Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence


APPENDIX 16

Supplementary evidence from the Government

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE, RISK AND EVIDENCE: HOW GOVERNMENT HANDLES THEM

  Answers from Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Ms Sue Duncan, Chief Government Social Researcher to Committee questions following the oral evidence session on 15 February 2006, [HC 900-i].

QUESTION 1

In oral evidence Ms Duncan referred to the Professional Skills for Government (PSG) initiative [Q11]. Please explain how PSG will improve the use of scientific evidence (including social science) by policy makers and the professional development of scientists within the civil service. What other steps are being taken to improve opportunities for scientists within the Civil Service [Q14]?

  1.  Improving the use of science and social science evidence requires action to address both the supply and demand issues. The Professional Skills for Government (PSG) initiative aims to address both. On the demand side, one of the core skills policy makers are expected to demonstrate is "analysis and use of evidence" (A+UE). This should significantly improve the use of all types of evidence, including scientific evidence, by policy makers.

  2.  The requirements associated with the A+UE skill were developed by a small team that included representation from "analytical" professions within government. The "Scientist/Engineer" profession was represented, as were, for example, social researchers, economists and statisticians. Should they be required, a full list of the requirements associated with the A+UE core skill may be found on the Cabinet Office's PSG site[53].

  3.  One part of the A+UE skill at the Grade 7 "career gateway" involves "engaging with relevant experts to gather and evaluate evidence". Since A+UE is a core skill, all civil servants at Grade 7 and above should be demonstrating this behaviour. Furthermore, as people progress through the PSG career gateways, they have to demonstrate real development in this area. They are required to move from "using" and "understanding" evidence to "championing" the role of analysis and evidence.

  4.  It is as yet unclear what the response to developing this core A+UE skill is likely to be, and what the appropriate balance between courses and on-the-job learning is, in acquiring the skill.

  5.  PSG emphasises that everyone in the civil service now belongs to a professional group and clearly puts the responsibility for developing professionalism (which includes core policy and business skills alongside analytical skills) in the hands of the relevant Heads of Profession. Different groups are at different stages in this process, but Heads of Profession meet regularly to discuss progress and share best practice.

Science/Engineer Profession

  6.  The creation of the "Scientist/Engineer" profession within the PSG framework clearly puts scientists and engineers on the same footing as all other professional groups. It should no longer appear as a "specialist" profession, with an implicit limit on the level that its members can reach. Integrating the profession into a civil service wide initiative also highlights the opportunities that exist for scientists and engineers to progress into the SCS and, furthermore, PSG clearly defines the skills and experience that are needed to achieve this.

  7.  The Skills Framework (SF) for the Scientist/Engineer profession, and the associated Learning and Development document, will also aid the professional development of scientists and engineers. For example, these documents highlight the importance of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), especially that leading to a professional qualification (eg Chartered Engineer and/or Chartered Scientist).

  8.  These documents also highlight the importance of being able to provide clear advice to technical and non-technical audiences, and of understanding the needs and constraints of stakeholder communities. These skills should further improve the interface between policy makers and the analytical professions.

  9.  As discussed above, the introduction of PSG has improved the opportunities available to civil service scientists and engineers. Sir David King's role as the government-wide Head of Science and Engineering Profession (HoSEP) also supports this aim. Working with departmental heads of profession, he aims to publicise the breadth of work conducted by the science and engineering community, which will help individuals identify future opportunities. He will also be launching a web site that, amongst other things, contains a high-level discussion of the various career paths open to scientists and engineers. The description of this framework is enhanced by a number of example jobs that have recently been advertised on the Civil Service Recruitment Gateway. Current plans are for the web site to go live during May 2006, this date being driven by changes to the overall Department of Trade and Industry web site, of which it forms a part.

  10.  The ongoing programme of Science Reviews, which are conducted by officials in the Office of Science and Technology (OST) on behalf of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, also contribute to improving the opportunities for civil service scientists. In particular, one of the criteria they examine is how departments "use, maintain and develop scientific expertise".

Social Research Profession

  11.  To further embed the principles of PSG, a common competence framework for members of the Government Social Research service has been developed, setting out the requirements for each grade. This is soon to be complemented by a Continuing Professional Development Handbook that introduces a minimum number of hours of CPD required by GSR members, and assists them in assessing their current level of competence, and identifying training and other professional development activities that they can undertake in each area. GSR has also just launched its Fast Stream programme for existing GSR members, which is intended to identify and develop the talent of GSR members with potential to progress to the Senior Civil Service. Fast Stream schemes for economists and statisticians already exist.

QUESTION 2

Ms Duncan stated that she had "no role specifically in advising ministers" and that the Chief Economist was her line manager [Q1-2]. Does the Government Chief Economist have a role in advising Ministers and the Prime Minister on social science issues, or does all responsibility for providing cross-departmental advice on social science lie with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser?

  12.  There are a number of mechanisms for providing cross-departmental advice on social science ranging from informal liaison by the central chiefs of social science professions through to formal reviews of cross-departmental policy areas. One of the reasons for establishing the Coordination of Research and Analysis Group (CRAG), was to ensure more effective coordination across the analytical and policy communities in both anticipating and responding to cross-departmental challenges.

  13.  The Head of the Government Economic Service, as well as being a member of CRAG, supports and guides departmental Government Chief Economists, who do have a direct role in advising ministers on social science issues, and who meet regularly to discuss cross-cutting issues. He is available to give advice to any minister, should that be requested. Sir Nicholas Stern, as well as being Head of the GES, is, in his other capacity, an adviser to the UK government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development, and is currently leading the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

QUESTION 3

Sir David indicated that the Office of Science and Technology fulfilled the same function as the Government Social Research Service, Government Economic Service, Government Statistical Service and Government Operational Research Service [Q12]. Could you please explain the rationale behind this statement and clarify why there are Government Services for social science disciplines but not for the natural or physical sciences, engineering and technology?

  14.  The rationale behind this statement is that the Office of Science and Technology (OST) shares the same high-level aims as the organisations listed in the question. For example, part of OST's work is about ensuring that the work of scientists and engineers is integrated into the policy making process. Its work also involves supporting and championing the scientific and engineering community.

  15.  A number of the organisations identified in this question are involved in the recruitment of members of their profession. They are also highly active in areas like the provision of individual training courses.

  16.  While, in common with other analytical professions OST works with other government departments, OST does not work directly with individual members of the science and engineering community, whose professional development is managed at a Departmental level. By helping departments write Science and Innovation (or Evidence and Innovation) strategies, and encouraging the use of Horizon Scanning (HS) techniques, OST helps departments to identify the science and engineering capabilities they need to support their business. In short, amongst other things, OST tries to help departments better manage their own science and engineering communities.

  17.  The topic of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provides a good example of how this works in practice. In Sir David King's role as Head of Profession for scientists and engineers, he has stated that, in most cases, CPD that leads to a professional qualification like Chartered Scientist (CSci) or Chartered Engineer (CEng) should be undertaken. However, he has not dictated that this must be achieved in a particular manner.

  18.  At least 16 different professional bodies can award CSci status[54]. As might be expected, these include the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. A number of more specialist organisations including, for example, the Oil and Colour Chemists' Association, the Institute of Corrosion and the Institute of Professional Soil Scientists, can also award the qualification. The choice of a specialist, or more general, route to chartered status is clearly best made locally, where the needs of the individual and their employing organisation are understood much better.

QUESTION 4

Sir David stated: "the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser is to report to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and yet my office is in the DTI. I think that tension exists and I feel it many days of the week" [Q13]. What steps you have taken to mitigate this problem and how will the new arrangements at the OST and DTI impact on this?

  19.  There are benefits as well as challenges in the current arrangements. As the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King values being able to draw readily on the work of the Science and Engineering Base and Innovation Groups in the DTI, and to work closely with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Science and Innovation. Having his office in the DTI sends a clear signal internally and externally that the DTI is indeed the "Department for Science". At the same time he ensures that his links to the centre of Government are strong: Sir David meets the Prime Minister and his staff, as well as the Secretary of the Cabinet and other Cabinet Office officials, regularly. It is well understood and accepted by DTI colleagues, including Ministers, that Sir David advises the Government independently. The merging of the DTI's Innovation Group into the Office of Science and Technology to create the Office of Science and Innovation, which Sir David King will continue to lead, will not change that position; however it will mean that science and innovation policies will be better integrated, and carry more weight, within the DTI.

QUESTION 5

Sir David stated that he was not confident that all departments had sufficient scientific expertise to respond to unforeseen challenges [Q25]. Which are the key areas of weakness, in terms of departments, processes and policies, which need to be addressed?

  20.  One of the key recommendations of the 2002 Cross Cutting Review of Science and Research (CCR) was that Departments publish Science and Innovation (S&I) Strategies, which are proposals for meeting defined S&T policy objectives and goals.

  21.  The Strategies should show how they relate to and contribute to departmental priorities, objectives and relevant Public Services Agreement (PSA) targets. They also aim to identify and meet the strategic public policy challenges across Government, which undoubtedly require input from a wide range of analytical resources.

  22.  CSA's Guidelines call for adequate horizon scanning procedures to be in place in Departments and S&I strategies to ensure that these procedures are exploited in support of scientific evidence and understanding of technological innovation. This should form part of the solution to crosscutting public policy issues that may affect future policies.

  23.  Horizon scanning is intended to help reduce the impact of unforeseen challenges by identifying public policy challenges; sourcing data across all evidential areas; and identifying the opportunities, threats and key scientific issues the department will need to address for the longer-term. Horizon scanning should provide early indications of trends, issues, or other emerging phenomena that may create significant impacts that departments need to take account of.

  24.  While the key elements of the S&I Strategy documents, such as horizon scanning; risk management; skills strategy; and public engagement, cover the issues of capacity and capability, the key areas of weakness tend to be the lack of coherent systems for co-ordinating these elements.

  25.  The ability to retain, fund and develop scientific expertise for unforeseen challenges is a real issue for Departments. The need to fund, retain the expertise, and constantly update the skills is an equation that is rarely truly resolved. (This is based on Science Review experience.)

  26.  Most Departments are responsible for a wide range of policy areas, each requiring specialist scientists, and while these departments build generically on the experience of their past responses to emergency situations, extrapolating learning from one to inform the next crisis, they cannot fully predict the nature of the scientific expertise required for the next emergency.

  27.   Processes: the second part of the question asks which are the key areas of weakness in terms of departments processes and policies, which need to be addressed?

  The Horizon Scanning Centre (HSC) was established in November 2004 to provide a higher-level strategic context to horizon scanning in departments, and to feed directly into cross-government priority setting, strategy formation and decision-making. Horizon scanning helps a Department look beyond the day-to-day operational priorities, to identify potential changes in science and social science, (for example, dealing with the perception of and attitude to science) and make provision for planning responses to these. OST's experience suggests that within Departments there is not yet a common embedded view of what horizon scanning is, how and where it is applied, and what part it plays in business processes including strategy and risk management. However, the Horizon Scanning Centre within OST is aware of these developmental issues, and has a Strategic Futures coaching and support programme open to all Government Departments with the aim of raising the capacity for horizon scanning within Government Departments and spreading good practice.

  28.  In the last 12 months, the coaching and support programme has involved 78 individuals from eight Government Departments and a wide range of agencies, devolved administrations and other public sector bodies. The Horizon Scanning Centre has an on-going process of engagement with the private sector to seek lessons and good practice that can be applied in Government. However, horizon scanning, as an activity across Government, is fairly new and the activity is not yet well embedded in strategic processes in all Departments.

  29.  The Horizon Scanning Centre also runs a Best Practice network (the Futures Analysts Network, known as the FAN Club) whose quarterly meetings attract around 60-70 people from all sectors, both public and private.

  30.  As well as expecting a Department to take a view of the future, OST's Science Review Team also looks at the extent to which a Department looks beyond its own organisation to identify unforeseen challenges, and areas where the necessary expertise may already exist elsewhere. This includes working with, and being aware of expertise in academia, OGDs and internationally.

  31.  Departmental strategies tend to concentrate on issues for which a department has lead-responsibility, so cross-departmental issues may receive less attention. One response to this structural weakness is the work of the OST's Foresight Directorate whose criteria for prioritising and selecting potential projects include the requirement that they should involve cross- Departmental policy issues.

  32.  There are in addition network mechanisms—some informal and others systematic—where Departments have access to expertise. R&D programmes dedicated to Departmental policy areas create—through R&D contracts—extensive networks of external experts. Many Departments also have access to expertise in their own science agencies, who in themselves are engaged in extensive topic focussed networks. Departments are also often invested deeply in relationships with specific research institutions (eg research council institutes) which gives them access to external institutional expertise. Some of these relationships are expressed through formal memoranda of understanding. Departments may also have access to scientific advisory committees that include leading experts, often engaged on advisory functions of an anticipatory nature. Departments may also have formal relationships with international expert committees and panels. The nature of such network mechanisms necessarily results in Departments with greater R&D budgets and science focussed policy areas having a higher level of ready access to both internal and external expertise.

QUESTION 6

Sir David stated that "the Treasury leads on managing risk" and Ms Duncan noted that the Treasury had provided guidance on risk appraisal [Q76]. Who is responsible for monitoring the implementation of this guidance by departments and how is this co-ordinated with the Science Reviews led by OST?

  33.  "Managing risks to the public: appraisal guidance" was published on 17 June 2005 following wide consultation. What the document does is provide departments with the flexibility to take judgments on the management of risk which are related to their particular circumstances.

  34.  Monitoring of implementation is the responsibility of the Treasury.

  35.  Monitoring is not co-ordinated with the Science Reviews as the guidance is designed for policy makers across all government and not specifically for those working on scientific policy. It is nevertheless the case that the ten criteria that underpin Science Reviews include several which address risk at the strategic and operational level. In particular, the Reviews test for implementation of Guidelines 2005 and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.

QUESTION 7

Sir David referred to a table of relative risks produced by the life insurance industry [Q77]. Is this table, or an analogous framework, used by Government for risk communication? If not, why not? If so, please provide further information on how it is used.

  36.  The Government has not developed a standardised table of risks; risk means different things to different people. Looked at from one perspective an individual may have a better sense of their own personal risk than Government as the Government looks at risk in aggregate across the population as a whole. For example, someone who does not drive when tired or drunk and always drives cautiously could reasonably assume that their level of risk is different to the aggregate average level of risk. On the other hand people do not tend to have a very analytical approach to personal risk but rather make judgements based on the way they feel.

  37.  What Government does provide is guidance on managing risks to the public for policy makers and professional risk assessors. The Government has also developed guidance on communicating risk, which is published on UK Resilience web site. This gives guidance to communicators and policy makers on the types of risks people face and a set of principles for communicating on risk based issues. http://www. ukresilience.info/preparedness/risk/communicatingrisk.pdf

QUESTION 8

Sir David made reference to the Prime Minister's initiative to improve media handling of risk, formerly led by John Hutton [Q80]. Please provide information on who is now leading this initiative, what activities have been undertaken and what further activities are planned.

  38.  There have been useful discussions with the broadcast media about handling risk and there are plans for the Chief Scientific Adviser, Chief Medical Officer and the Permanent Secretary for Government Communications to continue the dialogue with the print media over the next few months.

QUESTION 9

Sir David indicated that he considered the idea of a precautionary principle to be "unscientific", preferring to refer to a precautionary approach [Q87]. Please define what is meant by a precautionary approach and explain the steps that you have taken to promote the use of a precautionary approach (as opposed to principle) across Government.

  39.  The precautionary approach is consistent with wider risk management practice. It applies where the scientific evidence is incomplete or inconclusive, and there is the possibility of severe and irreversible consequences. It simply allows for a further judgment to be made, alongside a more standard cost-benefit analysis, to enable policy makers to justify resource investment in risk prevention/minimization in these circumstances.

  40.  Each individual case has to be fully examined on its merits, taking into account relevant risk management principles such as proportionality and consistency. It is clearly difficult to define whether proposed action is "proportionate" when the science is uncertain. Central advice for Departments seeking to take precautionary action to mitigate perceived risk is therefore provided in the Treasury Guidance "Managing risks to the public: appraisal guidance" (p 17) which supplements the Treasury's Green Book guidance "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government". The guidance identifies precautionary action as one of several possible options for the management of risk—including delay and allowing more time for investigation of alternative, less damaging ways for achieving stated objectives. The guidance directs appraisers to draw the matter to the attention of senior management and seek expert advice.

QUESTION 10

Ms Duncan said: "my understanding is that [the Cabinet Office] do not any more monitor the way departments implement the guidance" on best practice for consultations [Q93]. Please confirm that this is the case.

  41.  The Cabinet Office does still undertake some monitoring of departmental compliance with the Code of Practice on Consultation through its annual Assessment of Performance. (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/consultation/index.asp)

23% of the 621 consultations by departments in the 2004 calendar year lasted less than 12 weeks. Where consultations do not meet the 12 week minimum, require ministerial sign-off explaining the reasons and are expected to take extra effort to ensure that the consultation is as effective as possible. Of those consultations that lasted less than the 12 week period, all but 5 received Ministerial approval and were therefore compliant with the Code. Reasons given for non-compliance have included pressure of European timetables, stakeholder pressure for quick action, and the need to dovetail with the parliamentary scrutiny timetable. From 2005, departments are required to state, in the better regulation section of their annual reports, the reason why Ministerial approval is given for consultations lasting less than 12 weeks.

QUESTION 11

Sir David said that he speaks "on behalf of the advisory system within Government" [Q97]. Please clarify what the term "advisory system" refers to and which Minister has ultimate responsibility for the scientific advisory system in Government.

  42.  The term "advisory system" refers to the analytical advice provided by Government analysts to decision makers (usually Ministers). Sir David speaks on behalf of the scientific community within this system. Other chief analysts (such as the Chief Economist and Chief Social Researcher) provide advice on behalf of their own analytical communities. The way in which this advice reaches decision makers varies according to discipline and department.

  43.  Chief analysts and senior policy makers meet regularly through CRAG to ensure more effective coordination across the analytical and policy communities, and to ensure that Government is in a better position to anticipate and respond to where such advice is likely to be needed.

  44.  Lord Sainsbury (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, DTI) is the Minister who has the lead on the science agenda. However, due to the high profile and sensitive nature of science, Sir David King, as the independent GCSA, has the lead in this area and provides advice directly to the Prime Minister.

QUESTION 12

Are there any general criteria for the selection of departmental chief scientific advisers? What guidance has been issued to departments regarding the experience and skills profile that they should be seeking in a departmental chief scientific adviser?

  45.  The role of a Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser (DCSA) was first developed in the "Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research", which published a final report in March 2002.[55] This identified the following aspects of a DCSA's role:

    1.  Ensure that policy is soundly based on good science.

    2.  Provide strategic direction to the department's scientific activities.

    3.  Be the department's scientific spokesman to the outside world.

    4.  Be credible, both within and outside the department.

    5.  Have direct access to the department's board.

    6.  Accountable for the level of scientific expertise in the department.

    7.  Ensure that staff complete appropriate continuing professional development.

  46.  Whilst the general nature of the role is the same across government, different departments do emphasise those parts that are most relevant to their business. They also recruit a DCSA whose area of expertise bets matches the work of the department. For example, as Sir David King stated in his oral evidence, Paul Wiles, the Home Office DCSA is a social scientist.

  47.  To ensure that appropriate criteria are applied across government, Sir David is involved in the appointment of all DCSAs. This involvement often includes providing comments on job advertisements and forming part of the interview panel.

QUESTION 13

Are the numbers of natural and physical scientists and engineers employed by Government rising or falling (please provide details for the last five years if possible)? What impact has the Gershon review had on numbers of in-house scientists?

  48.  There are no accurate figures that can be used to provide a quantitative answer to this question. Since the disappearance of the scientific civil service there has been no central record on the number of scientists and engineers employed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the situation has been exacerbated by individuals in more general civil service jobs hiding their scientific skills as they viewed them as an impediment to promotion.

  49.  The introduction of PSG and the formation of the Government Skills Sector Skills Council offer at least some hope that this situation will improve. In particular, PSG requires individuals to select a professional grouping and Government Skills need to collect workforce data. The combination of these requirements might in the future lead to a situation where departments (and their agencies) are asked report on the number of staff within each profession.

  50.  As Sir David mentioned in his oral evidence, the privatisation of agencies and laboratories is reducing the scientific expertise that is available within the civil service. The privatisation of part of what was the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (to form QinetiQ) and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist are but two recent examples. Ongoing changes to the status of the Forensic Science Service are another case in point.

  51.  Whilst it is accepted that there are "local issues" associated with the cost-effective provision of services to a department, the ability to exploit Intellectual Property (IP), the opportunity for commercial activities, and the need to achieve efficiency savings, the continuing reduction of scientists and engineers in the civil service is a concern to Sir David.

  52.  It may, for example, reduce the number of technically qualified people who are able to act as "intelligent customers" when the government procures scientific or engineering expertise from external organisations. This area was highlighted in the Gershon Review,[56] albeit the examples used were of consultancy, legal services and financial advisory services, rather than scientific or engineering expertise.

  53.  The upheaval and uncertainty associated with these changes may also reduce the appeal of a career in the civil service. The reduction in the number of scientists and engineers that are employed within the civil service also reduces the size and diversity of the talent pool from which future generations of the SCS will be drawn.

QUESTION 14

What incentives has the Government put in place, for both researchers and civil servants, to promote interaction between scientists and policy-makers?

  54.  There are a number of activities associated with PSG that will promote interaction between policy makers and members of the Scientist/Engineer profession. For example, the requirements associated with the Analysis and Use of Evidence core skill (which is discussed in more detail in the response to Question 1) mean that civil servants need to understand evidence and to engage with relevant experts. Whilst this captures the interaction between policy makers and scientists it is much wider in its remit, covering all civil servants at Grade 7 or above and all forms of evidence.

  55.  In addition, the Skills Framework associated with the Scientist/Engineer profession requires members of the profession to "provide clear advice to technical and non-technical audiences", and to "understand the needs and constraints of stakeholder communities". These skills should further improve the interface between policy makers and members of the Scientist/Engineer profession.

  56.  Furthermore, PSG requires that members of the SCS have "broader experience" of working in government. This means that they must have had meaningful experience of working in at least two of the following three areas: policy delivery; operational delivery; corporate services delivery. It is hoped that this will increase the proportion of the SCS that have detailed, hands-on experience of working with scientists and engineers.

  57.  A number of departments have introduced local initiatives that seek to improve the interaction between policy makers and scientists. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has restructured so that, in some cases, scientists work in the same organisation teams as policy makers. The Chief Scientific Adviser's Committee (CSAC), chaired by Sir David King, offers an opportunity for departmental Chief Scientific Advisers to share their experiences of such initiatives, thus facilitating the spread of "best practice".

  58.  The Co-ordination of Analysis and Research Group (CRAG) was established in December 2004 to promote closer interaction between policy experts and the full range of analytical disciplines within government. It is chaired by Sir Brian Bender, Head of Profession for Policy Delivery, and its members include the central heads of science and analysis professions and high level policy and strategy representatives. CRAG is currently facilitating cross-cutting, evidence-based work on migration, globalisation, ageing and public policy and service delivery with the aim of addressing key gaps and tackling problems such as data sharing.

  59.  The Professional Skills for Government Initiative (PSG) requires that all middle and senior management officials—be they policy experts or policy analysts—are able to demonstrate an understanding of analysis and to use evidence effectively. As this requirement will form part of the annual reporting and performance management cycle it should motivate policy experts to gain a better understanding of basic research methods and, at the same time, encourage policy analysts to learn more about the political context in which they are working.

  60.  Several government departments are experimenting with multi-disciplinary teams in which analytical specialists and policy experts are located together and work side by side on policy development. DfT, for example, has already evaluated the first phase of its "flexible deployment" trial.

  61.  Within GSR, a large amount of research activity is commissioned from external research contractors. Contract managers are expected to ensure effective interaction between external research contractors and policy sponsors for projects. Departmental Heads of Profession for GSR have oversight of these relationships at a strategic level.

QUESTION 15

What processes are in place for horizon scanning of issues emerging from the EU? What steps are taken to ensure that issues that could be of concern to UK scientists or that could benefit from their input are identified as early as possible?

  62.  There are a number of existing mechanisms for Horizon Scanning issues emerging from the EU, although there is no overarching coordinating framework that draws them all together.

    —  On the regulatory side, the CSA Guidelines lay out where and how scientific expertise and advice integrates in policy processes, including guidance on Horizon Scanning. This integration compliments the Better Regulation Executive's (BRE) guidance on the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) which is an analysis of the full range of likely impacts of a policy change. These sets of guidance cover approaches to EU policy areas as other areas.

    —  On anticipating issues where there is a research need that has a European dimension, the UK negotiates from a forward looking perspective based on intensive stakeholder consultation on priorities for forthcoming EU R&D framework programmes.

    —  CSA Guidelines, BRE Guidance, and the Professional Skills in Government programme (particularly elements relating to evidence and analysis) define the skills and processes required for good use of evidence (including scientific evidence) generally, which would include consideration of UK negotiating positions on forthcoming EU legislation. They also offer specific guidance on S&T horizon scanning to encourage the identification of S&T issues where early S&T inputs would be beneficial.

    —  The CSA Guidelines give specific advice on seeking out wider S&T inputs to from external sources, for example engaging learned societies and professional bodies to access a wide range of specialists.

    —  The CSA guidelines recommend stepping through a number of processes to achieve early warning of S&T issues, such as seeking external advice when an issue raises questions that exceed the expertise of in-house staff; when responsibility for a particular issue cuts across government departments; when there is considerable uncertainty and a wide range of expert opinion exists; when there are potentially significant implications for sensitive areas of public policy; when independent analyses could potentially strengthen public confidence in scientific advice from government.

    —  In terms of seeking EU expertise, the CSA guidelines state that "where appropriate, consideration should also be given to inviting experts from outside the UK, for example those from European or international advisory mechanisms . . . Where the issue falls within European Community competence, or is likely to affect intra-community trade, particular attention should be paid to encouraging an evidence-based approach for Community decision making. This may involve contributing to Community level scientific committees, briefing the Commission on developing expert opinion, and exchange visits by scientific experts from other Member States . . . ". A number of UK laboratories are Community reference laboratories, and play a leading role in setting the EU agenda (for example on testing protocols) in specific areas of science. UK experts are involved in advisory roles for UK representation on EC standing committees with strong science components, such as the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

    —  The UK has numerous independent expert advisory committees, many of whom give advice on EU issues. Their role—whilst not formally defined as such—has a strong element of Horizon Scanning for S&T issues.

    —  Within the EC there are numerous specific Foresight and Horizon Scanning activities. DG Research coordinate many of these activities, having set up the "Science and Technology Foresight" unit in January 2001.  Apart from "embedded" S&T Foresight in multilateral research infrastructures like CERN and EMBL, Foresight and supporting activities have been developed principally by The European Parliament and The European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network, EPTA. EPTA networks Parliamentary Technology Assessment bodies of Europe, which includes the UK's Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Other significant S&T Foresight activities in Europe include the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville, which provides techno-economic analysis to support European decision-makers. The European Science Foundation (ESF) recently introduced its "Forward Look" to assist Europe's scientific community to develop medium to long term views and analyses of future research developments in multidisciplinary topics, and interact with policy makers from member organisations.

    —  DG Research's Science and Technology Foresight unit also act to implement the actions relevant to S&T Foresight under the "Support for the coherent development of S&T policies" of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research. The 6th Framework programme also has a Foresight element under "coordination of policies" work programme.

    —  DG research state "it is apparent that Foresight activities themselves have not yet reached the same state of integration and coherence at EU level as many other policy fields". This is likely to be a reflection of the level of development of Foresight and Horizon Scanning skills across the European generally, and is reflected in the UK also in the relative youth of Guidelines for embedding such tools and skills such as CSA Guidelines, and PSG.

    —  OST's Foresight Directorate carries out in-depth analyses looking ahead at least 10 years (and often further) on the future implications of key areas selected on the basis of being driven by science and technology, having outcomes that can be influenced (ie the work adds value), are not being covered by work carried on elsewhere, require an inter-disciplinary approach, and command support from departments.

    —  The OST Horizon Scanning Centre (HSC), which commenced activities in November 2004 (under a commitment in the HMT/DTI/DfES 10 year science and innovation investment framework) takes a global perspective of future trends and issues, in the context of impacts on the UK. European issues are encompassed in the context of the HSC's remit on Horizon Scanning evidence, which is to provide a higher-level strategic context to the Horizon Scanning activities of other departments.

    —  It also has a "best practice" workstream, which looks across Government and widely across the private sector, in order to seek out, test, and promote good practice in Horizon Scanning. The HSC is also piloting a coaching programme to raise capacity to undertake Horizon Scanning across Government. The HSC also has a programme of strategic S&T Horizon Scanning, where issues are prioritized by impacts on the UK. This provides a high-level strategic context to the Horizon Scanning activities of other departments. The HSC has created an active "Future Analysts Network" which puts on events on specific Horizon Scanning techniques or topics, some of which raise awareness across Government of specific important S&T areas. The network draws deliberately on both public and private sector expertise (local and international) and membership in order to maximize synergies and value.

QUESTION 16

How is the effectiveness of cross-departmental policies that rely on or have implications for science evaluated?

  63.  The 2002 Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research (CCR) represented the first major review of the effectiveness of government's use and management of science and research underpinning the development of government policies.

  64.  Much progress has been made since the Cross-Cutting Review, including the development of the 10-year Framework for Science and Innovation published in 2004.  OST, SI (DTI) and DFES report annually to HM Treasury on progress against measures and indicators contained in the 10-year Framework.

  65.  Most Departments have completed and published science and innovation strategies, or are very close to doing so. In providing their S&I Strategies, Departments explain their systems for identifying and meeting the strategic public policy challenges they face. Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers (DCSAs) have been appointed to nearly all the Departments where they are needed, and are making positive impacts on the quality of policy-making as their roles develop.

  66.  Following the S&I Strategies, OST's Science Review team conducts more detailed analysis and evaluation of how individual departments manage their science and use science in support of policy.

  67.  In response to the Ministerial Committee on Science and Innovation (SI), in September 2005, OST led the identification of three Grand Challenges that bring scientific evidence to bear in cross government policies. Each challenge currently being developed by lead departments who will report back to SI.

  68.  In 2005-06, HM Treasury's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) has further emphasised crosscutting policy priorities requiring input from a wide range of analytical resources through inter-Departmental collaboration, thus reinforcing the importance of improved and effective cross-departmental workings. There is increasing co-ordination and prioritisation of cross government policies by the Coordination of Research and Analysis Group (CRAG) and the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee (CSAC).

  69.  OST and CRAG have been working closely with HM Treasury to develop analysis and evidence to underpin CSR objectives that should support future evaluation of cross-departmental policies.

QUESTION 17

What processes are in place to ensure that once a policy has been decided on and/or implemented, it is re-evaluated as new evidence emerges?

  70.  The Spending Review process led by the Treasury requires departments to review and justify the evidence base for their investment across policy and programmes on a regular basis.

  71.  At the individual policy level, the Better Regulation Executive's guidance on regulatory impact assessments states that officials must be clear on how they intend to review new policies and that a post-implementation review should:

    —  establish a baseline and include success criteria against which the effectiveness of the policy in delivering the desired outcome can be assessed,

    —  describe how and when the review will take place and say which elements of the policy it will cover,

    —  check whether the policy objective has been met, whether the impacts were as expected and whether there have been unintended consequences; and

    —  include criteria for modifying or replacing the policy if necessary.

  72.  GSR members are expected (as set out in the GSR competency framework) to support this process by fulfilling a research intelligence role. This involves keeping abreast of research evidence in their policy area and ensuring policy colleagues are briefed on emerging evidence. They also work in partnership with other social science analysts to monitor and evaluate policy and delivery.

QUESTION 18

What steps are taken to ensure that the results of pilots and trials are incorporated into policy development and what roles do the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Government Social Researcher play in making sure that this happens?

  73.  The Adding It Up report mentioned in the Chief Government Social Researcher's oral evidence called for more and better use of pilots to test the impact of policies before implementation. To support this, a review of government pilots was commissioned by the Government Social Research Unit and was published in December 2003 (Cabinet Office 2003: Trying it Out: the role of Pilots in Policy-Making). This report set out a number of recommendations on the appropriate role and properties of pilots, pre-conditions for success, appropriate methods and practices, and the use of results. While the Government Social Research Unit has no continued role in monitoring pilot activity, it continues to provide advice, support and training to departments in the design and execution of pilot evaluations.

QUESTION 19

Should research-based advice be published once a policy-decision has been taken?

  74.  Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) recognises that there is public interest in ensuring that there is a space within which Ministers and officials are able to formulate and develop policy options freely and frankly and that some information and advice generated in the process should therefore be exempt from release. Information falling within the scope of the exemption is subject to the public interest test. It is necessary for departments to consider the balance between ensuring greater openness and transparency of the policy making process to better inform the public about the way Government works, whilst also protecting the policy making process, providing for effective government. Government departments must also pay regard to the potential application of other exemptions, for example those relating to national security or commercial interests and apply the appropriate tests within the legislation before releasing or withholding information.

  75.  Whilst a policy is in its formulation or development stage this section of the Act applies to statistical and social research information as well as to advice. However, once a policy decision has been taken, this section of the Act requires particular consideration be given to the public interest in disclosing factual information. This recognises that there is a particular public interest in making publicly available evidence that supports government policy decision-making. However there may be situations in which the factual and statistical information provided is integral to the advice process and it may not be appropriate (but this would be subject to a public interest and/or other tests) to provide this information in response to a request under FOIA.

24 March 2006





53   http://psg.civilservice.gov.uk/. Back

54   http://www.sciencecouncil.org/chartered_scientist/licensed_bodies.html Back

55   Specifically paragraphs 249 to 258, inclusive. Back

56   "There is little evidence that the procurement of professional services (for example consultancy, legal services, financial advisory services) is managed to ensure value for money." Third bullet under paragraph 3.24 of "Releasing resources to the front line. Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency", Sir Peter Gershon, CBE, July 2004. Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 8 November 2006