March 2000

Westminster Report, IEE Review

I would like to start this article off on an optimistic note. Britain is at the forefront of science and technology in the mobile telecommunications industry. An exciting development will be the introduction of third generation (3G) mobile telephony, which will allow users to surf the World Wide Web, download emails and pictures and hold videoconferences. The Department for Trade and Industry has confirmed that the mobile auction will start in early March. Thirteen bidders will participate in the auction and the progress will be published round by round on the auction website: www.spectrumauctions.gov.uk. The UK is already streets ahead of the United States in this field and it demonstrates that when the political and commercial will is there, our engineers and scientists can achieve tremendous success. Our telecommunication innovations are becoming the envy of the world.

Back in the House of Commons, Angela Browning, who is the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, has been pressing the Government to say what it has been doing for the engineering industry. Mrs Browning asked Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers, to set out the terms of reference, objectives and timing for the engineering review being conducted jointly by the DTI and the Engineering Council.

Responding, Mr Byers noted that the review, led by Dr Hawley, Chairman of the Engineering Council, is assessing the contribution the Engineering Council should make to add value to the engineering community. He said that improving the effectiveness of existing activities in such areas as the promotion and standards of engineering and building on synergies with other organisations would do this. This review has just reached its initial conclusions. The second stage (to be completed by July 2000) will be the development of a strategy for achieving these objectives.

Mr Byers set out the number of engagements which he has held with engineering groups from January to December last year (21 in all) (Hansard 21.12.99, col 463).

He also confirmed that the DTI continues to provide support for project work arising from the Action for Engineering Initiative (AEI). This is to be welcomed. AEI promotes co-ordinated action to substantially increase the influence, involvement and achievement of professional engineers for the engineering industry. One AEI initiative to be particularly commended is SETNET (Science Engineering Technology Mathematics Network) which aims to bring coherence to the delivery of the somewhat fragmented range of activities aimed at promoting science and engineering, technology and maths to teachers and pupils. Given the often-poor numeracy skills of so many students, I am pleased to see that the DTI and the Department for Education and Employment have funded SETNET to the tune of £500,000 over the past three years.

There are some other worthy DTI schemes, which also should be mentioned, notably the Engineering Technicians Initiative. Announced last September, this initiative supports the growth of clusters for the training of engineering technicians in manufacturing smaller and medium enterprises.

Meanwhile, in January, there was some good news for universities as the Science Minster Lord Sainsbury announced to great fanfare that universities would be given £70 million of funding to buy state of the art research equipment. Whilst this is welcome, we must hope that this is new money rather than the suspicion that once again this is a recycled announcement of existing funding programmes. The funding comes from the Joint Research Equipment Initiative, a scheme started by the last Conservative Government with the aim of contributing to the physical research infrastructure enabling high quality research to be undertaken with the investment.

The doughty engineering enthusiast in the Commons, Clare Curtis Thomas, has yet again been raising the engineering flag in the Chamber. This time, she was asking about the state of engineering in our armed forces and how many individuals in the army, navy and airforce are members of engineering institutions. Defence Minister John Spellar stated that there were 34 individuals who were members of professional engineering institutions, within the teaching and management staff of the Department of Specialist Ground Training.

He added that wherever possible, Armed Forces engineering courses were linked to civilian or vocational qualifications. He also stressed that training was subject to validation by a civilian body in the same way as qualifications awarded by higher education colleges and universities. Mr Spellar noted that the Armed Forces already offer places on their engineering training courses to private sector business utilising spare capacity, wherever possible.

The publication of the Report 'Engineering and Physical Science based Innovation' by the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee was an important event. The Report, to which the Institute of Electrical Engineers contributed, examines the ways in which the output of the wider science base is utilised by industry. The Committee decided to focus on engineering because of "the general perception that these industrial sectors are less successful than other sciences, in converting the results of research into innovation". The Report makes some interesting observations. It notes that the engineering industry argue that engineering is more complex than other sciences and therefore there is a greater barrier between the application of science and its implementation in the market.

The IEE, in its memorandum to the Committee, also made some important recommendations. Their suggestion of a Minister exclusively devoted to science is a good one, as is their point that industrial research has declined as Government has continued to withdraw from near market research. I would recommend that every member reads this important document.

In the Upper House, Labour Peer Lord Bach laid draft orders seeking authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) to impose a levy on employers in their industries to finance their training activities, including grant schemes to fund the operating costs of the boards. They will raise between £75 million to £80 million for the CITB and £10 million for the ECITB. Tory Education Spokesman Baroness Blatch made the important point that just as the previous Government moved away from industrial training boards, the present government are now moving away from the levy subsidy and forward training.

She added that the biggest danger to the engineering and construction industry is the considerable burdens on business as a result of much new legislation particularly the administration of the minimum wage, the working time directive and the parental leave directive. She also said that the cost of engineering courses are far too high for FE colleges and training providers to mount. The Opposition will be urging the Government to include proper differential funding for such courses under its new post 16 proposals. Only time will tell if the Government take this on board.