Q&A: John Dorken on skills shortages in the UK rubber sector

For a recent feature, ERJ asked John Dorken, president of the British Rubber and Polyurethane Products Association about the background to the current skills crisis facing the UK rubber manufacturing sector. In his replies, the industry veteran explains the events that have led to the current state-of-affairs and suggests a way forward for the industry: 

ERJ: Can you please explain the background to the current skills problems facing the UK rubber manufacturing sector today?

JD: It's sad story really.  In the 1970s the UK had the largest rubber manufacturing sector in the EU. As such it was able to support a comprehensive training infrastructure at all levels. Quite apart from this Governments of all political colours at that time, and indeed up to the turn of the century, were intervening substantially to support training.

The rubber industry had its own dedicated training organisation: the British Rubber Industry Training Organisation (BRITO) – which was funded, as in all similar sectors in the UK at the time, by a system of statutory levies on employers in the industry. There was always the money to help support training in the industry. How well the money was spent I cannot say: when your funds flow in willy nilly there is always a tendency towards complacency and inefficiency.

The system of statutory levies and corresponding industry training organisations was wound up in the early 90s. Likewise the organisational arrangements for supporting rubber industry training were amalgamated with those for the plastics industry. A training organisation for the two sectors was set up – the British Polymer Training Association  (BPTA) – was set up.

As the name suggests it was a voluntary based association of trade associations and individual companies. BPTA did not receive core funding from Government but it was able to take financial advantage of Government initiatives of various sorts to improve the infrastructure for training in industry to fund core activities.

In addition it got income from the various courses it undertook, with money flowing in, at least in part, through the financial support that Government gave for the training of individuals at various levels up to NVQ level 3 (or the equivalent thereof in those days). In addition BPTA inherited a substantial sum of money from BRITO and its plastics equivalent  - which it spent largely on a spanking new building in Telford, which never really paid for itself.

There was still some money left over from BRITO for the exclusive use of the rubber industry. This was put into a charitable trust – the Rubber Industry Education and Training Trust (RIETT) – and was drawn down over about 8 years to help fund individuals’ training needs, including participation on management courses at the likes of Henley Management College.

Following another reorganisation by Government of the national training infrastructure BPTA turned itself in the late 1990s/early 2000s into the one of the Government approved national training organisations (NTOs) and became the Polymer National Training Organisation (PNTO); this enabled to tap into number of initiatives by Government.

In the mid 2000s the Government replaced the system of NTOs for individual sectors with broader based skills bodies (Sector Skills Councils). Polymers were brigaded with the nuclear, chemical, petroleum, life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors into Cogent  - the Sector Skills Council for the ‘science based’ industries. With some of its core funding in its earlier years Cogent undertook some quite useful work in the areas of skills mapping, the development of qualifications and standards and through the associated National Skills Academy for the Process Industries made some contribution to signposting employers to suitable courses for their staff.

ERJ: How have these events affected UK rubber manufacturers?

JD: In all this change the rubber industry fared badly. At one-seventh of the size of the plastics industry it was never going to receive much attention but even on this basis it got much less than its fair share. BPTA/PNTO never to my knowledge ran any rubber-specific courses, though there were some more generic polymer or general (eg management) courses that rubber industry employees could take advantage of. Some work was done on the development of national qualifications/standards of which the industry could take advantage.

Some efforts were made to broker the establishment of employer groups in certain localities (eg East Midlands) to develop communal training arrangements and these bore some modest fruits for a time. Surveys of the polymer industry were carried out regularly and these included analyses (generally gloomy) of the rubber sector but little was done to address the problems identified through positive action.

It is important to distinguish between the general rubber goods (GRG) and the tyre sectors here. The distinguishing feature between the two is that the former is made up largely of SMEs, with just a  few larger companies and a varied ownership: there are a few international companies (eg Trelleborg, ContiTech), with a presence in the UK, but even they tend to treat their UK units as self- contained businesses with those units carrying the responsibility for providing and developing the skills required for their own operations.

The latter is of course quite different. The companies are large and operate multinationally. They produce a very homogenous product and there are closely laid down procedures at international level which dictate the skill levels required. They are large enough to support a well-based training infrastructure, with training at the higher level being organised company wide.

This is not to say that they do not take advantage of government initiatives when they present themselves eg by Pirelli for its Carlisle factory, but they do not need to rely on them.

ERJ: In which parts of the industry are skills shortages now most acutely felt and why?

JD: Unquestionably – and by a long stretch – in the area of rubber technology in the GRG sector. This is a very serious problem and could well have a substantial effect on the viability of the UK GRG sector in the medium to long term unless it is properly addressed.

The problem has been festering for years but started coming to a head in the late 1990s, for various reasons:

The substantial shake-out of manufacturing industry in the mid to late 1990s, which led to a reduction in demand for rubber technology skills

As part of the above squeeze on the industry’s finances, with less resource available for training

A reduction in interest in working for the industry – seen as traditional manufacturing. This reflected  – the general turning away by young people from industry and science to softer subjects.

Because the demand for rubber technology skills was reducing as output fell companies managed to muddle along until more recently, relying on the residual pool of generally older technologists.

Many of these have however now gone into retirement, leaving a substantial skills gap, especially when, as now, the sector is reviving.

ERJ: What has been the impact on further education (FE) providers serving the sector?

JD: Alongside the fall in demand the provision of rubber technology training has dramatically reduced. A number of FE colleges providing suitable training have now ceased to do so over the last few years: Burton College, serving the Midlands; Trafford College, serving the north-west; and Wiltshire (ex-Trowbridge) College, serving the south west.

Effectively at present there is no institution routinely offering formal training in rubber technology at the FE level. As a result it is very difficult to get provision for any formal rubber related training.

The same trends have been reflected at the higher education level. Manchester Metropolitan University and London Metropolitan University (ex-National Rubber College) have ceased to provide any course modules in rubber technology at BSc level and their kit has been dispersed. Those seeking any education at this level have to take a more general degree in engineering or science and move on to acquiring rubber related know ledge in any other way they can. Loughborough University does however offer MSc courses in polymer technology, which include rubber technology modules.

ERJ: How does the UK rubber sector's skills base compare with that of other EU countries?

JD: The situation is certainly markedly better in France and Germany.  Both of course have much larger rubber manufacturing sectors than the UK and can support a much larger and specialised training infrastructure. Germany has a long-standing tradition in a system of apprenticeships across the whole economy.

At tertiary level educational systems in France are much better geared to providing a work based element in their engineering and scientific degrees, with the result that graduates newly coming out of university and colleges are much better able to deliver value in the workplace than their UK counterparts, who have very little experience in applying their learning. This gives these two counties a distinct competitive advantage over the UK.

ERJ; What needs to be done for things to improve in the UK?

JD: A much more concerted effort must be made to make provision for training in rubber technology. This is not easy. The sector is fragmented both geographically and in terms of the types of product it makes. It lacks critical mass at a local level. A flexible approach is required whereby employers, almost exclusively SMEs, can draw upon training provision in the way they require.  One way forward would the establishment of a national rubber technology ‘centre’ which would provide training resources.

This does not need to be a major physical centre; rather a focal point for coordinating needs with provision, bringing together those who are still a position to provide the training (essentially ex-industry specialists), the kit to train on where available and of course employers and the would-be trainees.

Apprenticeships are being created and taken up in rubber manufacturing in the UK and thus there is certainly a demand for rubber-related modules in the courses for such apprentices. There is also a need to provide such modules to enable companies to improve the skills of other employees whom they want to advance from within. The centre would provide for both types.

Determined moves to broker such arrangement were made by the then polymer lead manager at Cogent in 2012-2013, but unfortunately he resigned before his work was close to completion and his successor has for whatever reason not taken up the baton with any drive or focus. This may be a reflection of changing priorities within Cogent where the emphasis is now very much more on implementing particular projects for which groups of employers have won funding ,eg for the development of apprenticeships, than doing generic work on skills across particular sectors within its purview.

With only very limited support from Cogent brokering a common facility for rubber technology has to be left to other players. Work is being done on this front but it is difficult to make headway.

In July, the UK government  announced, in a response to a bid from the Science Industry Partnership (SIP), a package of measures worth £52m, including some £32m of its own money, designed to boost skills and training in the UK’s science sectors.  The money from Government comes from its Employer Ownership of Skills Pilot fund and our Sector Skills Council, Cogent, will be acting for the Partners in implementing programmes under the deal.

While the amount of money is impressive it has to serve the needs of a major group of sectors, some with a good deal more muscle power than the polymer sector. Within the polymer sector the plastic industry dominates, so the amount available for rubber will be very limited. Much of the money is going into apprenticeships and while this is obviously welcome it pretty well ignores the need to  upskill existing employees, which is especially important when it some to rubber technology.

ERJ: Finally, do you think that the UK government and skills agencies are, at least on the right track?

JD: In principle the injection of funding to this order, albeit for a group of sectors with a very wide footprint is welcome. However there is arguably a fundamental flaw in the system of Government support for training. It rightly believes that training provision should be determined by the articulation by employers of their needs rather than by what providers choose to offer. So funding is offered to employers who bid for it. By definition however it is the larger employers who are in a better position to articulate their needs and it is the sectors that are deemed as key UK sectors that attract the most attention.

So it is the large employers in the ‘sexy’ sectors that steal the limelight and grab the larger share of funding. In practice these are precisely the employers who do not need support because they are best able to provide training from within their own resources. Arguably the market failure in the provision of training which the Government should be addressing lies in the SME sector and it is precisely this sector which is losing out.

Certainly a universal complaint in the rubber sector, predominantly made up of SMEs, is that their needs are not met: they are not able to shape training provision and even if support is available communication from the likes of Cogent is so poor that they have no way of accessing it. Unless the Government recognises this, it will not get the resurgence in manufacturing on the back, to any major extent, of the contribution from SMEs which is critical to the revival of the UK economy. In the case of the rubber sector Cogent needs to take active steps to publicise what is available and to facilitate its take-up: on this front it is failing.

ERJ: Thank you