Engineering Education (Hansard, 30 July 1981)

§ Mr. Mark Carlisle

Following the Finniston report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been taking the lead in discussions about a proposed new Engineering Council while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been considering with the Manpower Services Commission certain training implications. I have been examining in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales the educational questions and those related to post graduate training for intending professional engineers.

The Finniston report was a landmark in this vital area of national life. Many recommendations affected education and I therefore arranged for the national conference on engineering education and training—NCEET—to consider and report on these issues. I am most grateful to Mr. Dick Morris, who chaired the steering committee of the national conference, and to all those involved in making it a success and in producing its very clear and compelling report.

The questions raised in this debate require consideration and action at different levels in the education system: by engineering departments in institutions of higher and further education, by the institutions themselves—the universities, polytechnics, Scottish central institutions, and other colleges of higher and further education—by examining and validating bodies, by the University Grants Committee, and by the local education authorities. The role of the Government is not to dictate the response of the education system and its component parts, but to give a clear lead by their own approach.

At the same time, the message of the Finniston report, strongly endorsed by the national conference, was that the formation of engineers cannot be a matter for the education system and the profession alone. Industry must be brought into active partnership in designing courses to meet its own requirements and in co-operating with educational establishments in the conduct of courses, especially those parts of them concerned with giving students practical experience. It was, above all, to make a reality of that partnership that Finniston proposed the creation of a new body responsible for registration of engineers and the accreditation of their professional formation.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Industry is today making an announcement about the proposed establishment of an Engineering Council by Royal charter. This council would have a very important role in promoting developments in engineering studies in the directions proposed by Finniston and the national conference. It is clear that the education system stands ready and willing to extend a welcome to an Engineering Council, and will collaborate fully with it in the accreditation of courses.

507W

As in all other areas, the Government approach these issues with the determination to improve our national economic health within the limits of what we can afford. One of the main messages to come out of the responses to the Finniston report and the discussion at the NCEET is the need to improve quality rather than to increase quantity. The education service must therefore concentrate its efforts building on existing strengths and developing new strengths to match changing needs. Engineering education of high quality must be available throughout the country for potential engineers of all kinds—professional engineers, technician engineers and technicians.

The NCEET recognised that the quality of engineering education depends crucially on what the schools can do to arouse the interest and ambitions of pupils, and to equip them with a broad range of knowledge and skills. The Secretary of State for Wales and I are seeking to promote this important function of the schools by the action we are taking in relation to the school curriculum, and we are also encouraging closer collaboration between schools and industry through such bodies as the science and technology regional organisations. In Scotland, my right hon. Friend is taking similar action. In a statement on the Munn and Dunning reports, which he made in the House on 31 March 1980, he said that the Government considered it essential that all pupils in the last two years of compulsory education should study mathematics and science. On schools-industry liaison, he welcomed the increasing effectiveness of activities at local level involving schools, industry and voluntary bodies.

In the professional preparation of engineers, the main question for the education system is the broad pattern of future engineering degree courses. Finniston proposed two streams at degree level leading to a bachelor of engineering—BEng—degree for the main body of engineers after three years and the master of engineering—MEng—degree for the future leaders of the profession after four. Both streams would incorporate important elements of what Finniston called engineering applications.

Our consultations have revealed strong support for the inclusion in engineering degree courses of a greater element of engineering practice, but little for the precise BEng-MEng split. The NCEET report endorsed the principle of enhancement, but favoured a range of first degree courses, full-time and sandwich, varying in theoretical and practical content according to the needs of the sectors of industry which they serve. The majority of first degree courses would be of the same length as at present, but the range would include a small number of extended courses. The NCEET saw the MEng as a one-year postgraduate course for the high fliers with the potential to lead technically oriented businesses. The report also proposed that consideration should be given to the introduction of a distinctive practically-oriented stream for technician engineers leading to the award of bachelor of technology—BTech.

The Government generally favour the approach of the NCEET which may be seen as a development of Finniston's proposals, permitting greater flexibility. Some existing courses, particularly sandwich courses, already give an emphasis to the application of engineering principles. Sandwich courses are threatened, however, by the shortage of suitable industrial placements for students, and the education departments and the MSC are currently 508W studying the implications and ways of overcoming this difficulty. We endorse the NCEET' s proposal that ad engineering departments should review their courses, both internally and with industry and the profession, against the objective of a greater emphasis on applications, while bearing in mind the different needs of the various branches of engineering, and their students' interests and abilities. We hope that the proposed Engineering Council would have particularly in mind this objective in accrediting first degree courses, but we also hope that its accreditation arrangements would be flexible, and that it would co-operate with validating bodies, such as the CNAA. An important consideration is maintaining and, where necessary, improving opportunities for those who wish or need to obtain or enhance their qualifications through part-time study. We look to all responsible for the management and financing of higher education institutions to respond constructively so far as resources allow to proposals for the enhancement of engineering degree courses. We look to them also, in collaboration with the new Engineering Council, to develop a consistent and co-ordinated approach across the whole higher education system.

Particular attention has been paid by commentators to the question of the length of engineering degree courses and the problem of encompassing within them a wider range of engineering knowledge. There are already precedents, not only in Scotland, for courses taking four years. The Government recognise that a number of further courses will contain essential material making a longer duration than three years necessary. Such courses should be clearly distinctive in terms of staff and student quality and should be of demonstrable value to industry. The Government's view is that their numbers should be limited, and that normal engineering education should continue to take the form of three-year bachelor courses—or of sandwich courses—followed by structured training and experience. In the present financial climate there can, in any case, be no question of the Government providing extra resources to extend engineering degree courses. The enhancement and extension of courses will have to accomplished within the funds available; and institutions and those who fund them must weigh the cost of raising quality against the number they wish to accept on their courses. The Government have been glad to note the University Grants Committee's statement that numbers in the universities in engineering and technology should increase slightly over the next three years and that, within total numbers, universities should decide the extent to which the lengthening of courses can be justified.

The Government endorse the importance attached by both Finniston and the NCEET to the structured two-year training period after graduation as part of an engineer's basic formation. Industry will have to be prepared to increase its training places if sufficient provision is to be achieved.

The Government also endorse fully the emphasis in the Finniston and NCEET reports on the continuing formation of engineers as the most effective way of raising the general level of competence in the engineering profession. The development of professional skill and knowledge must continue beyond registration, and demands a provision for integrated education and training to match the needs of industry. Educational institutions and employers must be partners in the design of such provision.

My Department has recognised the need for the expansion of relevant continuing education at all levels 509W and is actively pursuing the programme of action outlined in its document on post-experience vocational education published last October. But we consider that Finniston was right in saying that the main impetus must come from the engineers and their employers, who together must pursue the essential integration of employment, education and training. We agree with the NCEET report that the promotion of that integration, and of continuing formation, should be a vital role for the proposed Engineering Council.

Continuing formation may or may not lead to higher degree qualifications, but these principles should apply to the future development of such qualifications. Proposals for the development of M.Eng courses and for the future of M.Sc courses should be evolved to a great extent in partnership between employers and educational institutions, as the NCEET recommended. We support particularly the emphasis on planning postgraduate courses of all kinds in modular form to make it easier for more practising engineers, including those at senior levels, to undertake them.

As both Finniston and the NCEET fully recognised, there is a need for an effective and expert corps of technician engineers and technicians to support professional engineers, and the proposed Engineering Council would maintain a register which recognised all three levels of qualification. The Government have welcomed the MSC's consultative document on the Open Tech. They agree with the NCEET report that qualifications in this area should continue to be the responsibility of the Technician Education Council and the Scottish Technical Education Council, and that the TEC and SCOTEC higher diplomas should be developed and accepted as the principal replacements for the existing higher national diplomas.

I have mentioned the NCEET's proposal for a new practically-oriented degree, the B.Tech. This was seen as a full degree course but corresponding to the technician engineer level of employment. Views at the conference differed widely on this issue, and the NCEET report's recommendation acknowledges the need for further consideration. One thing is clear, and this is that there is a significant demand for additional high quality technician engineers in a number of sectors of engineering. There are, however, different views about the need for such a special qualification: its precise nature; its relevance to the needs of employers; even its title. It would be premature for the Government to take a view on a proposition as yet incompletely defined. We urge the universities, polytechnics and validating bodies to give this matter careful consideration in consultation with the proposed Engineering Council.

A statement even of this length cannot cover in detail all the recommendations of the Finniston and NCEET reports. Its objective is to indicate the general approach which the Government will adopt in promoting the further development of engineering education and training.