Science and Technology - Sixth Report

In its investigations into the identity cards programme, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee focused on the role of scientific advice, the use of evidence and the handling of risk. These areas were chosen because of their relevance to an enquiry into a policy which encompasses the use of several continually-developing technologies requiring scientific input and the production of evidence on effectiveness.

The report includes background information on the development of the ID cards policy, along with details about the biometric technologies to be used in the scheme (face, fingerprint and iris). It is noted that the UK will be the first state to use three biometric indicators. Details of ID cards will be stored on one database (the National Identity Register), and smart cards will be used. The database will be split into modules: it is argued that this will allow information to be more visible and will also play a role in highlighting security problems.

While identifying various areas which illustrate the implementation of good practice, the Committee noted a range of concerns.

One of the principal inconsistencies highlighted in the report is that the ID cards programme has focused almost exclusively on the use of biometrics, probably because this is an emerging technology. However, while advice has been taken from scientific experts in this field, similar emphasis has not been given to ICT. The Committee expressed particular surprise that the biometric technologies to be used had been chosen before the completion of the evidence-gathering and analysis process. There is also concern that the Home Office is not taking advantage of the impartial advice which could be provided by academics and others in the IT industry. The Committee requested an assurance from the Home Office that a particular biometric technology will not be used if there is no evidence that its application will enhance the performance of the system. The Committee further requested a commitment from the Home Office that the ICT solution will be given a trial, and that relevant advice from experts will be taken.

The Committee drew attention to the lack of transparency in the consultation process, citing evidence from the Local Authority Smartcard Standards Organisation, the Institute of Electrical Engineers and the British Computer Society; there was a perception of a lack both of feedback after advice had been offered, and in knowledge of how this input had been utilised in the development of the policy. Acknowledgement was requested to offer a guarantee that the advice had been understood and considered: this is particularly important for technical specifications.

Confusion has thus been created, leading to a lack of transparency throughout the whole scheme. Of major concern is the overall perception that the Home Office is effectively operating in isolation: despite the Committee having sought specific information, lines of accountability are still by no means clear. These problems have been exacerbated by the establishment of the Identity and Passport Service. To avert possible problems for the future interoperability of the schemes, transparency and clarity must be increased across the board.

Four areas require clarification from the Home Office: the overall scope of the scheme, the involvement of other Government departments, the practical uses of the ID cards and the procurement process.

See the full report