APPENDIX 12
Letter dated 8 June 2000 from the Chairman
of the Defence Committee
My apologies for slightly missing your deadline for
responses to your letter of 18 May about POST.
The Defence Committee has not made extensive
direct use of POST in the past, although they did provide us with
some briefing on Gulf War illnesses a couple of years ago.
In response to your three direct questions:
(a) I do not feel POST has marketed itself
internally sufficiently aggressively so far. Nor is it clear to
me how the service it offers differs from that of the Library
Research division, or complements it (see (c) below).
(b) I would be loathe to lose any source
of independent advice available to this severely under-resourced
Parliament. I would therefore, in principle, support the continued
funding of POST, though I am cautious about whether it should
become permanent—some element of contractual renewal may
provide a useful incentive and retain flexibility.
(c) I think POST's future role should be
rather more clearly defined. In particular, I wonder if it should
be better integrated into the work of select committees in the
House (though I realise it is shared with the Lords). Building
on the recommendations of the Liaison Committee in its recent
report, perhaps in addition to the proposed central "Estimates"
unit we could develop POST into a central science and technology
unit. Many Committees, my own included, have an occasional but
not necessarily continuous need for advice in these areas.
I am not altogether clear how POST does at present
operate, and the extent to which it commissions work externally.
However, it is evident that much of the expertise in this area
is inevitably highly-specialised. Should POST in the future become
more of a commissioning agency for external researchers?
I hope these comments are helpful. I am afraid
I write as someone who, as an individual, does not pay particular
attention to matters which fall within POST's remit.
Bruce GeorgeChairman
|
