Scientific Advice (Emergencies)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) on the excellent work that he and his Committee have done on this thorough report. They must have spent hours and hours listening to appropriate evidence in drawing up their conclusions. I have learned a lot from studying the report, and I very much enjoyed today’s contributions from my hon. Friend and from the hon. Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), as well as the short contribution from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley).

We all hope for the best, but while doing so we must prepare for the worst. Even understanding what we mean by the worst, and what the difference is between the worst-case scenario and the most likely scenario is skilled work in itself, as we have heard this afternoon. The Committee studied national risk assessment in detail, and one of the report’s main findings is that although there is good use of scientific back-up during the response and recovery stages of emergencies, that is not always the case with preparation.

What has been done to put sound scientific advice at the heart of Government policy making? In 1997, Lord May, who was then the Government’s chief scientific adviser, published the first edition of “Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making” to show how Departments should obtain and use scientific analysis. They were updated in 2005 and 2010, and we now have more than 60 scientific advisory committees, which consist of independent experts who advise Departments, Ministers and the chief scientific adviser.

In 2002, the “Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research” recommended that all Departments that rely on science should have science and innovation strategies, and departmental chief scientific advisers. By the time Labour left government, there were such advisers in every Department except the Treasury. Their presence enhances scientific input throughout departmental action. For example, a group of chief scientific advisers reviewed the draft Gallagher review on biofuels, and they made the final report more scientifically robust than it might otherwise have been.

In 2003, the Labour Government introduced science reviews for each Department to improve the use of science within Departments. In 2004, the science and innovation investment framework, which was designed to last for 10 years to 2014, was published.

In 2006, the joint public-private energy research partnership was launched to provide leadership for UK investments in energy research and innovation, which also contributed to Government initiatives, including the renewable energy strategy. In July 2007, the Government Office for Science was created within what those of us who are old enough to remember or were here then was the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

It is obviously important to keep science at the heart of Government policy. Before we left office, we created and published the principles of scientific advice to Government to ensure a proper working relationship between the Government and scientific advisers and advisory bodies. In 2005, we revised and updated the Government’s arrangements for emergency response.

One conclusion of the report before us focuses on scientific advisory groups in emergencies. The Committee recommended that the SAGE guidelines should address independence, transparency, confidentiality and the conduct of those involved. In this day and age, it is vital to draw on all expertise worldwide, and we should not shy away from seeking expert advice. An emergency is not a time to hide away, or to avoid bringing in the very best help that might assist us in resolving matters more effectively because of a stubborn wish not to admit that we might appreciate help, or that there could be people out there with greater expertise than our own. With the necessary safeguards for matters of national security, what can the Minister tell us about Government plans to make the operation of SAGEs more transparent?

I am responding to the debate, but the Minister is from the Cabinet Office. He will be aware that my shadow Cabinet Office colleagues are in Committee discussing the Public Bodies Bill, which is close to the Minister’s heart. The report links to the spirit of that Bill, and the Government’s response says that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

“will be reconstituted as an independent committee of experts to the Department of Health. The reconstituted committee will have a similar remit to that of the current committee”

and will “retain its independence and” continue

“to consist of independent experts.”

Why is a committee being disbanded and put back together with a similar remit? What sort of musical chairs is that? Will the Minister explain why a simple change cannot be made to the current committee? The dogma of the Public Bodies Bill—tearing up everything and reinventing the wheel when gaps become apparent—is mad.

I also want to ask about the Health Protection Agency. One minute we seem to be about to abolish the Health Protection Agency a month before the Olympics, and the next minute that seems to be not such a good idea. Will the Minister reassure us on the agency’s functions?

Will the Minister explain exactly what the Government will do to ensure that Department chief scientific advisers play more of a leading role in the preparations for emergencies? I emphasise “preparations”, because that is what the Committee was so concerned about. What is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills doing to improve the Government Office of Science and the chief scientific adviser’s influence across the Government? What are the Government doing to ensure that good quality scientific advice is put at the heart of all Government policy, including scientific advice in the technical sense and social and behavioural science advice? How do the Government intend to improve parliamentary and wider scientific scrutiny of the decisions that they make in emergencies? When do the Government expect to fill the posts for chief scientific adviser that are currently vacant in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Transport and, in the light of the 2012 Olympics, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? Will those posts be filled by people who are appropriately qualified, and are the Government satisfied that each Department has the necessary expertise?

As a Welsh MP, I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that appropriate channels are in place to ensure the smoothest possible joint working with devolved Administrations in any emergency, and that any changes to the system will be properly communicated to those responsible in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As highlighted in the Pitt report on flooding, local authorities are key to an effective response to an emergency. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the necessary expertise and access to training, and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to allow them to work with other authorities to maximise efficiency in an emergency?

One of the report’s main conclusions is of concern:

“We have been left with the impression that while science is used effectively to aid the response to emergencies, the Government’s attitude to scientific advice is that it is something to reach for once an emergency happens, not a key factor for consideration from the start of the planning process. We conclude that scientific advice and an evidence-based approach must be better integrated into risk assessment and policy processes early on.”

It is vital for the Government to take on board that advice from its critical friend, the Science and Technology Committee, and I urge the Minister to ensure that scientific advice shapes the thinking and actions taken in preparation for emergencies, and is not a bolt-on, afterthought or optional extra. This matter is of national concern to us all, and we want to work cross-party and be as supportive as we can where the Government are making the right decisions. If, however, we feel that adequate measures are not being taken, we will point that out so that things can be done better for the sake of us all.