Institution of Mechanical The Institution of Engineering Institution of Civil Engineers Engineers and Technology One Great George Street One Birdcage Walk Michael Faraday House Westminster London Six Hills Way London SW1H 9JJ Stevenage SW1P 3AA Herts t +44 (0)20 7222 7899 t +44 (0)20 7222 7722 SG1 2AY f +44 (0)20 7222 7500 [email protected] t +44 (0)1438 313 311 imeche.org [email protected] f +44 (0)1438 765 526 ice.org.uk [email protected] theiet.org UK Engineering 2016 An Independent review led by Prof John Uff CBE, QC, FREng ICE0003_UK_Engineering_2016_Report_COVER_v2+12mmSPINE_v3.indd 1 21/02/2017 11:05 UK ENGINEERING 2016 Contents Preface to the report ............................................ 2 Executive summary of conclusions .................................. 5 A. Introduction and approach to review ........................ 11 B. Future requirements for professional engineers and technicians – evidence and submissions ................................ 19 C. Existing arrangements for delivery of required numbers of engineers and technicians – evidence and submissions .......... 25 D. UK engineering and its governance – evidence and submissions ... 35 E. Funding matters – evidence and submissions.................. 47 F. Other governance models – evidence and submissions .......... 49 G. Lessons from similar initiatives – evidence and submissions ....... 51 H. Conclusions proposed by consultees ........................ 55 I. Reply/response submissions – form consultees ................. 57 J Discussion and conclusions ............................... 61 K. Responses to terms of reference ........................... 75 L. Recommendations...................................... 81 ANNEXES Annex 1 ................................................ 84 Annex 2 ................................................ 91 Annex 3 ............................................... 101 Annex 4 ............................................... 103 Annex 5 ............................................... 104 106 1071 ICE0003_UK_Engineering_2016_Report_COVER_v2+12mmSPINE_v3.indd 2 21/02/2017 11:05 UK ENGINEERING 2016 Contents Preface to the report . 2 Executive summary of conclusions . 5 A . Introduction and approach to review . 11 B . Future requirements for professional engineers and technicians – evidence and submissions . 19 C . Existing arrangements for delivery of required numbers of engineers and technicians – evidence and submissions . .25 D . UK engineering and its governance – evidence and submissions . .35 E . Funding matters – evidence and submissions . 47 F . Other governance models – evidence and submissions . 49 G . Lessons from similar initiatives – evidence and submissions . 51 H . Conclusions proposed by consultees . 55 I . Reply/response submissions – form consultees . 57 J Discussion and conclusions . 61 K . Responses to terms of reference . 75 L . Recommendations . 81 ANNEXES Annex 1 . 84 Annex 2 . 91 Annex 3 . 101 Annex 4 . 103 Annex 5 . 104 1 Prof John Uff CBE, QC, FREng Preface to the report February 2017 The commissioning of this review was preceded by recommendations in the Report were enabled to review a lengthy period of debate between the principal all the written material submitted and to comment players aimed at achieving a degree of reform and on it; and were then shown a draft of the conclusions re-organisation with the objective of providing better of the Review to which they were able to respond, service to the membership of the many Professional both in writing and orally in a series of meetings. I can Engineering Institutions and to the UK public, whether therefore conclude that the Review, while conducted on as engineering clients, as prospective members of a very short programme, was carried out in an open and the profession or as the majority whose livelihood is fair manner. I can also assure those potentially affected affected by the performance of this major sector of the by the recommendations that the review has been UK economy. carried out independent of any of the participants. While I have not been privy to this debate, what has The Report addresses the question, asked by many, become apparent is its broad outline as well as its will anything happen as a result of this latest review evident failure to achieve meaningful progress; and of the engineering profession? The fact that the draft that this was the reason for the three leading PEIs, conclusions were addressed by the major players and representing 70% of UK professional engineers, taking their views taken into account is one hopeful sign. the decision in early 2016 to launch this Review. It There have been earlier initiatives directed particularly is no co-incidence that the report should have been at the PEIs which are reviewed in the Report. But commissioned by the PEIs, which themselves play a the Report is addressed not to a few PEIs, rather to critical part in supporting national economic growth, the whole of the UK’s engineering profession which employment and enhancing industrial productivity, has indeed in its responses demonstrated a sense of while recognising the need to pursue, like the industries community and a realisation that collective action in they serve, a leaner, more efficient and progressive the interests of both the profession and the country as a organisation. The Terms of Reference encompass a very whole is possible. wide range of issues but at their heart is the question how should the UK engineering profession as a whole In conducting the Review and preparing the report I be better and more effectively organised for what will have benefitted from the administrative support of the shortly be the third century of its existence. As narrated three commissioning PEIs, substantially though their in the introductory section, the short timescale of the CEOs and with the guidance of their three Presidents. Review dictated a written procedure without the luxury The nature of Institutions is such that the three of either oral evidence or professionally presented Presidents at the time of commissioning the review cases. The numbers of bodies and of individuals invited are no longer in office at the time of the Report and to contribute to the Review had also to be on a limited I am therefore grateful to their three successors for scale. But I am satisfied that those who did contribute continuing their support of the Review to its conclusion. were representative of the full range of views and The three CEOs remain in post as does James Taylor of interests within the engineering community and also of the ICE who has acted as the tireless secretary to the the public interest. Furthermore, following precedent Review, ensuring that all messages were answered and in the conduct of public inquiries, those bodies whose that either transparency or confidentiality, as required, interests were most closely affected by potential was appropriately maintained. PROF JOHN UFF CBE, QC, FREng John Uff originally trained as a civil engineer, taking a BSc at Kings College, London followed by a PhD in geotechnics. After a number of years with consultants he moved to practise at the Bar, specialising in construction and engineering matters. While maintaining links with the engineering profession, he moved into arbitration, taking cases both in UK and in most parts of the world. In 1987 he became the founding Director of the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution at King’s College, London, and was appointed to the Nash Chair of Engineering Law at the University of London in 1992. Since 2003 he has been Emeritus Professor of Engineering Law at King’s College where he still teaches and supervises research. 2 UK ENGINEERING 2016 His links with the engineering world have led to appointments in a number of Public Inquiries. In 1996 he was appointed to chair the inquiry into Yorkshire water. In 1998-2001 he was appointed to chair the inquiry into the rail accident at Southall and, sitting with Lord Cullen, the inquiry into rail safety systems following the Paddington crash. In 2009 he was appointed to a chair panel of Commissioners inquiring into the public construction industry in Trinidad and Tobago His professional activities have also included serving as Vice President of the London Court of International Arbitration, as President of the Society of Construction Arbitrators, as Treasurer of the Honourable society of Gray’s Inn and as Master of the worshipful Company of Arbitrators. 3 4 UK ENGINEERING 2016 Executive summary of conclusions (1) The current structure of the UK engineering (4) However there is a clear need for much more profession has evolved piecemeal over many fundamental combining of professional decades. Despite great changes in society and activities between the PEIs in line with the in technology, it has repeatedly proved itself Recommendations. While the separate resistant to change. There is a strong body institutions embody many important attributes of opinion that it no longer serves the best in terms of their expertise and reputation both interests of the profession or its members, or national and international, these should be seen engineering employers as clients in the UK or as assets to be exploited for the benefit of the internationally or the interests of the country whole profession. They should be a key part at large. of the proposed combining of activities, which offers significant benefits both in terms of the (2) Only the major Professional Engineering influence of the PEIs and the interests of