Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 8 November 2006