May 1999

Westminster Report, IEE Review

Apart from the Budget, it has been a fairly quite few weeks on the engineering front, with very little of major note being said inside the Houses of Parliament.

The economic scenario for engineering has been mixed. Industry Minister John Battle is keen to point out that the outlook is bright for the engineering industry because of the Government's economic policies of cutting corporation tax and stabilising inflation. Sadly, this view is not reflected in the City of London where the economic situation has seen engineering shares plummet (after the prospect of a further interest rate cut receded). Perhaps the engineering industry is also at a disadvantage from the numerous 'stealth' taxes (particularly the rise in fuel costs) which have counteracted the cut in corporation tax.

However, the emphasis the Government continues to place on research and development is very welcome. The Budget announcement on 9 March set out details of their intention to introduce research and development tax credit for small and medium enterprises in the 2000 Budget, which will also involve a payable element for companies not yet in taxable profit. The Budget also heralded an extra £15 million for further development of the University Challenge fund and confirmed the establishment of a £25 million Science Enterprise Challenge (SEC).

Originally announced in the pre-Budget report, the SEC will establish eight new enterprise centres in universities to promote business skills and the commercialisation of research, a national Venture Capital Challenge Fund and Enterprise Management Incentives.

The Government have also continued to emphasise skills and training in science and engineering. Speaking to the Engineering Council Conference on 29 April, Trade and Industry Minister Stephen Byers said that the £2.5 million pledged by the DTI for engineering would be used to try and promote engineering careers and to encourage the support of industry, professional bodies and education institutions.

These policies have also been put forward in the recently published DTI Strategic Framework for 1999-2000. Key priorities for 1999-2000 are to strengthen the research and development for UK Universities and put in place measures to promote greater exploitation of the knowledge of knowledge produced in the science base. A key target for 2002 is to improve the overall international ranking of the Science and Engineering base in terms of quality, relevance and cost cutting.

In a rather dreamy third wayish statement, the DTI see Foresight and Link as means of 'encouraging decision makers to develop shared visions of the future'. There is some flesh on the bone, however, as Foresight does successfully build bridges between business, the science base, voluntary organisations and government across a range of areas and activities. Lord Sainsbury has recently launched a Foresight "knowledge pool", which will provide a fully searchable, single point of access to the work of foresight panels and to most Government information available on the world-wide web.

Yet another website has also been launched by the Government (http://www.set4women.gov.uk). This website provides a resource for women wanting information on careers in science, engineering and technology (SET). The SET Women Unit has recently targeted teenage girls with a 7000 poster campaign and provides information on the qualifications necessary to embark on a SET career.

These websites are generally a good idea for the promotion of engineering and are an important tool for the engineering industry. My own website (http://www.solnet.co.uk/fabricant) gives access to all my previous articles for the IEE Review.

Meanwhile, the Engineering Employment Federation (EEF) launched a business manifesto urging a change of direction both from the European Parliament and the European Commission. The manifesto called for a wider and deepening single market operating in a stable economic environment. It also called for lighter regulation and the creation of high quality jobs through embracing new skills and technologies through greater labour mobility. Government Ministers anxious to impose the latest Brussels Directives which often increase intervention and the regulatory burden on industry should do well to read this excellent EEF document!

In the Commons, "Engineering" Member Claire Curtis Thomas MP has been urging the Government to include an engineering exhibition I the Millennium Dome, to promote public understanding of British engineering. She has won a pledge from junior Culture, Media and Sport Minister Janet Anderson who said that the Millennium Dome exhibition would address and reflect issues within the engineering field.

Describing the Millennium Dome as a striking example of the capabilities and imagination of British engineers, the Minister said the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is working with the Design Council to accommodate a number of its innovative Millennium products within the Dome. She added that aspects of the NMEC's school curriculum resource packs deals with a range of construction and engineering issues involved with the issues of the Dome.

The Genetically Modified Food and human cloning controversies has clearly had an effect on Government thinking. In a major speech to the Royal Society on Science, Technology and Social responsibility on 16 March, entitled Science and Social Responsibility, Lord Sainsbury set out a number of rules science should follow. He argued that scientific communications should be refereed, to be sure that the correct methodology was used. Scientists should be adequately funded, but regulated in an effective transparent and independent way. Perhaps mindful of the significant public opposition to GM food technology, the Minister noted that "while the concerns of the public need always to be taken into account, it needs to be said constantly that the application of advances in fundamental science have had a hugely beneficial impact on our lives".

As someone who has a strong belief in scientific progress, Lord Sainsbury makes some valuable points. Nevertheless, to allay understandable concerns, any major scientific advancement should be accompanied by a major effort by the Government to bring all sections of the public on side. The problem with the GM Food debate for example, is that the Government gave the appearance of speaking up for big business interests only, until public opinion once again forced a retreat.