Simon,
Firstly, I've already stated that I don't feel we need licensing in addition to professional registration and that it would be difficult and unnecessary to introduce. However, regardless of what system of accreditation is used, I think the answer to your question would be to look at those professions which do have compulsory registration - doctors, solicitors, etc. - and ask if they have protected the public and society. I would suggest that's a resounding yes. By preventing quacks from being able to pose as something they're not, there is a clear and evident protection of the interests of all. Is there anyone who would really try to argue that the registration system for doctors or solicitors had economic gain for those registered as it's only (or main) benefit?

I don't think there can be much doubt that extension of the principle to engineering would produce similar benefits. Why should we be more ready to allow those who have not demonstrated their competence and professionalism to undertake safety or mission critical tasks in engineering than we are in medicine or law, when the impact is at least as wide sweeping?

Let's not turn this thread into yet another one that critiques the extent to which the registration system may or may not need improvement - that's been done to death. Like everything, it can benefit from constant review and improvement.

Worse still, let's not allow this to become yet another attempt by those who feel aggrieved by the registration process to take pot shots at the process or at those who hold registration. That is massively off topic and another recent thread that dealt with that reached a point where some posts were so insulting and offensive that the thread had to be pulled by a moderator.

The key issue, however, as I and a number of others see it, is not to find one more accreditation route, but to get government on board to using whatever accreditation system we have to regulate who is allowed to operate under the banner of engineer and so protect from poor and, in many cases, outright dangerous engineering outcomes.

Simon,
Firstly, I've already stated that I don't feel we need licensing in addition to professional registration and that it would be difficult and unnecessary to introduce. However, regardless of what system of accreditation is used, I think the answer to your question would be to look at those professions which do have compulsory registration - doctors, solicitors, etc. - and ask if they have protected the public and society. I would suggest that's a resounding yes. By preventing quacks from being able to pose as something they're not, there is a clear and evident protection of the interests of all. Is there anyone who would really try to argue that the registration system for doctors or solicitors had economic gain for those registered as it's only (or main) benefit?

I don't think there can be much doubt that extension of the principle to engineering would produce similar benefits. Why should we be more ready to allow those who have not demonstrated their competence and professionalism to undertake safety or mission critical tasks in engineering than we are in medicine or law, when the impact is at least as wide sweeping?

Let's not turn this thread into yet another one that critiques the extent to which the registration system may or may not need improvement - that's been done to death. Like everything, it can benefit from constant review and improvement.

Worse still, let's not allow this to become yet another attempt by those who feel aggrieved by the registration process to take pot shots at the process or at those who hold registration. That is massively off topic and another recent thread that dealt with that reached a point where some posts were so insulting and offensive that the thread had to be pulled by a moderator.

The key issue, however, as I and a number of others see it, is not to find one more accreditation route, but to get government on board to using whatever accreditation system we have to regulate who is allowed to operate under the banner of engineer and so protect from poor and, in many cases, outright dangerous engineering outcomes.