§ Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)I declare an interest in that I am by qualification and profession a chemical engineer. I was a practising engineer before entering the House. I want to highlight the point that the Government's goal of a modern, competitive industrial nation must be underpinned by competent, well-educated chemical engineers. This week's headline in The Engineer says, "UK students reject Engineering"; they are rejecting it in masses.
I am not alone in recognising the importance of chemical engineering and chemical engineers to our standards of life. The Prime Minister recognised the vital role of chemical engineers in developing and implementing United Kingdom technology in his personal foreward to the recent Institution of Chemical Engineers report "Future Life".
In the global market, the UK has to compete on many fronts. The old certainties and practices that sustained us in the past cannot be called on in the global context of constant technological innovation and emerging markets. However, the UK still possesses poles of industrial strength and expertise inherited from the days when we were dominant. Nowhere is that more true than in the chemical industry. It was the last of the great staple industries to be developed, with names such as ICI and British Petroleum known across the globe. It is still a powerhouse of innovation, applied science and the development of new products.
Chemical engineers work not only in the traditional chemical industry, but wherever chemical reactions and processes are part of the manufacturing chain. That includes the water and energy industries, pharmaceuticals, and food and drink. That roll call shows the need for chemical engineers, whose work affects us all. They clothe us, their drugs heal us, they help to feed us and they furnish our homes and offices. They intimately affect all aspects of our living environment. From fertilisers to plastics, the chemical engineering industry has been a leading producer and developer of new materials for daily life. That is reflected in the markets.
In the UK, the basic chemical engineering industry has a yearly turnover of some £20 billion, making up 1.7 per cent. of our total gross domestic product. If we assess the added value of finished products, that figure can be quintupled. There are also links to process engineering and contracting, which is one of the UK's less-well-known strengths. That is why major multinational contractors such as Kvaerner, Foster Wheeler, Kellogg, Brown and Root and AMEC have UK headquarters, helping the UK and our balance of payments.
The strategic importance of the UK chemical industry must not be underestimated. The key issue is developing our human potential. Unlike other, older industries, our chemical industry is not a technological cul-de-sac. The constant search for new products, the growth of biosciences, the constant drive to harness natural processes to human benefit, and pioneering work, such as molecular technology, at the frontiers of knowledge, need a flow of dedicated, imaginative, young people who can think laterally, if we are to compete on equal terms with other nations.
905 The jobs are there. A recent Department of Trade and Industry study showed that there will be continuing demand for high-quality engineering graduates over the coming decade. Chemical engineering students and graduates are often the people who enter higher education with the best A-level scores. While that is a source of pride, it hides the fact that, for many young people, chemical engineering is culturally unattractive. I believe that that stems from environmental concerns that equate the chemical industry with environmental degradation and pollution, and, mentally, with Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. Nothing could be more wrong.
We live with the environmental consequences of our industrial past. As a Teesside Member, I see that every day, but chemical engineers will be at the cutting edge in the fight to clean up our planet. They are the people who will have to devise and apply environmental techniques. That point should be hammered home at an early age. The chemical industry has long fostered good relationships with schools and colleges. It is important that this is built into the national curriculum for science by demonstrating the links between the things that we all want from society, the market and the work of chemical engineers. New courses dealing with food and drink, agriculture, biosciences and advanced manufacturing must be developed. The courses must set practical, rather than rhetorical, questions about the environment, and demand responses that encourage and develop recycling and reprocessing techniques.
We must also tackle the gender gap in the science classroom. Anecdotally, I am told that the number of young women expressing interest in science courses and allied GCSE paths is very low. Interestingly, the highest proportion of young women graduate engineers are chemical engineers. Gender imbalances are not healthy for our society wherever they occur. We must ensure that broad-based science teaching is as women-friendly as possible.
The key is to get more youngsters involved in science early. The basic problem is revealed by one simple fact. For every 100 five-year-olds who enter a classroom for the first time, only 20 go on to do an A-level. Of them, only 10 go on to study science and technology in higher or advanced education. The percentage of those going on to study chemical engineering is smaller still.
Innovations in the classroom and school laboratory must be matched by innovation in the university seminar room. The steady stream of bright new engineers from our universities finds well-paid jobs. Chemical engineers can command average earnings comparable with or better than those of solicitors, chartered accountants and architects. That is countered by lower salaries and expectations among the academic staff who train these high fliers. The recent Bett committee report painted a gloomy picture of the state of chemical engineering in higher education and the salaries enjoyed there. It found that many university staff were underpaid and overworked. Comparable jobs in the private sector were better paid and often more attractive in research terms. The ever-increasing strain of handling routine administration was also taking a toll.
The logical answer is to ensure that greater esteem is granted to chemical engineering in the university environment. One simple way to do that would be to 906 review the salary structure. The holy cow of all staff being paid on a single national scale for lecturers and senior lecturers irrespective of discipline must be queried. It does not stand to up to the presence of a competitive market outside the walls of the college or university. A precedent was set by the fact that the medical professions have accepted special pay scales in teaching institutions for clinical specialisms.
The growing shortage of chemical engineering lecturers is demonstrated by a study by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, which showed that of a cohort of 1,500 graduates with firsts or upper seconds over the past 13 years from the five leading UK universities with chemical engineering departments, only seven had gone on to take tenured teaching positions in the UK. Bluntly, we must develop better links between the industry and the universities, and, within universities, between chemistry and chemical engineering departments, as advocated by the Royal Society of Chemistry.
There are good examples of companies such as ICI, Zeneca and Esso sponsoring lecturing positions where salaries are supplemented financially, but the links need to be made at research level. Industry needs more research facilities and should be prepared to pay for them through direct cash sponsorship and by setting up joint research ventures. What research needs to be done, how it is to be conducted and who will pay for it are questions with which both universities and industry must grapple.
While the quality of chemical engineering research and the people engaged in it have been assessed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as being fully competitive when compared with other major engineering disciplines, there are signs that that competitiveness is beginning to flag. The official data prepared by the Government's chief scientist Sir Robert May show that the citations in chemical engineering of United Kingdom research workers are falling behind those of researchers in competitor countries.
In recent years, a mismatch has begun to emerge between the strength of the current UK chemical engineering research base, and multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary areas of interest as exemplified by the foresight programme and the "Future Life" document produced by the Institution of Chemical Engineers. That mismatch needs to be rectified if we are to meet the new challenges and changes in our industrial structure, as the chemical industry restructures around high value-added speciality products and increasingly deserts its old heavy petrochemical base.
Alarmingly, the changes come when the latest Universities and Colleges Admission Service figures show that applications for chemical engineering places are still in decline, with a 10 per cent. drop in the current year. That decline affects all engineering disciplines, but it is a special problem for the chemical engineering profession, as structural changes are occurring in the industries which will require a stream of new graduates.
We have to make chemical engineering more relevant to young people who are considering their careers. In the House, we debate issues of great importance. Often, they are issues that can be resolved and informed only by the work of engineers: how best to bring degraded land back into beneficial use; what are the real issues and the real levels of risk in the genetic modification of foods, which we discussed earlier; what is the best route for effective 907 recycling of wastes and materials; and how to produce the materials of the 21st century. All those are matters that, if properly studied in our universities, would help both to inform policy makers and to train a new generation of scientists and engineers in problem-solving techniques. Also, the industries that participated in those programmes would receive a real boost.
However, industry also has to realise that participation entails recognising that universities are autonomous bodies with a prime mission to turn out fully rounded and dedicated graduates. That should not deter industry. The needs of industry and the work of higher education are, in the final analysis, totally synergic.
If the UK chemical industry genuinely wants to increase efficiency and productivity, put clear blue water between themselves and their competitors, and make the quantum leap into the development of the technologies of the coming millennium, it must be prepared to contribute to research, and to constant career enhancement and retraining.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study closely the decline in the public funds available for biochemical engineering, which is one of the key forward areas of chemical engineering. I recognise that there is no such thing as a free meal. Society and the House must recognise that we need to consider how best to resource the work of higher education in that area of expertise. Industry, too, must recognise that long-term growth cannot come merely from leeching off research work that is financed and conducted by others. It must recognise its obligations to help that process.
As a Teesside Member of Parliament representing perhaps the one area of the UK where the chemical industry is the cornerstone of the local economy, and as a chemical engineer, I am aware of the absolute dependence of modern society on chemical engineering. It is time to recognise that dependence and to plan for its proper development. Attracting more of the brightest and best from our schools into science and engineering courses is imperative for all of us. While the national curriculum delivers science for every youngster until the age of 16, it has not led to greater participation in science A-levels or higher entry figures to our universities. That is something which the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry must tackle, directly and quickly.
My hon. Friend the Minister must recognise that we need to tackle the imbalance of courses in our universities. Some subjects are over-subscribed—some people may feel that they contribute to national renewal—while in others, standards have to be dropped merely to fill the places.
In conclusion, the work of our chemical engineers is fundamental to the comfort of our daily life, and to the development of an economic and industrial base that will power the nation into a technologically exciting new century. That work is crucial if this nation is to remain in the front rank of industrial countries and to possess an independent economy. The quality of life of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren demands nothing less. Thank you for allowing this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Dr. Michael Clark (Rayleigh)rose—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. During Adjournment debates, any hon. Member who wants to take part must have the prior permission of the Minister and the promoter of the debate.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie)I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Dr. Michael Clark (Rayleigh)Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I also thank the Minister. I will only take one minute, as I am encroaching on the hon. Gentleman's time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has presented it. The hon. Gentleman serves on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He brings his skill and expertise in chemical engineering into that Committee and is an invaluable member of it. When I worked as a chemical engineer, I did so in his constituency, and I do not need reminding of the importance of chemical engineers, although I welcomed the opportunity to hear the concise way in which the importance of that profession was put before the House.
I will bear in mind my promise to speak for only one minute. I have made my main points, and I again thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East for allowing me to do so.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie)I thank the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) for those kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). He has done the House a service by raising this important issue. Indeed, I believe that this is the first time that chemical as opposed to general engineering has been discussed on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend was a chemical engineer before he entered the House, he is uniquely placed to comment on that important sector of the United Kingdom economy. His constituency in Teesside contains the largest concentration of the chemical industry in the UK, which adds to the authority with which he speaks.
Chemical engineers have an important impact in virtually all areas of life, being found in industries as diverse as oil refining and health care. The contribution that they can make to developing an economically viable, but environmentally more friendly world is clearly set out in the thought-provoking "Future Life" report, which was produced by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, to which my hon. Friend referred.
"Future Life" identifies a host of challenges that face our society. For instance, it forecasts the design of smokeless cars and the development of biosensors to detect diseases before they become critical. It anticipates the need to recycle "grey" water from baths and washing machines, and to intensify agricultural production to meet the demands of an expanding population. Therefore, chemical engineers are central to improving the quality of our life. Their education and preparation for the world of work are critical to our future prosperity.
909 My hon. Friend raised a number of matters with which I shall try to deal in the time available. One was the supply of graduates. It is encouraging to note that the overall trend line for recruitment to chemical engineering courses is positive, with 1,141 students entering university to read the subject in 1997. A recent research study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research into supply and demand for engineering, science and technology graduates, which is to be published shortly by my Department, indicates that the number of students entering engineering degrees is adequate. The study concluded that, with the possible exception of electronic engineering,
the great majority of mismatches between supply and demand for technical graduates are attributable to quality problems rather than any overall shortfall in quantity".Those findings are consistent with feedback from employers—including Glaxo Wellcome—who have made it clear that their concern lies primarily with the quality of the science graduates they recruit, not with the quantity available in the labour market. I shall develop that point later.Engineering has suffered for too long from a poor image. That problem applies particularly to chemical engineering, as my hon. Friend's reference to Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory so vividly conveys. Therefore, I am delighted by the suggestion that steps be taken to counteract those misconceptions regarding the profession. Although the lead lies with industry, the Government are also playing their part by contributing toward a major long-term campaign co-ordinated by the Engineering Council. That campaign is targeted on presenting a more positive and dynamic image of engineering to children in the early stages of secondary education. Any further initiative by individual professional bodies, such as the Institution of Chemical Engineers, to reinforce that message would be much appreciated and warmly welcomed by the schools sector. I should also welcome early intervention in the schools sector on any occasion by hon. Members who are aware of the industry's problems with recruitment.
Recent reform of the education system will also encourage more students to enter science in the coming years. All secondary school pupils are now required to take at least one science subject, and 90 per cent. of pupils sitting GCSEs study double science. As part of our reform of the A-level system, the Government will promote a broader curriculum, which will result in more students studying science and technology-based subjects.
On the issue of entry standards, it is pleasing to see that many people are applying to become chemical engineers and that the A-level standards of entrants are high: more than 45 per cent. of entrants to chemical engineering courses have more than 24 A-level points, which is significantly higher than those of entrants to other undergraduate courses. That means that our graduate chemical engineers should be well placed to hold their own against their foreign counterparts.
However, if we are to meet the overall needs of industry, we must address skills demand at all levels. I mentioned earlier the issue of quality, as opposed to quantity. Rather than try further to expand the supply of chartered engineers, industry should examine the level of 910 skills required, and whether those requirements are better met at incorporated engineer and technician level. The need to provide chemical engineering skills at levels other than that of chartered engineer is illustrated by a recent labour market survey conducted by the National Training Organization for the Chemical Manufacturing and Processing Industry. That survey found that the greatest number of vacancies were for manufacturing professionals, process technicians and process operators.
Among the engineering professions, chemical engineering is conspicuous for historically having little or no output of incorporated engineers, and it is time that that gap was plugged. The development of an incorporated engineer degree programme, and the introduction of non-accredited courses for chemical engineering and chemical technology would be an effective response to employer demand for skills at that level. Employers might also increase their stock of technicians by broadening their recruitment channels to include those who have completed a higher national diploma or higher national certificate. In response to the growing demand for technician-level skills identified by the skills task force, my Department has recently announced a significant expansion of sub-degree places.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that chemical engineering attracts a higher proportion of women than do other engineering disciplines. As well as celebrating that achievement, should we not be analysing that attraction and promoting the positive features more widely? Female participation rates in chemical engineering courses are roughly double the rates in other engineering disciplines. The proportion peaked at 28 per cent. and is now running at about 25 per cent., although that is still too low.
My hon. Friend raised the question of course content, and it must be acknowledged that one obstacle to widening the base of chemical engineers has been the tendency of courses to focus too narrowly on traditional industries such as oil, petrochemicals and industrial gas. I shall expect the proposed review of course content to keep pace with economic developments and address the needs of other industries that draw extensively on chemical engineers, such as food and fine chemicals.
Knowledge alone is not an entry ticket to employment. Feedback from employers clearly indicates that many graduates lack key skills required in the workplace: a common criticism made by employers recruiting graduates in chemistry, industrial chemistry and chemical engineering is that recruits are simply not ready for the world of work. My Department is taking steps to improve their employability by responding to the concern expressed in the Dearing report about the lack of key skills. In coming years, many more graduates will emerge from higher education with competency in the six skill areas most commonly sought by employers: management, communications, team working, problem solving, numeracy and information technology.
Employers' general complaint about graduates is that they lack first-hand experience of work, and so tend to have unrealistic expectations and little awareness of what is expected of them. In response, my Department is spending £1.5 million on the development of high-quality work experience projects in the period 1998 to 2000. To ensure that the momentum is sustained, my Department 911 has supported the establishment of a national centre for work experience run by the National Council for Industry and Higher Education.
The skills and industrial knowledge of university staff are also an important influence on the quality of graduate supply. They are best kept up to date by improving links with industry. The recently announced higher education reach out fund, or HEROIC, will provide significant impetus, injecting a further £50 million over the next three years. That initiative, which is jointly funded by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, aims to improve the employability of graduates, the use of graduate skills made by business, and the transfer of technology and knowledge between higher education and business.
I note my hon, Friend's suggestion regarding differential salaries for university lecturers, but terms and conditions of employment for all university staff are a matter for employers. The Government await the outcome of the Bett report, which has not yet been officially published. My hon. Friend has suggested what that outcome will be, and I should be interested to hear how he came to know so many of the details. However, university salaries are a matter for employers and any money needed for that purpose will have to be drawn from funds allocated under the comprehensive spending review settlement.
I am aware of concerns regarding the geographical spread of chemical engineering courses and that the problem may become more acute if a higher percentage 912 of students choose to attend their local university. The launch of regional development agencies in April this year will provide an opportunity to safeguard and, I hope, to expand provision that meets local needs. One of the RDAs' first tasks will be to agree a regional economic strategy in conjunction with key stakeholders. In regions such as the north-east, where chemical engineering is critical to the success of key industries, we would expect the regional economic strategy to include an analysis of that sector and to specify steps to tackle any problems.
I thank my hon. Friend for working hard to raise important matters relating to chemical engineering, which is a vital and important part of our economy. Like other sectors of engineering, chemical engineering lacks in public perception the glamour of other occupations, but the reality is that it is exciting and challenging, and offers participants a fine career. I hope that my hon. Friend's speech today inspires youngsters to enter the industry.
§ It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.