Of course colloquialisms don’t mean “exactly what they say,” and nothing in the above post suggests otherwise. You couldn’t be further from missing the point if you tried wilfully to do so. For example, no one here is suggesting that to “warm up” a person is to be interpreted as giving them a hot mug of cocoa and sitting them down by a log fire. I think we all know exactly what it really means, don’t we Ford?

I should also have added – the final bolded paragraph (containing “the idea that beddington was acting in a ‘private’ capacity is absurd”) to which you responded was Steve’s inline comment.

The CoPSAC 2007 document is mis-linked or missing from the archived BIS page, but I think I found a copy(?), Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (Dec. 2007). Quoting from it :

Government Office for Science
The GCSA (Government Chief Scientific Adviser) and Head of the Government Office for Science is responsible for:
• Providing scientific advice personally to the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet (in consultation with Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers when appropriate);
• Advising the Prime Minister and Cabinet on aspects of Government policy on science and technology;
• Ensuring and improving the quality and use of scientific evidence and advice in Government;
• Leading the science and engineering profession within the Civil Service.

The archived BIS page refers to paragraphs 2.2 – 2.7 of CoPSAC 2007, but it seems they’re actually referring to the document Science & Engineering in Government – An Overview of the Government’s Approach. Quoting from it (paragraphs 2.4 – 2.10 contain a description of the GCSA’s roles and responsibilities) :

2.7 The GCSA:
• provides scientific advice personally to the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet;
• assures and further improves the quality and use of scientific evidence and advice in government;
• leads the science and engineering profession within the Civil Service – the GCSA is the Head of Science and Engineering Profession (HoSEP);
• engages other countries and international organisations on science and engineering to help achieve UK objectives; and
• works to strengthen the interactions between research communities and policy makers.

Note that along with his or her duties to the the PM & Cabinet, the GCSA is the head of the science and enginineering professions in the Civil Service.

By my layman’s understanding, a consultation with Beddington in his role as GCSA is a consultation with a member of the Government, and any advice provided by Beddington in his role as GCSA is advice provided by the HoSEP.

If the statement had been that the reviews were carried out independently of the Cabinet, then I’d agree it would seem defensible, but as it stands the Government’s statements above, in response to the FOI and to the SciTech committee, appear to be inconsistent with each other.

The title Sir does not entitle anyone to become a member of the House of Lords.

The University does not consider that there was a contractual relationship with Sir Muir Russell or the inquiry team; it was by way of a public appointment (as is commonplace in these circumstances).

Of course this cannot be proven to be a lie because they are not making a clear statement of fact they are stating what they “consider”, an opinion. (Thanks to their “brief” for the legal get-out language trick).

The other point to consider is that SIR Muir Russel and LORD Oxburgh are members of the House of Lords: the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament.

Now while Her Majesty’s Government or “the Government” is a subset of Parliament , it is Parliament as a whole that creates and passes laws and hence governs the UK, not HMG. To say peers are independent of Government is simply playing with words.

It’s comparable to saying senators in the U.S. are not part of government.

Explains much.