July 2000

Westminster Report, IEE Review

Sometimes the days and weeks go by at Westminster with little or no discussion about science or engineering; with Parliamentarians increasingly pre-occupied about matters somewhat ephemeral to our economic wellbeing. However, unless politicians of all hues view engineering and science as a constant priority, the national economic success of our country will be threatened. If as much time were spent arguing how to further our science base, as we argue the merits or demerits of the Euro, we would probably be much higher in the economic world ranking leagues.

Nevertheless, over the past few weeks, a number of MPs have demonstrated clear commitment to science and engineering, whilst the Government have announced some exciting ventures which, if realised, could have an important impact.

Although a traditionalist regarding parliamentary reform (it is important to continue to ensure that the Executive is held to full account by the legislature even though there are moves afoot to attenuate Parliament's powers), I have welcomed the chance for MPs to debate a wide variety of issues in the new Chamber in Westminster Hall. The topics covered there would not normally have the chance or time to be discussed in the main Chamber. This forum allows MPs to ensure that key issues like engineering are not pushed aside because of lack of Parliamentary time.

In an important Westminster Hall debate (11 May) on science based innovation based on the recent report by the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Michael Clark MP, the Conservative Chairman of the Committee and a former research chemist, made a number of crucial points. He stated how all aspects of engineering, whether electrical, civil or mechanical, generate wealth creation and improve the UK quality of life. Mr. Clark expressed his disappointment that UK expenditure on research and development had fallen as a percentage of GDP since 1993.

He also argued that our poor innovation record arises not from weakness in our science base - but because of our failure to exploit and market our inventions. Mr. Clark made the point that I have stated before in these columns, that there are too many disparate schemes to deal with science and engineering - schemes, which are diverse, small and poorly, understood. He said that there should be fewer but larger schemes as they would cut administration costs and red tape. As Mr. Clark noted these would "reduce some of the bidding problems that these organisations experience when they are looking for money". I believe that a reduction in the plethora of schemes will also reduce the 'fog' that surrounds them and simplify the search for R&D funding.

Alan Williams, a Labour MP, suggested that the ideas of clockwork radio inventor Trevor Bayliss, about establishing an academy of inventors, may be an imaginative way forward. Mr. Bayliss' successes with the clockwork radio and now in other areas has provided a tremendous boost to British engineering. Policy makers should closely listen to his ideas. Richard Page MP, a Conservative DTI Spokesman made the valid point that applied knowledge appears to be more important in countries like Germany, Japan and the USA. For example, only 7% of UK graduates compared with 68% in America consider starting their own business. Richard Page described how there are significant cultural problems in Britain that are hampering engineering and manufacturing. He maintained that the Government's responsibility is not just to secure training and resources, but one of promoting changes in "entrenched attitudes". For the Government, DTI Minister Patricia Hewitt, regarded by some as a rising star, defended the Government's spending on R&D stating that in 1998, it had gone up as a proportion of GDP.

Turning to the skills issue, the Minister accepted that whilst the number of science and engineering students are increasing, those people represent a declining proportion of the growing number of students. She also acknowledged that employers are reporting shortages at gradate and post graduate level in chemistry and electrical engineering. The Government's response to this has been to create new foundation degrees and to offer financial incentives to universities to include business skills and entrepreneurial education in the curriculum for science and engineering graduates.

The jury is still out on these schemes, but at least the Minister noted that the Committee's recommendations would form part of the thinking on the drawing up of the science White Paper, expected to be published in the near future.

I would recommend that all IEE members read this debate - which contained valuable contributions from all sides of the House and was remarkably free of party politics. So much so that the Deputy Speaker remarked about the quality of the debate - not a very frequent occurrence in the hotbed of Westminster politics!! All Commons debates, whether in the main Chamber or in Westminster Hall, may be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm

Meanwhile, there are continuing exciting events on the mobile phone front. The DTI has announced a £4 million research programme into the future development of mobile phone technology, of which the Government contribution is £1.5 million. This new research programme will draw together industry experts and academics to look at future scenarios of mobile phone technology. Britain is a leader in telecommunications and companies like BT and Vodafone straddle the world. Future developments such as communication by video wristwatch could be a triumph for science and engineering and I am pleased that Britain is taking this very seriously.

One other interesting development was the announcement at the end of May by Energy Minister, Helen Liddell MP. She announced that the Government had given the go ahead to ICI Chemicals and polymers to build a 250-megawatt gas fired combined heat and power station in Runcorn. The advantage of these combined heat and power plants is that they are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat and have environmental benefits due to their high levels of efficiency. This is good news particularly given the environmental and other benefits that this combined heat and power plant will bring.

In the last issue, I mentioned the huge controversy that resulted from the government's decision concerning the closure of the Daresbury synchrotron (and the re-siting of the synchrotron in SE England). In an attempt to assuage their critics, the Government confirmed that the North West Science Review Team had begun to accept bids for the £25 million support package for the region's science base. Bids are likely to be assessed in early August.