House of Commons - Science and Technology

Hansard

Archives

Research

HOC Publications

HOL Publications

Committees

Select Committee on Science and Technology Thirteenth Report

3 Innovations

Science Question Time

21. The Science and Technology Committee has traditionally held regular question time sessions with the Science Minister. This "Science Question Time" was originally agreed with Lord Sainsbury because his membership of the House of Lords denied us the opportunities enjoyed by members of other select committees to question Ministers during debates and departmental question times on the floor of the House. On 10 November 2006 Lord Sainsbury resigned and was succeeded by Malcolm Wicks MP, who continued the tradition notwithstanding his membership of this House.

22. The format of Science Question Time, broadly modelled upon Prime Minister's Questions, is four questions, including supplementaries, in forty minutes. We find that this question time with the Minister is an extremely useful way to follow up issues and track developments in different areas. We have raised topics such as building new nuclear power stations, the numbers of students studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, peer review, and the funding of science centres. We also believe that a regular session builds up a positive working relationship between the Committee and the Minister in a way that is not necessarily achieved by question time in the Chamber. We urge the new Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee to continue the tradition of ministerial scrutiny through Science Question Time.

Improving Scrutiny

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

23. In our Report on the work of the Committee in 2005 and 2006, we noted that we had received the majority of Government responses within the established two month deadline.[27] Unfortunately in 2007, the Government's track record was somewhat marred because, as well as the late arrival of several responses, two responses were of particularly poor quality. The Government's response to our Report on the Cooksey Review, for example, did not address any of our recommendations.[28] We therefore took the unusual step of requesting that the Government revise its response. The response to our Research Council Institutes Report was also disappointing.[29] Some recommendations directed to individual Research Councils had no direct response, whilst other recommendations went unaddressed. Rather than requesting a completely new response in this case, we asked for clarification regarding particular recommendations. As the responses had already been delayed and the summer recess was looming, we agreed to publish the initial Government responses on our website in order to keep the public informed. We subsequently printed the revised responses. We are pleased to note, however, that in the short time since the establishment of DIUS, performance in this area had improved significantly and that we received responses to two of our reports before the agreed deadline.

FOLLOW UP

24. We resolved in October 2005 to develop a more strategic approach to following up previous inquiries. We have followed up Reports in a number of ways: holding one-off oral evidence sessions; publishing follow up Reports; initiating debates in Westminster Hall and on the floor of the House; holding informal meetings with those affected by our Reports; and writing to the departments involved in inquiries seeking updates. Table 3 outlines the various ways in which we have followed up inquiries.