Appendix: Government response
Introduction
The Government thanks the Committee for its report.
As set out in the Government evidence to the inquiry, we share
the Committee's view that engineering has a critical contribution
to make both to the UK economy and to the business of government.
It is reassuring that the Committee observed that progress has
been made since 2009.
Nevertheless, again as set out in earlier evidence,
the Government is not complacent and recognises that there is
always scope for improving the effectiveness of how we access
and use engineering evidence. We therefore welcome this report
as a contribution to that continual improvement.
Turning to the specific comments and recommendations
set out in the report:
THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
1. We commend the work of the Engineering the
Future alliance in coordinating engineering advice for government.
(Paragraph 4)
Like the Committee, the Government commends the engineering
institutions for their collective efforts in developing the Engineering
the Future and E4E initiatives. These have helped further strengthen
the relationships between the engineering community and government
and we look forward to continuing to develop these in the future.
THE CIVIL SERVICE
2. Since the 2009 Engineering report it would
appear that progress has been made in recognising the importance
of engineering in the civil service. We are pleased that the Government
has begun identifying engineers in the civil service, albeit through
a self-nominating group. However, it is not clear whether enough
engineers in the civil service are being employed in policy development
as well as policy delivery and we invite the Government to provide
us with a breakdown of the roles of engineers in the GSE community
as an indicator. (Paragraph 11)
The Government agrees that engineers and the knowledge
and skills they bring have an important place in the civil service
workforce. We do not currently hold data on whether GSE members
work in policy development or delivery. The Government Office
for Science is currently considering how it can revise the GSE
membership survey questions to better understand the different
roles scientists and engineers play across government.
3. We welcome the recruitment of a Head of Engineering
to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, given
that few other examples of good practice were highlighted during
our inquiry, we are concerned that DECC's recognition of the need
for engineering expertise may be the exception rather than the
rule across Government Departments. (Paragraph 12)
The Government is pleased that the Committee recognises
the changes that DECC has made to embed engineering further in
the work of that department. Further examples were set out in
the government evidence. Since then we are very pleased to have
appointed two more engineers to the community of Chief Scientific
Advisers; Professor John Perkins in the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills and Professor Rod Smith in the Department
for Transport.
CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS
4. We reiterate our predecessor Committee's view
that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser should be a Government
Chief Scientific and Engineering Adviser, overseeing a Government
Chief Engineer, a Government Chief Scientist and a Government
Chief Social Scientist. The Prime Minister should give consideration
to this proposed structure when considering Sir John Beddington's
successor in the post of Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
(Paragraph 15)
It remains the Government's position that the role
of Chief Scientific Advisers includes the consideration of engineering
advice and evidence alongside the full spectrum of the sciences.
This is the basis on which the recruitment of the next GCSA is
being taken forward.
5. We recognise that it may be economically unfeasible
or risk a duplication of effort to appoint Chief Engineering Advisers
alongside Chief Scientific Advisers in all departments. However,
we consider that in departments where engineering advice is routinely
required, the Government should consider appointing a Chief Engineering
Adviser instead of, or in addition to, a Chief Scientific Adviser.
(Paragraph 16)
The Government effectively agrees with this recommendation
and, notwithstanding the titles used, believes that current practice
is in line with it. Where there is a significant requirement for
engineering advice, engineers are appointed (as recently in BIS
and DfT), but the title of the position remains that of Chief
Scientific Adviser rather than Chief Engineering Adviser.
COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
6. We are satisfied that the Council for Science
and Technology (CST) has sufficient representation of engineers
amongst its membership. However, it is unclear whether the CST
adheres to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees
(CoPSAC). The Government should clarify this immediately. If the
CoPSAC does not apply to the CST, the rationale must be made clear
and a code of practice for the CST should be published. (Paragraph
18)
The Government is clear that the Code of Practice
for Scientific Advisory Committees (CoPSAC) applies to CST as
it does to all other government Scientific Advisory Committees
and Councils. It is for the relevant department or agency responsible
for running each SAC to consider the principles and good practice
set out in the Code of Practice in appointments to and the management
of that Committee.
CST is sponsored by the Government Office for Science.
As Sir John Beddington set out in his evidence to this inquiry,
the Government agrees that it is important that the membership
should cover a broad range of skills and experience. However,
in the case of CST, this is best delivered not by rigidly defining
the requirements of each position on the Council, but rather by
balancing the different backgrounds and experiences of those that
apply. The selection procedure appoints a mix of the best candidates
to ensure the Council has a membership with broad representation.
Adverts seeking members for CST specified the broad areas in which
we were seeking to supplement the membership to maintain overall
balance, but did not specify specific posts as requiring, for
example, an engineer or a business person. That said, with the
creation last year of the four ex officio positions for
the Presidents of the National Academies, engineering is formally
represented; currently by Sir John Parker, President of the Royal
Academy of Engineering.
CONCLUSIONS
7. Since the 2009 report Engineering: turning
ideas into reality, the Government and engineering community have
made progress in integrating engineering expertise and concerns
into the formulation of policy. The formation of the Engineering
the Future alliance as a coordinated voice for the professional
engineering community and the ongoing efforts of the Government
Chief Scientific Adviser in raising the profile of engineering
advice are particularly commendable. However, there is no room
for complacency and the Government must ensure that engineering
continues to have a high profile in policy, and particularly in
policy development. (Paragraph 19)
As set out above, the Government is pleased that
progress since 2009 has been recognised but agrees with the Committee
that there is no room for complacency. It will continue to be
an important role of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and
the network of departmental CSAs to ensure that engineering advice
is fully considered in the development and implementation of policy.
| 
