Memorandum 173
Submission from the Institution of Engineering
and Technology
1. INTRODUCTION
- The IET fully supports the evidence submitted
jointly by the engineering institutions. We provide the following
information as additional evidence from IET members.
- In general the IET considers that the Government's
use of engineering advice and in particular its use of the engineering
resource represented by the engineering institutions has been
ad-hoc and uncoordinated in nature. Whilst the engineering profession
might not fully appreciate the Government's position or its requirements,
we would argue that the Government does not formally acknowledge
the role of engineering in policy making and perhaps does not
realise the resources available.
- We are confident that the profession, through
the Institutions and engineering organisations, would welcome
the opportunity to work with the Government to establish an engineering
strategy for the UK.
2. THE STATUS
OF ENGINEERING
AND ENGINEERS
WITHIN THE
CIVIL SERVICE,
INCLUDING ASSESSMENTS
OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING
FAST STREAMS,
AND THE
ROLE AND
CAREER PROSPECTS
OF SPECIALIST
ENGINEERS IN
THE CIVIL
SERVICE
2.1 As one might expect, the status of engineering
varies from department to department. For example there are many
engineers in the MoD, the DfT and particularly within their agencies.
Evidence for policymaking in departments is gathered from the
engineering experts, who are in turn expected to present their
expertise in terms of policy options. The very nature of engineering
can and does result in different experts presenting contrary advice,
particularly where there is incomplete evidence available. In
some circumstances, a generalist civil servant would have to weigh
up the options and recommend one course of action to their Minister.
2.2 Other departments have seen a reduction
in their engineering competence. For example, following Government's
"arms length" approach to the liberalised energy market,
we believe that the internal engineering expertise within BERR
has reduced. For example, when Dr Peter Fenwick retired as Chief
Engineering Inspector at BERR he was not replaced. That is not
to say that the department does not seek relevant expertise, however
the use of consultants and seconding engineers from industry may
not provide the impartial advice that is required.
2.3 Where external engineering advice is
obtained, there is some concern that there is often only low level
management of these activities, which focuses on meeting the political
drivers, with much of the complexity of the engineering challenges
filtered out to in order to provide easily digestible "sound
bites".
2.4 In some departments there is a poor
understanding of science and engineering within the non specialist
Civil Service (as within society as a whole). This leads not only
to misunderstanding, but also to distrust as suspicions may arise
that engineers and scientists are deliberately taking the debate
outside of the non specialist's understanding for their own advantage.
2.5 There is a fear that there has been
a general fall in the status of engineering and engineers with
the central Civil Service, caused in part by the separation of
policy execution from policy formation which takes the experts
"away from the action". This may be an area the Committee
may wish to investigate.
2.6 The Civil Service moves its senior staff
regularly across departments; however in complex areas of policy
such as energy, this does result in a damaging loss of understanding
and continuity and ultimately adversely affects the credibility
of the department. We contend that the length of the learning
curve required in such department should be considered when placing
and moving senior staff.
2.7 Information Technology is another area
where the complexity of the issues requires greater technical
understanding and which could benefit from independent, impartial
advice. IT systems tend to be treated by government departments
as purely technical projects, rather than business change programmes.
Examples include the CSA, tax credits and the DfH's National Programme
for IT. The engineering profession has proposed a procurement
model for IT systems, but there seems little evidence that it
will be accepted by government departments despite the successive
failures of Government IT projects
2.8 Regarding Civil Service career paths,
there used to be special complementary schemes within the Civil
Service to reflect three things:
- a technical expert would normally be expected
to become a manager at a middling level but there was still a
need for out and out specialists;
- Special Merit permitted promoting an expert
in post up to Grade 6 and was generally assumed to mean working
on full time engineering duties with no administrative responsibilities;
and
- Individual Merit Promotion took this even
further and there was no limit: a central CSC committee assessed
and promoted the very few who were seen as world class experts
to be managed off complement and treated as special assets.
2.9 Making career progression possible without
management responsibility is a common problem across the engineering
profession. Many technical experts find themselves encouraged
to leave "real engineering" and go into management positions
in order to progress their careers. The Civil Service merit schemes
provided the opportunity for individuals to retain their engineering
focus and gain "promotion" whilst maintaining the corporate
technical knowledge within departments. The Committee may wish
to investigate if the current Professional Skills for Government
framework allows expertise to be rewarded, nurtured and maintained.
3. INTERNATIONAL
EXAMPLES OF
HOW ENGINEERS
AND ENGINEERING
ADVICE ARE
EMBEDDED IN
GOVERNMENT
3.1 The following evidence is the experience
of some IET members in those countries.
3.2 New Zealand
3.3 The Institution of Professional Engineers
of New Zealand (IPENZ) provides a central focus for government
to seek advice. The size of the population and the less formal
atmosphere allows for easier communication between organisations
such as the IPENZ and policymakers.
3.4 Italy
3.5 The engineering profession is more formally
controlled in Italy, with the National Council of Engineers (CNI)
representing the profession at the national level. The CNI is
regulated by law and gives its opinion on parliamentary bills
and regulations relevant to the profession, including the setting
of professional fees. The CNI performs a primary role of promoting,
developing and enhancing engineers' activities to increase their
incidence in the society where they operate. It has become more
active in pursuing the development of the technical and cultural
knowledge of engineers and in enhancing a higher social and political
recognition of the leading role engineers have in the evolution
and change processes. Unlike the UK, in Italy professional registration
is compulsory, and is achieved through academic attainment and
passing a State examination.
3.6 Despite this formal relationship, anecdotal
evidence would suggest that the Italian Government seldom appoints
individual expert engineers onto working groups and committees
3.7 Hong Kong
3.8 The Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (HKSAR) Government has two major Policy Bureaus-the Development
Bureau and the Environment Bureau-that are formulating engineering-related
policies and overseeing numerous departments and agencies responsible
for the capital project works and everyday works covering water
supplies, drainage, civil, structural, E&M, geotechnical,
town planning, etc. The Permanent Secretary (Works) is normally
a veteran engineer who advises the HKSAR Government at the Policy
Bureau level. The Heads of Works Departments are, again, experienced
engineers in respective disciplines.
3.9 The 60 member Legislative Council (LegCo),
under Basic Law, has its main functions to enact laws; examine
and approve budget; and monitor the works of the HKSAR Government.
One half of the LegCo Members are directly elected while the remaining
half represents functional constituencies including one seat from
engineering. That particular LegCo Member is, by default, an engineer,
elected by the professional registered engineers who are normally
members of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE). This
LegCo Member has a mandate to advise Government on the engineering-related
policies with his voice representing engineers-at-large in Hong
Kong.
3.10 As in the UK, from time to time, the
HKSAR Government conducts public consultations to seek comments
and views from the public, including the professional bodies as
part and partial of their policy making process. It is up to the
professional bodies to submit their views and opinions to HKSAR
Government with a view to influencing the Chief Executive and
Principal Officials on the matters of policy, budget allocations,
and priorities settings.
September 2008
| 
