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.