An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

1996-1998: THE RUDGE YEARS 123suitably audited and licensed. These powers were delegated to executive committees.Comments from many quarters on ‘Competence and Commitment’ influenced early drafts ofa new edition of ‘Standards and Routes to Registration’ (SARTOR), – as we described inChapter 5.To facilitate the move to licensing of Institutions as Nominated Bodies, a comprehensivereview of acceptable qualifications for candidate registration, undertaken by Terry Smith,resulted in the publication of Individual Case Procedure (ICP) Guidelines for CharteredEngineer, Incorporated Engineer and Engineering Technician. These guidelines would, withhindsight, have been more correctly termed Registration Guidelines. The philosophy oflicensing (as opposed to nomination) was that Institutions would undertake all of the workassociated with registration – including those parts of the candidate assessment formerlyconducted by the EngC. The ICP Guidelines drew heavily on the knowledge of the Chairmenof the former CCC and CCIT, Professor Len Jones and Brigadier Lonsdale, as well as on theexpertise of Philip Hawkin, Chairman of EGC4, Dr Denys Armstrong and Mrs ConnieTopping, the EngC’s Qualifications Executive. Dr Armstrong’s outstanding contribution as avolunteer to the EngC was recognised in 1996 when he was presented with a Rose Bowl, theEngC’s highest award.This is an appropriate point at which to mention the vast amount of unpaid peer assistancethat Registrants and others have given to the EngC over the years. Without the time andexpertise that these volunteers have freely given to its committees, working groups, panelsand other activities, the EngC could never have pursued its policies or achieved its aims andobjectives.The new BER contributed in 1996 to national developments in further education and highereducation and qualifications. These included implementation of the Dearing Report(qualifications framework for 16-19 year-olds), the Beaumont Report (NVQs) and the CapeyReport (GNVQ assessment), and also the transition from the EOSG to its successor body theOccupational Standards Council for Engineering (OSCE). The OSCE was formallyestablished in 1997 with representatives from industry, national training organisations,professional bodies, universities and trades unions.In its work in regulating the profession during 1996 and 1997, the BER maintained closelinks with the Institutions’ NVQ Forum, the Joint Board of Moderators and the JointAccreditation Board operated by co-operating groups of licensed Institutions and bodiesrepresenting higher and further education. To undertake its programme of work the BER setup a number of task groups or committees. In 1996 this work involved marketing the Registerand reviewing the activities of the Statutory Powers Working Group – embracing a study ofEN 45013 (certification of competent persons), reviewing the Code and Rules of Conduct,embracing CPD and the EngC’s existing Codes of Practice, one relating to risk and another tothe environment. In September 1996, the accredited list ‘Engineering Courses – the 1997Official Guide’ was published and in February 1997 ‘Engineering Our Future’ was publishedin association with the EEF and the DTI.The BER also continued in its remit to regulate the profession in 1997 by setting up executivecommittees in the areas of Nomination and Audit, International Affairs and RegistrationStandards. It master-minded the development of a third edition of SARTOR, at the timeknown as SARTOR97 but later termed SARTOR-3.© Engineering Council UK 2004