we go back
to zero and re-do at some point in time as the evidence changes?
That is not the way the Committee has operated; the Committee
has tended to operated as new problems emerge, as significant
new evidence emerges. It has never gone back and, as it were,
re-done the whole classification from base zero.
Q1137 Dr Iddon: Do you attend meetings
with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs?
Professor Wiles: No, I do not
and I should not do so. It is an independent scientific advisory
committee.
Q1138 Chairman: In terms of the re-classification,
David Nutt and Colin Blakemore have actually produced a complete
new classification. Why has that not been adopted?
Professor Wiles: I assume you
are referring to the unpublished Lancet paper which I have
also read and I know you have seen. I think, as Professor Nutt
explained to you, that is increasingly the basis on which the
technical sub-committee of the advisory committee on drugs is
operating and which of course Professor Nutt chairs. We do not
have time, which is a shame, because actually there are some interesting
issues even within that paper.
Q1139 Chairman: Paul, we would be
very interested in actually getting a response to that particular
question as to why in fact Professor Nutt's work has not been
adopted by the Home Office.
Professor Wiles: Sorry, I think
what I said was it is increasingly the basis on which Professor
Nutt is operating as the head of the technical group on that committee.
| 
