Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL 2008
LORD BROWNE
OF MADINGLEY,
MR NORMAN
HASTE AND
PROFESSOR MICHAEL
KELLY
Q100 Dr Turner: It sounds very much
as if you agree with that point because I understand you to say
that engineers play a pivotal role in the process and this does
not seem to be particularly well understood in DIUS.
Lord Browne of Madingley: Yes,
engineers do. Whether it is understood in DIUS or not, I do not
have an additional comment on. It is by observation; engineers
-or people trained in engineering processes—do play vital
roles in getting innovation off the ground. I may say, so do Governments
and so do financial markets, but that is a different part of the
question.
Q101 Dr Turner: The Government does
a certain amount to support and promote innovation: it funds research
directly through the Research Councils; it has provided R&D
tax credits to encourage industrial research, and it funds academic
and industry interactions and the Technology Strategy Board. Do
you feel that industry is doing its part? I seem to remember,
years ago, one of the first things that the predecessor Committee
did was to look at R&D funding in the United Kingdom, and
the R&D spend, of most of British industry, as a percentage
of its turnover was frankly pathetic with certain honourable exceptions.
Do you think that industry should be doing more in this field?
Lord Browne of Madingley: There
are several points I would like to make. The first is that it
is very difficult with industry nowadays to examine simply the
United Kingdom as a sub-set entity of what is going on, because
research and development and projects will flow to where they
are best done in the world. You will find a much broader international
approach to all the matters associated with research and development.
The second point is that it depends very much on the business
drive; it can be enabled by Government and Government does do
a reasonably good job in thinking of the different phases needed
in innovation and the different tax arrangements and incentives
required in the different phases of start-up. The answer to the
question is that, by definition, industry is doing what it should
be doing, because it is driven by its own objectives. Whether
it can be catalysed to do more depends on the industries that
are created. There is no real answer to this question.
Q102 Dr Turner: Do you not feel that
there has been a history of industrial decline in Britain because
of insufficient R&D—the death of the motorcycle industry
was a classic example—and that British-based companies,
I know it is complicated with multinationals, on the whole—Rolls
Royce is an obvious exception—do not seem to have the vision
to understand that they must invest to prosper?
Lord Browne of Madingley: You
have answered your own question. Obviously, there are complicated
reasons why industries are built and why they decline and why
they go to different places in the world. Part of that is research
and development; part of it is fundamental recruitment of people;
part of it is great leadership, understanding the right strategies;
part of it is being flexible and nimble, and part of it is having
access to great financial markets. All of those things combine
and if one thing is missing, usually then something goes wrong
and the industry or the particular company declines. R&D is
only part of it—an important part—but only part.
Q103 Dr Turner: Engineering research
is slightly different from much academic research. Science research
is very easily recognised and quantified through the research
assessment exercise, for instance, whereas engineering is, by
definition, multi-disciplinary and this is much more difficult
to recognise. Do you think it would be helpful if we had some
new framework or measure of research excellence in the engineering
field?
Professor Kelly: I was on the
RAE panel for electrical engineering in 2001. As a panel, we wanted
to degrade the value of the academic papers to 30% of the overall
score and give 70% split between the interpretation of the impact
that was in what was then called the RA5 and 6 statements, and
the acknowledged successes, but we were overridden by the central
RAE Committee saying that other panels would be looking at things
differently and it was not going to be a level playing field.
Personally, I think that 70% of the value of engineering research
is actually getting it implemented, or as I like saying to my
physics colleagues, 99 out of 100 physics ideas remain good physics
ideas; it is the one in 100 that changes the world, which is the
one that engineers concentrate on. I was head of department at
Surrey and if a young person, say aged about 30, came to me asking,
"How do I progress? I have got to be a teacher; I've got
to be a researcher; organise the school; I've got to be out there
helping industry; I've got to be counselling students and I've
now got to be an entrepreneur". If you try and manage those
careers, and there are ways of doing it, then there are certain
phases in people's lives where they should be concentrating on
the academy of their subject—and I suspect that is in the
first half of their 30s—but equally, there should be a time
in their 40s when they are spending a significant amount of time
out there making sure that they are working with industry giving
serious advice to local government and other things. If we did
not have the RAE cutting right across the whole subject, we could
easily have a way of managing academic careers that would be for
the better of the United Kingdom.
Q104 Dr Turner: It is interesting
that you should say that, Professor Kelly. Do you think that it
would helpful to engineering as a whole if our universities, which
do have engineering excellence, had the same sort of standing
in the eyes of the rest of the world as straight science-based
universities? Their reputation is marvellous, but you do not get
quite the same gloss with engineering and it would be helpful
if you could create that.
Professor Kelly: I do not quite
understand that. The largest single department in the University
of Cambridge is engineering. Ten per cent of all persons studying,
and working as scholars in Cambridge are engineers, so I am not
quite sure what you have in mind. If you think that Imperial College
or the University of Warwick should somehow be different from
Cambridge, I am not sure.
Q105 Dr Turner: But people do not
talk about it in the same way, that is the problem, so it does
not get so much into the public perception. It is not valued so
much, so it does not attract talent so much.
Professor Kelly: The fact that
we do not broadcast our own successes makes us partly guilty for
that. I have tried to enliven my lectures with the things that
happened when I was in industry developing things. Some of the
behaviours associated with the development patterns, in particular
with commercial decisions, were the sort of things that were never
taught in physics 101. Afterwards the students said, "Thanks
very much for all the engineering, but we really appreciated the
fact that you put a personal touch to it". It is the excitement
of team building, of convincing other people that this is their
future. I worked for GEC at a time when on an annual basis I had
to persuade division managers not to declare the profit that year
but to have faith in me that in a couple of years' time they would
have more profit to declare to Lord Weinstock. That was a discipline
and it is not necessarily something that is taught. One general
comment I have is that we tend to teach people to be very good
practitioners. One of my colleagues with whom I worked at MIT,
now has a $20 million grant to try and develop a serious course
at MIT for engineering leadership so that people will leave MIT
thinking that they will be running the world from day one.
Q106 Chairman: In terms of Laing
O'Rourke, do you have a significant R&D budget?
Mr Haste: Yes, we do. We have
invested heavily in digital prototyping, which is an area where
we like to think we are leading the industry. It is a bit slow
at the moment, but we are of the view that if we are going to
change things we have got to be much smarter about the way we
design things, the way we construct things, so hence, this investment
of about £7 million we have put into it and we are extending
that.
Q107 Chairman: Did you say £700
million?
Mr Haste: No, £7 million.
It is a digital prototype facility. We are extending that now
by investing in factories in different parts of the world to work
towards component-led design, where we manufacture components
in a factory. There are many reasons for this: it reduces the
labour content in the construction process; it makes things much
slicker; the quality is better, and so on. We are passionate about
trying to move the whole of the industry forward in those areas.
Q108 Dr Gibson: I want to ask Professor
Kelly about the MIT Cambridge course. Is that still going ahead,
because it was an initiative from the current Prime Minister when
he was Chancellor?
Professor Kelly: The first phase
is finished, but the current person in charge of it is sitting
over there[1],
so he will tell you about the latest position.
Q109 Dr Gibson: In the "hot
slot" at 8.10 a.m. this morning on Today Radio 4, the Prime
Minister again mentioned the word "science"—it
drops into every conversation, so that indicates the importance
of it. But in terms of the relative weighting and support for
each aspect of science, technology and engineering, etc., do you
think there is a fair apportioning of resources or is there a
hierarchy in support in science and how do you think that is instituted?
For instance, stem cells are "in".
Professor Kelly: That is perfectly
correct for science that at any point there will be something
`in'. It is like a wave coming up a beach; there will be certain
waves at a time and that has happened several times in my career.
I am very fortunate to have been in the semi-conductor sector
in the 1980s, when certain excitements were happening of a kind
that are not happening now. What comes behind that is the sub-set
and the hard work—and I believe that engineering is harder
than science, in spite of what people say. Until you have had
the yield and the reproducibility, you do not have a product.
Most of the breakthrough stuff in science is based on one-offs;
you may get two or three produced in another laboratory and that
is the end of it as far as the scientific understanding is concerned.
That is only the start of the engineering. The fact that there
are seven Research Councils means that there is a reasonable cut
for engineering work. One of the things that always gives me some
satisfaction is that when a few years ago there was a step increase
in the life sciences funding voted from here, the first thing
that the life sciences did was to give some money back to EPSRC
because they said, "Look, it's your instruments that allowed
us to get to where we are, so we need more of that". There
is a certain degree of collegiality about the work. I am fortunate
that I move in and out between science and engineering. I still
think that I am using things on a daily basis that I learnt at
GEC in industry about how to get to the point quickly, make the
point sharply, and come to a decision. Many of my academic colleagues
and some civil service colleagues are quite prepared to discuss
the point at some length, but I have always been taught that you
only have a certain length of time to discuss, then you have to
decide and act. So, there are a number of those things associated
with the mind set of academics in the different disciplines.
Q110 Dr Gibson: Have you any criticisms
of engineers in general—you might not want to answer this—in
terms of influencing Government in support for engineering? Do
you think engineers do enough to promote themselves or do they
just keep their successes quiet?
Professor Kelly: I suspect that
I would have to agree with you on that. I made the point to Professor
John Beddington, when he was appointed, that I hoped that the
next few Chief Scientific Advisers would be engineers. I am glad
to say that in the case of the MoD, that is exactly what has happened.
If I am simplistic, I would point out that scientists know and
engineers do. So, when it comes to on the one hand considering
policies, that is one aspect, but then thinking of the delivery
route, that is quite a different skill set. I believe that engineers
are under-represented. We might even make an inquiry as to how
many engineers were involved in the drafting of the report that
you referred to earlier.
Q111 Dr Gibson: I wanted to ask you
about that. There is a turgid organisation in this country called
the Civil Service. Do you think they understand what is going
on in terms of engineering and the role that it has got to play?
Professor Kelly: No.
Q112 Dr Gibson: I thought you would
say that. Lord Browne, what do you think? You must have experienced
the wrath, the enjoyment of civil servants supporting you at times,
but in general for engineering, are they there?
Lord Browne of Madingley: I suppose
I started on the basis that I would not expect it to be there
and so I support an entirely different position. It would be good
if there was much more there.
Q113 Dr Gibson: What are you going
to do to get them in?
Lord Browne of Madingley: Again,
what can one do except to keep making the point again and again,
in little things like, for example, we still have a Government
Chief Scientist or Scientific Adviser; it would be very good if
we had a Government chief scientific and engineering adviser,
or maybe a Government chief engineer and scientific adviser.
Q114 Dr Gibson: You do not think
that fossilises the subject?
Lord Browne of Madingley: No,
I think it just begins to make the point and make people say they
are valid and it is part of the leadership capability needed in
the country; it brings people along; it says that you need to
be here; it is part of the overall equipment needed to get great
things done.
Q115 Dr Gibson: I could say in certain
areas, where there is a cancer tsar, for example, that has made
one heck of a difference. A name is just a name, but it is somebody
who spends their waking and sleeping hours trying to promote the
subject they know something about and are interested in. I am
interested in all those young people who were here this morning.
Not one of them said they wanted to be a civil servant and that
is fine, because their enthusiasm there at the minute for engineering,
but the day might come when we could provoke them, seduce them,
and get them into the Civil Service, because engineers end up
in strange places nowadays. Why do we not have a programme to
get them into the Civil Service?
Lord Browne of Madingley: I do
not know whether we do or do not. Well-educated engineers are
educated in a certain way of thinking; analysis and thinking,
which leads to a practical outcome. This surely has to be part
of the overall recruitment into almost any walk of life, where
you need something done. That is quite important.
Q116 Dr Gibson: Do you ever get really
angry when you hear things about what is going on in this place,
about climate change bills and energy, and all the rest of it,
and there is not an engineer to be seen anywhere in any of the
Committees, or even advising?
Lord Browne of Madingley: I have
spoken on this matter in the House of Lords. The answer is, yes,
I get very concerned indeed. One of the great challenges of the
world right now is how to migrate the energy mix of the world
so that on the one hand we can keep going and developing, on the
other hand we do not destroy the world by adding more carbon dioxide
and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Q117 Dr Gibson: Professor Kelly,
just for the record, would you say something about these areas,
too; the frustrations that you feel in terms of Government response
to some of the initiatives that you show?
Mr Haste: It has always been a
concern of mine that there is a lack of engineers in parliament
as MPs, and therefore, there is a lack of input in support of
engineering within Government. Engineers tend to get their heads
down and get on with what they are doing and perhaps do not care
enough about the things they should.
Professor Kelly: I would like
to refine something I said earlier. In the Department of Communities
and Local Government, we have all the building regulations and
we have engineers who are experts in certain aspects, but by and
large they have not risen up. If you ask how many of them have
elevated into the senior Civil Service, the answer is very few.
The particular issue, for example, that I have been going on about,
and I am slowly now getting some response, relates to the fact
that 47% of the emissions by use today, in this country, come
out of energy consumed in buildings, and 87% of the buildings
that are here now producing that 47% will still be here in 2050.
So I say, why, why, why are we going so much for eco-friendly
new-build, when retro-fitting the existing building stock is the
"bull in the china shop" of our particular department?
To the extent that we decarbonise the source of energy and that
is somebody else's problem, well, that is fine, but we still have
a duty. The problem we have, which we are making some progress
on, is the fact that with the very large sums of money, such as
the billion pounds for the energy technology institute, or the
billion pounds for living with climate change that has been corralled
of R&D money, that money quite correctly will only be spent
by consortia that have the credibility of clearly-defined end
users standing behind them. The one project that I have on the
go at the moment is to try and get the public sector building
people who will have a renovation agenda, to come together and
turn this into a retro-fit agenda by demanding ever-higher quality
glass and materials, more sophisticated means of installation
and to use us as the owning body and then bring the private sector
in to allow the academics and the building research people to
go and get a 10% chunk of that money.
Q118 Dr Gibson: Two specific projects,
which are very important, are the Olympics and the Thames Gateway.
Are you aware of engineers being involved in those issues?
Professor Kelly: Yes, I am. Certainly
in our department, one of the particular projects that I just
referred to will involve Thames Gateway activity. Not at the moment,
I have to say, the Olympics, because I have not gone that far.
Q119 Dr Gibson: But it does happen
that engineers are pulled in at times?
Professor Kelly: Oh, yes. Let
me be very clear, the department is perfectly professional in
bringing in engineering advice, but it then tends to go out again
for peer review. The ability to have in-house expertise to tease
this out is what I am commenting on.
1 Note from the witness: "Professor Mike
Gregory" Back
| 
