May 2000

Westminster Report, IEE Review

With the difficulties at Rover in the Midlands and Ford in Dagenham, it has not been a good few weeks for engineering, manufacturing or for the Department of Trade and Industry. For this reason, I was particularly interested to hear of a Lords Parliamentary Answer by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury on the role of the DTI. Lord Sainsbury acknowledged that the Department’s aim is to increase competitiveness and scientific growth “in order to generate higher levels of sustainable growth and productivity in a modern economy”.

Lord Sainsbury added that the DTI’s objectives are to promote enterprise, innovation, increase productivity and to make the most of the UK’s science and engineering technology base. He also confirmed that whilst the DTI is responsible for over £3 billion of public expenditure each year, around 50% of this is spent on the research councils which support science. It is interesting that despite the best efforts of the DTI ‘to promote competitiveness’, the market still cannot be bucked and, as BMW and Ford have sadly shown, unless we provide top quality manufacturing products that consumers want to buy, no amount of subsidies, grants and the like will change anything – except perhaps to make the taxpayer more impoverished.

Instead, we should focus our attention on improving the skills base in science and engineering, particularly in further and higher education. The Government has made important strides in this area, although I worry about the increasing bureaucracy that will result with the new Learning Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies. It is vital that the Engineering industry ensures that it is represented in these new bodies, so that its interests are reflected in curriculum output. I welcome the efforts that the IEE, Engineering Employers Federation and others are making in this area.

Back in the Commons, the citing of the new Synchroton near Didcot Oxfordshire caused some controversy and raised some important questions concerning science policy and decision making.

As readers may be aware, the Synchroton is a powerful X Ray source and consists of a doughnut shaped evacuated tube surrounded by magnets that bend and focus a beam of electrons travelling at close to the speed of light. This information is important in exploiting the increasing knowledge of the human genome, the development of new medicines, new plastics, textiles, and detergents and new industrial processes. This new Synchroton will have a capital investment of close to £200 million and represents collaboration between the UK and France and the Wellcome Trust. Given that the current Synchroton is at Daresbury, the decision to cite the new one at the Rutherford Laboratory has caused major anguish amongst North West based MPs.

In an attempt to sweeten the pill, the DTI promised a major review of science funding in the North West and a guarantee of £25 million form the Science Budget to fund implementation of the recommendations of a review team set up to capitalise on strengths of the science base in the North West. This was clearly not enough for some MPs. Graham Brady (MP for Altrincham and Parliamentary Private Secretary to Tory Party Chairman Michael Ancram) secured an Adjournment Debate on the issue. Mr. Brady noted that the Daresbury Synchroton had been described as a world centre of excellence. He stressed that the decision would have profound implications for the science base in the North West and would take the newest and most high tech jobs to the South of England or overseas.

Mr Brady also accused the Government of making its decision behind closed doors and without public consultation – a point disputed by North West Labour MPs, who otherwise also expressed disappointment about the decisions. Robert Jackson MP, a former Science Minister in the last Government, made the important point about the growing centralisation of science policy. He noted that there used to be a basic principle of scientific autonomy, which was a reflection of the autonomy of our universities. He suggested that there should be a mechanism for more independence and autonomy in decision taking about science through a structure such as the former Advisory Board for Research Councils. Mr Jackson said that with hindsight, as Science Minister in 1992, it was mistake to have abolished the ABRC because it had given Ministers more power, exposing them to political pressure.

Responding, DTI minister Alan Johnson claimed that there had been adequate consultation and users had been consulted three times in the past fifteen months. Studies had shown the Rutherford site to be marginally favourable. In particular Rutherford had the potential for operational, technical and scientific synergy between the new synchroton and other facilities on the site.

The Minister noted that the Daresbury Synchrotron will continue to operate beyond the six years it would take to build the new one and UK users would continue to have access to X rays and instrumentation. He added that Daresbury’s future would be considered in the review of the North West Science base. In an interesting aside, Mr Johnson reported to the Commons that the strengths of the North West are more focused on chemical, aerospace, pharmaceutical and nuclear industries, which delivered 18% of the UK’s manufacturing output – this seems quite a hefty proportion. This debate, held in the Westminster Hall on 29 March 2000, was an important one and I would urge IEE members to read it in the Parliamentary Hansard. The debate touches on a wide range of issues, both electrical and engineering and raises questions as to how decisions affecting the future of science and engineering, are made in Whitehall.

Meanwhile, back in Whitehall, Lord Sainsbury was announcing new Foresight partnerships worth £16 million. The Government is providing £7 million matched by industry investment of £16 million. Some of the awards winning projects are very interesting. One that particularly caught my eye, is a project to develop smart wired houses with computer sensors to provide help for pensioners. This could transform the lives of our elderly and make old age in the home much easier for many.