In an Efra Select Committee hearing on Wednesday (18th April), Richard Benyon MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment and Fisheries answered the panel’s queries into the measures outlined in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP), published last June.

The Committee Chair started the session praising the White Paper but asking how such an ambitious strategy could now be put into practice, Mr Benyon stated that although the NEWP is a broad framework for environmental protection, it also comprises 92 very specific recommendations. Already, he said, 10 have been set-up – including the designation and funding of 12 Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) – whilst action is underway on 80 more. Defending Defra’s decision not to publicly publish an Action Plan on delivering the NEWP, the Minister said that the body felt that it would not be productive to be held to a rigid time-line for action. Instead, Defra is sending quarterly newsletters to all stakeholders detailing the progress made, such as the measurable milestones of establishing NIAs and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs).

Turning words into action
Nevertheless, a number of the panel’s questions considered how the impressive rhetoric of the Paper would be converted into real action and results. The Minister said that Defra had recognised the challenge in this and that the ‘last thing [they] want is ‘talking shops’’. To address this, all working groups – such as the Ecosystem Service Market Task Force – have been provided with remits that provide a clear outline of the actions they should take, ensuring they will be well-led and ‘effective in bringing about the intended changes’. One of the areas identified as most at risk of remaining theoretical with little effective action was the intended creation of ecosystem service markets. However, Mr Benyon stated that the government has already taken real steps in this direction through work with the independent regulator Ofwat which has undertaken projects to engage land managers in the protection of upstream water sources, rewarding them for the effective prevention of pollution. The Minister stated that the Government intends to continue this route of indirect engagement through regulators and companies as, often, direct attempts by Governments to create markets can ‘cause issues’ and the immense complexity of market dynamics mean the expertise of businesses are invaluable. In order to help with the integration of the natural capital approach across all government departments, Defra is producing a ‘Green Book’ providing guidance on the necessary changes, and is due to publish an Action Plan to identify and address the various institutional and informational barriers to adopting this approach.

A funding shortfall?
A member of the panel quizzed the minister on the apparent mismatch between Sir John Lawton’s estimate of £1.1 billion needed for environmental protection (made in his paper, Making Space for Nature, published in 2010) and the £8 million total spend allocated in the NEWP. Mr Benyon pointed out that the lower limit of Sir John’s estimate is actually £600 million and that the £8 million sum referred only to direct Government funds. In reality, the minister noted, numerous other funding streams will feed into work under the NEWP, including roughly £450mn spent through agri-environment schemes, a sum of £92 million newly allocated by Defra to catchment management schemes, £7.5 million to be divided between the identified NIAs and a further £1mn designed to get LNPs up and running. When these are taken into account, the money allocated is approaching Sir John’s ballpark figure, the minister stated, and this is before the huge value of voluntary action through schemes such as the Campaign for the Farmed Environment, and by naturalist groups and NGOs, is included.

Mr Benyon expanded this point, stressing that in fact most of the recommendations in the NEWP are not just for government to carry out, but will instead be realised through the cooperation of a wide range of environmental bodies and the harnessing of the considerable enthusiasm of local groups and communities. The minister said he has observed enormous enthusiasm for the new approach of the NEWP from the very start of the process, as evidenced by the unprecedented response to consultations from all stakeholder groups. The degree of local enthusiasm shown in the applications for NIAs was felt by the minister to demonstrate an energy which can be harnessed to ensure the effective implementation of many of the NEWP’s proposed measures.

The role and place for Nature Improvement Areas
Answering a concern from the panel as to how the NIAs – 12 of which have been recently designated – will fit with existing nature protection sites such as SSSIs and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Mr Benyon stressed that Defra did not want to create a new tier of activity which ‘tramples all over existing designations’. Instead, he stressed, the idea is that NIAs will harness and coordinate the various protections and conservation activities already in an area. The minister said he had witnessed in the selection of the 12 initial NIAs, an ‘incredible degree of enthusiasm’ from land managers, naturalist groups and local communities which, he felt, means the administration and management of NIAs sits in a ‘different place’ to AONB Boards and National Park Authorities. The NIAs are not due to have a statutory status of their own, Mr Benyon clarified, but they will be visible in the local plans and the weight given to them will be decided by local communities, using the powers given to them in the Localism Act 2011, and the recently reviewed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The National Planning Policy Framework and the NEWP
This mention of the NPPF sparked further discussion. Mr Benyon said he felt the drafting process had been very thorough and inclusive, involving very close working between ministers across all government departments. He welcomed what he saw as strong commitments to biodiversity in the wording of the final document, including consideration given to ‘future proofing’ i.e. accounting for the intensifying challenges to nature protection resulting from factors including climate change. A member of the committee inquired as to why the renewed NPPF does not mirror the emphasis on biodiversity offsetting (creation of compensatory nature areas by developers when projects involve landscape destruction) made in the NEWP. Mr Benyon stressed that biodiversity offsetting is still in its infancy and is a very complex concept to put into practice, so at the moment, Defra is trialling six pilot studies to see how successful different approaches are in achieving net gain for the environment. Asked how it will be monitored, the minister emphasised that the process must be transparent and clear so that developers know exactly what they are required to provide and the public know that it is not a ‘licence to trash’ but is a process that provides real net gain for the natural environment. At the moment, he said, there was misunderstanding, perpetuated by the media, of how ‘offsetting’ will be measured – it will not be a case of ‘comparing the value of an otter against the value of a hedgehog’, but a much more holistic and comprehensive process, the details of which will become clear over the course of the pilot studies.

Peat and peatlands
In the final question, the panel challenged the minister on the NEWP’s objective to phase out the use of peat by 2030, suggesting the target shows an ‘extraordinary lack of ambition’. Mr Benyon stated that he had also received criticism to the opposite effect – that 2030 is too soon to achieve a complete phasing out of peat. He pointed out that this target is just one aspect of a step-approach; by 2015, the government will have ‘got their own house in order’ and public sector’s direct procurement of peat will have ended. By 2020, Defra wants to see the phasing out of peat use by amateur gardeners, which will rely on a significant degree of voluntary engagement. The ultimate 2030 target is aimed at professional growers who, Mr Benyon recognised, want a clear direction from government, after which, business tends to be a fast responder. The minister stated that Defra recognises the significant importance of peat in sequestering carbon and as a valuable habitat, and is due to report soon with suggestions for action to put work towards these targets in motion. Already, he said, there are ‘huge advances’ taking place in terms of technologies and methods for reducing peat use through recycling and the creation of other growing media, and he is confident that business will cope within the given timetable. However, although Defra is providing support for this research, it is also aware that many of the largest peat users are commercial food producers, who must be able to continue producing food in the current climate of food insecurity and global competition.

Watch the evidence session and find more information about the Efra Committee’s inquiry into the NEWP at the Parliament website.

As part of National Science and Engineering Week 2012, young scientists were today given the chance to question Ministers and Members of Parliament on the future of science and engineering in the UK at a meeting organised by the Society of Biology. The innovative event followed the structure of a select committee hearing in which Parliament Ministers ordinarily question stakeholder witnesses in order to gather evidence on an issue. However, today it was the Ministers answering the questions, which were posed by young representatives from a range of societies and institutions.

In the first of three panels, Rt Hon David Willets MP, Minister for Universities and Science, and Professor John Perkins CBE FREng, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills addressed questions on science in politics, science funding, and education and careers. The second session saw members of the Science and Technology Committee discussing the status of science as well as the role and functioning of the Committee. Finally, Chi Onurwah, Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science gave input on a number of science-policy issues.

Science and Policy Making
One of the major messages to come from Ministers during the sessions is that there is an increasing awareness amongst Ministers of the need for scientific evidence in policy making; Mr Willetts MP identified that the Code of Conduct now contains explicit protection for scientific advice in policy debates and Prof Perkins said he has observed that science is increasingly ‘permeating’ the policy process. However, the point was made that politicians make their final decisions based on democratic vote, rather than a ‘technocratic’ decision based purely on science and therefore improved dialogue between scientists, policymakers and the public is critical to ensure voters are well informed about contemporary scientific issues.

The role of Learned Societies, such as the British Ecological Society, was identified as key in developing policy as there are very few scientists or engineers in Parliament. Fostering relationships with Chief Scientific Advisers was suggested as an effective route of engagement between the Societies and Government, as well as the maintenance of quality events, publications and communications by Learned Societies.

Science Education and Careers
Science education and careers was a significant focus of all three sessions. Mr Willetts MP suggested the news was generally positive with science subjects all back in the ‘top 10’ for A-level choices. However, a lack of practical experiments in the classroom was identified as a significant issue, a conclusion made by the Science and Technology Committee in a recent report. Ministers cited Health and Safety concerns as a major barrier as well as a lack of equipment and teacher training. It was suggested that one solution is better collaboration between schools and universities as a way to share resources and attract greater funding from Research Councils.

In order to increase interest in science as a subject, several panel members identified a need for significant improvements to careers advice services, including better promotion of the range of career options available to scientists. Ambassadors in schools, targeted events, and improved representation of science in the media were seen as effective ways to engage young people in science. A need to foster a real passion and curiosity for science, particularly at an early age, was seen as a priority and the current ‘spoon-feeding’ approach of science curriculums was identified as being ineffective in achieving this.

A Precedent for Future Events
The event was very well attended by young scientists from a broad range of institutions and societies and at the end of the sessions, Ministers voiced their appreciation for the opportunity to hear from some of the scientists and engineers of the future. Stephen Benn of the Society of Biology closed the meeting by thanking all those involved and voiced a hope that today’s event sets a precedent for further interactions between policy makers and young scientists.

More natural means of managing flooding are desirable and should be brought foward by the Government in a new White Paper on water. So commented Anne McIntosh MP, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Commmittee and of the All Party Group on Flood Protection, at a parliamentary event attended by the BES Policy Team yesterday evening. The well-attended meeting was organised by Oliver Pescott, the most recent BES-funded Fellow at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), to launch the POSTnote he authored on ‘Natural Flood Management’.

Natural flood management (NFM) is defined in the POSTnote as ‘the alteration, restoration or use of landscape features’. One of the four speakers, Dr Paul Quinn, Newcastle University, made it clear that NFM is not about taking a system back to a natural state but working with and engineering natural processes. Dr Quinn presented work in which he had been involved within the town of Belford, in which residents have faced six major flooding events within the course of seven years. During extreme events, huge amounts of rainfall can be observed running off farmland; this can be tackled effectively, Dr Quinn suggested, by ‘catchment systems engineering’, which seeks to ’slow, store and filter’ water. Farm tracks, specially engineered to store water behind them; dams which ‘leak’ slowly to control water flow; and the use of woody debris (’beaver dams’) to perform a similar function can all help to attenuate run-off.

Dr Wendy Kenyon, James Hutton Institute, highlighted the importance of working with land-managers if those wishing to control flooding wished to work with natural processes as stated. Dr Kenyon’s team have conducted a number of semi-structured interviews with farmers, revealing that first and foremost, farmers are concerned with the viability of their businesses. Dr Quinn had presented results showing that 10 – 20 storage ponds could make a significant difference to the peak water flow; Dr Kenyon argued that the presence of this number of ponds on agricultural land could begin to have a significant effect on the farmer’s bottom line and so the viability of this proposal would need to be considered carefully.

It is important to ensure too that farmers are able to access funding to support their efforts to implement NFM. Fifty eight percent of farmers questioned by Dr Kenyon said that they would be encouraged to introduce NFM measures if there was more funding available to do so and if it could be applied for easily. This is significant as under the Common Agricultural Policy, money is already available to support NFM but, according to Dr Kenyon, farmers have not been accessing this as a source of funds. We need, Dr Kenyon suggested, to work with farmers to find out why.

The issue of the scale at which experiments are undertaken and from which conclusions can be drawn is a highly significant one. It became clear through the presentations that there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the robustness of conclusions which can be drawn about flood attenuation at the catchment-scale through NFM, based on small-scale experiments. Dr Neil McIntrye, Imperial College London, suggested that although strategic tree-planting can have an affect on ameliorating flooding at a local scale, this beneficial effect is likely to be marginal at regional to larger scales. The true benefits of such interventions are only likely to become apparent, Dr McIntyre suggested, once further research has been undertaken to understand catchment-scale interactions.

The case was therefore made for greater investment in field experiments and better modelling to understand the benefits of NFM. Anne McIntosh MP questioned why the science had not yet revealed these benefits, to which the scientists responded that the high cost of studying natural processes over time and the uncertainty created by extrapolating the results from one study site to another, where geomorphology and hydrology may be very different, constrain the ability to draw robust conclusions. Dr Quinn suggested that scientists would do best to measure at an appropriate scale and then build confidence in extrapolating conclusions, for example through better models.

Funding the necessary experiments and modelling approaches, alongside funding NFM interventions will be a challenge. Anne McIntosh suggested that there was little appetite in Government to pass the cost of NFM projects, including efforts to monitor the efficacy of these projects, onto the consumer through higher water bills. Ms McIntosh, and others, suggested that Payments for Ecosystem Services could be one mechanism of paying for NFM, although here the beneficiaries (presumably the consumers) would still need to pay for the NFM interventions implemented by land-managers (the providers of the ecosystem service of flood alleviation).

There should be scope to deliver NFM alongside other services as part of a framework of multi-functional land-use. Speakers did not touch on this to a great extent and it would have been interesting to have heard more from this perspective. Dr Quinn mentioned that buffer strips planted at the sides of agricultural land can slow the flow of run-off, indicating both a biodiversity and a NFM benefit. Dr Quinn also mentioned the need for multiple stakeholders to come together (eg as in Belford), including ecologists, land-managers and residents, to discuss and agree a shared vision for a catchment. South West Water is investing a great deal of money in NFM measures but for water quality reasons (eg reducing sediment load in the watercourse), with consequent benefits for river ecology. However, overall there was little discussion of the ecological benefits, or disbenefits, of NFM approaches.

In opening the meeting, Anne McIntosh informed attendees that in a meeting of the Liaison Committee (involving all Chairs of Parliamentary Select Committees), members had extracted from the Prime Minister an undertaking that a Water Bill would be published early in the next Parliamentary session. The BES will watch with interest to see whether NFM is incorporated into the Bill when drafted.

Applications for the next BES Fellowship at POST are now open and close on Thursday 5th April. If you are in the second or third year of your PhD in ecology at a UK institution, consider applying. Find out more from the BES website.

Professor Charles Godfray, immediate past President of the BES, is to give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday 14th December as part of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘Greening the Common Agricultural Policy‘.

Professor Godfray will give evidence at 16.00 and the session will be available to watch live on Parliament TV.

From the EFRA Committee:

MPs to examine Government proposals to protect and enhance the natural environment

Proposals set out in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper, The Natural Choice; securing the value of nature, published on 7 June, will be the focus of a new inquiry by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Launching the inquiry, Anne McIntosh, chair of EFRA Committee said, “In what is the first White Paper on the natural environment to be produced for twenty years, the Government says it wants to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited.

“Our inquiry will ask how well the Government’s proposals are likely to protect the environment for future generations, make the economy more environmentally sustainable or improve quality of life and well-being.

The committee is seeking evidence from interested parties and invites submissions on the following areas:

- What actions are required across Government Departments, from local government and by civil society to deliver the White Paper’s proposals to grow a green economy and reconnect people with nature?

– Will the institutional framework outlined for delivering the proposals (in particular Nature Improvement Areas and Local Nature Partnerships) be effective? Does the proposed Natural Capital Committee have sufficient powers?

– What further research and/or evidence is required to develop practical programmes sufficiently detailed to deliver the White Paper’s ambition to fully embed the value of nature into policy delivery?

– What evidence is there from other countries that the approaches proposed in the White Paper can be successfully applied in practice?

– What resources will be needed to fully deliver the White Paper’s ambitions and how can these best be provided? How might the value of ‘services’ provided by ecosystems to beneficiaries be translated into spending that will enhance the natural environment?

– Does the White Paper set out an accurate assessment of the barriers to public engagement with the natural environment and make the most effective proposals for re-engagement?

Details of oral evidence sessions will be released in the autumn. The deadline for submissions to the inquiry is 26th September.

The BES submitted a response to the initial inquiry on the Natural Environment White Paper, announced by the Committee in May. The Committee heard oral evidence on 29th June: read a summary on the BES blog.

Today the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took oral evidence on the Forest Research Inquiry into the effects of the spending review, and research priorities in the forestry research community. The evidence session involved witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including academia, industry, public bodies and the learned societies, who were represented by Jackie Caine, Science Policy Officer at the Society of Biology. The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP was also present.

Forest research is highly important because forests require active management and appropriate research will help us to understand how best to obtain the unique set of benefits forests can provide. The importance of this was outline in the National Ecosystem Assessment which was released last month. Forests are also experiencing a unique set of threats including novel pests and diseases, and climate change which needs to be researched to aid future adaptation.

The effect of the spending review on forest research in the UK and current funding strategies were one of the main topics covered by the committee’s questions. Both Forestry Commission and Research Council funding is declining. Currently the government spends around £10 million on forestry research however this is expected to decline to approximately £6 million by 2015 when the cuts have taken full effect. Almost 30% of jobs at Forest Research will be cut over the period to 2015. Reduced levels of funding available to the agency Forest Research may reduce the agency’s capacity to leverage funding from other sources such as industry and Europe. The Minister said that even with the budget cuts and fewer scientists research in priority areas will be maintained by redirecting funding from other areas.

A range of funders and a range of perspectives on research priorities may be useful for forest research in the UK. It was the opinion of Stuart Goodall from the Confederation of Forest Industries that potential income for forest research from industry is fairly modest. The sale of high quality wood and other forest products was suggested as one way in which the forestry sector could become self sustaining and fund it’s own research, however this would take time and investment. Several innovative approaches to obtaining new funding were suggested including using the carbon markets and approaching international forestry companies with high revenues to request funding and investment in future forest products and technology. Whatever the funding source is it needs to be secure over long periods because of the time frame of forest research. There was agreement that in the future it would be best for the forestry sector to become self sustaining and pay for its own research. This could be achieved by investing in research now, and developing high quality products. According to the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP it shouldn’t be made mandatory for the private sector to provide funding.

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) fund a small amount of forest research within their other programmes. NERC and BBSRC hardly ever receive proposals for forest research because there is widespread belief that forestry is not within their remit. NERC and BBSRC would be happy to consider more proposals for forestry projects. Representatives from NERC and BBSRC were reminded that the research councils have a responsibility to ensure university forestry departments are funded appropriately and have longevity.
If Forest Research is made more independent it may be able to access research council funding in addition to the funding it receives from the Forestry Commission. Public sector organisations are currently excluded from applying for research council funding.

Priority setting by forest research institutions was also scrutinised by the committee. Dr James Pendlebury the Chief Executive of Forest Research reminded the committee that forest research is complex, long term and has numerous priorities that are balanced in the best way possible by Forest Research.

One point of agreement was that forest research needs an overall long term strategy developed by all the stakeholders in an open discussion with better coordination between universities, Forest Research and within Europe. Across the witnesses there was a consensus that the Forest Research Coordination Committee needs to be brought back. In addition the witnesses felt that better transparency is needed in the relationship between Forest Research and the Forestry Commission.

Researchers in academia currently feel that important areas of forest research are not being considered by the research councils. Appropriate outreach programmes to make sure that research is communicated to the people that use it are vital according to Stuart Goodall.

Among individuals from industry, the Forestry Commission and academia there was concern that UK forests are under managed. More research into how to produce high quality wood and other forest products is needed according to Professor Philip Turner, from the Forest Products Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University, but this is currently not a main priority of the research councils or the Forestry Commission.

The ability of Forest Research to monitor and research the impacts of climate change, and emerging diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum is crucial and this shouldn’t be impacted by the spending review. The private sector doesn’t have the skills and experience to carry out this type of research.

Currently no-one takes responsibility for disease monitoring and research into prevention for trees in hedgerows and in public spaces. This is a serious gap in the current research priorities. It was suggested that the Forestry Commission provide an easy to access database documenting their research on particular diseases, the risks associated with the disease and potential solutions. In the future the UKNEA is likely to influence the research priorities of Forest Research.

Finally the committee discussed careers in the forest research sector. Forestry, which will be important for the green economy and green jobs, has been in decline as a profession with few graduates choosing to study the subject. Consequently the numbers of specialist scientists required in forest research such as entomologists and tree pathologists are declining. One of the main causes of the problem is the lack of PhD studentships and potential employers for graduates. The cuts are likely to affect the number of PhD studentships sponsored by Forest Research although no reductions have been made as yet. In addition as a result of the spending review Forest Research the agency is not able to hire new staff. This has significant implications for early career researchers in forestry who, in the past, have undertaken short placements after their doctorate at Forest Research as a way into the profession.

It is of paramount importance that there are scientists available trained in particular aspects of forest research because future threats will act too quickly to wait for a skills base to be re-established.

You can watch the evidence session here.

The chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Andrew Miller MP, joined the Policy Lunchbox network yesterday to discuss the Committee’s current and near-term priorities. Andrew Miller, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston since 1992, took up the chairmanship of the Committee following the May 2010 election. He has a long history of involvement with science in parliament, having served on the Science and Technology Committee from 1992 – 1997 and as a member of the Board of POST from 1993-1997. He is currently also chair of the Parliamentary and Scientitifc Committee.

Andrew highlighted recent and current inquiries led by the Committee, into the Government’s use of scientific evidence during emergencies – such as the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic and 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland – and into Technology Innovation Centres. Moving forward, priorities for the Committee included the science budget allocations; Departmental research and development; capital funding; the immigration cap; the impact of the abolition of quangos, and higher education funding. The Committee was also considering an inquiry on how Freedom of Information works in science, in light of the University of East Anglia’s climate change e-mail controversy in 2009.

A lively question and answer session ensued, with some interesting points raised around the Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda and what this may mean for the use of science advice. If decision-making is devolved increasingly to the local level, efforts must be made to ensure that decision-makers in local authorities have access to the scientific evidence and capability that they require. Andrew Miller highlighted the importance of public engagement in this context – for decisions to be made locally, it’s vital to ensure that these are well-informed, and that those making them and engaging with them are scientifically literate. One interesting point was raised around the ‘kite marking’ of sources of information. How can the public be sure that they are accessing truthful and verified information, if the public is going to be increasingly called upon to seek this out in order to make decisions in their communities? Andrew Miller was supportive of this concept and called upon Learned Societies to take a leading role in public engagement and particularly in the production of accurate resources which the public could access for scientific information.

Policy Lunchbox will resume in the New Year. Full details of speakers currently confirmed for 2011 can be found on the Policy Lunchbox webpage. Further details will appear as speakers are added to the programme.

EVIDENCE SESSION

Wednesday 15 September 2010

House of Commons

Witness:
At 3.00 pm
* Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will hold this oral evidence session in relation to Defra’s priorities and annual accounts.
The meeting will take place in a committee room in the House of Commons. Visitors should check the exact location nearer the time on http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/.

Nominations from within each party for Select Committees chair-person roles closed on June 9th, when the unopposed candidates took their seats on the newly re-formed committees. The elections for the committees where a contest was needed went ahead this Wednesday (June 10th) by a secret ballot of MPs. The Committees of interest to BES will be chaired by a mixture of both Labour and Conservative Members, some of whom have specialist knowledge gained from extensive parliamentary and government careers in relevant policy areas.

The Science and Technology Committee will be chaired by the Conservative Andrew Miller MP, whose political interests include science and technology, as shown by his long-standing membership of Scientists for Labour and his roles on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee since 1997. As a board member for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in the early 1990s, and as a former member of the Science and Technology Select Committee between 1992 and 1997, his role as Chair seems a natural progression for this established parliamentarian. Commenting on his appointment, Miller said “I would like to see the Committee focussing its attention on helping to maintain the strength of the UK’s science base and also improving public understanding of some of the challenging scientific issues facing us today.”

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee receives Anne McIntosh MP as its new chair, who has sat as a member on the Committee since 2007 and previously on similar Select Committees scrutinising former environment and transport departments during the Blair Government. She has held corresponding Shadow Ministerial roles during this period, including Shadow Minister for Transport (2002-03), Environment and Transport (2003-05), and later as Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007-10). A former MEP, the Thirsk and Malton MP has long standing political interests in transport and agriculture.

The Environmental Audit Committee will be headed up by the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North since 1987, Joan Walley. In opposition, Ms Walley served as Spokesperson on Environmental Protection and Development (1988-90) and on Transport (1990-95). She is a member of SERA, the Labour Environment Campaign, which reflects her political interests in this area. Ms Walley’s appointment follows her long service as an Environmental Audit Committee member, a position she has held since 1997. Ms Walley today spoke of her passion for the subject, saying “I have a long standing passion for environmental issues and I look forward to using my chairmanship to hold the government to account and ensure that environmental sustainability is at the heart of everything it does.”

The Energy and Climate Change Committee gains the experienced former chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Conservative’s Tim Yeo MP. As MP for South Suffolk for more than 25 years, Yeo has served as a junior minister in the Department for Environment under John Major’s premiership, and later as as Minister of State for the Countryside and Environment, where, according to his website, he “reformed planning law, helped to develop climate change policy and established the now thriving Energy Saving Trust”. In Opposition he has held relevant shadow ministerial roles including Environment and Local Government spokesman (1997-98), Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998-2001) and Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment (2004-05). His five years as Environmental Audit Committee Chairman up until the election has given him substantial Select Committee experience.

With chairs now in place, the membership of these Committees will take shape in the coming weeks.

It has been confirmed today that the Science and Technology (S&T) Select Committee will be re-formed under the new parliament.

The membership of the committee has yet to be decided, but a vote by MPs today confirmed that the Chair will be selected from the Labour party, with Mark Henderson of The Times placing Graham Stringer, the only surviving member of the previous S&T committee, as the current front-runner for the post.

The committee’s remit is likely to remain specific, mainly scrutinising the work of the Government Office for Science, but the Former Deputy Leader of the House, Barbara Keeley MP, had formerly expressed the hope that the committee would examine the full scope of science policy and related matters across the Government.

Original article: Science & Technology Select Committee returns by Imran Khan