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.