APPENDIX N
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Memorandum to the Liaison Committee
1. The Liaison Committee has asked for annual
activity reports from each Select Committee. This memorandum describes
the activities of the Science and Technology Committee in the
current Parliament. The final report of our predecessor Committee,
published last May, described the Committee's activities in the
first part of 2001.[144]
Delay in nomination
2. The Committee was nominated on 12 November
2001. This was almost four months after the other departmental
Select Committees were appointed (on16 July 2001) and four full
weeks after the House returned from the Summer Adjournment. We
greatly regret the delay in our nomination, which lost us a valuable
period of work. It was as if, once the target of setting up the
Committees before the Summer appeared to have been achieved, interest
was lost in finishing the job. We ask the Liaison Committee to
urge the Government to ensure that, after the next General Election,
all Committees be nominated without delay.
Activities to date
3. Because of the delay in our nomination, we
have little more that one month's activity to report. We have
held six meetings. We have undertaken a short follow-up inquiry
into our predecessor Committee's 2000 Report on Cancer Research[145],
with one evidence session in December and another planned for
January. We have launched two inquiries for the New Year, on the
Research Assessment Exercise (which informs the funding of Higher
Education) and on Science Education from 14 to 19. We have had
a "scrutiny" evidence session with the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, the Minister for Science and Innovation
and the Director General of Research Councils. We have obtained
a memorandum from the Department of Trade and Industry on the
implications of the DTI review for the Office of Science and Technology.
We have made plans to visit the Office of Science and Technology
in London and the Research Councils (our main "associated
public bodies") in Swindon, in January.
4. After our first meeting, we took the innovative
step of issuing a press notice inviting interested organisations
in the field of science and technology to suggest topics for investigation.
We received an extensive and very useful response, which has informed
our decision on future inquiries.
5. We have held a meeting to discuss our objectives
and our method of working. We have plans for another, informal,
meeting, away from Westminster, in January, when we will discuss
further how we can be most effective in scrutinising Government.
Government Replies
6. We have received Government Replies to three
Reports of the Committee in the last Parliament (on the Scientific
Advisory System, Are We Realising Our Potential?, and Wave and
Tidal Energy) and published them as Special Reports.[146]
These Replies were received, respectively, 6½ months, almost
7 months, and 6 months after publication of the related Report.
Worse, we are still awaiting a Reply to our predecessors' Third
Report of Session 2000-01, on Scientific Advice on Climate Change,
which was published on 21 March 2001 (nine months ago). We have
written in complaint to the Minister responsible, Mr Meacher,
but have had no response. We appreciate that this is an evolving
policy area, but we do not believe that this justifies such a
long delay in replying.
7. We ask the Liaison Committee to consider the
procedures for Government Replies following a General Election.
There is little point in Departments sending memoranda to Committee
clerks in advance of the nomination of the Committee, but this
should not be an excuse for long delay. We suggest that, where
the nomination of a Committee is delayed, beyond, say, four or
five months after the publication of a Report, the Department
should be expected to publish the Reply itself, as a Command Paper.
8. The Liaison Committee might also like to reconsider
the two month rule. We wonder whether it is realistic to expect
Departments to reply to complicated reports within two months:
it is better to get a considered reply after four, or even six
months, than something short and hasty within two.
Joint working
9. We are continuing to explore opportunities
for joint working with the Lords. Our Chairman has held informal
meetings with the Chairman of the Lords Science and Technology
Committee and with the Chairman of the Lords Committee on Stem
Cell Research.
Debates
10. There was a well-attended debate in Westminster
Hall on our predecessor Committee's Report on Genetics and Insurance[147]
on 25 October 2001. We have obtained another debate in Westminster
Hall in January 2002 on our predecessor Committee's Report on
Wave and Tidal Energy.[148]
20 December 2001
144 Fourth Special Report from the Science and Technology
Committee, Session 2000-01, The Work of the Science and Technology
Committee in the 1997-2001 Parliament, HC 476. Back
145
Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
1999-2000, Cancer Research - a Fresh Look, HC 332. Back
146
First Special Report from the Science and Technology Committee,
Session 2001-02, The Government's Response to the Science and
Technology Committee's Fourth Report, Session 2000-01, on the
Scientific Advisory System, HC 360.
Second Special Report from the Science
and Technology Committee, Session 2001-02, The Government's
Response to the Science and Technology Committee's Sixth Report,
Session 2000-01, Are We Realising Our Potential?, HC 361.
Third Special Report from the Science
and Technology Committee, Session 2001-02, The Government's
Response to the Science and Technology Committee's Seventh Report,
Session 2000-01,on Wave and Tidal Energy, HC 377. Back
147
Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2000-01, Genetics and Insurance, HC 174. Back
148
Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2000-01, Wave and Tidal Energy, HC 291; 10 January 2002, cols
269WH - 310 WH. Back
|
