September 1999

Westminster Report, IEE Review

With Parliament not returning until October, it's all quiet on the engineering front at Westminster. Tony Blair reshuffled the middle ranks of his Government and new Ministers joined the Department of Trade and Industry: Helen Liddell, Patricia Hewitt, Richard Caborn, Alan Johnson replacing Michael Wills, Lord Simon, John Battle, Ian McCartney and Brian Wilson. Lord Sainsbury a remains junior DTI Minister and retains his responsibility for science.

At the Department for Education and Employment there were also some changes. Two important ones to note are the appointment of Malcolm Wicks who replaces George Mudie as Education and Training Minister. Michael Wills has also joined the Department taking responsibility for the University of Industry.

Just before the recess, I tried to secure an Adjournment Debate to pressure the Government to appoint a Chief Engineering Advisor to the Cabinet Office. At present, there is a Chief Scientific Officer only. When I have pressed the Prime Minister, he has responded that he sees no need for an engineering advisor too. Readers of the IEE Review will be only too aware of the difference between engineering and pure science. The aim of the Adjournment Debate will be to let the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister, in particular, know too. I hope that the appointment of a Chief Engineering Advisor will give strength to the argument for recognition of the term "engineer" and to protect it in law as are architects, solicitors, and doctors. This would be one small step to improve the status of engineers in our society.

In response to a Parliamentary Question from me, the then Trade Minister Michael Wills said that the Government had made regular contact with firms and representative organisations in the engineering and manufacturing industry. He added that the industry was growing at 2.2%-annualised rate, compared to the equivalent one quarter percent last year.

Yet, although there are some commendable initiatives, the engineering industry is still facing some tremendous difficulties - particularly arising from over regulation, increased taxes, and an unnecessarily high pound as a direct consequence of making the Bank of England responsible for setting interest rates.

In the Commons, John Bercow, Shadow Education and Employment Spokesman noted that the Engineering and Employers Federation (EEF) had stated that UK based companies will close down or transfer their production facilities to other countries, if the Government persist with their plans for an energy tax. In response, the then DTI Minister John Battle acknowledged that the "measure will have different impacts on different sites, companies and sectors" but that the Government was consulting with business to try and move forward a negotiated agreement.

Engineering companies have echoed the EEF's view. In an excellent submission to the Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee, O'Hare Engineering Ltd, noted that the Government's proposed Climate Change Level was a major threat to their supply chain in that customers would be severely weakened and this would have an impact on their business.

O'Hare urged that the Select Committee examine methods other European countries have adopted in their energy taxes to protect their industry. For example, in Germany, energy intensive users have a reduced rate of tax, 20% of the full rate, and on top of this their total payment is capped at 120% of their equivalent to the rebates in the insurers National Insurance Contribution. Could this not be introduced in the UK if the Government were seriously interested in the environment and not just wanting to use it as an excuse to raise taxes?

Clearly O Hare makes some important points. There has been frustration in the engineering industry and manufacturing in general that the government has failed to consult more widely on the issue.

Even the Trade and Industry Select Committee in its report on the climate change levy states that "we are disappointed that the Government, despite a welcome commitment to consult on financial proposals, failed to consult on several of the key decisions determining the design of the Climate Change Level. At the very least, this has undermined the potential for Government and industry to work closely together on reducing the UK's greenhouse gas emissions"

The Government must rethink its plans before industry is faced with yet another tax that could hit investment and jobs.

One exciting development - and something on which the Government is to be commended - is the commitment shown to invest in our space strategy. At the beginning of August, Science Minister Lord Sainsbury announced a £19.5 million package of new investment in space science, engineering and technology. Noting that commercial markets for satellite communications and navigation would reach £150 billion a year by 2010, he said that it was vital for the UK industry to capture a fair share of those markets, supplying both hardware and software.

The DTI has a budget for £90 million for space over the next three years and with the basis of commitments made and already foreseen, total UK civil space expenditure is expected to amount to a minimum of £180 million per year in this period. Britain has also committed £5 million to developing the Mars Lander which will be able to examine the composition of that planet.

Supporting space technology is important and can only have a beneficial impact on science and engineering in this country. It will also help foster development of innovative technology and its commercial application.

In the month of the eclipse, it was good to see former Trade and Industry Minister John Battle stress the Government's support for solar energy! Responding to a Commons Question from Labour Backbencher Tam Dalyell, the Minister said that over the past two years the budget for photovoltaics (PV) element has doubled from £0.5 million to £1 million. Mr Battle added that the Foresight Sc olar Programme aims to put PV systems into a hundred schools and colleges across the country by 2000. The Government will contribute £1 million of the total £2.5 million costs.

Back down to earth, the IEE have been talking sense about mobile phones. In the view of all the recent media hype about mobile phones and ill health, it was good to see the IEE state, in a letter to the Commons and Science and Technology Committee, that, as a result of the work of the IEE Biological Effects Working Party (which monitors claims for the biological effects of radiation), "to date there is no convincing evidence to support the contention that transmitter base stations and mobile hand held telephones cause any damage to human health".

Although the IEE has stated that further scientific investigation and validation will be needed to determine whether mobile phones do have ill effects, the IEE has made a valuable contribution to the work of the Commons Committee.