The European Union's (EU) common Energy Policy commits the EU to generating 20 per cent of total energy consumption from renewables by 2020. The European Commission proposed national renewable energy targets for each Member State and it was suggested that 15 per cent of UK energy be derived from renewables by 2020.
States that in September 2007, the government announced that it was withdrawing state funding paid to higher education institutions to subsidize the fees of Equivalent or Lower Level Qualifications (ELQ) students, that is those studying for a qualification at the same or lower level than they already hold.
On 28 June 2007, the Prime Minister announced changes to the machinery of Government that had an impact upon the select committee system within the House of Commons. As a result, the Science and Technology Select Committee will be dissolved and replaced by a new Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee at the beginning of the next session of Parliament. This Report explains the role that the Science and Technology Committee has played within Parliament and the science community. It outlines the Committee's innovations, its impact and concerns regarding future science scrutiny in the House of Commons. It concludes that, in the long term, a separate Science and Technology Committee is the only way to guarantee a permanent focus on science across Government within the select committee system and recommends that the House be given an opportunity to revisit this issue.
A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.
Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.
Working practices between the UK and Welsh Assembly governments in relation to cross-border policies appear much improved since the Committee's earlier reports on this subject. But a number of outstanding issues remain in transport, health and further and higher education. On transport the Committee welcomes the planned electrification of the Great Western Main Line. However, the Department for Transport appears to have washed its hands of any strategic responsibility for cross-border roads. The A483 is the clearest example of a road vital for travel within Wales but which is not important to the English region in which it is located, and as a result loses out on funding. The Committee stresses the need for comparative data on which to build solid research comparing NHS performance in the devolved nations. More needs to be done to raise public awareness of the differences in services people can expect to receive on both sides of the border. Transparency of information is vital. Research proposals in the UK Government's Higher Ambitions strategy for higher education make no reference to nations other than England, despite the UK-wide research remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Committee calls for details about how research funding proposals apply to all four nations.
In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments will apply. Decisions about funding priorities are complex and require careful judgement about the deployment of funds between competing priorities. The Committee concludes that, in the current policy framework, there is a lack of oversight of the total spend on research which is needed to enable the Government to make coherent, well-founded decisions about the use of public funds to support research. The Committee recommends that: the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) should publish figures annually, broken down by subject area, on all public spending to support research, and make appropriate recommendations to the Prime Minister; he should also attend Treasury meetings at which departmental budgets are considered; departmental CSAs should provide Ministers with timely information in advance of budget negotiations, to ensure that research funding decisions are informed by the best available advice. The Committee was also alerted to problems concerning the funding of cross-departmental research involving multiple funding agencies, including research to meet the grand challenges that society faces. To meet such challenges, the Committee recommends the establishment of specific mechanisms: to identify major cross-cutting policy challenges; and to identify, fund and co-ordinate appropriate responses to such challenges.
Apprenticeships have a long history and are widely recognised as a powerful form of learning. Not all young people thrive in a school or college environment: some find the world of work more stimulating and a better place to learn. The Committee welcomes much of the Government's policy in seeking to raise the standards of apprenticeships, including some of the measures contained within the Draft Apprenticeships Bill. They are not convinced, however, that legislation is strictly necessary to achieve this. The real bite in the Draft Bill lies in the duty to be placed on the Learning and Skills Council (and, in due course, successor bodies), to secure the availability of apprenticeship places for anyone above compulsory school age but under 19, and who holds the necessary entry level requirements. Given the economic downturn, they have grave doubts about whether such a statutory duty can be met. Even if it can, it is feared that the pressure of that duty could lead to the quality of apprenticeships being compromised. The Government's aspiration for a greater supply of apprenticeships and greater diversity of entry to apprenticeships is very much dependent for success on the ability of the public sector to take up the apprenticeship challenge. The Committee also strongly supports group apprenticeship schemes, in which an organisation would have links to smaller firms which, singly, would find it difficult to offer the breadth of experience or continuity of work required for an apprenticeship. Concerns about the impact of the challenging economic circumstances extend beyond apprenticeships. The Government plans to introduce legislation in the 2008-09 Parliamentary Session to transfer responsibility for funding and delivering education and training for 16 to 18-year-olds from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities. This will be a dramatic change and, caution is strongly urged
This report finds that the UK has an excellent research base but is still failing to maximise its potential by translating research into wealth and health. The road to economic recovery will depend, in part, on exploitation of the UK's research base, which in turn requires efficient translation to generate returns on investments. Some areas of bioengineering, such as stem cells, have clearly benefited from strong Government leadership and support, backed up by generous levels of funding from both the public and private sectors. Others, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, are less well supported and funded. This is curious when GM crops are considered by the Government to be safe and offer potential benefits. GM crops are certainly the poor cousin in the bioengineering family, and we strongly urge the Government to signal its support for GM crops as well as improving the regulatory situation in Europe. Regulation of bioengineering is complex and researchers have found that regulations inhibit research and translation, either because of regulatory complexity (stem cells) or a flawed operation of the regulatory process (GM crops). There are good indications that the UK is learning from past experiences in bioengineering when handling new emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. The Government and Research Councils have recognised the value of synthetic biology early, and are providing funding. The Committee is also concerned that while research is well funded there is not enough forethought about synthetic biology translation, for example developing DNA synthesis capability, which would provide the UK with an excellent opportunity to get ahead internationally. If this is not addressed, synthetic biology runs the risk of becoming yet another story of the UK failing to capitalise on a strong research base and falling behind internationally.
The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.
This report includes within its definition of infrastructure not only large and mid-range facilities, but also data, expertise and national capabilities such as those in Public Sector Research Establishments (PSREs), for example, the British Geological Survey and the Institute for Animal Health. On PSREs, the Committee expresses concern that the ability of PSREs and National Laboratories to deliver national objectives is being eroded by underfunding. While the Committee is broadly positive about the state of scientific infrastructure in the UK, the Committee warns that a lack of a clear long term strategy and investment plan, with a clear commitment to engagement with international projects, is impairing the UK's ability to remain internationally competitive over the long term. The Committee also found a 'damaging disconnect' between capital investment and funding for operational costs, i.e. that building important large scale infrastructure has been budgeted for, but the costs to keep it running have not. One example cited in the report is the ISIS centre in Oxfordshire, a world-leading base for neutron research. ISIS cost £50 million to build, and has recently doubled in size through a government-funded £145 million investment. Despite this, there was not the budget available to run the site at full capacity, and that it was only being used to two thirds of its potential. This resulted in hundreds of potential experiments not happening, industrial projects losing out and a missed opportunity for UK research.
In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.
The Science and Technology Committee warns that the UK's prominence in astronomy and particle physics, and its ability to attract and inspire the next generation of scientists in these areas, could be at risk if reduced budgets hit the UK's growth prospects, reputation and expertise. Although science did relatively well in the recent Spending Review, funding for astronomy sees a total reduction of 21% over the next four years compared with 2010-11. More starkly, comparing 2014/15 with 2005, spending in astronomy and particle physics will be around 50% lower than its level six years ago. This is worrying, particularly when set against the planned increased investment in science and innovation by the UK's international peers as part of long-term strategies to ensure economic growth. The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) - the research council which funds research and facility development in astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics - is risking the UK's ability to stay at the forefront of future developments by focusing its astronomy and particle physics programmes into fewer areas. A case in point is the UK's planned withdrawal from all Northern Hemisphere optical and ground based astronomical facilities, which could see UK leadership and competitive advantage being handed over to international peers. The Committee is also highly critical of past STFC strategies, especially its failure to incorporate into policy documents details of the planned withdrawals. The report also addresses the future of the National Schools Observatory and outreach, which is essential to inspire the next generation of scientists.
In this report, the Science and Technology Committee examines how scientific advice and evidence is used in national emergencies, when the Government and scientific advisory system are put under great pressure to deal with atypical situations. The inquiry focused on four case studies: (i) the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu); (ii) the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption; (iii) space weather; and (iv) cyber attacks. While science is used effectively to aid responses to emergencies, the detachment of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) from the National Risk Assessment (NRA) - the key process of risk evaluation carried out by the Cabinet Office - is a serious concern. The Committee recommends that the NRA should not be signed off until the GCSA is satisfied that all risks requiring scientific input and judgements have been properly considered. A new independent scientific advisory committee should be set up to advise the Cabinet on risk assessment and review the NRA. The Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 is a stark example of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment: the risk of disruption to aviation caused by a natural disaster was dropped from the assessment process in 2009, despite warnings from earth scientists. There are concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic are raised in the report, with sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. The Scientific Advisory Groups in Emergencies, set up to advise government during emergencies, were found to work in an unnecessarily secretive way.
This report considers the Commission's 2011 Communication on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility and the UK's participation in EU asylum and immigration measures. As countries in Europe face an ageing population and a declining birth rate, legal third country immigration into the EU will be needed to keep the economy on track and retain Europe's competitiveness in a global market. While Member States should retain primary responsibility for their own migration policies, the EU also has a role to play. As the majority of irregular migrants enter the EU with authorisation and then overstay their visas, rather than crossing the EU's external border by boat or land routes illegally, the EU should adopt a more effective approach in preventing irregular migration. The EU also has a role it can play in refugee management and building capacity in the asylum systems of countries of origin and transit. Moreover, migration policy cannot and should not be the sole concern of interior ministries and a more integrated approach with development and foreign affairs ministries - at the national and EU level - would help maximise the EU's development aims. The reduction of trade barriers with non-EU countries and measures to facilitate remittances, mitigate the effects of brain drain and assist diasporas to contribute to their countries of origin would also be beneficial. The Committee also considers the position of international students in the UK: they should not be subjected to the Government's policy objective of reducing net migration.
Much learning in government occurs after large projects, initiatives or crises. However, important learning should also take place routinely on a day-to-day basis, as teams and individuals carry out their work, or as a result of research and evaluations.
The Select Committee report Waste Or Resource? Stimulating A Bioeconomy? (HL 141) advises that the UK could miss out on a massive opportunity to create a flourishing multibillion pound economy from waste. Although there are many kinds of waste generated from a variety of sources, the Lords inquiry looked specifically at waste which contains carbon. Around 100 million tons of carbon-containing-waste are available every year which could potentially be exploited as a resource. While preventing the creation of waste in the first place is a laudable policy goal, it is inevitable that there will always be waste, or unavoidable by-products such as orange peel, coffee grounds or waste gas from factories and power stations. Using cutting edge technologies, wastes such as these can be converted into valuable products such as fuels, flavors and fragrances, plastics, paint or pharmaceuticals. There are environmental benefits to be had from harnessing the was
Between May 2005 and June 2009, there were over 90 reorganisations to central government. This report finds that these cannot demonstrate value for money, given that most had vague objectives and that costs and benefits were not tracked. The average annual cost of reorganisations is almost £200 million, around 85 per cent of which is for the reorganisation of arms length bodies. Since 1980, 25 central government departments have been created, including 13 which no longer exist. By comparison, in the United States only two new departments have been created over the same period. Central government bodies are weak at identifying and securing the benefits they hope to gain from reorganisation. There is no standard approach for preparing and assessing business cases setting out intended benefits against expected costs. More than half of reorganisations do not compare expected costs and benefits of alternative options, so there can be no certainty that the chosen approaches are the most cost effective. Furthermore, no departments set metrics to track the benefits that should justify reorganisation - making it impossible for them to demonstrate that the eventual benefits outweigh costs. There is no requirement for bodies to disclose the costs of reorganisations after they happen - meaning the true cost of reorganisation is often hidden. The decisions to reorganise departments and arms length bodies are often taken at short notice and with inadequate understanding of what could go wrong.
The Impact of Government Reforms on 14-19 Education, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence
The Impact of Government Reforms on 14-19 Education, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence
In the UK we teach young people to become computer users and consumers rather than programmers and software engineers. This is creating a chronic skills gap in ICT. We need around 82,000 engineers and technicians just to deal with retirements up to 2016 and 830,000 SET professionals by 2020. On the plus side, the Government's proposal to include computer science as a fourth science option to count towards the EBac is welcomed. The Committee also welcomes the EBac's focus on attainment of mathematics and science GCSEs but is concerned that subjects such as Design and Technology (D&T) might be marginalised. A Technical Baccalaureate (TechBac) is being designed but if it is to be a success, schools should be incentivised to focus on the TechBac by making it equivalent to the EBac. Reforms to vocational education following the Wolf Review meant that Level 2 of the Engineering Diploma, a qualification highly regarded, would count as equivalent to one GCSE despite requiring curriculum time and effort equivalent to several GCSEs. The Engineering Diploma, however, is currently being redesigned as four separate qualifications. The Committee also expressed concerns over the Department for Education's (DfE) lack of clarity on its research budget, and use of evidence in decision-making. The DfE needs to place greater focus on gathering evidence before changes to qualifications are made, and must leave sufficient time for evidence to be gathered on the effectiveness of policies before introducing further change. The possibility of gathering evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be seriously considered
The control of arms by means of non-proliferation and disarmament is one of the most important aims of Government foreign policy. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological - poses a grave threat to UK and global security. This report was prompted by recent developments relating to nuclear weapons but also examines wider issues. The Committee examine: the Government's approach to non-proliferation and the institutional and policy issues relevant to the UK, the EU, NATO and the United States; nuclear weapons including the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and nuclear disarmament; biological and chemical weapons; ballistic missiles and missile defence; terrorism and physical security; and conventional weapons. Finally the report assesses the Government's overall strategy, which is characterised by a commitment to a rules-based international system.
Recent developments in genomic science stemming from the sequencing of the human genome represent a unique opportunity for real advances in medical care and the Government and the NHS must take a range of steps to ensure that these advances are realised. The Government should produce a new White Paper with details on: how the Department of Health will facilitate the translation of advances in genomic science into clinical practice, including the operational changes needed to bring genetic testing into mainstream clinical practice; a roadmap for how such developments will be incorporated into the NHS; proposals for a programme of sustained long-term funding to support these measures. A range of genetic tests are already being used within the NHS to improve the diagnosis and treatment of a range of common illnesses, but there are barriers to the translation of new tests from invention through to use. The Committee looks specifically at the growing market for Direct to Consumer Tests (DCTs) and raises concerns about the effect of consumers receiving DCT results via the internet without proper medical advice to put those results in context. The Committee supports a voluntary code of practice for DCT providers. Ensuring NHS staff have adequate training in genomic medicine will be vital, and training in using and interpreting genetic tests should be an integral part of training for healthcare workers. The report recognises that there are privacy concerns about the retention and use of genetic data as well as apprehension about how the data may be used by, for example the insurance industry.
While strong Armed Forces remain the bedrock in safeguarding national interests new kinds of power projection are now required, both to make the use of force ('hard power') more effective and in some instances to replace it with the deployment of what has been labelled 'soft power'. Soft power involves getting what a country wants by influencing other countries to want the same thing, through attraction, persuasion and co-option. The information and digital revolution has transformed international relations and foreign policy, meaning that the UK must win over new and wider audiences to its point of view. The UK must change the way it interacts with other nations and communities, and is well-equipped to do so. Soft power methods of exercising international influence must now be combined with older approaches in order to secure and promote the UK's interests and purposes. To ensure that the exercise of soft power takes its place at the core of government policy-making, the Committee calls for the creation of a new strategic unit at the heart of Government. Its purpose would be to assist the Prime Minister in ensuring all Departments understand the importance of soft power and of upholding the UK's reputation, and in swiftly counteracting any potentially damaging policies or messages. While investing in soft power takes time to produce results, the Committee makes a number of recommendations including that BBC World Service's budget is not reduced any further in real terms and that the British Council is properly resourced to encourage the UK's creative industries
There exists the concept of a valley of death that prevents the progress of science from the laboratory bench to the point where it provides the basis of a commercially successful business or product. The future success of the UK economy has been linked to the success of translating a world class science base to generate new businesses with the consequent generation of UK jobs and wealth. A troubling feature of technology companies in the UK is how many are acquired by foreign owners where the subsequent jobs and wealth are generated outside the UK. It is key that the Government ensure that sufficient capital is available and recommended that the proposed bank for business, possibly in partnership with the Business Growth Fund, be used to promote a bond market for medium sized businesses, thus providing growing small businesses with an additional source of funding. It is also recommended that the Government investigate the potential to require funds to have a proportion of European SME equities. There needs to be a mechanism to support SME's who do disproportionately badly from the current R&D tax credit scheme. The Technology Strategy Board is becoming the focus for government innovation policy and Government should consider how they can resource the TSB to provide local level advice to technology businesses. The Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) and the SMART Award scheme would appear to be successful initiatives but lack sufficient funds to meet the demand from companies
The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the 'golden triangle' in the south of England. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for housing, including social housing.
The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.