An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

6A CHRONICLE OF THE ENGINEERING COUNCILselection for employment, although some such jobs might be performed equally well byphysicists or mathematicians.These circumstances serve to emphasise why engineering, although similar to otherprofessions such as law, medicine and accountancy, in requiring high levels of knowledgeand integrity, is fundamentally different from them because much of the work by those otherprofessionals is undertaken directly in contact with members of the public and so a statutoryroute is necessary to protect individual clients from exploitation by unscrupulouspractitioners. In contrast, almost all engineers work in teams and usually their ‘clients’ arecompanies that also have professional engineers on their staffs. In such circumstances thecrucial question is whether a statutory route is appropriate, with a Minister in control, orwhether Chartering, with responsibility to the Privy Council (and so minimising theappearance of political control) is more appropriate.There was also some discussion within the Finniston Committee as to whether the new body,irrespective of whether statutory or chartered, should be given to the Fellowship ofEngineering, now the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, it was concluded that thetiming was wrong as the Fellowship had only recently been established as a super-elite bodyand its purposes were different.In Government circles, too, there was disagreement on the statutory versus charteredquestion, both within and between Departments. The debates were at times heated and therewas a good deal of political in-fighting. A source inside the Ministry has since stated:“I seem to recall that within the DTI Sir Peter Carey, the then Permanent Secretary, SirMonty, Jack Leeming and others felt that the mood was moving towards the setting up of astatutory body, which in fact was the main recommendation in Sir Monty’s report; but thenthe influence of the Institutions’ lobby against the recommendation was strong enough toeventually dissuade Sir Keith Joseph in favour of a regulatory body which is what TheEngineering Council became. It has to be said, though, that it was a close run thing.”So, in the event, the Minister Sir Keith Joseph, decided that the new body should beChartered, i.e. receive a Royal Charter.CEI ValedictionThus, at the end of 1981, but with its midwives still in contention, the Engineering Councilwas delivered to the world. The Chairman of the CEI, Dr Wilfred Eastwood, in hisvaledictory message, summarised some previous achievements:When the Engineering Institutions’ Joint Council was set up, it was perhaps primarily the brainchildof the Duke of Edinburgh who saw the need to being the various branches of the profession together.Prior to the initiative which he instigated, contacts between the Institutions were inadequate and insome cases non-existent. The flood flow of change which was taking place in higher education in theearly 1960s required bold decisions concerning the qualification process for professional engineers.The profession needed a new public image. The individual engineer had a yearning for greater statusin the community.Lord Hailsham, the then Minister for Science, was sympathetic to the new organisation and undertookto support its petition for a Royal Charter. But he laid down conditions. It must proceed with allreasonable speed to raise the academic standard for entry to the profession to that of a degree of a© Engineering Council UK 2004