An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

1999-2001: THE HAWLEY YEARS 161no attempt to consider the EMTA response to the consultation exercise. EMTA had aparticular problem with the strategic objectives of the Hawley Review that appeared to cutacross EMTA’s responsibilities as the National Training Organisation recognised by theDfEE to act for the manufacturing sector. EMTA was not prepared to hand over its‘sovereign rights’.Lord Sainsbury and others deplored assertions of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘turf rights’ andemphasised the necessity for the co-operation of all concerned, but EMTA re-asserted itsposition. Sir Ralph Robins of Rolls Royce, a strong Hawley supporter, said that if thediscussion continued in its present vein, he would leave. After further discussion andsomething of a softening by the EEF and EMTA of their positions, Lord Sainsbury said thatwhile there had been some dissenting voices, there had been considerable support for theHawley Group concept and for its approach. He re-iterated the importance he attached to theReview and stressed the importance of including everybody in the review process.On 30 May 2000 the EEF and EMTA again wrote to Lord Sainsbury reminding him that theirprincipal concern was that the EngC was “going off the rails”. However, with certain reassurancesthat they state were given by the Minister, they agreed to meet Dr Hawley and histeam and start to work together towards a shared goal.The ‘Universe of Engineering’Turning now to the joint working party with the Royal Academy of Engineering (the MalpasEnquiry), the outcome in June 2000 was the publication of a joint report The Universe ofEngineering – A UK Perspective. The report observed that the role of engineering in societyand the economy was not evident to the public or the media. Many including, unfortunately,young people, considered the engineering profession as a somewhat dull, uncreative activitywholly associated with the so-called “old economy”. The report sought to illuminate the mainissues at the heart of this unsatisfactory situation “…and provided a background for theHawley Group to identify and deal with these issues”.The report’s main conclusion was that the ‘Universe of Engineering’ was much larger thangenerally supposed. Its size and range could have been gauged from the following facts:• At least half of the 1,500 companies (other than purely financial) quoted daily in theFinancial Times depended on engineering to be competitive, and so survive andprosper.• One or more, in some cases all, of the engineering disciplines were involved to asignificant degree in eleven substantial ‘application fields’ that categorised theeconomy. These were: Healthcare and Social / Leisure and Entertainment / Education/ Commerce, Trade and Finance / Communications and IT / Defence and Security /Transport / Agriculture and Food / Engineered Materials / Energy and NaturalResources /Built Environment.• The so-called “New Economy” had been created and continued to be created throughthe process of engineering.• Economists had added technology to the traditional three prime inputs to all economicactivity, labour, capital, materials. It was the engineering process that createdtechnology.© Engineering Council UK 2004