Harry H:


I briefly want to mention the designation of engineer that’s cited in the research introduction. I think it's disgraceful that the title of ‘Engineer’ isn't protected in the UK; it's so often misused, which waters down the hard work of those who are true engineers. I see many people using the title, which misleads the public into a false sense of security, in turn, devaluing engineers! Many other countries protect the title for this very reason, so why not the UK? We have a legacy from the past of being a great country for engineering; can we claim this anymore. I believe the Engineering Council could do better to lobby this protection; I’d think it’d be in their interest, so how do we engage the IET to pressure them?

UK Laws will only be introduced if there is a clear public interest in doing so. They will most certainly not be introduced to allow one profession to have a market advantage!


There is no public interest to be served by saying that only a protected title "Engineer" can design a piece of games software, or a chair, or computer mouse. If it fails and harms someone then the company that produces it is liable in law, so there is already adequate legal protection. Ok, so what about if an engineer takes personal responsibility for a risk? Well, if it's a common risk such as electrical wiring, gas installation, various aviation roles, railway signalling inspection etc then those engineering roles are protected in law - despite a degree in electrical engineering I cannot (quite rightly) fit an electrical installation in my bathroom. If it's an uncommon risk, such as those I get involved in assessing on the day job, then there are various regulatory bodies (UKAS in my case) that regulate the competence of the engineers involved, and will typically be looking for evidence of CEng, which is a protected title.


I'm not saying this is necessarily sufficient to protect the public interest,  and the law does change and develop (for example through the introduction of Part P and GasSafe), but in the 40 years I've been in the profession - and this question has always been raised during that - no-one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why it is in the public interest for all engineering roles to be regulated. And there is a good argument (if you're into market economics) to say it is against the public interest, by potentially putting up the cost of engineering services. You might not like that argument, but that's free market economics for you.


Anyway, how many school / university leavers become architects, compared to how many go into management, finance, marketing, and other industries with completely unprotected titles and with large earning capacity?


There's a reason the IET and other PEIs don't lobby to protect the title "Engineer", it's because it won't get anywhere and there's not seen to be any real public benefit. If you want to see the official answer it's here and well worth reading: https://www.engc.org.uk/glossary-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/status-of-engineers/


Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, it's an effect of seeing the same discussion many many times! It is a really important point to discuss and understand, the whole question of legal liability in particular is hugely important. 


Thanks,


Andy

Harry H:


I briefly want to mention the designation of engineer that’s cited in the research introduction. I think it's disgraceful that the title of ‘Engineer’ isn't protected in the UK; it's so often misused, which waters down the hard work of those who are true engineers. I see many people using the title, which misleads the public into a false sense of security, in turn, devaluing engineers! Many other countries protect the title for this very reason, so why not the UK? We have a legacy from the past of being a great country for engineering; can we claim this anymore. I believe the Engineering Council could do better to lobby this protection; I’d think it’d be in their interest, so how do we engage the IET to pressure them?

UK Laws will only be introduced if there is a clear public interest in doing so. They will most certainly not be introduced to allow one profession to have a market advantage!


There is no public interest to be served by saying that only a protected title "Engineer" can design a piece of games software, or a chair, or computer mouse. If it fails and harms someone then the company that produces it is liable in law, so there is already adequate legal protection. Ok, so what about if an engineer takes personal responsibility for a risk? Well, if it's a common risk such as electrical wiring, gas installation, various aviation roles, railway signalling inspection etc then those engineering roles are protected in law - despite a degree in electrical engineering I cannot (quite rightly) fit an electrical installation in my bathroom. If it's an uncommon risk, such as those I get involved in assessing on the day job, then there are various regulatory bodies (UKAS in my case) that regulate the competence of the engineers involved, and will typically be looking for evidence of CEng, which is a protected title.


I'm not saying this is necessarily sufficient to protect the public interest,  and the law does change and develop (for example through the introduction of Part P and GasSafe), but in the 40 years I've been in the profession - and this question has always been raised during that - no-one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why it is in the public interest for all engineering roles to be regulated. And there is a good argument (if you're into market economics) to say it is against the public interest, by potentially putting up the cost of engineering services. You might not like that argument, but that's free market economics for you.


Anyway, how many school / university leavers become architects, compared to how many go into management, finance, marketing, and other industries with completely unprotected titles and with large earning capacity?


There's a reason the IET and other PEIs don't lobby to protect the title "Engineer", it's because it won't get anywhere and there's not seen to be any real public benefit. If you want to see the official answer it's here and well worth reading: https://www.engc.org.uk/glossary-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/status-of-engineers/


Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, it's an effect of seeing the same discussion many many times! It is a really important point to discuss and understand, the whole question of legal liability in particular is hugely important. 


Thanks,


Andy