House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report

3 Other comments

35. This year we received five out of nine Government responses within the established two month deadline, compared to six out of eight responses published last year. The average response time increased from just over two months to three months this year, although, as in 2003, we were consulted in advance over any delays. Last year we observed that there was a tendency for Government responses to restate existing policy and to set out those measures already being taken rather than to focus on new measures and developments. We were disappointed that there was very little change to this approach in 2004. Such responses give the impression of stagnation in Government policy-making.

36. We were particularly frustrated by the Government response to our Report on Scientific Publications: Free for all?. As we noted in the Report published alongside the response, the Government failed to reply to the substance of some of our arguments and appeared to misinterpret others.[44] It also argued against a number of recommendations that the Committee did not make. This tendency was picked up in the media at the time. One journalist, writing in the Guardian, noted that "the government is, of course, within its rights to ignore select committees, but it could at least have properly read the report".[45] We hope that the Government's reluctance to engage with the issues raised in our Report does not set the trend for future responses. One of the primary functions of the scrutiny carried out by select committees is, after all, to help Government to address areas of policy deficiency. This process will become more difficult if the Government misinterprets the recommendations made in select committee reports in order to avoid the arguments.

37. In its Fourteenth Report of Session 2003—04, the Committee also raised concerns that a non-departmental public body had been put under pressure by DTI not to submit an independent, and divergent, response to the Committee's Report on scientific publications. We regarded the approach taken by DTI in this case to be unduly sensitive. We have raised this issue with the Liaison Committee in the context of the Cabinet Office's revised "Guidance, Evidence and Response to Select Committees" on the provision of evidence by Government to Select Committees.

Relations with the Office of Science and Technology and other Government departments

38. In general, our relations with OST have been good during 2004. As in 2003, we have been kept informed of forthcoming announcements and have been supplied with the information on performance that we need in order to carry out our work. OST has, for the most part, been punctual in providing responses to our questions prior to, and after, evidence sessions. Where there have been delays we have been consulted, although sometimes only when it becomes apparent that the deadline will not be met as agreed.

39. Both DTI and OST have published several important policy documents in 2004. Neither has been very punctual in sending copies to the Committee. This delays our work and could easily be avoided if the department had systems in place to ensure that we received all relevant documentation in a timely fashion. It is also very useful if we can be kept informed of any work that is carried out by the department in response to our inquiries. For example, we would expect to be informed when Ministers respond immediately to our Report by means of letters to national newspapers. This did not always happen in 2004.[46]

40. Requests for witnesses to attend oral evidence sessions have generally been met. However, our Report on Scientific Publications: Free for all? records the difficulties we experienced with DTI in securing officials to give evidence during the inquiry.[47] We asked to see representatives from both OST and the Digital Content and Publishing Unit at DTI. We were told that the Director General of the Research Councils would represent both groups. In the event we found that he could not speak on behalf of the Digital Content and Publishing Unit, and thus many of our questions went unanswered. We usually leave it up to the department concerned to decide who is best equipped to speak to the Committee. For the most part this arrangement functions well. Nonetheless, we make specific requests for a reason. Denying them leads only to frustration, both for the Committee and the witnesses themselves.

41. It is perhaps inevitable that the focus of departments other than DTI is on the relevant departmental select committee, rather than on us. Nonetheless, in 2004 this has hampered our investigations on a number of occasions. During our inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy we liaised extensively with the Department for International Development. Whilst staff there were extremely obliging, it sometimes took them a number of days to respond to queries. Furthermore, on occasion we had to request copies of documents that were relevant to our inquiry after learning about their existence from other sources. By contrast, we have found the Department of Health to be very helpful and efficient in their dealings with us in connection with our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law. Fostering good relationships between departments and select committees help to ensure effective scrutiny. For this reason it is extremely important that Government departments place sufficient emphasis on the very valuable work carried out by their Parliamentary Clerks.

Relationships with the science and engineering community and the public

42. Science policy is a relatively small field. It is inevitable that some of the subjects explored by the Committee also attract studies from other bodies. In our Annual Report last year we noted that our inquiry into Government support for nanotechnology would complement the study conducted by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering into the environmental, ethical, health and safety concerns arising from the new technology.[48] A meeting convened prior to the start of inquiry ensured that the two investigations did not overlap. The publication of both reports revealed the potential for fruitful cooperation between the Committee and other bodies carrying out science policy work on major scientific issues of public interest. However, the Royal Society has subsequently conducted several studies and activities that have, without acknowledgment, duplicated Reports already published by the Committee, notably on the scientific response to terrorism and international development. We are not convinced that this is a constructive way to proceed, or that it benefits science policy for work to be duplicated. In 2005 we hope to work more closely with the Royal Society to ensure that a more collaborative approach is taken to future activities.

43. Many of our inquiries draw contributions from people and organisations that would otherwise have no direct contact with Parliament. Our ongoing programme of scrutiny of the Research Councils, for example, frequently attracts evidence from individual researchers. This year our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law has required us to actively engage with members of the public who have a purely personal interest in the subject. We are fully aware that giving evidence before a select committee is a daunting prospect for such people, and that the inquiry process can seem impenetrable to those who have no previous experience of it. For this reason we are developing some written guidance on the work of the Committee and the inquiry process more generally that can be distributed to our stakeholders; routinely sent out with calls for evidence; and will be posted on our website - www.parliament.uk/s&tcom. We also plan to use the guidance in support of our outreach activities.

Working methods and innovation

44. Our inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law deals with some extremely sensitive issues that have an impact on the everyday lives of members of the public. For this reason we decided to hold an online public consultation exercise before the start of the inquiry. The exercise was designed to attract both the comments of experts in the field and those of people with relevant personal experiences who would perhaps not want to submit formal evidence to a select committee. The consultation was announced in January 2004. During the consultation period, 333 users registered to take part in the online forum; 111 of those users logged onto the site and posted a total of 554 messages. Of those who actually took part in the consultation, approximately half were affiliated to an interested organisation, and half were private individuals.[49] In March 2004 we used the priorities identified in contributions to the consultation to help frame the terms of reference for the inquiry. The views expressed in the consultation have provided a useful context against which to consider the formal evidence we have received as part of this inquiry.

45. Two of the Reports we published this year, The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy, and Scientific Publications: Free for all?, were of particular interest to a clearly defined community of stakeholders. In order to engage these communities in the issues raised by the inquiries we hosted conferences to launch the Reports. These conferences, held in Portcullis House at Westminster and the British Library respectively, were attended by contributors to the inquiries, interested organisations and members of the public, as well as by representatives from the press. The events made our Reports accessible to a wide audience and have helped to ensure the longevity of the debates surrounding the recommendations that we made.

46. In 2004 the Committee has actively pursued a number of important outreach activities. In December we met with the Committee for Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sport of the Czech Parliament when they visited London. Similarly, when visiting Rome in November we held a meeting with the Italian Parliamentary Science Committee. These meetings with our opposite numbers help us to place our work in an international context and raise awareness of our inquiries on the global stage. We have been on a number of short UK visits and have hosted informal meetings to discuss issues of continuing interest to the Committee that are not necessarily the subject of a current inquiry. One of these visits, to the National Institute of Medical Research in Mill Hill, prompted us to announce a brief inquiry into its future. The Chairman and some members of the Committee have participated in seminars and conferences related to Committee inquiries. They have also appeared in the media on numerous occasions, either to promote Reports or to participate in debates about broad science policy issues.

44 Fourteenth Report of the Committee, Session 2003-04, Responses to the Committee's Tenth Report, Session 2003-04, Scientific Publications: Free for all?, HC 1200 Back

45 Richard Wray, "Confused decision on science publishing", The Guardian, 9 November 2004 Back

46 Lord Sainsbury, "Open Access is not the only science publishing model", Letters to the Editor, The Financial Times, 10 November 2004, p 16 Back

47 HC (2003-04) 399 Back

48 The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties (July 2004) Back

49 A summary report by the Hansard Society on the online consultation can be found at www.tellparliament.net Back