Written evidence submitted by ITS United Kingdom (GSH0002)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 In compiling this response, we have assumed that it will be regarded as an external, partial view of internal Government and Civil Service processes. The people best placed to give detailed answers to the questions in your inquiry are Ministers and civil servants.

1.2 The remit of ITS (UK) (see paragraph 8.1) means that our knowledge of Government horizon scanning activities is limited to the transport sector and mainly to the activities of DfT, BIS and the Highways Agency. Within these limitations, our experience is considerable, with Members reporting involvement with Government horizon scanning activities covering the last thirty years or so. Please bear in mind that some Government bodies use the term “Intelligent Mobility” for what we call “Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)”.

1.3 We would like to make the general point that the outputs from state-funded horizon scanning work should be made available to the public to read within a sensible time frame, unless publication carries evident risks in areas such as defence or security. A risk of negative publicity for Government is not a valid reason for not publishing. It would not be surprising if the lack of openness about horizon scanning results in responses to this inquiry being unduly negative or incompletely informed.

1.4 Making the results of horizon scanning available to interested parties as a matter of routine will also help mitigate the effects of the Civil Service career structure on the longevity of this work. Private sector professionals tend to stay in their profession, and once aware of a study will keep referring to it, keeping the knowledge alive. Civil servants move from topic to topic in their careers, and “reading up” on the previous ten years of departmental research activity in their new area of work does not seem to be part of their induction into new posts.

1.5 DfT is commissioning infrastructure projects for fifty years ahead – such as HS2 – and better communication of the horizon scanning would probably ease the stakeholder engagement required for those projects.

2.0 How do Government departments make use of horizon scanning?

2.1 Members who have had involvement with horizon scanning studies suggest that Government can be reluctant to work at the horizon because by definition such work will lack credible detail such as exact costs and timing. It is habitually ridiculed in the UK media which makes it unattractive to politicians and therefore to those who work for them. The horizon scanning is too often not locked in to internal strategic thinking and option analysis. It follows that some work which is passed off as horizon scanning is actually looking at new technologies and societal trends which are already present, or in other words much nearer than the horizon at the time of the study (and therefore a safer subject). There seems to be a lack of acceptance that the conclusions of genuine horizon scanning work will sometimes turn out to be completely wrong, but that this is not a reason not to do it, or evidence of lack of competence by its authors. It might well be the case that the completion of a scanning exercise has in itself delivered new knowledge or that the use of back-casting (working backwards from a future scenario to determine what would be the early signs of an unwelcome trend) has reinforced planning and strategic thinking more widely.

2.2 One example is the Cyber Trust work done in 2003 on scenarios for 2018. At the time, some of the conclusions were welcomed, but there was also criticism of perceived scaremongering. However, two of these predictions came true some time ago: pervasive computing has arrived; and the Chinese Government approach to IT security mirrors the predictions in the report.

2.3 Another is the Foresight 2005 look at Intelligent Infrastructure scenarios for 50 years hence. This work was ambitious and detailed, and respectfully received by the transport community at least, but it appears to have had little lasting impact on subsequent policy.

2.4 A fourth example is the road mapping for transport policy undertaken by the Transport KTN and the Automotive Council, both organisations set up by BIS. Industry has had a lot of involvement in this work. Other Government departments do not appear to be making use of this resource – or to be involved in the work – even though for instance DfT is far more concerned with transport policy than BIS. The Day Review proposals for better cross-Department coordination are necessary and we welcome them.

3.0 How effective is horizon scanning in Government? Do Ministers and senior officials consider horizon scanning outputs appropriately?

3.1 See also response to Q1.

3.2 There is a common failing within Departments in that the lack of scientific or engineering literacy among many senior policy makers means that the significance of actual or potential technology developments is not recognised or, when brought to their attention, not understood. This is as likely to be due to the findings not being presented in a suitable format, as to the recipient not having the knowledge to understand them. The proposed changes to the Horizon Scanning governance will not do anything to address these points.

3.3 When horizon scanning is undertaken, there can be a disconnect between the outputs of the study and what action is taken next. This may be because the costs, benefits and risks are difficult to quantify so it is easier to ignore the study, and possible to ignore it unless it was undertaken as a result of a strong political imperative. Taking this option is unfortunately not preceded by quantifying the risks of ignoring the study as well as quantifying the risks of acting on it. Government needs to consider how to quantify these risks accurately. Taking the short term approach needs to be designed out of the process.

4.0 What changes could be made to improve existing horizon scanning activity? Will the recommendations made in Jon Day’s review of cross-government horizon scanning capability address current shortcomings? What progress has been made implementing these?

4.1 People who have been involved in Foresight reviews (very similar, but not identical, to Horizon Scanning) have noted the additional vigour regarding follow-up and regular post hoc monitoring when a Minister has been involved as Principal Client. There has been very uneven practice regarding publicity and the opportunity for open debate on studies and their findings. The allegation that for many studies the analytic community has enjoyed the chase rather than the capture is probably correct.

5.0 How effective is the Government at responding to policy or regulatory challenges presented by new technologies?

5.1 See also response to Q1 at paragraph 3.2

5.2 Government has sometimes been too slow and too private, not least because Chief Scientific Advisers are only loosely tied in to top level strategy and planning in many Departments. As a general point Departments have too few external advisory bodies – relatively informal bodies operating at about Deputy Director level to discuss technology movements, industry trends, what scientific developments might mature into engineering products or processes etc and thus acting as the very early detectors of issues where a more structured approach would be justified.

5.3 There are particular problems in transport where the fact that delivery rests with Local Authorities and Industry has been seen as a reason to justify too much inactivity regarding tactical technology thinking. The reduction in research carried out by DfT and the HA in the area of transport technology leads to Local Authorities trying to cope with a hands-off, localism agenda with less support from the centre and less internal resources. This combination of circumstances, unless addressed, will lead to the UK being able to benefit less from new transport technology in the future.

5.4 With particular regard to DfT, maybe it is unique in having a remit over an arena with such a mix of government money, regulation and private money. Where else does something driven by global market development and paid for by the user – the car – interact with publicly funded infrastructure? That does make it particularly challenging. But it also raises the importance of getting it right.

5.5 A linked point is that in other policy areas, the horizon scanning and policy proposals seem to come from think tanks and similar bodies. To some extent that happens also in transport with, for example, the RAC Foundation. But the transport policy area seems poorly served compared to some other policy areas.

6.0 Case study: autonomous road vehicles and intelligent transport infrastructure:

What are (or were) the policy challenges presented by this technology? How have these challenges been identified?

6.1 As an example, the Cooperative Vehicle Highways Systems study undertaken by AECOM for DfT around the middle of the last decade outlined these clearly but the recommendations for research monitoring were not carried out. Following the departure of the DfT staff who were the clients for the study, there was little evidence of the matter receiving further consideration for several years. Contact with the ITS (UK) CVHS Interest Group, which had been important in keeping DfT staff up to date with international developments, was also severely reduced. (See also paragraph 1.4)

6.2 DfT have very recently engaged again, with plans to commission consultancy work on automated platooning of vehicles and undertake trials. However, the disconnect between these pieces of work shows a lack of continuity of foresight and planning. The recent UK work on autonomous vehicles, such as the IET publishing a case study and the EPSRC supporting the Oxford robotic car work led by Professor Paul Newman, is not obviously linked to DfT and the study it commissioned (see para 6.1).

How prepared is (or was) the Government to react to challenges presented by this technology? How effective was this reaction?

6.3 The plan for watching the horizon was there (with triggers that showed the changes were coming) along with a plan to react but the work seemed to be on a shelf rather than used by DfT. When information is required now it is given on a voluntary basis via ITS (UK), which we are very happy to do, but since DfT paid for the study it is wasteful not to refer to it.

6.4 The UK activity can be contrasted with the Dutch Government which also employed horizon scanning in the area of cooperative systems, but then demonstrated a continuous interest and commitment to ensuring the Netherlands remained at the forefront of this development. See http://www.cvisproject.org/en/news/spits_the_strategic_platform_for_intelligent_traffic_systems.htm

7.0 Summary

7.1 The basic premise seems to be that there is a lack of horizon scanning capability in the Civil Service, whose role is “…to meet both the challenges of the day and be mindful of the longer term. It is a Civil Service responsibility to look beyond the parliamentary term and so day to day issues and short term politics should not drive the horizon scanning agenda”. But successful policy analysis and thinking demands two additional inputs: Ministers and their Special Advisers, and Industry especially the industries that supply products and services to deliver Government policies and targets (Health, Transport, Defence, for example).

This report and the incorporated recommendations ignore these elements and the interpretation of senior customers as confined to Permanent Secretaries et al is too narrow.

8.0 About ITS United Kingdom

8.1 ITS United Kingdom, referred to in this document as ITS (UK), is a ‘not-for-profit’ public/private sector association financed by members' subscriptions providing a forum for all organisations concerned with ITS. The Society works to bring the advantages that ITS can offer in terms of economic efficiency, transport safety, and environmental benefits to the United Kingdom. The Membership of over 150 UK organisations comprises Government Departments, Local Authorities, Police Forces, consultancies, manufacturing and service companies, and academic and research institutions. ITS United Kingdom encourages discussion on issues such as public/private co-operation, standards, legislation, information provision and new technology. ITS (UK) was a key contributor to the Parliamentary POSTNote 322 ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’ published in January 2009.

8.2 Intelligent Transport Systems, “ITS”, is the term used to describe combinations of sensors, telecoms, information processing and location referencing to deliver improved transport systems and services including information before and during a trip for travellers by all modes. Some examples: ITS can improve the efficiency of transport through traffic control and enforcement of traffic regulations and enhance road safety through in-vehicle systems for collision avoidance and better lane keeping. Many commercial organisations use ITS to manage vehicle fleets, both freight and passenger, through the provision of real-time information and two way communication between manager and driver. Electronic ticketing (by means of Smartcards, for example) enables faster, easier travel by public transport. In addition Intelligent Transport Systems have beneficial effects on the environment by reducing air and noise pollution on highways and by helping to create traffic free zones in cities.

September 2013

Appendix – Members of ITS United Kingdom

Foundation Members

Ian Routledge Consultancy

IDT Ltd

Imperial College

INRIX UK Ltd (formerly ITIS)

Integrate Systems Engineering

Interglossa Ltd

IT4 Automation

ITSL

Jaguar Land Rover

KAM Futures

Kent County Council

Leicester City Council

MDL (Measurement Devices Ltd)

Mike Schofield & Associates Ltd

Mobius Networks

mxData Ltd

Navtech Radar Ltd

Newcastle University

Nexus Alpha Ltd

Nimbus

Nokia Location and Commerce

Norfolk County Council

Nottingham City Council

P. Ducker Systems Ltd (PDS Ltd)

P&D Specialist Services

Peek

Pell Frischmann

PIE Mapping

Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP

Q-Free Tolling AS

Sanef Tolling Limited

SEA Ltd

SG Transport Innovation Ltd

Siemens Plc Traffic Controls

Simulation Systems Ltd

Smart CCTV Ltd

Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd

StarTraq (UK) Ltd

SUPCON

Swarco Traffic Ltd

TDC Systems

Techspan Systems Ltd

Telent

Traficon NV / FLIR Systems, Inc.

TrafficMaster

Transpomatica Consultants Ltd

Transport for Greater Manchester

Transport Technology Consultants

Transport Telematics

Trapeze Group (UK) Ltd

TRW Conekt

University of Leeds

Variable Message Signs Ltd

Vitronic

Vix Technology

Vysionics

Westcotec Ltd

White Willow Consulting

WSP Group Limited

Wyeval Consulting

Zircon Software Ltd

Foundation Members

Corporate Members

Associate Members