January 2000

Westminster Report, IEE Review

The final weeks of 1999 were busy ones in Parliament following the Queen's Speech and I was pleased to have the opportunity to initiate a debate in the new Westminster Hall debating Chamber on Engineering matters. My main purpose was to urge the Government to appoint a Chief Engineering Adviser to the Cabinet to ensure that the engineering community has a clear channel of communication with the government. Claire Curtis Thomas, a Labour MP, who never fails to speak up for engineering interests at Westminster, supported my efforts in the Chamber.

Despite an acknowledgement by Trade and Industry Minister Patricia Hewitt, of the importance of engineering to our GDP, the Government thought a General Chief Scientific Adviser (in the shape of Sir Robert May) was adequate.

I am very disappointed with this response. In my debate I highlighted the fact that the Government claim that engineering contributes just 8% to UK GDP. I argued that their standard industry classification is out of date. The reality is, that if the Government took account of engineering led industries, the calculation of engineering's true contribution to GDP would rocket to more than 40%.

I am sure that very few people know that, at the last count, 17 of the FTSE top 100 companies were run by engineers compared with only 15 by accountants. Indeed, in total, qualified engineers hold about 160 of the total number of directorships of FTSE companies. And yet, despite this, engineers enjoy a lower status in the UK than in France, Germany, America and Japan. I strongly believe that the Government's refusal to accept that engineering is wealth creating, and different from science, helps to perpetuate the myth that engineers are of a lower status.

After all, whilst science is the business of discovering about nature and its laws, engineering is about applying the findings of science to create something that has never existed before. It should not be assumed therefore that the interests of engineering and engineers are the same as those of science and scientists.

Until the Government realises this, I am not optimistic that we can improve the engineering skills base in this country. There needs to be more than a worthy hot potch of initiatives, internet sites and such like. That is why a Chief Engineering Adviser is so essential. If you would like to read a full copy of my debate, including the minister's reply, it is available on my web site www.michael.fabricant.mp.co.uk. (Note the new URL)

Talking of our skills base, I was pleased to see a recent submission made from the Engineering Council to the Select Committee on Education and employment that have conducted an inquiry into post 16 education.

The Council, noting that "the lack of training in employment and sponsorship of education in the engineering sector", offer a number of solutions: Increased funding from employers by statutory requirement (such as a training tax); distribution of funds according to regional demands; a simple incentive for employers to benefit financially from training; national training awards with fixed curricula and rigorous accreditation; regional training centres, nationally accredited, providing high quality training to national standards in partnership with local employers and educational establishments; and national accreditation agencies with sanctions for each type of training.

Whilst I may not agree with all the proposals - particularly the idea of a 'training tax' (businesses are taxed enough already), the Engineering Council does offer some sensible solutions which should be taken up by the Department for Education and Employment. The idea of an incentive for employers to benefit financially from training, is a good one and I will be urging the Conservative Shadow Frontbench Trade and Industry team to take up this idea.

Meanwhile, in the Lords, there was one intervention which caught my eye from Viscount Oxfuird, a man who has spent much of his life assisting the engineering manufacturing community, mainly as an exporter. Noting the problems that the high value of Sterling was causing, he said that he was pleased that despite this, the manufacturing sector was not doing too badly. Nevertheless, he urged the Government to do everything to help exporters especially given that interest rates are likely to rise over the coming years. The Viscount also noted a study published by the Engineering Employers Federation, indicating that leading engineering companies are making real investments in the future by training their staff. The People's Skills Scoreboard, published recently, shows that there is a significant correlation between commitment to the objectives of Investors in People and business success. It is heartening to see the great strides that the engineering industry is making to try and ensure the highest standards of education and training despite increased burdens put on industry by Government.

An announcement from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) - obviously timed for Christmas - promised a '£320 million boost for UK Scientific Research'. Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers said that a total of £320 million is to be awarded to projects in 27 universities. The funding comes from the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) and is the second tranche of awards which covers the broad spectrum of biological, biomedical, physical and social sciences, and engineering.

The Joint Infrastructure Fund was established in 1998 and has a total budget of £750 million for infrastructure and major equipment comprising £300 million each from the DTI and the medical research charity. This is an area which the DTI are doing some good for science and the involvement of the research charity Wellcome is also highly beneficial. So here, at least, is some positive help from the Government.

Copy deadlines mean that I am writing this article in the run-up to the New Year. Assuming that life on earth did not end at 1 second past midnight on January 1st thanks to Y2K bugs, I shall be spending the year not only on the green benches of the House of Commons but also on the Senate of the Engineering Council as their newest member. Thanks to any readers who voted for me and I promise to be almost as troublesome in the Senate as I am on the Opposition back benches!