Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Many well made points by most contributors to this thread. There is, without a doubt, a broad lack of knowledge/understanding of the value proposition offered by UKSPEC except for those engaging with it regularly (assessors and interviewers largely speaking), especially for IEng, and I think Moshe makes a particularly important point regarding the failure of employers to see the value offered, compounded, as others have pointed out, by those existing registered (mostly Chartered) engineers who are out of touch with UKSPEC and who are often the recruiters. As a C.Eng who works with many who I believe would warrant IEng, I believe that registration at either level should be offering all stakeholders the benefit of a 'gold' standard for professional competence and conduct that would deliver immense value, and that, in most contexts, but especially in a project delivery organisation, such as I'm working, the ratio needs to be exactly the opposite to what we see - Incorporated Engineers, or Engineering Technologists, or whatever we call them need to outnumber C.Eng by several multiples.
However, as touched on, there is a general lack of acceptance of the 'equal but different' proposition. I think there's a great deal of value in the thought that it needs those of us who do understand UKSPEC and the (different) values/benefits offered by C.Eng & I.Eng to educate employers/clients to the value derived, but needs, potentially, even more effort to the potential candidates themselves. One of the ways to educate those employers/clients is for the job applicants/holders themselves to believe in it and then 'sell' their value to their employer/client.
And herein lies a central problem - the key distinction between I.Eng/Technologists and C.Eng, is that word innovation. However hard we try to convey that the need for those who can offer/deal with innovation is at least no more than that for those who operate competently, knowledgeably and with appropriate conduct but who don't innovate, and in many cases is less, there is a society perception that all 'clever' or 'high valued' people should be innovative, and if you're not, you are, in some way, still only second prize winner. It has a similar kudos to it as the word creative. With current society outlook, with its buzz words and arbitrary classifications and judgements, anyone who admits to not innovating, or not being creative, is encouraged to think of themselves as inferior, and this is a far stronger force than UKSPEC!
The real irony here is that many of us who are C.Eng and have that innovative component to offer, are in roles where our client or employer aspires to our position requiring C.Eng but then stifle the very innovation that brings along by insisting on 'competence' assessments which require slavish adherence to tried and tested (or worse still, often untested and flawed) solutions and decisions, and to often out of date standards that continue unchallenged, and with challenge discouraged. As example, I do innovate, with certainty, but I have to fight the fight to do so - it's a constant battle to resist the forces that seek to discourage me from doing so, and I think it would be an interesting exercise to question my client as to whether, in this risk averse/innovation averse atmosphere, would they not be better off with, and derive more value from an I.Eng (though heaven knows, my industry desperately needs innovation!). But, to illustrate my own point, would this then demotivate candidates for the role by making them feel inferior because they were not 'innovators'?

Many well made points by most contributors to this thread. There is, without a doubt, a broad lack of knowledge/understanding of the value proposition offered by UKSPEC except for those engaging with it regularly (assessors and interviewers largely speaking), especially for IEng, and I think Moshe makes a particularly important point regarding the failure of employers to see the value offered, compounded, as others have pointed out, by those existing registered (mostly Chartered) engineers who are out of touch with UKSPEC and who are often the recruiters. As a C.Eng who works with many who I believe would warrant IEng, I believe that registration at either level should be offering all stakeholders the benefit of a 'gold' standard for professional competence and conduct that would deliver immense value, and that, in most contexts, but especially in a project delivery organisation, such as I'm working, the ratio needs to be exactly the opposite to what we see - Incorporated Engineers, or Engineering Technologists, or whatever we call them need to outnumber C.Eng by several multiples.
However, as touched on, there is a general lack of acceptance of the 'equal but different' proposition. I think there's a great deal of value in the thought that it needs those of us who do understand UKSPEC and the (different) values/benefits offered by C.Eng & I.Eng to educate employers/clients to the value derived, but needs, potentially, even more effort to the potential candidates themselves. One of the ways to educate those employers/clients is for the job applicants/holders themselves to believe in it and then 'sell' their value to their employer/client.
And herein lies a central problem - the key distinction between I.Eng/Technologists and C.Eng, is that word innovation. However hard we try to convey that the need for those who can offer/deal with innovation is at least no more than that for those who operate competently, knowledgeably and with appropriate conduct but who don't innovate, and in many cases is less, there is a society perception that all 'clever' or 'high valued' people should be innovative, and if you're not, you are, in some way, still only second prize winner. It has a similar kudos to it as the word creative. With current society outlook, with its buzz words and arbitrary classifications and judgements, anyone who admits to not innovating, or not being creative, is encouraged to think of themselves as inferior, and this is a far stronger force than UKSPEC!
The real irony here is that many of us who are C.Eng and have that innovative component to offer, are in roles where our client or employer aspires to our position requiring C.Eng but then stifle the very innovation that brings along by insisting on 'competence' assessments which require slavish adherence to tried and tested (or worse still, often untested and flawed) solutions and decisions, and to often out of date standards that continue unchallenged, and with challenge discouraged. As example, I do innovate, with certainty, but I have to fight the fight to do so - it's a constant battle to resist the forces that seek to discourage me from doing so, and I think it would be an interesting exercise to question my client as to whether, in this risk averse/innovation averse atmosphere, would they not be better off with, and derive more value from an I.Eng (though heaven knows, my industry desperately needs innovation!). But, to illustrate my own point, would this then demotivate candidates for the role by making them feel inferior because they were not 'innovators'?