It may indeed be curious, but presumably if one does not pay one's subscription to any club, one can no longer enjoy the facilities. It may not be one of the better points, but it is one of the points to which the Council of Engineering Institutions has given consideration.

The term "engineering" covers, as I have said, many skills. It rather tends to concentrate on the manufacturing side and to ignore the needs of, for instance, the construction industry, where the institutions of civil, structural and municipal engineers have a high standard of qualification. Indeed, there are those in the profession who whisper that those three should merge and form an authority for the construction industry.

Let us examine the Institution of Civil Engineers for a moment. It was founded 162 years ago, and it has always played an important role in the training of young engineers. Professor Chilver's committee is in the process of improving the qualifications needed. The traditional method of training and final qualification for the Institution of Civil Engineers is based on a personal assessment of a candidate's professional competence by his peers—a number of senior engineers, some of whom will have been involved in his training.

That system has served the construction industry well, and I am concerned about how an impersonal body, however well set up, such as an engineering authority, would replace the qualification fun-ority, would replace the qualification function. As with the Institution of Civil Engineers in its more specialised field, the Institution of Structural Engineers demands higher and higher qualifications and skills from new entrants.

I return to the proposed engineering authority, which, to judge from speeches today, would be launched with almost evangelistic fervour. I was about to say "arrogant enthusiasm ", but perhaps I should control myself. After all, it suggests a single simplistic solution to all the problems of the engineering profession. Such a new authority, under the control of the Government and financed by the Government, would bring politics into the profession. I cannot believe that if political patronage is used to appoint its members, ultimately it will not to some extent be under the control of the Government of the day, and therefore bound to follow their whims.

If I may be so bold, as a relatively new Member of this House, as to convey the message that I was asked to bring from industry, it is this : "We want less Government interference, not more. We want less regulation and more opportunities to meet our competitors on an equal basis." If they examine the record of Government interference in industry to date, I think that many hon. Members will support my argument.

We sometimes hear talk about the engineer's status. As an engineer, I am never sure whether we are talking about status or money. "Money" is a dirty word. "Status" is a nice clean way of saying" I want a rise ". If we are talking about status, surely it would be wrong if this great profession were to become a tool of the Government. In regard to the legal profession, a noble Lord has already expressed his reservations on this point. One can imagine what the legal or medical professions would say if they had to be controlled by a new quango.

The intention behind Finniston is to raise the status of engineering, and make it a more attractive profession. It would be a retrograde step to put it under Government control. That would put engineers in an even worse position than they are in today.

In spite of the enthusiasm in the House, I believe that much of Finniston cannot be implemented, because a number of professional institutions are against it. One institution has gone so far as to say that the report is misconceived and damaging. I do not agree. I believe that its analysis and its alternatives are useful. But the House must be careful in supporting the Minister when he makes his choices. All that I have read about Finniston leads me to believe that if we are not careful we shall destroy much that is already good and put an unknown quantity in its place.

Finniston dismisses the Council of Engineering Institutions as having achieved very little and being under-funded. I agree with the last sentiment. It has been under-funded for years, because it was created as a co-ordinating body by the various institutions, but it has made progress. It now has on it elected representatives equal in number to the institutions' representatives; representatives elected by all corporate engineers who are members of institutions. That gives those of us—I am one—who are elected the chance to speak for the profession and its needs without being beholden to any institution.

The council has done much in the training and registration of engineers. It has established a uniform and widely accepted system of examination, which has replaced the previous hybrid examination. It has established an engineers' registration board and encouraged many people to join it. The register now has 270,000 names on it. Before we talk about registering engineers we had better decide what we should do with those who are already on that register.

The CEI would be the first to say that it has not achieved all that it wished to achieve, but it has perhaps made a few faltering steps in the right direction. It has taken account of what it has done and then tried to improve itself by changing its charter. As British industry becomes more involved in exports, the CEI's work in obtaining recognition abroad of the term "chartered engineer" will become more and more valuable.

I turn to the education and training section of the report, although I know that this is largely to be dealt with at a conference in the autumn. The liaison with schools—engineers going into schools and persuading school leavers to enter the profession—has all been done by the CEL I have here a pamphlet produced by the CEI, which tries to prove with easily assimilated illustrations that when someone is deciding whether to become a solicitor or a vet or to enter one of the other glamorous professions he or she should also consider engineering. It tries to show that the engineer no longer spends his life up to his elbows in oil, and that this country's future could well depend on engineering.

I must agree with hon. Members who have said that we must be careful in defining "engineer ". I am not sure whether Einstein would have qualified as an engineer under our present proposed definition, but he had a considerable effect on engineering in this country. Let us by all means have our register, but let us build on the register that already exists and be careful not to make fools of ourselves, because on the fringes of engineering there are scientists and many trade unionists who are proud to call themselves members of an engineering trade union. Where do they stand once we start registering engineers? Where does the jobbing builder stand who will knock out a fireplace, having first put in a lintel to hold up the chimney? I do not think that he would qualify as a registered engineer, but he has 40 years' experience and knows what he is doing.

The proposals in the Finniston report which I can support, among others, are those which consider education, especially in our schools. The fundamental fact that we in the engineering profession must face is that we start with one hand tied behind our backs. When Johnny decides on his career, if he is bright he does Latin and two other languages, if he is a little less bright he may do biology and chemistry, but if he is even less bright he finishes up doing O-levels in various subjects which have little relevance other than to prove that he can read and write when he leaves school. It is this middle section for which engineering has to compete. It is competing with the medical profession, veterinary surgery, science, and so forth

I welcome the discussions which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been having to ensure that every child gets some scientific education at least to O-level. That provides a choice. It is wrong that in the second or third year of secondary education a child should be put on a certain line. At the conference in the autumn which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is sponsoring, I hope that there will be sufficient time to expand on this theme.

If we are to maintain a standard of education and training for all engineers, it is no good the Government saying that they want more engineers and then make it very difficult for engineers to reach the top ranks of the Civil Service. I do not take quite so dismal a view of the possibilities of engineers getting to the highest ranks of industry. I am reminded that the president and vice-president of the Institute of Directors arc chartered engineers. But we never hear about it, because people tend to drop their engineering qualifications when they move into management. I have many engineering factories in my constituency whose managing directors have very high scientific and engineering qualifications. However, they do not seem to advertise those qualifications. The fact that they are the managing directors of their companies is quite sufficient. Perhaps a television series glamorising engineering, such as has been done for the medical profession, might improve the image of the engineer.

The constant repetition of the Finniston recommendations may cause people to think that there is only one way forward, but it seems to me that three main roles are envisaged for the new engineering authority. The first is the regulation of the engineering profession, including the setting of standards. The second is to act as a voice for the profession at home. The third is to act as an engine for change.

To my mind, the right course is to build on the Engineers' Registration Board that we have already. We should leave the qualifications with the major institutions. We should set up something along the lines of the General Medical Council and include elected members, representatives of engineering institutions, the teaching institutions and people from outside the profession. Above all, we should retain the title "chartered engineer ".

Much has been said about the activities of the Privy Council. The Council of Engineering Institutions operates under a charter which has to be approved by the Privy Council. Because recently it has been going through the process of changing its charter to allow for elected members, it has perhaps become a little confused about the activities of the Privy Council.

Membership of an institution should still be the normal route for qualification, although we still have to provide for the mavericks who will not join any body if they can help it. The money for this new body must come from registration fees, and the body itself must be self-financing. We do not want status conferred by the Government. We want status to be earned.

I envisage some reform, with the Council of Engineering Institutions acting as a spokesman for the profession and perhaps providing co-ordination on technical affairs. I should like the engineering profession to expand its activities in schools, although I appreciate that it is already doing a great deal.

I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. Members to the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which has been mounted by the Association of Consulting Engineers and which, as I said last night during our debate on the construction industry, helps to illustrate how much the profession and the contracting industry earn overseas.

As I have said, many engineers are already running successful companies, but it is no good speaking as though all the problems that we face today can be put right by the Finniston report. It is perhaps salutary to remind ourselves that just 30 years ago a similar report was produced, which called for a Royal Institute of Technology. I understand that that report is still gathering dust on the shelves in various Government Departments. I should not like to see such an institute. I want the good parts of Finniston accepted, but I want to see them converted so that they are built on the good system that already exists. I urge much caution before we consider licensing.

My final plea is that, whatever comes out of the great debate on Finniston, there should be no new Government body to control this profession. We need a body which is independent, which can speak with an independent voice, which is independently financed and which can do what the lawyers and doctors have done for themselves. We do not want another quango for which the long-suffering British taxpayer must pay. We want a recognition that over the years the profession has striven hard to put itself right, but with precious little help. I believe that the help, will and recognition now exist. Let the profession get on with the job. Above all, there should not be another Government-controlled body.