Appendix: Government response
This Government welcomes the establishment of the
Science and Technology Committee to continue the highly valued
contribution to Parliamentary scrutiny of science engineering,
technology and research across Government. This memorandum provides
the Government's response to those aspects of the former Committee's
final report, 'The Legacy Report', which relate to Government.
1. Science and technology parliamentary
scrutiny
We recommend that in the new Parliament there
should be a committee responsible for scrutinising science, engineering
and technology across government. We make three suggestions on
how this committee should be formed: (1) it should have the prime
responsibility for scrutiny of the Government's science unit and
science minister, whatever the unit is called and wherever it
lies; (2) it should be a freestanding committee with a cross-departmental
remit; and (3) it should have a membership of 11 and a quorum
of three. (Paragraph 31)
2. The Government notes this recommendation. The
third element, the reduction of the membership to 11 and the quorum
to three, was implemented as part of the package of reforms recommended
by the Select Committee on Reform of the House, with effect from
the beginning of the current Parliament.
3. The departmental committee system is both effective
and very well regarded. However, the Government also acknowledges
the benefits of a cross-cutting approach to scrutiny. Between
1992 and 2007, and again since 2009, the Committee has managed
to engage effectively in both cross-cutting and departmental scrutiny,
so the current Standing Orders are no obstacle to this. The Committee
has been re-established on that basis.
2. Evidence check 1: Early literacy
interventions
We were disappointed that the Government failed
to engage with our Report on early literacy interventions in a
constructive manner. Either our concerns were right and the Government
should have explained how it will take steps to improve its processes,
or our concerns were misplaced and the Government should explain
why. Avoiding important issues is unacceptable. (paragraph 39)
Response provided by the Department
for Education
EVERY CHILD A READER (ECAR): READING RECOVERY
4. The Government notes the Committee's point on
the roll out of Reading Recovery. Whilst it is clear that it is
important to invest in early literacy interventions, it is accepted
that no cost benefit comparisons with other interventions were
carried out prior to rolling out the Reading Recovery element
of the ECaR programme. The decision to go with Reading Recovery
as part of ECaR was partly driven by the practical issue of scalability
and took account of a range of diagnostic evidence.
5. Although the Government will continue to fund
the Every Child a Reader programme for this financial year, in
large part as a consequence of the Committee's report the Government
is now looking into the future structure of catch-up support,
which will include reviewing the Reading Recovery element of the
ECaR programme and take account of all relevant evidence. The
current independent evaluation of ECaR, which will conclude in
March 2011, will look at the impact on outcomes at school and
pupil level, as well as evaluating the implementation of the roll-out,
and value for money.
6. With regard to literacy interventions more generally,
through improving the use of systematic synthetic phonics in the
teaching of early reading, evidence suggests that this approach
should result in more children reading from the start and enable
those at risk of failure to make better progress. This would reduce
the extent and cost of literacy interventions.
7. As far as the Department for Education is concerned,
we are committed to achieving the best value-for-money across
our entire education programme. We have a clear process for scrutinising
the evidence base underpinning proposed legislation as all Impact
Assessments are accompanied by challenge and assessment from our
Chief Economist.
8. The Government is also building on work to scrutinise
and assess the value for money of existing policies and programmes
which do not require legislation as part of the Spending Review
process.
9. All of the value for money assessment work includes
making estimates of the contribution of policies to our outputs
and outcomes.
LOW QUALITY DATA
10. The Government notes the Committee's point about
the low quality of data. The point raised about the use of reading/spelling
age data, as opposed to standardised scores, relates to UK literacy
research in general, which is not a matter for Government control.
However the Government encourages researchers to collect the best
data even though we cannot require this.
DYSLEXIA
11. The Department did not set its research and policy
priorities on the basis of the priorities of lobby groups. The
Department's dyslexia policy was based on a range of evidence
from a variety of sources. The Department was advised by an expert
advisory group whose members included a number of eminent experts
from universities with a track record of research and practice
in this area.
12. The Government notes the Committee's point on
the issues with a definition of Dyslexia. The Expert Advisory
Group established by Sir Jim Rose in preparation of his independent
report considered many published definitions of dyslexia. They
concluded that difficulties of a dyslexic nature can affect children
across the range of intellectual abilities. This represents an
important shift away from reliance on a discrepancy between measured
IQ and measured attainment in reading and spelling once used to
identify dyslexia. Evidence shows that, regardless of general
level of ability, those with marked reading and spelling difficulties
perform badly on tasks such as decoding, word recognition and
phonological skills. Furthermore, measures of IQ do not predict
how children will respond to literacy intervention or their long-term
outcomes.
13. Sir Jim Rose's report concluded that dyslexic
difficulties are best thought of as existing on a continuum from
mild to severe rather than forming a discrete category. The Report
points out that, until recently, a child was deemed either to
have or not to have dyslexia. But it is now recognised that there
is no sharp dividing line between having a learning difficulty
such as dyslexia and not having it. The definition also acknowledges
that some individuals with learning difficulties of a dyslexic
nature may experience other co-occurring difficulties; and that
the severity of a particular learning difficulty can be gauged
by the response of the child to good, well-implemented intervention.
It was in considering these areas that Sir Jim Rose drew up his
definition.
3. Principles on independent scientific
advice
We recommend that after the general election the
Prime Minister enshrines the principles applying to the treatment
of independent scientific advice provided to government in the
new Ministerial Code. (Paragraph 61)
14. The Government is committed to evidence-based
policy making and this is dependent on getting the best quality
advice and evidence. The Government recognises the important contribution
of independent science and engineering advice to the development
of robust policy, and agrees it is essential the Principles for
Scientific Advice to Government be fully embedded in its working
practices.
15. The Government is therefore pleased to confirm
that the 2010 version of the Ministerial Code references the Principles
and makes clear the need to consider them as part of the policy-making
process: "Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration
and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants,
as well as to other considerations and advice in reaching policy
decisions, and should have regard to the Principles for Scientific
Advice to Government (Paragraph 5.2)."
| 
