House of Commons - Information

Select Committee on Information First Report

FIRST REPORT

The Information Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

THE FUTURE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

1. This Committee and its predecessors have had a longstanding interest in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), reflecting our remit "to consider the services provided for the House in regard to information". One of the earliest acts of the newly-established Information Committee in 1991 was to inquire into whether POST, which was then funded by external bodies, should be incorporated into the Parliamentary structure. Its Report[6] recommended that POST should receive public funding for the period 1993-96. In 1995 the then Committee reconsidered the issue, and its Report[7] recommended that POST's parliamentary funding should continue until April 2001.

2. We agreed in May this year to initiate a further inquiry into the future of POST, mindful of the need to complete our deliberations well before next April. The POST Board recommended to us that POST should now be given permanent status within Parliament (and ongoing funding).[8] The terms of reference of our investigation were, accordingly:

3. We received memoranda from the POST Board[9] and from the House of Commons Library.[10] A number of submissions were also received from Chairmen of Select Committees, including the Science and Technology Committees of both Houses, and individual Members. These are reproduced as Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence. We also took oral evidence from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the POST Board, and the Director of POST. The Minutes of Evidence are included in this volume. We took care to ensure that the Library and Computers Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Offices Committee was kept informed about the progress of the inquiry.

The Status of POST

THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED

4. POST has a generally high reputation across the Parliamentary estate, on the basis of the evidence we received from Select Committee Chairmen and individual Members. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons,[11] for example, referred to POST's "significant contribution to the work of Parliament", continuing that "POST provides Parliamentarians with an understanding of science and technology at the cutting edge which would otherwise be difficult to achieve." The Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee was similarly positive.[12] He referred to that Committee's recent Report Science and Society,[13] which recommended that POST should maintain a watching brief on the development of public consultation and dialogue on science-related issues on behalf of parliamentarians.

5. Other Committees with a science based locus standi also spoke in glowing terms about POST's work. The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee referred to its output as "professional and well researched",[14] the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee stated that "POST has been able to provide us with clear, comprehensible advice on the issues on which we have sought guidance, and it has contributed substantially to the effectiveness of the House's scrutiny process as a result."[15] The Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that "POST's operation to date has been to the great benefit of this committee at least".[16]

6. We also received contributions from Committees which deal with science and technology matters less frequently. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee commented that POST Reports were "easily comprehensible and succinct";[17] the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee referred to "an excellent non-technical digest" POST had provided.[18] The one more cautious note was struck by the Chairman of the Defence Committee although, in principle, he supported the continued funding of POST.[19] The two submissions received from individual Members were both complimentary about POST's work.[20]

7. Overall, five of the substantive submissions we received agreed that POST should receive permanent funding,[21] seven made no comment on that point (but were positive about POST's work)[22] and one (from the Defence Committee) stated that "I am cautious about whether [POST] should become permanent — some element of contractual renewal may provide a useful incentive and retain flexibility."[23]

THE CASE FOR THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF POST

Science and technology in Parliament

8. Scientific and technological issues have moved up the parliamentary agenda in recent years. The Chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee referred us to a recent article in Nature[24] which noted, for example, that the percentage of relevant Parliamentary questions had risen from less than 1% in 1988-89 to around 6% in 1998-99. Teresa Gorman MP stated "You will not need me to tell you how many of the current political issues are science based, for example climate change, BSE and genetic engineering."[25] As the Chair of the POST Board stated when giving evidence to us, this trend is likely to continue.[26]

9. The point was made to us that, in this climate, the 'disestablishment' of POST would be a highly retrograde step.[27] The POST Board stated that, conversely, its establishment as a permanent office would be a powerful way for Parliament to demonstrate its willingness and competence to handle the increasing scientific demands placed on it.[28]

POST and the Libraries

10. The possibility of overlap between the work of POST and that of the Libraries of both Houses was "a recurring theme" in the then Information Committee's 1991-92 inquiry.[29] By Session 1994-95 the Committee was able to refer to the "close co-operation" which had developed, and concluded that this had "prevented overlap in the field of the short briefing notes produced by both organisations."[30]

11. In the House of Commons Library's written evidence to this inquiry, the Librarian agreed with the POST Board that the arrangements to avoid duplication of effort were working satisfactorily. The memorandum also drew attention to the differences between the Library's way of working and that of POST:[31]

"The Library's research service relies mainly on published material (increasingly from on-line sources). POST's use of unpublished material and its contacts with scientists elsewhere about work in progress make it very up to date but require that its papers are refereed by outside experts. The Library also aims to provide a range of views on specific issues, cited in the text, while POST aims for a consensus view."

It concluded that "there is room for both approaches".

12. Some of the other submissions we received made the same point. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons, for example, referred to the activities of POST and the Science and Environment Section of the House of Commons Library as "complementary".[32] The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords, however, struck a more cautious note, referring to the possible benefits of bringing a permanently established POST within the Library structure.[33] Concerns about duplication of effort were also raised by the Chairman of the Defence Committee.[34]

13. We note that the House of Commons Library stated that:[35]

"Were POST to become more active, formal meetings [between the Director of POST and the Head of the Library's Science and Environment Section] would almost certainly have to become more frequent and consultation more systematic if duplication of effort and overlap are to continue to be avoided."

The benefits of permanency

14. We discussed at some length with the POST Board what benefits, operational or otherwise, would arise from it being given permanent status. These fell into the following categories:

(a) better management of forward bids for expenditure and accommodation;[

(b) savings of staff time arising from simpler forward-planning procedures;[37] and

In oral evidence to us, the Director of POST stated that "those are the sorts of things which make the day to day running of the office not insuperable but just more complicated than it needs to be."[39]

The status of POST—recommendation

15. POST has been established as part of the Commons' Clerk's Department for over seven years. It has worked closely with Select Committees, individual Members, and the Libraries of both Houses. The evidence we received was positive about its work, and we find the practical advantages that would result from permanent status compelling. We strongly recommend that POST be established on a permanent basis from 1 April 2001. It should maintain its close working relationship with the Libraries of both Houses and ensure that as activity levels increase the degree of co-ordination with the Libraries reflects this.

Governance

THE POST BOARD

16. The POST Board comprises ten Members of the House of Commons, four Members of the House of Lords, four non-Parliamentary Members and three ex-officio Members— the Director of POST, a representative of the Clerk of the House of Commons and a representative of the Librarian of the House of Commons. It meets four or five times annually. The role of the Board is to decide priorities in POST's work programme, review all POST's publication drafts and examine general matters of policy.[40]

17. POST is content with these arrangements, and stated in its memorandum:[41]

"The existence and current structure of the Board provide POST with a unique identity and an independence. The Board provides an effective mechanism whereby POST can anticipate scientific and technological issues likely to be of concern to Parliamentarians, as well as to respond to issues of more general interest."

In our opinion, the POST Board provides valuable links with the scientific community. The non-Parliamentary members bring a welcome scientific detachment to its deliberations with a beneficial effect on the programme and priorities of POST. The Board's Parliamentary members, also with considerable scientific expertise, ensure an appropriate form of governance, given POST's unique position within Parliament. This Committee nominates two of the ten House of Commons members, which has proven useful to us and, we hope, POST in ensuring a degree of mutual understanding. We recommend that the formula for appointing the POST Board and its operation remain unchanged.

POST'S POSITION AS PART OF THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT

18. The then Director of Finance and Administration suggested in 1991-92 that the POST core staff should "for management purposes [be] located within the Clerk's Department".[42] The then Committee noted this, but agreed that it was an internal management decision that should be taken by the Board of Management.[43] POST was indeed located within the Department of the Clerk of the House, and its Director reports to the Clerk of Domestic Committees.[44] When giving oral evidence the Director of POST referred to its location within the Clerk's Department as "the optimum arrangement".[45] He noted in particular the advantages arising from POST being in the same Department as select committee staff.

19. The concept of central support services for Select Committees featured in the Liaison Committee's recent report Shifting the Balance.[46] The Committee recommended the establishment of a central unit specialising in public expenditure and pre-legislative scrutiny, which would be based within the Clerk's Department. In this light, it would seem appropriate to keep POST, with its role as a 'scientific central unit', within the same Department.

20. We note the comments of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, that "bringing POST within the Library structure might help to avoid duplicating resources and research."[47] However, given the wider considerations we have mentioned, and the fact that the present arrangements have worked well, we recommend that POST remains part of the Clerk's Department of the House of Commons.

POST's resources

PUBLICATIONS AND THE WEBSITE

21. POST's hard copy output falls into two broad categories. The first is 'POSTnote briefings', which the Board describes as "analyses of emerging or topical issues...typically two to eight pages long".[48] Recent topics include Stem Cell Research[49] and Genetic Testing.[50] The second is its more detailed 'technology assessments', recent examples of which include Early Years Learning[51] and Cleaning Up?—stimulating innovation in environmental technology.[52] On the whole, we believe that the standard of POST publications are commendable, and this was borne out by the evidence we received. We also note that the simplicity of format of the POSTnotes means that they can be published extremely quickly.[53] We do however think that there is scope for a review of the style of POST's publications. Modern technology means that more sophisticated desktop publishing techniques are available.

22. POST has a homepage on the Parliamentary Intranet and the www.parliament.uk Internet site. The design and layout is similar to other parliamentary pages. All the POST notes and summaries of the long reports appear on the website shortly after, or even before, publication in hard copy form.[54] This is extremely useful. We were told by the Director that POST rarely uses press releases because its work is focussed on parliamentarians—this section of the website is therefore not so up to date.[55]

23. As POST is, and should be seen to be, at the cutting edge of new technology, it is important that its website reflects this. There is a review underway of the design of the parliamentary site, which we would hope POST could contribute to, and benefit from. We also hope that there will be further 'e-reports' published in due course.[56]

STAFF

24. The level of staffing at POST has remained unchanged since 1993: the Director, three full time Scientific Advisers and a Secretary.[57] The Scientific Advisers each cover a distinct subject area, currently environment/energy, health/biological sciences and physical sciences.[58] Various temporary posts are also available for graduates, postgraduates and doctoral students; the POST Board noted that "There is never any shortage of high calibre applicants —take-up is limited only by the availability of workspace and computer facilities."[59] The Chair of the POST Board stated "I think [this work] does POST a lot of credit".[60] We agree.

25. In its submission to this inquiry, the POST Board made out a case for the appointment of two new junior advisers—one in the field of medicine and public health and the other in the field of information technology.[61] The Chair of the POST Board noted that the volume of POST's coverage of medical matters was currently very poor.[62] When giving oral evidence to us Lord Flowers FRS, Vice-Chair of the POST Board, stated that "a bit more staffing, not a lot, covering different subjects which they do not have at the moment would be of enormous value."[63]

26. As the POST Board's memorandum notes, [64] the final decision over staffing will be taken by the House authorities. In our view, this increase in complement would be desirable, particularly in the two fields proposed by the Board. The case is strengthened by the increasing use Select Committees wish to make of POST, which we consider below.

27. Although matters of staffing are strictly for the House authorities, we note with approval the suggestion of the House of Commons Library that:[65]

"If the additional posts ... were to be approved, there might be advantages for both the Library (especially the Science and Environment Section but possibly other research sections) and POST in exchanges of staff between the two organisations."

When giving oral evidence to us, the Director of POST recognised the positive benefits such exchanges might bring, and continued that in time a "three way interchange" could develop between POST, the Library and Select Committee staff.[66] We think this deserves further investigation by the POST Board, the House of Commons Library and the Clerk's Department.

The future role of POST

SELECT COMMITTEES

28. The volume of work POST undertakes for Select Committees of both Houses "has increased substantially"[67] and the submissions we received indicated that it was likely to grow further in the future. For example, the Chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee stated in his submission that:[68]

"The way in which [POST] has fostered stronger relations with Select Committees over the current Parliament has been impressive, although I believe that there is still room for further improvement in this regard, especially with those Committees which do not see POST as a natural source of relevant expertise."

The Chair of the POST Board concurred with the latter point when giving oral evidence to us.[69]

29. The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee hoped that, in the future, POST could have the resources to respond rapidly to Committees' requests for information;[70] the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee stated he would like to see POST become "even more attuned to the needs of individual departmental Select Committees"[71] Similar views were expressed by the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, who stated that "It will come as no surprise that I, as a select committee chairman, would wish to see a closer alignment between the forward programmes of Select Committees and of POST and further specific support from the latter when required."[72]

30. The Chair of the POST Board was keen to develop these relations, stating "I think POST should drive itself much more to the Select Committees."[73] He continued:[74]

"I see Select Committees as a major component of this place in the scrutiny of the executive and as having much more power. I would like to see in their remit "if there is a scientific component, refer it to POST" as one of the priorities they must do before they make a move on any issue."

It seems to us that POST and Select Committees both wish to achieve closer and more active co-operation. We hope to see this develop. We recognise, however, that POST has to maintain its own balance between this part of its work and its sui generis publication process.[75] It would be unfortunate if one were to be expanded to the detriment of the other. This balance is something we will monitor closely in the future.

ON-LINE CONSULTATIONS

31. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's recent report Science and Society[76] stated that:

"We look to POST to maintain a watching brief on the development of public consultation and dialogue on science-related issues, and to keep members of both Houses informed."

The Director of POST confirmed that this was a task the Office was happy to undertake, both through conducting consultations itself or (more importantly) acting as "a channel to make Parliament aware of exercises being carried out by other people."[77]

32. Such consultations are clearly of considerable interest to parliamentarians, as they represent a new opportunity for democratic representatives to listen to their electorate and inform themselves on the issues of the day. This Committee recently conducted an on-line consultation in association with the Hansard Society about Members' use of information technology. We agree with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee that POST is well placed to monitor developments in this area, which is of considerable interest to Members of both Houses.

Conclusion

33. As the Chair of the POST Board stated to us when giving oral evidence, "Science advances when people work together."[78] In developing links between Parliamentarians and the wider scientific community, and complementing the activities of the Libraries of both Houses, POST has proved a success. It is also active in encouraging co-operation with similar organisations internationally, and was a founder member of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network.[79] We have already recommended that POST should be permanently established within the parliamentary structure. This Committee will maintain its interest in and co-operation with POST, and we accordingly recommend that the Board should produce an annual performance report for our consideration.