Science and TechnologyWritten evidence submitted by EADS UK

Introduction

A. EADS UK welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s inquiry into engineering skills.

B. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute to any further work investigating a broader range of issues beyond the scope of this present inquiry.

About EADS

C. EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related sectors. The EADS Group of companies includes Airbus, the leading manufacturer of commercial aircraft, Eurocopter, the world’s largest helicopter supplier, Astrium, the European leader in space programmes from Ariane to Galileo, and Cassidian a leading provider of cryptography, border security and other security solutions. EADS is the second largest aerospace and defence company in the world and a major partner in many of Europe’s largest aerospace projects, including Eurofighter Typhoon. EADS has a major industrial presence in the UK. Over 16,800 highly-skilled jobs are directly employed at EADS’ 25 key UK sites, and a further 135,000 jobs are indirectly supported throughout the UK supply chain. EADS invests around £2.8 billion annually on research, of which £390 million is spent in the UK.

D. EADS is responsible for the supply of Eurofighter (with BAES and Finmeccanica), A400M, FSTA, Skynet 5, DII (Secure Network), Cormorant, crypto and (through MBDA) Storm Shadow, ASRAAM, FASGW and Brimstone.

1. Does the current engineering skills base meet the needs of employers?

Do employers in the engineering sector prefer an academic or a vocational profile?

1.1 The current engineering skills base covers a vast range of capabilities at differing depths and consequently meets our needs in some areas but not others. EADS’s business units need both academic and vocational profiles and a lack of appropriate skills poses a significant risk to our business.

1.2 While industry as a whole needs employees with both academic and vocational backgrounds, the key is that the employee should be good at the role in which they were trained. The skill requirements brought about by changes in technology will be the key to the future economy in Advanced Manufacturing in both England and Wales. The workforce must be flexible and be in a position to react and respond to these changes when required.

1.3 Eurocopter and Airbus generally train our own engineers to a level acceptable for aircraft work. To progress beyond a basic shop floor level engineers are required to pass formal examinations including maths and science to “A” level. Oddly there are no exemptions from Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) exams for any academic qualifications, already obtained at school or college.

1.4 There should be confidence in qualifications that both employers and learning institutions value; they should meet the expected competency in a consistent way and be understood across both England and Wales. In addition, vocational courses must have sufficient academic structure underpinning them. Traditionally employers recognise academic qualifications such as GCSEs and A levels but when vocational qualifications are mixed with academic qualifications, eg in an apprenticeship framework, the qualification is boosted with added value and credence. Educational institutions need to be incentivised to vigorously liaise with industry so that their curriculum better suits the changing needs of the sector, whilst maintaining academic excellence. A much higher profile should also be given to courses accredited by the appropriate engineering institutions in order to provide a basic guarantee of competence from a source which has broad support and trust.

1.5 We have found that post graduates with degrees in aeronautical subjects have an optimistic view of their worth to aircraft companies and become disillusioned when they find that their hard earned degree gives them no exemptions from the industry required examinations. Colleges need to tailor their course so that they comply with industries regulations, and meet the aspirations of their students. Given that, even post graduates require five years of on aircraft work experience before they can apply for their licence, it means that they will be around 27 years of age before they get their AMEL and a higher level of salary.

1.6 A recommendation would be to embed an industrial placement year in all engineering/science degree courses so that graduates have vocational experience such as commercial awareness as well as the required academic knowledge before joining the UK workforce. This is where we are considerably weaker than in Europe. We do manage to recruit from the UK workforce/skills base, but we have a higher dependency on foreign nationals than other countries in Europe.

1.7 Arrangements like the Talent Retention Scheme are a useful means for industry and other Engineering organisations working together to provide a mechanism for retaining key skills within the sector.

1.8 Finally the standard of mathematics in this country must meet the international norms of competitor countries as these skills are a pre-requisite of all our higher level engineering skills. Poorly supported mathematics translates to difficulties in pursuing numerate subjects, which will damage recruitment in both science and engineering which in turn affects industry.

2. What impact will recent changes relating to engineering qualifications in England have on the uptake of technical subjects and the skills base needed by the engineering sector? 

2.1 The percentage of UK postgraduates on engineering courses has already collapsed. The decisions of government recently will only make this worse. In the past the UK has been able to keep many of the overseas postgraduates in order to strengthen the UK economy. However this will not be as simple in the future. For example China and India are rapidly improving the pay and conditions for their talented nationals and with the expansion of their high grade engineering capacity we should expect to see a corresponding drop in the availability of postdoctoral students to the UK as their country of origin becomes more attractive in the next decade.1

2.2 England has decided that qualifications such as the Engineering diploma will no longer be equivalent to five GCSEs.2 A concern is that these changes are seen as a statement that engineering is not high value. Although we have not seen any impact of this change, it would have been better to improve the qualification rather than downgrade it.

2.3 Airbus and other large employers have mainly used Vocational subjects, such as the Engineering Diploma as an equivalent to one GCSE alongside English, Maths and Science. However, we would welcome more credence given to Engineering subjects and a legitimate comparison, where possible.

2.4 The changes will probably have a detrimental effect on the principle learning and the Engineering Diploma but will not adversely impact the very important STEM subjects. It should have little or no effect on the skills base needed by the engineering sector. There are concerns regarding the impact should there be a shortage of industry specific skills in the market.

2.5 True vocational courses that are built into apprenticeships such as the Performing Engineering Operations or Performing Manufacturing Operations at NVQ level 2 and NVQ level 3 have far more influence on the skill base of the Engineering Sector at technician level. These are competency based qualifications where individuals must carry out real activities with skills required by the industry and assessed to industry standards.

2.6 The Engineering “A” Level (Edexcel) must also be considered. The breadth and depth seems to be out of proportion with other “A” Levels, it needs to focus on what students will do next, ie engineering degree courses and the course structure amended accordingly. Greater support should be provided for schools to understand what is required of them and some re-branding may be necessary to make it clear what sort of student is likely to benefit. If this is aimed at students that will eventually become chartered engineers later in life the title “Professional Engineering” may be useful to distinguish it from more “craft” oriented courses. Similar comments could be made at GCSE level. Industry in general is very willing to support these courses. Practicing engineers in the RAEng and universities should be consulted on an improved syllabus with a view to increasing uptake, a focus higher quality and exciting students across the full spectrum of backgrounds.

2.7 Experience over the last five years has shown apprentices with GCSE’s do not have the underpinning scientific and mathematical knowledge required to support the new information they receive at College or for the CAA examinations. GCSE modular examination allows individuals to discard the information once the module is passed. Those with ‘A’ levels go through the process of having to learn how to understand and retain the information in preparation for an overall final examination. There needs to be a radical shift in the way young people are taught if we are to be serious about preparing them for future employment in high tech industries that require good engineering skills, otherwise those who have only GSCE’s, no matter how good the grade, will be left with low level jobs.

2.8 The change in tuition fees is also likely dictate change. Institutions that are not charging £9,000 per annum are likely to be under severe pressure to cut back on expensive courses (very relevant to four year STEM courses). In particular there is no relief on tuition fees for the brightest students taking shortage subjects that are crucial to the future economy. We believe a secondary threat, as more graduates accrue very large debts, will be the questioning of the value of such degrees. Due to increased cost implication, in England, there is a marked increase in applications for apprenticeships from candidates with qualifications that would have previously encouraged them into further education. Therefore, better qualified and more mature applicants who are more likely to succeed in passing all elements of the apprenticeship. A small silver lining of this is the apprentice will be 23 years of age or older before obtaining an Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licence (AMEL) and a higher level of salary.

2.9 However, the negative consequence of this change is that in shortage areas UK industry needs engineering graduates and the UK needs the additional tax and jobs generated by such industry. So engineering degrees (shortage areas for capable students) are far more valuable to the UK economy than they are to the individuals and this should be reflected in incentives to take them.

3. How do the approaches taken by the Devolved Administrations to produce a technically skilled workforce differ to the current approach in England? What are the strengths/weakness of the different approaches?

3.1 For economically important sectors, such as Advanced Manufacturing, the Welsh Government has developed the “All Age Apprenticeship” which supports new entry apprentices under 18 years of age, older apprentices who would like a second chance and existing employee apprenticeships. England is moving to a system where apprentices from 16 to 18 will be funded, post 18 will be financed and those over 23 will be eligible for loans similar to student loans. Large employers are also expected to have a further 25% reduction in the delivery funding.

3.2 Wales has a stronger social agenda than England. The English ability to expand beyond the usual cap on student numbers, in the case of highly qualified students, is not supported by the Welsh Government. Consequently successful departments at Welsh Universities, which are attracting top quality students, cannot expand in the same way as the top English universities. HEFCW recognised that allocation in shortage areas is a problem3 and is trying to address some of the issues. Wales also has a strong focus on SMEs as they make up a disproportionately large percentage of the Welsh economy. Given that Wales relies heavily on public sector money, which is dwindling, it may be a mistake not to consider attracting and retaining large export driven companies as the priority. Certainly the emphasis should be on companies that bring money into Wales.

3.3 Wales allocates less funding to STEM subjects than England, causing a competitive disadvantage. This is worrying; at present Wales is doing well with one university in the top 10 UK engineering institutions and two in the top 20, this far exceeds other home nations. Clearly there are lessons to be learnt from Wales in terms of their top institution’s ability to cope on smaller budgets but there is also a risk in further stressing a system that is working efficiently. We should be mindful of control factors such as small strategic initiatives that may have disproportionate effects (eg the Power Academy).

3.4 Finally the Welsh Baccalaureate has had a mixed response with some universities being dubious of its nominal 120 point score. England can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the Welsh approach. It is imperative that if the students are going to spend time in this area the qualification can be trusted to deliver value.

4. Could the Government and others do more to raise the status of technical subjects?

4.1 Yes. It is important that Government encourages STEM subjects for all school children and where appropriate give vocational subjects the same credibility as academic subjects. There are several learning methods that could be considered and many learners benefit from having a range of subjects, pathways and modes of learning to suit different interests, capabilities, learning styles and career opportunities as possible. Choice should apply equally to learners whether they are academically or practically orientated. It is important that the Government helps challenge the (negative) perceptions of engineering. In addition EADS, like other organisations, supports the national objective to raise the profile of STEM subjects in the hope of encouraging more students to study these subjects post 16 and ultimately choose careers in STEM related fields.

4.2 There are a number of ways Government could do more to raise the status of technical subjects:

(a)Engineers should be presented as innovators rather than maintenance and repair technicians. The roots of the word “engineer” are “ingeniaire” (to devise)

(b)Where great inventions are created by engineers they should not be referred to as scientists but as engineers (or chartered engineers).

(c)Government bodies often have Chief Scientific Advisors who are actually providing engineering advice (invention, analysis and design) rather than scientific (discovery and models of the way the world works). This should be reflected in the title.

(d)Large primary and secondary schools should be incentivised to employ at least one teacher who has a good class of degree and enthusiasm for engineering as one means of encouraging more students to study technical skills at all levels. They should be supported by centrally produced material. Many schools use robot or electrically powered car building clubs to encourage young people to gain an interest in engineering, but it becomes little more than a fun adventure rather than having a useful purpose of teaching fundamental scientific and engineering principles. The Government should look at incentives to encourage Universities and students to pursue engineering careers and raise awareness of all STEM subjects.

(e)Companies should be incentivised to take a greater part in working with schools. Such social responsibility should be rewarded through official recognition (eg badge schemes) and greater access and influence on bodies that make decisions on the future of education and curricula. As a large employer we do not feel the Government offer support or incentives to large employers to be actively involved in promoting STEM projects and believe the Government do not have an awareness of the lengths employers are going to support STEM subjects.4

(f)The public services (including teaching) should make a point of supporting professional engineering bodies and individuals to become Chartered Engineers (and similar), to use the title and to recognise the status in the salary and reward structures. This requires a fundamental change in the mindset of teachers of students from the age of 12. To teach someone engineering skills requires a workshop and expensive resources, to teach someone a language is less expensive by far. Also engineering is a broad subject which requires an understanding of materials, processes and design. Changes in technology require the instructor to be regularly updated. Field trips to cutting edge industry will capture the imagination of students.

(g)Greater use should be made of the engineering institutions to provide relevant advice to Government and the value and use of such advice should be made more public. This includes the Royal Academy of Engineering and Engineering Council for general issues and the separate institutions (eg IMechE and IET) for more subject specific issues. Where broader regional issues are of concern then of course more general learned regional institutions are relevant (Royal Irish Academy, Royal Society of Edinburgh and The Learned Society of Wales).

(h)In relation to industry, Government should recognise where companies are acting as good corporate citizens in order to encourage the good work undertaken.5 ^, 6 ^, 7

(i)Government could do more to support or encourage more strategic approaches between industry and academia. A model for this may be the Power Academy (conferences.theiet.org/power-academy). This academy was brought together to address the devastating collapse in Electrical Engineering undergraduates.

(j)Government should look at best practice in other EU countries where the status of engineers is much higher with a view to transferring some of their methods to the UK.

4.3 Parents must be sold on the requirement for engineers and that it is a worthwhile and rewarding career for their children. Careers advice in schools and colleges remains woefully poor and virtually non-existent in engineering mainly due to the fact that few teachers understand it. Computing, design, sport, drama, art, media studies are personified as the Holy Grail. Teachers in secondary schools need training in engineering matters so that they can give a balanced picture to their students.

5. What more should be done to attract and retain a more diverse technically skilled workforce?

5.1 This is a very complex issue to address,8 diversity is not a problem across all STEM subjects. Although there is a particular problem in relation to physics, computing and additional/further mathematics. Female representation at “A” Level in computing, physics and mathematics is significantly low and continues to fall, this is coupled with an overall decline in numbers.9 This then propagates into engineering as a whole as such “A” Levels are key feeder subjects to the best universities. Making funding available will increase the popularity of these subjects, specifically making them attractive to the brightest students. Academic work should be followed up with examples, “hands-on” work and demonstrations which should emphasise creativity and innovation.10 Naturally the effectiveness of this material will depend on the quality of the presenter. Those which can prove their effectiveness in this area should have it recognised.

5.2 The percentage of women studying engineering at University is very poor, resulting in a low percentage pursuing engineering careers. Work needs to be done as early as possible in education to promote engineering as a career path to all, but particularly young women. We actively promote female engineers into the industry via online profiling and our STEM activities, but more needs to be done across industry and government. Organisations should be encouraged to support schemes like WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) and use female corporate ambassadors to introduce students to the work environment and the opportunities available

5.3 Industry should indirectly support diversity as an addition to the direct support from universities. It should be noted that the goal here is to get the best students from under-represented backgrounds into the right courses, not to use quotas to make the figures look correct by advancing less able students of the right ethnicity. Groups do exist which help, particularly in the STEM area such as EESW in Wales and wider groups like Athena Swan (supported by the Royal Society, Biochemical Society and the Department of Health) should be consulted. However these tend to focus on gender equality. Under-represented ethnic groups also need support. One of the issues that admission tutors face is that the statistical numbers can be so small that deriving statistically meaningful indicators on a particular course, which may have less than 50 students in total, is difficult.

5.4 Regional statistics that take into account qualifications leading to the degrees under scrutiny should be collected to determine where the issues arise. 2010–11 Department of Education statistics show percentages of pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs of A*-C grade including English and Mathematics vary between the ethnic groups (from 78.5% to 54.3%). This disparity continues into ‘A’ level. This is a strong indication that much earlier intervention is necessary than university level. Root cause analysis is required to support the under-represented groups, not actions to merely require the numbers to look correct.

5.5 In terms of the overall distribution of ethnic groups in engineering subjects, it should be noted that it is not unusual now to see over 30% of the intake from overseas and this rises to much greater proportions amongst postgraduates. So the student body as a whole is far more diverse than the UK population, except for gender. There are overwhelmingly varied and complex reasons for different groups to come to the UK, so establishing what is a reasonable spread of various groups in the overseas recruitment area is an intractable problem. The issue here is not so much about having a diverse student body as the opportunity (or lack of it) for different groups in UK society.

5.6 Airbus has developed its own Skills Strategy, to attract a diverse skilled workforce and provide a structured framework for investing in the skills of our workforce. The strategy has at its centre the apprenticeship model; although this is seen by some as being expensive. We feel that, providing there is government support for the delivery part of the programme, we can manage the remaining considerable employment and non-framework costs of the apprenticeship.

5.7 It is also important that employers are able to identify people that meet their internal business requirements, and where appropriate are able to recruit or develop a well-educated, vocationally competent, skilled workforce who are able to carry out a meaningful role within their business.

5.8 The Government makes available £16,000 of funding for each apprentice. Generally aircraft companies are not able to draw this funding down. It is only available to colleges or intermediate training organisations. Quite often this funding is spent on college courses which are of no value to the student whatsoever.

5.9 All this comes down to more investment in engineering and its associated subjects and fewer “easy option” subjects.

June 2012