January 1999

Westminster Report, IEE Review

It has been a busy few weeks in Parliament with the Queen's Speech, Lords reform, and European money crises occupying the minds of most MPs and Peers. Nevertheless, science and engineering has been high on the agenda. As so often, the indomitable Claire Curtis Thomas MP initiated another important debate on engineering in the Commons, this time on how British engineering could help alleviate poverty in the developing world.

In a quite remarkable Adjournment Debate on Third World aid on 27th November (read a copy of Hansard or access their site on www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm for the full speech and ministerial reply) Claire, a Labour backbencher who also sits on the Senate of the Engineering Council, praised the work of the Telford Challenge. This is a scheme by which the Department for International Development (DfID) provides matching funding to a cross institution partnership of engineers which provides the framework to mobilise the global engineering community to develop engineering education, skills and practice in developing countries in an attempt to combat world poverty.

Mrs Thomas noted that poverty relief is not just about basic aid provision, but about 'know how'. She highlighted the role that UK engineers should play in the third world. Engineers she exclaimed, provide the skills, experience and knowledge to provide and maintain the infrastructure that meets three basic needs; fresh water, the production of food and the means for shelter.

She urged the Government to implore the UK engineering institutions and organisations to identify policies and priorities for engineering interventions that would contribute to poverty elimination. She also asked the engineering community to respond to new demands on infrastructure, improve professional communication and consider how best practice could be adopted in the poorer countries.

In a thoughtful response, Overseas Development Minister George Foulkes highlighted some important examples of British engineering at its best. He noted that Britain was working in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Ghana and India in new projects that target poor rural communities, which did not have access to safe water supply .

He suggested that there needed to be substantial investment from the private sector (a welcome contrast from his boss Clare Short's remarks that her role is not to promote British business) and that engineers would need to find ways of attracting private sector capital to help build and operate their schemes "whilst at the same time ensuring that the services provided reach the poorest of the poor". The Minister also praised the Telford Challenge and added that there was also a DfID initiative Business Partners for Development. This is designed to build partnerships between the private utility companies and the poorer sections of the community in order to improve service delivery.

Partnership was also the theme by which the Government has set the development of science policy. In a speech on 25 November at a joint Invest in Britain/Foresight programme seminar. Peter Mandelson argued that for Britain to make the most its Science and Engineering Base, there needs to be "partnership, education and a revolution in business culture".

He added that there has to be renewed co-operation between business and the science base. The Minister chose the occasion to launch yet another special website, this time entitled "R&D Connections" (www.dti.gov.uk/ibb/researchuk). This site will provide a forum to bring together companies and researchers and will list UK centres of research excellence.

The DTI are also pushing forward schemes such as the Teaching Company scheme which provides financial support for high calibre graduates to work in company on key projects, under the joint supervision of an industrial and academic supervisor.

The Foresight Initiative is being encouraged by the DTI as an essential conduit bringing people from business, academia, government and the voluntary sector to develop science and technology for the future. Companies like Hewlett Packard and Pfizer are praised for their involvement in this process and (as Mandelson notes) "are developing new products here in the knowledge they will enhance corporate competitiveness globally and please the shareholders at home.".

In the Commons, Peter Mandelson has also stressed the need for partnership arguing that the UK's future success depends crucially on a partnership between the science base and the commercial sector. It is likely that by the time you read this article, the Government will have published the Competitiveness White Paper, which the DTI has promised will "demonstrate how the use and application of science is helping companies meet the challenges of the knowledge driven economy" (Commons Hansard 29 October 1998).

No-one can argue with Mandelson's emphasis on enterprise. He has stressed that for science to succeed, a culture of enterprise and risk taking is at the heart of "turning knowledge into commercial gain". Citing California's Silicon Valley as an example of risk taking and ambition, he has said that Britain would be wise to follow this model. Certainly, without measures to help wealth creation and measures to cut regulation, it is unlikely that business will invest in the right levels of research and development.

Over-stifling bureaucracy from Brussels now being introduced here (such as measure like the Social Chapter and 48-hr week ) will harm our inward investment which brings new technologies to our shores. Up to 1997, this country was a haven for inward investment which was easily the highest of all European Union members. As we now read that more and more companies are deciding not to opt to locate in Britain, it seems that levels of inward investment are not what it once was. It is hoped that the Government, in all their talk of enterprise and innovation and their enthusiasm for all things European, does not stifle the very enterprise culture that it has pledged to support.