By leave of the House, I shall put together the five Questions on motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the draft Insurance (Transfer of General Business) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft National Radiological Protection Board (Constitution Amendment) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Novelties (Safety) Regulations 1980 be referred to a standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1980 (SX, 1980, No. 574) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this point of order relates to protecting the rights and interests of the House. Yesterday evening we debated matters relating to local government expenditure. During the debate the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he was issuing a circular concerning that subject today, but he refused to give the House any information about it. It was assumed by my right hon. Friends and myself that a statement on that circular would be made this morning.

We now understand that the circular has gone to other places and that a statement, will be made about it in Harrogate this morning and later in the day in London, but that the House will not be informed of its contents. May I ask whether any attempt has been made by the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House, which we believe to be the proper place? If not, Mr. Speaker, what advice can you give the Opposition on how the interests of the House can be protected?

Our custom on a Friday is that Ministers are free to notify me until 10 o'clock if they wish to make a statement. Such a statement would be made at 11 o'clock. The same applies to private notice questions. I am free to receive them until 10 o'clock, and then my decision is made known. I have not yet received any application for a statement to be made.

I very much welcome the opportunity today to talk about the Finniston report. Indeed, the fact that the Government have made time available for this debate is indicative of the importance which they attach to the subject. It is fair to say that the subject brings together a number of those who have taken a keen interest in this matter. I respect the origins of this study, stemming as it does from the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), and I know of the work which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has done. I also see here my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who raised this question in a debate on 18 April. The subject has also been debated in another place.

As is well known, the Government have been engaged in a period of consultation which, in effect, has taken place in two parts. The first affects my own Department and concerns those matters that particularly affect industry. The second stage, for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has responsibility, covers the educational aspects and relates to matters upon which my hon. Friend will comment when he replies to the debate.

I believe that this is an apposite time to debate this important subject. It is five months since the Finniston report was published. During that time, many lively views have been expressed. Indeed, many of the submissions put to the Government have been published and there has been a good deal of comment and speculation. The Government have listened carefully to that debate and have also canvassed views from the main interest groups concerned. They are now about to reach conclusions, and it was felt appropriate that at this stage hon. Members should, as it were, have the last word before those conclusions were reached, at least with regard to my own Department. As I have emphasised, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will listen with great interest to what is said in relation to the consultation process as it affects his Department.

It may be helpful if I briefly recap on a number of the more significant findings of the Finniston committee's report. It is a massive report. In a sense, it cannot be overstated that the report is a significant contribution to the whole future of the industry in this country. I again pay tribute to Sir Monty Finniston and his committee colleagues, who have rendered a signal service in this report. It is clear that the interest that has been aroused reflects the concern of all those who are thinking about the future of British industry.

The remit of the committee was to look at the supply, education and training of engineers. It was charged to look at the professional regulation of engineers for manufacturing industry in the light of national economic needs. In emphasising that part of its brief, the committee considered topics that many had hitherto regarded as somewhat esoteric. They demonstrated their relevance within the national concern to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of our industries.

Moreover, Finniston showed that they are not topics that can be viewed in isolation. The concern expressed over many years about the relatively low standing and rewards for engineers in Britain, especially when compared with their overseas counterparts, was of importance. The effects of that on the numbers and the calibre of the recruits to engineering must be seen as reflecting a more general feature in our society, namely, that we too readily dismiss as inferior pursuits the development and application of useful knowledge for economic ends, reserving the glittering prizes for those engaged in the purist pursuit and extension of new knowledge.

That undervaluation of what the Germans call "Technik" has pervaded our educational system, our industrial enterprises, and our social institutions. If one agrees with Finniston's analysis, as many clearly do, that undervaluation has hindered our capacity as an industrial economy, to respond rapidly and flexibly to changes in an economic environment in which technological factors are fast becoming predominant. That is the context in which the Government will consider their response to Finniston's recommendations.

Finniston has done a great service in illustrating the importance of the engineering dimension to industrial enterprise. But the Government believe, and those who made submissions to us argued strongly, that that must be regarded as one of the many things that are required for success in world markets. There are many other facets that cannot be ruled out when discussing those matters—for example, the fight against inflation, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, improving labour relations, marketing, management training. There is a whole range of issues. Some of those who argued that Finniston had ignored them were not being realistic, because Finniston never sought to argue that other factors should not be brought into play. Certainly the Government take that view. A strong engineering dimension is not a sufficient condition for success, but it is none the less a necessary one.

The problem is one of degree, not of absolutes. Despite the adverse features mentioned, Britain has produced many generations of internationally respected engineers, and continues to do so.

During the past few days I have had the opportunity to travel around the country with a Chinese Government delegation. It was interesting to find that in our shipyards they were quick to point out many of the initiatives that Britain had created in the shipbuilding industry. They recalled that the first railway in China had been built by British engineers. For those who travel around the world the tradition, heritage and skills of British engineers are evident for all to see. The irony is that the major engineering advances first made in Britain include many developments that are now being exploited by our competitors. None the less, we have many strengths on which to build. We need the marginal improvement that would restore our place in world markets.

The report has a massive, almost daunting, list of 80 recommendations for action, which the committee believed would engender an enhanced national engineering capability. The proposal that has attracted the most attention, and the one upon which so many others ride, is that which calls for the creation of a new engineering authority. I shall return to that matter later.

It would be wrong to suppose that the acceptance or implementation of the report rests solely, or even primarily, on whether the Government decide to establish a new authority. Out of the 80 recommendations, 18 are directed to the employers of engineers, and many others, including the suggestion for an engineering authority, depend on a positive response from employers. Without that response, such an authority would have little meaning. The committee was unequivocal in saying that the key to improvement in the quality and quantity of recruits into engineering, and to improving the effectiveness of the contribution made by engineers, rests primarily with employers. They determine the attractions or otherwise of an engineering career. They determine the organisation of activities within companies and the role of engineers in them. They are the only ones who can tell those who educate future and practising engineers about the skills and attributes that are needed.

The underlying aim of most of the proposals is to cause more employers to recognise that onus upon them, and to build bridges between employers and the many other agencies working to supply their needs within the engineering dimension. The Government recognise that there are a number of companies that can fairly point to successful work in that area. Some would argue that if all companies behaved in the same way the problem would disappear. Finniston has shown that there are not enough companies that can show that that is true of their position.

I turn to the Government's response. These are not problems that the Government can resolve—certainly not alone. The remedies lie essentially with employers and with those in the educational and professional sectors. In so far as the Government have a part to play, their role is one of encouraging and, where necessary, facilitating the efforts of those groups to work together. It is essential that the Government are informed about the reactions and intentions of those groups in the light of the report before they decide on their response. We have spent the past six months ensuring that that process takes place.

Many of the recommendations for Government action concern the pattern and content of the initial formation of engineers and of their subsequent training and post-experience development in employment. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told the House on 18 April, those topics are to be the subject of a two-day national conference to be held in October. The organising committee for that conference has consulted widely on reactions to the Finniston proposals as an input to that debate. That, in a sense, is the "part 2" phase of the consultations that I described earlier, part 1 being the consultations that have been undertaken by the Department of Industry.

Recommendations upon which attention has been concentrated in the meantime concern the engineering authority and the functions envisaged for it by Finniston. As I told the House on 24 March, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Department of Industry has sought views from about 370 institutions, companies and other organisations on those questions. Other Departments have canvassed opinion among the bodies in their respective areas. Many unsolicited views were received from individuals, organisations, and hon. Members. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met many of the key bodies, and we shall continue to do so.

That adds up to a comprehensive consultation exercise within the time scale that we set, originally for 1 April. I was grateful to all those who endeavoured to meet that time scale, because it was a relatively short one. We had to balance the argument between those who wanted the momentum maintained and those who required time for consultation. Because of the nature of some organisations, some found that, with widespread constituency interests, the process took longer than they had hoped. We allowed some leeway after 1 April to those involved in that process, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation. We also received some revised or amended views from a number of those who wrote to us by 1 April.

I turn to the responses themselves. Finniston has clearly stimulated intense debate, not only within professional institutions and academic circles but, more significantly, within industrial companies, among employers, and trade union organisations. The report has won strong general welcome. Despite fundamental reservations from some about specific aspects of the prescriptions, there is widespread agreement about much of the diagnosis. Certainly the Committee's diagnosis of the engineering dimension has been widely endorsed. Attitudes to the broad objectives for change identified in the report have similarly been positive for the most part, and one can discern a clear enthusiasm for seeking improvements on those lines and a willingness, above all, to be involved in that task.

It is at the level of specific actions that opinions have been much more divided. Views differ, for example, on whether the changes to be sought need to be as radical as Finniston suggests or whether it would be just as fruitful and, some would argue, less disruptive to rely on the strengths of the current framework to extend the positive trends that Finniston recognises. No one would deny that such strength exists and that there are a number of encouraging trends—for example, in industry-academic collaboration. On the other hand, the problems identified by the report have dogged us for many years, and persist, despite a number of initiatives to redress them over the past century. Therefore, it is fair to ask whether something more is required.

That something more, in the view of the Finniston committee, should take the form of a new engineering authority, which should be a focus for the efforts of other groups to improve the standards and relevance of engineering formation and practice and should generally agitate for improvements in the engineering dimension. Without in any way denigrating the valuable efforts of the many people who have been working to these ends in companies, professional institutions, academic engineering departments and other bodies, Finniston argues that their activities would be more effective if they were better related together within a national framework with a commonly agreed set of priorities.

This broad conclusion has been supported by the majority of respondents to the report, although with scepticism on the part of some. Although the tenor of many responses has been that a new body would face formidable problems and would by no means be assured of success, the general view is that without some institutional focus of this kind the good will and momentum for change that has been generated is likely to be dissipated, and may be difficult to recover.

Within this broad view we have received a plethora of conflicting detailed proposals for the constitution of a new authority. Finniston proposed a body of between 15 and 20 people selected by the Secretary of State to reflect the balance of interests among employers, educationists and the profession, with funds voted—initially at least—by Parliament. Most respondents agreed that this was an appropriate size for the body and that its members should serve in an independent capacity, but clearly many had reservations about the appointments being made by Ministers and proposed instead that the Privy Council should take on this role. That would be a novel departure for the Privy Council, but it will be among the options being explored by the Government. Yet again, others believe that existing institutions would be able to create the necessary body. Opinions vary considerably about the appropriate balance of reprsentation on a new authority.

On the suggestion that the Privy Council should make these appointments, is not the Lord President of the Council a member of the Government?

That is true. The precise way in which this would operate in practice has to be considered with great care. The hon. Gentleman is quick to sense that there is widespread misunderstanding about the executive functions of the Privy Council.

Finniston proposed an equal balance between the employer and the academic and professional interests, with an industrialist as chairman. Others have proposed that a majority of seats should be reserved to nominees of employers' organisations, professional institutions, educational groups or, indeed, the Fellowship of Engineering. The balance of these suggestions has depended on which institution or group has put forward the proposal. For example, the Council of Engineering Institutions, which we all recognise would be much affected under the Finniston propsals, has argued for three new bodies based on what it sees as the three sets of functions proposed by Finniston—accreditation and registration, professional affairs, and what is described as an "engine of change ". But it is right to point out that most others appear to favour a single body to oversee the whole effort.

It is now for the Government to consider their conclusions on those issues falling to them—notably the question of an engineering authority. Our intention is that these conclusions will be reached and announced as soon as possible. In this process I take seriously the views that many hon. Members have put to us, which we have had the opportunity of considering. However, I welcome the fact that in providing time today the Government have opened up the debate for a final word from the House before reaching their conclusions on phase 1.

The Opposition welcome the opportunity to have this debate. It is appropriate that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have time to make their comments.

We welcome the inquiry report from Sir Monty Finniston and its significant recommendations. It is only fitting and proper that tribute should be paid to Sir Monty Finniston and his committee of inquiry for producing what must be regarded by hon. Members on both sides of the House as one of the most significant reports on manufacturing industry that we have seen this century.

Having welcomed the time that the Government have provided for the debate, I must say that many Opposition Members would have preferred the Secretary of State to be here this morning. I recognise that the Under-Secretary of State is a competent reader of briefs and that he must talk to his right hon. Friend from time to time, but the maintenance of the momentum described by the hon. Gentleman will require a great deal of interest, enthusiasm and pressure from the Secretary of State. This matter cannot be left to an Under-Secretary of State. It has to be taken up as a cause by the Department of Industry and the Department of Educaton and Science—in fact, by all Departments.

The Under-Secretary touched on several recommendations in the report. I wish that he had touched a little more on some of the symptoms of what we consider to be the disease. The hon. Gentleman glossed lightly over some of the problems that led the previous Labour Government to set up the Finniston inquiry in July 1977. He also glossed over the symptoms that led many institutions to press for some kind of inquiry. Indeed, some institutions, such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers, made no secret of the fact that they wanted an inquiry because they were concerned about the situation in engineering. The Institution of Electrical Engineers was one of the foremost campaigners in pressing for the inquiry to be set up.

Therefore, without dwelling on the matter for too long, we must look at the symptoms and the problem. I put it in the Bank of England's words, which are quoted in the report :

" The relative industrial decline of this country is now widely seen as a matter of grave concern. If allowed to continue it would seem only too likely to lead to growing impoverishment and unemployment in years to come."

I do not always agree with the Governor of the Bank of England, but I think that the Bank has put its finger on what many of us regard as the key symptom.

The TUC has elaborated that slightly by saying :

" For many years Britain's performance as a manufacturing and trading nation has been in relative decline with her major competitors. Many reasons can be identified as to why this is so, but a central cause of our decline must be our failure to unlock the full contribution of those working in manufacturing industry—or to attract into manufacturing those with a contribution to make."

That is perhaps a contemporary interpretation, but I believe that the problem is more deep-seated than that. I believe that it is more deep-seated than merely being a post-war or twentieth century problem. I believe that if we go back to the Industrial Revolution we can find some of the first causes of this relative decline.

There has always been a myth in this country that in the past we have been the great workshop of the world, but the Industrial Revolution was a low-level technological revolution. It was not an advanced industrial revolution. It dealt with concepts and machinery at a low level of technology. Even at the turn of the century, much of the equipment and engineering skills that were used, for example, to build the London Underground system were not English. They were German or American. So, even at the turn of the century, other countries had already overtaken us in advances in engineering concepts.

If we look at the great Victorian educational tradition, we see that there was not very much emphasis on training and education. That was a post-war development. Throughout the English classical education system, the emphasis—

British, for God's sake!

British. I am sorry to have offended my hon. Friend so early in the debate. I had hoped to carry him with me on much of what I have to say.

If we look at the British classical engineering tradition, we find that the great emphasis in the Victorian education system was on anything but engineering.

My hon. Friend is speaking on a very sensitive morning. On the BBC we repeatedly hear about "British" misbehaviour. When the Scots are involved—Celtic, Rangers and Scotland—we always refer to "the Scots ". When English football suporters behave badly, they are referred to as "the British ". Let us get the terminology right.

I am glad that my hon. Friend gets up early enough in the morning to hear the BBC news. I recognise that he, like me, must be concerned about what took place in Turin last night. I also realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I try to proceed on that subject I shall be ruled out of order. I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting away with his intervention.

We are talking about a deep-seated malaise where, as the Under-Secretary of State rightly said, we have been good on ideas but bad on translating those ideas into profitable manufacturing production of the right quality and at the right price and time. We have had a cascade of good ideas—Concorde, the advanced passenger train, the Rolls-Royce RB-211—but we have fallen down on translating those ideas into manufacturing production. That is where our engineering faults come to the surface.

There is a popular myth that we do not need to worry about that because North Sea oil will somehow get us through. The Opposition do not accept that. The Finniston report says significantly :

" There is no prospect that the contributions from natural resources (including North Sea oil gas or coal) or growth in other sectors of the economy can generate wealth on the scale which can be earned by manufacturing industry; for example the contribution of North Sea oil to GDP in 1978 was £2.3 billion, equivalent to 8 per cent. of the contribution made by manufacturing to total national value-added."

That is the size of the manufacturing contribution and the size of the problem that we are discussing this morning. Even if we bring it down to individual firms and to the microeconomic level and look at the problems of firms such as British Leyland, British Aerospace Rolls-Royce and British Airways, we find that over and over again there is a critical shortage of skilled engineers. If we look at the problems of British Leyland in the development of new models, and at the reasons for the slowing down of some of the advanced techniques in British Aerospace, we find that a critical shortage of skilled engineers is holding those companies back. Both on a macro—and a microeconomic level, and in historical perspective, we cannot escape the fact that this emphasis on engineering qualification, education and training and the realisation of the importance of engineering in manufacturing is belated. Something must be done about it.

In its conclusion, the Finniston report states :

" Britain's survival as an advanced industrial nation depends critically upon her manufacturing companies moving up-market into the production of high quality, high value-added goods, utilising the best of current knowledge and technology, and directed towards areas where world demand is growing or can be generated most rapidly and where competition from newly-industrialised countries is initially least severe."

That points to higher engineering s tandards.

The Finniston report also states :

" While engineering excellence is not the only determinant of manufacturing prosperity, the example of the most successful companies shows that it is essential to continuing competitiveness."

So, manufacturing is important, and if we are to get into the sort of manufacturing industry that will enable us to survive industrially, engineering is a key provision.

Having stressed the deep-seated and long-standing nature of the problem, we say, in response to Finniston and in response to the Government, that there is a need to act quickly. There cannot be a continuing series of deliberations and consultations. We need to act now. Time is not on our side. If we are to train engineers to the high level that Finniston envisages, it will take between five and a half and six years. Even if we start to act now, it will be 10 years before some of the newly-qualified engineers are able to take their place in the manufacturing sector. There is a long gestation period. Faced with the present critical situation in many of our key manufacturing industries, it could be too late in 10 years' time. The Government must act now, and they must act positively.

I was a little worried when I heard the Minister say that the emphasis in some quarters could be left to others. It is because successive Governments have left the emphasis to others that nothing has happened. We believe that there is a positive role to be played by the Government. As the Under-Secretary rightly said, and as Finniston rightly says, the key recommendation is the creation of the engineering authority. The report states :

" The engineering authority would provide both a focus and an impetus for improvements in all the diverse aspects of the engineering dimension, at national and company level, considered in this report."

I hope that the Government will not try to get away from the central importance of the engineering authority. I stress that if the onus and responsibility are to be transferred to the existing institutions and to the employers, not very much will happen. It is because the buck has been passed to the employers, the institutions and to the Council of Engineering Institutions over successive generations of manufacturing industry that nothing very much has happened. We believe that there is a need for the authority, and a need for the Government to act positively. The TUC, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and other major institutions, including the Institution of Electrical Engineers, attach great importance to the idea of the engineering authority.

We need a central body that can promote the engineering dimension. We cannot leave that to the institutions. We cannot leave it to the employers. The Government should recognise that there is a need for a body in this country to promote the engineering dimension and to speak for engineering. People in the media say that one of their problems is that when they want to find somebody to speak for engineering, they cannot immediately think of anybody who does that. Even at the presentational level there is a need to present the engineering dimension.

We believe that there is a need to take a major step forward in registration and licensing. There are complications—I do not want to develop them this morning—in regard to the need for licensing, but we believe that from many aspects the concept of self-regulation appears to have failed.

It is interesting in this connection to look at the historical precedents that have been set in other countries that already have some State-endorsed registration and licensing system. They have been able to make more advances than we have, simply because they have such a system.

In the case of large civil or mechanical engineering projects requiring large injections of public money, we believe that the Government have a responsibility to see that those working on the project are properly qualified, properly registered, and perhaps licensed. The concept of self-regulation—so often vaunted in this country—has, we believe, been tested and found wanting.

I endorse what the Institution of Electrical Engineers says in this connection. It believes that engineers on projects up and down the country in manufacturing industries must be indentifiable. That does not automatically happen at the moment. The institution also believes that there should be accountability. We should be able to know who are the engineers on projects, how they got their qualifications and what they are able to do. It would be reassuring to the public to be able to know that engineers involved in manufacturing industry, and particularly on large projects in the public sector, were being supervised by properly qualified engineers. We do not have that kind of assurance at the moment.

We also feel—and again I endorse what the IEE has said on the subject—that if there were a system of registration leading to licensing, that would enable pressure to be put on many of the educational institutions from which a response is required. It is not just a matter of leaving it to the authority. It is a matter of what the authority would be able to do via the mechanism of registration and licensing, to get other bodies to play their part as well. That is why we say to the Government that it cannot be left to the existing bodies. A stimulus is required, and the best stimulus could come from the authority.

I should like to mention what the Finniston report says about the interface between industry and education, because the educational side is just as important as the other side. I welcome this morning the participation of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in our debate. I am sure that he will have found—as I did when I was covering this area in the Department of Industry—that there is not merely a little gulf or gap between education and industry; in many parts of the country there is a great roaring chasm between them. Industry feels that the educational process is not producing the kind of people that it would like to see. Educational institutions, in their turn, feel that industry is not making the best use of their products. When I was at the Department of Industry I was involved in several activities designed to bring industry and education a little closer together. I therefore welcome the involvement of the two Departments in the debate this morning.

In the summary of recommendations. No. 18 states :

" Every effort should be made in schools to ensure that as many young people as possible retain the option to enter engineering and that they are properly informed about the attractions of an engineering career."

I am reminded of the story of the schoolteacher who was taking a party of her pupils round a drop-forging factory in Darlaston. When she came out she said "If you do not behave yourselves, that is where you will end up". If we have that kind of concept of industry, obviously children will tend to go into banks, building societies and local government. We want to turn them back to engineering and manufacturing and to enable them to understand the critical role of manufacturing in our economy and, indeed, in our society.

I hope that the Government will realise—as the previous Labour Government realised in setting up the inquiry—that a major initiative is necessary. It is not the kind of thing that can be left to others. The Government have to be involved. Had the existing organisations, such as the Council of Engineering Institutions, and many of the individual institutions, been doing their job properly in terms of self-regulation, there would have been no need for the inquiry.

It is interesting to note the opposition that came from some of the institutions, such as the mining engineers, the production engineers, the mechanical engineers and the civil engineers, all of which set their face against the inquiry. It would seem that by so doing they recognised that an inquiry would recommend some significant changes.

We believe that the matter cannot be left to the institutions alone or to the CEI. It cannot be left simply to the employers and the manufacturers. The Government will have to do something, and it is our belief that the engineering authority is a key part of the Finniston recommendations. This does not mean that the institutions will disappear. They could have a valuable role in helping the authority with accreditation and with the promotion of new ideas.

I do not want to see the institutions disappear—many of them have played a very valuable role—but they may need some reorganisation and regrouping. I pay tribute to the role that many of them have played. We want to build on what many of them have achieved already, but this will require another body, with the sort of initiative that the authority can provide.

We welcome the fact that there is to be a national conference in October on the education and training side, but I have not time to say more about that this morning.

I suggest to the Government—particularly remembering their all-pervading passion for reducing public expenditure—that it will not cost a great deal of money to set up an engineering authority. Initially, it need not be a very big body. The sum of £10 million has been mentioned. I do not want to make any comparisons with what the Government are spending money on elsewhere, but to spend £10 million on setting up an engineering authority would probably be a good deal more useful than spending the money on nuclear submarines. I could go on to make other comparisons.

It is to be hoped that the Government are serious about our survival as a manufacturing nation and about the need to maintain momentum. Indeed, it was the Minister who said that the momentum had to be maintained. He has recognised that already. The Finniston report has created a momentum. It has created renewed interest in engineering. It has centred much attention on the problems involved. We hope that the Government will now take up the challenge provided by the Finniston report. We look forward to the setting up of the authority at an early date. I emphasise again that this is not a discussion in which the Government can stand on the sidelines. They must be involved actively, and as soon as possible.

I am pleased that the Government have chosen to debate this subject. Hon. Members say that the Finniston report is important. It is. However, a few Fridays ago I had a debate on the Finniston report. Again, hon. Members said that the report was important. Only three hon. Members were present at that debate. I see that we have done better today. However, there are still only 10 or 12 hon. Members in the Chamber. The absence of hon. Members may be a reflection of the problem. We must engender greater enthusiasm. A fundamental problem must be recognised.

Yesterday I was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made a telling contribution. He spoke about the development of our economy over a reasonable period of time. He said :

" It seems to me that we continually give too high a priority to consumption and too little to wealth creation."—[Official Report, 12 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 906.]

I fully endorse that sentiment. He went on to itemise the increasing cost of administration and of bureaucracy, and pointed out that wages and salaries have spiralled. He emphasised that investment in capital projects had diminished proportionately. However, we do not only need Government support for projects such as those of the construction industry. We must also invest in skills, techniques and the abilities of those who will be our future managers and engineers. It is they who will create the wealth.

Whatever quality of life we may seek, and whatever improvements we may desire in hospitals, schools and facilities for the sick and elderly, we must first create wealth. The Finniston report brilliantly points out that, compared to our rivals, this country has been progressively sliding backwards in its ability to create such wealth. That consideration must be borne in mind whenever the Finniston report is debated.

The report covers a wide range of interests and many pressures are involved. If one listens to all the pressure groups and all the suggestions, one finds that one is left with nothing. No part of the report would be worth implementing. The pressures would trade off and the report could be pulled to bits. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) pointed out that the interests that represent professional engineers have been pulling in different directions. The question of how to retain and improve high standards is central to the report's terms of reference. How can the profession ensure the right type of professional discipline and conduct? That is important.

The report makes several recommendations. The quality of training is linked to professional discipline and conduct. The professional engineering institutions argue that they have been responsible for maintaining standards and training for many years and that they should be responsible for the conduct of their members and for the standards of the profession. They do not want the Government to play a part. That is why a compromise solution has been reached and why the Privy Council—rather than the Government—has been chosen to nominate the body. However, at the end of the day the Government would appoint the members. It is nonsense to bring in the Privy Council. If we set up such a body and believe that it is important—either because we wish to do something about the professional standards of engineers, or about our industrial climate and investment—that body should be made accountable to Parliament. It should not be strictly accountable to the Privy Council, and only indirectly accountable to government.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I have great sympathy with it. Two points can be made about the Privy Council. The hon. Gentleman has disposed of the political argument. The point about the Lord President of the Council has already been made. However, I am worried about the diffusion of interests. Two Ministers are in the Chamber, representing two different Departments. It may be feared that the authority would be responsible to several Ministers, not one.

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point : I have worked on this subject for a long time. Several years ago I set up a committee that made an analysis similar to that of the Finniston report. However, its suggestions were slightly different. I feel that an authority is needed. As a diffusion of accountability and responsibility is likely to cause drift, a new catalyst must be built into the system.

The institutions have a powerful voice. That voice must be ignored, because there are more important considerations. Until now, the institutions did a good job. However, one must look round the world. In almost every other major industrial country Governments have played a part in ensuring that the standards are right and that they continue to improve. One cannot say that about the record of the CEI. Standards have improved, but they have done so slowly. The council was set up because the profession was so fragmented. Although members of the smaller institutions complained about the recommendations, they have not been happy about the way that standards have improved under the CEI. There should be more drive behind accreditation and registration. The CEI does not have the breadth of vision to do that. A Government, or quasi-Government, body should be involved.

The Finniston report points out that there are many important areas of engineering. For example, major national investment is being made in power plants, and the chemical industry is responsible for large construction works. It is possible to argue that, at least, consultants should be licensed. Unless consultants can demonstrate that they have reached an appropriate level of qualification and can show that they have sufficient ability to take on responsibility, they should not be allowed to operate in particular areas or to take on Government work.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they would have to be on the register? A problem may arise because there is a close link between certain types of mathematicians and engineers. Mathematicians may not be on the register, but they are the ideal people to do certain engineering jobs.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not wish to be too rigid. However, some types of work are so important that we must ensure that at least engineering consultants—possibly one could extend that category—are appropriately qualified. We must ask whether disasters such as Flixborough were necessary. One does not wish to say that anyone with an engineering degree must get various qualifications, and that unless he has such qualifications he will be denied work in certain areas.

We can easily get into far too rigid and detailed a provision. However, there is a stage into which we should move. The problem with the authority, as it stands in the Finniston report, is whether it has enough teeth. Sir Monty argues that if the key 100 companies were converted there would be a "wash-over" effect throughout industry. He believes that we must work on those companies and that there will be a osmosis effect on a body that has an educative role.

Is that good enough? If we are talking about making a radical switch, taking a dramatic step and putting some pace behind it, will that do the trick? Is there not a case for saying that if we are to have such a body, it will need some teeth in it? Should we provide that people will not be able to operate in certain areas unless they go through the pattern of training and education that is proposed and unless they obtain the qualifications that have been established? I think that there is quite a strong case for making that condition without extending the areas infinitely throughout the entire system.

The professional aspect seems to be in danger of screwing up the entire concept of the Finniston report and defeating the central purpose. As I have said, that aspect is, in my view, secondary. If necessary, some of the considerations in that area will have to be thrown aside if we are to get to the centre of this important area.

We cannot deal with engineers and the standard of engineers in isolation. It is an issue that involves the entire industrial infrastructure. It is as important, in terms of the investment that the nation makes, as the nation's investment in capital projects in general. Hence, there is a fundamental role for the Government. The Finniston report considers briefly the growth of technology and the role of education in that growth in its introduction. The history is most disturbing. I am sure that the House will not believe me if I say that I constantly read pieces of literature of the 1870s. However, in my former career I had cause to study in depth the reports of the boards of education of the 1870s. All the issues that we are now discussing emerged in those reports in many different ways.

In the 1870s there was a strong debate about how Germany and France were running ahead of Britain and it was said that Britain was not technological enough. It was argued that the new universities, such as Manchester, had to be geared to vocational levels. It was contended that it was necessary to get the business community in Manchester to put in money, and that Oxford and Cambridge were out on a track by themselves and denying the country the type of person that it needed to match the competition from abroad.

We have been through this argument time and time again. There are a number of major problems. It seems that the pressures are too strong and that not enough is ever done. Of course, something is done. Manchester was founded, but not enough is done to hold what has been done. It is not merely a matter of doing something but of holding whatever is done in the role for which it was established.

Manchester and the other provincial universities started drifting into the Oxford pattern. It is now argued in parts of the education world that the polytechnics are likewise drifting. They were founded because the traditional university pattern was not sufficiently responsive to social, economic and industrial needs. It was felt that we had to have establishments that would provide technicians and non-traditional degree-type courses. It is now said that the polytechnics have drifted from that role. Some of the arguments are exaggerated, but there is a kernel of truth in them.

There has to be a policy that is sufficient and coherent. There is no point in tinkering with part of the system. There has to be a co-ordinated approach. There has to be something that holds the function that has been established. This cannot be left in the hands of the professional institutions and the professionals. It cannot be left in the present institutional framework. We desperately need some dramatic, positive and quick action on this front. The action must be as quick as possible. The lead time is immense. We are falling rapidly behind many of our major competitors, especially those in the Far East.

This year I had the opportunity to visit Japan and Hong Kong. Both countries are seen by many hon. Members and certainly by many of my hon. Friends as the exemplars of the successful entrepreneurial economy. It is a system in which the Government stand back as against the extent to which Government have been involved in industry in Britain. However, it is telling that the Governments of Japan and Hong Kong believe that they have a critical part to play in ensuring that the industrial infrastructure is correct. There is more effort made in Japan in that direction than in Britain. From 1975 the growth rate of the polytechnic of Japan has been phenomenal.

In 1977 the Governor of Hong Kong set up a committee on the diversification of the economy. It was concerned, for example, with the problems of the textile trade. The Financial Secretary in Hong Kong is not noted for his belief in public expenditure. He has strong views on the report. However, he fully endorses that part of the report that is concerned with the education infrastructure and gearing that to the needs of industry in Hong Kong, especially the development of the watch industry and new technologies.

In Japan the council on science and technology is chaired by the Prime Minister. All the key Ministers of industry, the economy and education have a place on the committee. Why is that? It is because the Japanese believe that it is fundamental to get the right people of the right skills, background and training into industry. That is the Japanese approach, but in this country it is said "If there are problems about producing engineers of sufficient quality, industry has a part to play."

Both Front Bench spokesmen gave me the impression that we are talking about the initiative starting with industry. The implication is that there is a duty on industry. It is equally valid to break into the chicken-and-egg argument from the other side. If we can convince industry that we believe engineering to be fundamental and if we can demonstrate to it that we are producing people in the education system with the right skills, attitudes and attributes that it can use, I believe that it will respond and start hiring and using appropriately the engineers and those trained in the new technologies. It is hard to convince industry at present that that is happening, bearing in mind the sort of person who emerges from the engineering departments and the courses that they have pursued. Industry does not believe that they are of the right calibre or have taken the right course.

As the Finniston report states, we must examine in detail the provision that we are making in our universities and the practical element that at present is not in the courses that students are undertaking. In both Hong Kong and Japan, and elsewhere in Europe, these matters are thought to be so important by Governments that they try to achieve a coordinated and coherent approach which, at the end of the day, will produce the people that industry wants. In Britain we are facing the criticism that we are in danger of producing too many engineers. It is said "If we follow this route, will they all get a job? We do not seem to be short of engineers now."

In Japan it is not only the technical people in industry who have a technological background. Managers, public relations men and those on the marketing side have had an engineering or techincal background. People do not sell these days because they are salesman but because they are technical people who understand the technical aspects of a problem. They do not launch products merely on the basis of an opinion research poll. Products are launched because those concerned have researched the market and found the appropriate gap in the new technological developments that are taking place. They find the niche, they work at it and they find the right product. It is very much a technical and technological process.

In Japan those engaged in business, in the Civil Service or in ministerial positions have nearly all been through some science or technological education. The prestige thing to do is to go into an engineering department. The bulk of young people leaving school and going to university go into engineering, and preferably to the University of Tokyo. That climate must be contrasted with the climate in Britain. I do not want to be thought to be knocking our universities, our system and our engineers. However, when our system is put in the balance and a contrast is made, it seems that it is not moving, and has not done so for a long time, in the way that it should and at the pace that is required.

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, but the problem is even more fundamental. In this country there is a functional conflict with the engineering area of manufacturing industries and the financial institutions in the City—the people who manipulate the cash. Unfortunately, this Government are more interested in manoeuvring the cash then getting on with the business of strengthening our manufacturing industry. Although they may have been imperfect instruments, the previous Government created such organisations as the Manpower Services Commission in the sphere of training and the National Enterprise Board in the sphere of investment. Instead of strengthening and backing up those instruments, which are vitally important for manufacturing industry, this Government are setting about destroying them.

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree entirely. No industrial strategy that the previous Government adopted could work because it never got on top of the problem of the money supply and inflation, except in the brief period following the intervention of the IMF. Unless the financial aspect is under control, a Government will never be able to do anything else. I agree that that is not the only element. Monetary policy alone will not create wealth. We need an industrial strategy, which is what I am arguing for, and which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton argued for yesterday.

Industrial strategy must ensure the appropriate levels of capital investment and national investment in education to train people of skill and talent, and get them moving in the right way with the right qualifications for industry. That comes back to Sir Monty Finniston's call for an engine of change. We need to build a catalyst into the system to keep the ideas flowing in and ensure that people are all the time conscious of the engineering dimension, which will pump-prime new developments.

We also need to knock the heads of Government together. There is a problem of diffusion between Departments. It affects the attitude to manufacturing and the creation of wealth right through from the schools. We need an organisation to stand back and take an overview, and then hammer away. It should have prestige, with a powerful chairman, and comprise powerful and important individuals. The majority should be key industrialists. It would then be listened to rather than ignored. The clout that it carried would be the essence of its success.

The engineering authority must be given the right range of powers and remit. It needs to be started with a certain amount of cash, but it could become self-financing. Those aspects are fundamental to its setting up.

Because of the clash of representations, the Government should not establish a group of important people that does not have the right remit for a proper job. They should not simply ask it to regenerate the economy and give a boost to engineering. That would be disastrous. In five years' time my colleagues could then argue that it is another quango, festering away. We must look at the proposal with great care.

The one option that the Government do not have is to do nothing. After all the reports over all the generations we must now ensure that we provide in our educational training system the right people with the right thrust. We must have the numbers and the quality moving into industry. We must also ensure that industrialists hire these people and give them the right career structure. Whatever courses they start in university, they should have the opportunity, as technologies change with speed, to develop the new knowledge, which is so important. That is the process that Finniston outlines.

The report is of major importance to the success of the British economy. We expect the Government to make decisions shortly. I hope that they will establish an engineering authority.

I have a few disjointed observations to make, and I shall try to keep them brief. I immediately declare an interest via the Institution of Plant Engineers. However, in view of my previous involvement in the Department of Industry I should in any case have wanted to participate in the debate.

I congratulate Sir Monty Finniston on the report. He has produced a workable formula, which the Government can, if necessary, modify.

The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) said that the Government should ignore all that is coming in from the institutions. It is probably true to say that a large part should be ignored. The Government must ignore that part directed simply towards the self-perpetuation of individual institutions for their own sake. However, they must not assume that none of the argument is a legitimate defence of specialist interest in the engineering field. The Government should pay attention to that area of special representation.

The need for change cannot be challenged. The committee was set up and Sir Monty Finniston was asked to produce the report, which is a recognition of that need. The report's existence means that it would be disastrous to do nothing. I am encouraged by the fact that the Under-Secretary of State indicated that the Government intend to take action, although they are still considering what action.

The hon. Member for Ripon referred to the contrast with Japanese industry. British industry is often accused of being too labour intensive compared with the capital intensity of Japanese industry. However, it is striking to notice the engineering intensity in the Japanese labour force. I have visited factories in Japan that have 50 per cent. of their work force with engineering qualifications. We must accept the need for a, perhaps elite, top structure of exceptionally well-trained engineers.

I find it hard to dissent from the proposition that we should introduce a licensing system. Where health and safety is concerned the public have a right to demand properly licensed engineers. I do not believe that there is a credible argument against licensing.

The establishment of an engineering authority is important. Although its intentions were good, I regret that the CEI has not been successful and created the dynamism hoped for. We urgently need an effective authority. How can its existence be reconciled with the institutions, so that they identify and work with it, instead of developing a hostility and antipathy from the outset? I believe that that can be done without prejudicing the gains that the report offers.

If all the institutions were represented on the authority, it would be condemned to death from the outset. It would become a talking shop. That would be especially so if interests other than the specific interests of the engineering industry were also represented, as they should be.

A possible way out of this would be to keep one of the successes of the CEI, the Engineers' Registration Board, on which the institutions are represented. The ERB should be kept within the authority so that the latter has overall control. The ERB would provide a channel for the institutions, and from within the ERB a proportion of the authority's membership could be selected. In that way the institutions would not have representation as this or that institution, but would nevertheless, have a feeling of involvement. I am not even suggesting what proportion of members the ERB should have within the authority; I merely put the proposal before the Government for consideration. It may well be that that would be impractical, but it offers advantages in that it gives a continuing specialist role for the institutions and it keeps the ERB, which has been one of the reasonably successful new creations within the engineering industry.

Because the ERB covers the technicians—and these were not within the remit of the Finniston inquiry—there would be time after the Government had made their decision for the authority to consider how to deal with the difficult problem of the technicians.

I have been listening very closely to what my right hon. Friend has been saying about the future role of the institutions. He suggests that they could help to look after the register, but I believe that the proper role of the institutions in the future, as in the past, is to act as learned societies.

I would not dissent from that proposition. It is a valid and major role for them to fulfil. That is why most of the institutions themselves have welcomed the proposition within Finniston that the authority should have the role of encouraging joint activity between the institutions.

There has been surprising opposition to the other perfectly reasonable proposition in Finniston that the authority should also have the role of promoting mergers. Looking from outside at the institutions, we would all say that there has been a proliferation of them and that the fragmentation is difficult to understand. Some of the institutions that are opposed to the proposition of promoting mergers have misunderstood what that means in legislative terms.

Promotion can be persuasive or coercive. If it were coercive—if certain rights or grants were denied to those who refused to merge—I could understand the opposition to such a proposition, but my reading of the report—and I hope that the Minister will confirm it—is that the role of the authority would be actively to encourage, to remove obstacles where they need removing and to produce desirable mergers that were wanted by both parties. Many people are getting themselves in an unnecessary furore over this issue, and rather than full mergers it may well be that federations will provide a suitable formula. This will give the capability of joint activity and at the same time preserve individual identity.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and constructive speech. My answer to the question that he posed is that these matters of detail must be looked at. From their detailed consultations with the institutions, the Government recognise that there is a great deal of initiative and voluntary help available within the institutions. One would wish to maintain that and see the degree to which it could supplement and work with whatever proposals might come from the engineering authority.

That is very encouraging. I should have thought that it would be difficult for anyone within the institutions to dissent from the Under-Secretary's remarks.

I turn briefly to the more general and fundamental point for the economy—the problem of the inadequate role of the engineer within British industry. A major responsibility here—and I do not think that this is fully covered in the report—rests with those who design education courses. That is why I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State, for Education and Science, in the Chamber today.

It is essential that, in designing the courses, we maintain, or even enhance, the excellence and quality of specialist training. When one looks at top management, one asks why, when the engineer can have such an important functional role in industry, he so rarely has a role at the top level in industry? Why are engineers running departments, rather than running firms? There is a difference here between us and some of our competitor countries. If more engineers made it to the top in industry, that would be the greatest possible inducement to young people in universities, colleges and sixth forms to pursue an engineering career.

As a non-engineer—as an economist—I have tried to puzzle out why people with specialist know-how still fail to make the impact at the top level. I have come to the conclusion—superficial though it may be—that it is a communication incapability on the part of many people who are immersed within their own specialty. They can articulate with others who share that specialty, but they fail to communicate to the non-technical—the people with whom they would be working if they were members of the board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said that one of the problems in this country was that although we had ideas, we did not turn them into marketable projects. That is true. We have the innovation, but the innovator—the engineer—has failed in the necessary role of communicating his innovation to his entrepreneurial colleague who must make the investment decision. Therefore, I suggest that alongside training in their initial degree in their own specialty, engineers should learn the language of industry—of boardrooms and management. They need to understand the language of management accounting, and they need to be trained in business administration as well as in the problems of engineering.

If it were possible to build this mind-widening capability into more of our engineering courses, ultimately it would mean that more engineers would take their places on boards. By the very nature of a board's activities, a relatively small proportion of the decisions taken are directly related to engineers. Therefore, the tendency of a board is to draw on the engineer as a specialist to advise, as and when needed. Thus, the engineer must adapt himself so that he is a valuable member of a board, not just in his engineering capacity, but in the sense that he can talk fully, freely and appropriately on the whole area of activity.

After the presentation of Sir Monty's report, one of the things I have noticed has been the high level and high quality of the many submissions that have been made to the Government and to individual hon. Members. There is now, if anything, too much of a consensus on and too wide an understanding of all these problems. There is practically no company and no institution in the country that cannot produce a good paper on the subject.

The problem, as we have already been told, since—

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the circular that he has sent out today to local authorities asking them for further reductions in their expenditure.

The letter that the Government are issuing this afternoon will ask all local authorities to re-examine their expenditure plans and to make fresh returns to my Department by 1 August. The volume of current expenditure envisaged last November, at the time of the rate support grant, implied a reduction of 2 per cent. in real terms below the level of actual expenditure in 1978–79. I have concluded, therefore, that if the Government's expenditure plans are to be achieved, all local authorities should ensure that their revised expenditure plans should represent such a reduction. Since wages and salaries account for about 70 per cent. of gross current expenditure, I have asked authorities to have particular regard to their manpower levels.

The key to the relationship between central Government and local government has always been the voluntary compliance by local authorities with the Government's expenditure plans. It is essential, therefore, that local authorities should respond positively to this request.

Copies of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House this afternoon.

Will the Minister confirm that in initial conversations with the local authority associations, the Secretary of State accepted that much of the alleged spending was as a result of accountancy procedures? Will he further confirm that a circular simply asking for information about council budgets was vetoed by the Prime Minister, who demanded further cuts, and that as a result of the Prime Minister's actions some local authority associations have now refused to be associated with the circular? That was a point at which I think the Minister hinted, but which he could not bring himself to tell the House.

Since the demands that are implicit in the circular—demands for reductions of the size that the Minister described—are impossible to achieve in the time scale laid down, what punitive action against these councils was foreshadowed by the Secretary of State in the debate yesterday evening, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy last Friday, when he talked in most fierce terms about taking action? Can we be categorically assured that the punitive action will not include the much-reported moratorium on new council house building?

Finally, since this so-called over-spending is exactly the situation that the penal clauses in part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill are supposed to prevent, can the Minister now tell us that that offensive though apparently ineffective part of the Bill is to be dropped?

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is "No, Sir."

It is true that budgets have always tended to exceed outturn expenditure, but with the degree of overspend implicit in the budgets that we have received to date, of about 5·6 per cent., I think that there is general agreement that even with that tendency to overspend there is an excess of expenditure, which makes it necessary to issue this call for a revision of budgets.

In this connection we are following exactly the procedure observed by the previous Government in a similar situation, with the exception that our circular does not include some of the later developments that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues felt it neccessary to implement.

I emphasise the last part of my reply : a number of options are open to any Government. Some of them were exercised by the previous Government in an extremely draconian way. I do not intend to speculate on what all those options might be, because it is in the interests of the House, the Government and local government that this voluntary approach to the revision of budgets should be successful. I have made it clear, and my right hon. Friend made it clear in the House last night, that that is the way in which we should prefer to proceed. I hope that this will have the right hon. Gentleman's support, in following the procedure that his right hon. Friend will recall that he followed as well.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the last thing that the Government want to do is to impose a moratorium on capital expenditure projects, as the previous Government did in 1976? Will he also confirm that in the past local authorities have met the requirements of central Government on their expenditure programmes, and that if some local authorities do not do that this year, with these modest reductions as compared with those on previous occasions, it is the fault of the local authorities, and that in no way can it be considered a draconian economic measure on the part of the Government?

I certainly confirm the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The last thing that we wish to do is to have to take further measures. We should much prefer that this call for a revision of budgets, which we announced at the Consultative Council of Local Government Finance, should achieve the necessary objectives.

I also confirm my hon. Friend's second point. There is a good tradition, in which all those active and prominent in local government take some pride, of the achievement of central Government financial targets. That has been observed under Governments of both the major parties. That is the procedure which I hope will be observed here.

There is a lot at stake. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of maintaining the voluntary co-operative approach to local government finance and the need to work together to achieve the proper revision of budgets.

Are not the Government trampling on people's lives? Is the Minister considering a six-month moratorium on council house building? As the financial situation is worsening, does not that mean that the moratorium might go on for more than six months? Finally, if building workers are sacked, as they will be during those six months, will they ever return? Might they not disappear from the building industry altogether?

I shall not go down the road that the hon. Member wishes me to take. I have made it absolutely clear that there are a number of options open that are the last courses that the Government would wish to follow. The Government wish to follow the course of the revision of budgets by local authorities so that they can achieve the overall targets envisaged within the rate support grant settlement for local authority expenditure as a whole in England and Wales. That is the course that we wish to take. I shall not speculate on all the possible options. The hon. Member may have it deeply engraved on his mind, because one of the options about which he talks is exactly the one that was so disastrously employed by the previous Government.

Will not the Minister accept that, inevitably, if local authorities are to act on the advice that is to be given in his letter this afternoon there will have to be cuts in housing, social services and support for voluntary organisations? Surely that would not be a desirable outcome.

The question of what economies must be made is a matter for local authorities. The Government's concern is that the totality of local government expenditure should conform to stated public expenditure plans. That is a matter that, in the letter, we are drawing most forcibly to local authorities' attention. I very much hope that they will recognise the seriousness of this matter and will co-operate in the revision of budgets.

Although my right hon. Friend quite rightly refuses to speculate upon the necessity of future action, would he care to speculate upon the attitude that would be taken by at least those Right-wing members of the Labour Party who sit exactly opposite him, on the control of local government expenditure if they were in power?

I am not quite sure which Opposition Members are included in the class of hon. Members that my hon. Friend has described. The scene seems to change fairly rapidly. I am not sure what their attitudes would be.

The House must realise that those who care about a reasonable autonomy for local government realise that part of that ingredient—it is recognised by the local authorities—is agreement and co-operation on the overall totals of local government expenditure. That is the issue at stake. That is why the issue of this cir- cular, calling for revised budgets, is crucially important to the success of this exercise, not only for the Government's expenditure plans but for the situation of local government.

Does the Minister believe that the revised budgets for which he has called are capable of achievement and that the targets that the Government have set will be met? Has he taken on board the warning of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors that a moratorium on local authority building would constitute a panic measure and a return to methods adopted by previous Administrations that would be disruptive of the building industry and cause havoc in the housing programme?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Yes, Sir." The answer to his second question is "Of course." Any of the options that might be possible and necessary could have serious consequences. That is why I hope that the House will concentrate on what really matters, which is to ensure that there is the fullest co-operation with the call for the revision of budgets.

rose——

rose——

Order. It appears that I rose just in time. I shall call those hon. Members who had stood before I opened my mouth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of masses of ratepayers in his efforts to ensure that local authorities face up realistically to controlling their expenditure?

The level of local government expenditure—particularly the budgeted plans for a 5·6 per cent. excess, representing about £700 million—is a matter of great concern. It is not a sum of money that the Government can possibly allow to remain in excess of public expenditure. That is why we are taking the sensible action that we are taking in calling for the revision of budgets.

The Minister will be aware that cuts in local authority services, particularly in housing for the elderly and personal social services, would have repercussions in areas over which the local authorities have no control—for example, the National Health Service. Will he give an assurance that, whatever of his options he adopts—he seems to think that there are thousands of them—there will be some reconciliation by the Government between expenditure on social welfare within the local authority area and the repercussions on the NHS and other services for which local authorities are not responsible?

My concern at this stage is not to pursue further the question of all the options but to see that the call for the revision of budgets is successful. I should be somewhat encouraged in that if one Opposition Member recognised the importance of that to local government, instead of endlessly speculating on all the possible disasters that might occur if that revision were not successful.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in 1976, when I was serving in local government, we were requested by central Government, as a result of the intervention of the International Monetary Fund, to make reductions of more than 6 per cent? The most important word used by my right hon. Friend today was "co-operation ". With good will and co-operation, we are not asking for the cuts that were made in local government finance in 1976. In the spirit of co-operation and good will, everyone will benefit.

I think that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) would accept that when he called for the revision of budgets in 1976 all sides of local government tried to cooperate, regardless of party. I hope that that tradition of co-operation will be repeated on this occasion, because it is vital both for the future position of local authorities and, clearly, for public expenditure plans.

Will the Minister accept that many of us on the Opposition Benches feel that the use of the word "voluntary" is rather hypocritical, to say the least? Will he confirm the reply that I received to a written question, clearly indicating that it was the Government's intention to reduce housing finance and house building during the next 12 months by 21 per cent?

That question does not arise out of this subject because it is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. Of course, economies must be made in public expenditure. Any hon. Member who has spent any time in the Chamber in the past year should know that all too well. What we are dealing with now is the totality of local authority current expenditure. That current expenditure is budgeted by local authorities to be 5·6 per cent.—£700 million—in excess of the amount calculated when the rate support grant settlement was made. This is a very important matter of current expenditure that must be recognised. I hope that all local authorities will appreciate the urgency of tackling it.

The House will draw its own conclusions from the Minister's total silence about the Prime Minister's disastrous intervention in this affair. Will he answer at least one of my questions? Is it or is it not true that some local authorities have already refused cooperation because of the Prime Minister's insistence on the circular's being toughened up? Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman expect from local authorities what he calls "voluntary cooperation" when he goes on to say that he will take "whatever further measures seem appropriate ", if those local authorities exercise their autonomous right to raise local revenue and protect local services?

I did not respond to the right hon. Gentleman's first question because the tittle-tattle seems to concern him much more than the real issues. I am not concerned whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has or has not corresponded on this matter. The decision has been taken by the Government. Is it not interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is much more interested in that first question than in the matter of local authority expenditure and the grave situation that we face? It is indicative of his whole approach to serious political matters of this kind.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's question about local authorities that have refused co-operation, I am not aware that any have done so. They have not yet seen our circular. We shall wait to see what happens when the letter goes out. At present we have had no refusal to cooperate in the revision of budgets, as indicated, because the circular has not yet been issued. It will be up to authorities to determine their action when they receive that letter.

With regard to the question of voluntary co-operation, every responsible person in local government knows the seriousness of the issue. When the right hon. Gentleman rose again I hoped that he might at last—at this last gasp—have realised that he had some responsibility in the matter. Once again, however, there was a totally frivolous approach to the problem. This is a very serious matter. I would expect local authorities to treat it with far more gravity than the right hon. Gentleman has shown this morning.

I cannot emphasise too strongly how serious the issue is. I very much hope that voluntary co-operation will be preserved in this matter, to achieve the objectives that are so important.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his response to the request of the New Hebrides authorities this morning for the declaration of a state of emergency.

It would be for the resident commissioners to declare a state of emergency should they consider it necessary. A request for the declaration of a state of emergency has been made by Father Lini. After consultation with the two resident commissioners, he is reconsidering his request with his Cabinet colleagues. He has not yet approached the resident commissioners again.

Is there any truth in the statement in this morning's edition of Le Monde that moves are afoot for a delay in independence after 30 July? Did France act unilaterally in sending back the 55 gendarmes sent on Wednesday, in returning them to New Caledonia? Do the Government agree with the French assessment that the situation is calm in the condominium, and with the French Government's view that the only chance of a reasonable outcome lies in negotiation and conclusion of compromise between the Anglophone people, the Francophone people and the secessionists?

Is it a fact that British troops of 42 Commando will be sent in, probably on Sunday, when the French troops will not be there? Was there any agreement on this matter? If Anglophone soldiers went in, would it be easy to withdraw them without fear of revenge, or would those who would be seen as their friends and of their faction be in danger, in which case it might be very difficult to withdraw the Marines once they were sent in? Is it not easier, as we have said before, to put in troops than to take them out of tribal, factional situations of this kind?

I shall endeavour to answer as many as I can of the hon. Gentleman's questions.

I cannot be responsible for a statement in Le Monde, but, in respect of the date of independence, I have nothing to add to what I told the House two days ago.

As for the return of the French gendarmes to New Caledonia, we were informed that the French intended to make that move, and they did.

Informed or consulted?

We were informed that the French intended to make that move. My information is that the situation in Vila is calm, but that the situation in Tanna is uneasy. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that there are two platoons of police mobile units in Tanna.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the objective of the French and British Governments. We adhere to the intention to try to resolve the problem by peaceful means.

It is the intention that the company of British troops will proceed to Vila, as already announced.

Will my hon. Friend say what are the legal consequences of a state of emergency? Is there anything about it in the present constitution? If so, what does it say?

Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the dissidents on Espiritu Santo lost the election and are a minority on that island? It is not a question of a whole island revolting against the rest of the federation or country.

On that last point, my hon. Friend is right, and this is a very important factor to bear in mind.

My hon. Friend asks about the legal consequences of a state of emergency. I think that the best course for me is to place in the Library the emergency regulation, which is a fairly long one and will spell out for the House what the consequences are. However, I can say that the reason why Father Lini is again consulting his Cabinet colleagues about his request for a state of emergency is that it has been pointed out to him that one of the consequences of a state of emergency would be that the New Hebrides Government would hand over to the resident commissioners control of their own police and of the radio. Father Lini is now considering the implications.

The situation in the New Hebrides clearly is deteriorating rapidly and in a much more serious way than was apparent a fortnight ago when the Minister made his first statement.

May I elicit from the hon. Gentleman a clear reaffirmation of what he told the House on 3 June, which is that Britain and France jointly support the properly elected Government in the New Hebrides, that Britain and France are agreed to discharge their joint responsibilities for law and order, and that they are prepared to make one more effort to persuade the dissident and rebel forces in Espiritu Santo to conform with the requirements of law and order and acceptance of a freely conducted and democratic election?

I have to put this brutally to the Minister of State. Is it not plain that while Britain is determined to carry out its side of this joint declaration, there is evidence—unhappily confirmed by the French withdrawal of the gendarmes who were sent there, without consultation, but only with the lodging of information to the British authorities there—that the French have not the will to sustain their side of the bargain? That creates a situation of the greatest seriousness.

I put one final question to the Minister of State. We are all aware that the declaration of a state of emergency, to which I believe the chief Minister, Mr. Lini, is entitled, can be granted only with the joint agreement of the French and British authorities. But, regardless of whether a state of emergency is declared, is there not an obvious and bounden duty on the still colonial and lawful powers—and in the absence of any separate executive authority belonging to the elected Government of Mr. Lini—to support the civil power in restoring law and order in the New Hebrides?

It is true that the maintenance of law and order has deteriorated since I made my statement to the House some days ago. That is why we took the decision to send in a company of Royal Marines. However, it would be wrong to give the impression that there has been a deterioration in the maintenance of law and order within the past 48 hours.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the respective attitudes of the French and British Governments. I have made a number of statements jointly with my French opposite number, Mr. Dijoud, which are on the record, saying that the French Government, like the British Government, support the constitution which we hammered out together last September and support the legally elected Government of the New Hebrides and the integrity of the New Hebrides.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise his responsibility in this case, bearing in mind that some of his hon. Friends appeared to be failing to do so in connection with the earlier private notice question. The right hon. Gentleman himself has a role to help to secure a satisfactory and peaceful solution. It does not help to inflame the situation by exaggerating any problems that there may be.

A state of emergency requires a joint decision of the resident commissioners. As I say, at the moment Father Lini has withdrawn his request.

Of course I am not anxious to inflame the situation. If it is being inflamed, it is being inflamed by actions taking place in the New Hebrides and by the failure of the two colonial powers to act resolutely, jointly and effectively. Let that be registered clearly.

In this matter, actions really do speak louder than words. Whatever the French Minister has said so far—I hope very much that we shall get clear and emphatic evidence that he meant what he said—to withdraw without consultation the French gendarmes' presence is a major setback to the cause of restoring peace and order and an orderly evolution to independence in the New Hebrides.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is failing to understand the facts. This has been a feature of questions from the Opposition over the past couple of weeks.

The French gendarmerie are based in New Caledonia, which is right next door to the New Hebrides. The French Government believe that the situation in Vila, which is where the gendarmes went, is now stable, and I share that view. If the gendarmes are required again, they can be sent back to Vila within three hours.

That is not the position with us. We are a long way away. We do not have a neighbouring dependent territory, as the French have.

As for the problem of running the condominium, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand if he reflects for a moment, this is a more difficult problem than that of running a colony where only one metropolitan power is responsible. Naturally, the two metropolitan powers tend to have different perceptions of the situation on the ground because of the circumstances, but we are resolved to work together to produce a peaceful solution. That is what counts.

I have a brief statement to make.

Yesterday, during Question Time, when there was a lot of noise, I asked the Home Secretary to paraphrase words used earlier this Session by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore).

On reflection, I realise that my action was not in accordance with the practice of the House. The rules governing the reading out of material and quotations from speeches at Question Time apply to supplementary questions only, but certainly not to ministerial replies.

I hope that hon. Members on the Government Front Bench will convey my statement to the Home Secretary, with appropriate expressions of regard.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about Anglo-Libyan relations. Hon. Members will have seen, in today's press a report of remarks by the head of the Libyan mission in London, Mr. Musa Kusa.

I called Mr. Kusa to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office earlier today to tell him that in view of his remarks, his presence in this country is no longer in the interests of Anglo-Libyan relations, and I asked him to leave. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."]

In the statement that my hon. Friend made to the House on 12 May he emphasised our wish to maintain good relations with Libya. That remains our position, but we are making it clear that the Libyan authorities must understand what can and cannot be done under the law of the United Kingdom, and that criminal actions in the United Kingdom must cease.

I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal will know that his statement is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Opposition. It is probably right for me to recall precisely what Mr. Musa Kusa said, in order to reinforce the action that the right hon. Gentleman has announced. He is reported in The Times as saying that :

" The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this."

Well, we do not approve of Mr. Musa Kusa. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the action that he has announced.

I turn to the slightly longer-term problem in this regard. When the Minister made his statement in May—at the time of the withdrawal of the four members of the Libyan execution squad from Britain—I said that the apparent policy of the Libyan Government, threatening execution of their nationals in the territory of foreign countries, should be abandoned. In the confusion of statements that have emerged from Tripoli, I should like to know what the precise or declared policy of the Libyan Government now is.

Britain and many other countries have a serious and joint interest in preventing this kind of international lawlessness. In May, I said that this seemed to be a matter that ought to be taken up and that condemnation of the Libyan action in the United Nations and elsewhere should be sought. As I know that the Lord Privy Seal is still anxious for some kind of Euro-initiative in the Middle East I express the hope that the nine Government's meeting together at the highest level in Venice will have something jointly to say about how they wish to react to this Libyan lawlessness, which affects them all.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As my hon. Friend said in the previous statement, we are in touch with our partners about this serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that there has been a confusion of statements. I cannot reliably tell him what the Libyan policy is. However, as he knows, we have made our views very clear.

rose——

Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have risen, but I remind them that we are taking time from the ordinary business.

Can my right hon. Friend say what is the exact diplomatic status of the Libyan mission? I understand that in some way the Libyans have refused to appoint people with diplomatic status. If they do not wish to have diplomatic status, why should they be granted the privileges that exist under that status? In particular, why should not we look into their luggage to see what is inside?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we do not wish to exacerbate what is obviously a difficult situation. We granted the people's bureau diplomatic status, but I would not wish to comment any further than that today.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether there has been a single word of apology or regret from the Libyan Government following the action that Her Majesty's Government, in my view rightly, took against them previously for seeking to import on to the streets of this country their own form of shabby warfare, which hazards the lives of our own people? Will he also respond more positively to the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), that having regard to what has happened today the meeting in Venice should most certainly include this matter in its agenda? It is of direct consequence to our people.

So far as I know, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "No ". As to his second question, as he knows, the Venice meeting is in progress. There have been discussions, but I do not think it appropriate for me to send it orders or requests. We shall just have to see what happens.

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), in the light of the action that my right hon. Friend has taken and bearing in mind that yesterday a consignment of cannabis was found to have been illegally imported, has not the time come to reconsider the traditional immunity that is granted to the diplomatic bag? Has not the time come when positive action must be taken by the Government in regard to searching these imports in order to protect not only British citizens but other citizens and nationals in this country who expect our protection?

As to the seizure of cannabis, the Moroccan embassy has been in touch with us, but I am afraid that I cannot comment further at present. On my hon. Friend's more general point, he must realise that these matters are governed by international convention, and the important thing is to ensure that that convention is observed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country are amazed and shocked to know that it can be used as a place for cold-blooded murders at the instigation of a foreign Government? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his reaction to these events is surprisingly mild?

I am well aware of the reaction of the people of this country. It is the same as the reaction of this House and the Government. It is because we take the same view of the events that we have treated the matter in the way that we have.

While recognising the difficulty of obtaining any clear and categorical statement from the Government of Libya about their position, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts that if our Government are not given a categorical assurance that the Libyans are prepared to uphold the provisions of the Vienna Convention the issue of their representation in this country at all must be called into question?

I have made it clear that the declaring of Mr. Musa Kusa persona non grata is not a breaking of diplomatic relations. I certainly would not wish to lok forward to such an eventuality. As I said, this is a serious matter, but I do not want to exacerbate it in any way.

We must now return to the debate.

If anything, that short excursus from our debate reminds us of the importance of the subject. The ability to provide the necessary level of local government services for our people, and the ability to influence the world in ways that this House likes to influence the affairs of the world, both ultimately rest on our industrial and economic strength. That brings us directly back to the subject of the debate.

I have two, perhaps three, interests to declare with regard to this matter. The first is that for five years I have worked, and still work part-time, for the largest independent engineering company in the country. I am probably correct when I say that it is a company that employs more engineers than any other company in the private sector. Secondly, I am liaison officer of the West of England Engineering Employers' Federation. Thirdly, Bristol university is situated in my constituency. That has a distinguished engineering department, to which I shall refer in a moment.

There is an important dichotomy in the debate, in that it falls into two halves. First, we have our opinions on the many detailed recommendations of the excellent and intellectually distinguished report. Many hon. Members will be putting forward individual views about specific recommendations. Secondly, at the heart of the debate lies a different question. Do we accept the underlying analysis of the report, and the single central recommendation that goes with it? Do we accept the analysis which says that at the heart of our 100 to 150 years of relative economic decline, compared with our most powerful industrial competitors, lies the undervaluing of the engineering and productive culture in our wider education and social system?

As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) the analysis is not new. It is also widely accepted. I do not think that many in the country would disagree with it. All the papers and submissions given to the Government or to individual hon. Members endorse it. I should be surprised if we found anyone putting forward a very different opinion in this House today. We must admit that it lies at the heart of our problems, and has done so for too long. In a complex variety of ways we have undervalued production and overvalued the generalists, the administrators, and those produced by the great administrative schools and universities, which were related to a world imperial position. I shall not go further, as that speech has been made for the past 150 years both in the House and outside.

If we accept that analysis, we must turn our minds to a difficult problem. How can Governments change the underlying temper or direction of the culture of a country? We cannot do that only by making sensible speeches on the matter. One unsatisfactory aspect of government is that when a report is commissioned—as with the Finneston report—a distinguished team carefully balances submissions from all interested bodies. But when the Government receive the report it goes back to the people who made submissions to the commission and whose evidence has been carefully weighed by the expert reporting team. The Government then try to put together their own pattern of balance. If there is to be any point in such reports and Royal Commissions, the Government must delegate the balancing and the assessment to those distinguished people who were initially chosen to do the job. Of course there may from time to time be controversial recommendations on which the Government would take a view, but I hope that we shall not go around the same circuit again of trying to balance all the views—that is exactly what the House asked Sir Monty Finneston to do, and that is exactly what he has done in a decisive and successful way.

At the heart of his recommendations lies the engineering authority, and at the heart of that recommendation is the argument that could be summarised as being the "engine for change" argument. We must pay the greatest attention to that. The Engineering Employers' Federation welcomes the idea of an engineering authority. It makes some sensible and detailed recommendations about the form in which any such authority should be established; for example, it should be small, and it should not be a delegated body whose members speak as delegates of various other interests. The federation is involved in industrial production, and it is right to say that the authority should be at least half industrial-based in its membership. It must not turn out to be another institution dedicated to the provision of non-customer based engineering. It must have its roots firmly established in production. In effect, that means that the biggest representation must come from industry.

Large engineering firms, such as the firm for which I work, take a rather distant view of the matter. That will have come through in their submissions to Ministers. They are big enough to look after themselves. They carry out most of their own engineering training. They often operate as trainers for a large part of industry. One company within my group, Marconi, feels that it is virtually operating as a university. There is practically no electronic engineer in Britain who has not been trained by Marconi at some time or other. I hope that Ministers will not be over-influenced by the slightly distant view taken by some of the large companies. They are in a position to take care of themselves.

The big companies do not present the problems. It is the quality of the whole range of medium and smaller-sized companies, carrying out subcontracting and specialist precision engineering, that is crucial to the overall quality of our engineering sector. I hope that we all agree that if we establish an authority, as I hope we shall, it should be firmly based in engineering.

The Engineering Employers' Federation makes various other points. It does not care for the word "authority ", preferring" council". We should not attach too much importance to that. I prefer the word "authority" because it is decisive and powerful.

Do we accept the engine for change argument?

There is a spirit abroad in the land, not only in my party but in others, which is suspicious of institutions established by the House and which do not have a clear remit to which we can call them to account. The new phrase for such institutions is "quangos ". We fear that institutions may be established whose accountability will be limited because the remit is not clear.

The engine for change argument implies that the Departments responsible to the House are not the best institutions to engage in negotiations with education authorities, firms and so on to produce the right detailed recommendations. It implies that we must establish a new body with delegated powers, but that we are not quite sure about its functions. We know the general line and ultimate objective—namely, to raise the general status of engineering production in the community—but we are not quite sure about the list of recommendations that will emerge over a period.

That makes people uncomfortable. It is right that that sort of body should make people feel uncomfortable, because it involves a measure of delegated power. Perhaps the right phrase would be "delegated persuasive ability "—that depends on the effectiveness with which it works—but my view is that we should swallow those reasonable and genuine qualms because such a body should have been in being for 100 years. If it had been, not many would now say "That dreadful quango should be abolished ", any more than many of us say—except from time to time Ministers for Health—that the BMA should be abolished or, indeed, the BBC.

If I may wander into political philosophy, such an authority should be one of the great central institutions or pillars of what Disraeli would have called the multi-pillar State. It should work under a general remit from the Government, but not under direct departmental control.

We should not be too bemused by the word "engineer ". One of the best reasons to be wary of the reservation of jobs argument is that, when talking about raising the productive culture of the country, we tend to talk only about engineers in the traditional sense. As technology is fast moving, we may decreasingly find this appropriate. We may have to talk as much about chemists, physicists and so on. Unless we use a very wide definition of "engineer ", we may find ourselves having invented or allowed a power which would be a block to necessary change because it would try to reserve jobs for men trained in older engineering disciplines when some new discipline would be just as good.

I think that employers will find themselves opposed to any system which prevents them from employing the Freeman Dyson, or whoever is the genius of the day, who may have odd and unpredictable qualifications, but may be just the man for a particular job. We should not set up yet another closed shop.

The education points take us wider than that. The objective should be to introduce into our culture a new generalist. That may sound paradoxical. We should be saying that the generalists who will find themselves in administrative jobs should often come from a generalised engineering background. This is the great difference between this country and other countries. As a classicist, I should be averse to having fewer classicists. The right hon Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I, and, to keep in with the Whips, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and other classicists feel that there is an important role for properly educated generalists, and of course there is. However, as a classicist I am afraid I should be willing to swap most of the people with a PPE degree for those with degrees in engineering or science-based disciplines in the widest sense.

There are very few engineers in the House, in the upper reaches of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the law and in all the other professions attached to the great pillars of State which make up a pluralist society. We are talking not only about increasing and improving the specialised education of engineers; we are trying to feed into our university system the understanding that an engineering education at its first undergraduate level can be just as good a generalised training as in any of the other disciplines. That does not mean that we do not want highly trained, elite, specialised engineers with further degrees. That is a different point. However, we must not let the message go out that we are talking only about the training of engineers, because we are not.

I should like to refer to a letter from Professor Andrew, of the university of Bristol, which has one of our most distinguished engineering faculties. I am astonished to find that he says that the average level of intake is better than three Bs, which I think means at least one A. That is a great deal higher as an average level of intake than any Oxbridge college known to me can boast, yet Professor Andrew says that there are too many engineering graduates who are dull, unreceptive and unadaptable, and he is right.

I say that with respect to my own friends and relations, including my brother, who is trained as an engineer. This is part of the problem. It is because we have separated out the engineers. One of the problems of any great engineering firm is to find engineers—I dare say that I shall get into trouble for this—who can string two words together on paper, can make a proper submission and talk properly. In this place we have people who can do nothing but string words together. Of course, that is the other extreme and we do not want to go that way. But we must get engineers well trained in communicating and getting their arguments across so that they can inject into our society the kind of expertise, mental disciplines, and understanding of production and engineering problems that is necessary. They must be able to do that to stand up against the traditionally trained generalists for any jobs, boards or Civil Service competitions that may be going.

I hope that we shall take the risk of fully endorsing the engineering authority in its proper sense—not as a committee to advise and consult, but as a powerful body with enough delegated powers to be able to tackle the underlying problems. We want it to be able to knock together the heads of the universities and the polytechnics with the heads of industry. It must be able to recommend changes and be sufficiently powerful and prestigious so that when it knocks on Ministers' doors it will be regarded as very serious not to accept its recommendations.

There is one point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon. I do not agree that the only way to give the authority teeth is to go further down the job reservation path. There are other ways of giving it teeth. In Britain, we tend to treat some institutions seriously and others not so seriously. This authority should be on the A list. This should be the one that the private secretary lets in to see the Minister and does not say that the Minister is very busy and cannot see it until three weeks next Tuesday.

The primary role of the authority must be to try to go back to before that period in our history when the dictates of empire swung the objectives of our education system towards administration. It should go back to that more productive eighteenth century culture most dramatically to be found in Scottish universities at that time when it was not thought that an educated man had to be innumerate and to know nothing about the physical sciences, and when the word "philosopher" included natural philosophy as much as an understanding of the Nicho-machean ethics. It should comfort those of us who are conservative and traditionalist in some sense to know that this is going back to an older tune, not venturing on a new one.

I commend the Finniston report to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I hope that they will take the opportunity of being the first Government for 150 years, following their predecessors who appointed the committee, to grasp the opportunity and seriously set about making the omelette, which will need the breaking of a few eggs in the process.

It gives me great pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). We have already done a little work together on Finniston and its outcome. I liked the point that he made about the generalist. The truth is that the harsh disciplines of science and technology are just as good for making a man eventually a generalist as the study of ancient Greek. One of the great generalists of all times was Leonardo da Vinci. He was an amazingly ingenious engineer and a clever scientist—also a man with all-round culture. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, if there is now this gulf betwen cultures it did not always exist.

I should declare my interest. I am by training and experience a chartered engineer and a fellow of two of the institutions much concerned in this matter. My union, the Electrical Power Engineers Association, now part of the EMA federation, has also taken a close interest and been very active.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for referring to the part that I have played in pressing the need for an inquiry into the engineering profession. In July 1976 I wrote a memorandum to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Heyton (Sir H. Wilson). He looked on it favourably and passed it to the then Secretary of State for Industry—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield had to contend with much opposition on the matter. He had to override his officials who were lukewarm about an inquiry and who did not think that it was necessary. Officials always feel that they know better than Ministers.

My right hon. Friend stuck to his beliefs, and the inquiry was duly appointed under the expert chairmanship of Sir Monty Finniston. I remain sad that there was also opposition to the inquiry by the Council of Engineering Institutions. I recall that with sadness, because its earlier opposition to an inquiry has taken much from the force of its criticisms since the Finniston committee reported. It is perhaps unfairly charged with being obstructionist from the beginning.

Why was there an adverse reaction from part of the engineering industry when the Government proposed to take a close look at it? Doctors and medical people generally do not feel that way. They like to put themselves in the public eye. When an inquiry was proposed into the legal profession the lawyers were in favour of it. They felt "If you cannot beat them, join them." The early reaction of the CEI is curious to many people, but I think that I understand it, because there has always been a state of mind among those in professional engineering that craves for status and prestige but feels that it can be brought about without what is loosely called "politics ". I presume that by "politics" they mean governments, Ministers and Members of Parliament. But the suggestion of the CEI for the appointment of the Finniston-proposed engineering authority by the Privy Council overlooks the fact that the Lord President of the Council is a member of the Administration of the day. So it is a distinction without a difference. If there are many Members of Parliament who do not know a lot about engineering, there are, I fear, many professional engineers who do not know a lot about parliamentary government.

Since the publication of the Finniston report it has become the fashion here and there, to say that the causes of British industrial decline should be sought elsewhere than in the deficiencies of engineers. In the bloody-mindedness of trade unionists or, I suppose, people with the long weekend habits of directors, that is part of popular mythology, whether or not it is accurate. However, that sort of argument is irrelevant to the Finniston inquiry.

The inquiry was not looking for a single cause of poor industrial performance, and it is wrong therefore, to charge it with finding a single cause. It is rather like the theologian who was arguing with the philosopher. The theologian accused the philospher of looking in a dark room for a black cat that was not there. The philosopher replied "Yes, I know, but you have found it." The Finniston committee has not found the black cat—the single cause—because it does not exist.

The Finniston committee carried out its instructions; the terms of reference are listed in the report under four headings. They can be summarised as identifying specific questions relating to the contribution of engineers and engineering to the efficiency and effectiveness of our British manufacturing problems. It has identified one uncomfortable truth. While our best engineers can equal any in the world, there are far too few, and the general run of modern engineers—especially the younger men—are not well-qualified by today's international standards. They are not well-qualified compared with, say, engineers in France, Germany, the United States and probably the Soviet Union.

There is a shortage of first class recruits to the engineering profession. Numbers alone are not sufficient. The graduate entry system, as practised at present—I am not, of course, against engineering graduation—has proved to be inferior in many ways in producing competent engineers, compared to the old higher national certificate method. I have some knowledge of that method, because I was trained by it. It was a harsh system, under which an engineering apprentice or student rose at 6 o'clock in the morning and was at the works by 7 o'clock. He worked throughout the day, with a break for lunch. He finished at about 5 o'clock, went to the technical college or polytechnic, and studied until about 10 o'clock at night, week in and week out during the winter for five years.

It was a hard system, and not one to which we wish to return. History has now passed it by. But it had the advantage that for five years when a would-be engineer was working, learning and training, industry became the whole world to him. It was around him and on top of him, and he could not escape it.

In recent years, the engineering degree or qualification has often moved away from industry. In many universities industry is seen rather as one sees an object through the wrong end of a telescope. It is seen as something rather small. An engineering degree has become one of many degrees that a student can take. In my view, the Robbins report is much to blame for that, with degrees for all. Looking back at it, it was not necessarily the best of reports.

Since the war we have moved away from the solidity and earthiness of the old mixed work and study, training for the majority of engineers. Men who hold high positions successfully in, for instance, manufacturing industry, the electricity supply industry and the Post Office, whose minds are broad and big, were trained by that old system. But we moved away from it—rightly, of course—without achieving the quality and depth of degree engineering that is now taken for granted in countries that are in competition with us.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I have both visited Japan. We know that to get to the top in Japanese industry it is preferable to be an engineer. To get to the top in British industry it is preferable to be an accountant, a lawyer, a merchant banker, or a diplomat.

No wonder, therefore, that British engineers of the younger generation do not have the esteem or the comparative cash rewards of their foreign counterparts. Nor can they hope to achieve the high positions in society, in government and in administration that they can on the Continent.

With regard to diplomats, J asked the Prime Minister about

" the functions of the permanent secretary in the Department of Energy; and whether experience in diplomacy and oriental languages is a necessary or desirable qualification for this post."

The right hon. Lady, after explaining the functions of the post, made the suggestion, rather lamely, that if the new permanent secretary could speak Arabic it would be useful in negotiating oil contracts. I then made the point that, with all respect to the talents of the gentleman appointed, Sir Donald Maitland, there had been, surely, a special opportunity here to appoint as head of a Department someone whose mind had been

" sharpened by the harsh disciplines of science and engineering."

I asked

" Why do we go on supposing that to know everything about nothing in particular is a good thing? "

The right hon. Lady made an ingenious reply to that, as one would expect, but she concluded her answer with an interesting sentence. She said :

" With regard to choosing an engineer or a scientist as head of that Department, there are, I am afraid, very few candidates available."—[Official Report, 20 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 245.]

That in itself is something of an explanation of the failings of our society, and strengthens Finniston's criticism of the present system.

I recall that when I was Chairman of the former Select Committee on Science and Technology we had before us a very eminent civil servant who was questioned about the number of scientists and engineers available. The Minister may remember the incident, because he served on the Committee when I was Chairman of it. We asked a question about the number of scientific and technically qualified people available in relation to the particular subject. The answer was that there were so many scientists. I asked how many engineers there were, to which the senior civil servant replied that they were always included under the same title.

This is the extraordinary attitude that is prevalent in quarters in which people should know better. Obviously, engineering uses science to an enormous extent, but engineering, as a human activity, predated science. Indeed, in some ways it is an art as well as a science; sometimes it is an instinct. Not to recognise in this country that high-quality professional engineering exists in its own right, in some ways as an end in itself and in other ways as a stepping stone to the highest positions in industry and government, is to turn our minds and our thoughts away from the real world.

I do not accept every suggestion made in the Finniston report, which is an enormous document. I am not too keen on calling chartered engineers "registered engineers" in future. I think that the term "chartered engineer" is well understood. After all, we talk of chartered accountants, chartered surveyors, and so on. The public understand something about these terms. I should have thought "registered" would be a change for the worse.

It was not the business of the Finniston committee to look at technician engineering, but that is very important. The statistics show that in these days the ratio of chartered engineers—professional engineers—to technician engineers is moving against the technician engineer, for some curious reason. It should be moving in the other direction, because chartered engineers often require the support of a team of technician engineers in order to work effectively.

I know that the Finniston committee was not asked to look at the position of the technician engineer, but I should have thought that the rather elaborate threefold structure proposed was unnecessary. If we were to refer in the future, as we did in the past, to chartered engineers and technician engineers, I think that the position would be better understood.

Although the report is rightly in favour of a statutory register—that is the whole foundation of the proposal, and something that we must have—it has not recommended licensing as such. This matter will have to be looked at for the future. Under the register it may be necessary to have licensing for particular responsibilities—for example, where there are large industrial plants at which explosions can occur, and also in the case of nuclear power stations, great chemical plants, oil rigs, and so on. There is a case for having registered engineers— chartered engineers, as I prefer to call them—licensed to carry out that kind of task and to accept that kind of responsibility.

I add my plea to the pleas made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the debate should not be simply another review of the Finniston report. It is proper for us today to ask for the Government's intentions. If they cannot give them today, they must give them very soon. Consultation has gone on quite long enough. Action should now take the stage. The TUC, the CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation all support the essential Finniston.

Among the engineering institutions, apart from the CEI, there are differences. The Institution of Electrical Engineers has played a valiant part and a very open-minded and progressive part from the beginning. It is in favour of the Finniston recommendations being carried through in their essentials. That means the setting up of the proposed authority. I should have preferred to see a "council ". The hon. Member for Bristol, West said that he would prefer to have an authority. He has connections with the GEC, so I suppose there would be some confusion, if a lesser body were to be set up after the GEC was already in existence.

The appointments to the authority should be made by the Secretary of State for Industry. The exact composition of the authority is now open for discussion. The profession, of course, wants a considerable number of professional engineers or representatives of institutions to be on the authority. I would be rather against the institutions, as such, being represented directly. It is far better that the Minister should use his judgment in making the appointments.

There can be many variations in the mix. It is not really critical. As I have said, we need action. I do not believe that the professional institutions have either the authority or the will to act on a voluntary basis to achieve the aims of Finniston. There is nothing static about professional institutions—or there should not be—because life is changing all the time. New institutions spring up as they are needed. There are many examples. Some old institutions are probably not quite as necessary as they were in the past. There is, understandably, a vested interest, and they sometimes go on beyond what should be their natural life.

In an earlier intervention I made the point that if the institutions had become what they were originally intended to be, namely, learned societies, they would be likely to respond quite naturally to changes in technology, to respond to new skills and ideas coming forward, and to new discoveries being made. They are not in a position to do on an amateur basis what the Government should do. There is no reason why there should not be a special levy towards the cost. However, it would be foolish to quibble about the cost when faced by the risks if we fail to act.

As the Under-Secretary said, the climate of opinion is favourable to action. If we lose the opportunity to make this great human gift to the industrial needs of our country, we may not be given such an opportunity again.

I very much welcome the chance to take part in the debate, because my constituency of Lincoln lives off engineering. A large part of its output is exported, and the city and its jobs depend not merely on supplying a cosy protective market in Britain, but on competing on equal terms with the best engineers in the world. Lincoln does that now, and will continue to do that, together with Britain as a whole.

It may be argued that the engineering profession is not doing well enough and that we should do more. Indeed, that may be even more vital in the coming years. That is why I welcome the report. It focuses attention on engineering and brings into relief the things that must be done to enhance the standing and achievement of engineering if we are to survive as a prosperous country.

The report broadly and starkly depicts a crisis in manufacturing. As short a time ago as 1963, 15 per cent. of the world trade in manufactures came from this country. In 1977 that figure had fallen to 9 per cent. Throughout the century this country has earned a large surplus through manufacturing. At present our trade is just in balance, but threatens to fall into deficit. Productivity has risen at a slower rate than that of our com- petitors. It is now less than half that of our neighbours in France and Germany. As a result, our profitability has consistently been the lowest among the major economies.

A particularly worrying trend is that we tend to export cheaper manufactures, but import more sophisticated goods. Inevitably that trend will lay us open to fiercer competition from the newly-industrialised countries. All those trends result from our failure of achievement in the engineering dimension.

Of course, there are exceptions. All hon. Members know of businesses that do very well. Indeed, some businesses in my constituency do well. However, the gravity of those trends is self-evident. I sense that all hon. Members are united in the belief that we should reverse them. The pace of technological change is bound to get faster. We therefore have little time in which to reverse those trends. We all recognise that the role of engineering in that struggle is crucial.

The Finniston report does a great service, because it emphasises the fundamental nature of the changes that must be made and that they are bound to take time. They cannot be accomplished overnight. As we have heard, a major change in cultural attitudes is required as much as anything else. We have many outstanding engineering achievements to our credit, but a widespread acknowledgement of engineering is lacking. A mix of disciplines unite to form a total engineering package.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) mentioned the need for salesmen and managers to be engineers. In Europe, engineering is considered a third culture, that can hold its place alongside science and art. That is not so in Britain, where it has always played a secondary role. We lack the cultural or pecuniary awards to attract the best people into engineering. Any reform should give priority to allowing engineering its rightful standing in society. We must attract our best people and graduates into the profession.

The report sets out a practical programme for achieving those reforms and bringing about the cultural revolution. It regards the the creation of the engineering authority as crucial to that end. As we have heard, the authority will be the engine of change. Its central role will be to promote the engineering dimension. Some argue that the existing Council of Engineering Institutions could develop to fulfil the role of an engineering authority, but experience suggests that that would not be so. In reality, the council is the servant of its component institutions. It must cater for the self-interest of those institutions, and is consequently pulled in various ways. It cannot concentrate on promoting the unified wider interests of engineering. In contrast, the new authority should be independent of the engineering institutions, although its members must be acceptable to those institutions.

There has been considerable debate about the exact constitution of the authority. However, there has not been much argument about the need for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) put it more eloquently than I could, when he said that the authority must become one of the pillars of society. If one wishes to achieve success in any venture, one must find the best man to put at the top. The engineering authority must promote engineering. Nobody should doubt the formidable task that would face that industry if it did not have some powerful body to coordinate its efforts, with a responsibility to concentrate wholeheartedly on promoting engineering.

The aims of the Finniston report are bound to fail. Our national approach to engineering cannot be achieved merely through the activities of the new authority. The beginnings of change lie deep in our educational system. That is why I welcome the involvement of the Department of Education and Science in all aspects of the report. Excellence in engineering must begin with the teaching of mathematics and physics, but there is a desperate shortage of qualified teachers. For example, when a comprehensive school in my constituency advertised a top mathematics job it received only three applications, and another comprehensive in my constituency cannot find a physics teacher, although Lincoln is traditionally an engineering city.

When other subjects are advertised, those schools are inundated with applications. That is not good enough. We shall never make achievements in engineering without teachers. Perhaps teachers' salary scales should be revised in accordance with deficiencies in supply and demand. We must have sufficient teachers of good quality in such vital subjects.

The Finniston report demands a broader school curriculum. As students may eventually be encouraged to turn towards engineering, the option of becoming an engineer should remain open to them for as long as possible. In addition, a potential engineer should be given a much broader outlook. When one contemplates the breadth of disciplines involved, one cannot but agree with Finniston, which argues that the links between schools and industry should be closer. The report states that Finniston

" would like to see every secondary school involved in one or more schools/industry scheme, and every company developing links with at least one local school."

That happens in Lincoln and elsewhere. The results where it does happen are good. However, it should happen much more, and we can still do much better. I hope that the Government will take active steps to encourage it.

We must, at the earliest age in our schools raise the prestige of the engineering profession. That is vital for our national survival. If we are to do that, we must have a good supply of schoolteachers in the necessary subjects, a broadening of the curriculum and closer contacts with industry.

We all recognise the serious economic state that gave rise to the Finniston report. The report underlines the critical role that engineering has to play in our economic survival. It emphasises how fundamental the reforms will have to be if basic attitudes are to be changed and if the engineering dimension is to achieve its proper status in society. Perhaps the most useful achievement of the report is to bring home to us the seriousness of the problem and how fundamental the reforms must be if we are to succeed. It is a practical report. I have referred to the engineering authority and the education system, but progress and change are needed on many other fronts.

These issues are so important that the report must not be allowed to accumulate dust on the shelves. We expect the Government to take the report on board with the utmost seriousness and to ensure that action results.

I am pleased to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). The small attendance in the Chamber probably reflects the absence in the House of an engineering dimension and the strong belief that Governments will not move quickly to implement some of the proposals.

Listening to the debate I have been worried by the general suggestion that the engineering problem is purely a British one. The lack of status for the engineer is widespread. It exists not only in Western countries. The other day I happened to be involved with some Russian statisticians. They told me that the man who carries out original research work in the Soviet Union receives a great deal of money and enjoys considerable status, whereas the development engineer is badly done by. The problem exists far beyond Britain, but undoubtedly there is a real British problem.

Much of the problem stems from the image of the engineer. The popular image is still that of the oily-handed mechanic. The media play some part in perpetuating it. The scientist, whether good or evil, is "a great guy" in media terms, while the engineer is given a minor role.

The real problem lies in our education system. This is where I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Lincoln. Early on in schools children get the impression that the engineer is not "respectable ". Teachers are so often divorced from the business and industrial scenes. Few of our teachers are aware of manufacturing problems in Britain. That lack of knowledge is not confined to education at primary or secondary levels. More frightening are the changes that have taken place in the polytechnics, which are extending throughout the colleges of technology. I refer to the movement away from engineering, towards the more academic courses. That cannot help the development of engineering and the growth of manufacturing industry. There is an education problem, which is worsening. I accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends have some responsibility for the movement that has taken place.

The more major problem is the attitude of employers in both the private and public sectors. It is difficult for engineers to make progress in line management and to maintain their engineering role. There has been some progress in getting more engineers into management, but few of them maintain an engineering role when they move in that direction.

I could not disagree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in his view that that difficulty is due to failure of communication on the part of engineers. That is completely wrong. The problem lies with those who appoint senior managers and directors. They appoint their like. That may change in time. The change is not taking place fast enough to meet our problems.

I welcome the report's major proposal to set up an engineering authority. The authority should be responsible to Parliament but it should represent the major engineering institutions. The authority is the greatest single contribution to providing status for engineering. However, it must not be considered an alternative to the Council of Engineering Institutions and the existing registration system. It must not be considered as an alternative to what we have already. The authority must be looked on as an addition to the existing structure.

I could not disagree more with the three-tier proposals in the Finniston report. For once, I agree with the submission of Lord Howie of Troon, who argued strongly that, as far as possible, the need was to maintain and strengthen the existing examination structure. There is a danger that the more tiers there are the greater the tendency will be to create second-rate and third-rate citizens, which we should avoid at all costs. The CNAA has made important contributions, but it has created second-rate students with the HND. Movement to a three-tier system would be wrong.

The creation of an authority is not the answer to all the problems of manufacturing and engineering. Its major contribution would be to focus attention on the problems. The question of solving them goes far deeper. The answer lies in pay and promotional opportunities in industry. As anyone in engineering knows, Government pay policies have created difficulties for graduate engineers. Many companies were unable adequately to pay their graduate engineers, many of whom had to go to smaller firms for their salary increases. We no longer have that problem. Now is the time for the private sector to ensure that their graduate engineers are paid adequately.

Promotional opportunities should be made available to engineers—and I use the term "engineer" in its widest sense. It is difficult to distinguish between mathematicians of different types. There is a leaning towards the wishy-washy disciplines—the pseudo-sciences, economics and accountancy. They tend to take precedence in promotion. The situation is possibly worse in the public sector. Few top civil servants are engineers. Many Departments have highly skilled engineers, but few of them have top jobs. That applies even more in public sector industries. How many chairmen of electricity boards have been appointed because they also had first-class engineering qualifications? Pay and promotion are the problems in the public and the private sector.

The Government must act quickly. They have three roles. First, they must set up the authority to act as a focus. More importantly, they must look at our education system. I have been involved in training engineers and I am extremely concerned about the changes. Thirdly, and most important of all, in the public sector the Government must give a lead to the private sector by demonstrating that pay and promotion opportunities are available for engineers.

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and of the Institution of Structural Engineers. With slightly more hesitation, I confess that I am an elected member of the Council of Engineering Institutions. I understand that there are nine chartered engineers in the House, and we have heard from two of them today. I have one other claim to speak, in that I was one of the few Members who submitted evidence to the Finniston inquiry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Walde-grave) will forgive me, because I was a graduate of a Scottish university, and probably that makes it all right to be a politician as well.

I think that today's debate has illustrated adequately the danger of leaving the engineering profession to politicians. Although we have not yet had an engineer as a Prime Minister, we are making some progress, because for the first time in history we have a Prime Minister who is a graduate scientist.

A few people will not support the objectives of the report in so far as it seeks to improve the engineering strength of industry. My fundamental criticism of the report is that it gives the impression that deficiencies in the qualities of engineers are responsible for the malaise that has for years affected British industry. I do not believe that that is true. We in the engineering profession are looking for the same things as the rest of the country. We know that wealth must be created before it can be distributed. We know of the need to control inflation, because in the engineering industry, above all, heavy investment is important. There is a danger that in making so many recommendations for fundamental changes we shall distract from the real problems of manufacturing industry, which have little to do with engineering alone. They are concerned with the economic and industrial affairs of this country. Once these problems are solved and the national climate exists for expansion, I am sure that the engineering profession will react to the opportunity.

Many hon. Members who have read the report will be aware that it concentrates on the problems of manufacturing industry and the manufacturing sector of professional engineers. That represents less than 50 per cent. of engineers in this country. The recommendations in the report are too drastic and too radical. Above all, they are much too optimistic in what they believe can be achieved. Because I am an engineer, I support progress and controlled change, particularly in engineering. We can and should build on our present systems. We should define our objectives and gradually move towards them. If Finniston is 100 per cent. right and we adopt all the recommendations, everything will be fine. But if Finniston is only 75 per cent. right and we adopt all the recommendations, the result will be chaos.

One of the omissions from the report is a reference to technicians. Industrialists in my constituency are more concerned about lack of technicians than about the numbers of graduate engineers. The report contains a number of contradictions. I cannot agree that we should produce as many engineers as possible. It is quality that matters, not necessarily quantity.

I agree with many of the report's recommendations of the education and training of engineers. I refuse to use the word "formation" for engineers—that sounds like something that was dreamt up in an iron foundry late at night. Perhaps "moulded" might be a better word, but I shall stick to education and training. I want nothing to do with registered engineers in any of their three forms. It has taken us years to get the term "chartered engineer" accepted in this country and, even more important, accepted abroad. It has also taken many years to obtain recognition and registration of a form, which a new string of qualifications would not help. In fact, it would only confuse the issue.

The report refers to some 80 engineering institutions, but, of these, I think we would accept that the civil, mechanical and electrical engineering institutions are by far the largest. If we examine their role, I think we will conclude that to date they have served their industry well through voluntary effort. It has all been done without great expense to the public. In suggesting that the role of qualification should be removed from the institution, I think that the report may have overlooked the fact that there are many members of institutions—let us be honest about it—who pay their subscription merely to be able to put the qualifying letters behind their name, so that when they are seeking employment or—that dreaded word—" status ", it is granted to them. If we take away the role of qualification from the major institutions, they will have little source of income and will be in a worse position to fulfil their other important role—that of a learned society.

Does the hon. Member agree that it is, nevertheless, a curious situation in this country that if one forgets to pay one's subscription, one ceases to be a chartered engineer?

It may indeed be curious, but presumably if one does not pay one's subscription to any club, one can no longer enjoy the facilities. It may not be one of the better points, but it is one of the points to which the Council of Engineering Institutions has given consideration.

The term "engineering" covers, as I have said, many skills. It rather tends to concentrate on the manufacturing side and to ignore the needs of, for instance, the construction industry, where the institutions of civil, structural and municipal engineers have a high standard of qualification. Indeed, there are those in the profession who whisper that those three should merge and form an authority for the construction industry.

Let us examine the Institution of Civil Engineers for a moment. It was founded 162 years ago, and it has always played an important role in the training of young engineers. Professor Chilver's committee is in the process of improving the qualifications needed. The traditional method of training and final qualification for the Institution of Civil Engineers is based on a personal assessment of a candidate's professional competence by his peers—a number of senior engineers, some of whom will have been involved in his training.

That system has served the construction industry well, and I am concerned about how an impersonal body, however well set up, such as an engineering authority, would replace the qualification fun-ority, would replace the qualification function. As with the Institution of Civil Engineers in its more specialised field, the Institution of Structural Engineers demands higher and higher qualifications and skills from new entrants.

I return to the proposed engineering authority, which, to judge from speeches today, would be launched with almost evangelistic fervour. I was about to say "arrogant enthusiasm ", but perhaps I should control myself. After all, it suggests a single simplistic solution to all the problems of the engineering profession. Such a new authority, under the control of the Government and financed by the Government, would bring politics into the profession. I cannot believe that if political patronage is used to appoint its members, ultimately it will not to some extent be under the control of the Government of the day, and therefore bound to follow their whims.

If I may be so bold, as a relatively new Member of this House, as to convey the message that I was asked to bring from industry, it is this : "We want less Government interference, not more. We want less regulation and more opportunities to meet our competitors on an equal basis." If they examine the record of Government interference in industry to date, I think that many hon. Members will support my argument.

We sometimes hear talk about the engineer's status. As an engineer, I am never sure whether we are talking about status or money. "Money" is a dirty word. "Status" is a nice clean way of saying" I want a rise ". If we are talking about status, surely it would be wrong if this great profession were to become a tool of the Government. In regard to the legal profession, a noble Lord has already expressed his reservations on this point. One can imagine what the legal or medical professions would say if they had to be controlled by a new quango.

The intention behind Finniston is to raise the status of engineering, and make it a more attractive profession. It would be a retrograde step to put it under Government control. That would put engineers in an even worse position than they are in today.

In spite of the enthusiasm in the House, I believe that much of Finniston cannot be implemented, because a number of professional institutions are against it. One institution has gone so far as to say that the report is misconceived and damaging. I do not agree. I believe that its analysis and its alternatives are useful. But the House must be careful in supporting the Minister when he makes his choices. All that I have read about Finniston leads me to believe that if we are not careful we shall destroy much that is already good and put an unknown quantity in its place.

Finniston dismisses the Council of Engineering Institutions as having achieved very little and being under-funded. I agree with the last sentiment. It has been under-funded for years, because it was created as a co-ordinating body by the various institutions, but it has made progress. It now has on it elected representatives equal in number to the institutions' representatives; representatives elected by all corporate engineers who are members of institutions. That gives those of us—I am one—who are elected the chance to speak for the profession and its needs without being beholden to any institution.

The council has done much in the training and registration of engineers. It has established a uniform and widely accepted system of examination, which has replaced the previous hybrid examination. It has established an engineers' registration board and encouraged many people to join it. The register now has 270,000 names on it. Before we talk about registering engineers we had better decide what we should do with those who are already on that register.

The CEI would be the first to say that it has not achieved all that it wished to achieve, but it has perhaps made a few faltering steps in the right direction. It has taken account of what it has done and then tried to improve itself by changing its charter. As British industry becomes more involved in exports, the CEI's work in obtaining recognition abroad of the term "chartered engineer" will become more and more valuable.

I turn to the education and training section of the report, although I know that this is largely to be dealt with at a conference in the autumn. The liaison with schools—engineers going into schools and persuading school leavers to enter the profession—has all been done by the CEL I have here a pamphlet produced by the CEI, which tries to prove with easily assimilated illustrations that when someone is deciding whether to become a solicitor or a vet or to enter one of the other glamorous professions he or she should also consider engineering. It tries to show that the engineer no longer spends his life up to his elbows in oil, and that this country's future could well depend on engineering.

I must agree with hon. Members who have said that we must be careful in defining "engineer ". I am not sure whether Einstein would have qualified as an engineer under our present proposed definition, but he had a considerable effect on engineering in this country. Let us by all means have our register, but let us build on the register that already exists and be careful not to make fools of ourselves, because on the fringes of engineering there are scientists and many trade unionists who are proud to call themselves members of an engineering trade union. Where do they stand once we start registering engineers? Where does the jobbing builder stand who will knock out a fireplace, having first put in a lintel to hold up the chimney? I do not think that he would qualify as a registered engineer, but he has 40 years' experience and knows what he is doing.

The proposals in the Finniston report which I can support, among others, are those which consider education, especially in our schools. The fundamental fact that we in the engineering profession must face is that we start with one hand tied behind our backs. When Johnny decides on his career, if he is bright he does Latin and two other languages, if he is a little less bright he may do biology and chemistry, but if he is even less bright he finishes up doing O-levels in various subjects which have little relevance other than to prove that he can read and write when he leaves school. It is this middle section for which engineering has to compete. It is competing with the medical profession, veterinary surgery, science, and so forth

I welcome the discussions which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been having to ensure that every child gets some scientific education at least to O-level. That provides a choice. It is wrong that in the second or third year of secondary education a child should be put on a certain line. At the conference in the autumn which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is sponsoring, I hope that there will be sufficient time to expand on this theme.

If we are to maintain a standard of education and training for all engineers, it is no good the Government saying that they want more engineers and then make it very difficult for engineers to reach the top ranks of the Civil Service. I do not take quite so dismal a view of the possibilities of engineers getting to the highest ranks of industry. I am reminded that the president and vice-president of the Institute of Directors arc chartered engineers. But we never hear about it, because people tend to drop their engineering qualifications when they move into management. I have many engineering factories in my constituency whose managing directors have very high scientific and engineering qualifications. However, they do not seem to advertise those qualifications. The fact that they are the managing directors of their companies is quite sufficient. Perhaps a television series glamorising engineering, such as has been done for the medical profession, might improve the image of the engineer.

The constant repetition of the Finniston recommendations may cause people to think that there is only one way forward, but it seems to me that three main roles are envisaged for the new engineering authority. The first is the regulation of the engineering profession, including the setting of standards. The second is to act as a voice for the profession at home. The third is to act as an engine for change.

To my mind, the right course is to build on the Engineers' Registration Board that we have already. We should leave the qualifications with the major institutions. We should set up something along the lines of the General Medical Council and include elected members, representatives of engineering institutions, the teaching institutions and people from outside the profession. Above all, we should retain the title "chartered engineer ".

Much has been said about the activities of the Privy Council. The Council of Engineering Institutions operates under a charter which has to be approved by the Privy Council. Because recently it has been going through the process of changing its charter to allow for elected members, it has perhaps become a little confused about the activities of the Privy Council.

Membership of an institution should still be the normal route for qualification, although we still have to provide for the mavericks who will not join any body if they can help it. The money for this new body must come from registration fees, and the body itself must be self-financing. We do not want status conferred by the Government. We want status to be earned.

I envisage some reform, with the Council of Engineering Institutions acting as a spokesman for the profession and perhaps providing co-ordination on technical affairs. I should like the engineering profession to expand its activities in schools, although I appreciate that it is already doing a great deal.

I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. Members to the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which has been mounted by the Association of Consulting Engineers and which, as I said last night during our debate on the construction industry, helps to illustrate how much the profession and the contracting industry earn overseas.

As I have said, many engineers are already running successful companies, but it is no good speaking as though all the problems that we face today can be put right by the Finniston report. It is perhaps salutary to remind ourselves that just 30 years ago a similar report was produced, which called for a Royal Institute of Technology. I understand that that report is still gathering dust on the shelves in various Government Departments. I should not like to see such an institute. I want the good parts of Finniston accepted, but I want to see them converted so that they are built on the good system that already exists. I urge much caution before we consider licensing.

My final plea is that, whatever comes out of the great debate on Finniston, there should be no new Government body to control this profession. We need a body which is independent, which can speak with an independent voice, which is independently financed and which can do what the lawyers and doctors have done for themselves. We do not want another quango for which the long-suffering British taxpayer must pay. We want a recognition that over the years the profession has striven hard to put itself right, but with precious little help. I believe that the help, will and recognition now exist. Let the profession get on with the job. Above all, there should not be another Government-controlled body.

I doubt whether I am expected to follow the course outlined by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). I remind him that he is, I think, a graduate of St. Andrews university, which, I imagine, was set up by the Government of the day. He ought, therefore, to accept that form of Government interference in industry and education.

My first point is that, while we are discussing the broader implications of Finniston, this debate is not really about an inquiry into the general aims of the engineering dimension. The report is really about British industry. I suggest that we are discussing a non-political matter. It is not an apolitical matter. The divisions of opinion which have been expressed across the Chamber, which have been demonstrated in many of the excellent speeches, are not party political.

Without discounting the broad terms of reference contained in the report, I do not think that we are talking about primary or secondary schools, engineering education or professional institutions. Rather, I believe that we are talking about British manufacturing industry, its relative decline and its relationship to the vital engineering dimension.

With my background as a failed engineer and a past economist, it is not my intention to knock British industry. However, our survival as a leading manufacturing nation is directly attributable to United Kingdom industry. Our difficulties reside not in the fact that we must be as good as our major competitors but rather in the fact that the nature of our economy requires us to be better. Generally, I do not think that we are succeeding in that regard.

If we take a narrow definition of engineering industry to include mechanical engineering, instrument engineering and electrical engineering, an index of industrial production with 1975 as its base of 100 shows a decline to 97·5 in 1976, 97·7 in 1977 and 99·4 in 1978, rising to a mere 101·3 in 1979, with an almost certain impression that there will be a fall in 1980. The total numbers employed in the industries show a fall from a peak of 2,073,000 in 1966 to 1,783,000 in 1979.

Many would argue—and I caution them against it—that the United Kingdom is entering a post-industrial phase, and that the numbers in such industries are bound to decline. I resist that argument because its acceptance manifests a dangerous outlook. Such an acceptance has blunted our competitive instincts and led us to the view that we have to succumb to the fear of competition from abroad. That has considerable sociological implications because it goes against the British character.

While I am concerned about industry, I am also concerned about the man and, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), the woman also. It is significant that during the debate no one has mentioned the great area of recruitment and educational potential that lies in the young women in Britain. I was remarkably put down when I visited the United States recently. One young lady, whom I addressed in a cavalier fashion by asking "Are you a secretary or a personal assistant?" replied "No, I am an engineer. "She flashed her fraternity ring at me showing the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I wished that the floor would open up and swallow me. That is an indication of the vast reservoir of talent to be culled into the engineering profession.

As many have indicated, the engineering industry is not one of oil and grease, but a sophisticated area of activity. I shall quote the Kipling poem "M'Andrew's Hymn ", which refers to an old Scots engineer, in his lowly fashion, saying :

" What I ha' seen since ocean-steam began Leaves me no doot for the machine : but what about the man?"

Indeed, what about the man and the woman? If we acknowledge that the wide-ranging inquiry advocated by the Secretary of State will produce results, we must ask : "What sort of results are we expecting?" The danger of such an inquiry is that the Secretary of State will go for a consensus and the lowest common denominator. He should not do that. He should be bold and imaginative.

The lowest common denominator approach is the one that we have heard from the hon. Member for Poole—the approach of the Council of Engineering Institutions that wants to defend the status quo. That will not do. Its major arguments are about self-regulation and the fact that manufacturing industry accounts for fewer than half the number of professional engineers. It is not my intention to disparage the role of the CEI. I prefer to consider the most positive submissions coming to the Secretary of State from the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers the Institution of Electrical Engineers and their broad acceptance of Finniston. I do not quarrel greatly with the concept that the engineering authority might come under the Privy Council. That does not worry me unduly, although I should prefer a stronger statutory body.

I do not like the term "Central Engineering Authority ". I should prefer "Council of British Engineering ". I support the hon. Member for Poole in arguing for the retention of the title "chartered engineer ". However, one point with which we should concern ourselves is that made by the former president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Lord Scanlon, in his excellent maiden speech in the other place. As a member of that union, I, too, ask : "Who will pay? "If the education and training of professional engineers is to be industry-orientated, industry must make its contribution. That will bring a closer interrelationship between the academic profession and institutions and industry. But the Government must also make their contribution. They cannot stand back and expect the initiative to come from both sides of industry and the academic institutions, including the universities.

I am attracted to the teaching company scheme initiated by the Department of Industry and the Science Research Council four or five years ago. Under that scheme, industries second staff who are graduates to work jointly with universities in tackling problems encountered in industry. I am heartened to learn that this type of problem-solving approach is increasingly finding its way into the educational programmes of undergraduates. That is the way that we wish to go.

I turn now to the concept of the central authority, or whatever name we give to it. My main desire is that it should have power to focus national attention on the importance of engineering and the engineer and to produce an annual report for debate in the House. How we get that interrelationship is a matter for discussion and debate. But it is essential that we draw the attention of the nation, through the House, to the engineering dimension so that we can all measure progress from one year to another. That would involve the Government of the day taking decisions arising from the report and would call increasing public attention to them.

I realise that these are broad and complicated aspects. Finniston has indicated where we are now—point A—and has given us a desirable goal—point B. It is difficult, in the realms of discussion and the number of people we have to take with us, to see how we can reach those suggested aims. The important point is to call the attention of the public to the significance of the engineering dimesion.

At the risk of upsetting my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), I suggest that the Government should look at the public relations aspect and perhaps consider inaugurating a national engineering day. Perhaps I may be vainglorious enough to suggest James Watt's birthday, 19 January, for such a day. Only through imaginative means can we call the attention of the public to the importance of engineering and its contribution to the nation's economy. I recognise that these are complicated matters. However, we shall not attain the objects envisaged in the Finniston report if the Government of the day are not bold and imaginative. I appreciate that we shall have to go through the educational aspects later in the year.

It may be a carping criticism on which to end, but it is a great disappointment to me that no Scottish Minister has seen fit to grace the Government Front Bench, because no part of the United Kingdom is more dependent on ensuring the enhancement of the engineering dimension than Scotland. I wish the discussions well and earnestly hope that the Government will initiate action as soon as possible.

It is encouraging that the Government have given a number of indications, including the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, that they will not sit back following the publication of the Finniston report. The report draws attention to problems that are highly relevant to Britain's current economic malaise. It makes many positive and constructive proposals. Sir Monty Finniston has drawn attention to the fact that previous reports on these matters have, unfortunately, been pigeonholed. I echo his heartfelt sentiments that urgent action is vital, in justice, to those who have contributed in many ways to the report. Some of its recommendations are controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) indicated that in his speech. Proper consultation with all the interested parties is essential, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) that they should not provide an excuse for delay.

The report has already been usefully debated in another place, and I congratulate the Government on finding time for this debate today. We should not draw too much significance from the fact that it has been relegated to a Friday because of the heavy legislative programme. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) that it is sad that more hon. Members could not have been here to listen and to contribute to the debate, but I understand their desire to be in their constituencies today. In my experience in the House during the last year I have found that many of the best debates have taken place on Fridays.

Central to Finniston's analysis of the present situation is the fact that the status of the engineer in this country is lower than it should be. Every hon. Member who spoke used the word "status ". Many people who should consider engineering as a career are deterred from doing so, perhaps because they are frightened of getting their hands dirty, or perhaps because engineering jobs in private industry are not sufficiently highly regarded in comparison with the risks. When the return on capital employed in companies is only about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., I do not think that any further elaboration from me is necessary. I agree that the status of the engineer should be elevated, and the creation of an engineering authority can do much to

" advance the engineering dimension in national economic life, and particularly in manufacturing."

I should like to consider what is meant by "status ". The report takes full account of the need for all the bodies and agencies to work closely together with industry. It also calls for more cooperation between universities and colleges, and large and small companies. In this regard we can learn a great deal from the examples that the French and Germans can provide. Perhaps as a means of according proper status to engineers and to the engineering profession, Finniston puts forward new degree programmes leading to the awards of Bachelor of Engineering and Master of Engineering degrees, and also a package leading to registration as a registered associate engineer for those engineers who will play a vital, practical supporting role.

There is a vital need for specialist engineers, but, as the report acknowledges, there is also a need to bridge the gap between engineering and management. The answer is not necessarily to graft on a management unit to a course that is predominantly concerned with engineering. It is all too easy to do that and to think that the management side has been dealt with. That is not enough. The needs of industry for future managers can be met advantageously by educational routes additional to those proposed by Finniston. Interdisciplinary courses—such as that in industrial technology and management which takes place at the University of Bradford, which I visited recently—provide an increasing number of graduates for production management and related functions in manufacturing industry.

The course that I have just mentioned is a broadly-based one, which bridges the gap between industry, engineering and management. It includes two placements in industry providing opportunities for the sort of practical experience which several hon. Members have mentioned as being absent from many courses embarked on at the present time.

Those who have graduated from this course have gained positions in production and marketing, in management services, in research, in purchasing, in personnel and in finance, as well as in engineering. The programme provides an understanding of the principles of materials, of engineering technology and of quantitative techniques, but also examines the social context of production, including communication and marketing, and covers the theory and practice of organisations and industrial relations. This kind of course should go some way towards resolving the problem about communications in industry that was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).

Each student has to complete two major academic projects, and some graduates will use their experience as a basis for a more specialised course in engineering. In those cases the course provides a start, but only a start.

One of the five major elements in the course is called "Man in Industry ". I do not think that this automatically means that woman in industry is excluded. It is interesting to note that the number of women who take this more broadly-based course is very much greater than the number of those going into engineering as a whole, which seems to me to be another reason to commend it.

I hope that it will be agreed that the more broadly-based approach has a great deal to commend it, particularly because our peculiarly British failing has not been in inventiveness or engineering skills but in exploiting our inventions successfully. The danger is that the publicity and prestige associated with the academic qualifications that Finniston proposes may deflect all the best students into specialist engineering courses, whereas many of them would have much to gain from a more broadly-based course that docs not preclude subsequent specialisation.

Perhaps rapidly changing technology makes the need for a broader understanding particularly great. The report takes account of this factor. As is stated in the summary, engineers

"need a wider perception of their role in a business enterprise than now seems to satisfy many of them."

We must make sure that the pursuit of excellence takes sufficient account of the fact that this excellence can be achieved in various different ways.

I was particularly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon had to say about Hong Kong and Japan. In Japan, the marketing came first. After the war Japan imported its technology but became extremely expert at marketing it, even though it may have acquired the technology only on licence. Since then the engineering skills have come, and Japanese products are as good as any, but it was the marketing skill and the ability to promote the products that created the great growth that we all know about in Japan.

I mentioned the need to raise the status of engineers" but it is surely extremely important to stress that they must not become a race apart, in the way that was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. He said that he would regret that, and I would regret it just as much. Engineers need to keep their feet firmly on the ground.

I suggest that part of the problem is that almost anyone who is slightly involved in the engineering industry likes to call himself or herself an engineer. A fitter with the slightest skill may call himself an engineer. This has made it more difficult to increase the prestige of the profession.

More prestige does not necessarily mean separate facilities. British engineers have tended to go for prestige and status because there has not been the remuneration that engineers and managers in other countries have been able to obtain. They have looked for facilities such as separate dining rooms.

We have a great deal to learn from the Japanese, who have no sense of aloofness. In Japan everybody is working for the same ends, whether it is the managing director or the sweeper. If someone does not turn up to work on the shop floor because he is ill, the manager will work on his machine. It will not be thought that he has lost any status, or that his dignity is reduced because he has done so.

The search for what I think is the wrong sort of status in British industry comes about because in many instances other rewards have been absent. Raising the status of the engineering profession should not divide engineers from others among the work force. That is a factor that the engineering authority should take into account.

The authority must also ensure that industry plays its part in bridging the gap between it and academic and training institutions. For example, in the training of medical students it is taken for granted that hospital experience will be made available. Industry should accept an equally positive role in the training of its future management. I understand that at Bradford university those who run the course that I have described find difficulty in persuading firms to take on those who participate in the sandwich part of the course that they run.

The engineering industry training board, which I visited a few weeks ago, provides support. However, that support needs to be regulated in a much more logical way. The chairman of the board, Lord Scanlon, made an extremely powerful speech on the report when it was debated in another place. More well-aimed publicity is needed to encourage industry to make places available for relevant undergraduate experience.

In welcoming the report's conclusions, I merely argue that creating the formal structures and putting the legislative requirements on the statute book will not be enough. We may think that that implementation will be enough and that as a result all the problems will be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth. The implementation of the proposals in the report would provide, to use Sir Montague Finniston's own words, "an engine for change ". The engine will need continually to be fuelled and to receive regular maintenance if it is to operate efficiently and to the benefit of engineering and of Britain as a whole.

At the end of the debate a great deal of what I wanted to say has already been said. I shall have to engage in some elimination as I proceed.

I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to debate the Finniston report. I hope that we shall take action on its positive aspects. There has been no shortage of reports to successive Governments on this subject. For example, there was the Dainton report on candidates in science and technology in higher education, the Swann report on the entry of science graduates into employment, the Fielden report on engineering design and the Zuckerman report on technological innovation. There have been many guidelines.

It is a sad fact that fewer gifted young people are encouraged by their teachers to opt for engineering. Although many engineering managers visit our schools, the attitude of young people stems from the attitude of their teachers. That is something that we must change As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, it is an unusual career for a girl. About nine months ago I was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I was amazed at the number of female students. It was an eye-opener. There are a few progressive professors of civil engineering in our universities who encourage women students to study civil engineering. All hope is not lost.

As many hon. Members have said, part of the trouble is that our professional engineers do not enjoy the same status as their opposite numbers in Frence and Germany. In those countries a professional engineer has the status of a Minister of a federal government. Products of the Grandes Ecoles and of the Technische Hochschule achieve great eminence as consulting engineers, heads of great industries and as academics. However, we often prefer lawyers, accountants and those who do not have scientific training to head our industries. Instead of looking to practical, trained engineers and scientists to improve our industrial performance, we tend to find people such as Milton Friedman. He is helping the Government to make an even greater mess.

We need to improve education if we are to produce better engineers and scientists. However, as a result of cuts in education, universities are unable to replace staff. School leavers—our future technicians—are unemployed. They cannot undertake the training that they need. The prospects are therefore grim.

Last night there was a debate on the construction industry. It is interesting that the two debates followed each other. Yesterday's debate made clear that public sector contracts, on which civil engineering firms and others depend, are being cut back. At the same time our capital structure is ageing and deteriorating, and is not being enlarged or replaced. As a result, a massive amount of expenditure is being laid up for the future. If this vital area is to be improved, the Government must show that they are willing to give the same priority to developing industry as they are willing to give to defence. If they do not do that, the decline and waste in graduate and postgraduate education will continue.

The report makes proposals about the acquisition of engineering qualifications. If those proposals are adopted they will cause a great upheaval. Hon. Members have already mentioned that engineers can be separated into three groups. However, if the proposals were accepted a drastic reorganisation of degree courses would be involved. That would take a long time to set up and cannot be done overnight, or even within a year.

I should also like to draw attention to Lord Scanlon's speech during the debate on this report in another place. As one would expect from a man with unrivalled experience on the shop floor, he made a balanced and practical speech. He said that we had five to 10 years in which to get it right, and in which to establish ourselves as a leading industrial nation. He warned against setting up another quango. He thought that too many qualified engineers spent their time on research and development. I do not accept that that is true of a large number of civil and structural engineers. They apply their training and knowledge in a practical way. In every part of the world one can find our eminent engineers. Well-known firms are adding to our export achievements by designing and carrying out important projects.

Civil engineering is highly competitive. During the past decade there has been a decline in the volume of work. As a result, more civil engineering firms have had to look abroad for work in order to survive. In a highly competitive market they face severe competition from German, Japanese and Korean firms, particularly in the Middle East.

For a long time I have felt that Governments should give practical help and encouragement to such activities of civil engineering firms. Indeed, I pressed my party to do that when it was in office. I understand that the Engineering Employers' Federation supports the proposal to establish an engineering authority. However, civil and structural engineers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors have put a contrary point of view to me. Of course their problems are different from those of manufacturing industry.

Those engineers believe that the addition of a statutory Finniston register is unnecessary and would not enhance the status of chartered civil engineers. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) made the point that the appropriate institutions should continue to carry out the accreditation of professional examinations and company training programmes. They do not dispute that standards of certain degree courses should be improved, but believe that that should be achieved through the existing machinery rather than by setting up another authority.

The proposed new engineering authority will have no new powers outside the field of statutory registration, and will have to rely on persuasion, as the institutions do now. However, it will have almost 40 new tasks assigned to it, according to the report. The costs will be considerable and, to some degree, there will be a duplication of what is being done by the institutions. The institutions have to review educational training and standards constantly. After all, human lives depend on what civil and structural engineering firms do. They already do an enormous amount for accreditation and qualification.

At root lies the problem of the supply of science teachers in schools. I hope that the Government will take on board the urgent need to improve the supply and qualifications of science teachers. There is a need for new technology in our schools. We are far behind many other countries. We need to encourage girls to enter engineering courses and equip themselves to work in the new technology. Already a whole new vista has opened in that field, and we are far behind. Financial support has been inadequate. We hear the siren voices on the other side, calling all the time for more cuts in Government expenditure, but, without resources and without teachers, any hope of implementing the remainder of Finniston will be lost.

I join the Under-Secretary of State in the two tributes that he paid. The first is to Sir Monty Finniston and his committee. The committee must have been much overworked. To produce such a large report with so many recommendations in a relatively short period must mean that the gentleman in the driving seat was driving the committee extremely hard. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), on whose initiative the committee was set up. In July 1976 he wrote to the then Prime Minister suggesting an inquiry, and we listened to his contribution with great pleasure.

I join hon. Members on both sides of the House who say that it is a pity that such an important subject should have had so small an attendance. Looking at the Press Gallery, one notices that the lack of attendance is not confined to hon. Members. In a strange way, perhaps the Finniston report is essential if only to bring about a different attitude and atmosphere in the engineering industry.

If I may be forgiven for capping the splendid Kipling quotation by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas):

" Lord, send a man like Robbie Burns to sing the Song of Steam! "

or whatever came later. It occurs to me that Kipling did not say "send a man like Alfred Lord Tennyson to Sing the Song o' the Internal Combustion Engine ".

Apart from scansion, there was another reason why a Scot was chosen. The Under-Secretary of State in his journeys around the world will have observed many traces of British engineering. Also, he talked about engineering at the end of the nineteenth century—the Chinese railway and so on. I suspect that most engineers who at that time were engaged in work abroad were Scots. The reasons for that were that they came from a country that had to export its brains and the status that they received in other parts of the world was often greater than that in their own country.

There is a lesson there for us in the twentieth century. I am glad that the Minister paid tribute to British engineers. The demand for British engineers abroad is still very strong. We are not dealing with an industry that is producing duds. We are dealing with one that is in great danger in our own country.

This debate is certainly due, perhaps even overdue. The Finniston committee has tried to remedy the deficiencies of half a century or even a century. However, at least we have all become aware of the problem. The quality of speeches in this debate has been extremely good. I do not wish to sound patronising. I am not an expert, and sometimes I find that listening to experts is not the most interesting occasion, but on this occasion, when so many hon. Members knew what they were talking about, the debate has been one of the most interesting in which I have participated. In a way it is a pity that we have been almost unanimous in our views. Only the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised the flag of revolt. I wish that the Secretary of State had been present, because his seal of office would have added something to our discussions. The Minister has pointed out that there is a plethora of Ministers on the Front Bench, and we take it that the three who are there are almost the equivalent of the Secretary of State.

I turn to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Poole, when he talked about the manufacturing industry. Personally, I was rather taken by paragraph 12 of the Finniston report in which a study is quoted, and the suggestion is made that half of those employed in non-manufacturing sectors depend for their jobs on their links with the manufacturing industry. That is an important observation, and it is not obvious until one goes into it.

Finniston diagnoses certain symptoms in our industry with which we need to deal urgently. Our manufacturing performance has been overtaken by our major overseas competitors. Our share of world markets has slipped in almost every sector : cars, ships, chemicals and steel making—we have gone right down in all of them. In the same period, whole manufacturing industries have simply vanished—motor cycles, cutlery and typewriters. That is the position, and there are consequences that none of us can afford to neglect. Import penetration has grown to the point where we have become, almost unbelievably, a country that imports more manufactured goods than it exports. That, in turn, means that this country, once the workshop of the world, is becoming its supermarket. That bodes ill for all of us.

In the light of the Finniston report, what can be done to try to halt and reverse the spiral of industrial production? I have a certain amount of common ground with other hon. Members. Unless we take our engineers more seriously than we have in the past and harness and utilise their skills and talents, the position will get worse and eventually become disastrous. The fact is that things either get worse or they get better. It is an axiom of life that they never stand still. That is our present position.

What I felt was a little troubling about the Minister's speech—which otherwise I enjoyed, as the whole House did; it was a very thoughtful and good speech—was that it did not seem to give that punch, that decision, that we would wish. It may be that in a few weeks' time the Minister or his right hon. Friend will say "It is all there, we are going ahead ", but the fact is—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) pointed this out—that there have been many previous inquiries, widely acclaimed at the time, and perhaps even endorsed by the Government of the day, that have then been left, as the hon. Member for Poole said, to gather dust on the shelves.

In this instance that must not be allowed to happen, particularly when one realises that it is not only in this House that there is a large majority in favour of these measures. It is a large majority right across both sides of the House. There is also a large majority in favour of them in the TUC, the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation, and some of the learned societies. Therefore, we are talking about a global view.

That brings me back to the immediacy of the problem. I hope that the Secretary of State will not allow any more dust to gather. It is a matter of only a few weeks before the House rises for the Summer Recess, anyway. I hope that we shall have a definite, clear indication that we shall go ahead with the recommendations.

When the report came out, I said that the Labour Party, including myself personally, wholeheartedly supported it, and that if the present Government did not implement it a Labour Government would do so. However, because this matter is so important for all of us, I hope that the Government will accept the report and go ahead as quickly as possible to bring in the necessary legislation.

The trouble is that legislation takes time. With the best will in the world, time is one of those commodities that we do not seem to have. Therefore, I support the suggestion to set up a shadow authority, which should start work as soon as possible on defining its functions and the methods of work, until the necessary legislation can be passed. In that way we can save a great deal of time. I recommend that course of action.

There is an awful lot that can be said about so many parts of the report. Incidentally, when the Minister was talking about the Government and employers and what their relative roles should be, it occurred to me that out of 80 recommendations in the report, there are 18 that employers are advised to carry out. Therefore, there is there a clear recognition of what must be done by both sides. That is all to the good.

I want to make some detailed comments on the proposals. First, I believe that the authority must have on it a majority of professional engineers. They must be independent of their individual institutions. This is a case in which I do not believe in a mandatory form of selection.

Or reselection.

Or reselection. It is the independence that is needed, so that they can look at the wider picture. That is important.

I put my next comment to the hon. Member for Poole. I put it as respectfully as I can, because he has a lot of experience in these matters, and I have very little—perhaps only a lawyer's feeling for criticism of what others do ; I do not know. The experience with the Council of Engineering Institutions shows that a body built on a delegate basis puts people into a straitjacket. I do not think, to judge from what I have read, that the authority could work on that basis. However, I go this far : I believe that initially it must be appointed by the Government, that somehow it must work to be, if not self-regulating, self-governing, as soon as possible. This is a profession that needs a degree of launching and priming. The last thing that it needs is nannying.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke about the difficulties that would arise in such an authority, with so many different groups revolving round. It occurred to me that the solution might be to have a series of rotating chairmanships, at any rate for an initial period, so that the chair would go from representatives of a particular sphere after a period of, say, two or three years on to the next. Perhaps every third or fourth chairman might be a layman. I believe that in that way there would be much greater interest, and it might help some of those who object to being left out and some of those who object to being brought in. Perhaps some thought will be given to that idea in due course as the authority emerges—if, as I hope, it does emerge.

The question of the Privy Council, raised by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), causes me slight difficulty, because, like the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, I think that the idea of having the Privy Council is intended to solve a particular problem but that it does not sove it, because in the end there is a Minister responsible, and in this case it is the Lord President. In the future he may be someone who knows something about the subject, but I have known many Lords President in my time, and I would not have put any of them in charge of the engineering profession. Perhaps we are really looking for a single channel of representation so that this child knows where its home is. That can no doubt be worked out in due course.

I find the arguments against the statutory regisration of qualified engineers extraordinary. It seems to me to be an absolute imperative. The irony is that in many of the countries where each of the major institutions has members there are systems of statutory registration. It is nothing new or unusual. It is extraordinary that in this country today an engineer does not need professional qualifications in order to practise. Unqualified people can describe themselves as engineers and can work and offer advice, just as before about 1922 anybody could call himself a dentist if he wishes. Sixty years later, I prefer the qualification and the registration that evolved in that industry.

I do not want to deal for too long with education and training, partly because I promised the Minister that I would give him enough time—and I am very much aware of the clock—but also because I very much approve of the idea of the two-day conference in October. I think that we shall learn a great deal from that, perhaps more than at this stage I would want to contribute, although I take many of the points made by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) and for Wolverhampton, North-East and by Conservative hon. Members. Some sort of basis ought to come out of the October conference, and I am happy for the moment to suspend my judgment on it.

I end with one thought which touches partly on education and training and partly on the general scope of this subject. We have not got bad engineers——

I think that my right hon. Friend has just concluded his comments on the forthcoming conference. However, will he concede that one of the difficulties which should be avoided at the October conference is that of getting bogged down in the politics of education, thus delaying initiation of the essential elements of the Finniston report?

I agree. It hope that the Minister can reassure us about that. I am sure that my hon. Friend's intervention was worth the minute that it knocked off the Minister's time. I hope that it will be a conference where people take off their coats and get down to the real basic facts.

This is a challenge. We have not got all that much time. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said, without prior consultation with me, that he thought it would be 10 years before we had a proper newly-formed profession. Curiously enough, that was the period in my mind, and probably in the minds of other hon. Members.

Let us remember that we have good engineers. We need a profession which is given the status and the opportunity and, above all, is the natural profession to think of when considering top management. I look forward to the day when that is true not only of men but of women, too. To his eternal credit, this was pointed out first in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. Not entirely to my surprise, he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. It is important that this future for young people in the industry shall be given. It is part of the reason. It is perhaps the most important part of all. Then the day will come when, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) foretold, training and education will not be limited to classicists, for example.

There was one terrible disadvantage to the old, long-lasting imperial regime of China, which lasted between 3,000 ad 4,000 years. The top civil servants and the top people in industry were always examined on their knowledge of the Mandarin language of about 2000 B.C. Let us not get a modern equivalent of that in our country.

I want to express my appreciation of the very important contributions made from both sides of the House in this most useful debate. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will read the debate carefully to take note of the many constructive arguments put forward on this very important occasion.

I intend to respond to the various matters referred to by hon. Members, and then I shall go on to detail some of the conclusions that we have reached at the Department of Education and Science. I have to tell hon. Members on both sides that I shall refrain from dealing too much with Department of Industry matters because the educational impact has been emphasised and I do not want to run the risk of overlapping too much the province of that Department.

I deal first with the matter referred to by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) about the forthcoming conference, and later in my remarks I shall develop the greater detail of that conference.

We have set up this two-day conference, and it is being run by a totally impartial committee. Here I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who suggested that the conference was being sponsored by the Department of Industry. In fact, it is being sponsored by the Department of Education and Science and it is being chaired by the former deput chairman of the National Enterprise Board, Mr. Dick Morris, with a totally impartial committee drawn from a wide background, which I shall describe in due course. We hope that the political aspects will be totally left out of this important conference, and in a moment I shall discuss some of the likely themes of the conference.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) was good enough to pass me a note to indicate that he had to leave early to fulfil a constituency engagement. However, I want to refer to one or two of the comments he made in his speech. He gave an interesting philosophical and Historical survey. I do not know whether he carried every hon. Member with him in his opening remarks, but from his own previous position at the Department of Industry he knows of the importance of industry and education. The unit, which has a close involvement with my own Department and the local education authorities, has made a not insignificant contribution to bringing that recognition into the classroom.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a shortage of skilled engineers. We all have views on that definition. One of the things that we have discovered in our travels around the cities of the United Kingdom during the past 12 months—no doubt Ministers in the previous Administration discovered the same thing—is that there does not seem to be a great shortage of first-degree engineers, whereas there is a tremendous shortage of skilled labour and technicians. What worries me so much about the curriculum in our schools is that against a background of unemployment there is always a pool of skilled jobs on offer in every major industrial town. That is something that worries us deeply, and that again brings us back to the question whether we are matching our national needs.

My Department is sponsoring a dozen or so conferences, to be held in the fall of this year, which are to be chaired by myself and ministerial colleagues. They will continue until early 1981. They will cover all 105 local education authorities, the regional CBI and the teachers' unions. We hope that that will be the second phase of the all-important dialogue that is still necessary to some of the previous initiatives.

There has been a very good reception so far from the many organisations that have been running exercises designed to improve co-ordination between schools and industry. However, over the past few years I believe that we have tended to rely too much upon the nationalised industries and multinationals for the links with our schools and colleges. I believe that the help that we received from the late Sir John Methven and hope to receive from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—we shall be ex- panding our dialogue with chambers of commerce later this year—has played and will play a significant part. We now want to ensure that all sizes of companies and firms in manufacturing industry are involved in the schools. I hope that industry itself will march 50 per cent. of the way and that it will be met on the other 50 per cent. of the way by the schools, the head teachers, the chief education officers and the chairmen of the education committees.

Those are important initiatives. I welcome the dozen or so initiatives that are already in train, aimed at trying to improve secondment from teaching into industry and vice versa. I should like to see more industrial organisations adopting schools in their areas and providing equipment. When equipment becomes obsolete, it could be given to the physics or chemistry laboratories, or to the science teachers. Such initiatives could be undertaken, and they are not a great drain on resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) has over the past six or seven weeks spoken for the better part of an hour and a half on this subject. He was lucky enough to come second in a private Members ballot some weeks ago, and to a certain extent I was able to reply on that occasion. His record on this subject is second to none. In opposition, he made an enormous contribution with his own committee, and we are grateful for the wise counsel that he brings to the subject.

My hon. Friend talked about the pattern of education in our universities. I suspect that he was also thinking of the pattern in our schools. He was perhaps reflecting, as I have over the past year, that perhaps the Education Act 1944 was not so bad when it described the importance of the grammar school, the secondary school and the technical college. The great tragedy is that those have been phased out. We now have the comprehensive system. One of the great regrets is that possibly the Government and the country have never spent enough money on technical education in secondary schools.

I turn to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I am almost inclined to call him "my hon. Friend" because in the last five or six years we have spent many hours together on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He made a number of important points in his speech. He referred to the status of engineers and covered a number of issues that were dealt with in the Select Committee reports in the mid-1970s. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman's record is also second to none.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of schools and education, and the absence of engineers in senior boardroom decisions. Perhaps he will cast his mind back a few years to the time when we were studying small engine technology. He will recall that we took evidence from a major motor manufacturer and discovered that the seven board members present were accountants, lawyers or financiers. We tried to find an engineer but, alas, there was no engineer on the main board. I must beware because my master at the Department of Education and Science is a barrister. I must be careful not to get into trouble with him by criticising the role of the legal profession.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred to the status of the engineer, and also to engineering courses. He suggested widening the role and the curriculum which engineers study. The enriched engineering courses began three years ago, and are commonly known as Dainton courses. Although they do not receive a wide enough coverage in our universities and polytechnics—only seven cover that four-year degree course, a number give an extra year of language training, and Birmingham university does a business study course—some activity has taken place over the past few years, and that is important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) rightly identified the importance of generalised engineering education. That theme has come out of the Finniston report, and also from the experts around the country. It is essential that engineering becomes far more generalised and that it should be underpinned by a sound knowledge of the basic subjects. That will come out of the curriculum survey which my right hon. and learned Friend announced as coming to fruition some time later this year. We shall invite local authorities to review their curricula. We acknow- ledge fully the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the shortage of maths, science, physics and chemistry teachers. I would add a further shortage, namely, that of craft, design and technology teachers. There will be a serious shortage of science and maths teachers over the next few years, and there is no doubt that the position of craft, design and technology is equally worrying. Numeracy and literacy standards appear to have dropped. I would add another dimension—the teaching of dexterity. That must start at an early age in the classroom. The teaching of metalwork and woodwork is all-important as an early forerunner to entering the engineering profession.

We have tried to encourage and to recruit those faced with early retirai, and who hold a science degree, to retrain for teaching. We do not intend to lower the standards, but a number of ex-employees of private industry who retired in their early fifties have been recruited.

The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) said that the status of engineers was not recognised and that there was a shortage in many of our nationalised industries. Over the past five or six years we have had an extremely competent and able set of leaders in most of our nationalised industries. The engineering profession is well represented, especially in the area of energy. I hope that that sets the hon. Gentleman's mind to rest, because a number of engineers are heading the nationalised industries.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not mention all the points that have been raised. We are acting on the important points about teacher shortages. We are trying to encourage a recognition by local education authorities, through our conferences, of the importance of engineering subjects and the industry links.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, in an informative speech, referred to the teaching company scheme of the Science Research Council. That has made an important contribution over the years. I have seen the precise work carried out by the engineering board of the Science Research Council. Hon Members may be interested to know that the council has approached me because it is keen, due to the increase in its engineering work, to expand its title to "The Science and Engineering Research Council ". The non. Member for Bristol, North-East will remember that that was once a recommendation of the old Select Committee on Science and Technology. The council approached us formally and asked my Department for its views on the desirability of such a change. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering the matter. I do not wish to prophesy what might happen, but I thought that it might be of interest to the House because it introduces another dimension.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline referred to the importance of women in engineering. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) referred to that matter as well. I am sorry that she had to hurry her speech towards the end to enable her right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and me to come into the debate.

I was interested recently to receive the Royal Society's response to the report of the committee of inquiry into the engineering profession. I recommend hon. Members to read that report because it is an extremely effective document. The report coincides with many of my own views on the situation facing us. The report at page 6, paragraph 4, states :

" It is undesirable to treat education for engineering in isolation from education in science and its applications. We strongly support efforts to persuade more girls to tackle appropriate combinations of subjects leading to engineering careers."

We fully acknowledge that point.

The role of the conference over the next few months will, I hope, be of interest to hon. Members. If I sketch in the background, it may be of interest.

I do not want to appear churlish, but will the Minister indicate the relationship of the Scottish Education Department to this conference?

I think that in the course of developing my argument I shall answer some of the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is anxious. Expressing a parochial interest which is not far removed from his, I think that the Scottish engineers' contribution to this country has been very significant.

My Department wrote to over 50 of the major educational organisations in January following publication of the report inviting views on the educational issues. We also issued an open invitation through the press for anyone who had views on the educational aspects of the report to let us have them. The response has been most heartening. We have had over 100 replies from individual universities and polytechnics and the departments within them. Sir Monty has obviously struck a chord with many of those responsible for educating our future engineers. In common with many of those consulted by other Departments, they broadly accept Sir Monty Finniston's diagnosis, but there is a wider spectrum of views about his prescription for action.

We hope that all the universities and polytechnics have now responded. I also hope that the Scottish universities are playing their part. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline is anxious to know about some of those institutions I shall be happy to write to him in due course.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East referred to the engineering debate in education which has gone on for a number of years and the fact that many reports have been produced. Sir Monty points out that his report is the latest in a long line of reports from eminent committees on this subject. We fully acknowledge that. Indeed, I could add others to the list quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—Dainton, Fielden and Bolton. There have also been recent reports from the major engineering institutions—Dawson, Merriman and Chilver, to name but three.

Some important initiatives have flowed from this debate : the development of enhanced courses at a number of universities and polytechnics, the development at a number of universities of courses more specifically related to industry's needs and the establishment of the national engineering scholarship scheme by the previous Labour Administration run jointly by the Government and industry to encourage more of our most able young people to consider careers in manufacturing industry.

While the position is worrying, a number of initiatives have emerged since the great debate in the mid-1970s. Everybody acknowledges that there is a long way to go, but I believe that we are climbing back up to what we should be achieving. The strength of our system is that it has the flexibility to allow innovation of the kind that we have announced over the last few years to flourish.

Finniston points to the need for improvement in the total process of professional preparation, and the consensus of comment is strongly on his side. But I have said before, and will continue to insist, that it by no means amounts to an indictment of present engineering degree courses. On the contrary, the report pays tribute to the many strengths of our engineering education—and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that point today—and, more importantly, the esteem in which it is held overseas.

I hope that I do not introduce a sour note into the debate, because it has been constructive, but I was disappointed to read that the Institution of Electrical Engineers, in a recent published contribution to the debate, described our degree standards in this subject as

" generally below those in other highly industrialised countries."

I consider that to be a wrong diagnosis, and I should like that placed firmly on the record. Our academic engineering education is of a standard to match the best, but the formation package for engineers as a whole needs to include a better grounding in engineering practice—the application of engineering principles. This is as much a challenge to industry, which must take the prime responsibility for the stage of formation which follows graduation, as to the education system.

While it was still in preparation, we realised that the publication of the Finniston report would be an ideal opportunity to focus the continuing debate on engineering education and training. For that reason we decided to sponsor the two-day conference. We see this as an occasion to bring together all those with an interest—the educators, the employers of engineers and the engineers—to discuss the issues together with an independent and impartial chairman for each of the six sessions.

In order to prepare the ground for the conference, last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science appointed the steering committee, to which I referred, under the chairman of Mr. Dick Morris. I wish to place on record the enormous contribution that he has made in setting up the conference. Much hard work has been put into it by him and his committee. I should also like to thank the Institution of Civil Engineers at whose premises the conference will be held on 15 and 16 October, and the Institution of Electrical Engineers for the secretarial work that it has carried out for the committee.

It may be for the benefit of the House if I indicate the background that determined the appointment of members to that committee. We appointed Sir John Atwell, a mechanical engineer; Sir Kenneth Corfield, an electrical engineer; Mr. Dowd, principal of the Oldham college of technology, and also a mechanical and production engineer; Mr. Geoffrey Hall, the director of Brighton polytechnic, and a chemical engineer in fuel technology; Mrs. Innes, a head teacher from Newcastle upon Tyne, whose school has a good record on science and other related subjects; Lord Scanlon; Professor West, vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Bradford, and an electronics engineer; Mr. T. O. Williams, a director of British Aerospace, Preston, and an aeronautical and production specialists; and Mr. Muir Wood, a civil engineer. We believe that we drew together from the various regions a fair cross-section of experience. I am grateful for the work carried out by Mr. Dick Morris, given his present commitments in private enterprise.

The main task of the Committee was to prepare papers for the conference on the six major themes running through the education and training proposals of the Finniston committee. Those themes are : first, a subject designed to discuss attracting enough suitable young people, including a fair proportion of the most able, to a career in engineering; secondly, their basic formation—the first main educational course and associated practical training; thirdly, accreditation of both elements of the formation package : fourthly, recognition of professional competence; fifthly, practical experience, continuing competence and updating of knowledge; sixthly, and perhaps most important, the relationship with the technician support base—the formation of the higher level technician—and links between it and full professional formation. That conference will start on 15 October I believe that we have covered the important points because we have included experts as opposed to civil servants and officials who organise the Department. I say that without deprecating the work of the civil servants and officials.

We have tried to assist the experts in preparing the conference. They have carried out separate consultations with the major interests of both sides of industry, the professional institutions and the academic world. I understand that they have received responses, many of them lengthy and detailed, from over 150 separate organisations and institutions, and that they are now well ahead with their task of preparing conference papers.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the date of the conference has any bearing on the date of the decision by the Government on the Finniston proposals?

There is no significance in that. We felt, when the report was published in January, that there could not be a snap conference. Such a conference could not be set up in such a short space of time. Once one gets beyond May or June one is well out of the conference season. We felt that October was the better time. It will be just after the conference season, but perhaps this conference will strike a better chord with the nation than the conferences that precede it.

The discussion and decision-making processes of the recommendations are still going on between Departments. I hope that the contributions that have been made in the debate will help to prompt the views and opinions of Ministers.

I am happy to tell right hon. and hon. Members that the reports that we have had so far have been lengthy and detailed, from over 150 separate organisations. Demand for places at the conference is also very strong. It is particularly pleasing to know that each side of industry will be well represented at the conference. I hope that Members of Parliament will also be present to contribute and listen to the discussion.

I should like to record my appreciation of all the work that has been put into the preparations for the conference. The members of the committee have given their services completely freely. They have travelled from all over the country. The interest that the conference is generating is a measure of the success of their efforts, and I am very appreciative of them.

The conference will not be limited to those questions on which Finniston has made specific recommendations; it will include in its agenda the supply and training of technicians, which Finniston recommended. That is important, and I have referred to it already. The conference will address itself to all the main recommendations in the report, and our hope is that some main lines of consensus will emerge from it to assist the Government in reaching their conclusion.

I want to emphasise the importance that we attach to the preparation and training of young people of all ages and all levels in schools and in colleges. Although we can try to put things right at top level, the lead times over the next decade in reviewing what is in our curriculum are important. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East referred to equipment. The pace of change is extremely fast. There is the use of audio visual equipment, the use of computer technology in classes, and so on. We have announced a programme for further finance alongside what local authorities are already doing.

We have problems with the shortage of teachers in these subjects, but we believe that the atmosphere is getting better. I take the optimistic view that industry is beginning to get more involved and to understand better the way in which it should be advising teachers on what it wants to come from the classroom. That is of paramount importance.

We acknowledge the role of the Department of Education and Science. A number of initiatives were set up by the previous Government and we shall be continuing with them. The Department of Industry and my own Department are now working very closely together to try to ensure that industry and schools get together on a new footing. For far too long the grass has grown and not too much has been done. In many respects industry has not played the role that it should play, and has played in other countries.

I repeat my appreciation of the contributions that have come from all quarters of the House this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate. I echo and endorse what the right hon. Member for Deptford said in that respect. I hope that the contributions from hon. Members and their conclusions will be read closely by the responsible Ministers and that hon. Members will try to find time to attend the conference in October.

This Adjournment debate slot was originally allocated by ballot to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but as soon as the subject in relation to a constituency case in Northern Ireland appeared on the Order Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman said to me "The walls of Jericho fell ", and he withdrew his Adjournment debate. I cannot hope that on this subject of the Ministry of Defence's response to the United States strategic alert on Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June, the walls of Jericho will fall as easily as they fell to the right hon. Member for Down, South.

I should like to make it clear to the Minister—and I am grateful to him for his presence on a Friday afternoon—that I approached this matter in a mood of complete sombreness and in the belief that the usual crossfire of questioning in the House of Commons is not appropriate to as complex, serious and difficult an issue as this.

I shall put the questions quietly and precisely. I outlined to the Department that I would go through the questions and answers that were given on a previous occasion. There is one point that causes me to take issue straight away. This is not primarily a matter that concerns the United States of America; it concerns every Government, every political party and everyone on the face of this planet. The stake is so high that if there were any miscalculation we should all end up in a frazzle. I acquit the Secretary of State for Defence of being bland. I am sure that he cares as much as any hon. Member. I dissociate myself from any accusation that he has been complacent.

The Secretary of State for Defence said :

" the error was detected very rapidly."—[Official Report, 9 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 27.]

It was not. In computer time, three minutes is a very long time. I checked with a computer analyist of 25 years standing, Mr. Philip Vince. He wrote :

" I do not believe we should be worried so much that errors occur at all, as no system can be made perfectly reliable, as that it took three minutes to detect that they were errors. Three minutes is an enormously long time in the operation of a computer, during which tens or hundreds of millions of instructions can be performed. If this error detection were performed in a few seconds, it would be physically impossible to launch aircraft or missiles during the period of uncertainty. The precautionary chain of events could be started at once but would be halted too soon for the USSR's surveillance organisation to respond I to real aircraft movements it considered hostile although they were only responding to an imagined threat."

That is no cause for satisfaction.

The Secretary of State for Defence then said that we were in consultation with the United States authorities. That would provide an opportunity to give an interim report—if not a definitive report—and to do so more quietly than is possible in answer to a parliamentary question or to a private notice question. I asked the Secretary of State what action the American strategic forces in Britain take. I received the answer, "None, Sir." I hope that that answer will be reconsidered.

At one level it is true that American forces in Britain must have done something. As the Minister knows, there is a transatlantic computer link. Something must have been registered on that link. As a Back Bencher, I am entitled to ask what happened. I would understand it if the Minister said that I should not ask such a question, or that he would not answer delicate questions of security, but I am entitled to ask whether the Secretary of State for Defence knew exactly what happened.

The Pentagon announcement was as follows :

" Some displays of the National Military Command Centre and at SAC HQ indicated multiple missile launches against the United States."

Was the Secretary of State for Defence kept fully informed of what happened? I couple that with the question "When did he know and when did the Prime Minister know? "

I refer to the bottom of column 27. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked :

" In this country at least, is not all early warning information shared between the United States and the United Kingdom? "

The Secretary of State replied :

" That is so."

I ask the Minister a Question that has bothered me and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who has made a special study of these matters. Is there an obligation on the Americans to share with the British information that it gleaned from installations outside Britain? The Defence Secretary said that the alert was an entirely defensive procedure. He said :

" It carries with it no other implication than that the forces are automatically alerted."

However, in the Financial Times of 10 June, David Buchanan stated that

" The Strategic Air Command had been automatically alerted, and activated its B52 bomber force."

Presumably the activation of the B52s would at least be known to the Russians. We can be certain that the Russians were watching the airborne command unit. I understand that at least on Tuesday 3 June, if not on Friday 6 June, the airborne command unit was in the air and operational. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of trying to mislead the House. One can be all too glib about these matters. Nevertheless, deep down the term "defensive" is meaningful. We cannot talk about "offensive" and "defensive" in this regard. In my opinion these are meaningless terms.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Allaun) and many others have said that an American mistake could lead to a Russian mistake. Some of us are equally concerned about what goes on on the other side of the world. We say quite bluntly that a Russian mis-take take could lead to an American mistake. However, we understand that 90 per cent. of the offensive system of the Russian submarines is permanently in Murmansk. That gives the impression that there will be a long lead in if they think that there is to be global trouble.

I am bothered by what Schlesinger, the former United States Defence Secretary, called the Pearl Harbour complex. As a result of what happened 40 years ago at Pearl Harbour, it is part of the tradition of the American forces that never again will they be caught on the ground. Therefore, they might be more quick on the draw—I will not say jittery—than is perhaps safe for the rest of us.

I return to the incident of November 1979. Apparently a test tape simulating a nuclear attack was erroneously run through the main defence computer, with the result that 10 nuclear bombers scrambled from United States and Canadian bases and 1,000 Minutemen, with their ICBMs, were put on low-level alert. It was six minutes after the first support signal from the computers that they concluded that it was a mistake.

Six minutes in computer time is a very long time. How can we be sure that that activation of B52s will be seen as defensive? The Secretary of State for Defence said :

" No one instrument is allowed in any circumstances to be responsible for alerting the forces."

That is either factually untrue, or there were mistakes on Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June in more than one computer. The forces were alerted.

The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) asked :

" Were press reports accurate in claiming that a faulty computer was indicating that rockets were likely to land on the United States within three minutes ".

There was no clear answer about the nature of the fault. If the hon. Member for Horncastle is wrong in his supposition, what was the nature of the faulty advice? In reply to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) the Secretary of State for Defence said :

"That process is already in hand."—[Official Report, 9 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 27–29.]

If information is not forthcoming today, may we be told what timetable the Government have in mind for their consultations with the United States?

That brings me to a crucial problem—the joint decision, and not least the operational timetable in relation to the proposed cruise missiles. These alerts are important, but we must get the facts straight for the debate that will continue for many months in relation to cruise missiles.

On 4 June 1980 an article in The Times said.

" Bodo, Norway, June 3—... American officials said the missiles to be located in western Europe would be entirely under Washington's control. The cruise missiles will be deployed in batteries of 16 units.

The two-day nuclear planning group meeting at Bodo ends tomorrow."

Is it to be a matter of joint decision?

The subject of the debate is not Diego Garcia. However, it is becoming more and more clear that, although the exchange of letters signed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and other senior Ministers of that time in relation to Diego Garcia refers to joint decisions, there was little, if any, consultation. Some of us do not believe in joint decisions, certainly when we are dealing with minutes. It is abundantly clear that the Americans will not allow a dual key system for cruise missiles. These matters should be considered in major debates, possibly between the party leaders. I am not foolish or pompous enough to believe that the Minister on a Friday afternoon can give definitive answers. However, we are entitled to put down markers.

We should not underestimate the serious view taken by Moscow. Tass says that the American military plays dangerously with the destiny of the whole world. I am not suggesting that all the blame should be put on the Americans; I simply say that everyone on this planet is in the most dangerous situation when sick silicon chips in one of the 35 Honey-well-600 computers, forming the worldwide military command and control system inside Cheyenne Mountains, in Colorado, could, in fact, bode ill for everyone on the face of the earth. That is why, in my view, it is essential to get back to the table on SALT II and work furiously and hard towards some kind of strategic arms limitation package III. The issue is the safety of us all, our children and our grandchildren.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is a skilled parliamentarian, but I believe that today he has misused his undoubted talents in pursuing this matter, thought of course I accept and defend his undoubted right to do so. His manner and words have been deceptively calm, and he described his mood as sombre, but the essential message that he has given contained elements of hysteria, paranoia and wild alarmist conjecture.

Let me explain why I make such sharp criticism of the action of the hon. Member, whom I respect and admire as an able parliamentarian. He has sought to blow up this matter out of all proportion. He says that it is vital to the future of the world. I have had checks made in other countries of the Alliance, and if the matters are as described, by the hon. Member, it is remarkable that there has been so little press and parliamentary comment in those countries.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, made it clear on Monday that there is not the slightest danger of war being triggered off as a result of a computer error. I reiterate that stark and simple fact today. To suggest otherwise is a grotesque fantasy, and those Labour Members who seek to give currency and credence to such absurd speculation are either astonishingly naive, grievously irresponsible or acting in a doubtfully motivated way. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we are all very concerned, but when such events occur they must be seen in proper perspective and not distorted, misrepresented or exaggerated.

rose——

No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member raised many questions and I shall try to answer them. The error occurred at the United States facility, and the responsible authority is the United States Government. The British Government bear no direct responsibility, and the information about the error was given to us by the United States.

On 3 June a technical problem at North American Air Defence Command caused inaccurate data to be transmitted suggesting that missiles had been launched against the United States. However, other warning systems showed no such attack. While this situation was being evaluated, as a purely defensive and precautionary measure in acordance with standard procedures, certain United States Strategic Air Command and command and control aircraft were brought to a higher state of readiness. All systems were returned to normal as soon as the evaluation indicated that a computer error had occured.

The entire process of returning to normal was accomplished within three minutes of the false signal being received, so the advice that the hon. Gentleman took from his computer expert, although it is right that three minutes in computer time is a very long time indeed, is not relevant to the point that is being made, because the three minutes covered the evaluation time and the confirmation that the signal was false.

On 6 June the same computer, which had deliberately been left on with special monitoring equipment attached to it in an effort to find the cause of the original error, again gave a similar false signal. Again, no other warning system indicated an attack. It was rapidly determined that there had been a further computer malfunction. The computer concerned has now been taken out of the warning system and the faulty section of that computer has, I understand, been identified. Urgent action is continuing to be taken to deal with this matter.

As part of the normal rigorous verification and checking procedures, the United Kingdom ballistic early warning station at Fylingdales was contacted by the United States authorities on both occasions. Fylingdales was able to confirm to the United States authorities that it had no indication of a possible attack. Because of this, there was no need on either occasion for the Prime Minister or other members of the Cabinet in this country to be contacted. I understand that, similarly, in the United States the President and his senior advisers were not contacted.

As I have explained, as a result of the false signal on 3 June, certain United States aircraft were brought to a higher state of readiness. Some were manned and the engines started, and in the Pacific, one—and only one—command and control aircraft took off. That was the only aircraft that left the ground on 3 June—that one command and control aircraft referred to by the hon. Gentleman. On 6 June, again the engines of some aircraft were started but no aeroplanes were moved.

The hon. Member asked about what happened in the United Kingdom. In neither instance were the United States forces in the United Kingdom affected, and none of our own forces were moved, although we, too, always have forces on standby.

I should explain that the United States missile early warning system is based on a number of sources of information for its data, including satellite sensors and three radar sites, including Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. Data from these various sources are fed into the North American Air Defence Command Headquarters at Colorado Springs. If one part of the system—in the recent case it was the computer at the headquarters—registers an alarm indicating a missile attack, the various other sources of data are immediately checked and the alarm is either verified or shown to be the result of some sort of malfunction.

Obviously, anyone with any experience of these matters—we have been debating today the importance of mechanical engineering, and as a mechanical engineer I know that importance—will know that any electronic or mechanical system devised by man, however well maintained, can develop a fault.

That is right.

The whole business of engineering, and of technology and command control, is to make sure that if malfunctions and faults occur they cause no damage of any kind. In these circumstances cross-checks are made by highly skilled personnel who are regularly practised in error detection. The recent incidents, far from having the alarming effects suggested by the hon. Gentleman, have fully demonstrated the effectiveness of those safety controls and cross-checks.

I again stress that all the actions that we are talking about were purely defensive. The hon. Gentleman sought to suggest otherwise. There is no substance for suggesting that the actions were other than purely defensive. Last Monday an hon. Member talked of American bombers being launched. They were not. The hon. Member said that they were launched to the point of no return, before being recalled when the mistakes were discovered. That is dangerous, alarmist nonsense. It is utterly untrue.

The actions taken were no more than a prudent precaution to protect strategic assets, and the forces concerned had no authority to do other than take self-protective measures. Entirely fresh decisions involving the highest political authority, the United States President himself, would be required before any sort of retaliatory strike was initiated by the United States strategic forces.

The hon. Gentleman also raised points about consultation and joint decision about nuclear weapons, and it is important that I should say something about that. The United States, like the United Kingdom, has committed itself to consult its allies, time and circumstances permitting, before releasing its own weapons for use. As has been made clear many times—I have made it clear more than once in the House and it has been done many times before—the use by United States forces, in an emergency of their bases in the United Kingdom is a matter for joint decision between the two Governments. Without such a joint decision, the bases may not be used.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about Diego Garcia?

I am talking about the position of the bases in the United Kingdom. Without such a joint decision, the bases may not be used. Nothing that has happened in the past week in any way suggests that the United States Government would not fulfil their commitment first to consult their allies in an emergency.

Certain features of the false alerts, highly regrettable as those are, can be regarded as reassuring. The United States forces have demonstrated their high state of readiness. Moreover, the United States authorities have shown their ability to detect quickly errors in the alert system. In other words, the system of checks and verification that I described earlier works.

As for joint decision, it is interesting that points in this connection should be raised in the way that they have been in recent weeks by some Opposition hon. Members. The basic arrangements are absolutely the same as have existed for about 30 years. I suppose that for half that time there were Labour Governments. Indeed, the original basic agreement was negotiated by a former Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in consultation with the then President of the United States, Harry Truman.

What about Diego Garcia?

One knows only too well from reading press reports that a bitter and deep dispute is raging in the Labour Party over defence and nuclear policy. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should pick up the spurious point made in last Wednesday's disgraceful party political broadcast, with its echoes of unilateralism and neutralism. Twenty years ago Hugh Gaitskell was prepared to

" fight and fight and fight again "

to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity to the party that he loved. It will be a sorry day for the Labour Party and for the country if similar courage and strength do not ring out from Labour leaders soon. How sad it is that it has been absent from the discussions this week!

I have a very brief time in which to intervene. The Minister has not responded with his usual clarity and understanding. He has given us an indication that one American bomber took off——

It was a command aircraft.

within the period of three minutes——