The UK faces challenges that could be addressed if policy makers consulted with engineers on the best ways to tackle them.
To this end, the National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) has called on government to work with them on investing in skills, innovation, digital and traditional infrastructure, and clean energy technologies.
New policy centre to drive engineering’s dialogue with government
NEPC has published a manifesto titled Engineering priorities for our future economy and society that outlines 20 actions across these five areas, and last week we asked Engineer readers to pick out their number one policy priority.
In a close run poll, 37 per cent of readers chose skills, followed by a third (33 per cent) who think energy and climate change should be addressed via the development and deployment of new low-carbon heat, EV charging, and CCS technologies.
Just under a fifth (18 per cent) want to see traditional infrastructure prioritised, followed by nine per cent who think Innovate UK’s budget should be increased. The remaining three per cent saw digital skills and supporting infrastructure as the UK’s top policy priority.
In relation to skills, Sandy said: “Without engineering skills, there is no input into any process, digital or analogue, no Innovation or Infrastructure realised and no improvement in energy efficiency.”
“What came first, the chicken or the egg?” asked John Ettridge. “Innovation must be first, it creates new jobs, new processes and new industries.”
“Engineering is a holistic discipline, it covers/touches almost every aspect of modern life, mostly without the knowledge of the general populace,” added Chris Oates-Miller. “I voted for skills, but this is definitely a case for all of the above.”
What do you think? Keep the conversation alive in Comments below, but be aware that your contribution is subject to Comment guidelines for readers.
Skills have to come top of the list.
Without engineering skills, there is no input into any process, digital or analogue , no Innovation or Infrastructure realised and no improvement in Energy Efficiency. As an example, without engineering skill and application to realise the pheomenon into usable devices, we would not be able to use energy -efficient LED’s, we would still be warming tungsten wire. A ‘digital’ infrastructure still requires input, it doesn’t exist without data. No National Infrastructure improvement will be possible without Engineering input.
The primary need is for Engineers with a purpose. For too long, Engineering has been seen to be ‘ too hard’ by students in school because their teachers have no exposure to the profession. Therefore it is up to the Engineering Profession to canvass most strongly in schools, to push the syllabus writers and to encourage students to use the materials and information available on TV and the Internet which wasn’t there a generation ago.
Last week there was a call from Heritage train societies for new recruits as engine drivers, as the old guard were all retiring; are we going to let our Engineering heritage and expertise go the same way?
Tough call for top two, for me though it`s skills.. no skills=no engineers & society needs engineers to rebuild after govts mess everything up, however, from a strictly society survival point of view it has to be climate issues, no habital planet=no need for anyone.
I get my engineering students to focus their projects on delivery of the 17 UN Sustainability Development Goals. They are an excellent stimulus to generate new ideas in every category and they link innovations together in a more co-ordinated way. Last year we won the EAUC’s Green Gown Award for Student Research with Impact and this year we’re hoping to win again.
Well said Sandy!
AI.D. Succinct but can’t disagree with your logic.
That whooshing noise going over my head is the sound of my ignorance of even the existence of the National Engineering Policy Centre or Perkins Review so I’m obviously not one of the half-million; while I have heard of Innovate UK I cannot bring to mind a news report of anything they’ve innovated. Probably better to just remove funding to these quangos, reduce business taxes and let the private sector get on with it
It has to be infrastructure ! Ignoring the fatuous buzz words: digital and Innovation; If infrastructure is addressed then Skills must follow and Energy and Climate Change will be largely addressed as part of a holistic and efficient infrastructure solution.
Engineering Skills developed, in a vacuum, without hands-on experience and suitable (infrastructure) projects would still leave a gap that industry would have to fill. And, attempting to address Energy and Climate change technologies without first addressing the underlying infrastructure would just lead to massive failures and a waste of valuable funds.
And to be clear, in my opinion, infrastructure projects cover things like transport and utilities but do NOT include HS2, Heathrow expansion or Fracking.
Whilst skills are vital, I don’t look to the government to provide that. A programme to update our infrastructure would be government driven, and would create the pull for skills, pay, innovation, and more.
Surely (?), as engineers, rather than scientists, we need to develop skills to provide solutions to specific problems. Therefore, if we are prioritising then to a certain extent the problem comes first, eg. Infrastructure.
The danger, as I see it, is that we end up with a surfeit of programmers and graphic designers ’cause that’s technical and it’s easy … and further education establishments tend to prioritise profits.
Energy of the renewable, sustainable kind is infrastructure and can be anti-climate change. [response to Policy poll]. With electric vehicles that could be a less-rush more peaceful world.
The enveloping of buildings is a quick fix of the 40-year kind in terms of the difference it could make to the lives of those choosing less money for fewer hours. in other words helping the plight of those thinking they haven’t enough money and forced into long hours because of expectations, sensibilities, even.
The other thing of great concern directionwise is the disconnect from hand-skill and traditional materials that ruin the effectiveness of learning, whether physics, maths or chemistry. Or other sciences. How can a young person learn thoroughly without the mistakes, while cocooned in cars and homes without the workshops and wider working-life experience as once given by day-release from 14. Much more effective learning than a few hours in a lab. That’s skill, out of the offices – e.g. the major achievements of Brunel, etc. My friend at Sheffield Uni bemoans how hard it is to get suitable staff for his workshop and how every innovation they make to save energy is chewed up by greater consumption.. Government action on the direction of money creation for special purposes required and curtailing general consumption.
What came first, the chicken or the egg ? Innovation must be first, it creates new jobs, new processes and new industries. Clearly the UK is not going to compete with low labour cost countries to make established products, so has to innovate to stay ahead of its competitors. Create the new products, and the labour force ( including Engineers ) factories and towns and cities will follow.
Representing over half a million engineers? Surely we don’t have that many C.Eng ? Or do they mean technicians and engineers?
From reading the above comments I think everyone is right, for the reasons they give. As engineers one policy should not be prioritised to the detriment of the others, engineering is an holistic discipline, it covers/touches almost every aspect of modern life, mostly without the knowledge of the general populace. I voted for skills, but this is definitely a case for all of the above.
Well if you want to fund Schools, hospitals, etc. then you need to reshore/boost UK industry. Start by cutting business rates on industrial sites to the European average, rather than the two to three times higher, we have now.
Ban foreign private equity buying British industrial firms & asset stripping them, by loading them with debt & running off with the cash to some tax haven.
I think it a scandal that towns & villages still have major A-roads running through them. They should have had dual carriageway bypasses by now. Just in time production does not work with clogged roads.
A sovereign wealth fund that could invest in new nuclear power stations or Severn/Wash barriers.
The poll is for Policy; only the government can enforce policy for climate change and then the industry can respond with the required education, skills, innovation, digital services and infrastructure. We don’t need policy for the methods of getting there, they evolve naturally, we need policy for the goals we’re aiming at, in the UK and globally.
This is a major issue as many people cite themselves as engineers, and defining the term correctly is a must as the term engineer is one of the most abused terms around.
Personally, I think they are all important for different reasons.
Skills are important to allow us to have sufficient knowledge to put innovation into practise and produce goods, and we need a steady supply of engineers and future engineers.
Infrastructure is a must, we need to compete with the world in terms of technologies to make engineering and its developments efficient as well as producing future infrastructure developments which are upgradeable and practical. Look at our current infrastructure, electricity bought in from abroad with a margin of less than 5%, gas storage of less than a week, potholed roads, and a rail service which is anything but a service.
We need to invest in Britain and keep it British and not sell off everything to foreign organisations and asset strippers, and stop outsourcing everything to large multinationals.
Policy? interesting, how many engineers are there in Government, how many engineers are there advising Government, and how many quango organisations supposedly claim to be engineering organisations, but are there sucking Government (our) money out for nothing in return.