The UK manufacturing industry is calling on government to step up and do more to encourage young people to consider engineering as a career and, thereby, help to close the skills gap. This is according to a new poll of over 600 industry professionals commissioned by Subcon in association with The Engineer.
The survey revealed that:
- 67 per cent of UK manufacturers are worried about the future availability of skilled staff for their business
- 72 per cent don’t believe Government is doing enough to promote skills training
- 83 per cent believe there are not enough young people working in UK manufacturing and engineering
- 88 per cent claim engineering is a good career choice for young people
- 90 per cent claim the industry would benefit from more young people working within it
- Just 54 per cent currently train apprentices
- 40 per cent don’t know whether The Apprenticeship Levy (introduced on 6 April 2017) is a good thing
In response to the estimate that the UK needs an additional 1.8 million engineers by 2020*, government has introduced The Apprenticeship Levy, and announced £170 million worth of investment in technology institutes as part of its industrial strategy and the introduction of T-Levels. Despite this, nearly three quarters of manufacturing professionals believe government could do more, specifically with regards education.
When asked what industry and the Government can do to encourage more young people to consider manufacturing as a career, the top five answers polled were:
- Increase and improve education at school level
- Invest in apprenticeship training
- Promote potential career progression and opportunities
- Increase pay at all levels
- Improve the image of the industry
Sid Shaikh, engineering R&D manager, Ocado: “The engineering skills gap is the biggest challenge facing the UK manufacturing industry right now. If government is to encourage more young people to work in the industry, we should introduce engineering qualifications earlier in the education process, create targeted promotion and incentives for women and young people to take the Engineering GCSE, and create a culture that is more welcoming to new starters that are keen to learn.”
Alan Pendry, associate professor of advanced systems engineering in the School of Engineering and the Built Environment at Birmingham City University: “Apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships are an excellent opportunity for UK companies to grow the essential skills needed by our growing manufacturing industry and to take us into the fourth industrial revolution. If I were in government and wanted to encourage more young people and women into engineering, I would get rid of ‘career politicians’ and replace the cabinet with engineers: 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female, educate school teachers as to what engineering and manufacturing in the 21st century is and promote positive action without the perceived fear of discrimination in the appointment of women to engineering posts.”
Jon Excell, editor, The Engineer: “The skills shortage is a major issue. The government is doing a bit to help and the investment in technology institutes, and introduction of T-Levels and The Apprenticeship Levy are all welcome developments that will give a lot of people opportunities they haven’t had before, as well as broaden the pool that industry can draw on. But there is a slight caveat – and it’s a concern a lot of people have raised – which is that in the rush to meet the target of three million apprentices, we don’t lose sight of the fact that we need high-quality apprenticeships for the high value industries that will help drive the economy.
“Of course, there is always more the government can do, but it’s not just down to government, industry has an important role to play, too. It needs to get more engaged with education and the school system to inspire the next generation of engineers.”
Find out more about the event and register to attend for free – click here.
If productivity crisis in the UK’s manufacturing industry is caused by a lack of engineering skills, then the situation in the Public Sector – which is responsible for spending £240bn of taxpayers’ money on goods, services and labour from the Private Sector – is equally dire.
Nearly a quarter of this public expenditure is accounted for by the Ministry of Defence, which spends a good part of it on the acquisition of military equipment for the Armed Forces.
Indeed, the quality of management in the Public Sector is so poor that there is not a single person in the pay of the State who is equipped with the necessary blend of leadership/communication skills, specialist knowledge, cross-discipline expertise or prior experience to not only correctly identify the deep-seated problems associated with the existing, flawed defence procurement process but also to come up with simple, workable, easy-to-apply solutions which will tackle these shortcomings. Yet, it is the responsibility of Government to shape and then implement acquisition policy which will deliver equipment to the Armed Forces that is fit for purpose, adequately sustained in-service and constitutes value for money through-life.
This lack of leadership talent in Whitehall would explain why there is a massive void in defence procurement policy.
In response to this deficiency, the governing elite have determined that there is an urgent need to inject Private Sector skills and practices into the business of Government. However, the policy of replacing just the top man at MoD’s arms-length procurement organisation in Bristol with someone from a Private Sector background, in the expectation that the commercial acumen he brings will ‘rub off’ onto people around him, has not worked at all, nor has it delivered dramatic improvements in efficiency hoped for and demanded by the political elite.
What is urgently needed is injection of tried-and-tested Private Sector skills not only at the top, but right down every level of the hierarchy at MoD Abbey Wood – but especially at the coal-face level, where it matters most, in numbers large enough to make a tangible difference to performance outcomes.
In addition, this top person should be given the power to choose lower-tier post holders ‘in his/her her own image’ (as well as releasing the existing lot) so that (s)he can assemble a delivery-orientated management team which is focused solely on results.
@JagPatel3 on twitter
“In response to the estimate that the UK needs an additional 1.8 million engineers by 2020*, government has introduced The Apprenticeship Levy, and announced £170 million worth of investment in technology institutes as part of its industrial strategy and the introduction of T-Levels.”
I think this is a good thing and will help the engineering industry, but I can’t help but wonder if its 5-10 years too late. If you consider an apprentice starting their time now, are they going to be much use to the industry by 2020? They will have only just finished their apprenticeship so they will have some skills but surely not enough to fill the gap that is steadily growing.
If there is a skills gap then UK manufacturing needs to step up to the mark and do something about it, it’s not the governments problem. Use those profits to invest in your future rather than line shareholders pockets – do something or you will fail, your problem so fix it.,
Ahhh this again, every few months its a cry of the skills shortage myth!! If anyone with an ounce of common sense were to look at the advertised vacancies for engineers in the UK they would realise each one is unique blend and extremely niche. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!! The industry demands people that don’t exist, like wanting a Ferrari that the average joe can afford. There are no transferable skills no matter how basic. SO the case is if they really needed them but can’t find, why not train them?!!! I never had any tangible training and have worked large engineering firms for almost a decade, nor did I see any graduates being given anything either.
1.8 million engineers is way way bigger than the entire UK industry, where would they work?!!
Largest department I worked in had around 150 and that is massive, most places only have less than 10. I think by “engineer” they mean anyone that holds a job involving a screwdriver, its the only way those numbers make sense.