Steering clear of the political dog-fight
Share
Rarely has the UK’s engineering and technology sector contemplated a year ahead with such uncertainty. Will market conditions worsen? Or does recovery beckon? And will whoever emerges victorious from the forthcoming general election deliver on the much-repeated political promise to put real engineering at the heart of a rebalanced economy?
In our in-depth report, Forward Thinking, we asked some of the leading figures from across the UK engineering sector for their views on the state of the industry, the role of engineers, and what help, if any, they’d like to see from government over the next 12 months. We think you’ll agree that their candid replies make interesting reading.
Many of the points raised are familiar: most of those interviewed agreed more should be spent on education and training at all levels of engineering, and there is much enthusiasm for the appointment of a technology ‘tsar’ to bring an engineer’s perspective to government thinking sooner on in the decision-making process.
Perhaps most eyebrow-raising, however, is the suggestion that, as is the case in Germany, the title of ‘engineer’ should be protected by law and that only chartered engineers should be allowed to use it.
With domestic boilers up and down the land battered into submission by the big freeze and our ice-covered roads littered with abandoned vehicles, it’s probably a bad time to risk upsetting plumbers and car mechanics, but these are just a few of the many professions that routinely and incorrectly describe themselves as engineers.
It may sound extreme - elitist even - but with engineers fulfilling at least as important a role in society as teachers or GPs, both of whom enjoy the status of a protected profession, there is a strong argument that such a move would help make the public more aware of its dependence on engineers.
But can reputation and status really be secured by legal measures? It may even be self-defeating to deny people the chance to identify themselves as engineers at a time when the profile of the profession needs every boost it can get.
There is ultimately no better advert for the role of engineers in society than to see grand, life-changing projects taking shape, generating wealth and enhancing our world. And it’s here, we would argue, that politicians have the biggest role to play. Not in championing one specific effort to curry favour and win votes, but in working with colleagues and opponents to secure cross-party consensus on the kind of important projects that will outlast any individual’s political career.
Big engineering projects must not become a political football, but in an election year - the equivalent of a relegation dog-fight - that may be too much to ask for.
To have your say on whether or not “engineers” should become a protected species, take part in our online poll.
Readers' comments (5)
Wendy Bourne | 12 Jan 2010 12:06 pm
I do agree that it might be time for some legal measures to protect the job title of engineer. However, if you are going to set the bar as high as Chartered Engineer, before you can call yourself an engineer, this will lose the support of thousands of us actual engineers. I hold a BEng (Hons), gained at a University well known for Engineering (Brunel), I have worked as a Design Engineeer for 11 years, and a Technical Support Engineer for 5. My job role and responsibilities qualify me for a membership to an institute, and could get Chartered status - if I had the time to spend on the paperwork and the money to maintain my membership. Up to now, this has not been a high priority for me to spend the amount of effort required - and I'm sure for many other engineers in similar positions, this holds true. I would be dismayed if such a legislation removed my right to the title of Engineer that I earned at university, and continue to earn each day of my working life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Finch | 12 Jan 2010 1:12 pm
This argument has been going on for years. I joined the Engineering Industry in 1960 & studied at Night School & got as far as HNC in Mech Eng. I should have carried on & got my Endorsements which was the only route into the I.Mech.E. Surely it is up to the Professional bodies to form a Pressure Group to get an Act of Parliament passed to change the status of the "Engineer". I am now semi retired so it is too late for me to change but I think about all the young people who are thinking of choosing Engineering as a career & it would benefit them greatly if the term "Engineer" carried more weight.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Cavill | 12 Jan 2010 8:54 pm
I am going to shout elitist.Do we have to rise to the dizzy heights of Chartered status to call ouselves an Engineer,I dont think so! Engineering is all about doing, turning ideas into real objects that people need and making it happen whatever the discipline. Yes there are many levels of this, from those that service and repair existing designs to those that create new ones. They are all relevant. We need to encourage young people at all levels if we are going to return to what once made this country great. We need to get away from an economy based on "funny money" and start making things again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ed | 18 Jan 2010 1:31 pm
The argument shouldn't be about what people call themselves but about how you make the general public (and the Government) aware the importance of the engineering profession to the future prosperity of the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 18 Jan 2010 1:36 pm
I could not agree more with the idea that "There is ultimately no better advert for the role of engineers in society than to see grand, life-changing projects taking shape, generating wealth and enhancing our world." as a way to both attract young people into the profession and raise the status of engineering and engineers. Unfortunately we are living in an age of small is beautiful, big (and hence grand) is bad, increasing the human footprint is not to be encouraged and sustainability is the only game in town.
Even grand proposals for dealing with climate change, whether they be large scale wind-farms or managing carbon or nuclear/fusion, are almost automatically derided by environmentalists, and implemented - if at all - in a half baked and indecisive way by managerial politicians. We as a profession need to decide whether to take a lead on the politicians and regain the confidence to propose and defend grand solutions to the problems of our age or whether we are to eternally be the bad guys, who are only known as the people 'got us into this mess' and are only allowed to be involved in sorting things out if we are prescribed by the mantra of sustainability which invariably means a future of low ambition.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment