Fourth Special Report:
The future of science scrutiny following the merger of DIUS and
BERR
Introduction
1. On 5 June a Cabinet reshuffle resulted in a Machinery
of Government change: the merger of the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), to create a new Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills under the leadership of Lord
Mandelson.[1]
2. Select Committees established under Standing Order
No. 152 mirror the structure of government departments. We therefore
expect that the Leader of the House will shortly bring forward
changes to that Standing Order to establish a single Business,
Innovation and Skills Committee, and our Committee (the IUSS Committee)
and the Business and Enterprise Committee will cease to exist.
Taking this into account we intend to bring our business to a
close as soon as is practicable with the publication of three
major reports (on Students and Universities, Putting
Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy
and Capital Expenditure in Further Education Colleges)
and the outcome of oral evidence sessions on other topics.
The need for cross-government science scrutiny
3. We firmly believe that the opportunity should
be taken to revisit the need for a separate science scrutiny committee.
When the IUSS Committee was established following the Machinery
of Government changes in 2007 it supplanted the Science and Technology
Committee in the face of opposition from members of that Committee
and the scientific community. The Science and Technology Committee's
Last Report noted the legacy of dedicated science scrutiny
within the House:
The House of Commons first established a Science
and Technology Select Committee in 1966 in order 'to consider
science and technology and report thereon'. This Committee existed
for the duration of the 1966-1971 Parliament and was re-appointed
in 1971 and 1974. The Committee was abolished in 1979 when the
departmental select committee structure was established. A similar
Committee, with a remit more closely mirroring that of a departmental
committee, was established in July 1992 and has remained ever
since. The current Science and Technology Committee was appointed
on 19 July 2005.[2]
And concluded:
Given the Government's focus on evidence-based policy-making
and the wide consensus on the value of science in our society,
we believe that this would be the wrong time to downgrade or reduce
the scrutiny of cross-cutting science issues within Parliament.
The strong view amongst the science community is that such scrutiny
is best carried out by a select committee with a clear identity
and a clear mission. Given the House's decision to replace the
Science and Technology Committee with a departmental select committee,
we hope that the new Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee
will have the authority to work across Government rather than
within the narrow confines of a single department. We believe
that in the long term a separate Science and Technology Committee
is the only way to guarantee a permanent focus on science across
Government within the select committee system. We recommend that
the House be given an opportunity to revisit the question of science
scrutiny in the Commons at the end of session 2007-08.[3]
4. Some measures were taken to meet these concerns.
We were established with 14 members rather than the more usual
11, and following our representations to the Government the House
of Commons agreed on 11 March 2008 to change the name of the Innovation,
Universities and Skills Committee to include the word "science"
in the title.[4] The issue
was raised of whether we should have a dedicated sub-committee,
as noted in our Work of the Committee in 2007-08 Report:
The Leader of the House, Harriet Harman MP, commented
that 'If the Committee chooses to have a Sub-Committee covering
science and technology issues, it will be able to operate that
Sub-Committee, in effect, as a successor to the current Science
and Technology Committee.'[5]
5. We commented "We chose, on balance, not to
appoint a standing Sub-Committee on Science and Technology because
we thought that this could be seen as downgrading our science
scrutiny role. Instead we have made frequent use of subcommittees
to conduct inquiries on a variety of subjects."[6]
The experience of the IUSS Committee
6. Notwithstanding these measures, experience has
proved our concerns about overall workload well-founded. Despite
the dedication of our core membership—we were the third
most frequently meeting Committee in the 2007-08 session[7]—it
has proved difficult to balance the scrutiny of the expenditure,
administration and policy of the Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills with the demands of examining the use of science across
government.
7. Looking forward, attempting to do this same balancing
act with an even larger department which also covers business,
enterprise and regulation will prove impossible for the Business,
Innovation and Skills Committee.
8. And there could not be a worse time to reduce
scrutiny of science and engineering. We have been told repeatedly
during the last 12 months that exploitation of the UK's science
base could be the route for recovery for the UK economy. On 10
June, speaking at the Science Museum, Lord Mandelson said "The
future competitiveness of this country depends on the excellence
of its science […] our ability to maintain and develop our
strong science base through both applied and a substantial element
of fundamental curiosity-driven research, will be essential to
our long-term economic success."[8]
But rather than take the opportunity to move the Government Office
for Science to the Cabinet Office, as we have recommended in the
past,[9] and give science
a stable home at the heart of government policy, it seems to have
been treated as a bargaining chip passed around departments. The
fact that DIUS has been moved wholesale into a new Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills, with only a part-time Minister
for Science and Innovation, means that vigilance is needed to
ensure that basic science is not neglected among the administrative
changes. Nor should science spending and policy be subordinated
to the short-term needs of industry and business.
Conclusion
9. As Lord Rees of Ludlow, President
of the Royal Society, Lord Browne of Madingley, President of the
Royal Academy of Engineering, Professor Sir Mark Walport, Director
of the Wellcome Trust, Professor Colin Blakemore, then Chief Executive
of the Medical Research Council, and 34 eminent members of the
scientific and engineering community put it in 2007, Science needs
its Select Committee.
10. We call on the Leader of the
House to propose the creation of a Science and Technology Committee
alongside the new Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We
urge the Leader of the House to bring forward the necessary Standing
Order changes and let the House decide the matter.
1 "New Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills to lead fight against recession and build now for future
prosperity", 10 Downing Street Press Notice, 5 June 2009 Back
2
Science and Technology Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session
2006-07, The Last Report, HC 1108, para 1 Back
3
Science and Technology Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session
2006-07, The Last Report, HC 1108, para 38 Back
4
Votes and Proceedings, 11 March 2008 Back
5
HC Deb, 25 July 2007, col 942 Back
6
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Second
Report of Session 2008-09, The work of the Committee
in 2007-08, HC 49, para 6 Back
7
Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, The work
of committees in 2007-08, HC 291, para 121 Back
8
"Mandelson says new department will put science at centre
of vision of Britain's future prosperity", Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills press notice, 10 June 2009 Back
9 Innovation,
Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session
2008-09, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, HC 50-I,
para 311 Back
| 
