January 2001

Westminster Report, IEE Review

The phoney election war began in earnest in early December with the Queen's Speech on the Opening of Parliament. Science and engineering priorities were put on hold as the Government announced a raft of measures focused around populist issues like law and order. In what commentators called one of the lightest Queen Speeches for years, just fifteen Bills and four draft Bills were announced. If the Prime Minister chooses the spring for a general election, many of these Bills will not see the light of day.

As politicians spend the next few months electioneering, it is likely that important issues facing engineering will be neglected. My colleagues and I will continue to do all we can to ensure that your voice is heard amidst the hubbub and babble of the election campaign.

In the last Westminster Report, I urged all of you to send your manifesto ideas and submissions to the main political parties as soon as possible. All the parties are now drawing up their policy manifestos for the General Election, so now is the time to ensure that they adopt the right policies for engineering. The BBC News website page http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/political_links provides links to all the main parties with their contact details. Engineers can be their own worst enemy. While the IEE, the Engineering Council, and the Engineering Employers Federation are good at promoting themselves, individual engineers are not. (We are quietly competent, but rarely pushy! But as a director of British Aerospace said to me many years back: 'if you don't blow your own trumpet, someone else will use it as a spittoon!' So while I am not inviting readers to blow their own trumpet with the political parties, good ideas are always gratefully received.) So write to the chairman of the main parties at the addresses shown on their websites.

The engineering industry has been lobbying the Government hard on taxes. For example, the Engineering Employers Federation have expressed concerns about the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of companies with high energy costs that do not qualify for negotiated agreements under current arrangements. In the House of Commons on 30 November, I asked the Trade and Industry Minister Richard Caborn about this. I noted that the CBI and others had said that the climate change levy favoured only those organisations that are going to make a change, rather than those who had already invested in change.

The fact is that the climate change levy will be highly damaging for British business and jobs and should not be imposed on an industry already facing problems of regulation, higher taxes and lack of skills. Fuel taxes in particular are hitting the competitiveness of our manufacturing industry.

And this leads me onto the importance of renewable energy. In a positive development, Downing Street announced the opening of the UK's first offshore renewable energy project in Blyth, Northumberland. This £4 million wind project is the largest at any offshore site in the world and can produce enough power to supply 3000 homes. In a remarkable feat of engineering, two turbines were lifted into place, 90 metres above sea level, in September and started generating electricity in mid November.

The Government's strategy for renewable energy includes the rapid development of offshore wind farms. Eighty nine million pounds has been made available for offshore wind and energy crops projects. The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) has begun a consultation process with the renewable energy industry to establish a co-ordinated procedure for companies to obtain the consents they need for offshore projects - a process in which the IEE is already playing an important part.

The IEE has made an interesting and positive submission to the DTI on renewable energy. Whilst the IEE supports 'sound proposals' for more electricity to be generated using renewable resources, it makes some valuable points. The IEE notes that capital grants for offshore wind and energy crops will be needed in these and other areas if the other renewable technology is to be made available quickly. The IEE also questions the sources of renewable energy, which are eligible for the Obligation, asking whether consideration would be given to other renewable such as geothermal and solar power schemes.

In the Commons, MPs have raised issues about education and engineering with Government Ministers. The omens are not good. In response to a question from Labour MP Mark Todd, Education and Employment Minister Malcolm Wicks MP confirmed that the number of full time students enrolled on engineering/technology first degrees in higher education institutions had declined from 9.3% in 1996-97 to 8.2% during 1999-2000. This is a worrying trend. We must all hope that it is not a permanent one.

In the House of Lords, Science Minister Lord Sainsbury set out progress made on the allocation of the Science Budget. Lord Sainsbury reminded Peers that the science budget has increased by £725 million over the next three years, representing an increase of 7% in real terms. The Minister pledged that the Government saw a healthy science and engineering base as critical to the nation's well being. He noted that a total of £356 million would be ploughed in investment for science and engineering research.

There will also be a £140 million Higher Education Innovation Fund to encourage exploitation by higher education institutions. An additional £34 million would be allocated to the research councils to fund increases in the basic PhD stipends from £6800 this academic year to £9000 in 2003-2004.

Although it is hoped that this extra money will encourage students into science and engineering, I feel that more than financial incentives are needed. An overwhelming cultural shift is needed in this country to ensure that science and engineering is seen as important and rewarding as working in the service industries. This means that policy makers, opinion formers, teachers and business must constantly push the message that science and engineering careers can be the most dynamic available.

An interesting development is the regular meetings now held between the engineering MPs (of which there are just 7), secretaries of the engineering institutions, and the Engineering Council. Guests are invited to give brief presentations on topical engineering matters. The last meeting was held on the 13th December at the Institution of Civil Engineers just round the corner from Parliament. We discussed ultra low sulphur fuel, flooding precautions, and the chaos on Britain's trains. You can't get more topical than that! Of the MPs, 5 of the 7 were able to attend (including me). Not a bad showing given MPs' commitments.