3 Committee effectiveness and operations
Committee effectiveness
30. Although it is difficult to definitively demonstrate
what direct impact our work has had, we believe that our scrutiny
work during this Parliament has had an effect, including:
a) £2.3 million worth of extra funding for
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in 2015-16, announced two days
before our one-off inquiry into the subject;[37]
b) in July 2014, the Prime Minister's independent
review of the economic issues surrounding antimicrobial resistance,
announced five days before publication of our report on antimicrobial
resistance;[38]
c) the Government funding a £97 million
supercomputer for the Met Office to be based at the Met Office
and Exeter Science Park;
d) the development and publication of the Government's
'Enhanced SAGE Guidance' and, in particular, the need for increased
transparency of the science advisory group for emergencies (SAGEs)
which, unusually, included a specific reference to our work[39];
e) the development and roll-out of the Government's
'Cyber Street' initiative;[40]
f) the acceleration and strengthening of the
Health Research Authority's transparency policy for clinical trials;[41]
g) maintaining the independence of, and public
funding stream for, the British Antarctic Survey when it was threatened
by a merger with the National Oceanography Centre;[42]
h) speeding up the passage of the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 through
the House of Commons following our one-off evidence session on
mitochondrial donation;[43]
i) the Minister for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs
and Resource Management writing to water companies to ensure that
they take a truly risk based approach to water facilities in school
science laboratories so that schools are not faced with excessive
caution; and
j) ensuring proposals from Ofqual to remove the
assessment of practical science from A level and GCSE examinations
received proper Ministerial consideration.
31. In oral evidence to us, Greg Clark MP, Minister
of State for Universities, Science and Cities, Department for
Business, Innovation & Skills and Cabinet Office concluded:
I know that the work of the Committee, even when
it has occasionally nudged the Government in different ways and
caused a bit of controversy, is good controversy if it gets people
passionate about science. I am grateful for [the Chair's] personal
contribution, and for the hard work of the Committee's members.[44]
Professor Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific
Adviser, Government Office for Science added that:
May I take the opportunity to thank you, Chair,
and the Committee for your work on science, engineering and technology,
and indeed the social sciences, if I may say so, because your
scrutiny is important? Your inputs are helpful. We do take notice
of them.[45]
32. The Royal Society told us that "the Commons
Science and Technology Committee makes a vital contribution to
the scrutiny of research policy and the use of science across
government"[46]
and that, as a Committee, we have been "particularly strong"
when we scrutinise "issues which would otherwise receive
little attention. In such situations its profile and the authority
stemming from its evidence-based approach can act as a driving
force for action".[47]
We are also reassured to hear that the effects of our work reach
"the whole scientific community and its interplay with government
initiatives—ensuring the scientific community asks the questions
of itself that it might not otherwise ask" and that "the
breadth of [our] recommendations, stretching beyond government,
are welcome".[48]
Professor Sue Black, University of Dundee, said that the Committee
"should be commended"[49]
for its work on forensic science.
33. We are encouraged to learn that our recommendations
have also resulted in tangible progress outside government, for
example "the ABPI [Association of the British Pharmaceutical
Industry] Code of Practice has been updated to ensure that companies
adhere to prevailing transparency requirements"[50]
and clinical trials disclosure toolkits, technical workshops and
compliance audits have taken place.[51]
The Government welcomed our work on antimicrobial resistance "because
it has helped to support the work the Department [of Health] is
doing and to signal round the world that this country is again
stepping up to the plate and leading on this".[52]
Separately it recognised our "important work […] in
helping to explain these important issues [medical implants] to
the public".[53]
Committee operations
34. Throughout this Parliament we have sought ways
to improve the way in which the Committee operates. We were the
one of the first three select committees in the House of Commons
to use electronic tablets and work towards more paperless operations.
We have held innovative evidence sessions which have "generated
much fruitful debate"[54]
and produced a 'video letter'[55]
to the Education Minister on the subject of the assessment of
school practicals rather than the more usual method of producing
a report. Stakeholders have welcomed "the Committee's novel
approach of organising (and filming) workshops […] and we
look forward to such approaches being used more widely".[56]
35. We endeavoured to reach and listen to as wide
an audience as possible over the last five years. We visited a
range of scientific facilities, for example the Met Office in
Exeter, the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, the
Fraunhofer, Helmholtz and Leibniz technology and innovation
institutions in Germany and the European Organisation for Nuclear
Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. We held oral evidence
sessions at Falmouth University, Falmouth, the High Value
Manufacturing Catapult centre, Sheffield, the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew and the Science Museum, London. We hosted four "Voice
of the Future" events on the Parliamentary estate.[57]
Committee staff are considering novel ways in which the committee
might engage with the science community to discuss potentially
fruitful areas of inquiry at the beginning of the next Parliament.
37 Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report
of Session 2014-15, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, HC 866, para 21 Back
38
Science and Technology Committee, First Report of Session 2014-15,
Ensuring access to working antimicrobials, HC 509, para 5 Back
39
HM Government, Enhanced SAGE Guidance: A strategic framework for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)
(2012), p23 footnote 18 Back
40
Science and Technology Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2010-12,
Malware and cyber crime, HC1537 Back
41
Science and Technology Committee, Third Report of Session 2013-14,
Clinical trials, HC 104, paras 107-110 Back
42
Science and Technology Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012-13,
Proposed merger of British Antarctic Survey and National Oceanography Centre,
HC 699 Back
43
Oral evidence taken on 22 October 2014, HC (2014-15) 730 Back
44
Q272 Back
45
Q339 Back
46
The Royal Society (LEG 001) para 5 Back
47
The Royal Society (LEG 001) para 8 Back
48
The Royal Society (LEG 001) para 6 Back
49
BBC Radio 5 live, 5 live Daily, 4 February 2015 [Professor Black] Back
50
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (LEG 004) para
3.8 Back
51
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (LEG 004) para
3.4 Back
52
Q19 [George Freeman] Back
53
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills and Department
of Health (LEG 011) Back
54
The Geological Society (LEG 007) para 11 Back
55
'A message from Andrew Miller MP, Chair of Science and Technology Select Committee, to Nick Gibb MP, Minister for School Reform. Filmed at the Science Museum, London',
26 November 2014 Back
56
The Geological Society (LEG 007) para 7 Back
57
Voice of the Future is a unique annual event organised by the
Society of Biology and hosted by the Science and Technology Committee
on the parliamentary estate during which young scientists have
the opportunity to question members of the committee, Government
Ministers and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser on all aspects
of science policy and evidence-based policymaking. Back
| 
