Tom Bishop is executive chairman for Europe, Middle East and India at URS
Show Hide image

New perceptions

The long-term benefits of an “infrastructure renaissance” will never be realised unless we tackle the engineering skills gap at classroom level.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin must be thanking his lucky stars that he took up office at such a promising time for British infrastructure. Back in the depths of the financial downturn, just a few short years ago, his predecessors could scarcely have dreamt of presiding over such a potential upturn in the nation’s transport system.

Today, plans for HS2 are steaming ahead and the coalition government is putting together an Infrastructure Act to kickstart major projects amounting to £36bn. Innovative forms of project finance are expected, which should attract significant funding from overseas investors.

While I share Mr McLoughlin’s general optimism, there are, however, some big questions that may be easily overlooked in the broader public debate about Britain’s hoped-for transport renaissance.

First, how committed is the government to taking a more long-term approach to infrastructure planning? Can it escape the understandable short-term demands of party politics? We will hopefully hear more about the government’s broader approach in the forthcoming Infrastructure Act, or indeed in the 2014 Autumn Statement, expected in early December.

Second, and of equal importance, where are we going to find the army of highly qualified British engineers needed to build all these ambitious projects? The challenges of long-term infrastructure development go far beyond transport policy. Both phases of HS2 are unlikely to be completed before the early 2030s, for example, and if ministers are looking at projects with outcomes measured in decades, it is critical that we address an education system that is apparently failing to interest young people in engineering.

The UK faces a growing shortage of suitably qualified graduates. And the skills shortfall will continue to deteriorate, with an estimated 2.2 million entrants to the industry needed nationally over the next five to ten years. That is what it will take to satisfy a projected 40 per cent growth rate in a sector that already makes up nearly a fifth of the total UK workforce.

Slim chance, however, that our schools are well positioned to meet this demand when, according to industry surveys, only half of 11 to 14-year-olds would consider engineering as a career, and only around 7 per cent aspire to join the profession.

Efforts, admittedly, are being made, through initiatives such as Tomorrow’s Engineers, which seeks to incorporate engineering into school curricula. Yet the challenge goes, perhaps, far deeper than education policy. It touches the entire way in which the profession is viewed by the general public. Astonishingly, around 60 per cent of Britain’s engineers believe that the term “engineer” is not properly understood in the wider world. It is hard to imagine doctors or lawyers feeling the same level of misunderstanding.

Changing such deep-rooted perceptions will be no easy task. But such an important issue surely merits a reappraisal of our approach to education if Britain is to fully exploit the job-creating potential of long-term infrastructure projects. And that needs to start in the classroom. Initiatives to promote engineering ought to be considered as a core plank of curriculum planning, backed up by a campaign of mentoring and special financial incentives to promote interest in degrees.

As a first step, I’d call for a dedicated steering group of industry figures, education leaders and relevant government figures to tackle this important challenge.

Perhaps such a proposal could be integrated into the kind of independent commission on infrastructure proposed by Sir John Armitt, the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority and former chief executive of Network Rail? In many respects, Sir John’s thinking helps address my concern about Britain’s ability to benefit from all the advantages of a growing transport infrastructure. I support his proposals to focus our strategic thinking on transport requirements over the next 25 to 30 years, in a way which transcends party political boundaries.

As things stand, there is a risk of investment priorities being chopped and changed with every new government. Hence, how then can the big engineering employers plan for the future? How can the dependent supply chains look for any sustainable long-term revenue growth, recruiting to their fullest with real confidence that the demand for new jobs will be maintained?

With these uncertainties, one begins to see why engineering is struggling to win over potential recruits.

Unless steps are taken to shore up the long-term sustainability of the industry, the nation’s talented youngsters will continue to choose more reliable careers.

I have no doubt that our Transport Secretary can contribute much to this debate. But cross-party consensus is vital if we are to build a deep-rooted infrastructure policy that is truly fit for the future.

Tom Bishop is executive chairman for Europe, Middle East and India at URS

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.