Features editor
It seems like there will never be a time when a president of the Royal Academy of Engineering won’t have to chide the government about its industrial policy. The question of how the UK can ‘get industry right’ is a perennial one; it’s doubtful that there was ever a time when it did — with the possible exception of the industial revolution itself, but that’s one for historians.
It’s now Sir John Parker’s turn to plough this particular furrow. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper last week, the chairman of the mining group Anglo American said that the government should be more protective of strategic sectors, citing the example of the attitudes of the French, German and Spanish governments towards their aerospace sectors; and should take a 20-25 year view of which sectors should be regarded as strategic. These should have strong export prospects and robust supply chains, he said, and should receive support during tough patches. There should be cross-departmental policymaking, he added, with research and development and skills training targeted towards these strategic sectors.
Parker also criticised the decision to allow polytechnics to become universities, as it removed the inbuilt technical and vocational slant of the courses that these institutions offered. He pointed up the disparity between the lack of engineering skills training in the UK —something often mentioned by engineering companies — and the political desire to clamp down on immigrants. If we don’t produce our own engineers, he said, then we’ll have to import them; and if immigration policy means that we can’t, then we’re in even more trouble.
The prospect of the government ‘picking winners’, whether it’s in terms of companies or sectors, isn’t one that will fill many engineers and manufacturers with delight. There’s nothing wrong with the idea — it only makes sense that there should be strategic thinking — but experience suggests that government just isn’t good at making these decisions. Many companies and industry bodies can tell stories about how they fruitlessly tried to attract the attention of policymakers, to little avail, and how valuable contracts went to overseas suppliers.
The government is still trying to find the right balance in industrial policy. The interventionist ideas of the 1960s and 1970s didn’t work. The non-interventionist ideas of the 1980s didn’t work either. We’re now in the position of having several sectors which are performing strongly, but under foreign ownership, such as the automotive OEM sector (although its supply chain is also doing well and is much more UK-owned); and sectors like aerospace where multinationals rule the roost and the UK holds a strong specialist area. The question of how much the nationality of the ownership of companies matters in a globalised industry is still very much open.
The message that comes across from Parker’s comments is about advice. Politicians aren’t engineers and they never will be: in an ideal world, they will be people with a wider mixture of backgrounds than they currently have, certainly, but they will still always be, at heart, generalists. That means that they need to be advised by people who are expert in their fields; that, in turn, means that the conduits for that advice need to be embedded into the policy-making structure. In other words, there needs to be stronger representation of engineering and manufacturing thinking in government departments.
This would seem to be self-evident, but it’s only recently that scientific advice was embedded across all government department, with the Treasury finally getting a scientific advisor this year. But the needs of science and those of industry, although linked, are not the same. Surely it’s time for engineering and manufacturing advisors to have an official role within each department. Moreover, the government needs a chief engineer. That way, eminent people such as Sir John Parker wouldn’t feel that they are on the outside, struggling to be heard.
Would it not be better if engineers stopped complaining about politicians (plenty that there is to complain about) and actually stood as election candidates themselves – The Industry Party say or The Progress Party – if none of the existing parties are close enough to their personal politics. Even joining an existing party and being active may help rejuvenate politics in a small way, including over industrial policy, where it should be bought up for discussion within whatever party internally.
It seems that ‘engineers’ as a group seem to want to short circuit democratic politics by being appointed experts – and unelected one’s at that, mimicking their scientific colleagues (and no doubt legal, economic and medical peers). Conversely politicians – scared of actually taking a decision – often hide behind these experts (for example ‘The Science’ is often wheeled out) rather than make a decision balancing conflicting (and often moral) interests, for example jobs and an expanding economy in the long term over short term ‘damage’ to the environment. By doing this politicians get off the hook as they have partially distanced themselves from decisions and politics appears even more cynical. Expertise is of course important, but it should inform politics, nowadays it often dictates it.
Quite often engineers (I apologise – but in the need for brevity I use that term,collectively) seem to ‘grandstand’ over politicians. My pet theory is that engineers (and I include myself in that group) – tend to shy away from problems that involve making fuzzy decisions based around incomplete data and facts, and involving moral decisions (not moralizing) often over a short period without time for contemplation. Good politicians need to be brave to lead, ideally have principles, be prepared to make a mistake and pick themselves up afterwards. Stereotypically perhaps engineers and scientists prefer more controlled environments and are afraid to be ‘shown up’in the court of public opinion?
Well said, but is anyone listening?
Well said Paul, right up to the point where you suggested electing an engineer to the political arena, that’s where it falls down. Politics should be left to politicians as we engineers are generally honest people, and often our honesty would be dismissed because of party politics and financial influence. Therefore any elected engineer would be come inert or nullified.
Finances play a major role as the few wealthy financiers and corporate bosses have a world econony and this lets us down to a large extent. We could go for inventing but the influence of the aforementioned would automatically mean they buy the rights and manufacture in the cheapest economy which currently would be Asia and India.
To an extent we do need politicians to listen and take a long term view, unlike the corporate view of short to medium term returns on investments. This could ensure we develop a thriving economy which is sustainable in the long term and secures engineering and support jobs. Ultimately we need politicians to LISTEN to us and take on board what we are saying and promoting engineering to the public and politicians alike is the only way to do this.
S Martin, you’ve confirmed my point in a way, by saying that engineers are ‘honest people etc’ and politics should be left to politicians. Basically if ‘engineers’ want to set themselves apart from society – they deserve to not be taken seriously.
Engineers should toughen up and at the same time lighten up. We don’t want professional ‘intern’ derived politicians of the Cameron/Clegg/Milliband variety, do we? Some financiers and corporate bosses share some of the positive attributes of people who have ended up in politics ‘ robustness’, ability to make good snap decisions where needed. etc. Again engineers should aspire to be like some of them too, if they want to not just influence, but lead. Begging politicians to ‘listen’ will never work, and is a naïve response. The long hard work involves not standing outside society, posing as honest ‘experts’, but to get involved with the messy real world, which may take a long time, and is an open ended project.
Become a politician, not likely! It would be too lonely in Parliament (have you ever watched the debates on the Parliament channel?) Better that each Department be required to appoint a Chief Engineer, not of necessity an Academic (Ivory Towers etc). Let us introduce some practical engineering into the Commons chamber and have anonymous electronic voting, that might ginger up the debate.
I’ve long felt that an industrial cabinet would be a good idea, which would be composed of experienced industrialists and engineers and would be responsible for industrial policymaking in the UK.