November 2000

Westminster Report, IEE Review

As I write this report, Parliament has just returned from its long summer recess with MPs focused on the election of the new Speaker of the House of Commons. As many readers will be aware, this election aroused considerable controversy and the role of Parliament has come under a glaring spotlight.

This has been one of the longest breaks for MPs for quite a number of years and it will only be a few weeks before we break up again for the Christmas recess. It is not surprising that many distinguished commentators believe that that the power of Parliament has been undermined, as legislative responsibilities have been transferred up to Brussels, or given away to the newly devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Meanwhile, there has been a growing tendency by Government to bypass Parliament in favour of the media.

Prime Minister's Question Time has been cut down from twice a week to just once, meaning that MPs have less opportunity to question the Executive. I hope that all those who wish to modernise Parliament will also push for restoration of Parliamentary powers. Reform should start with Select Committees, which carry out a remarkable job, with very few resources. They should be given more extensive powers to hold the executive to account.

But those engineering interests at heart should not underestimate the significance of Parliament. It still provides an essential forum by which engineering concerns can be aired. It also ensures that Ministers are called upon to explain specific industrial and science policies. Parliament provides opportunities for MPs or Peers with backgrounds in engineering to act as 'ambassadors' and make certain that the engineering voice is heard across Westminster and Whitehall.

An important example of this was on 11 October, when the Lords - returning earlier than their Commons counterparts - discussed science and innovation. Peers touched on a range of subjects relevant to science and engineers, including R&D, skills and the science budget.

In a debate opened by Labour Peer Lord Haskel, Peers discussed Government policy towards science and innovation. Lord Haskel argued that fifty years ago, the Stock Exchange valued companies on their profits, assets and prospects for their future. By contrast, in the new economy, companies are valued on their knowledge and expertise. The knowledge of scientists and engineers is central to a company's valuation. These commercial pressures mean that more thought needs to be given to the professional standing of scientists and engineers. Lord Haskel thought that the code of practice which the Government had recommended for scientific advisory committees, should be applied to scientists themselves. This, he argued would certainly enhance the status of scientists, engineers and technologists.

Lord Haskel also made an important point about the BSE inquiry and its effect on the development of science policy in general. He said that it represented an important opportunity to speak up not only for the status and integrity of scientists, but also for the independence of scientific data. "If the public lose faith in the impartiality of their scientists they are likely to lose faith in science and innovation, which would make the Government's task more difficult than it was already".

Another Labour Peer Lord Brett expressed concern about spending on research and development. He argued that according to the Royal Society, the United Kingdom was still near the bottom of the league for percentage of GDP spent on R&D by both public and private sectors.

Baroness Sharp made an important point on science education. Worrying that the Department for Education and Employment was underestimating the fall in science standards in schools, she noted that the numbers of those graduating as teachers in physics had fallen drastically throughout the 1990s. Seventy per cent of the profession is now aged over forty. The same is true of mathematics and to a lesser extent chemistry. She added, "If we do not have in place sufficient teachers in these core subjects, how can we hope to enthuse the next generation".

Conservative Spokesman Lord Northbrook defended the science policy of the last Government stating that science expenditure had gone up by 30% in real terms between 1979-1997. He asked the Government how much of the money spent on science and innovation was new money and how much had been included in previous departmental spending announcements.

Responding, Science Minister Lord Sainsbury stressed that the "excellent" science and engineering research base that we have in the UK, is one of the most important assets in the knowledge driven economy. He noted that with just 1% of the world's population, Britain carries out 4.5% of the world's scientific research. The Minister confirmed that the Government is looking at the structure of the DTI and its conclusions will be announced in due course. There will also be changes made to ensure that Foresight is put at the centre of decision-making within the DTI.

All eyes will be on forthcoming the pre Budget Report and the Queen's Speech, which is expected to be light. This is a consequence of both the forthcoming General Election (possibly in May 2001) and because the Government still has to clear last session's legislation onto the statute books. For an idea of what will be in the party manifestos, I advise you to read the party conference speeches. These are published on the party's websites: www.conservatives.com; www.labour.org.uk and www.libdems.org.uk