Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

John Bowman,
Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. I'm not necessarily responding to every direct of your post, only to those where I take issue.
On the positive, I do take your point about multidisciplinary engineers, I often perform the multi disciplinary for myself. I don't personally believe that makes a further to professional registration. Though I don't wish to mix up membership category with PR (they are two completely different things) much of my experience in my application to become Fellow were multi disciplinary and that was certainly successful. As a newly appointed PR interviewer, I also believe that multi disciplinary expertise is considered as equally relevant and acceptable as the very narrowest specialist discipline. However, employer's have to consider what set of skills they are seeking, and of they are not seeking multi disciplinary capability, but simply single discipline skills, then why shutoff they but advertise on that basis? If you happen to have skills that exceed them, this is no reason not to apply unless your multi discipline focus has diluted your expertise in the single discipline they seek, in which case they would be absolutely right to exclude you. It can never be illegal or wrong for employers to recruit for a specific skillset or capability.
You say stipulating C.Eng is illegal. I would very much like to see the law which makes it illegal, if it exists. If you are alleging it is discriminatory on the grounds of where in the world you may have achieved equal registration status, I believe most employers advertise jobs with an overarching "or equivalent' implication, even if they don't say so overtly, and more importantly, most potential applicants know this and don't allow it to discourage them from applying. Maybe it should be stated overtly, but let's be honest, there are so many factors where "or equivalent" would be applicable, it could make job adverts very cumbersome. To illustrate this, I have two management qualifications which are not Master's, but are formally equivalent to Master's. This doesn't prevent me applying for jobs requiring Master's, and I've never known an employer not accept them.
Also, whenever I have been recruiting (which I haven't done for some time) I have always been ready to interview somebody with alternative qualifications or registration, whether or not that's formal. But let's not forget that C.Eng is still internationally accepted as the gold standard, but should we forget that part of the reason for that is the professional standards, including integrity, that are required in order to maintain that status. It gives employers and clients a route for action in the event of malpractice. Yes, so does I.Eng, but your post does not seem to be about accepting I.Eng in addition to C.Eng, if I understand you correctly, I believe you refer to non UKSPEC accreditation.
But most of all, my issue is with your statement that the C.Eng/I.Eng distinction is out of date and out of reality. Not so, one bit. They represent to very different types of engineering professional. As several of us have said elsewhere in this thread, it's not about one being better or more senior than the other, but simply at different ends of a broad spectrum. If you don't know what that distinction is, then either read UKSPEC again, or ask for sometime to explain it. And while I definitely true myself behind the push to get requirements shown as C.Eng/I.Eng where either type of engineer would be suitable for the position, as is often the case, if an employer definitely needs an engineer of the C.Eng variety, and doesn't feel an I.Eng flavour would be right, then why should they not recruit in that basis? Indeed, to do otherwise could place the applicant in a vulnerable and undesirable position. It works both ways. There could well be times that they specifically require I.Eng type capability, and could place a C.Eng in a difficult position.
Admittedly, many, if not most, employers have no understanding of what C.Eng and I.Eng really mean it of the key distinctions, and that's exactly what many of us on this thread are trying to identify an answer to. But the answer to that, if it is ever to be found, lies but in abolition of the two distinct registrations, but in seeking to overcome that knowledge gap.
I feel the term elitist is a well overused word. Providing affirmation that an individual holds and consistently apples a level of knowledge, expertise and professionalism - including that key distinction between C.Eng and I.Eng of being able to develop new or novel approaches, or adjust existing approaches to address needs, add opposed to selecting from a range of known and tried approaches to identify the most appropriate - is not elitism. It serves as a confirmation to employer/client, the engineer himself/herself, and their peers that this person has those attributes and can be relied on to apply them in their work. It is affirmation to the engineer that s/he is on the right path, and also encourages continuing professional development to maintain those qualities.
As for the role of the institute in providing knowledge services, that is a completely separate matter and is available equally to all members, regardless of membership grade or registration status.

John Bowman,
Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. I'm not necessarily responding to every direct of your post, only to those where I take issue.
On the positive, I do take your point about multidisciplinary engineers, I often perform the multi disciplinary for myself. I don't personally believe that makes a further to professional registration. Though I don't wish to mix up membership category with PR (they are two completely different things) much of my experience in my application to become Fellow were multi disciplinary and that was certainly successful. As a newly appointed PR interviewer, I also believe that multi disciplinary expertise is considered as equally relevant and acceptable as the very narrowest specialist discipline. However, employer's have to consider what set of skills they are seeking, and of they are not seeking multi disciplinary capability, but simply single discipline skills, then why shutoff they but advertise on that basis? If you happen to have skills that exceed them, this is no reason not to apply unless your multi discipline focus has diluted your expertise in the single discipline they seek, in which case they would be absolutely right to exclude you. It can never be illegal or wrong for employers to recruit for a specific skillset or capability.
You say stipulating C.Eng is illegal. I would very much like to see the law which makes it illegal, if it exists. If you are alleging it is discriminatory on the grounds of where in the world you may have achieved equal registration status, I believe most employers advertise jobs with an overarching "or equivalent' implication, even if they don't say so overtly, and more importantly, most potential applicants know this and don't allow it to discourage them from applying. Maybe it should be stated overtly, but let's be honest, there are so many factors where "or equivalent" would be applicable, it could make job adverts very cumbersome. To illustrate this, I have two management qualifications which are not Master's, but are formally equivalent to Master's. This doesn't prevent me applying for jobs requiring Master's, and I've never known an employer not accept them.
Also, whenever I have been recruiting (which I haven't done for some time) I have always been ready to interview somebody with alternative qualifications or registration, whether or not that's formal. But let's not forget that C.Eng is still internationally accepted as the gold standard, but should we forget that part of the reason for that is the professional standards, including integrity, that are required in order to maintain that status. It gives employers and clients a route for action in the event of malpractice. Yes, so does I.Eng, but your post does not seem to be about accepting I.Eng in addition to C.Eng, if I understand you correctly, I believe you refer to non UKSPEC accreditation.
But most of all, my issue is with your statement that the C.Eng/I.Eng distinction is out of date and out of reality. Not so, one bit. They represent to very different types of engineering professional. As several of us have said elsewhere in this thread, it's not about one being better or more senior than the other, but simply at different ends of a broad spectrum. If you don't know what that distinction is, then either read UKSPEC again, or ask for sometime to explain it. And while I definitely true myself behind the push to get requirements shown as C.Eng/I.Eng where either type of engineer would be suitable for the position, as is often the case, if an employer definitely needs an engineer of the C.Eng variety, and doesn't feel an I.Eng flavour would be right, then why should they not recruit in that basis? Indeed, to do otherwise could place the applicant in a vulnerable and undesirable position. It works both ways. There could well be times that they specifically require I.Eng type capability, and could place a C.Eng in a difficult position.
Admittedly, many, if not most, employers have no understanding of what C.Eng and I.Eng really mean it of the key distinctions, and that's exactly what many of us on this thread are trying to identify an answer to. But the answer to that, if it is ever to be found, lies but in abolition of the two distinct registrations, but in seeking to overcome that knowledge gap.
I feel the term elitist is a well overused word. Providing affirmation that an individual holds and consistently apples a level of knowledge, expertise and professionalism - including that key distinction between C.Eng and I.Eng of being able to develop new or novel approaches, or adjust existing approaches to address needs, add opposed to selecting from a range of known and tried approaches to identify the most appropriate - is not elitism. It serves as a confirmation to employer/client, the engineer himself/herself, and their peers that this person has those attributes and can be relied on to apply them in their work. It is affirmation to the engineer that s/he is on the right path, and also encourages continuing professional development to maintain those qualities.
As for the role of the institute in providing knowledge services, that is a completely separate matter and is available equally to all members, regardless of membership grade or registration status.