APPENDIX 6
Letter dated June 2000 from the Chairman
of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee
RESPONSE TO COMMONS INFORMATION COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO THE PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(POST)
HOW HAS
POST OPERATED TO
DATE?
Interaction between POST and the Science and Technology
Committee of the House of Lords since the last review has developed
considerably, and has taken a number of innovative forms. These
are listed in the Annex below. In addition, staff of the Committee
and POST staff enjoy good relations, and meet frequently on an
informal basis to exchange ideas and to discuss work in progress
here and elsewhere. Such discussions are particularly valuable
when the Committee is exploring possible topics for future inquiry.
For example, POST has recently provided assistance before and
during the Committee's present inquiry into the Aircraft Cabin
Environment, including helping to find an appropriate Specialist
Adviser, assembling relevant literature and analysing background
data to inform the inquiry. The Committee has always, however,
respected POST's independence, and has never sought to direct
its programme.
SHOULD POST BE
ESTABLISHED ON
A PERMANENT
BASIS WITH
PARLIAMENTARY FUNDING?
We say yes. POST has proved its worth, and should
now be put on a permanent footing, subject of course to the right
of the two Houses to redirect resources at any time as they see
fit. Among other benefits, this would give its staff greater job
security than they have enjoyed until now.
The question is bound to arise, whether a permanent
POST should remain in its present unique position of a research
unit serving both Houses and independent of other parliamentary
research resources; or whether it should be absorbed within the
traditional parliamentary structure, probably within the Commons
Library Research Division.
We consider that there are two essential aspects
of POST's operation that must be retained if any changes to its
position within the Parliamentary estate are considered. First,
POST's relationship with this House and its committees and members
should remain unchanged. Second, the structure of a Board of parliamentarians
and non-parliamentarians to oversee POST's work programme should
be preserved.
Bringing POST within the Library structure might
help to avoid duplicating resources and research, and to provide
a solid framework for managing POST as a permanent unit. We imagine
that in the first instance, maintaining POST's position and Board
structure following such a repositioning would constitute challenges
to the Library's arrangements. However, if the two conditions
outlined above can be guaranteed with POST within the Library
structure, it might provide a model for the future development
of research resources to serve Parliament as a whole.
HOW MIGHT
THE ROLE
OF POST DEVELOP
IN THE
FUTURE?
We expressed a collective view on this question
in our recent report Science and Society (February 2000): "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. This may have implications
for POST's resources, if at the same time POST is to maintain
its excellent service of technical briefing, which is of great
value to members of both Houses" (para 5.89).
Winston
Chairman
| 
