Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 2109 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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.

  • 0
    Simon, similarly, simply omitting the first part of the quote to provide an edited version that sounds like a simple assertion doesn't make it so. I presented the analogies, and they are reasoned and valid. I presented the benefits that compulsory registration has provided in other professions that impact on health and protection of society (medicine and law) and drew a valid and reasonable analogy with that. I also asked whether anyone would really claim that compulsory registration in those fields only benefited those who are registered or carrying out the registration. By omitting that, you distort my post to support your own position.
    You may as well say that, prior to the introduction of the trades description act, nobody was able to present evidence that it would benefit anybody, yet it was self-evident that, by reducing the opportunity for misrepresentation, it would produce benefit.
    Similarly, it is surely self-evident that reducing the risk of people who hold inadequate competence and/or professionalism from deliberately or unwittingly misrepresenting themselves as fit for the task will produce benefit. The evidence is the benefit that has accrued by doing so in similar circumstances for other safety and/or mission critical fields.
    I'll ask you politely, please don't misrepresent my post again.
  • 0
    Hi Roy, Just to be fair to Simon, I suspect it was the phrase (and please do take this in context of your complete post) "I don't think there can be much doubt that..." that acted as the "trigger" here, I had a similar reaction to Simon when I read it: many of us do have very serious doubts (not certainties) about there being any potential benefit of licensing engineers, certainly (if a caveat would help) in terms of whether any benefit will outweigh any disadvantages. Anyway, let's keep gathering the facts for and against.


    I do strongly agree with Simon's point that most people I have seen raise this issue do so in the belief that it will benefit them financially (by the way, personally I don't think it will, but I've explained that several times elsewhere so I'm not going to again now!), but I think Roy's post's are very clear that this is not the point from which he is arguing. Like SImon I get hugely frustrated when people say "I'm only raising it for the public good / the good of the profession" when actually they are after their own ends.


    It is a very complex issue - for a start, what do we mean by "engineering"? - and certainly for myself I am not aware of anything like enough evidence to draw any conclusions yet.


    One point I will throw in quickly before getting back to work: As a manager and assessor of safety critical projects for nigh on 25 years now I have never had a problem where engineers have misrepresented themselves which has led to a safety risk. I have had plenty of issues with engineers who have good evidence of competence making mistakes (I've done it myself), but that's why we have structures such as IEC 61508 and (in my field) EN 50126 to work in to guard against this - and, incidentally, to manage engineers' competence. So this is why I tend not to see it us our biggest problem. I'm much more concerned about unqualified managers - that's where I have seen engineering disasters most nearly occur! But. as I say, I'm always open to new evidence - the fact that I work in a highly safety-critical field may distort my view of the issue. (I'm aware that there is more to licensing than checking of qualifications, I just wanted to pick this one point for now.)


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    Hi Andy,
    All fair points and I don't dispute that some (would not wish to make any assumption on what proportion) do see it that way, but I agree with you that I don't believe it would produce financial benefit. I also agree that even the most qualified and experienced engineers can and do make mistakes, but the key, for me, is to at least aim for a situation where they are at least genuinely trying to avoid them - after all, doctors and solicitors also make mistakes. And it's why we have checking and approval built in to our work.
    I'd also agree with your point about managers - they are even further behind on recognising the need for competence validation, with the Management Charter Initiative, which was an attempt to codify competence in Management and establish that it's a profession in its own right, being very poorly embraced. Unfortunately, the widespread means to progress into management is dead men's shoes/next in line, with little appreciation of the standards of competence that should be attached to the positions. I feel equally passionate about that, especially as one of the 50 pioneer Chartered Managers in the early years of this century, which was only possible from having demonstrated those competencies in action in the workplace. Again, it was not financial reward (I didn't get any) but in the interests of improving my professionalism.
    If I recall correctly, you and I are both in Rail, Andy, so I share your experience there, wouldn't go quite as far as saying never for the safety risk from misrepresentation, but accept rarely, especially as, unlike in many other sectors, we rarely if ever call a technician an engineer. However, in fairness, that's surely because we do have our requirements for authority to work or equivalent because of the safety criticality of the industry, whereas no such systems apply to managers. Isn't that, in itself, an element of evidence to show that some form of authorisation achieves the benefit, even though, for the historical reasons of past disasters, it's self regulation in the industry?
    I originally responded on this because it was being suggested, because of Grenfell Tower, that this is not necessarily the same in other sectors, and in particular, in this instance, building standards, management and services. In honesty, I don't really know if that is the case or not as it's outside my field of expertise, so I took other people's word on it. But it makes your point especially relevant if it's true, as the suggestion is that this is down to decisions by managers rather than engineers, and the suggestion was that, by having some form of mandatory licensing, registration or any other authority that confirms an individual as a professional engineer, that would enable the mandate that any engineering decision that impacts on safety (or on mission sensitive outcomes for that matter) must have been endorsed by such an engineer. If such a mandate was not based on some form of formal standard for what constitutes an engineer, then this allows those managers to (deliberately or unintentionally) select somebody to be their 'engineer' who would allow those bad decisions through - indeed they may even appoint their own 'engineer', who may be no more qualified than themselves - indeed, they may even put engineer in their own title in order to get round any such legislation.
    So you and Simon may be right that there's no inherent value to safety from making Registration of some form compulsory for engineers as an initiative in isolation, but if regulations to mandate that an engineer must approve engineering solutions are to be considered, then defining a mandatory definition of what constitutes an engineer is needed to support it. This could be achieved by licensing within each sector, which is effectively what we do in Rail, or by a common standard across all sectors.
    You will see in my original response to this thread that I don't believe it's realistic to implement an all-sector licensing system that addresses the specifics in the way that Railway licenses and authority to work do, but suggested that, if we do wish a cross-sector form of authorisation, the current PEI registration system already offers the vehicle to do so, even if, as we've discussed in other threads, we acknowledge that it would bear some improvements.
    I would also repeat my previous assertion that, whilst you and I may agree that mandatory registration/protected title won't afford financial benefit to the individuals, it would surely up the public perception of engineers, wth the dual result that people may become more discriminating about who they select to do their work, and more importantly still, make the profession more attractive and attract greater numbers as Gareth was suggesting is the case in Canada.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Roy Pemberton:

    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.

    A very complete response to a complex subject

     




     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    A very complete response to omplex subject
  • 0
    Hi Roy,


    Many thanks for you very well considered reply. I must admit that I always look at this from this point of view: if I was an MP would I consider that for any piece of potential legislation the potential cost (to the state or to UK plc, or in this case probably both) is outweighed by the public benefit? And of course it is reasonable to use an ALARP argument here, it may still be the right thing to do even if the cost is higher than the benefit, but not if it is grossly disproportionate.  Either way, it's an argument that isn't going to be won without hard evidence - or (which is how these things actually seem to happen) without a very high profile case where people were killed due to an unsuitable engineer sidling themselves into a position they shouldn't have been in!


    I do take your point that incompetent managers can (and do!) employ incompetent engineers, personally I have found in rail at least that the systems protect against that (it tends to get spotted) whereas it's the incompetent managers themselves - or more accurately, those who put money above safety - that directly cause risks by overriding or misrepresenting engineers advice. But yes, other industries may be different.


    A very interesting test case for this whole subject might be the area of autonomous cars, where there is huge potential for the engineering processes to result in multiple fatalities - even just through competent engineers who "don't know what they don't know". Provided the processes are open to genuinely independent scrutiny I would be less concerned, but automotive has a reputation for valuing IP and removal of blame attribution above openness. I remember the horror of the UK rail industry in the early 2000s where private organisations refused (perfectly legally) to work with accident investigators. Sorry, gone slightly off thread there, hopefully people will see the point I'm trying to make!


    I don't think there's much more I can usefully add to this discussion so I'll leave it there for the time being (although will be interested to see if anybody comments on the automotive issue).


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Hi Andy,
    Thanks for your equally considered reply.
    Firstly , I agree that we've probably exhausted the subject pretty well by now, but I did feel the wish to say that I agree entirely with your viewpoint on rail, particularly that the biggest threat is from managers, not engineers. Given that Gareth's original post was triggered, as I understand it, by Grenfell Tower, and his perception that there is not similar rigour in that sector, including the suggestion that managers have been making decisions on engineering matters without review and endorsement by an engineer, or by somebody you and I would recognise as an engineer, I'd be interested to hear from people who know that sector better on how valid that perception is.
    Your comments on the automotive industry and the huge safety concerns that need to be addressed with autonomous cars were really interesting though -definite food for thought. Like you I'd be interested to hear from those in the automotive sector on this.
    I did operate for some years in the wider transportation arena, and though that was mostly focused on transportation infrastructure - highways, intelligent transport, active traffic management, etc., I did veer slightly into automotive, and in particular intelligent vehicle systems and the early concepts for autonomous vehicles, not to work directly in the sector, but to hold talks with those in the sector and to participate in joint innovation workshops, mainly because the two are inextricably linked, and I wished both a look-ahead into what was coming and to try to influence it somewhat in an attempt to achieve a holistic 'road map' (forgive the unintentional pun) for how vehicle and infrastructure should work together.
    I'd by no means make any claim to have even a fraction of the knowledge of the sector that a true automotive engineer would hold, but I have to admit, my experience does make me tend to agree with your view on the driving (these puns really are difficult to avoid!) motivation of most automotive companies and the potential for risk they could present if they run unchecked. Hopefully, for our peace of mind, we will hear from people from the sector who will confirm there are suitable systems in place to address those concerns.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    We  need the help of the legal eagles here. There is plenty of opportunities to practice successful manslaughter. Some practices I've seen and stopped have been shockingly bad.
  • 0
    I don't know about 'Licensed' engineers in particular but I do know that this Country is rapidly losing ground because most 'engineers' employed as such in this Country quite simply are not! Because we have no legal apparatus anyone can call themselves an engineer and worse anyone can employ somebody and call them an engineer - even if they have no qualifications! We all must know the true situation. I have tried to encourage Companies that I have been involved with to insist on IET or InstMC membership and preferably both and to encourage and support Further Education to get staff to a recognised 'competent' level in whatever area of engineering is relevant. What employers should be discouraged from doing by Law, is to call a 17 year old school leaver an 'engineer' even if he has a Mentor - which is definitely NOT always the case.  The Institutes play a vital role, as do Company Directors, in this matter and should be lobbying for all 'engineers' to be recognised by law when they have a certain minimum qualification (Debate please). Further more no Contracting Company should look to award important Contracts to Companies without first making sure that those Companies have suitably qualified 'Engineers' nor should so called contract 'engineers' be employed who are NOT suitably qualified. The field of Functional Safety has achieved quite a lot in this field - largely as a result of IEC61508 requiring 'safety' engineers to demonstrate 'competency'. Sadly we also have many 'safety' engineers who have a certificate after all of three days training. So I ask the question: Does three days of training make an engineer 'competent'? What does Germany do - they never seem to lack competent 'engineers'. Can anyone call themselves a medical Doctor with impunity?
  • 0

    Philip Smith:

    .... So I ask the question: Does three days of training make an engineer 'competent'?




    Unfortunately the answer is "It depends". Primarily it depends on the starting point. If the engineer already has a lot of relevant experience then the answer may be yes. If it is a new graduate then the answer is probably no.  However this is something very few of these "three day training courses" seem to assess.

    As far as recognition by law is concerned, I understand we already have that for Chartered and Incorporated Engineers (and I think also possibly for EngTech). More and more contracts are being awarded with the basic question having been asked : "How many of your engineers are Registered?" which I think answers the comment about the awarding of important contracts. However, we still have a long way to go.

    Alasdair

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines