DCLG domestic electrical industry review

[scousespark]

This link makes interesting reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26453688

It is a report on the state of the deomestic electrical industry. There is a link to the committee report.

 

[JohnW2]

This link makes interesting reading.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26453688 It is a report on the state of the deomestic electrical industry. There is a link to the committee report.

Good to see you! Thanks. As you say, the committee report makes very interesting reading - I would say that an awful lot of it could have been lifted, at least in concept, from discussions in this forum!

As is often discussed here, the industry either needs to be 'properly regulated' or not, and it is hard not to conclude that the present situation is closer to the latter than the former.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Hi John.

There are a few issues in this article and report.

I can't believe the committee are still referring to MPs daughter, who sadly diied, as justification for Part P. This happened in October 2004 and became the cause celebre.

The committe accept that part p has made the DI enevironment safer. There are no stats showing the number of deaths/injuries now, so we have no idea if this is true.

There is a quote in the report from an electrician who claims most of his work is remedying faults. I would treat this with suspicion. There are dodgy installtions, but my experience is that this is the exception.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John. There are a few issues in this article and report.

Indeed there are.

I can't believe the committee are still referring to MPs daughter, who sadly diied, as justification for Part P. This happened in October 2004 and became the cause celebre.

Quite so - although, as BAS often pointed out, there is clearly some mythology afoot here, since Part P was apparently drafted before that one tragic incident occurred. Whatever, it would be totally ridiculous for theoretically wide-ranging legislation, with considerable ramifications and cost implications, to arise out of one single (and very 'freaky') incident, no matter how tragic.

The committe accept that part p has made the DI enevironment safer. There are no stats showing the number of deaths/injuries now, so we have no idea if this is true.

Exactly - and, as you know, that is a point I'm repeatedly making. After nearly a decade of Part P being in place, if it really had resulted in a significant (or even 'measurable') reduction in injuries/deaths, then that really ought to be apparent, and supported by statistics by now - but, as you say, such statistics/evidence just don't seem to exist. Statistics on injuries are always going to be very difficult to get, but the (tiny) number of deaths certified as being due to domestic electrocutions certainly have not changed significantly in the last 9 years.

I may, of course, be wrong but, despite all that gets said about DIY electrical work and the poor training and (lack of proper) regulation of electricians and electrical work, I strongly suspect that the impact of Part P on injuries and deaths (and even damage to property) has probably been almost non-existent, despite what committees might like to think - which would explain the absence of any statistics relating to the beneficial effects of Part P! Apart from anything else, even if 'poor work' were responsible for an appreciable proportion of electrically-related incidents (and I actually rather doubt that), it's undoubtedly the worst of the DIYers and electricians who will have been totally ignoring Part P!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I find all this to be just 'what they do' bearing in mind that last year 'they' removed ALL kitchen fitters from having to have any training or be registered and limited notification to the present requirements (except Wales, of course).

 

[JohnW2]

I find all this to be just 'what they do' bearing in mind that last year 'they' removed ALL kitchen fitters from having to have any training or be registered and limited notification to the present requirements (except Wales, of course).

Well,yes, but the committee who wrote this report are seemingly critical of the 2013 'relaxations' of notification requirements in England and, by implication, would like those relaxations (and perhaps other things) to be reversed (or more!).

The fact remains that, AFAICS, the entire exercise (Part P, notification etc.) is totally lacking in any evidence base!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I watched the interview with both electrical contractors and scheme providers and it did seem the scheme was more of a scam than scheme with no limits as to how many workers a supervisor could oversee. However in real terms when re-furbishing 200 council houses all on the same estate one man could easy watch the work of 100 men but where work is spread over a 25 mile radius he could have problems looking after 10 men.

I realise we need to have apprentices and electricians mates so there will always be a case for some unskilled labour but what is more to the point is skilled labour from outside the domestic sector where there is a shortage of labour due to things like the resent floods.

For one man to guide 50 industrial electricians is very different to same man guiding 50 electricians mates. There would need to be more than simple numbers limit for it to work.

I am sure with a work force of 50 electricians all holding their 2391 the supervisor would have little problem in running job. However with a work force of 50 people holding just a 2382 the situation would be very different. OK they can read but that's all holding a 2382 means.

However our educational system classes a 2391 and a 2382 the same both being level 3 qualifications and this means we have so called electricians with widely varying skills.

Also I have had very clever guys with degrees in electrical engineering design and install equipment not even complying with BS7671 they were never taught regulations in University.

I worked with a very clever electrician in Heathrow who was unaware that 0 - 110 was very different from 55 - 0 - 55 volt and that the imported US generators could not be used on a UK building site.

I feel the questions for the C&G 2382 should ask more realistic questions like can you use a metal consumer unit with a TT supply rather than questions like difference between skilled and competent.

In other words test if some one understands the regulations not if they can read. However with any new test we all know what will happen. There will be grand father rights and there will still be electricians with a card allowing them to work who have not a clue what they are doing wrong.

Any qualification would need to be like a car driving licence where 12 strikes and your out. The question was asked how many electricians had been thrown off the schemes and were their names passed to other scheme operators to ensure they never got their card back without re-training.

I think from memory less than 100 electricians have been thrown off the scheme and there is no black list. My father-in-law was electrical project director for a hospital board but today at 88 I would not trust him to wire a plug. There must be electricians with dementia who would need their authority removing so one should be looking at a figure far higher than 100 for electricians who have been thrown off the scheme since it started even if no electrician was ever accepted who was below par.