Engineering Skills (Perkins Review)

Meg Munn Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Professor John Perkins’s review of engineering skills was published on 4 November to rightly favourable reviews, and I am delighted to secure this debate because it gives us an opportunity to do four things. It enables us, first, to demonstrate parliamentary support for the review’s important message; secondly, to explore some of the review’s central recommendations; thirdly, to give the Government an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the message of the review and to the specific recommendations addressed to the Government; and fourthly, to emphasise that the challenges engineering faces in recruitment and the need to inspire a new generation of young people to enter science, technology, engineering and maths careers are not engineering challenges but marketing ones.

This is not a criticism, but so far the Government’s response to the Perkins review has been limited to an unscripted speech by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the morning of the review’s publication, a press release containing some welcome announcements on aspects of the review and a brief parliamentary answer. I hope the Minister welcomes this opportunity to say a little more, because the issue is urgent.

When the review was published, Stephen Tetlow, chief executive of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said:

“If we do not meet the shortfall in skills we won’t just slip down the scale of world competitiveness, we will fall off the cliff… In a time of high unemployment, especially in the 18-25 age group, it is simply wrong to rely solely on importing the necessary talent or, more seriously, to allow industry to relocate overseas.”

I hope the Minister welcomes this opportunity to make clear the Government’s strong support for the review’s conclusions and to send a powerful message to the wider engineering community that it has a crucial role to play in making Professor Perkins’s recommendations work. Indeed, of the review’s 22 recommendations, only four are directed exclusively at the Government—the other 18 either require the Government to act in partnership with others or are directed entirely at other organisations. In total, 14 of Professor Perkins’s recommendations require Government action, but seven require employers to act, six are directed at the engineering institutions, three are directed at the broadly defined engineering community and nine are directed at various others, ranging from the Daphne Jackson Trust to the Tomorrow’s Engineers programme.

Before I go any further, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows that I am a non-executive director of two small high-tech firms and that I have received hospitality from a major technology organisation, QinetiQ. That does not explain why I am here today, however.

As I told the House when introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on STEM careers in February, one of my two heroes is that most brilliant of engineers, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. As someone who now wishes he had been an engineer, recent experience has convinced me that the shortage of engineering and technological skills is one of the greatest avoidable threats to our nation’s prosperity and security.

As Engineering UK said in its most recent assessment of the situation,

“the UK will need approximately 87,000 people per year over the next ten years to meet demand—and these people will need at least level 4 skills… Although supply has grown over the past year, we still have only 51,000 engineers coming on stream per year. In fact, the number of level 3 engineering-related apprenticeships has actually dropped from 27,000 to 23,500—falling well short of an annual demand of approximately 69,000.”

I detect a bit of a sea change. Suddenly, engineering and manufacturing are being discussed much more generally and much more positively. The skills shortage facing employers is becoming more generally understood, and the particular scandal of low participation of women in engineering is much more widely acknowledged, as the Perkins review shows.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Perhaps one of the hon. Gentleman’s engineering heroines ought to be Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s sister, whose engineering prowess is by no means as well known.

[Peter Luff]

Or the daughter of Lord Byron, Ada Lovelace, who has a day named after her, and rightly so. I entirely agree that we need more heroes and heroines to inspire the younger generation.

The challenge is urgent. Engineering UK’s recent assessment also states:

“It is concerning that these challenges seem most intense in sectors that should be key drivers of the economic recovery… Responses from firms in the engineering, high-tech/IT and science areas show the highest proportion of both current and future problems in recruiting STEM-skilled employees, with more than one in four reporting current challenges in recruiting technicians (29%) and STEM graduates (26%).”

But still, engineering faces a crisis of misunderstanding. The excitement and challenge of modern engineering is still not properly understood outside engineering. The word “engineering” itself is a problem—“applied science” might be a better description of what engineering means—but we are stuck with the word and we must make it work. Engineering needs to be as highly regarded in this country as it is in countries as diverse as Germany, Jordan and India.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

rose—

[Meg Munn]

rose—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I will take you in alphabetical order. I call Mr Miller.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I am delighted to hear that. However, I repeat my question: how many engineers do the Government pay £200,000 or £300,000 a year, in the same way as they apparently pay advocates—a subset of them are about to go on strike over their pay—out of public, as opposed to private, money? We think that is normal. That is to do with cultural norms and with an assumption we make in this country about the relative value of careers, which is wrong.

Finally, we have made a lot of progress—even in this Parliament—on education. I welcome a lot of the noise coming out of the Government about the need to promote technical education, maths and physics—the STEM subjects—and all that goes with that. I have been of the view that a liberal arts-biased education system is deeply ingrained in our country. I very much hope that the progress that has been made in the past few years towards emphasising STEM—particularly for women—continues. Fixing the issue is a prerequisite for achieving the sort of economy we will need to have in the next two or three decades.

[Meg Munn]

rose—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Meg Munn, I should point out that I have been informed that we may have a Division fairly soon. If we do, I will have to suspend proceedings for 15 minutes. In the meantime, however, we will carry on.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on securing the debate and on his excellent contribution.

The Perkins review is an important publication. It clearly shows that the Government and others need to do much more to ensure we are not disadvantaged more than we are by the lack of people with engineering skills or by people not using the engineering skills they have. The review highlights the low proportion of women working in engineering and states:

“One of the main reasons…is girls’ subject choices in school.”

Few girls study mathematics, and even fewer physics, through to A-level. In 2011, 49% of state-funded schools had no girls taking A-level physics at all. Much has been written on the issue, including by me. Many initiatives have been tried, but the proportion of women engineers remains stubbornly small. Recommendation 7 of the Perkins review states:

“Government should continue to support schools to increase progression to A-level physics, especially among female students.”

That is to be welcomed.

An important development is the latest report by the Institute of Physics, which was launched only yesterday. It contains important information on subject choices in secondary schools. Entitled “Closing Doors,” it shows the individual consequences to young people of choosing particular subjects for A-level—in particular, the decision not to study physics closes doors to a wide range of engineering roles. Importantly, the research is undertaken on a wide range of subjects: three that are predominantly studied by girls at A-level and identified as such, and three predominantly studied by boys and identified as boys’ subjects. The research shows that is not just in physics that there is a significant failure to challenge gender stereotyping.

Simply cajoling girls to study physics, however, is not an answer; there are wider issues of gender stereotyping in schools. The gender equality duty, introduced by the Equality Act 2006, requires public bodies to have due regard to the need

“to promote equality of opportunity between men and women.”

That also means between girls and boys. Some schools do challenge stereotyping, and we need more research to understand how they do that and what works for students. Schools across the country that have poor results have been analysed by the Institute of Physics, and they need support and help to change and improve.

Professor Perkins argues in recommendation 5 that we should be aiming to inspire 11 to 14-year-olds to become tomorrow’s engineers. However, like the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, I contend that our efforts to broaden young people’s views of where science can take them must begin at the very least at primary school, if not earlier. Most children form an early view about the kind of careers that are open to them, so focusing on secondary school children is likely to be too little, too late.

We should ensure that all nursery, primary and secondary education is free from gender bias in the roles presented to children. A previous report by the Institute of Physics, “It’s Different for Girls,” outlined how single-sex schools are significantly better than co-educational schools at getting girls into non-traditional subjects. That confirms the vital importance of role models to the young when they are considering careers, as well as the real benefit of someone not feeling like the odd one out if they decide to study a particular subject. At a co-educational school, a girl choosing physics is likely to be in a minority; in a single-sex school that is clearly not a problem. I do not advocate single-sex schools at all, but we must learn why they are getting more girls to study physics than co-educational schools.

Role models are very important, and in Sheffield we have an inspiring one. Ruth Amos is 24 years old and already running her own company.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Meg Munn]

Before the suspension, I was about to talk about Ruth Amos, aged 24, who is already running her own company. She designed a product, the StairSteady, for her GCSE resistant materials course, to help people who have difficulty using stairs but do not have the money or space for a stairlift. We should champion stories such as Ruth’s in our schools.

As hon. Members have said today, the Department for Education has a crucial role in ensuring that young people have the necessary skills to pursue a career in engineering. I was concerned to learn that many local schools offer only a generic GCSE, so students are prevented from even considering physics at A-level. The state-funded secondary education sector, including academies and free schools, should not seek league table success by opting for so-called easier subjects at GCSE. All must offer and promote the three individual sciences and maths. That should be coupled with an embedded model of careers education in which curriculum learning is linked to a wide range of real-life careers. I do not have time today to cover the woeful state of our careers advice service, but it must be tackled if we are to have any chance of achieving the outcomes to which Perkins rightly aspires.

Of course, a traditional academic approach is not the only way to develop tomorrow’s engineers. Recommendation 10 of the Perkins review rightly stresses the importance of providing élite vocational provision. We have seen the success of that in Sheffield. The university of Sheffield advanced manufacturing research centre with Boeing is focusing on recruiting more female apprentices, with a new cohort joining in April. Sheffield Hallam university’s women in science, engineering and technology team is providing advice and support on how to make that ambition a reality. Furthermore, our brand new university technical college boasts 14% female students in its first year, and deserves credit for that when, on average, only 2% of engineering apprentices are female.

Skills shortages in engineering are a national issue, requiring leadership and co-ordination, and Perkins was right to call for a more joined-up approach. Having worked on the issue for a long time, I am familiar with the plethora of institutes involved in this work and the need to co-ordinate better, but I think it was a mistake for the Government to withdraw all funding from the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, which was an excellent co-ordinating organisation for all initiatives involving gender. I suggest to the Minister that it is not only important to work across the engineering institutions, but that joining up initiatives in geographical areas might lead to better outcomes.

[Andrew Miller]

I want to bring to my hon. Friend’s attention work that we are doing in the north-west that emulates the work that she has been involved in with our mutual friend, Dick Caborn, at the advanced manufacturing research centre in Sheffield. Now that we have acquired for the university of Chester the Thornton research centre, previously owned by Shell, the vision is not only to turn that into a new faculty of chemistry and chemical engineering, but to have an industry-focused training and innovation environment that helps address problems in the same way as is happening at Sheffield. It is built on the Catapult model, which we need to grow in this country.

[Meg Munn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his example of the importance of working across organisations in one geographical area.

In 2011, I edited a pamphlet on women in science, engineering and technology, and following on from that we have developed in Sheffield a STEM strategy group. One initiative has been to give young people the chance to try some hands-on activities with teachers, having the opportunity to talk to university experts about what they can do to support girls into STEM subjects post-16.

Over the last few years, engagement with employers has improved enormously and they have been integral in developing the apprenticeship programme at the advanced manufacturing research centre. Many employers are active supporters of our new university technical college.

Encouraging girls and women into these areas is not enough if the culture in the workplace does not change. The Perkins review rightly contends that employers must do much more to support people returning to engineering following a career break. Adopting measures such as flexible working and better managed career breaks for maternity leave also benefits employers. For example, Mott MacDonald, an engineering firm in Sheffield, benefited when it allowed Cathy Travers, its most senior female engineer, to work during term time only when her children were young. That adaptability rewarded the firm with loyalty, and it retained a talented and experienced employee.

The best performing companies are often those with diversity high on their agenda. Organisations with a strong diversity and inclusion culture reduce average employee turnover by half, quadruple work force innovation and double customer engagement. The Perkins review tells us that to fuel the long-term pipeline for skilled engineers, we must ensure that all state-funded schools actively promote engineering as a career option for women, but we should not stop there. We need an environment in the engineering sector that welcomes women. Only when all our young people have the opportunity to realise their potential can we ensure that Britain develops the very best of tomorrow’s engineers.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your forbearance with the interruptions. If no other Members wish to speak, I call Mr Iain Wright.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. The example of medicine is important for engineering, because 30 years ago medicine was almost entirely male dominated, but the culture was changed and the majority of those who go into medicine are now women. We need to have the same sort of cultural change in engineering, so medicine is a valid example. Not least as a result of the success of Tomorrow’s Engineers week, which the Government sponsor, the proportion of young people who say they would consider a career in engineering has risen by about 10%, and there has also been an increase in the proportion of parents who say they would like their children to consider a career in engineering.

[Meg Munn]

I know that the Minister is not responsible for education, but he has mentioned parents, whose views on the matter are influential. What is being done to ensure that in schools primarily led by parents, such as free schools and academies, enough of this work is going on? Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is correct about career development for teachers, we need parents to be on board too.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is an important point, which is part of a wider culture change. As a Minister in the Department for Education I am also responsible for the education end of the subject, along with the other Ministers in that Department. On the question of having an impact on the need for engineers, applications to study engineering at university have increased by 20% over the past three years, and in the past year the number of people in engineering apprenticeships has increased by 10%. Things are moving in the right direction, but I do not deny that there is much more to do, hence the Perkins report.

We accept the Perkins report, and we will take forward all the Government actions within it. It is important to set it in a wider context, however. That starts at an early age with stronger computing in the national curriculum from the age of eight and more of an emphasis on maths, inspirational careers advice from 12 years old onwards, new engineering qualifications for those aged 14 to 16, the introduction of tech levels and the tech bacc for 16 to 19-year-olds, the increase in take-up of A-level physics that we have talked about—we need to do more work on that to improve the gender balance—and the increase in engineering degrees and apprenticeships, not only at level 2 and the technician end but all the way up through higher apprenticeships. Members will have heard the announcement in the autumn statement of an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeships focused on engineering and technology. Within the lifespan of education from primary school onwards there is a focus at every level on improving rigour, improving responsiveness to the needs of employers and increasing the proportion of students who go into science, technology, engineering and maths. It is in that context that the Perkins report sits.

I agree wholeheartedly on the need for better communication, and the engineering profession has come together in the realisation of the importance of communication during the past couple of years. I have had many discussions with the leaders of various engineering industries on the implementation of Perkins. There is enthusiasm for it and there are mechanisms for it, but we need to make sure that those continue. The Big Bang Fair, which came to Parliament, is funded by Government. That funding has helped it to inspire thousands, but there is undoubtedly much more that we can do.

Given the shortage of time, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire setting out in detail the Government response to all 22 of the recommendations, and I will make public a copy of the letter. I want to ensure that we drive the recommendations forward. I have no doubt that we will continue to debate the subject so that we can maintain the cross-party, cross-Government national campaign to ensure that the shortage of engineers is dealt with and the supply chain is wide open.