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.




 

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.