Engineering

HL Deb 31 March 2004 vol 659 cc1388-404

7.16 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether enough is being done within the educational process to attract young engineers to industry, and in particular to the automotive and motorsport industries.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as president, unpaid, of the Motorsport Industry Association. In that position I have become increasingly aware of the decline in numbers of young engineers entering and remaining in the engineering sector, particularly in the automotive industry.

At present, there are around 800,000 people in the UK employed in the design and manufacture of vehicles and components or in the directly linked supply and distribution chain. The automotive manufacturing sector alone contributes around £9.1 billion to the economy.

At the heart of Britain's successful automotive manufacturing industry lies the specialised field of motorsport engineering. Motorsport has long been an intrinsic and dominant feature of UK industry, with the UK's "Motorsport Valley" being the world's leading motorsport engineering and services cluster. commanding around 70 per cent of the world market. The motorsport industry has an annual turnover of £4.6 billion and employs around 40,000 people, of whom 25,000 are highly trained engineers.

This weekend British engineering will be showcased to 200 million television viewers at the inaugural Bahrain Formula 1 grand prix. British companies have played a major role in the construction of this unique circuit, and in the whole staging of Formula 1. Precision engineered components and methods developed for the motorsport industry are increasingly exploited by the mainstream, mass producing automotive industry. As such, major automotive companies have been keen to cement their links with motorsport in order to be associated with its popularity and transferable technology.

The kudos and popularity inherent in motorsport also helps to bolster interest in engineering as a whole. Recently, the UK has suffered a decline in interest in technology-based degrees, and a reduction in the numbers of students going on to pursue a career in engineering, despite the increasing needs of UK employers for skilled engineers and technical staff. To help arrest this alarming trend and encourage students into engineering, several universities and colleges have initiated motorsport based degree courses. They include Cranfield University, which provides an MSc in motorsports engineering and management, with an available bursary funded by Williams Fl. Oxford Brookes University offers an undergraduate degree in automobile engineering, as does Swansea Institute, with the world's first BSc in motorsport.

Higher and further education have also recognised that motorsport is a powerful attracter of young people towards the engineering sector and have developed courses to cater for that demand. In the 2004–05 session there will be 15 universities and colleges offering 41 motorsport engineering or management courses. Three further institutions have masters degree provisions. All these new courses were initiated during the past five years by the MIA.

In the commercial sector, new initiatives have been implemented to address the disparity between the skills required by employers and those taught by educators. Ford has adopted a unique approach to this problem, and has formed an agreement with the universities of East London and Loughborough to teach accredited vocational foundation degrees to its employees. While these educational undertakings are commendable in using the pull of motorsport as a tool, these efforts do not appear to strike at the heart of the matter. Is it not the case that the public's perception of what an engineering qualification requires, and what it qualifies a person to do, is the real issue that must be resolved, not simply the provision of more courses?

Professor Chris Taylor, the president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, believes that there is a, Shortage of role models to promote the excitement of engineering", and that, We don't do enough to enthuse about our subject".

Professor Taylor further observes that salaries are not necessarily the defining factor, and, In reality salaries within the engineering sector are comparable to those of other sectors".

The skills that engineers can offer other sectors, such as the finance industry, mean that competition for these skills remains fierce. Professor Taylor concludes that: The growth of the finance and management sectors have seen a steady decline in the number of engineering graduates remaining in engineering. The UK is inherently different from other countries—we are the exception. The fundamental difference goes back to the Industrial Revolution; power never resided in the hands of the engineers".

In an attempt to reverse the current trend whereby fewer students obtain higher level engineering qualifications and fewer engineering graduates remain in the field, a number of initiatives have been proposed by the Government. The Roberts report, SET for Success: the Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematical Skills, commissioned by the Treasury, the Department for Education and Skills, and the DTI, outlines the skills shortages in the sector. The findings demonstrated emerging shortages in the supply of high level maths, physics, chemistry and engineering skills at all levels of education, due to fewer students taking these subjects and an increased demand from employers. The report outlined the areas where increased Government spending is required—these recommendations include increasing the level of remuneration offered to teachers in shortage subjects, improving the public perception of science, engineering and technology, and providing funding for better equipment in educational laboratories. The report was published in April 2002. Can the Minister confirm what progress has been made since the objectives stated in the report were first proposed?

A further Government measure intended to improve opportunities and funding within the engineering sector was proposed in October 2002. In this instance, the motorsport industry was the subject of a DTI competitiveness panel review. As a result of this review, £16 million was made available for motorsport business opportunities. The Motorsport Development Board was assembled in November 2003 to implement recommendations made by the DTI panel. A Government Motorsport Unit was established to link this board to the Government, which has only recently sanctioned two new projects, namely the establishment of the Motorsport Academy and the development of the Learning Grid concept.

The Engineering and Technology Board and the Motorsport Industry Association will work together to deliver the Learning Grid—a series of motorsport-themed educational initiatives and competitions to promote engineering careers to children and students up to and including higher education level. Formula Student is one such initiative being run by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and it provides an ideal introduction to a career in engineering. These initiatives must be urgently delivered.

In December 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, announced that a £2.4 million contract to run a new national resource centre promoting women in science, engineering and technology had been awarded to a consortium led by Bradford College and Sheffield Hallam University, including Cambridge University and the Open University. I warmly welcome this proposal, and other similar initiatives, and I pay tribute to the work done by my noble friend Lady Platt, patron of the WISE campaign, which this year celebrates 20 years encouraging women to enter science and engineering degrees.

A further initiative, launched by the Government in December 2003, concerns an innovation plan which outlines details of how to exploit the UK's expertise and develop new ideas, particularly in relation to new technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and IT. Businesses, academics and innovators have all been consulted to provide a framework that is to be underpinned by £150 million, including £90 million allocated for nanotechnology. Is it not the case that the increasingly extensive list of units, bodies and panels established under these various initiatives serve only to diffuse interest and funding? This is a sector that already has a number of bodies with which engineers themselves have difficulty keeping track.

The task of encouraging young men back into science and engineering-based education and commerce is a huge challenge. The reputation of engineering in this country is still undervalued by the public at large, and is only partially improved by the glamour injected from its association with the global success in motorsport. Over 50 per cent of young people associate engineering with a dirty working environment, and motorsport, if properly used, can attract young people into clean types of engineering.

It is a vital strategy to promote and finance motorsport, in the hope that some of the sheen will rub off on the engineering sector as a whole—although this strategy alone will not be enough. We must ensure that the promising initiatives that have been put in place to educate children and adults alike are pursued urgently with immediate effect, and funded fully, so that the fallacy that engineering is a dirty, antiquated industry is dispelled once and for all.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Paul

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this important debate so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.

Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in engineering and manufacturing, as chairman of the Caparo Group. We constantly hear about the doom and gloom in UK engineering and manufacturing. Although times have been tough, there are successes that must be highlighted. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has already mentioned that the UK automotive manufacturing sector contributes around £9.1 billion added value to the economy. It also accounts for 1.1 per cent of the GDP; 6.2 per cent of the manufacturing added value and 9.5 per cent of the total UK export of goods. The UK is home to the world's most successful motorsport industry, as well as a range of smaller producers serving specialist markets such as sports and luxury cars.

The automotive industry is a pivotal part of the UK manufacturing sector. Automotive firms are leaders in global best practice in many areas of manufacturing, and provide a key source of improvement for the manufacturing sector as a whole. Britain leads the world in advanced technology in motorsport engineering. Constructors include McLaren, Williams, Benetton, Jordan, BAR and Reynard. Engine designers and manufacturers, such as Cosworth, Ilmor and Hart—all based in the UK—meet the requirements of teams in Formula, Cart, Formula 3000 and other prestigious international events.

The UK motorsport engineering and services industry has an estimated £4.6 billion annual turnover, of which over 50 per cent is export sales. The Government have rightly supported this key sector, with an announcement last year of £16 million to help to sustain and develop the UK motorsport cluster. This money will implement the recommendations of the Motor Sport Competitiveness Panel, one of which is for the creation of a motorsport academy to improve the skills of the industry.

One of the main problems in attracting young people to engineering and manufacturing has been their poor image. Industry has a role to play in reversing that image. I am delighted that many companies up and down the country, together with various organisations, are working hard in all sectors of education to demonstrate how rewarding a career in that sector can be.

I highlight in particular two organisation: F1 in Schools; and Formula Student, which is for students in further and higher education. These organisations, which are heavily dependent on companies and organisations for financial support, provide students with a real-life exercise in design, manufacture, and the business elements of making a car, giving them opportunities to work as a team, under pressure and to tight time-scales.

An important part of the Formula Student experience is to develop talented engineers, many of whom will in time take up challenging roles in the global motor industry. Those of us who work in engineering and manufacturing know just how important it is to maintain a supply of high quality of engineers into our companies and organisations. Regrettably, many of us have been concerned for a long time by the evidence that engineering courses at universities have had difficulty filling their places and, arguably, have at times appeared to struggle to demonstrate the attractions of careers in engineering against more obvious attractions in other professions.

Earlier in my speech, I said that one of the reasons that young people are put off entering engineering is the perceived image of the sector. I believe that three other issues need to he addressed in order to attract more young people and people from different backgrounds. However, first, perhaps I may congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on announcing recently a long-term strategy for supporting British science and engineering—an announcement welcomed wholeheartedly by industry.

The first point I should like the Minister to consider is that of careers advice and guidance. The business community has been for a while extremely concerned that not all young people are receiving the right amount of guidance when choosing qualifications and careers. The Connexions Service was primarily set up to concentrate its efforts on those at risk of disengagement from education. However, the time required to address the issues that most disengaged individuals present means there is little or no resource for the majority of young people who are engaged fully with the education process.

Industry requires all young people to receive timely, accurate and unbiased advice about engineering and manufacturing opportunities and vocational education options. Given the number of Connexions advisers and the total number of students they should be supporting, each student would receive only around 20 minutes' guidance per year if the time were evenly distributed. Resources must be found to increase the number of advisers and the quality of the advice they are able to provide.

My second point is on the modern apprenticeship programme. The combination of vocational education, on-the-job training, linked with rigorous workplace assessment and employed status, is a well-recognised and respected route to development of high-level skills within the industry. The limitation of funding for modern apprentices to the under-25s continues to be a problem for engineering and manufacturing. Employers already commit significant resources to apprenticeship programmes, with some advanced modern apprenticeships costing as much as £50,000 over four years. I call on the Government to fund modern apprenticeships for all ages at the nationally agreed 16 to 18 rate, currently around £14,000 for an Advanced MA.

My third point relates to the bleak and unwelcoming environment which is found in many of the UK manufacturing areas. Many of those industrial regions are rundown and depressing locations in which to live and work; and such derelict areas are not appealing to our young graduates, or anyone else for that matter. I believe that the Government should work in partnership with local authorities to regenerate those areas so that they are more attractive places for people to be.

Engineering and manufacturing are key to the future prosperity of this country. High-tech, high-value and high-productivity engineering and manufacturing require well-educated, pragmatic and experienced people—young people—the future of our country. I want to see more young people, more women, and more ethnic minorities attracted to and involved in this exciting and challenging sector.

7.36 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor on initiating this debate. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paul, with his great experience and expertise in the field of engineering. I am sure the Government would do well to listen to his recommendations.

I wish to concentrate on the motorsport industry. It is a considerable British success story, as we have heard. Vital to the continuance of that success is a supply of talented young engineers. We should bear in mind in the debate at all times that motorsport is above all competitive and international. Talents, whether drivers, engineers or financiers, can move freely around the world, as can the businesses. However, it so happens that the UK is the world leader in motorsport. Even with the performance of a certain German over the past few years driving a certain Italian car that is still very true. Indeed, Ferrari as a team has had over the years a heavy British influence in design and engineering.

I understand that in 34 of the past 43 years, British teams have won the Formula 1 World Championship. But motorsport is about so much more than Formula I. The United Kingdom has had a great record in motorcycle racing, saloon cars and rallying all of which are important disciplines; and in the starter motorsports, for example, carting, through which so many of the great drivers have started.

Of the 11 teams which took part in the Formula 1 series in 2003, eight are based in Britain and all the others employ British engineers, managers and British built components. Professor Michael Porter of Harvard University said: The UK is global leader in the sport and business of motorsport—the success of which is based on the long heritage of motorsport in the UK". Slightly closer to home, we must not forget that the former Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, Lord Hesketh, took his team to Formula 1 victory in Zandvoort in 1975.

We have heard about the so-called "Motorsport Valley". I suspect that it is more an association of companies rather than a geographical feature: I was unable to find it in the atlas. It is remarkable that the cluster of world-leading firms are gathered together. There is a community of firms with Jordan, BAR, Jaguar, Renault, Williams, McLaren and Minardi. We have also heard about the engine builders, Cosworth and Ilmor. The rally teams with such English-sounding names as Mitsubishi, Subaru and Hyundai have all chosen to base their teams in the UK.

I suggest that the industry is important in its own right, even though it is, in the great scheme of things, small and highly specialised. It is also important as a centrepiece of the wider automotive and general engineering sector and, I suggest, as a champion of research and development. Williams, for example, states that its R&D spend is in excess of 40 per cent, which compares with the industry average—taking into account all industry in the UK—of only just over 2.2 per cent.

All of this sounds tremendous, and we can stand here and congratulate the country on this great achievement, but I suggest that complacency could be extremely dangerous. 1 has to think only of the transformation of the British motorcycle industry—from global master to lame duck within a very few years—because Honda, Kawasaki and other manufacturers suddenly demonstrated that to manufacture engines that were smooth, powerful, reliable and did not leak oil was not an impossibility. Motorsport engineering hubs are developing around Cologne—which has attracted a 500 million dollar investment from Toyota—as well as in Italy, France and, of course, the USA.

So what about the role of government? Motorsport is essentially about competition, and the last thing that is needed is for governments to intervene where they should not. We do not want the DTI designing the next engine any more than we want the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport fronting the British entry in the Eurovision song contest. But there are some areas in which the Government should take a strong interest, and one is education. Equally valid is to look at what the motorsport industry can do for the wider engineering sector as well as what the Government can do for motorsport.

The industry requires a supply of very high quality engineers. There has been considerable concern from the industry in the past about where these young people would come from. There has been co-operation between the representative body—the Motorsport Industry Association—as we have heard, and the Government, notably with the launch of the Motorsport Academy, as described by my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Paul.

Most sport has a huge advantage over, say, sanitary engineering in the glamour and money stakes, and no doubt there are many more applicants than can possibly be employed, so one might wonder what the problem is. However, what the sector really needs is a healthy and vibrant general engineering industry from which it can attract great talent. I understand that engineering attracts only 2 per cent of graduates in the UK, against some 12 per cent in the United States.

Motorsport clearly has a role in attracting students into the wider field from which they may—or, probably, may not—go into this highly specialised discipline. The industry can be used as a tool to promote engineering more widely. For example, five years ago, Swansea University had three undergraduates for its engineering course. It took the rebranding step of calling it a motorsport engineering course, and had 300 applicants. That demonstrates the power of the petrol-heads. It is a two-way street.

This debate is an excellent opportunity to ask the Government what importance they attach to the engineering sector more widely and to more specialised fields in particular. What tangible results are they hoping to achieve with their £16 million of funding in support of the industry? What are the deliverables? How will the success or otherwise of these schemes be judged? Perhaps most importantly, how do they propose to leverage the success of the industry to maximum effect? How are they trying to co-ordinate their activities in the automotive sector with those in related fields, such as aerospace?

I make no apology for concentrating on a highly specialised field this evening. We should celebrate and make the most of this country's excellence on the track and in the wind tunnel, in software and in the workshop. We should make every effort to safeguard our competitiveness.

7.44 p.m.

Lord Methuen

My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate on whether enough is being done within our education system to encourage young engineers into industry and into motorsport.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, have given us impressive statistics on the impact of motorsport on the UK economy and the support it has had within our universities. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, on the UK's motor industry's contribution to the UK economy.

Motorsport offers an extreme testing ground for new developments and innovation which subsequently feed through to benefit the whole motor industry. The current reliability, long life and safety of the modern motor vehicle owe a lot to this approach. However, I shall concentrate on education issues.

We have a general problem about the training of engineers in this country. Traditionally, there have been two routes into the profession: first, via a university degree, followed by membership of the appropriate chartered institute. Often in the past, students were sponsored by firms, especially by the nationalised industries or by the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces also had their own dedicated colleges: the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manuden in Plymouth—now closed—the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham and the Royal Air Force College Cranwell. Many firms have withdrawn their sponsorship packages or limit them to paying the upfront £1,125 tuition fee. Sandwich courses are much less frequent than of old; I certainly benefited from doing such a course, as a practical hands-on engineer.

The second route into the profession is via the work-based apprenticeship starting at 16 or 17, with day release to the appropriate further education college, followed by a part-time college-based training for an HND for those who had the capability and wished to pursue a higher qualification. In due course, this could lead to a further full-time course and to membership of a chartered institute.

While both routes still exist, neither is attracting the number of entrants we need. The number of engineering students was down by 7 per cent between 1995 and 2000, a period when university enrolments went up by 12 per cent. Perhaps the Minister has more up-to-date figures. I hope they show an improvement.

As I said in column 734 of Hansard in the debate on British industry and the global economy on 3 March, smaller university departments are closing. In replying, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.

Traditional apprenticeships have largely disappeared and been replaced by the modern apprenticeship. The Government are trying to build this up so that about 28 per cent of school leavers are trained under the scheme. A foundation modern apprenticeship requires one to two years' training and achieves a level 2 NVQ. The Advanced Modern Apprenticeship is the craftsman equivalent; it requires three to four years' training and achieves a level 3 NVQ.

While the Government claim they are close to achieving their 28 per cent target, many participants drop out before completion and, in particular, relatively few continue through to complete the full craft qualification, the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship. Most AMA course are college-based and many colleges have great difficulty in finding suitable industrial employers to take on the apprentices for work experience. Notable exceptions are large employers such as Ford, BAe Systems and Rolls-Royce. Far too many companies rely on someone else to do the training and then poach them by offering them higher salaries which those who do the training cannot afford.

The problem is, how do we attract more young people into the engineering field? There are fundamental difficulties which prevail in our education system. Science and mathematics are seen as difficult subjects, tough A-levels. Maths is an essential prerequisite for engineering, but its teaching is in crisis in our schools, with an ageing workforce and insufficient recruitment to replace those leaving or retiring. Increasing numbers of pupils—now over 30 per cent in maintained secondary schools—are being taught by non-graduates and/or those with no specialist qualification. The whole thing is becoming a vicious circle. To quote Ray d'Inverno in a recent TES article: Because the teacher isn't very good, pupils don't like doing maths, so fewer of them come to university. In turn fewer go into teaching, and the whole thing gets worse". The result is that poor maths teaching means fewer pupils able to cope with science subjects at advanced level, let alone at university. Pupils obviously wish to maximise their chances of high grades for university entrance. The school staff, in turn, are anxious to maximise their position in the league tables. All that conspires to make maths, physics and chemistry—the hard subjects—less popular than other subjects. We need inspired teachers to inspire our children, and we have too few of them.

February 2004 saw the publication of the Smith report, Making Mathematics Count. The report calls for a number of measures including paying off student loans, introducing differential pay for maths graduates, and the extension of programmes using students and post-graduates as assistants and mentors in school, in an attempt to reverse the decline. The same TES article from which I quoted earlier commented on the success of the undergraduate ambassador scheme promoted by Sam Singh, which involved some 28 students. Schemes of this nature and others using people actively involved in industry going into schools, and reciprocal visits to industry, enable our children to see the benefits of an engineering or scientific career.

Can the Minister indicate to what extent the Government agree with the diagnosis of the report, and whether they intend to implement any of its recommendations? Would the Minister also agree that we are perhaps offering too wide a choice of subjects at A-level, leading to a further reduction in those who might otherwise take up maths and science options? There are other considerations, however. First, we need a balanced workforce of craftsmen and professionals; the one cannot operate successfully without the other. Secondly, we need to ensure that the status and salaries of the professional chartered engineers and scientists are commensurate with their positions and peers in other professions. Many of our engineering graduates gravitate to accountancy, financial and business management at inflated salaries, denying the engineering profession their talents, and reducing the pool of engineers.

Another point is the failure of some companies to provide a proper career path for their professionals; such paths exist for the managers, but not for those who wish to design and create, and whose expertise may be wasted in the management stream. During my time in IBM, senior professional salaries were on a par with those of senior managers, which is as it ought to be.

Finally, careers in engineering are seen as boring. Perhaps that is an area where motor sport has an edge on the rest of us! I had 45 years in engineering and enjoyed most of it. The satisfaction of seeing one's design come to fruition takes some beating, but we have to convince our children. Engineering degrees are usually a four year course, leading to a Master of Engineering degree. That means an extra year at university, extra fees and extra debt. Are the Government confident that the introduction of top-up fees will not bias students yet further against the choice of an engineering career? Will it again encourage those graduating in engineering to go into the City? It is interesting to note that the University of Berlin is wooing UK students with free tuition. I hope that the Minister takes note.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Luke

My Lords, I very much welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever on providing an opportunity to discuss whether enough is being done to encourage young engineers to come into industry.

The term "engineering" incorporates many different components within one larger industry. These sectors include aeronautical engineering—developing future air travel—automotive and motor sport engineering, among newer disciplines such as nanotechnology, which challenge the more traditional classical approaches to engineering problems. As diversification within the engineering sector occurs primarily at an educational level, the actual process of education becomes increasingly important.

I am particularly pleased that this debate has focused on the educational and training aspect of the industry. There are many career paths that potential engineers are able to follow, yet those opportunities are not highly publicised. Modern apprenticeships offer an alternative route for those who do not wish to embark upon full-time study. They allow young engineers to earn money while completing their vocational and theoretical training. Initiatives such as those should be welcomed and encouraged. However, such schemes are often perceived as a step down from the traditional academic route, despite providing a challenging and enjoyable alternative.

A solid background in science and mathematics is an essential prerequisite at GCSE or A-level for any youngster wishing to train as an engineer. I note that earlier this month the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to bring science to the attention of the public. In reply the noble Lord, Lord. Lord Sainsbury stated: There is unfortunately a shift from mathematics, physics and chemistry".—[Official Report, 16/3/04; col. 136.] What is the reason for that decline? Would the Minister agree that such a decline will impact directly on the engineering industry and that action needs to be taken to address this predicament?

The status of the engineering profession within this country is not comparable, and never has been, with other countries such as Germany or the United States or Spain, where professional engineers are regarded as highly as doctors or lawyers. Indeed, in Spain an engineer is called Ingeniero, just as doctors in this country are addressed by the title Doctor. Perhaps that would be a good thing to do in this country. That said, even those countries are suffering a decline in interest from those wishing to train as engineers. Interest in this diverse and rewarding career must be stimulated to ensure that the decline in numbers entering engineering does not fall to a level that is detrimental to the industry's future.

Concerns have been raised about the future of the engineering industry in the UK, and a solution needs to be achieved to prevent an exodus of manufacturing overseas. It is imperative that the UK retains a vibrant and strong manufacturing base in all sectors of engineering, in particular in areas of research and development where we are so strong.

There are many bodies and initiatives that work to assist in the development and sustainability of the engineering industry. Founded in 1976, the Royal Academy of Engineering promotes the engineering and technological welfare of this country, primarily focusing on the relationship between engineering, technology and quality of life. The academy also provides a voice between Parliament and the UK's engineering community. The most high-profile sector of engineering, after defence, is that of motor sport, which is highly popular with all ages in society and provides an excellent medium through which the inventiveness and expertise of talented engineers can be demonstrated.

Many companies belonging to the MIA make some parts for vintage cars. Vintage car racing is the fastest growth area of motor racing; I, personally, believe that it is by far the most exciting to watch. The Motorsport Industry Association and its associate members actively encourage participation by students in the motor sport industry through funding initiatives such as "formula student" and "formula schools". The skills needed by engineers—good spatial awareness, cogent thought processes and an ability in science and mathematics—are transferable through all engineering sectors. Yet a recent MORI poll for the Engineering and Marine Training Authority showed that more than half of young people associate engineering with an unclean working environment rather than the cleaner, demanding disciplines such as design engineering.

In March 2001, the Government commissioned a review to examine the supply of scientists and engineers into the UK. The Roberts report SET for Success; The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills was published in April 2002 and sets out a number of recommendations to encourage the growth of science and engineering innovation in the UK. The main recommendations once again reflect the decline in the adoption of science subjects in higher education and university. On publication of the report, Sir Gareth Roberts stated that: The UK has a strong scientific tradition … which in the past has not always translated into economic benefit. To do this effectively we need highly skilled scientists and engineers capable of matching the best in the world". In responding to the report's recommendations, Paul Boateng stated: Sir Gareth's report is important in identifying further ways of boosting the contribution that science can make to improving productivity and growth". My noble friend Lord Astor asked the Minister whether he could clarify the progress that has been made since that report was first published. I echo this request, particularly in relation to careers in engineering.

One organisation that has recognised the importance of education for the future is the charity Young Engineers. This organisation, funded solely through business-led initiatives and projects, aims to encourage children of all ages, including primary school children, to consider a career in engineering through competitions and after-school clubs. These clubs spark the interest of girls as much as boys; at present, approximately 40 per cent of participants in the scheme are female. The main emphasis is on fun but importance is also placed on the relevance of engineering in people's everyday lives. Technical skills provide only part of this learning experience. Students are given the opportunity to develop their core skills such as communication, numeracy and teamwork.

However, the charity is desperately under-funded. Despite running nation-wide initiatives in 1,700 schools to 58,000 pupils, Young Engineers has only four members of staff and receives most of its revenue from four main sponsors. Organisations such as Young Engineers should be seen as central to the debate concerning improvements in the engineering education process. While we welcome recent government initiatives, such as the unit to promote science, engineering and technology to women, further action is required if a long-term solution to the overall problem is to be reached.

There appears to be a consensus throughout the industry that, in the main, not enough is being done to stimulate the interest of our future engineers and to raise the profile and status of the profession, despite the commendable work of bodies such as Young Engineers. The industry needs to work in partnership to address the many problems that it faces and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

8.2 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for introducing what has been a very well informed and interesting debate. All the contributions will repay reading after this debate by noble Lords who are not present because we are discussing an area of great importance to the nation. There is no doubt that the issues of skills shortages and our lower levels of productivity in comparison to other nations need to be addressed and have been a salient point of the British economy for many decades. We need a concerted strategy to improve this situation. There is no doubt at all that engineering is one of the more important dimensions of this.

As noble Lords have rightly emphasised this evening, motorsport plays an important part in this. It is not just the conspicuous success of motorsport, which has been adduced on a number of sides. In very many dimensions, it adds glamour to engineering. It is the fact that, because of that relationship and because it is held in high regard by so many of our young people, we have a route by which we can address them on the desirability of following engineering careers through various routes. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who described the routes that had obtained in the past to produce high-level engineers and technicians with technical skills. We know that we must be more imaginative today and have wider ranges of opportunities because we are aware that not enough engineers have come forward in the more recent past. There is no doubt that motorsport plays its part. I play tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for his role as president of the MIA. The work of that body in developing initiatives, on which I shall comment in a moment, that help to fill the gap that has opened up in certain areas of our engineering provision, gaps which are partially the result of increased opportunities in other areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, invited me to reduce A-level opportunities in some subjects. I do not think that that would be a suitable response to the problem but I appreciate the fact that we must make the sciences, mathematics and developing engineering skills more attractive to young people in order to improve skill levels in those areas. I have no doubt that the initiatives that have been suggested this evening would help to a considerable degree.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Paul for identifying how crucial this issue is to the broader economy. I also agree with him that there is a pronounced regional dimension to the skills issue. We recognise that, with regard to certain aspects of motorsports, skills are concentrated in the valley that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, had great difficulty identifying, although he knows that a great deal of this activity takes place in the area that goes roughly westwards from Northamptonshire towards Oxfordshire. Motorsports do produce opportunities for young people and put a face upon engineering that we need.

One of the aspects that has come out of the debate—I think it was first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—is the question of the limited number of young women who go into engineering. I have one or two optimistic and encouraging statistics to present to the House. The number of women qualifying in engineering skills in higher education is increasing, while the number is going the other way for men, but noble Lords will recognise that we are starting from a rather low base with regard to women engineers. That is an enormous pity. Modern engineering has so many facets—the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, brought out the excitement of seeing projects through to fulfilment—that are exciting in terms of achievement and are also light-years away from the grime, dust, oil and, perhaps, smoke, of yesteryear. Engineering opportunities ought to be attractive to young women.

I went to some very interesting electronic engineering courses, which are the way in which people learn to become competent with support systems for music gigs. That is an extremely attractive area and is different from motorsport. We all know how young people can be switched on to music. To my complete horror, every single participant on those courses, with very attractive engineering and many opportunities in our expanding leisure industry, was male. It shows how many barriers we have before us and the challenge we face in improving our engineering base.

I want to reassure the House that we are fully aware of the skills gap that has occurred and of the need to develop the skills strategy that we announced in July last year. It had the central ambition that employers should have the right skills to support the success of their businesses, and that individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled". The strategy makes a real step change in the way that we approach skills by putting employers' needs for skills at centre stage, managing the supply of training, skills and qualifications so that they respond to their needs. The strategy also aims to raise demand for higher level skills, which we all recognise need to be encouraged.

There are a number of key initiatives. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to one when he talked about the learning grid. Engineering is an applied science, as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, described in detail. It deals with the real world, with physical objects and with making things happen. If we are to attract people into the sector they need to be able to experience engineering at first hand. That is why we need to translate a plethora of school initiatives, which seek to give some opportunities, into a coherent strategy.

That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry resolved to address that problem and why, through chairing the Motorsport Panel, she has taken significant steps. She has agreed to make available £4 million over the next five years to give a real boost to this work—not to the plethora of small scale initiatives, but to ensure that we concentrate on a select group of companies that are judged to be the most effective. That work is led by the Engineering Technology Board. The learning grid will bring a new focus and greater impact to those activities, which in the past have been well meant but disparate, for young people.

The sector skills councils have an important role to play in developing skills, and the council relating to the motor industry is making significant developments. There are a number of other initiatives that show the Government's earnest attempt to put flesh on the bones of a strategy that has been demanded by all sides of the House this evening. The Science and Engineering Ambassadors Scheme, which is a joint project by the DfES and DTI, provides role models who work in science and engineering, and who can show how science and engineering taught in the classroom can be applied to industry—to achieve some relevance for school and industry from people who, like the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, have played their part in the industry and can communicate the excitement of achievement that engineers enjoy.

At this stage I should declare an interest. Both of my sons are engineers, although I fear that one of them has followed that dreaded path to which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, referred, of being taken into management science and moving away from engineering. But my younger son works for Ford. If I have not learnt enough from noble Lords this evening about such issues, I assure them that my education will continue when he and I next meet, because he identifies areas in which we still have to make considerable progress.

Two years ago we introduced a GCSE in engineering. I recognise that the problem is that the debate is about "education" and engineering. Education is, by definition, a protracted process. We cannot achieve results overnight when we are seeking to plant new ideas and encourage new excitement in our schools and in higher education. It will take time before the results come through. We are delivering, we recognise the step change that needs to be made in education and I am giving examples of some of the initiatives that are being taken. The specialist schools programme means that some schools will concentrate on developing technology and engineering excellence. That, too, will guarantee that within those schools there is a greater emphasis on the development of engineering qualifications.

Reference has has also been made to modern apprenticeships. The Government are committed to them as high quality work-based options for young people. Engineering and manufacturing is the largest area for modern apprenticeships, making up around a fifth of young people on such training schemes—around 68,000. That is encouraging, but I recognise what noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Paul, have said—that it may not look too robust a figure against international comparisons. We all know how much needs to be done in such areas.

We are also developing centres of vocational excellence between the public and private sectors, including a motorsport technician training centre at Silverstone, in conjunction with the British Racing Drivers Club, to provide trackside experience for students and contribute to the circuit's development as a centre of excellence. I cannot think of a more exciting way to bring people into that area of engineering.

I also recognise the very important point that my noble friend Lord Paul made about careers advice. He is right in that we do need to structure into this opportunities that are presented to young people in schools. We all know that choices are made irremediably early and that is why there is great strength in broadening the base of our A-level and post-16 studies and also in insisting that mathematics and science play a very significant part in the curriculum in order that young people have the base for making choices in engineering.

This has been an enormously stimulating debate. It has ranged across one area of very conspicuous success, the motor sports industry. It is not just success on the track, but also in terms of the very high level technological skills and expertise that we have developed. It has ranged to the broader issues of how we extend and develop engineering as a crucial aspect of British education in over to support the standard of living which our nation has the right to expect. There is no doubt at all that we cannot expect improvements in productivity in the development of our industry and economy without that crucial base of engineering excellence.