March 2001

Westminster Report, IEE Review

By the time you read this – barring the tragic spread of foot and mouth disease - Britain could be in the midst of an election campaign or even have a new Government.

Unfortunately, science and engineering are likely to take second place to Europe, crime and taxes. Nevertheless, all the party manifestos should contain some important statements on research and development and related matters . So do look at the small print when they are available.

I am pleased to say that despite the election ‘phoney war’, the Commons has focused on issues related to science and engineering in recent weeks. In an important Commons debate on manufacturing on 24 January, a number of MPs urged improvements in the country’s skills base. Labour MP Ken Purchase noted that our best engineers were often promoted to boards where they found themselves out manoeuvred by accountants who did not know anything about the fundamentals of engineering. He argued that there was a pressing need for strong leadership and management. Richard Burden suggested that if the Government promoted the motor sport industry, more people would be attracted into the manufacturing and engineering sectors.

The manufacturing and engineering industry would have a greater chance of flourishing if they were not so heavily taxed. During the debate, I noted the observations made by the Engineering Employers Federation. Their view is that the climate changes levy “is one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times”. I believe that this tax could be traumatic for our manufacturing industry and will act as a disincentive to inward investment.

Responding to this, Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary David Heathcoat-Amory reminded MPs that all firms would be paying the new tax on all their energy bills from April this year. He told the Commons that the Engineering Employers Federation had shown in a recent survey, that 2,300 of its member firms (employing nearly 1.5 million people), would have to pay nearly £100 million extra in taxation.

As the Shadow Secretary observed, this money could – and should – have gone into investment. The costs of the climate change levy will now be fed into higher prices, which will make the firms less competitive in international markets.

In a related debate the following day in Westminster Hall (an adjunct the Commons, where a wider variety of interests are debated), MPs discussed ‘Meeting the Basic Skills Challenge’.

Claire Curtis Thomas, a staunch defender of engineering, set out her manifesto for the coming election. She argued that the use of highly skilled engineers in the workforce would increase a company’s profitability and the nation’s productivity. This would lead to higher economic growth. Ms Curtis Thomas noted that studies show that when the United Kingdom lost out on the skills level of engineers, scientists and associated innovative activity, loss of competition occurred in terms of a fall in domestic market share, international trade share and lower productivity levels.

In Ms Curtis Thomas’s view, Britain does not need more academically qualified engineers. Britain needs more ‘can do’ engineers that were capable of taking new technologies and translating them into end of line products. These products would make a difference between a company being unsuccessful or being successful.

The MP added that research shows that some 35% of enterprises in electronics manufacturing had some difficulties in meeting their recruitment targets over the past three years. There were also problems in electronic companies recruiting electronics graduates, and particularly leading edge and bio engineering technology recruitment. For ten years, the engineering and manufacturing industries have expressed substantial concern about low numeracy and literacy ability. In a passionate plea, Ms Curtis Thomas stressed again that engineering was the key driver to the economy.

There needs to be an acceleration of the policies to encourage more people to take science related disciplines in an attempt to take them into engineering. Support is also vital for those engineering companies that could not meet the expensive training costs associated with developing their most important asset – their human resources.

Responding to the debate, Education and Employment Minister Malcolm Wicks acknowledged that the Government needs to ‘look at skills in the round’. He argued that the Learning and Skills Councils have a vital role to play given that their rôle is to recognise the needs and demands of local authorities. I hope so. I worry that these councils will become a talking shop and an addition to the ever increasing number of quangos.

For this reason, I support every effort made to target and boost skills and research in universities. I welcome the recent announcement by Trade and Industry Secretary, Stephen Byers, concerning the allocation of funds for scientific research in universities. More than 100 higher education institutions will share a pot of £675 million. These grants are part of the Science Research Investment Fund in partnership with the Wellcome Trust.

Meanwhile back in Whitehall – in a welcome initiative - the Department for Trade and Industry unveiled a series of proposals to make the UK’s network of electricity cables, lines and substations safer and more secure. Figures show that over the past ten years, there have been almost 200 deaths and almost 4000 injuries amongst members of the public involving electricity supply networks. It is envisaged that following this round of consultation, the new regulations will come into force on October 1 2001. Details of the consultation proposals can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/electricty-regulations.

Despite all the problems, we should not be afraid to pat ourselves on the back when the occasion arises. Recent competitiveness indicators (published in February) show that the UK’s science base is amongst the most productive and highest quality in the world. With only 1% of the world’s population, the UK is responsible for 4.5% of the worlds spend on science and 8% of the world’s scientific papers. This is in stark contrast to Britain’s overall competitive position which has fallen from 4th place to 9th place since 1997. Much of this is due to European and home-grown regulations on business and a plethora of new taxes and charges. When will Governments learn a doctrine first espoused by Abraham Lincoln: “You can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.”?