Examination of Witness (Questions 20 - 29)
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE
SIR ROBERT
MAY
20. You have already mentioned receipt of unsolicited
advice, which must occur quite frequently. I should be interested
to know how often this is. Obviously some will come from very
reputable sources, for example the Royal Society submission on
management of separated plutonium. Others may come from pressure
groups. Again I would give the example of the low level radiation
campaign which has produced a lot of information. How do you deal
with this information? May I also expand it to other departments
as well?
(Sir Robert May) May I come at this obliquely? If
you just go back to the guidelines on science advice and policy
making, in forming those guidelines not only did we consult widely
with other departments but we consulted the Royal Society, the
Royal Academy of Engineering and a variety of other people we
thought would provide useful inputs. We routinely do this. Then
there would be a half-way house between the completely independent
advice and the things which we deliberately solicit: for example,
another example of proactiveness, it seemed to me that it would
be useful to have a relatively disinterested group produce a thoughtful
paper which recognises the emotional and intellectual and problematic
background to nuclear energy and all the real problems which often
colour discussion, but at the same time looks at the role it may
or may not have post Kyoto in a future where we want to have energy
which is on the one hand clean, on the other hand does not produce
carbon dioxide. That it seemed to me would be advice better coming
from outside the Civil Service, and the Royal Society and the
Royal Academy of Engineering are working on producing such a thing.
It should be quite independent but it is largely OST's suggestion
that it would be helpful to do it. From that we shade into things
where the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering simply
decides for itself that it would be useful for Government to have
advice on something or other and produces it and that goes all
the way down to strange characters, purely individuals, who sometimes
feel Government would like advice on how to build a perpetual
motion machine. There is no simple answer as to how a lot of that
whole cascade is handled. If I have to give a single answer, I
would say one tries always when OST is doing something to consult
widely. One tries when one is aware of independent advice coming
in to amplify that which one feels is really useful and one had
not thought of.
21. To follow up on the Royal Society report
on the management of separated plutonium, which urges you to commission
a comprehensive review, how have you responded? What has been
the response to that report? How has the Government responded
to that document?
(Sir Robert May) The answer is that I do not know.
That is something which people have read and I am not sure there
has been a formal response. I just do not know, is the answer.
I will get back to you on that.
22. You will be able to tell us?
(Sir Robert May) I can tell you that they sent it
to Ministers and I discussed it with John Battle and I am not
quite sure where it stands at the moment.
23. There is not really any laid-down procedure
about how to handle that. That is obviously not included in your
advice.
(Sir Robert May) You can understand with the range
of such things it is rather difficult to have operational things.
If you would permit me, I would turn it back to you and say you
have had independent advice from the Royal Society for this inquiry
and you will have had much independent advice. You will have some
sense of the way you are going to handle that. I should be interested
in how you feed those things into your report.
24. In the advice you also say that departments
should take independent advice of the highest calibre. How do
they determine which sources are of the highest calibre, both
in terms of when they are commissioning work and when they are
receiving work? What guidance do you give to departments to help
them identify appropriate sources of advice?
(Sir Robert May) This again is a hugely important
question. It raises larger questions about the investment of departments,
in making sure they have in place a cadre of people who know what
it is they need to know. These people do not themselves need to
be scientists necessarily, though many will have to be. They do
not need to be experts on the subject under question, but they
need to be informed enough to know what kinds of things you need
to seek advice on. That is easier said than done but that leads
into a larger set of questions. I just wanted to raise that. In
most departments there will be a chief scientist or equivalent
who has a set of people charged with this role and sometimes it
will be discharged by going out for external advice as to how
to go about getting the information. Sometimes it could be contracted
out. I do not think there is any one simple procedure which will
guarantee that you evaluate the advice correctly, but at the heart
of it I do believe there is the necessity to have within departments
the expertise to know when you need advice and who to ask for
it. OST tries to keep an eye on this. I have given you examples
already of badgers and bovine TB; in that case there was consultation
with OST. If, which was not the case, in that example there had
been a move to set up a committee which I did not think was the
right committee, I would have tried to intervene. I cannot guarantee
I am always going to be aware of such things and ultimately the
precaution has to be the department's own way of doing things
which, when it is ever in doubt, it will bring to the committee
of chief scientists so that we can discuss it together. It is
a routine item on the agenda. It is the one tour de table
we do.
Chairman: You mentioned the possibility of the
need sometimes to seek advice from elsewhere. Dr Kumar would like
to ask you some questions about that.
Dr Kumar
25. In your submission to this Committee you
said that greater attention had to be paid to the manner in which
scientific advice is elicited. What do you see as the major weaknesses
in the current systems in your experience in government departments?
(Sir Robert May) If my memory is correct, that phrase
"more thought should be given to the ways in which scientific
advice is elicited" pertained not so much to the quality
of the advice as such as paying more attention not only to the
science and the quality of the science as such but paying attention
also to public confidence in being seen to do the right thing.
In re-reading the background paper which we gave you in which
that particular phrase occurs, it did occur to me that it was
badly drafted. I would say in general the elicitation of scientific
advice in itself is handled well across Whitehall. What is not
handled so well always is going beyond the substance of the issue
to the different but in my mind equally important issue of not
merely doing the right thing but being seen to do the right thing,
not merely consulting a representative set of people but being
seen to consult a representative set of people. In the guidelines
on science advice and policy making that, amongst other things,
is why we suggested that by and large committees should have on
them people who are expert in areas outside the area under question
so that they have the ability to see beyond the immediate technical
question to larger issues and to reassure people that larger issues
are being kept in mind. In short, there are always exceptions
and we could always do things better. In general the seeking of
scientific advice is not done badly but it is fairly clear that
we do not always succeed in communicating to the general public
that it has been done in as open a manner as it might be.
26. What would be one concrete thing which you
would say you would do in that situation?
(Sir Robert May) I would want to do several concrete
things, many of which are spelled out in the guidance. If there
is one word it would be openness. It would be making sure that
the process of gathering the advice takes on all the difficulties
of public debate, that you consult widely, that you consult contrary
opinion, that the contrary opinion be expressed, that you make
such data as are available, available to anyone who wants them,
recognising that the result will often be a variety of opinions
contending in the marketplace. This is uncomfortable often round
Whitehall but in my view is the best single way there is to engender
public confidence.
27. The lead responsibility for reviewing existing
research on the commissioning and use of expert advice has been
transferred over to the Health and Safety Executive. Can you tell
us why that is rather than to your own department?
(Sir Robert May) That is a good question. I am afraid
I digress again into a little bit of history here. In this Cabinet
committee of chief scientists and their equivalents we talk about
these things and the Health and Safety Executive had initiated
a study particularly focused on risk assessment. The Health and
Safety Executive is particularly expert in risk assessment, both
in its general sense and in its more technical sense. It has a
large number of people who are experienced in that and a large
number of particular examples. Indeed the problem of communicating
the notion that we are not certain about things, that there are
different levels of risk, is one of the trickiest problems of
public communication. The Health and Safety Executive were undertaking
a study of this kind. They brought it along to EASO and in that
discussion, not only did a larger variety of departments recognise
they had an interest in this, but also it was felt that it raised
a variety of helpful procedural issues which fleshed out in more
detail the broad statements of principle enshrined in the science
advice and policy making. So we asked the Health and Safety Executive
to carry this forward on behalf of the Chief Scientists' collective,
as it were. It is healthy to see a department in Whitehall like
OST not saying this is their territory, they will defend it, but
rather getting together in this collective way and recognising
here is a group of people who might be better placed to flesh
out some of the details, particularly initially in the direction
of risk assessment, but then widening it in this direction. That
is how it happened. I had no problem with it.
28. What role are you and your office playing
in these exercises?
(Sir Robert May) The Health and Safety Executive are
doing this both on its account but on behalf of all of us, and
I chair the committee and the working groups of this group of
chief scientists.
Chairman
29. As Chief Scientist, although it is not being
done in your own department, the OST, you are still very much
involved in it and you chair the committee it reports to.
(Sir Robert May) Very much. It is a happy story which
illustrates how EASO is working reasonably well, that we can seize
this initial risk assessment study, amplify it in discussions,
see a wider use, put it back to the people who began it to share
with all of us, instead of all sitting round defending little
bits of turf.
|
