§ 1 pm
§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)It is a great pleasure to speak in this Chamber, although I note that there is considerable lack of room in the public areas.
Given that I am speaking in a new Chamber, I shall begin by giving a bit of a history lesson. The 19th century was a golden age for many, although by no means all, in Britain. Our empire spanned the globe, and British warships ruled the waves, preserving a Pax Britannica. It was also a golden age of engineering, and the two ages are connected. Names such as Brunei, Stevenson and Faraday were prominent in the public eye. Those great Victorian engineers were feted by society, and enjoyed something like celebrity status, largely because they were pioneers whose achievements represented a quantum leap in the development of human civilisation.
Improving or developing an existing invention never quite captures the public imagination in the same way, even if, in doing so, its original impact is expanded a millionfold. That, to a large extent, has been the unenviable lot of the 20th-century engineer. He has developed and refined the engineering discoveries of his 19th-century ancestors, and, as a consequence, has been rather taken for granted.
Of course, the advances made by engineers during the past 100 years—the jet engine, mains electricity, the computer, clean hot and cold running water, television, life-saving medical equipment, the motor car, and the telecommunications revolution, including the information super-highway—have had an incalculable and unparalleled impact. Those developments have shaped the ways in which we live, and to which the 20th century can lay claim, yet the contribution of the 20th-century engineer has never been properly recognised.
If ever a moment crystallised the boundless possibilities of human ingenuity and spirit, it was Neil Armstrong's giant leap for mankind—one of the century's, if not the millennium's, indisputable triumphs. It was also an engineering triumph, as was its transmission live on television into our own homes. The media may erroneously refer ad nauseam to rocket science and NASA scientists, but the scientific principles that underpinned Apollo 11's success were not new and, in themselves, could never have propelled man to the moon.
What actually made possible the outstanding achievement of the century was the insatiable capacity of engineers to solve any problem, however daunting it initially appeared. Essentially, the first moon landing was made possible by the application of new materials, allied to innovative mechanical and electronic systems. They are inescapably the preserve of the engineer, rather than the scientist. The fanciful thought of putting a man on the moon fascinated, but eluded, man since the dawn of civilisation. It fell to 20th-century engineers, however, to turn that impossible dream into reality, and shatter for ever any imagined boundaries to human endeavour.
Similarly, I believe that the problems and challenges that the world faces in the 21st century will be largely the preserve of the engineer, rather than the scientist. As the 102WH world population continues to rise and the third world continues to develop, a time bomb is ticking with regard to the adequate provision of food, energy and shelter. Sustainable development will be the new millennium's holy grail, and engineers, who may be the only people equipped to find it, are already searching. As this century nears its end, the engineering profession is producing visionary solutions to the challenges that the world faces in the next, in key areas such as transport, energy, telecommunications and the environment. Those are the fronts on which the sustainable development battles of the 21st century will be fought. The good news is that engineers are already mobilising.
Engineers have always been the world's problem solvers, as the history of the last millennium verifies. Until quite recently, their contribution to the development of civilisation was recognised and society regarded them highly. For a variety of reasons, that is no longer the case. During the past 100 years, their status—but not their contribution or their quality—has diminished significantly.
Engineers have indisputably shaped the past, and will undoubtedly shape the future, but they are also shaping the present. Projects designed and built by engineers include the fabulous millennium wheel, known as the London Eye, which stands across the river from the House, and is sponsored by British Airways; the millennium dome, which is controversial in the eyes of many, but a superb technical feat in the eyes of everyone; the channel tunnel; and Portcullis house, which stands opposite this very Chamber, and involved ground-breaking construction methods, including prefabrication techniques that are being copied abroad. They are breathtaking examples of engineering, and remind us that engineering's contribution to the development of civilisation continues apace.
Of course, great engineering is not only, or even primarily, about aesthetics and landmark projects: it is about improving the quality of everyday life. Engineering is also about wealth creation and the nation's well-being. It underpins the entire UK economy and determines our competitiveness on the international stage. The Government claim repeatedly, and publicly, that engineering contributes just 8 per cent. to UK gross domestic product, but their standard industry classification codes reflect an obsolete, out-of-date, flawed definition which encompasses only the heavy, metal-basing end of the engineering spectrum. They have erroneously consigned engineering to a heavy manufacturing ghetto that is in serious decline in all the G7 developed nations.
The Government's ignorance is damaging the industry and the profession alike. What about construction, telecommunications, aerospace, utilities and the process industries? Surely no one, except perhaps the Government, would dispute that all those industrial sectors also constitute engineering sectors. Certainly, the companies that operate in those sectors would not dispute that fact. Many of them have shown their engineering credentials by becoming corporate members of representative bodies such as the Engineering Council. Why would they affiliate themselves to such bodies if they did not consider themselves engineering companies?
If the Government took account of all engineering-led 103WH industries, the calculation of engineering's true contribution to GDP would rocket to more than 40 per cent. If sectors such as financial services and retail, which could not function without engineers, were also taken into account, the figure would probably be nearer to 80 per cent.
In 1998, engineering employed about 1.8 million people and accounted for some 80 per cent. of all UK exports, which were valued at £142 billion. Those statistics demand that the Government should afford engineering far greater attention. They should listen far more closely to what the country's engineers have to say on matters of major national importance.
Following the recent rail tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions invited Sir David Davies, who is one of the country's most eminent engineers and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, to conduct a personal investigation into the effective operation of train protection systems. That was a sensible course of action: no one is better qualified than Sir David to conduct such an investigation. How much more sensible would it have been to consult him and other, similarly qualified engineers about rail transport policy before the accident?
The technological boundaries of the Government's much vaunted, knowledge-based economy are rapidly changing. As we move inexorably towards such an economy, so the boundaries of engineering are changing in parallel, and engineering is set to become yet more central to civilisation's development and our nation's well-being. More solutions to the global challenges that confront our nation will be found by engineers than by any other group. I believe that engineering will become more important than ever before. In the distant future, it may prove vital to the preservation of life itself.
What of the present day? The influence and impact of engineers on society extend far beyond engineering. Business, commerce and the whole of industry, not just manufacturing, are largely led by engineers. They are led not by accountants, as many people assume, or by corporate lawyers, as some may think, but by engineers. At the last count, 17 of the FTSE top 100 companies were run by engineers, compared with only 15 by accountants. In total, qualified engineers hold about 160 of the total number of directorships of FTSE companies.
Engineers also dominate the academic world, with the latest count showing 18 out the 106 institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom to have engineer vice-chancellors or principals—more than from any other discipline. It is vital to the future success of the country that the Government listen to the nation's professional engineers and, if the nation is to prosper, that they receive and understand sound and timely advice on engineering matters.
We now come to the crux of the debate. At present, the principal source of advice to the Government on all engineering-related issues is the chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet, Sir Robert May, one of the most eminent figures in the scientific world. Engineering forms part of Sir Robert's brief, because the Government see engineering as no more than a branch of science, a subset on a Venn diagram.
§ Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's persistence in 104WH not employing an engineering adviser to the Cabinet sends an unfortunate message to the 2 million or so engineers in the United Kingdom, which is that their status and their contribution to the quality of our lives are not acknowledged or understood at the highest level of government?
§ Mr. FabricantThe hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. By every measure, engineers enjoy—if that is the word—a lower status in the United Kingdom than in France, Germany, the United States of America or Japan. The Government's continued refusal to accept that engineering is wealth-creating, and different from science, helps to perpetuate the myth that engineers are of a lower status. That is a dangerous and ignorant over-simplification of reality.
Science is the business of discovering about nature and its laws, of finding out what is already there. If one scientist does not find something, there is every probability that, in due course—I am always an optimist—another one will, because scientists are investigating the existing universe and its components. Engineering, however, is about applying the findings of science to create something that has never existed before. Engineers and engineering provide the nation's creativity, innovation and competitiveness, and their views on major issues are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community.
That is not merely a question of semantics. The distinctions between science and engineering demand that the Government look on them as related but distinct, and treat them differently. It should not be assumed that the interests of engineering and engineers are the same as those of science and scientists. Special measures need to be applied. Nor should it be assumed that a scientist thinks in the same way as an engineer, or vice versa. Scientists are theoretical; engineers are practical and entrepreneurial. It is unlikely, therefore, that one individual could ever represent both groups to everyone's satisfaction.
Science is a net consumer of the national wealth, while engineering is a creator of it, and the key enabler in exploiting the science base and in turning scientific discoveries into practical solutions. That must be recognised in its own right, as it is in other countries. Only the ignorance of politicians in the United Kingdom ensures that it is not. The time is overdue for the Prime Minister to appoint a chief engineering adviser to the Cabinet to mirror the very different role of the chief scientific adviser.
On the previous occasions that the engineering community has questioned the logic of the present strange situation, it has received little encouragement. I have tabled parliamentary questions on the issue, as has the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who is also one of only seven chartered engineers in the House. One of the reasons routinely given by the Government for their refusal to consider the proposal is that to give engineering its own representative would be unfair to other specialist disciplines such as medicine or the social sciences, both of which also form part of Sir Robert May's brief. The Government ask why engineering, but no other specialist discipline, should be singled out for special attention. That argument is weak and unacceptable. It damages the wealth-creating capability of the nation and the well-being of our people. 105WH It is not an argument given in France, Germany, Japan or the United States. It is given only in the United Kingdom.
The call for an adviser on engineering should not be seen as a personal attack on Sir Robert May or on his performance as chief scientific adviser. He is an eminent figure in his own right—he even had some training in chemical engineering in his formative years—but essentially he is a natural scientist.
The engineering community has other channels of communication with the Government, as I am sure the Minister will point out, as well as other opportunities to make its voice heard during the policy-making process. It can, and does, respond to Government consultation exercises and submit evidence to Select Committees. It lobbies in the usual way. In all this, its voice is heard no more clearly, or given any greater weight, than the myriad other pressure groups fighting for the Government's ear. That is extremely old-fashioned. It is neither cool Britannia, nor good government.
Evidence of the Government's muddle on the issue was demonstrated last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) tabled a question on ministerial responsibility for engineering in the Minister's own Department. He received a wholly incorrect answer which even failed to mention the engineering responsibilities of Lord Sainsbury. This muddle is unforgivable.
As Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury has recently agreed to a regular six-monthly meeting with the chairman of the Engineering Council, Dr. Robert Hawley, to discuss issues of interest to the engineering profession. I welcome that. The Department of Trade and Industry is collaborating with the Engineering Council to develop a closer relatonship with it, and with the profession generally, which I also welcome. Those are undoubtedly moves in the right direction, but they are insufficient when compared with the practices of other nations in which engineering is close to the heart of government.
A great responsibility for the future health and wealth of the nation rests on the shoulders of the country's 280,000 registered professional engineers, and on the additional 1.5 million people employed in engineering. Appointing an engineering adviser to the Cabinet would follow the practice of other developed nations and would demonstrate clearly that the occasional public proclamations made by the Government about the importance of engineering are not merely hollow words. It would send a clear message to the rest of the country that the Government consider engineering important, and it would greatly help the engineering community in its efforts to maintain a world-class engineering work force, thereby sustaining the UK's global competitiveness. It might even ensure that scientific discoveries made in this country are translated into engineering products and sold by British manufacturers, rather than having Japanese and American firms pinch British ideas from British scientists and make money out of them, as happens at present.
The engineering companies on which this country depends are suffering damaging skills shortages because of their inability to recruit top-quality young people into 106WH engineering. Bright young people take engineering at society's valuation, and if engineering is looked down on by society, we should not be surprised that young people choose not to enter the profession—a point admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, as I think I am allowed to call her in this Chamber.
Is the Minister aware that only 43 per cent. of students taking up engineering degrees in 1997 had the equivalent of two grade As or better at A-level, compared with 99 per cent. for medicine and 56 per cent. for law? That is stark, statistical proof—if it were needed—that engineering is not seen as a preferred or attractive career option for the most able school leavers. Yet engineering is so critical to the success of our country that it needs to be attracting the very best available talent.
The time for platitudes is over. The Government will not be thanked by the engineering industry or its professionals for mouthing sweet nothings, no matter how attractive they may be. The time is long overdue for the appointment of a chief engineering adviser if the long-term future of our economy is to be assured. After the customary praising of engineers and engineering, I hope that the Minister will say that at long last such an adviser will be appointed, for the benefit of engineers and the nation's economy. Frankly, nothing less will do.
§ The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt)It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity so early in the Session to respond to a debate in this new Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate, and on the passion and deep knowledge with which he introduced the subject. I confess that prior to my preparations for the debate I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman is a chartered engineer. However, I have been able to discuss the issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield for giving me another opportunity to place on the record the enormous importance that the Government attach to engineering. We have a deep understanding and appreciation of the extraordinary contribution that engineers make today, as well as the contribution that they have made in the past, to the quality of our lives and the strength of our economy. I endorse much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of engineering and engineers. Those of us who have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, will know that he was a passionate advocate of the importance of engineering to our economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that I am no less enthusiastic on the subject.
We have a problem in this country in that engineering is seen as a glory in our past, rather than a strength in our present and vital to our future; yet British engineering remains a world leader. For example, last week the Royal Academy of Engineering awarded the 1999 McRobert award, our most coveted prize for innovation and engineering, to Buro Happold, the UK engineering partnership that designed the magnificent millennium dome.
107WH It is a pity that so few people in this country realise that the techniques of packet switching, without which the internet could not exist, were devised in Britain by British engineers. Perhaps more people, but not enough, realise that the world wide web, which makes the internet useful and usable to millions of people around the world, was devised by another British engineer, Tim Berners-Lee, and the team with which he worked at CERN, the European centre for nuclear research.
The generation, exploitation and application of knowledge, in which engineering plays a central role, are at the heart of the Government's economic agenda. That was a central theme of our White Paper on competitiveness, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy". As the new E-Commerce Minister, I have a role in ensuring, right across government, that we seize and exploit the potential of information and communication technologies, and the convergences between them, in the interests of our economic strength and social well-being. In a wide variety of ways, engineers are creating the backbone and devising the applications that allow full exploitation of those convergent technologies.
As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps the biggest challenge that we will face in the new century is that of sustainable development. We know that our continued prosperity and quality of life—not only here in the developed world, but across the planet—will depend on our ability to understand, analyse and confront the issues of resources and pollution. We must find new solutions to ensure that growth is sustainable as we raise the living standards of millions of people all over the world who are now living in poverty and destitution. The challenges of environmental degradation which we face will be solved by scientists and, within that group, engineers. In practice, combating global warming and developing efficient renewable energy will be achieved only by the real advances in engineering.
In its widest sense, the engineering community includes hundreds of thousands of people who do not fall within the traditional definition of a professional engineer. The hon. Gentleman referred to definitions by this Department—and presumably the Office for National Statistics—which he regarded as being unsatisfactory in terms of the contribution that engineering makes to GDP. In fact, our definition of engineering goes well beyond the traditional heavy metal-bashing sectors to which he referred. Indeed, the definition of engineering that we use for the purposes of the national accounts is a sensible definition that has been agreed with the Engineering Employers Federation. It is no more helpful for the hon. Gentleman 108WH to argue that engineering is the sole support and focus of most of the country's GDP than it would be if I were to argue that information and communications technology is responsible for all our wealth creation—although I could make an equally eloquent case to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke of engineers as practical people. I am a practical politician, and I am interested in what the Government can do in practice to raise the status of engineering. We must ensure that it is promoted as a training option and a career, and fully exploit the contribution that engineers can make. That is why the Government have asked Dr. Robert Hawley, the chairman of the Engineering Council, to review the contribution that the council can make to add value to the activities of the broad engineering community. That will be achieved by promoting engineering and standards in engineering more effectively, building on existing synergies with existing organisations and, more generally, positioning the engineering community within the new knowledge-driven economy. The first part of that work, the definition of strategic objectives, will be completed by the end of January. I will encourage Dr. Hawley to discuss the review team's work with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, both of whom will have excellent contributions to make to its work.
I turn to the issue of education. Following the action for engineering initiative, the previous Government established SETNET, the science, engineering, technology and maths network. That is now doing exciting work in schools to raise the quality and improve the coherence of a rather fragmented picture of activities that are aimed at promoting science, engineering, technology and mathematics to school pupils.
§ Mr. FabricantI am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Do I take it, then, that the Government will be appointing a chief engineering adviser to the Cabinet?
§ Ms HewittI was about to come to that. I regret that I have not had time to deal with every interesting point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
We are very happy with our chief scientific adviser. Sir Robert May is an eminent and distinguished man with a background in chemical engineering. Some former chief scientific advisers to the Government have been engineers. My understanding is that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, most other countries have a chief scientific adviser who embraces engineering.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)Order. Time is up for this debate.