SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE 1992-97
Report by Sir Giles
Shaw, Chairman of the Committee
Background
1. In its present form as
a departmental select committee, the Science and Technology Committee
is a relatively new creation since it was only established in
July 1992. The previous Science and Technology Committee had
been abolished when the House adopted the current system of departmental
select committees in 1979. As repeated reports from the former
Education and Science Committee made clear, there was subsequently
a view that the new system had resulted in an unwelcome reduction
in the House's ability to consider science and technology. Accordingly,
when the Office of Science and Technology (OST) was formed as
part of the Cabinet Office, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster was given responsibility for Public Service and Science,
scrutiny of the Cabinet Office was divided between the new Select
Committee on Science and Technology and the Treasury and Civil
Service Committee, which would examine the public service element
of the Chancellor's responsibilities.
2. In July 1995, the Office
of Science and Technology was absorbed into the Department for
Trade and Industry. Several commentators expressed concern that
this might affect the future status of the Committee, although
there appeared to be no formal reason for a change. Whatever
the merits of this development, the Committee was very concerned
that this might have a negative impact on the perception of Government
support for science and technology in general. I sought, and
was given, assurances from Ministers that the Committee would
not be disbanded and that the move should not be considered as
an indication that the Government had reduced its opinion of the
importance of the subject. The interest of this episode is that
those outside the House, especially the scientific community,
as well as Members, considered the existence of a Select Committee
as an important factor in ensuring that science policy was not
neglected.
The Committee's work
3. Since the formation of
the OST brought a sustained period of policy development and institutional
reorganisation, most of the Committee's initial output has been
concerned with the structure of publicly funded science, engineering
and technology (SET), as the Committee felt duty bound to keep
a watching brief on these developments. The first inquiry by the
Committee[133]
was conducted quickly to allow its conclusions and recommendations
to be taken into account in the drafting of the OST's White Paper
Realising our Potential.[134]
Among the developments flowing from the White Paper which have
been the subject of inquiry by the Committee are the Forward
Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology,
which the Committee has reported on three times, the repeated
reviews of government research laboratories, and the Technology
Foresight Programme.
4. A characteristic of the
Committee has been that it has seldom been split on party lines;
this, to a certain extent, must be seen as a reflection of the
desire by Members of the Committee to set the long term needs
of science over and above short term political considerations
a point stressed in many of the Committee's reports. Although
the Committee has criticised the Office of Science and Technology
on many occasions, our intention has always been constructive
and we have consistently welcomed the OST's existence and the
focus for science policy that it provides.
5. This cross party approach
has been an advantage in the other aspect of the Committee's work,
which has been to look at major subjects - such as technological
innovation in industry, and human genetics - in some detail.
The tale of the main recommendation of the Committee's Report
on Human Genetics: The Science and its Potential[135]
is of some interest. The Government initially rejected the Committee's
recommendation to set up a Human Genetics Commission. The Committee
was not satisfied by the Government's reply[136],
which appeared overly relaxed about some of the problems raised
by this rapidly growing area of science and accordingly undertook
a further inquiry, recalling some of those who gave evidence in
the original inquiry and seeking written evidence on the Government's
reply. We also took oral evidence from the Secretary of State
for Health and the Minister for Science, which gave both parties
the opportunity to explore compromises. The Government reversed
its position and accepted the need for a Human Genetics Advisory
Commission, which has now been set up.[137]
The episode provides a good illustration of how a united Committee
can influence Government policy by pursuing a wider and long term
analysis which cuts across the narrower views of individual Departments.
The Government must also be congratulated on its readiness to
reconsider its position.
Views on matters raised by
the Trade and Industry and Public Service Committees
Scrutiny of Agencies
6. The OST has no Next Step
agencies. However the Research Councils themselves, through which
almost all OST money is distributed, are non-departmental public
bodies. The Research Councils were reorganised following the White
Paper Realising our Potential. In the course of various
inquiries we have taken evidence from each of the Research Councils
both orally and in writing. In addition, now that sufficient
time has passed to allow the new structure to become established,
we have resolved to inquire into each of the councils in turn.
We have reported on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
Council[138],
and are currently inquiring into the Natural Environment Research
Council.
Resources
7. The Committee meets weekly
and in general focusses upon one inquiry at a time. It is served
by three full time members of staff. It has also appointed at
least one specialist adviser for each inquiry. The Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology (POST) has also proved an additional
resource for the Committee; it has, for example, at our behest,
provided extremely useful background papers at the start of several
of the Committee's inquiries. These have later been made widely
available as POST notes.
8. Committee staffing has
proved, so far, to be sufficient and this must in some part reflect
the successful recruitment policy of the House of Commons. However,
I am concerned that the Committee has set its programme in the
light of the staff resources available to it and that resources
might not be sufficient to allow any expansion of the Committee's
work, if Members desired to do more. It must be borne in mind
that scientific issues can be complex and international in scope.
Relations with the Public
Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office
9. The Committee has not
found that its area of work and that of NAO/PAC has overlapped
unduly. The Committee recently requested a note from the Comptroller
and Auditor General about performance measurements for the Research
Councils, which was provided without difficulty.
10. I would agree, in general,
with the Public Service Committee's recommendations about the
NAO/PAC relationship with departmental select committees. There
would appear no good reason to restrict the substantial resources
of the NAO to only one committee of the House.
Summoning of named Officials
11. The Science and Technology
Committee has experienced no difficulties in summoning named officials;
indeed, since the Committee usually requires expert witnesses,
such as departmental chief scientists and heads of Research Councils,
it is rare for the Committee not to specify the names of those
it wishes to see.
12. However, the Committee
has encountered difficulties in obtaining certain government papers.
In our recent report on Prior Options Reviews of Public Sector
Research Establishments[139],
we sought the reports on the establishments under review drawn
up by steering committees and review teams. These were refused
on the grounds that they were advice to ministers and that they
contained commercially confidential material. We were sent instead,
memoranda prepared by the Departments concerned. Whatever the
conventions about the release of advice to Ministers, on this
occasion the Steering Committee reports were prepared as a result
of a highly public process. Similar documents have been made
available to other Committees in the past and we were disappointed
that these were not released to us. For a committee to properly
scrutinise the work of a department it is vital for it to see
the advice the Government itself receives. In the interests of
open government this should be recognised and acted upon.
Suggestions for the future
13. The Committee gave a
positive response to the Liaison Committee's consultation about
the possibility that departmental select committees have a formal
role in scrutinising delegated legislation. This in part may be
because there are few SIs which would need examining; I recognise
that a committee with a potentially heavier burden of delegated
legislation might not be of the same mind.
14. A minor point on the
new Code of Conduct emerged as a consequence of our inquiries
into Human Genetics. The subject generated a great deal of debate
and Members of the Committee were in demand to speak at various
conferences. Some of these offered honoraria to participants.
Members may well see it as part of their duty to take discussions
begun in Parliament to wider audiences, and yet may also see little
reason why they should not participate in these events on the
same terms as other speakers. The new Code of Conduct makes clear
that "the advocacy rule is to apply with equal effect to
any registrable or declarable pecuniary benefit irrespective of
the source of that benefit..."[140]
While I support the broad thrust of the Code of Conduct, if Members
take part in such an event on the same terms as others, they face
a year's restriction on their freedom of action. They may also
be in the position that giving a speech to a conference sponsored
by, say, an engineering organisation, restricts their freedom
in the House on a topic which interests them, while giving exactly
the same speech to a conference arranged by a commercial conference
organiser does not. I have no wish to see payment for speeches
being used as a way to evade the rules on advocacy, but I hope
that, in time, the House will come to apply the rules with some
discrimination.
133 The Policy and Administration of the Office of Science and Technology HC(1992-93)228-I Back
134 Cm 2250 Back
135 Human Genetics: the Science and its Consequences, HC(1994-95)41-I Back
136 Cm 3061 Back
137 Cm 3306, HMSO, June 1996 Back
138 HC(1995-96)249-I Back
139 HC(1996-97)71-I Back
140 The
Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules Relating
to the Conduct of Members, approved
by the House of Commons on 24th July 1996, HC 688. Back
