This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Time for licenced Engineers?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
As a result of a discussion within a Linkedin group. I had originally raised the issue of the EC UK or IET legally licencing Engineers and had agreed to bring this discussion from Linkedin to the IET members in an appropriate community for a frank and open debate.

​The circumstances surrounding this discussion was the tragedy of Grenfell Towers and my personal observation that some of the alleged decision makers, had no technical qualifications to make decisions on public safety. I am wondering how far the inquiry will go to reveal that issue. 



As I currently work in Canada we do have an act of law governing the conduct of its licenced Engineers and this makes the Engineer have some higher degree of responsibility for public safety.


​Questions

1)    Given the impact of Grenfell, does EC(UK) have to now start considering licencing? What are the perceived hurdles to achieve this?

​2)    If not. What can we do within our profession to improve pubic safety with an objective to prevent another 'Grenfell' ?


I am ​Interested to get IET members responses.

  • Gareth,

    A very good question and one that has been discussed in part elsewhere in other threads. I can only give my personal viewpoint but will chip in with an answer.

    First the IET can't go it alone and start licencing engineers as it needs to be all of the Professional Engineering Institutes (PEIs) which puts it in the lap of EC(UK). The Engineering Council website states "The Engineering Council is the UK regulatory body for the engineering profession" and as such would endorse the view that it is their responsibility, but the licencing of engineers requires two things - first the granting of the licence to the engineers (which you could argue is already in place with EngTech, IEng, CEng and ICTTech) but crucially secondly the legislation in place to prevent unlicenced engineers practicing. This latter is something that is not in place in Britain at present. Perhaps the outcome of the enquiry will change the mood in the country to make it politically desirable.

    At present I am doubtful that there are enough registered engineers of the various grades to cope with such legislation (i.e. do the volume of work that would be required to be completed by licenced engineers) so what needs to happen is an increase in registered engineers, particularly engineers in the earlier stages of their careers who I believe are currently under-represented, and to cope with this we would need a big increase in volunteers to help deal with the increase in applications.

    Just my two-pennyworth.

    Alasdair
  • In honesty, I may be being slow here, but I'm trying to understand exactly what the distinction is here between licensing engineers and professional registration (Eng. Tech, I.Eng, C.Eng). I'd be interested to know what the Canadian criteria are for licensed engineers and whether the thrust is any different to the professional registration process as set (for I.Eng & C.Eng) by UKSPEC (Eng. Tech is not covered by UKSPEC).
    I undertake most of my work in the rail industry, which is a safety critical industry and, for anybody undertaking the role of Project Engineer in Network Rail, you have to hold an authority to work, which is based on competence assessment for specific categories of systems, equipment or applications. Maybe this is what the original post had in mind? I think that, to achieve the outcomes being described, it is important to have that in place, ideally in conjunction with Professional Registration or other means of checking not only technical competence but the level of professionalism exhibited by an individual. However, the problem I foresee with the authority to work concept is that it is highly specific to the sector, type of system/infrastructure/application concerned, and likely to be difficult to harmonize across all industries, or individual areas of application. I feel this can only be regulated within the individual industries involved. I'm no specialist in buildings, so stand to be corrected, but I would hope that building regs would be the correct vehicle for defining requirements in the Grenfell Tower scenario, in which case, the better approach would seem to be audit of compliance with the regs, rather than trying to implement any common approach to regulating the individuals involved in carrying out the works. This has the advantage of using benchmarks that are specific and relevant to the individual areas of application, rather than trying to achieve generic criteria that apply across the board, which are most likely, in the very act of generalising them, to miss the mark on the specifics.
    If audit/monitoring (and penalties for non-compliance) are sufficiently carried out, the responsible bodies (building owners, operators, maintainers etc, it the equivalent in other areas of application) will naturally be forced to develop and implement their own means of ensuring compliance, which are likely to include assessment of individuals fitness for the task, including indicators of their professionalism, such as Professional Registration, and of their competence, such as the authority to work requirement used in rail.
    Of course, I accept that there are flaws in the registration system, in particular the inadequate numbers of registrants at Eng. Tech and I.Eng level, which is well known and the subject of much attention, but I doubt that licensing is going to change that. Additionally, developing the legislation is likely to be an uphill struggle, given the poor understanding in UK government, and across the UK population, of the importance of standards for Engineers - if only there were a similar appreciation of this for engineering as there is for law or finance! Audit and monitoring of the application of regulations such as building regs, wiring regs, etc., including improving them to reflect lessons learnt from such incidents as Grenfell Tower, if they need it, is far more likely to be something they buy into.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Roy, hi I hope you are well. The fact that Network Rail has been following this route, and in my personal opinion, is a clear indication that licensing is really required. The signalling engineers had gone that route many years ago and didn't the electrical fitters have the same?. The difference between licensed engineers and professional registration are very distinct. Licensing here in Canada is a legal requirement and through which the professional Engineer is held accountable for their actions. Not following the act of law within each province can result in licence removal, large financial penalties and even jail time. Our professional regsitration as CEng is not actually recognised in Canada or should I say perhaps it is tolerated slightly.  The licencing body here assesses the educational qualifications and experience both in Canada and outside and make a judgement on issuing the licence to that individual in order for them to practice. Rather like the medical or legal system.


    ​Take for example Grenfell, the Civil Engineer who designed this buidling would have to be consulted as to whether the changes made are appropriate and do not affect the codes and regulations. The public is therefore protected through that Engineer who carries full liability. A person who has a degree in medieval tapestry is not an approriate person to make that call ( I do generalise somewhat here to make a point and apologies if you enjoy tapestry !) 


    ​There are some interesting points to note in Canada and I think are primarily associated with licensing:


    ​1) There are many more licenced women engineers than the UK. It seems to be a more attractive career and its refreshing to work my female counterparts. This is benefical dimension in itself.

    ​2) The status of the engineer as a professional is raised well beyond that of the UK , primarily because it is a protected title which is accompanied with the appropriate qualifications.

    ​3) Public are aware of the importance of the role of the Engineer and how difficult it is to attain this.

    ​4) There are number of Engineers in both provincial and federal government .  In fact Julie Payette our new Governor General ( essentially the spokesperson for the Queen) is a licensed engineer and astronaut; how amazing is that!

    ​5) There is a mandatory legal and professional ethics exam that all must pass to become licensed. Interestingly enough, many of the case studies and examples are British. So in my humble opinion this is where the IET should be mandating new requirements to its members, so as to raise professional standards. But as you correctly point out, perhaps without an act of law this  may be a challenge. 


    ​Inadequate numbers in our field, of course why would you enter a field that was seemingly unsexy, low paid and had a poor public perception. That's a bit of a chicken and egg dillema which has been kicking around for years, but until you raise that public profile it will not be conquered.


    ​UK government perception - Canadian Engineering bodies are very active courting MP's in fact the local chapters have a budget just for  this in the fedearl and provinical capitals and they have their own sub-committees organising attendance and discussion. That seems to work very well. 


    From a distant perspective , I see the band-aids going in , external bodies certifying engineers and a rampant health and safety executive imposing more national regulations. When in fact all we need to do is to licence individuals to practice and make them accountable for their actions, essentially cutting the bureacratic red tape and taxes.


    ​A Professor in Toronto was quoted as saying the engineering degree was a licence to kill. Here, I think he meant well by emphasing the importance of the knowledge gained and our responsibility to apply this correctly.  Essentially many of our disciplines have a degree of public safety involvement ( especially the railways), I think its hard to ever get away from our professional responsibilities and we should naturally accept this.


    In response to Scott's and Alasdair's comments ( thanks gentlemen for taking part). The professional engineer can have unlicensed engineers working underneath them as 'engineers in training' or just graduates getting experience, but the Professional Engineer takes full responsibility for their actions and decisions. Interesting to note that the advocacy group OSPE was reporting that there were too many engineers in Ontario and we now have to look at stimulating entrepreneurship and building new markets; I guess this is a nice problem to have as a result of the perception of the Engineer as a profession.




     

  • Hi Gareth,
    Are you by any chance the Gareth Wood that worked with me and years back?
    Your description of the Canadian issues is very interesting and I'm with you completely that all of the issues we've both mentioned are utterly tied up with the recognition - both publicly and at government level - of the engineer. The UK is appalling on this front being one of the only countries not to protect the title engineer, and constantly perceiving engineers as being tradesman level technicians, in contrast to those professions where the title is protected (solicitor, accountant, doctor etc.).
    However, from your description, I would say there's not a great deal of difference in principle between the Canadian licensed engineer and the UK C.Eng or I. Eng. There may be differences in the detailed criteria, but the principle appears similar. And, as a Professional Registration Interviewer, I know for certain that, among the criteria is the whole concept that you are fully responsible for your engineering judgement and decisions. One of the key areas of focus is to examine how you would deal with a situation where your employer or client did not accept your engineering judgement or decision - or whether you would allow employer or client pressure to persuade you to go against that judgement.

    The problem lies with that public and governmental perception, and the fact that the principles applied by the PEIs are not ensconced in law - if there is evidence that a Professionally Registered engineer had not been ethical, or had been negligent, the registration can and will be withdrawn. The problem is that has no meaning in law - it does not prevent you practicing, but I don't believe there are any people in the engineering community (or at least the PEI community) who don't believe that it should do. As you say, all apart from providing assurance of high quality, conscientious and ethical engineering, this failure of government and the public to recognise the true nature of a professional engineer, it robs the profession of its attraction to potential entrants into the profession.
    As for being able to be penalised legally for malpractice, whilst our law doesn't remove your right to practice, which it clearly should do, it does provide the ability to take action against an individual guilty of malpractice. It's a very clear situation for someone such as me who operates my own company providing engineering services to clients, my company (which I'm my case equals me, as sole director and employee) is liable for that, can be sued for negligence and has to carry Professional Indemnity and Public Liability insurance. However, there is also a clear legal principle that even an employee can be responsible both in civil law and criminally for negligence if they are employed as, and claim to be, the person who holds the greatest competence to ensure that what they do is carried out diligently, hence, as my client's Project Engineer, because I hold a higher level of knowledge and competence in my specialist field than my client (or the manager in my client organisation) I can definitely end up in the dock answering for my negligence. This would be equally true if I were an employee with greater competence/knowledge than my manager or other people in the employer organisation. My manager, or the employing organisation may end up there alongside me for failing to check my competence, etc. but I would be seen to be culpable by failing to use the engineering judgement I was specifically employed to provide. As Project Engineer, every time I sign to accept design or construction from a contractor, I am exposing myself to the risk of being prosecuted if I have been negligent in doing so. I do so willingly as that is what I consider comes with operating as a Chartered Engineer.
    What is less certain is whether the justice system or the Civil authorities invoke that law as often as they should, and that brings us back to government and the public not treating engineers in the same way as solicitors, doctors or accountants.
    So, I still don't believe that the engineering community itself, it in particular the PEIs can or need to introduce new ways to validate Professional Engineers or the way that they practice, what exists already provides the mechanism for that, the change that's required has to come from the public at large and in particular the government.
    Unfortunately, at the recent annual Fellows event at the IET, I specifically asked the question as to whether efforts were still being made to bring government round to the concept of a protected title which would carry all of the above with it, plus raise the perception of engineer status, and whether it was felt we might ever achieve that breakthrough, the answer I received was that that boat had left long ago, and that it was clear they were never going to be able to persuade government that this should be introduced in the UK. So it's a British Disease, and those who engage with government believe it's incurable.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Yes Roy I am !! Happy new year to you. I have heard that retort before: That the boat has sailed? What does that mean exactly? Especially in this modern world

    Was that possibly the  'Gravy boat'  i.e the slower and larger capacity variant to the 'Gravy train'? 

     

    To say that this is a dead issue is possibly more of a convenience to not properly recognise and address the risks that modern engineering brings to society now. 


    ​I will let other people enter the debate and give you some peace. Have a great evening. Thanks for your input
  • Gareth,
    I agree completely, I found the answer highly frustrating. Maybe, if there are enough people who agree with us, we could try to encourage a renewed push for protection of the title accompanied by the potential for having the right to practice revoked in appropriate circumstances, but clearly failure to achieve that outcome to date has removed the appetite to pursue it further in those who participate in dialogue wth government.
  • Roy and Gareth,

    Good points from both of you. With regard to protection of the title of 'Engineer' there was a discussion on this matter on a different thread getting on for a year ago, on which I remember a very good explanation was put by Roy Bowdler that legally, because the term engineer was in common usage in Britain, it was not possible to give it protected status. I can't remember the details but I am sure if you are interested you could find it.

    I think the parallel with lawyers and doctors is interesting to draw as both of those professions have the ability to have negligent practitioners 'struck off the register'. This by corrollary means that if you are not on the register, you can't practice. I would be quite happy with a similar arrangement for engineers but while the profession is by and large self regulated we are stuck with the differing practices in different sectors. Rail, as Roy says, is very well self regulated with engineers needing to demonstrate competence and having accountability and I worked with a similar regime in the marine industry which again was self regulated (though somewhat more complicated due to the international nature of the business) but each sector regulates itself in a different manner. I don't know how well the building industry is regulated but from news stories arising from the Grenfell fire the answer would appear to be that it varies from location to location.

    I don't think that getting more people within the industry to push for licencing is really the answer. What we need is a public perception outside the industry that such a move is necessary. This will then give the political impetus to push for the change.

    Alasdair
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Thanks Moshe. You correctly point out this anomaly in the PE act. But this piece you have provided has some degree of bias. 


    Have a read of this  www.peo.on.ca/.../1.htm as it gives a more objective analysis and the regulators viewpoint.  But you are correct, this clause is widely abused and the regulator wants it struck from the act.

  • Gareth Wood:

    Yes Roy I am !! Happy new year to you. I have heard that retort before: That the boat has sailed? What does that mean exactly? Especially in this modern world

    Was that possibly the  'Gravy boat'  i.e the slower and larger capacity variant to the 'Gravy train'? 

     




    I have always understood it to be a reference to a passenger ship.  Perhaps one taking emigrants to a new country.


    All the time the boat is in port, you can discuss all the wonderful things you will be able to do if you reach the promised land.  Once the boat has sailed, any further discussion becomes pointless.  You no longer have any way of getting there.

  • Alasdair,
    Thanks for the information regarding the past thread on protecting the title. I've only been as aware of the communities as I am now quite recently so am aware that many topics are likely to have been discussed previously. I realise that the useful information you've provided in that respect is reporting what others have said, rather than expressing your own viewpoint, so the following is not critical of your post in any way, but I find it an interesting concept that, because the UK has exercised what many of us consider poor practice, which is out of line with most of the rest of the world, up until now, we can't now act to put it right or adjust for the correct usage of the term. I wonder where we'd be on the various anti-discrimination rights issues (gender, race, religion, sexual preference etc.) if this had been the guiding principle? Presumably we'd still be allowed to assume that women didn't have the mental capacity to manage, govern or even vote, and I'd rather not even mention the various derogatory words that would still be in common use for people of non-Caucasian ethnic origin. I'd be very interested to know whether that principle has actually been tested in law. Personally, I doubt very much that it really does make it not legally possible. I'd suggest it's simply in the "too difficult" category. In fact, wouldn't a law dictating that the title could not be used unless you were formally registered to do so, with the ensuing publicity attached to it, be the very best way to adjust public perception and stop that widespread usage? There was a time when you could practice medicine (and call yourself a medical doctor) without registration, but that change was achieved.
    I agree completely with the remainder of your points, and as you say, the differing practices across the different sectors would be the issue that would make a generic common licensing system across the whole profession virtually impossible. Without a doubt, we keep returning to the need to adjust public perception as lying at the heart of creating political impetus for change.