Engineering in Government
The Government welcomes the Committee's focus on
engineering in Government. Engineering advice is key to good policy
and delivery in a huge range of areas from tidal power generation
to medicine. The Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) is
working to ensure the good management and use of engineering across
Government, and has the Government's full support and confidence
in doing this. In doing this he works closely with Departmental
Chief Scientific Advisers (DCSAs), a number of whom are engineers.
The Government largely agrees with the Committee's
analysis of engineering in Government. In general terms, the Government
shares the Committee's view that, although considerable progress
has been made, more work is needed to improve the availability,
quality and impact of engineering advice.
33. We conclude that engineering advice and scientific
advice offer different things to the policy formulation process
and that the benefits of both should be recognised. Further, it
should not be assumed that a scientific adviser can offer competent
engineering advice or even know when it is needed. (Paragraph
248)
The Government agrees that it is important that engineering
advice is reflected alongside scientific advice in the formulation
of policy and the delivery process. The two are interlinked and
complementary.
We respond further to this recommendation together
with recommendations 44-48 below.
34. We conclude that the Government, in several
policy areas of several departments, does not have sufficient
in-house engineering expertise to act as an intelligent customer.
(Paragraph 257)
The Government agrees that in-house expertise is
an important element of ensuring that Government decision making
is informed by the best engineering advice. It is clear that there
are insufficient visible and appropriate engineering skills available
within Government at present. The Government is determined to
find more effective ways to increase the visibility and impact
of civil servants with engineering skills and expertise.
The GCSA, in his capacity as Head of Science and
Engineering Profession (HoSEP) across Government, is currently
consulting OGDs about a Skills Framework for the Science and Engineering
Profession within the Professional Skills for Government (PSG)
initiative. This Framework will be published by the end of July,
and then adopted by all Departments. It will outline the job related
professional expertise that scientists and engineers at all grades
are expected to have, including whether or not they should have
chartered status. We expect this to include requirements to maintain
and develop expertise, apply technical knowledge, and improve
the profile of engineering and science within departments.
Another key strand is the GCSA's efforts as HoSEP
to raise the profile of the Science and Engineering Profession
across government. The Government Science and Engineering (GSE)
Community was formally launched in January this year and already
has around 1,600 members drawn from across Government, but this
is not enough. The Government has set a target to increase this
number to 5,000 over the next 2 years.
While the PSG and HoSEP agendas will provide a structured
way for thinking about engineering capacity and capability within
departments, importantly, they will also address policy makers'
understanding and appreciation of engineering. We believe that
this two-pronged approach is essential to ensuring the effective
use of engineering in Government.
That said, the Government is of the view that external
advisory bodies are a necessary complement to in-house expertise
in ensuring that science and engineering are used effectively
across government.
A number of the Government's top-level advisory bodies
include prominent engineers within their membership. These include
the Council for Science and Technology (CST), Lead Expert Groups
on Foresight projects and the Chief Scientific Adviser's Committee
(CSAC). Four of the current group of CSAs are engineers by background.
Like the Committee, the Government welcomes the significant
improvements made to the effectiveness of the CSAC network under
the current GCSA, whose role includes making sure that high quality,
wide-ranging engineering advice is sought and used appropriately
in policy development.
More widely across government, Departmental Scientific
(including Engineering) Advisory Committees and Councils (SACs)
provide departments with independent expertise and advice to inform
all stages of the policy process and the evidence used to support
it.
An important element of delivering engineering advice
across government is through ensuring that these SACs operate
effectively in all relevant areas. To facilitate more effective
management and use of these committees, GOScience has a
programme of events (seminars and workshops) for their Secretariats.
In addition the GCSA recently held a networking event for Science
Advisory Committee Chairs and Secretariats, which will be repeated
annually.
As part of its independent advisory role, the Royal
Academy of Engineering provides advice on the membership of Government
committees to help ensure that policy debate is informed by the
best engineering expertise. This includes formally nominating
one member of the Home Office's Science Advisory Committee.
We are currently working on baseline data for the
number of engineers working in Government (see response to recommendation
39 below). Once the position is clearer, the GCSA as HoSEP will
work with departments to encourage them to ensure that their workforce
has sufficient engineering expertise to deliver their department's
requirements for both in-house expertise and for engagement with
external engineering advisors.
35. The Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy
Making should explicitly include engineering advice. We are pleased
that Professor Beddington has already agreed to review these guidelines,
and suggest that the research and engineering community be consulted
on the content of the guidelines. (Paragraph 260)
The Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy
Making will be reviewed in 200910, taking account of
the Committee's comments. This will involve consultation with
the science and engineering community.
36. Engineering advice should be sought early
in policy formulation and before policy is agreed, not just in
project delivery. We recommend that the Secretary of State for
Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Minister for Science
and Innovation act as champions in cabinet for the early engagement
of engineers in policy making. Further, this issue should also
be central to discussions in the Science and Innovation Cabinet
Sub-Committee. (Paragraph 265)
The Government agrees that engineering advice should
be sought early in policy formulation. The early identification
of issues needing specialist advice is a key message of the Guidelines
on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making. It is an issue also
shared by the other analytical professions and is therefore being
looked at in parallel by the Heads of Analysis group, part of
whose remit is to improve the effective use of analysis and evidence.
The Minister for Science and Innovation already acts
both in public and in Cabinet as an enthusiastic champion for
science and engineering, in all aspects of Government. The Minister
is personally committed to working continuously to improve the
availability, quality and impact of engineering advice within
Government. As an engineer himself, he feels very strongly about
this issue, and will continue to press his colleagues in Cabinet
to ensure it receives the attention that it deserves. As chair
of the Science and Innovation (ED(SI)) Cabinet Sub-Committee,
he will work to improve not just the engagement of engineers in
policy formulation, but the profile and importance of all science
and engineering within Government. He will personally ensure that
progress is made on this issue as rapidly and effectively as possible.
37. For engineering advice, the Government should
consider the Royal Academy of Engineering as its first port of
call. The Academy can then bring together the relevant experts,
including representation from the relevant professional institutions,
to provide impartial, expert and timely input to policy formulation.
(Paragraph 272)
The Royal Academy of Engineering is a major source
of authoritative, impartial and coherent advice for Government
on issues with an engineering dimension, and the Government agrees
that it should generally be seen as the first port of call for
engineering advice. On issues where there is a good understanding
of where to seek advice and where effective working relationships
already exist, the Government reserves the right to consult particular
Engineering Institutions directly.
38. The Government should set up a Working Group
with the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the
British Academy and the Academy of Medical Sciences to explore
how and whether the relationship between Government and the Academies
could be formalised so as to improve policy making. We reiterate
the 2006 Science and Technology Committee recommendation that
strong consideration should be given to the US model. (Paragraph
273)
The Government accepts that we should continue to
strengthen links with the Academies. The advice and guidance provided
by the National Academies is invaluable to Government, and there
are many examples of that advice improving policy making. Nevertheless,
better use could be made of the National Academies, and we will
continue to work with the Academies to ensure that our relationships
with them are as effective as possible. The Government will be
exploring how it can make greater use of these bodies in its response
to recommendations made in the CST's 2008 report on How academia
and government can work together.
However, the Government is not convinced that formalising
these relationships is necessarily likely to improve them. The
key challenge, which the Government accepts, is the timely identification
of when advice is needed, and what advice is required, on a case-by-case
basis. An overly formal relationship could even hinder the flexible
and responsive way in which Government needs to work with the
Academies to meet this challenge.
39. We reiterate the 2006 Science and Technology
Committee's previous recommendation that: "the Government
implement the 2002 recommendation of the Cross-Cutting Review
of Science and Research to maintain records on specialist staff
in order to identify their qualities and experience". (Paragraph
281)
Government shares the Committee's concern that engineers
should be more visible, better utilised and better developed in
the civil service. Government is working as a matter of urgency
to address these problems.
One key issue highlighted by the Committee is the
need for collection of better data on the numbers of engineers
(and scientists) in the civil service, and on their skills and
experience. Without knowledge of what expertise is available,
it is not possible to make best use of it—or to plan properly
to secure the right level of such expertise in future. Government
accepts that the current data are not adequate and must be improved.
In March this year Government Skills launched a Skills
Survey that will be a significant step forward in obtaining professional
workforce data across Government. The Skills Survey will report
in the autumn and, in particular, it should aid identification
of staff with engineering and science backgrounds who are currently
working in areas such as policy or operational delivery.
Although the Skills Survey will improve the data
available in this area, it was not specifically designed to gather
information on engineering and science or other specialist qualifications.
The then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)
launched on 3rd June a more detailed and comprehensive Skills
Audit of its staff against PSG criteria, as part of which every
member of the former DIUS has been asked to record their highest
academic or professional qualification and its subject. In addition,
this survey allows members of all professions to highlight details
of their engineering and science experience. This information
will be personal and will be shared with line managers. Aggregated
data will be available to others. This audit of former DIUS staff
builds on a similar exercise carried out by the Department for
Children Schools and Families, which achieved a 99% return rate.
Completion of the audits of SDCFS and former DIUS staff should
demonstrate the value of recording this sort of information to
other Departments.
Once the data are clearer, the GCSA will work with
the HoSEP network to ensure that departments have plans in place
to ensure that they have access to an appropriate level of both
in-house and external engineering expertise to deliver their remits.
We will report back to the Committee's successor with proposed
next steps later in the year when the results of both the Government-wide
Skills Survey and the Skills Audit of former DIUS staff are available.
On the specific issue of the number of scientists
and engineers in the Senior Civil Service (para 285), the GCSA
stands by his interpretation of the Cabinet Office figures that,
as a starting point, the number of scientists and engineers compares
reasonably with other professions (whether one considers the 2007
as he used in his evidence or the 2008 data that that Committee
used). The data does not allow accurate comparisons to be made
between professions, given the substantial numbers in the "policy
delivery", "operational delivery" and "unknown"
categories are likely to include unknown numbers of individuals
with engineering, science and other qualifications.
40. The Government could promote the importance
of professional accreditation in engineering by insisting that
staff and consultants in technical roles are chartered. Additionally,
the Government should keep proper records of the professional
qualifications of its staff so as to improve its human resources
information and continuing professional development. (Paragraph
284)
Each role within the Civil Service requires a particular
set of skills. In some cases, a Chartered Engineer will be required.
At least six departments have posts for which chartered status
is a prerequisite; there are over 700 such jobs in the MoD alone.
However, other roles might require a different skill set. While
the Government fully recognise the benefits and value of this
qualification, it would not seem sensible to exclude a well-qualified
candidate with valuable engineering experience on the grounds
that they were not chartered if the role did not require someone
qualified to Chartered Engineer status.
Where appropriate, Government departments support
their staff in maintaining their professional memberships and
qualifications. Decisions on this are made a local level, based
on both business objectives and the individual's needs, which
may mean that chartership (either Chartered Scientist or Chartered
Engineer) is required for some posts but not others. As Head of
Science and Engineering Profession, the GCSA is currently refreshing
and extending (to grades below Grade 7) the Skills Framework for
Government Scientists and Engineers, which forms part of the PSG
initiative. This document emphasises the importance of continuing
professional development, with a suggestion that chartership is
a reasonable goal.
The new Science and Engineering Assurance exercises
(which replace the Science Review Programme) will look at departments'
science and engineering capacity and capability and will help
departments to focus on areas where improvements might be made.
Drawing on these, Lord Drayson and the GCSA will work with colleagues
on the ED(SI) Cabinet Sub-committee to establish where in Government
additional engineering resource is needed and how best to provide
it.
41. The Government claims that the Science and
Engineering Fast Stream is highly valued, yet only four departments
recruit from it. We ask the Government to explain why this situation
has arisen and what steps it plans to take to ensure that all
Departments recruit from the Science and Engineering Fast Stream.
(Paragraph 287)
42. There should be more trained and experienced
engineers in the civil service at all levels. One way of helping
to achieve this would be to expand and adapt the Science and Engineering
Fast Stream (SEFS) so that more scientists and engineers are recruited,
more departments recruit from this cohort and SEFS recruits have
the option to pursue careers as policy specialists. We also recommend
that the Government prioritise training in the civil service to
improve the ability of generalist civil servants to identify issues
where engineering advice will be critical to the viability of
a policy. (Paragraph 291)
[Combined response to recommendations
41 & 42]
The Government agrees the there is great value in
bringing in talented staff who have engineering experience. The
Science and Engineering Fast Stream (SEFS) is one of doing this,
and it is indeed highly valued.
The Cabinet Office recruits Science and Engineering
Fast Streamers (SEFSers) through the Graduate Fast Stream (GFS)
scheme in response to requests from departments, and it is for
individual departments to decide whether they need to recruit
SEFSers and how many they need each year. It is open to all Government
departments to recruit to SEFS if they wish; currently four departments
do so and other departments have done so in previous years.
The Committee recommends that SEFSers should have
the option to pursue careers as policy specialists. This is already
available to them through SEFS. SEFS is an option within the
GFS for people with science and engineering degrees who do not
wish to pursue a career as a scientist or engineer, but who would
like to put their scientific or engineering background to use
while working in Policy Delivery or Operational Delivery like
other Graduate Fast Streamers. There are other schemes operated
in individual departments, such as MoD, for graduate scientists
and engineers who wish to work in their specialist disciplines.
The GFS—including the SEFS—is a highly
effective way of bringing high calibre, high performing graduates
into departments. As part of the GCSA and HoSEP's objectives to
raise the profile of science and engineering across Government,
GO-Science will be talking to the Cabinet Office this year to
explore how they can better promote the SEFS. The Government would
welcome a wider distribution of SEFSers across departments for
the particular skillset they bring and will continue working to
ensure the scheme attracts the best applicants and to encourage
more departments to take SEFSers.
More broadly, GO-Science has also been working with
the other analytical professions and the National School of Government
to ensure that generalist civil servants are able to identify
when engineering advice is needed and how to obtain it. As part
of this ongoing effort, a short guidance document Analysis
and Use of Evidence (Research and analysis in government)
has recently been published.
43. The Government should seek ways to improve
the career flexibility between industry and the public sector.
Both sides would benefit: engineers from the private sector would
improve their understanding of Government, and civil servants
would improve their understanding of industry; additionally, the
public sector would benefit from using the skills of engineers
who have managed major projects in the private sector. (Paragraph
295)
The Government strongly favours the career flexibility
proposed by the Committee. Departments already operate a range
of schemes for secondments to and from the private sector, which
are complemented by schemes for academics to work in departments.
As one example, engineers, scientists and surveyors
on the Defence Engineering and Science Group's Graduate Trainee
Scheme to undertake secondment to MOD's Trading Funds and Agencies;
industry and other Government Departments, as well as international
secondments (US DoD and NATO). 42 MoD staff were seconded to industry
on this scheme during 2008.
GO-Science and the Royal Society launched a new Civil
Servant-Scientist pairing scheme in January 2009. The aim of the
scheme is to support and promote wider understanding of science
and how this feeds into the policy process. GO-Science will explore
the potential to expand this scheme with the Royal Academy of
Engineering.
This issue is being looked at further in the response
to the CST's 2008 report on How academia and government can
work together
44. We share our predecessor Committee's concern
that the Treasury does not have scientific or engineering advice
at the highest level. The Treasury should appoint both a Chief
Scientific Adviser and a Chief Engineering Adviser. (Paragraph
299)
45. The Government could easily support its claim
to recognise the importance of engineering and engineers by appointing
Chief Engineering Advisers, at a minimum in positions where existing
Chief Scientific Advisers act as Chief Engineering Advisers. (Paragraph
305)
46. The Government has argued on several occasions
that 'science' includes engineering, and therefore there is no
need for a Chief Engineer. But it also argues that 'science' includes
social science and statistics, yet there is a Chief Social Scientist
and a National Statistician. The Government's position is illogical.
(Paragraph 306)
47. Some departments should have Departmental
Chief Engineering Advisers (DCEAs), some Departmental Chief Scientific
Advisers (DCSAs), and some should have both. The Government Chief
Scientific Adviser should liaise with Departments to determine
which arrangement is most appropriate. (Paragraph 307)
48. The role of the GCSA should be altered. We
suggest that the GCSA should be renamed the Government Chief Scientific
and Engineering Adviser (GCSEA). This person would be the head
of profession for science, engineering, social science and statistics
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. We recommend that the Government implement these
changes as a priority. (Paragraph 313)
[Combined response to recommendations 33, 4-48]
The Government accepts that, although considerable
progress has been made ensuring that appropriate scientific and
engineering advice is available to Departments, there remains
room for improvement and it is fully confident in the ability
of the GCSA to take this forward within the newly formed Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills.
It is the central responsibility of each departmental
CSA to ensure that appropriate scientific advice is taken into
account by their Department when it is required. The GCSA oversees
this capability for Government as a whole. The nature of the advice
required will vary between situations, and may include engineering
advice, as it might include advice on social science, statistics,
economics, medicine or any other scientific discipline. Each of
these disciplines has its own features. The DCSA does not provide
all of this advice personally; it would be impossible for any
one person to have expertise in all relevant areas. Rather, the
role of the DCSA is to consult with experts both within Government
and outside to identify what advice is needed, and to obtain it.
Nearly all major science-using departments now have
departmental CSAs in place, or are recruiting them. GO-Science
are in discussion with Treasury over the role that a Treasury
CSA might take. DCSAs cover both science and engineering as part
of their remits; it is part of this role to ensure that each department
has sufficient expertise and capacity to manage and use the engineering
advice it needs. It is also noteworthy that the Ministry of Defence
(MoD), the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS),
the Department for Transport (DfT), the Department for International
Development (DFID) and Communities and Local Government (CLG)
currently have engineers and/or Fellows of the Royal Academy of
Engineering (FREngs) in the DCSA role. And past GCSAs have included
Sir John Fairclough and Sir Robin Nicholson, who were engineers.
There many individuals within the Civil Service who
are specifically appointed for their expertise in a particular
area. The Committee rightly identifies some of these: for example
the National Statistician for statistics. Examples for engineering
would include the many holders of posts for which Chartered Engineer
status is a prerequisite. The Government recognises and values
the contribution made by the holders of these specialist posts.
The role of the GCSA and of departmental CSAs are fundamentally
different. They are not appointed for their personal specialist
expertise (although this may often be valuable), but rather for
their ability to marshal advice from all of the other specialists,
both inside and outside Government, to provide whatever scientific
advice their Department requires across the full spectrum of science
and engineering.
The Government does not therefore accept the case
for separate Chief Engineering Advisers at Government-wide or
departmental levels. The Committee's proposals would involve additional
management layers and complication which would likely be counter-productive
and confusing. The Government does however accept the need to
build stronger links between the different parts of the evidence
base: this is a priority for departments and DCSAs. The GCSA works
through the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee (CSAC) and its
sub-committees to facilitate interdepartmental working and knowledge
sharing, and seeks to improve interdisciplinary working with the
other analytic professions through GOScience's Foresight
Programme and his active participation in the Heads of Analysis
group.
Having said that, the, title and responsibilities
of the GCSA and the GOScience are a matter for the Prime
Minister and will be kept under review.
| 
