An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

160A CHRONICLE OF THE ENGINEERING COUNCILThis working party was serviced by the Royal Academy of Engineering and consisted of:ChairmanNominated by the RAEngNominated by the EngCSir Robert Malpas FREngDr David Grant FREngProfessor Ian Shanks FREngProfessor Peter Hills CEngProfessor Tony Ridley FREngRecognising the efforts of its Chairman, the activities of this Working Party became knownas the ‘Malpas Enquiry’.April – June 2000Turf WarsThe Stage 1 Report of the Hawley Group had been widely circulated and the Project DirectorPaul Langdell reported that by 12 April 2000 there had been 54 responses from EngineeringCouncil Senate members, the Institutions, academia and employers. Many were supportiveand there were several useful suggestions. But concerns too were raised, principally againfrom EEF and EMTA that maintained that the planned role for the EngC cut directly acrosstheir responsibilities and warned that “ the Hawley Group still seems intent on broadening theEngineering Council’s role beyond that which it has the expertise and resource to undertakesuccessfully.” Concern was also expressed by some Institutions and by the Royal Academyof Engineering that the Hawley Group proposals might conflict with their activities andcommunications with Government. Everyone, it seemed, was defending their own turfalthough the contributions from industry were free from this and were generally supportive,especially on the question of the broader engineering community.In the Spring and Summer of 2000 there were further interactive sessions of the HawleyGroup. Briefing meetings were held with EngC Senate members, Engineering Institutionsand engineering leaders. On 23 May 2000 Lord Sainsbury, with senior DTI officials, called ameeting with representatives of the Engineering Community at the DTI Conference Centre inLondon at which Dr Hawley made a presentation of the progress so far and the emergingstrategies for stages two and three of the Review.Dr Hawley stated that he felt confident of widespread support for the project; he surveyed thestrategic objectives [see above] and the challenges facing the initiative, and acknowledgedthe real practical support of industry and business – particularly that of six companies throughthe secondment of high calibre project managers. He concluded by pledging continuedwidespread consultation and assured his listeners that all ideas that came through would becarefully considered.In the discussion there was considerable encouragement from Institution representatives andindustry for the Hawley approach but again there were dissident voices coming from the EEFand EMTA. The former asserted that the EEF had been broadly supportive when a review ofthe EngC was announced but that there had been a severe case of ‘mission creep’ and that theHawley Group was now duplicating work and simply served to exaggerate the divisionswithin the engineering community. The Group, according to the EEF, could not berepresentative without the support of the key stakeholders. The EMTA representative alsowas unable to add support with any enthusiasm, claiming that the Hawley Group had made© Engineering Council UK 2004