| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.27 am
Mr. Gordon Oakes (Halton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on the precision of his speech, which is very apt in a debate on engineering, but most of all on raising this subject. As he said, this is Science, Engineering and Technology Week. Yet this one-and-a-half-hour debate on a Wednesday morning is
the only contribution that the House is making to what should be a focus event throughout the nation. For once, the media are doing something about it--usually, they do not--but, alas, we are not, except for the hon. Gentleman. I do not acquit my own party in any way. We had a Supply day on Monday, and there are many things that we could debate about science and engineering, but we chose not to. We are as much to blame as the Government.
Mr. Sheerman: I have just come from the industry forum of the Labour party, in the City of London. Hundreds of people were there for the launch, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of an event tied in with this week, so the Labour party, in many respects, has been fully and actively involved in this week.
Mr. Oakes: I am delighted to hear it. I was not talking about what the Labour party is doing in the country as a whole; I was talking about what we are doing in the House. It is only because the hon. Member for Lewes raised the subject of science, engineering and technology that we are talking about it today.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of our past engineering achievements. They are indeed outstanding. In the last century, our nation led the world in railway and marine engineering; in this century, we have led the world in aeronautical and nuclear engineering, telecommunications and television. All those developments emanated from this country. But do we still lead the world in engineering? Alas, I think not.We should analyse what went wrong and, by means of national policy, endeavour to put some of it right.
Only a couple of years ago, the channel tunnel was opened, linking this country with continental Europe. One hundred years ago, such an enormous engineering achievement would not have been celebrated just in Kent; it would have been celebrated in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh and the north of Scotland. There would have been festivities--all manner of events in recognition of that tremendous achievement. In fact, very little credit was given to the engineers who built the tunnel in the face of enormous difficulties. There was carping criticism about the cost and the time that the work took, but we did not hear anything about what had been achieved. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to raise this subject, because the nation is no longer achieving such things.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, engineering has many spheres, and we could lead the world again in the next century--which is now approaching. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the environment. If we are to maintain our present standard of living, and keep our atmosphere and water clear and clean, chemical engineering is the only answer. Some organisations may disagree; presumably, they would like us to go back to living in caves. That is one solution, but it is not what the British people want.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned both chemical and electrical engineering. Given the present level of pollution, we must invent an electric car that is economical and non-polluting, and the only people who can do that are electrical and mechanical engineers. Work is already under way, but are the resources sufficient?
Debates about water are taking place in various parts of the country, including your part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the nation really afford to let its fresh, clean rain water flow into the ocean without conserving it?We need barrages. Barrages need not be the enemies of ecology; engineers can be eco-conscious and enhance the ecology of an area, provided that such considerations are built into their plans. Civil engineering has enormous potential not just to conserve this country's resources, but to provide a better environment and give a lead to the rest of the world.
Will we be at the forefront in the next century, as the hon. Gentleman and I hope? I do not know. I am not happy with the way in which the Government have dealt with the whole question of science, engineering and technology. Three years ago, a White Paper was produced, and was widely welcomed in the House.I spoke in the debate on that White Paper, as did many of my hon. Friends and members of the Liberal party. We all praised the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the Minister responsible for such matters. The White Paper was imaginative. What has happened to it? An imaginative Department was created, making science, technology and engineering a priority, and--vitally--a Cabinet Minister was there to fight its corner in the Cabinet. When the present Chief Secretary left that Department, however, the steam seemed to go out of it. Science, technology and engineering became just another aspect of the Department of National Heritage, along with the citizens charter and the lottery. That is no way in which to treat the subject.
The present position is even worse. The Department of Trade and Industry now deals with science, technology and engineering. Short-termism is inevitable in that Department, because there is not enough interest in blue-sky projects. The Department will want to link science and technology, and confine itself to specific, narrow projects. That is where the research money will go. Moreover, no Cabinet Minister is involved other than one with a conflict of interests--the President of the Board of Trade. His job is to consider the needs of industry, and not necessarily to put science or engineering first. We need to think again about which Department should deal with science.
When I was Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, I was unhappy with the way in which that Department treated science. I fought hard for it, but it was treated as an afterthought, and I shed no tears when it was moved elsewhere. The present Department for Education and Employment might be a better home for it--certainly better than the Department of Trade and Industry.
There is no proper investment in engineering, in terms of either resources from industry or research and development funding. The White Paper discussed where the expert teams from the defence industry would go. In fact, they have dispersed and disappeared, rather than being harnessed to the vital tasks involved in civil engineering.
Most hon. Members will have received a copy of a brilliant paper entitled "Policies for the Next Government", issued by the Save British Science Society. Reading it over the weekend, I encountered a chilling phrase. Professor Alec Broers, head of engineering at Cambridge university and vice-chancellor elect, says:
The man who said that is a fellow of the Royal Society. He has a distinguished record with IBM in America, and was probably foremost in the field before he went to Cambridge. We are not talking about some obscure new "Johnny come lately" university; we are talking about Cambridge, which was once known throughout the world for its science and engineering expertise, but which now cannot attract professors. That is the result of more short-termism--short-term contracts for lecturers, instead of proper contracts. That is where we have ended up, with all research harnessed to narrow instead of blue-sky projects. One of the foremost universities in the world cannot attract a professor.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the median salary in engineering is about £35,000 a year. Engineers receive only £1,000 a year more than us--that is how poor the salary is. What is the median salary of accountants, barristers and brokers in the City? It is considerably more than £35,000 a year, but the engineer is doing more good in relation to this country and to the future of humanity than the lot of them put together.
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's remarks on education. Fortunately, Sir Ron Dearing is considering this country's higher education. He should take account of this debate and of the needs of the engineering profession.
The Save British Science Society document makes the excellent point that specialisation, involving basically the study of three arts subjects or three science subjects,is too narrow. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those subjects are not mixed--either science or the arts is studied. It was so when I was at school and it has become far worse. The document advocates the study of five subjects, although possibly not at the present high level.
Mr. Sheerman:
The baccalaureate.
Mr. Oakes:
Yes, the baccalaureate idea.
If a person is entering the science discipline, three of the subjects that he studies should obviously be science subjects, but two should be arts subjects--for instance, history, a language or English. Similarly, a person intending to pursue a course in the arts should take two science subjects because, to be an educated man in the present world, he must have some knowledge of science.
One of the difficulties in the House is that far too few engineers and scientists come here. Considering the candidates, from all political parties, for the next general election, I believe that that will become worse. Many of the people coming in have no knowledge of other subjects. They have arts degrees and have no knowledge of industry or of basic science. That is bad for the country, because we are too arts dominated. It is bad, too, for scientists not to study an arts subject, because they end up being treated just as back-room boffins. They need a wider base than just science, just as the arts graduate must have a knowledge of science.
I passionately agree with the hon. Gentleman's views on mathematics. It is too easy for a youngster at an early age to take the easy option and to opt out of mathematics.
That happens all the time. Such youngsters have no mathematical knowledge. It is not possible to have an innumerate engineer--it is a contradiction in terms. I am talking not just about the people at the top--the professors of engineering--but about site engineers and senior foremen in engineering. They cannot be innumerate and be an engineer. It is a waste of resources, therefore,to allow youngsters at an early age to opt out of mathematics and thereby debar themselves from the engineering profession, which, at a later stage, they might wish to join and make a significant contribution to. They have banned themselves from a whole technology by opting out of mathematics at too early an age.
"The market for the best academics is now international, with competition both from the USA and, increasingly, from technical universities in the Far East. In a couple of recent instances Cambridge has been unable to attract a candidate to a Professorial chair because it has failed to match the salary and research facilities of rival universities".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |