Engineering Skills (Perkins Review)

Debate between Andrew Miller and Iain Wright

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright]

That is certainly something to be encouraged. I want to see how the supply chain of manufacturing can be enhanced to ensure that we can have that reshoring back to the UK as much as possible. We have the need for an economic, competitive edge, but we will also be trying to solve big social issues in the 21st century such as climate change, the transition to a low carbon economy, an ageing population and tackling resource scarcity for food, clean water and energy. All that requires engineering skills, so the ambition must be nothing short of making 21st-century Britain an engineering nation.

However, that enormous opportunity is not being matched with a commensurate supply of engineers coming on stream. As the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said—I want to reiterate the figures, because they are striking—EngineeringUK states that the UK will need 87,000 people a year at level 4 over the next decade to meet demand, let alone to make sure that we can have expansion. However, the country has seen only about 51,000 and the number of level 3 engineering-related apprenticeships has actually dropped. We have an annual demand of about 69,000 but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the numbers are about a third of that and are falling.

Research by Matchtech in the past couple of weeks showed that three quarters of engineers lacked confidence in the Government’s action to encourage innovation in the UK—that is up from last year—and more than half said that they were willing to leave the UK and find work abroad. Despite the welcome news about economic statistics, 54% of engineers believe that the state of the British economy is negatively affecting the industry—up a full 10 percentage points on the previous year. There is an immediate and urgent need to do something about the issue.

There have been four broad themes today and I want to touch on those. Every speaker has mentioned the perception, image and culture of engineering, and they have been right to do so. Britain is the nation of James Watt, Richard Arkwright, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Frank Whittle, but I fear that this country does not value the status of engineers. It is deeply dispiriting that, when people are asked to name an engineer, the most recognisable in our country is Kevin Webster from “Coronation Street”. That sort of view reinforces stereotypes and prejudices that engineering and manufacturing are often literally backstreet, low skilled and low paid, rather than highly skilled, well paid and innovative.

[Andrew Miller]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Iain Wright]

I will—as a north-west MP, I think my hon. Friend might have something to say about that.

[Andrew Miller]

As somebody from Granadaland, I ask who the heck is Kevin Webster?

[Mr Iain Wright]

In another context, I would be tempted to say, “He’s a popular beat combo, M’lud”, but I will not. In terms of the culture, perception and status of engineers, the issue is not the fault of this or previous Governments. Having said that, I absolutely agree with Sir John Parker, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, who said:

“I have travelled around in business and seen how other nations organise themselves and tilt policy in favour of their industrial base. At the highest level, an industrial strategy in my view is about giving the right signals to society that industrial activity is very important.”

What is the Minister going to do to help to change perceptions?

I acknowledge, as we have heard this afternoon, that such things as The Big Bang, Tomorrow’s Engineers, See Inside Manufacturing and the Bloodhound supersonic car are valuable initiatives to help change perceptions of engineering and inspire a new generation. However, there is more that can be done and it must be, as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said, high profile and sustained to overturn those long-held cultural perceptions. Will the Minister confirm that those initiatives will continue? What other plans does he have to alter the perception of engineering?

[Andrew Miller]

On a slightly more serious note, I was proud, with the parliamentary and scientific committee, to work with EngineeringUK to bring The Big Bang into Parliament this year. We intend that to be a continuing event to help improve the understanding of our parliamentary colleagues of the importance of engineering. Will both Front-Bench Members commit themselves to engage with that programme in future years?

[Mr Iain Wright]

I certainly would like to. My hon. Friend mentioned an important point. It should not be about this Government or this Parliament; it should be about looking at how Britain will make its money in the next 30 or 40 years. How can we transcend Parliament and Governments and work together for the long-term economic interests of the country to ensure that engineering has a proportionate status in our country?

Key to that, I would suggest, is ensuring that industrial strategy is at the heart of business policy. A moment ago, I mentioned Sir John’s comments that industrial strategy should give the right signals to society. I also suggest that a successful industrial strategy should give the right signals across Government. Business policy and engineering policy should not only reside in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but be aligned right across Whitehall for the purposes of advancing our country’s long-term economic interests.

However, I have to say—it has been hinted at strongly during today’s debate—that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between industrial strategy and education and skills policy. Schools are not encouraged to prioritise engineering and science, and there is a failure to ensure that engineering is considered at a sufficiently early stage in a child’s education. As a result, as we have heard, many pupils are disillusioned by the time they get to the age of 14 and do not continue science-based subjects that could lead to a career in engineering. Science GCSE has dropped from third place in 2012 to fourth this year; design and technology has slipped from sixth place to ninth.

This is a particular priority of mine. In many cases, teachers have had no experience of the modern engineering plant or factory and are therefore not in a position to encourage pupils to think about a career in engineering. I asked a parliamentary question a couple of weeks ago about the Government’s policy on encouraging industrial placements for teachers and I have to say that I received a woefully complacent answer from the Minister for Schools.

What will this Minister do to ensure that more teachers are made aware of the exciting opportunities available in industry and engineering, so that they can pass on information about those fantastic opportunities to their pupils and, importantly, to their pupils’ parents? Will the Minister ensure that time is made available in the school timetable to allow those industrial placements to take place?

[Mr Iain Wright]

I can agree with the hon. Gentleman in many respects, but this is such an important priority that I think that resources have to be made available. The question is how Government, industry and academia work together to do that. Perkins touches on it, but more needs to be done.

Everyone in the debate has mentioned careers guidance. It is woeful. The Select Committee on Education said in its recent report that what the Government have done with careers guidance is regrettable. I am not suggesting that before 2010 it was perfect—I speak as the Minister with responsibility for it before 2010—but the Government’s reforms to end face-to-face and impartial information, advice and guidance have seen investment in careers advice plummet and the service to many young people more or less evaporate.

The chances of people receiving good impartial advice about engineering at a sufficiently young age to make informed choices about what subjects to take next and how they can advance are as remote as ever. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government have made a mistake on this one? What will he do to ensure that all pupils receive high-quality information, advice and guidance that includes, specifically, appropriate information on a career in engineering? Will he put in place an initiative to encourage work experience in industry—in engineering—and more effective collaboration between schools and businesses? That happens haphazardly. It does not happen in a consistent manner, but for the long-term economic interests of this country, it has to.

[Andrew Miller]

This, of course, is where Professor Perkins agrees with my Select Committee’s recommendations about continuing professional development. The simple reality is that people cannot teach about things or advise about careers that they do not have any knowledge of. We must create that space in the curriculum. If we do not, we will be failing these young people and failing British industry.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I agree. I think that that is incredibly important for our long-term economic interests.

I also want to touch on what the Government have done with their education reforms. Notwithstanding the welcome changes to the design and technology curriculum, which the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire had a hand in influencing, a lot of what the Government have done has reinforced the perception that engineering, particularly at vocational level, is somehow second rate.

The downgrading of the engineering diploma by the Secretary of State for Education was a colossal mistake. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that. The downgrading consolidates the perception that somehow engineering is second rate. The Royal Academy of Engineering has expressed concern that the attainment and accountability systems that schools are judged on favour a narrow set of academic qualifications over vocational and practical-based ones. Again, what will the Minister do to alter accountability systems to provide incentives for schools to prioritise engineering? They need to prioritise engineering.

The third point that I want to mention is gender. This has rightly been raised as a key issue in the debate. The lack of female engineers is a very important issue. Perkins stated that the UK has the lowest proportion of female engineers in the EU—barely one third of the number that Latvia has. Fewer than 10% of engineering professionals are women, and fewer than one in 30 of those starting an engineering apprenticeship are female.

There are great initiatives in place, such as ScienceGrrl, but the culture that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley mentioned is important. I was speaking at a round table of industrialists recently. I said, “You’re cutting off half your potential work force by not encouraging women into engineering. What are you doing about that?” They said, “Well, we provide them with their own toilets.” That is the sort of cultural issue on which we need to work together so as to advance, so what else can be done? We need to work together across Government, industry and education to enhance opportunities for all the population, not just half.

My fourth point is about deliverability. Perkins has 22 recommendations. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said that there is an urgent need to have a marketing campaign. I think that we need to go further than that—we need delivery mechanisms. I would be very interested to hear how the Minister will ensure that every one of those recommendations can be implemented.

I will finish by reiterating my very warm thanks to the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today and to Professor Perkins. The final words of his review are both telling and ambitious:

“There have been dozens of Government reports, select committees and independent reviews into the future of engineering skills over the past 150 years. I would go further. It is time for concerted action by the profession, industry and Government, to achieve the goals for engineering which we all share.”

The House has demonstrated today that it thinks that a key priority. I hope that we can transcend party politics and work together to make Britain an engineering nation.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Andrew Miller and Iain Wright

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier for the shadow Chancellor’s speech, he would have heard that point put down very firmly.

Let me refer to today’s papers. Did the Chancellor expect to wake up this morning to a 33 mm-high headline—

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Did you measure it?

[Andrew Miller]

Yes, I got the tape measure out. It said: “‘Granny tax’ hits 5m pensioners”. The papers referred to a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years, and pointed out that nearly 4.5 million pensioners who pay income tax will lose an average of £83 per year next April and that people turning 65 next year will lose up to £322. As you are in the Chair and know me rather well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose I should declare an interest, as it is my 63rd birthday tomorrow. Whatever the Chancellor says about increasing the income tax personal allowance, a family with children, earning just £20,000, will lose about £253 from this April. Shockingly, he slipped out that £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years. All this comes from a Government whose economic policies on growth, jobs and the deficit have utterly failed.

Of course, there have to be tough decisions on tax, spending and pay; otherwise, we would not get the deficit down. However, although the restoring of the cuts in the science budget is one of the few measures I agree with, a lot more funding is needed if we are to retain the quality of British science. I agree with Imran Khan, the director of CaSE—the Campaign for Science and Engineering—who said today:

“I suspect the Government realises that the multi-billion pound, 50% cut made to research capital in 2010 simply is not sustainable. Despite difficult times, they are trying to put it right, and it is not going to go unnoticed.

However, simply reversing the cuts isn’t going to be a game-changer for the UK. We need to be far more ambitious if we’re serious about having a high-tech future. The Chancellor should re-invest the windfall from the auction of 4G mobile spectrum, due later this year, into science and engineering.”

The Budget said nothing about that.