Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1400-1403)
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND SIR
BRIAN BENDER
KCB
5 JULY 2006
Q1400 Chairman: I am sorry, we have
to move on. I want to finish this session at half-past, because
you have given us an enormous of time. Just on the last section,
if we can have a very brief answer, Alistair, clearly you get
evidence from the research base, in terms of policy within the
DTI; you get advice from Sir David and also from Sir Keith, as
the Department's Chief Scientific Adviser, would you be happy
to publish that advice?
Mr Darling: I think there is a
distinction here we have been talking about, in relation to general
advice we commission, from outside bodies, and so on; what I do
not think ought to be published is what you might call advice
to ministers, which successive governments have protected, the
Freedom of Information legislation protects, because ministers
must have at their disposal information that will allow them to
reach a decision. If you get to a situation where, frankly, people
stop giving you advice and you say "I don't want anything
in writing," that just gets to a ridiculous position. I think,
consistent with everything I have said, that, wherever possible,
you should be open as possible, you should publish information
you get, but I think it has long been recognised that there is
a separate category of advice, which, as I say, the legislation
recognises, in relation to advice to ministers, where it is perfectly
reasonable for any government, of whatever political colour, to
say "That needs to be protected."
Q1401 Adam Afriyie: Public consultations
often create a great deal of anxiety and stress and unhappiness
among participants; so, for example, when questions are asked,
somebody participating will have the raised expectation that their
answer may change the outcome. Also certain risks and threats
are highlighted to people in public consultations, which otherwise
they would not consider and they begin to think about a lot more.
My first question to Alistair is how useful are consultations
in evidence-based policy-making, in your view?
Mr Darling: They are useful, quite
simply because in a number of cases the Government does not know
the answer. We may want to go out because we are not sure whether
or not a particular proposition is the right thing to do. There
are other areas where, for example, we need to say, okay, this
is something where a group of people say something ought to happen
but how widespread is that feeling, let us have a wider consultation
on it. I quite accept your point that if you raise a consultation
you raise a doubt in someone's mind as to whether or not you are
going to do something, you can possibly raise people's expectations
if you decide, at the end of the day, not to do something, but
I think there are many occasions when consultation is highly desirable.
Q1402 Adam Afriyie: Sir David, what
are the most effective methods of canvassing public opinion on
a scientific matter, if you like, where there is science involved;
what is the best method, in your view, of collecting, or canvassing,
those opinions, which perhaps does not create so much stress or
concern?
Professor Sir David King: What
I think we are pioneering in Britain is the notion of moving on
from the old phrase `public understanding of science' to the phrase
`public engagement with science' and, within the Office of Science
and Innovation, we have a programme headed Sciencewise, and it
is run by Professor Kathy Sykes, of Bristol University, and through
our Office, under the Science and Society team. Sciencewise has
been run out as an initial programme on nanotechnology and we
have gone into towns around the UK and set up discussions with,
effectively, randomly-chosen members of the public. These discussions
have proceeded by, first of all, finding out their opinions on
nanotechnology, then discussing their opinions, exchanging views
with groups of scientists who work in nanotechnology, and then,
six weeks later, finding out again what their positions are. The
final outcome, by the way, is always we come out with very sophisticated
views from the public, arising from this kind of direct engagement.
Q1403 Adam Afriyie: Thank you very
much. A final question, to Sir Brian, as Permanent Secretary,
what if the views from public opinion which come through completely
contradict the scientific evidence; what happens there?
Sir Brian Bender: Clearly, we
would need to analyse quite what was going on. I can think of
one example that David was involved in just after the foot and
mouth disease outbreak, about animal movements, where there was
some further scientific evidence about maintaining movement restrictions
for longer and then the response to the consultations not only
indicated opposition but actually indicated that there was a conflict
between the science and the economics and also there was a risk
that the harder we went down the pure scientific route the less
implemented the law would be. Therefore, there was a balance of
judgment to be made, and David was involved in the advice that
went to, I guess it was, Margaret Beckett, at the time, and she
ended up taking a view that he was content with, but it did not
follow, if I can put it, the milk and honey of the initial scientific
advice because, actually, following that might have led to a law
that was probably breached and therefore led to worse outcomes.
That is just one example. I think we have to assess, in any of
these cases, exactly what people are saying and why, and then,
as the Secretary of State was saying earlier, that is what ministers
are for.
Chairman: Just finally, can I ask both
Alistair and David, in terms of the media, you mentioned the media
earlier and how important it is actually to have a positive engagement
with the media, in terms of science? I think, Kathy Sykes's programme,
engaging with science is the right terminology, but do you feel,
Alistair, that the Government gives enough time actually to engaging
properly with the media, in terms of getting messages over about
science? Issues, like GM, for instance, which was very badly handled,
the nuclear issue you could perhaps argue again is a difficult
concept which it is important to engage; and do you think, in
terms of your profile, David, it is important that you have had
a high media profile and that other senior scientific advisers,
departmental advisers, should also have a high media profile within
their departments? Could we have written answers to those questions,
so that I can close this session, at this moment in time, and
thank Sir Brian Bender, Alistair Darling and Sir David King for
your attendance this afternoon.
|
