Andrew Millard
Show Hide image

Building and investing for the future

The New Statesman hosted a group of experts to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with the UK construction sector.

Viewing the construction industry purely through the lens of the housing sector, a New Statesman fringe event concluded during the Conservative party conference last month, misses the point. A roundtable discussion that brought together parliamentarians, policymakers and industry professionals alike saw the group deliberate over issues concerning the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy, construction’s role socially, the skills gap in the context of Brexit, and even how buildings affect health-care spending.

John Penrose, the MP for Weston-super-Mare, got the ball rolling and his opening remarks addressed the scope of how we define “value” when reflecting on the building process, from concept right through to construction. Bemoaning the “difficulty of acquiring land at a sensible price”, he pointed out that “land speculation and appreciation” had supplanted the honest aims of building something new, fit for purpose and with potential.

He said: “We need to work out how we deal with the fact that value creation is not actually created any more, but is really just appreciation. We have a problem with land supply. If we can get the real value, in designing, building and creating liveable spaces, then that becomes the main game in town. I would suggest that part of the answer is in making use of the fact we are a remarkably open environment, compared to other parts of the world.” Alluding to too much red tape in the planning process, Penrose suggested, “If we can genuinely facilitate building up, not out, then we have an opportunity to add something like 40 to 60 per cent of more buildings on existing sites.”

Eddie Hughes, the MP for Walsall North, joked that it was uncharacteristic of Conservatives “to be so interventionist” but said that the government would be foolish not to see the benefits of expanding the construction industry’s brief beyond building alone, and into place-making. A balance between regeneration and new developments, he recommended, should form a pillar of any local economy. “Whether it’s housing or office space, a new building can boost an economy. It can attract new investment and employment to an area. If you make a place, with things for people to move to – jobs or facilities – then it’s more likely that they will.”

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union has undoubtedly thrown a curve ball across the country’s political and economic landscape. A major study into migration from the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) found that a third of UK firms employ migrant workers. That Brexit injects fresh impetus to plug the UK skills gap, then, was not lost on the roundtable. Hughes added, “The problem we’ve got is in answering: who’s going to do all this building? We’ve also got an ageing construction sector and face the problem, possibly, with the repatriation of some of those builders going back to plying their trades in their own countries. So we have a collective responsibility, as government and industry, to make the construction sector more attractive over here. They need to know that they can make a perfectly good living as a plumber, a bricklayer or plasterer and that their country needs them.”

While he agreed that Brexit might have renewed the focus on the need for better technical skills in the UK, the editor of Construction News, Tom Fitzpatrick, was keen to stress that this is an issue that has endured for many years now, largely owing to persisting problems with the industry’s perception in the wider public. “The skills crisis was being talked about in the 1990s. I guess you can say that Brexit has exacerbated the skills gap, but when people think about construction, they’re thinking about hard hats and muddy boots. The perception needs to shift away from the conditions you experience on site.”

Professor Charles Egbu, the dean of the School of Built Environment and Architecture at London South Bank University and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), proposed that the best way to improve uptake in construction courses was to convey a better message about the industry’s potential to enact social or political change. And the CIOB, in partnership with several universities, has put together a growing body of research unearthing previously unrecognised links between the built environment and health, social inequality, education and employment rates.

Egbu said: “The CIOB argues that the value proposition lies in how construction supports wellbeing, and how through construction we might address issues of inequality and education. Moreover, the issue of technical skills competency also relates to social mobility and helping people to find work.” Concordantly, the CIOB has been working with other construction-related professional bodies to provide an information resource to help improve investment decisions in the industry. If policymakers recognise the difference the built environment can make, Egbu argued, they are more likely to develop it.

Dr Paul Chan, the editor of Construction Management and Economics, meanwhile, noted that there “needs to be a clearer distinction between further education and higher education”. He added that industry needs must be factored into the syllabi of courses in advance, to allow for a greater synergy with academia sooner in the pipeline. “The skills shortages often occur because there is a mismatch of what the industry is producing when it might need something else. The classic example is the flux of bricklayers back when the Channel Tunnel was being built.”

When it comes to the housing crisis, which has been a thorn in the side for successive governments, there is, as the economist Brian Green suggested, a bit of a misunderstanding regarding quantity over quality. That the UK needs to build more houses is an accepted reality, but what good are more houses if they are not built well? In the haste to build more houses, there can be a dereliction of duty to build more homes. Green observed that where someone lives has an immediate effect on their physical health. He said: “There is, as [Health Secretary] Jeremy Hunt has made clear, a correlation between damp homes and the cost that causes to the health service. What you get is a case of doctors prescribing new boilers!”

While the requirements for housing in both the public and private sectors have changed over the years, the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership’s Michael Oglesby highlighted, approaches to architecture have not. While maintenance, management and allocation policies have played their part, design remains central to whether housing can be considered successful. More recently, developer-built city centre flats, aimed at an investment economy, have come under fire for their small size and limited storage facilities; while more suburban schemes are criticised for failing to deliver public space, sufficiently sized rooms or nearby infrastructure. Oglesby said: “I look around building sites today and very little has changed from 60 years ago. We are still building houses in the same way.”

Ultimately, as Mace’s director for the North and Scotland, Steve Gillingham, put it, the construction industry must not be dealt with in silos and “cross-party collaboration” is necessary. He summed up: “There is a need for confidence in long-term investment from government, to keep the construction industry well equipped. There must be a clear industrial strategy sooner rather than later, because the pipelines need to be full and the right levels of throughput must meet manufacturing’s demands.”

Show Hide image

What the university staff strike reveals about our broken higher education system

The marketisation of our universities is facing its biggest opposition yet.

The biggest industrial strike ever by academic staff in Britain's universities has begun.

National newspapers are running panicked headlines about what may happen if the strike lasts: “University strike puts final exams in danger”, warns The Times. “University strikes could hit exams and graduation ceremonies”, says the Guardian. But as well as affecting the education of students who are heavily in debt, the strikes will hit academics with very different levels of job security, and university establishments at a time when higher education is on the political agenda. 

The University and College Union voted for strike action last month over a failure to reach an agreement with Universities UK (UUK), the body which represents of the Vice Chancellors of every university in the country, over changes to academics' pension plans.

The pension scheme at the heart of the conflict, the Universities Superannuation Scheme, currently has over 400,000 participants. UUK have stated that the pension scheme currently has a £6.1bn deficit and that the cost of future benefits has increased by one third since 2014. They are proposing a switch from a direct benefit pension scheme (fixed, guaranteed pension payments) to a direct contribution scheme (reliant on stock markets) to maintain the scheme's sustainability.

However, many academics argue the deficit is overstated, and is instead a cynical attempt to reduce the universities' pension liabilties. 

Older and more senior academics who have already spent several decades paying into the system will be less affected by the changes, as contributions will be protected under the old scheme until 2019. 

UCU however allege that this change will result in an average yearly £10,000 loss in staff members' pensions. Academics at 61 universities, including the likes of Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial College London, Cardiff University and the University of Edinburgh will be striking for 14 days. 

The strikes begin on Thursday, and yet no-one seems to know what will happen. FAQs provided by universities to students all appear to have a similar theme: Academic disruption will be minimised, but if you have a complaint, please email us. 

16 percent of academic staff at these universities will be on strike (because most academics aren't a part of a union) but lectures and seminars have still been cancelled. It is still unclear for students whether they will be examined on subjects that they will miss. 

But for the most part, students appear to support the academics. Mark Crawford, a Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer at UCL (the biggest university in the country to strike) says he has been pleasantly surprised by the number of students who have messaged asking him how they can help. 

Perhaps this is due to the pains some academics have gone to minimise the disruption their students will face. Some lecturers have made presentations available online, and have amendeded their reading lists. One academic at King's College London, KCL, has even rearranged her seminars off campus. 

Yet this feeling of goodwill may disappear when reality kicks in. Robert Adderly, a second year Law student at KCL, and a campaigner for the student group provocatively titled “Students Against Strikes” says he’s unsure how supportive students will be once the action actually begins. 

Adderly, while sympathetic to the concerns of the academics does not believe striking is the most effective way to negotiate with Universities UK. He goes on to say that he believes “neither side is willing to compromise” and says that the “only people losing out are students.”

He also says he believes a lot of students “haven’t assessed how they really feel about the strikes” and that the “longer it goes on, the more students who will get angry”. 

Adderly's thoughts are backed by a poll conducted by Trendence UK, a market research company, which found that 38 per cent of students supported their academics on strike, compred to 38 per cent who did not.

Several academics have spoken to the New Statesman off the record about feelings of uneasiness around the strike, arguing that there is a better, less disruptive way of resolving the pension debate. Others are unsure about the leadership of UCU and believe striking will only lead to a build up of work later. 

Professor Andrew Pomiankowski at UCL emailed his students saying while he supported the strike, he would continue conducting his classes this week. He later told the New Statesman “I have a lot of sympathy with the reasons for the strike - the loss of provision of pensions, especially for the younger members of staff. Talking is the only way of resolving this problem. However, I don’t feel that I should disrupt teaching of students. That’s a step too far.”

The strikes go to the heart of the debate about the marketisation of university. Even students who support the strike are in conflict with one another. Notably, students who support the strikes are unhappy with campaigns such as Adderly’s which are also demanding universities compensate them for lost teaching hours. Crawford says your “first instinct shouldn’t be how much am I losing? It should be how much is our staff losing.”

On the other hand, Adderly argues we shouldn’t pretend the marketisation of university hasn’t already happened, saying “It’s here. It’s happening. We are now consumers.” 

Though it appears unlikely that universities will refund students, these strikes are highlighting how our attitudes to higher education have changed in a short space of time, and causing some to ask if this is the future we want for British higher education.