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

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for the Government to increase spend on science in order to ensure that the UK can remain competitive and an attractive place to both research and invest in science and technology. In a report published yesterday, the result of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘the impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research’, Committee members call for the Government to veto any potential cuts to the science budget, or face ’seriously damaging’ consequences for the sector.

The Pre-Budget Report of 9 December 2009 announced that £600 million would be cut from the higher education and science and research budgets, “from a combination of changes to student support within existing arrangements; efficiency savings and prioritisation across universities, science and research; some switching of modes of study in higher education; and reductions in budgets that do not support student participation”. The Committee conclude that the figure of £600 million is an arbitrary one, imposed by Treasury, with no clarity about how it was generated. It is also not yet clear where these cuts will fall.

In addition, the funds allocated by HEFCE to universities in England will fall in the 2010-11 financial year, by 6.5% compared to the allocation in 2009-10. Within the overall HEFCE budget, allocations to individual institutions were announced a couple of weeks ago. Against this background of cuts already announced is the very real concern amongst researchers and others in higher education that further cuts are to come. The current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR 2007) expires in 2010-11, with funding beyond March 2011 contingent upon a new Budget and CSR. In evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, said, “my lack of comfort is due to the fact that I am arguing very strongly for the figure for the future overall research budget… The argument is still to be made and won.”

As well as concluding that overall cuts to the science budget are unsustainable in terms of building the UK’s ‘knowledge economy’, relying on a supply of scientifically qualified teachers, researchers and an attractive research environment to business and industry, the inquiry touches upon plans in the new Research Excellence Framework to assess the ‘impact’ of researchers’ work. The Committee also examine the separate push by the Research Councils to ask researchers to consider the impact of their work when applying for grants. The Committee conclude that assessing impact retrospectively as part of the REF, whilst a commendable idea, is not feasible in practice and that difficulties in doing this will prove ‘insurmountable’. However, members do support the Research Councils requirement for researchers to consider how they might open up ‘pathways to impact’ through their research and call upon the Research Councils to clarify their requirements. There is a perception in the scientific community that researchers are being asked to ‘predict’ the impact of their research; a charge which the Research Councils dispute and on which the Committee call for clarification to correct this misinformation.

Overall, the report echoes other recent publications calling for stability, and an increase, in science spending during a period of fiscal tightening, such as the Royal Society’s ‘Scientific Century’ and the Council for Science and Technology’s recent ‘Vision for UK Research‘ report. Today’s budget announcement will be an interesting test of whether HM Treasury has got the message.

The EFRA Select Committee has today released a report criticising Defra’s waste policy, stating that the Department’s strategy has no clear targets for the reduction of England’s waste and instead concentrates efforts on improving recycling rates for domestic waste, which accounts for only 10% of total waste produced.

Commenting on the launch of their report on the Waste Strategy for England 2007, the Chair of the EFRA Committee, Michael Jack MP, said “Defra must…encourage companies to take a completely new view of waste and see it as a valuable source of raw material which must not be squandered in these difficult economic times.”

The report praises householders for increasing their recycling levels to nearly 37% and urges the Government to set stringent recycling targets of 50% by 2015 and 60% by 2020. To facilitate this, Councils must explain clearly to the public what it costs to collect and dispose of each bin, bag or wheelie bin of waste. The benefits that arise from households reducing their waste volumes must be explained to them.

Amongst other measures, the report urges Government to set a target for the mandatory collection of food waste and supply advice, education and practical support to householders in managing food waste – for example by encouraging composting and supplying low-cost composting equipment to facilitate this. The report also calls for Government to re-examine the case for imposing lower levels of duty on waste-derived fuel oil. Finally, the Committee suggests that the Government evaluate the practicalities of imposing a small ‘clean up’ duty on products such as cigarettes, whose packaging contributes the largest volumes of litter, to support work by local authorities to clean up their neighbourhoods.

The Policy Lunchbox network was today joined by Phil Willis MP, Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, for a wide-ranging discussion on ‘Putting science and engineering at the heart of government policy’. In welcoming Mr Willis to the event, Chris Kirk, Chief Executive of the Biochemical Society, hailed him as a friend to science and for his role as chair of the Committee, and its earlier iterations which have all played a fundamentally important role in scrutinising the use of science across government.

Mr Willis led those attending through the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee (of which Mr Willis was also Chair) report, ‘Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy-Making‘. That government should have good evidence to support its policies had been the central theme of the reports of the previous House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the IUSS Committee which followed it and would continue to be the guiding principle of the reconstituted Science and Technology Committee.

The IUSS Select Committee had stressed the importance of independent scientific advice to government, with which government had agreed. Yet, within months, the Home Secretary dismissed Professor David Nutt as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs because he had criticised government policy as not being evidence -based. Mr Willis said that the Committee had decided not to dwell on past events but had instead decided to focus on the lessons which could be learned for the future. The Science and Technology Committee has asked for comments on the Principles on the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, developed by Lord Rees, Sense about Science and others in the scientific community, by today, and will make recommendations to Lord Drayson, Science Minister, based on these.

Over the past ten years, Mr Willis said, the government has made tremendous steps to use evidence as the basis of policy, driven largely by the excellent work of Professor Lord Robert May, Professor Sir David King and now, Professor John Beddington, as Government Chief Scientific Advisor. Yet, more can still be done. How do we ensure that the incoming government of spring 2010 continues to use scientific methodology and engineering in both policy-making and evaluation? Many of those currently championing science in parliament are to step down at the next election, including Mr Willis. Stressing the importance of engaging with new parliamentarians, Mr Willis highlighted the role that learned societies, industry and academia could play in this process; organising visits to scientific facilities, organising one-to-one meetings with MPs and offering briefings. You don’t have to be a scientist to support science and promote research, Mr Willis said; if you demonstrate an interest in politicians they will show an interest in your area.

Much more could also be done within the civil-service to promote science and to use the qualifications of those scientists working in government. It is encouraging that Professor John Beddington is taking the lead here, bringing scientifically qualified civil-servants together at a conference in January to consider how their training could be better utilised.

Mr Willis stressed the difficulty for policy-makers posed by the lack of a single unifed voice for the biological sciences. Although the formation of the Society of Biology goes some way towards rectifying this, Mr Willis urged learned societies and organisations represented at Policy Lunchbox to work together more closely to ensure that policy based on sound scientific evidence remains a priority following the next election.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for policy officers and others engaged in science policy. It is maintained and run by the Biochemical Society and the British Ecological Society, with meetings on the first Wednesday of each month. For details of forthcoming events see the Biochemical Society’s website.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has announced a new inquiry into setting funding priorities for scientific and technological research.

The Committee will investigate how Government and other public bodies responsible for the allocation of funding for science and technology research set priorities in the context of likely overall cuts in public spending. The inquiry will cover all aspects of science and technology, including the medical and engineering sciences.

The Committee will focus on how decisions are made to fund research to meet societal needs, the balance of funding between targeted and curiosity-driven research, and how research is commissioned in Government departments.

The Committee invites written evidence from any interested parties. The deadline for submission of written evidence is Friday 25 September 2009.

Visit the Committee’s website for a list of questions on which the Committee will seek evidence.

The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee has this morning published the report of its inquiry into ‘Putting Science at the Heart of Government’. The report concludes that the Government has reduced science to a political bargaining chip, with responsibility for the Government Office for Science shuffled between three Departments in two years, and that a broad vision is mising for science policy.

The Committee directly appeals to the Prime Minister to bring the Government Office for Science (GO-Science) into the Cabinet Office so that science can play a stronger role in informing decision making. The Committee also urge Government to establish a press office in GO-Science, which would also serve all Science Advisory Committee.

The report also says:

• If the Government is to return to ‘picking winners’ it must have clear priorities and come clean about which areas of research will get less money

• The 2009 Budget Research Council savings are in reality an attempt to influence research funding streams and the Government should not label them as something they are not

• The Haldane Principle should be replaced with a principle which accommodates a much wider range of factors, for example regional science policy

• After the general election, a new free-standing Science, Engineering and Technology Committee should be created with a cross-departmental remit

Phil Willis MP, the Chairman of the Committee, said:

“My Committee does not underestimate how important the Government believes the role of science and engineering advice to be. We were impressed by evidence demonstrating that significant progress is being made, such as the increasing use of Chief Scientific Advisers.

“We ask that a tangible and ambitious strategy for UK science and engineering policy is developed. The Government has committed to placing science and engineering advice at the heart of policy formulation and now it is time to do so: scrutiny of policy must be strengthened and a clearer vision for the future must be developed.”

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee has today published a report examining the UK contribution to ensuring food security globally to 2050. “Securing food supplies up to 2050: the challenges for the UK” urges Defra to take the lead, building capacity in food and farming industries so that they can respond to market signals in a way that will reduce the risk of food shortages.

The Committee consider that the UK has a moral obligation to contribute to the global challenge of securing food supplies. Commenting on the report, Michael Jack MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The UK can play a leading role both in Europe and globally in making sure that our farmers and food industry can contribute effectively towards meeting the challenge of a world that will need to double its food output by 2050 whilst coping with the pressures of climate change as well as global plant and animal diseases. Every region of the UK has a contribution to make.”

An increase in food production must take place in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving soil and water and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, recognise the Committee. Consumer engagement is also vital.

The report does not advocate food self-sufficiency for the UK, highlighting instead the importance of strong trading relationships. The report also highlights the dangers posed by ‘land-grabbing’ – rich countries buying up land in poorer regions to grow crops for their own population.

The Committee call for an increase in support for public sector food and farming research, urging Defra to safeguard the UK’s world-class agricultural research base with additional investment of £100 million.

The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee has announced a new inquiry into ‘Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy’. The Committee is seeking evidence on, amongst other things:

• whether there should be a Department for Science
• strengths and weaknesses of how Government currently formulates science policy
• whether the views of the science and engineering community are, or should be, central to the formulation of government policy
• engaging the public and increasing public confidence in science and engineering policy
• the role of GO-Science, DIUS and other Government departments, charities, learned societies, Regional Development Agencies, industry and other stakeholders in determining UK science and engineering policy
• how government science and engineering policy should be scrutinised.

The BES is planning to respond to this consultation, by the deadline of Monday 12 January. If you would like to contribute to this response, e-mail Policy@BritishEcologicalSociety.org, by, at the latest, Friday 12 December.