Philip Smith:

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!

Do you have any evidence for that?  Without evidence, it just looks like a bid by a self-selected group of engineers to raise their status and salary at the expense of everybody else.

Well said Simon. European licenced engineers always seem to come up in these sorts of debates as example to justify introducing protection of the title of engineer in the UK ; but I would remind them of a certain matter of european diesel cars emission scandal.  It wasn't the management who rigged the tests, but the so called licenced engineers. What this demonstrates, if nothing else, is the conflict of interest between a conscientious engineer and their paymaster's objectives. In the end the companies were sued for billions of euros, and no press put blame on the engineers and didn't publicise on their licenced status, that they should be struck off. Whenever I hear CEng members saying they are [required|entitled|privileged] to sign off engineering designs as a badge of recognition, I am surprised they do not add that they do it for free and do not carry indemnity insurance in case something were to go wrong; because if something were to go wrong, the company would take financial responsibility and not the CEng. Oh and how much does it cost a company to promote they employ CEngs and get them to sign off design work? The answer is the same amount it cost to pay off a CEng annual subscription. A case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Happy New Year! 

I think the answers on this topic have been very good and show that debate IS required. I have undergone an Apprenticeship in my early career and have graduated the long way round as an Engineer. I studied at night school and then underwent a sandwich course to obtain a HND and then further study to obtain my Degree. All other qualifications were hard earned IN Industry. So I certainly didn't come up any easy route and I have worked in many areas of engineering and so my 'evidence' is experience of real life over too many years than I wish to count.

The responses to mine and other peoples comments demonstrate the sensitivity and importance of this topic to British Engineering, I have given my personal views and they are no more and no less relevant than any of the others. Please keep the comments coming, whatever answer arrives eventually it Has to be satisfactory to All 'Engineers'. But, the answer should not result in further dumbing down of the title of 'Engineer', if it is worth having then lets make it World respected.

Bob  , employers may be impressed by a candidate's resume followed by the interview to offer that candidate a position; but depending on how the employee gels in, adapts to the job in hand, and (most important of all) bonds with their line manager, will decide whether they're heading for a fast track career path or not.


Working hard for many years to get to position of professional engineer does not in it self guarantee fast track promotion. Factors, such as charming personality, strength of character, natural leadership qualities can lead to fast track promotion for lesser qualified staff over highly qualified staff. Industry do not follow the script that engineers (registered or not) expect to happen.


We're now in an age of Computerisation (email, calander, microsoft based products) Automation (technology based products,

and Artifical Intelligent (fast and accurate decision making jobs normally done by skilled employed staff). Does anybody remember the movie - Dark Star - where an astranaut is in conversation with one of the nucler bombs - designed to explode over unstable stars in space. The astranaut doesn't want it to explode as there is a malfunction and detonation would kill everyone on board the spaceship. Sci-Fi is starting to become a reality.


As a consequence of the rapid developments in engineering and techology employers are going to be less impressed by engineers' lengthy path to education, training and experience for career development consideration. Younger people capable of adapting to the changing scene and showing initiative will be fast tracked to promotion even over more qualified and experienced engineers (registered or not).


In order to achieve justifyable reason to protected the title of Engineer for suitably qualified engineers, then a generic job role for an engineer will also need to be defined and protected by law; and I cannot see that ever happening for the reasons given above. I am aware that title protection is in force in other countries, but I'm of the opinion that this was only achievable prior to the birth of the internet, WWW, personal computer i.e late 1970s to early 1980s.


The future sataelite comunication.

Russian warhead: Hello my american friend. I have been sent launch codes to detonate over the USA.  But before I decide to accept the codes, I need to know if USA is a threat?


American Warhead: Everything is okay hear brother. No one in USA is considering first strike. Have you checked the internet to verify? We have McDonalds here.


Russian warhead: Oh I love to try McDonalds. My premier loves it too. Looks like fake news. I must seek more clarification. In the meantime, I have put launch on hold.


American warhead: That's mighty decent of you buddy. Speak to me for additional confirmation of no threat.

What exactly will be the criteria to obtaining a licence? If it is holding an IET accredited degree then it will do absolutely nothing to improve public safety as engineering degrees centre on theory and physics rather than safety practices and legislation.


Take into account that a significant proportion of engineering companies in Britain are SMEs that employ engineers without degrees. Will licensing of engineers cost jobs?

Posted by Philip Smith on Jan 4, 2019 6:58 pm

I think the answers on this topic have been very good and show that debate IS required

————————————-


I’ve been lurking here for some time and this debate has gone round in (several) circles for at least 12 months, possibly longer.


Some action would be nice but clearly no-one really knows how to handle the subject or reach any sort of consensus.


I anticipate another long round of “debate”.

Both Mehmood and Roy Bowdler make very good points.  I agree with Roy that I had and continue to have, to some degree, some sympathy with the argument for licensing, but it is definitely not, on its own, going to make the difference for the issues that are of concern - as Roy says, we have a lot to do to get our own house in order first.


But Mehmood, in particular, has hit a highly relevant nerve in one particular respect, though it's possible that I may not be understanding him fully - forgive me if that is the case, regardless, it has prompted thoughts that I will outline.


Employers, organisations and stakeholders have to understand the importance of engineering decisions being made by suitably competent engineers before any attempt at licencing will take effect. I am fortunate enough to work in the rail industry and I say that because Network Rail has a mandatory standard applicable to both its own organisation and to any contractors which clearly provides a process requiring that engineering decisions in projects are taken by competent engineers, and only by such engineers - for its own project engineers, they have to hold an Authority to Work, which is based on detailed competence assessment whilst it defines the requirement for the direction, design approval, etc. for engineering work by contractors to be by suitably competent contractor's responsible engineers, with sign-off on their acceptability (based both on competence, understanding of the requirements of the role and availability of the time to undertake it) by the Network Rail Project Engineer. To be clear, competence is definitely not only about technical understanding, but covers all of the areas of competence you would expect to ensure safe and cost-effective engineering decisions are made and implemented. Even then, there are times when Project Managers contravene that standard and take it on their own shoulders to make decisions that should be carried out by these engineers, or seek to short-cut them or even overrule them - occasionally, there will be a PM who mistakes the inclusion of the word Manager in their title as meaning they are in charge of all aspects, whereas the standard I refer to makes it clear that, whilst they may be responsible for cost and programme, engineering assurance is clearly the responsibility of the engineers, who can decline to sign off the project works if they are not satisfied with it.  Fortunately, the standard is in place, hence such instances can be combatted by invoking it, and if necessary escalating the issue. 


There are also competence requirements set for maintenance staff, although these do vary somewhat between disciplines.  There is an industry licencing scheme in place, administered by the IRSE, and this is predominantly focused on signal engineering staff, who have a clear safety critical role.  This is mandatory across both maintenance and new works for signal engineering staff and roles.  There are also licencing categories for telecommunications, but these are not mandatory. This arose largely after the Clapham Junction disaster, hence its focus on signalling.  I do feel it a matter of regret that it was not applied more widely across other disciplines who also have a potential, to a varying degree, to impact on safety. 


Unfortunately, I don't believe this is the case in many other sectors - I am hopeful that other regulated industries have procedures that equal or exceed those in the railway, and maybe, if all those sectors which have the potential to create safety issues, do have such procedures, then we can take assurance from that, but I feel there are many sectors which do not operate such rigorous standards and which still have the potential to impact on safety or the environment, and in particular, in the sector that seems to have provoked a great deal of this debate, that of building services etc., there is, at the very least, the appearance of a lack of regulation, or at the very least, no mandate to demonstrate that all engineering decisions have been taken by people assessed to be suitably competent.   I think Mehmood has rightly flagged up that, until and unless this is addressed, licencing alone is unlikely to have much effect, and whilst I agree that, in order to be fully effective it needs to be mandated in law, there is little point in doing that until and unless the approach taken in all sectors has been pulled in line with one that requires the appropriate use of competent engineers, confirming that competence by mandatory licencing is not going to be of much effect. 


I have to confess to being slightly unsure why Mehmood believes the internet changes this - apologies if I'm missing a point or being a little slow, but I'm struggling to see why that should be so. Are you suggesting that we may be seeing AI take over engineering decisions over automated internet connections Mehmood?

Incidentally, responding to an earlier point made by Mehmood, I should point out that indemnity insurance is purely a matter of terms and conditions of contract, hence should not be covered by such a sweeping statement - it has to be taken on a case by case basis, and depends on where the control sits.  I, and most other freelance contractors, do carry indemnity and public liability insurance, and that is an expense I have to pick up myself as part of the cost of operating in this manner.  The fact that this responsibility passes to the employer when you are an employee is simply a matter of employment law, and is a purely commercial issue.  Although I suspect that most employees sit with a perception of being bomb-proof in this respect because they are not themselves involved in arranging or paying for these insurances,  I can guarantee that any employer that had to make a claim on their indemnity insurance as a result of negligence or incompetence on the part of an employee would, at the very least, address that competence if they recognised that they had failed in their employer's duty to provide and maintain the employee with suitable competence for the role, or if they felt that they had provided that competence and it was pure negligence, that employee would not remain an employee for much longer, and would have their chance of reemployment elsewhere significantly reduced. However, without a doubt it is among the reasons that some organisations do have a preference for hiring freelance contractors for specialised roles, as it does afford that enhanced degree of protection. It all depends on the degree of control and where that control sits.  My contract is clear in placing control of when, where and how in my hands.  If the hirer is far more controlling, there is a definite potential for that control to prevent even the most competent engineer from implementing the rightly assured engineering decisions, in which case it is only right that the responsibility transfers to the controlling organisation.