|
The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Lord Mandelson recently said: "If you really want to change the world—choose a career in engineering. And I mean real engineering, not financial engineering." His comment encapsulates the spirit of our Report. In the current economic climate, engineering has come under the spotlight because it is a critical component of our national economy and of society in general.
We have found engineering to be one of the UK's great strengths and were pleased to discover that UK engineering and engineers are highly regarded internationally, more than they are at home. We are convinced that the strength of the UK's engineering base means that the UK can play a major part in solving global problems such as climate change, food and water supply, energy security and economic instability.
Engineering cuts across every aspect of the work of DIUS—skills, higher education and innovation—as well as other departments. It encompasses research and development, design, production, distribution and services. We decided to take a case study approach, exploring key themes through the lenses of nuclear engineering, plastic electronics engineering, geo-engineering and engineering in Government.
Nuclear engineering: The Government's recent enthusiasm for nuclear power has raised important questions about the UK's capacity to deliver a new generation of nuclear power stations. We discovered that there are significant skills shortages, which could affect plans to bring new plants online by 2020. We argue that there should be a master roadmap for all major engineering projects, including nuclear new build.
Plastic electronics: This case study highlighted the potential opportunity afforded to the UK through the support of emerging, innovative industries. Hailed as a disruptive technology, the UK research base in this area of plastic electronics is world-class. We are concerned, however, that the UK is likely to miss out on the economic return associated with translating the findings of research into commercialised technologies, and call for a serious revision of the structures used to support the growth of fledgling industries.
Geo-engineering: The global nature of many engineering challenges was highlighted during our discussion of geo-engineering research. During this case study we considered the implications of a new engineering discipline for UK policy-making. It became clear that, if the Government is to be an informed actor in the development of any future international policy relating to geo-engineering, it is essential that the views of the science, engineering and social science communities be seen as complementary sources of expertise, and their advice actively sought and considered.
Engineering in Government: Our final case study went further and demonstrated that engineering advice and scientific advice offer different things, and that this should be recognised in the policy process. Government, in key policy areas of several departments, does not have sufficient in-house engineering expertise to act as an intelligent customer and engineering advice is frequently not sought early enough during policy formulation. We were shocked to discover that engineering advice had been lacking in the formulation of policies as important and diverse as eco-towns, renewable energy and large IT projects.
We suggest that there should be a greater level of engineering expertise in the generalist civil service as well as more engineering policy specialists. As a starting point, the Government should at least know what expertise it has in the civil service. It should also recruit more people into the Science and Engineering Fast Stream, distribute them more widely and provide real opportunities in career progression while retaining specialist skills. And it should also strengthen links between the public and private sector through secondments.
We argue that there is a need for better trans-departmental management of engineering policy. To help achieve this, we have suggested a reorganisation of the high level advisory structures in Government. The GCSA should be renamed the Government Chief Scientific and Engineering Adviser (GCSEA). This person would be the head of profession for science, engineering and social science and should have a more senior role in the Government with direct access to the Prime Minister. The GCSEA would head up the Government Office for Science and Engineering, which should be placed in the Cabinet Office. Beneath the GCSEA should be a Government Chief Engineer, a Government Chief Scientist and a Government Chief Social Scientist. Additionally, departments should either have a Departmental Chief Engineering Adviser (DCEA), or a Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser (DCSA), and in some cases they should have both.
Our overall conclusions link our case studies together and are relevant to the engineering sector as a whole. As stated above, we argue that there is a need for better trans-departmental management of engineering policy. The Government should adopt a practice of formulating and following roadmaps for each major engineering programme with co-ordination between each of them. And the Government should be more strategic in its support for emerging industries and policy areas. To achieve these goals, the Government would benefit from having senior officials with appropriate skills and experience tasked to oversee engineering roadmaps and strategic plans. These officials should also manage engineering advice in a civil service with more specialised engineering expertise throughout.
The recent economic crisis has presented the Government with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restructure the economy by building on the existing substantial strengths of UK engineering. Our report suggests how that could be achieved.
| 
