SORRY ROBOTS 🤖 YOU WON’T SOLVE BRITAIN’S HOUSING CRISIS 🧱🏠

Every few months we’re told another machine is going to replace the bricklayer. I’ve spent more than 40 years in construction and I’m still waiting ‼️ 

There was a report in THE TIMES last week ! 

This is my response to that article … by Ian Hodgkinson

Here we go again.

Britain hasn’t got enough bricklayers, we haven’t got enough homes and apparently the answer has arrived on four wheels with a computer attached to it.

The latest machines come from Dutch robotics company Monumental. A gang of 3 ‼️a 2 plus 1 gang we are used to ‼️

The three robots are called Petra, Panama and Pisa.

They each have a different job:

• Pisa — the actual bricklaying robot. It picks up and positions the bricks
• Petra — the brick supply robot, feeding bricks into the operation.

      Panama — the mortar           

      robot, supplying the mortar.

The 3 P’s I have another name for them 😱

Their robots can reportedly lay up to 1,000 bricks a day, they’ve already been used on more than 100 homes and the company is preparing to bring the technology to Britain. Its ambition is huge: it believes the technology could provide capacity for another 20,000 UK homes within two years. (The Times)

It makes a fantastic headline.

But can we please hold on a minute?

I’ve been in construction for more than 40 years. I started as a bricklayer, I’ve employed bricklayers, trained apprentices and built houses.

And I’ve heard versions of this story for years.

“The bricklayer is finished.”

We’ve had prefabrication, modular housing, timber frame, large-scale bricklaying machines, 3D-printed houses and now AI-driven robots. And yet, when I drive past a housing site tomorrow morning, I suspect I’ll still see a bricklayer standing on a scaffold with a trowel in his hand.

A BUILDING SITE ISN’T A FACTORY

Don’t misunderstand me. I love innovation.

If somebody develops a machine that makes construction safer, quicker and more productive, brilliant. Bring it on.

But I become sceptical when we’re told it is going to solve Britain’s housing shortage.

Because laying bricks isn’t simply picking up a brick, putting mortar underneath it and placing it in a straight line. Any decent bricklayer knows it’s a constant judgement of setting out, corners, openings, lintels, DPCs, cavity trays, insulation, wall ties, movement joints, brick variations, damaged or wet materials, cuts, detailing, scaffold lifts — all while dealing with the British weather and the reality that nothing on site ever quite matches the drawing.

One interesting admission in the report is that rain, wind and scaffold movement can already disrupt robotic precision, meaning human intervention is still required when things go wrong. (The Times)

Having said that, real bricklayers don’t like rain either — they’re soon on their way home!

Welcome to a British building site.

Wait until it’s November, the wind is blowing sideways, materials have been moved, and the opening you’re building no longer quite matches the drawing.

That’s bricklaying.

FOUR WEEKS TO BECOME AN OPERATOR?

Here’s the part that bothers me most.

The company says people can be trained to operate these machines in around four weeks, without completing a traditional bricklaying apprenticeship. (The Times)

Four weeks?

You might learn to operate the robot in four weeks.

You haven’t learnt how to build a house.

And there’s an important difference.

A good bricklayer doesn’t just know how to lay a brick. He knows when something isn’t right, spots issues developing in a wall, notices when levels are drifting, questions awkward openings, identifies insulation problems, and looks at drawings thinking: hang on, how’s that supposed to work? That judgement comes from years of training, experience and thousands of hours on site not from a short course or a control panel.

We shouldn’t underestimate that just because a machine can move faster.

WE’RE TRYING TO FIX THE WRONG PROBLEM

And here’s what really frustrates me.

There genuinely is a shortage. Bricklaying is still listed as a recognised shortage occupation, and there are government-backed efforts to increase apprenticeship numbers in the trade. (GOV.UK)

So why are we forever looking for a way of building houses without bricklayers instead of asking why we aren’t producing enough bricklayers?

That’s the conversation I’d rather have.

Where are the apprenticeships?

Where are the employers willing to take youngsters on?

Why do so many people complete training but struggle to get the site experience that actually turns them into tradespeople?

We don’t have a shortage of interest ! we have a gap between college and site, and a robot doesn’t fix that.

BUT HERE’S WHERE I MIGHT BE WRONG…

Because I’m not daft enough to dismiss this technology either.

Today’s robot isn’t the one I’m interested in.

The robot we’ll see in ten years is.

Look at what has happened with technology in every other industry. These machines will get quicker, smaller and smarter, with better AI and machine vision, eventually handling far more complex site conditions than they can today.

So could robots eventually replace some of the work bricklayers currently do?

Yes. I think they probably will.

Could one skilled bricklayer eventually supervise several machines and produce the output that once required four or five people?

Quite possibly.

And if that happens, the trade changes.

But that’s very different from saying:

“We don’t need bricklayers any more.”

In fact, I think the opposite could happen. The people who truly understand brickwork may become even more valuable — not just as labour, but as supervisors of technology, quality controllers, and problem-solvers when machines fall short.

That’s the future I’d rather see.

DON’T REPLACE THE BRICKLAYER GIVE HIM THE ROBOT

So don’t give the robot to somebody after four weeks and call it progress.

Give it to a bricklayer.

Let someone who understands the trade operate it. Let the machine take some of the physical strain, improve productivity, and allow one experienced tradesperson to potentially oversee several units at once.

Now you’ve got my attention.

Because technology should support craftsmanship, not pretend craftsmanship isn’t needed.

Britain absolutely needs to build more homes. Robotics may eventually play a role. But the housing crisis isn’t simply caused by a lack of speed on the trowel. Planning, land, infrastructure, finance and wider workforce issues all play a part, and even government acknowledges it requires a “whole system approach”. (UK Parliament)

So I’m not throwing my trowel in the skip just yet.

Maybe in 10 or 20 years I’ll be proved completely wrong.

Maybe we’ll see housing sites run by robots with humans supervising from tablets.

But I wouldn’t bet the Government’s housing targets on it.

And I certainly wouldn’t tell the next generation not to become bricklayers because a robot is coming for their jobs.

I’d tell them the opposite:

Learn the trade. Learn the technology. Become bloody good at both.

Because the robot bricklayer may well be coming.

But I reckon it’s going to need a bricklayer standing next to it for quite a while yet.

#ConstructionTechnology #Robotics #AI #BuiltEnvironment 

Almost 1 million youngsters out of work what the hell is happening ?

 

It’s genuinely encouraging to see The Sun putting serious weight behind this issue. For too long the NEET crisis has sat in the background while everyone talks about housing targets, economic growth and productivity. The reality is simple: none of those ambitions happen if nearly a million young people are disconnected from work, training and opportunity.

 

The Sun on Sunday’s Build A Better Britain campaign deserves credit for bringing the conversation into the mainstream and, importantly, for highlighting real people and businesses already trying to make a difference on the ground including the work being done through trades, apprenticeships and companies like East Midlands Masonry.

 

But there is also a fair question to ask.

 

Are we listening enough to the people actually dealing with this every day?

 

Marc Bolland is undoubtedly an accomplished businessman. He has led some of Britain’s biggest companies and his charity work through Movement to Work is well respected. Lord Austin is passionate about the issue and has rightly challenged the country to take youth unemployment seriously. Nobody can question the intent.

 

The question is whether Whitehall risks looking at this problem from too high up the ladder.

 

Because when you’re on building sites, in colleges, speaking to small builders, subcontractors, housing providers and employers, the frustrations are remarkably similar.

 

Young people are often willing.

 

Employers are often willing.

 

The system in the middle is what seems broken.

 

The Government-backed review led by Alan Milburn estimates the NEET crisis is costing Britain around £125 billion every year. That figure includes lost economic output, lost tax revenues, welfare spending and wider social costs.  

 

To put that into perspective, the report itself shows around £25 is spent on benefits for every £1 spent helping young people into employment support.  

 

That should stop the country in its tracks.

 

Nobody is suggesting young people should be abandoned or benefits removed. Some have genuine health issues, difficult backgrounds and significant barriers to work.

 

But surely part of the conversation has to be this:

 

Why are we spending billions managing unemployment instead of investing more aggressively in employment?

 

Why aren’t more wage subsidy schemes being offered to SMEs?

 

Why isn’t more Apprenticeship Levy money reaching smaller employers who actually train people?

 

Why do so many businesses tell me they would take on apprentices tomorrow if the process was simpler and the support more practical?

 

Construction alone is crying out for people.

 

We need bricklayers.

 

Groundworkers.

 

Joiners.

 

Electricians.

 

Roofers.

 

Plasterers.

 

Plant operators.

 

Site supervisors.

 

The list goes on.

 

Yet we continue hearing that labour shortages are forcing companies to recruit overseas while, at the same time, more than a million young Britons are not in education, employment or training.  

 

Something doesn’t quite add up.

 

The answer is not blaming young people.

 

In fact, one of the most important findings from the Milburn review is that the overwhelming majority of NEET young people actually want work, training or opportunity.  

 

Many apply for dozens of jobs and hear nothing back. Many have never been given a first chance.  

 

That is why this debate matters.

 

Not because we need another report.

 

Not because we need another headline.

 

But because behind every statistic is a young person who could become a tradesperson, entrepreneur, engineer, site manager, business owner or employer.

 

The Sun deserves recognition for helping keep this issue in the spotlight.

 

The challenge now is making sure the voices around the table include not only politicians, peers and corporate leaders, but also small businesses, training providers, site managers, tradespeople and employers who are trying to create opportunities every single day.

 

Because if Britain is serious about building a better future, we cannot afford to leave a generation sitting on the sidelines. The cost is already too high.  

 

This is where the numbers get really interesting.

 

The £125 billion figure isn’t all benefit payments. It’s the estimated total economic cost of NEETs to the UK economy. That includes:

 

• Welfare payments
• Lost tax revenues
• Lost productivity
• NHS costs
• Social care costs
• Criminal justice costs
• Wider economic impacts

 

So you couldn’t simply take £125 billion from a bank account and spend it on wages.

 

However, let’s play with the numbers.

 

If there are 1 million young people and you divided £125 billion by them:

 

£125,000 per young person per year

 

That’s an astonishing figure.

 

Now compare that with actual employment costs.

 

A young person earning:

 

• £20,000 salary costs an employer roughly £22,000-£24,000 after NI and pension.
• £25,000 salary costs roughly £28,000-£30,000.
• £30,000 salary costs roughly £34,000-£36,000.

 

Therefore:

 

£125 billion could theoretically fund:

 

• Around 5.6 million jobs at £22,000 per year
• Around 4.1 million jobs at £30,000 per year

 

In other words, on paper, the economic cost of NEETs is vastly greater than the cost of employing every one of those million young people.

 

Looking at it another way:

 

If Government offered employers a wage subsidy of £10,000 per year for every NEET they recruited:

 

1,000,000 youngsters × £10,000 = £10 billion

 

If they offered £15,000 per year:

 

1,000,000 youngsters × £15,000 = £15 billion

 

If they offered £20,000 per year:

 

1,000,000 youngsters × £20,000 = £20 billion

 

Even the most generous of those figures is nowhere near £125 billion.

 

Of course, life isn’t that simple.

 

Not every NEET is immediately work-ready.

 

Some need:

 

• Mental health support
• Basic literacy and numeracy support
• Transport assistance
• Work experience
• Addiction support
• Confidence building

 

But this is the argument many employers make:

 

“We don’t need another report. Give us some help with the risk and cost of taking someone on.”

 

Imagine a small builder taking on a 17-year-old apprentice.

 

Government pays:

 

• Training costs
• CSCS card
• PPE
• Tools
• Travel
• A wage contribution

 

Suddenly that apprentice becomes affordable.

 

For construction specifically, a £5-10 billion national employment and apprenticeship programme would be transformative.

 

The real question isn’t whether Britain can afford to invest in young people.

 

It’s whether Britain can afford not to.

 

If a young person spends 30 or 40 years in work instead of on the margins of society, the return to the Treasury through tax, National Insurance and economic activity is enormous.

 

That’s why The Sun’s campaign is gaining traction. Many people look at the numbers and conclude that spending money getting youngsters into work is almost certainly cheaper than paying the long-term economic consequences of them not being there.

 

One thing I’d add from my perspective … after 40 years on site and working with apprentices, I’ve seen hundreds of young people who simply needed someone to give them their first chance. Most didn’t need a government report. They needed a pair of boots, a mentor, a wage packet and somebody who believed in them. That’s often where the real solution starts.