Conclusions and recommendations
Skills and infrastructure
1. We
have seen repeatedly that the UK is not producing the technically
proficient people required to support modern businesses. In our
report, Educating Tomorrow's Engineers, we concluded that, despite
the Government's recognition of the importance of engineering
skills, there is a persistent gap in the numbers of engineers
required to achieve economic growth. Data science is yet another
skills area that urgently needs to be addressed if the UK is to
be able to build an economy that can compete on the global stage.
It is essential that the Government ensures that data science
skills are promoted in educational institutions and within organisations
that are able to provide data skills development. (Paragraph 21)
2. We repeat our recommendation,
from our report, Educating Tomorrow's Engineers, that learned
societies, professional institutions and trade bodies put an obligation
on their members to systematically engage in promoting data science
skills through a structured programme of educational engagement.
We request that the Government detail to us, in its response to
this report, how it intends to ensure that organisations take
part in a national effort to promote data science skills within
the current and future UK workforce. (Paragraph 22)
Government use of data
3. Real
buy-in from members of the public for the use of their data is
most likely to be achieved by delivering well-run services, which
meet the expectations of customers. There are some excellent examples
of administrative services that already exist in the UK, which
demonstrate exactly what the UK should be aiming for: one shining
example is paying your road fund license on the DVLA website,
an easy-to-use and efficient service. Services such as these provide
benefits to both the service provider and customer, providing
a trusted platform for the exchange of data and service. care.data
is a clear example where this trusted relationship failed to develop.
(Paragraph 28)
4. Members of the
public do not appear to be wholly against the idea of their data
being used by Government institutions, but support for data usage
is highly dependent upon the context within which the data is
collected. The Government should have learned from the experience
with care.data and we recommend that the Government develop a
privacy impact assessment that should be applied to all policies
that collect, retain or process personal data. (Paragraph 29)
Better information for users of online services
5. We
note that a primary concern of the general public is that it is
unable to limit the misuse of personal data by large organisations,
but we recognise the work of the ICO in addressing some of these
issues. We are attracted to the position of the ICO that big data
should play by the same rules as every other form of data processing.
It is essential that organisations operate in a transparent manner,
allowing public confidence to flourish in light of knowledge about
the way that their data is used. The UK is already a leading player
on the global stage in using social media data and we are keen
for this status to be maintained, but only if that can be achieved
while ensuring the personal privacy of UK citizens. (Paragraph
35)
6. We are not convinced
that users of online services (such as social media platforms)
are able to provide informed consent based simply on the provision
of terms and conditions documents. We doubt that most people who
agree to terms and conditions understand the access rights of
third parties to their personal data. The terms and conditions
currently favoured by many organisations are lengthy and filled
with jargon. The opaque, literary style of such contracts renders
them unsuitable for conveying an organisation's intent for processing
personal data to users. These documents are drafted for use in
American court rooms, and no reasonable person can be expected
to understand a document designed for such a niche use. We commend
the Information Commissioner's Office for investigating ways to
simplify the contents of terms and conditions contracts and ask
the Government, in its response to this report, to detail how
the public at large will be involved in arriving at more robust
mechanisms for achieving truly informed consent from users of
online services. Clear communication with the public has been
achieved in the past, for example in the use of graphic health
warnings on cigarette packets. Effective communication with the
public can be achieved again. (Paragraph 49)
7. We consider it
vital that companies effectively communicate how they intend to
use the data of individuals and that if terms and conditions themselves
cannot be made easier to understand, then the destination of data
should be explained separately. We recommend that the Government
drives the development of a set of information standards that
companies can sign up to, committing themselves to explain to
customers their plans to use personal data, in clear, concise
and simple terms. In its response, the Government should outline
who will be responsible for this policy and how it plans to assess
the clarity with which companies communicate to customers. Whilst
we support the Government in encouraging others to meet high standards,
we expect it to lead by example. The Government cannot expect
to dictate to others, when its own services, like care.data, have
been found to be less than adequate. We request that the Government
outline how it plans to audit its own services and what actions
it plans to take on services that do not meet a satisfactory level
of communication with users about the use of their personal data.
(Paragraph 54)
Regulating the use of personal data
8. There
is a qualitative difference between requesting personal information
when registering for a service and requiring that same information.
Companies should have a greater responsibility to explain their
need to require (and retain) personal information than when they
simply request it. We welcome the work of the Information Economy
Council and recommend that the Government use that work to provide
companies with guidelines to aid organisations in deciding what
information they should require and how that, and the subsequent
use of the data, might be managed responsibly. We expect the Government,
in its response to this inquiry, to outline a draft timetable
for when businesses might expect to receive Government endorsed
guidelines in this area. (Paragraph 57)
9. In our report Malware
and cybercrime we noted that the UK Government has a responsibility
to protect UK citizens online, in an extension of the protections
that are conferred on citizens in the offline world: a responsibility
the Government accepted in its written evidence to this inquiry.
As the majority of popular social media platforms are head-quartered
in the US, we find it essential that the Government revisit all
international agreements, including the US-EU safe harbour, to
ensure that they protect UK citizens. We ask that, in its response
to us, the Government outlines the international agreements that
currently exist where it has ensured that the data of UK citizens
will be guarded as well as if it were within UK legal jurisdictions.
(Paragraph 64)
10. We consider an
internationally recognised kitemark to be the first step in ensuring
the responsible use of the data of UK citizens by both social
media platforms and other organisations. We are pleased that the
Government seems to be working toward this end and recommend that,
in its response to this report, it provides a draft timetable
for when proposals for a kitemark can be expected. (Paragraph
69)
11. We have become
increasingly concerned that the benefits of data sharing that
might be achieved, in both governance and economic growth, are
at risk because the public distrusts the technology and some organisations
that provide online services. The Government has been working
to provide an identity assurance scheme that would give those
in receipt of Government benefits an online presence so that individual
citizens can manage their personal details in their transactions
with the State. This scheme could be the basis for all UK citizens
to have a protected, online identity that could be used, if the
Government was willing, for both governance and online commercial
activities. (Paragraph 70)
Protecting the interests UK citizens online
12. We
have also seen that the Government's approach to online safety
has been piecemeal and conducted tactically to meet immediate
needs with little evidence of any horizon scanning. The Government
should be considering now how it wants UK citizens to engage with
both governmental and commercial online services. It should be
seeking to provide a platform for UK citizens to engage those
services without unnecessarily risking their personal data and
enabling its citizens to make informed choices about what data
to share, with whom and for what purpose. Future prosperity will
be impacted by how well information flows between government,
citizens and business. The Government needs to begin work so that
all of its citizens have firm and secure foundations from which
to build their online functionality. (Paragraph 71)
| 
