Titles, Roles and Responsibilities

A look at the status of persons and the allocation of formal titles

Current political rhetoric promotes economic aspirations reflective of a revival of the British manufacturing and technology sectors. I also note a related focus, both in general dialogue and in Standards, on the status of persons and the allocation of formal titles. Whilst I find some aspects of the associated debate tedious, I know people who consider this to be a serious matter.

These discussions almost inevitably resurrect the controversy surrounding the use of the term “engineer” and the argument as to who may refer to themselves as an “engineer.” There are those who argue that the title should be reserved for those who have achieved professional status, in effect, Chartered Engineers, albeit that in the U.K. these arguments have fallen upon stony ground.

The debate, though, is of interest, as it is generally perceived, and I think accepted, that the U.K. engineering profession does not attract the same prestige and status as that accorded to its equivalents in Continental Europe, the U.S. and Canada and in other jurisdictions and to other professions. And, debate tends to revert, often unproductively, to a discussion of the use of the term “engineer.” 

The term “Chartered Engineer” is, of course, protected with use of the title restricted to registered Chartered Engineers, who are the only people entitled to use this. In this respect, it is argued that the profession is in fact protected. I suspect, therefore, that the underlying argument relates to the social status and recognition, or lack of it, accorded to the profession rather than levels of qualification. And, that the implication is that the common and colloquial use of the term “engineer” serves to undermine the status of the profession.

A further criticism relates to the performance of the engineering institutions who, some say, contributed to the perceived low status of the profession by way of territorialism and a failure over many years to adopt a common position in support of the profession.

Attempts to elevate the profession include the 1979 Finniston Report in which Sir Monty Finniston attempted to restructure the institutions and introduce a more broad-based education system. Finniston described the failure to implement his recommendations as follows: “What I wanted was an engine for change – Instead, we have got a shunter moving along disjointed lines.” Given that the problem persists today, one cannot but sympathise with Finniston’s view.

Other critics reflect upon the intrinsically close relationship between German engineers and their government and how the U.K. is lamentably lacking in this respect, and which is cited as an exemplar of the problem and low status of the profession in the U.K.

An interesting, and oft repeated, take on the issue is that of a 1981 allegation published in New Scientist magazine; that Lord Weinstock and GEC had attempted to improperly influence the government and the IEE against improving the status of engineers, and against the adoption of the Finniston Report, the implication being that higher status would mean increased pay.

GEC and Lord Weinstock, widely considered at the time to be the most significant U.K. employer of engineers, sued the publisher in libel with a jury awarding GEC (turnover £600M) £500 and Lord Weinstock £40,000 in damages. At the time, the allegations were perceived to carry some weight in that Weinstock was regarded as a notoriously hard-nosed businessman who adopted a frugal approach to the operation and management of GEC. Whilst the Judge advised the jury that Lord Weinstock, like any other member of the public, was entitled to express an opinion about Finniston’s recommendations, the defence counsel advised that when people had the power to approach the government, not through the ballot box but by direct letters, there might be a responsibility on them to consider things not on the basis of pure company interest – such as GEC – but in the national interest (Weinstock was known to have communicated directly with government ministers, including then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in relation to U.K. defence procurement contracts).

Finniston was followed by Sir John Fairclough, who also attempted to consolidate the institutions, this time from within, as he attributed Finniston’s failure to his having been perceived as an outsider, and that he intended to reform from the inside. However, the only tangible result was the creation of the Engineering Council.

Looking at other professions, one might consider the use of the title “architect.” This is protected in the U.K. under the Architects Act 1997, albeit that the competency provisions of the Act are currently being strengthened under the Building Safety Bill in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

A 2016 poll of the profession by The Engineer magazine found that 31% of respondents believed the term “engineer” should be limited to those chartered; 28% believed that industry associations should licence practising engineers; 26% believed engineering to be too broad for such protections to be effective; and the remaining 15% were unable to concur with any of the options presented to them. Responses to the poll generated robust debate ranging from the view that only those chartered should use the “engineer” title to those who were simply indifferent or didn’t care at all.

The most recent intervention is that of Lord Sainsbury, who cautiously welcomes the current government’s aspiration for a “High-productivity, high-wage Britain,” and laments previous policies which he sees as “holding down wages so that poor-quality goods and services could be sold cheaply in world markets.” Whilst Sainsbury welcomes the government rhetoric, he recognises that the achievement of the aims will require both government and industry to raise their game, part of which will involve the recruitment of highly skilled engineers and scientists together with investment in their development.

Sainsbury advocates the importance of an industrial strategy and the expansion of the manufacturing sector and of government R&D budgets whilst reflecting upon our previous socio-economic mistake of replacing traditional manufacturing industries and well-paid employment with a low-wage service economy and low skilled, poorly paid employment.   

Historically, Britain produced some great engineers. I look at three former residents of my home city, Birmingham, in Sir Alec Issigonis, Dr. Alex Moulton and Sir George Turnbull, all of whom were associated with the much-maligned BMC/British Leyland (BL) car firm. Issigonis is renowned for the design of the Mini, undoubtedly the most successful British car design, and in a 1999 poll voted the second most influential car design of the 20th Century. Moulton produced the hydrolastic suspension system now applied worldwide in automotive design. Moulton is also famous as the inventor of the modern bicycle in the Moulton Bicycle together with a number of other innovations, and is considered one of Britain’s most prolific and influential designers/engineers. The perhaps less well-known Turnbull, who was proclaimed as a future leader of BL (but subsequently overlooked in favour of an accountant), was a master production engineer who subsequently resigned from BL and went to Korea to set up Hyundai’s automotive production operation and, thereafter, Iran’s National Motor Co. before returning to the U.K. as chairman of Talbot UK, and thereafter moving to the city where he managed major investment banks (proof that engineers can do finance). In 1977, Michael Edwardes was appointed by the government to sort out BL and did a good job until he resigned in 1982 in frustration at the Thatcher government’s refusal to provide long-term strategic support for BL and the U.K. motor industry (in effect the Industrial Policy called for today). I ask myself how can British industry have rejected such gifted engineers and managers?

Reverting back to our own industry, and one of my hobbyhorses, I note that BS7255 2012 continues to use the term “Authorised Person” (used initially in the 1989 publication seemingly drawing upon the term “authorized user” from BS5655-1 1979, and then in the subsequent 2001 revision, albeit with differing provisions). In the 2021 version, we also see “persons authorized,” “authorized and trained person(s)” and “authorized and competent person(s)” on top of which we have “authorized instructions” and “unauthorized reconnection” (of electrical energy) together with “appropriately authorized and legibly recorded on the circuit diagrams” in relation to modifications.

The creation of these persons and entities is undermined somewhat by the inclusion of a statement which indicates that almost anyone may be an “authorised person”:

“Clear written instructions relating to site emergency and first aid procedures should be issued, by those responsible for the site, namely the owner or principal contractor, to employees, visitors, contractors and other authorized persons.”

In BS EN 81-20, “authorized person” has been formally defined with an “authorized person” considered to be a “user” (0.2.2.1,a), and in the formal definition as a “person with the permission of the natural or legal person who has the responsibility for the operation and use of the lift, to access restricted areas (machinery spaces, pulley rooms and lift well) for maintenance, inspection or rescue operations.” It all sounds very much like gobbledegook!

We also have the “non-authorized person,” “non authorized person” (is the hyphenation or lack of it indicative of some difference?) and the “unauthorized person” together with a “responsible person” whose role is not defined.

To cap it all, the spelling of “authorised” (the accepted English-language expression) appears together with the U.S./Canadian expression “authorized” throughout all of the Standards mentioned. Pedantic perhaps, but surely a British Standard should be drafted in English?

One effect of BS EN 81-20 is that the term “authorized person” is defined in law, if only in the fact that compliance with BS EN 81-20 requirements is considered to meet the requirements of the Lifts Regulations 2016. Hopefully, this will never need to be tested in a court.

BS EN 81-20 also has a competent person who is “suitably trained, qualified by knowledge and practical experience, provided with necessary instructions to safely carry out the required operations for maintaining or inspecting the lift, or rescuing users” albeit that an “Authorized Person” must be a competent person in terms of the extent of their authorization. We also encounter the “Competent Maintenance Person.”

And, of course, none of these people should be confused with the Competent Person under LOLER 1998 more commonly referred to as the Insurance Inspector.

Criticism is directed at the continuing use of the term “Insurance Inspector” or, more controversially in our enlightened times, “Insurance Man.” However, the fact is that these terms are more widely recognised and understood than that of “Competent Person,” and, up until relatively recent times, “Insurance Man” reflected the reality that female inspectors and/or competent persons were rare. That has now changed, albeit that the lift and machinery sector has a way to go in terms of achieving a balanced workforce. It is, however, fair and accurate to say that the terms “Insurance” and “Man” are no longer accurate in that many competent persons are not involved in insurance and an increasing number are women.

The argument for licencing of engineers in a sector, applied in the aircraft industry, is an attractive one in that engineers and technicians (or whatever title is to be applied) may be licenced at their particular level, with a level of control exerted to assure competency, and I suggest that this is something that would benefit the lift sector. Indeed, the lack of any proper control of competency in the lift industry was questioned in a recent court case, and licencing would go some way to alleviating the concerns raised, as well as having a beneficial effect upon the status, training and general competence of those employed in our industry.

There are, though, signs of progress which I have observed directly for more than two years now since becoming an End Point Assessor on the different levels of the CIBSE Apprenticeship Scheme and under which I have observed the high standards achieved by the young people coming through the scheme, and who are the engineers of the future. It is heartening to see the Scheme is to be initiated in the lift industry through LEIA, and the sooner this is set up and running, the better. I do not envisage that there should be any significant practical obstacles in the introduction of a compulsory formal qualification for lift engineers (or lift mechanics, fitters, technicians, or whatever title is to be applied) in that all so-called “Lift Engineers” now working in the U.K. should have completed the J5 and J25/6 training, which I had to undertake more than 40 years ago, or the NVQs, which succeeded these, and those who had so-called grandfather rights have now retired. The time is ripe for the introduction of a recognised qualification (similar perhaps to that applying to electricians) in the lift industry and is a reform which would benefit all stakeholders.     

Whilst I suppose the arguments and debates relating to the Standards may serve a purpose in providing a focus for those with nothing better to do, I do, however, question the efficacy of many of these created roles in terms of their aiding wider understanding, and/or assisting in safe and effective management of equipment.

The arguments surrounding the use of the title “Engineer” can be equally tedious. However, the question of the status of the “Engineer” and engineering profession in U.K. society is as important now as it was 40-50 years ago, and which, strikingly, remains unresolved. If we have reached one of those disruptive points in time during which socio-economic change comes about, we as a profession must utilise the impetus for professionalisation of industry which will flow from the Grenfell Inquiry, and which is inherent to the Degree Apprenticeship Schemes and, in the aftermath of the disruptive effects of COVID-19 and Brexit, seek to shake the government and the profession into action. In light of the longevity of the debate, I do, though, have my doubts.