It’s fair to say that in the corridors of Westminster the business of manufacturing tends to fall in and out of fashion depending on the economic weather and the enthusiasm of those concerned.
When times are tough, manufacturers – tangible wealth creators with a dynamic story to tell – are feted by politicians. When things are more settled, affections seem to cool.
It’s a pattern that’s been repeated in the period since the last general election with the ever-present Vince Cable giving way to Sajid Javid, a business secretary who didn’t even deliver a major industry address until he’d been in the job for several months.
However, in the aftermath of last month’s momentous “Brexit” vote, it’s vital that manufacturing – which accounts for more than a quarter of the UK’s GDP and half of its exports – is at the centre of the decision-making process. And as politicians attempt to chart a course through the uncertain months ahead it is critical that industry works closely with government to ensure that the UK retains access to the tariff-free markets and global skills base essential to its growth and survival.
Given that we don’t currently have a functioning government, it’s hard to say whether the current administration is even capable of listening
So far positive steps have been taken to ensure that these arguments are heard. Yesterday, in a welcome show of unity, the Royal Academy of Engineering announced it was joining forces with the UK’s 38 different engineering institutions to present a united front to support and advise the UK government on negotiations.
But industry is going to need to dig its heels in to get a deal that works. Indeed, at last month’s SMMT summit, leaders from the UK’s buoyant automotive sector, whilst ruling out any knee-jerk reaction to Brexit, refused to even speculate on the consequences for the UK of a hard exit from the EU.
Is government listening? Given that we don’t currently have a functioning government, it’s hard to say whether the current administration is even capable of listening, but the early signs are that there is at least an appetite for dialogue. Indeed, making a rare public appearance at the SMMT’s event, Javid explicitly called on industry to flag its concerns and pledged to do his best to secure a settlement that works for industry.
We should all make sure that he and his colleagues are under no illusions about the challenges that lie ahead.
It was Thatcher who gave away most of our manufacturing industry in the first place in favour of the “service industries” It will now be interesting to see if we get some of them back.
Don’t forget the culture of precaution.
Whilst trade and tariff negotiations are important, two other parts of the story are productivity – both within existing companies and industries and the creation of new industries – and the impacts of regulation and EU ‘thinking’ based around the precautionary principle.
Difficult as it is to work out the situation it would be a positive thing to start looking at identifying EU regulations which the UK many consider modifying or starting from scratch. Just one example is over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There will of course will and should be a debate to be had over such subjects – but we can now have it with in the UK and potentially build or develop this (and other regulated areas– to be identified) into new or more rapidly expanding industries and develop trade and partnerships with for example Africa.
The precautionary-principle is the foundation of much EU thinking – including regulation around materials and especially plastics. With a less risk averse culture and some ambition, together with the excellent science base we have here it is possible that the UK could form a centre offshore form Europe which could aid in a real rebalancing from finance. Materials development is important if for example Additive Manufacturing is to take off then we need to check that ‘over regulation’ and a risk averse culture does not hold it back .
In some respects it looks as if we will have a non Brexit PM, it is not the time for the Government when re-formed to pussy-foot around.
However little will change in the way in which the politicians think. I had hoped Brexit would focus all minds, but appears to have become a racial issue, which for the Country is so very sad in the 21st Century.
On day never we may have some strategic planning for long term results. But profit and greed will be the norm. Once the panic (City Slickers) is over we will be back where we started, a bigger headache, fighting the Legal EU exit battle, with the Nation paying the Bill. Oh! yes I am an engineer a cold one (Refrigeration)
It was Thatcher who gave away most of our manufacturing industry
“what do you expect from a grocer’s daughter?” -even though she was trained (because she certainly was not educated) in chemistry. Actually, she did not give it away -if I recall she let the barrow-boys (folk who during and post- WWII, sold dodgy items and moved on before the punters realised they had been sold ‘pups’.(*) flog whatever could be moved to who ever would buy it.
Our grand-children will be picking up the pieces all their lives.(*) any similarity between that and bankers, auditors, estate agents, advertising executives, marketing and meja gurus, inhabitants of the Westminster bubble (why don’t we call them ‘blunts’ as opposed to pr**ks) and so on – very likely.
I share Mike’s view of Maggie’s legacy: gross de-industrialisation and asset-stripping ruined many fine companies. Last time I wrote that I was attacked by armies of zealots who want her to be made into a saint – (this was not engineers I hasten to say).
If there is anyone in the Government who remains interested in industry and take this article seriously, where is he/she hiding?
The civil service are primarily pro-establishment apologists largely responsible for our destroyed-industrial situation: naturally, they now focus entirely on the services sector.