Ian Gibson accuses the government of patronage and blackmail

The work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is clearly not a priority as far as the government is concerned.

I was a member of the Committee1997-2001 and chaired it from 2001-2005. The governing Labour party have given it, traded or however they wish to describe it, to the Liberal Democrats as part of their increased allocation of chairs of Committees. This effectively means that the Liberal Democrats form a minority party membership on the Committee and yet have the chair.

This was presented as a fait accompli in Parliament.  The appointment carries an increased stipend and pension of £13,000 per annum and a seat on the Liaison Committee, whose most important function is to decide on the debates of Select Committee reports and to interview the Prime Minister for two hours twice a year.

As the last chair, and wanting to retain the position, I felt powerless at the decision of the government chief whip. Furthermore, what made a bad situation worse was the chief whip’s use of blackmail. I and other key Labour members of the Committee were called to her office and told that we would lose membership of the committee unless we supported her decision.

So, despite our work in the last Committee, and despite the members of the Labour party being the best attendees of the group, I was relegated from chair to member, and the principle that it is the Committee, and not the whips who decide who is chair, was thrown out of the window.

The reasoning

The Chief Whip argues that her decision was not personal. However, she may be the only one who believes this. Many others see my removal as chair as punishment for speaking out on student top-up fees, Iraq and foundation hospitals.
It is also very peculiar that I was the only chair not permitted to serve two terms. This could either mean that I am not well liked by the powers that be in the party, or it could mean that the government feels that giving the science and technology committee away was the least painful trade-off they could make with the opposition parties.

Neither reason gives a favourable impression of the government’s continuing commitment to science.

Committee’s record

Now to be fair, Labour has done a lot for science, but I would argue that the new environment of support for science is due in large part to the Committee’s work in recent years.

The Committee has brought science to the fore. Its work has gone beyond the mere scrutiny of policies in several government departments where science plays a role (health, education, international development, food and rural affairs and so on), and has helped to shape and fashion policy.  It played a big part in setting up the national cancer research institute, the appointment of a scientific adviser for the Department of International Development, work into light pollution, and so on.

The Committees’ successes are many and welcomed by the scientific, technology and engineering communities. In recent times it has earned the respect of the media, and through these channels has helped give fresh confidence to the scientific sector.

And yet there is so much more to be done - not only in following up on our reports to the government, but in maintaining the dreaded scrutiny of research councils and other sectors of science. The Committee was driven by Labour in ideas and activity in the face of indifference of the other political parties to science.

My worry is: Will all this continue under the current policy of patronage and blackmail to serve party apparatchiks first and science second? I shall remain on the Committee to ensure that those whom I suspect would like to see the Committee scrapped do not get their way.

The first six months will tell if the new Select Committee is to maintain its previous status with the scientific community and to take up relevant and interesting studies. One can only hope.

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North.