An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

168A CHRONICLE OF THE ENGINEERING COUNCIL• Identify and resolve legal issues in respect of the above.• Recommend how to manage the change from the “old” EngC to the ETB and NewRegulatory Body (NRB).• Recommend a subsidiary Board or Advisory Panel structure within the ETB whichsupports all of its specific functions.• Develop a financial model and business plan for the ETB.• Explore the breadth and depth of regulation to be undertaken in the future by the NewRegulatory Body.This was a comprehensive set of tasks not the least difficult of which, recalling the record ofthe CEI and now of the EngC, would be to determine the size and character of the eventualETB Board and its main subsidiary groups. Who were the stakeholders? How wouldmembers be chosen, by election or appointment? Would they serve in an individual capacityor be representatives of the Institutions? In what respects, if any, would Registrants have aspecial position? These were thorny questions that had caused endless discussion anddisharmony in the predecessor bodies.Mid 2001The Consultative Process on the ETB and NRBTo assist progress, the EngC’s Communications Director David Worskett, now acquiring thetitle of ETB Executive Director, together with the Project Director Paul Langdell, movedoffices to Savoy Hill House to be their centre of operation. This development phase was fullyfunded by the DTI.Wisely, the Shadow Board used IT to disseminate its thoughts and seek opinions from aswide an audience as possible – in fact to create, as it claimed, ‘an inclusive process’. A webbasedconsultative framework was established immediately following the Februaryconference. It consisted of some 250 people drawn from across the technology andengineering sector. Over 150 people actively participated in the special websites. The sixWorking Groups listed above, consisting of ‘corresponding’ as well as full members,contributed to the development of proposals for the ETB. Every Working Group had at leastone ‘young professional engineer’ as a member and the ‘Professional Young Engineers’group organised a number of useful seminars to provide contributions.The interactive custom-designed internet site could be accessed, after registration, using thepassword ‘Stephenson ’ (what else!) and dozens of committee papers and inputs ofindividuals and groups by correspondence could be viewed. Not surprisingly, the EngineeringInstitutions were prominent in this process and formed pressure groups to put their case. Themost prominent of these was the ‘G10’ Group consisting of representatives of 10 largeInstitutions. The Chairman of G10 was Dr Trevor Evans, Secretary of the Institution ofChemical Engineers. Dr Evans had a long history of involvement being the only survivingSecretary of the ‘Big 4’ Institutions from the time the Engineering Council was formed backin 1982 and subsequently made many characteristically independent inputs to its discussionsand policies. However, the involvement of the G10 Group had the predictable effect ofmaking the smaller Institutions feel left out, so they then formed the G26 Group.The Constitution and Governance Panel set up a committee to propose the structure and termsof reference for the “New Regulatory Body”. This committee was chaired by Dr Trevor© Engineering Council UK 2004