Our grumpy old man endorses high standards in our industry with a clarion call, but he hates paperwork that goes with it – like the Government’s new Part P consultation document for instance
Seven years after the enactment of Part P of the Building Regulations, the electrical industry (among others) is being asked to comment on it! But in fairness this isn’t a simple case of bolting the stable door after the nag has fled into the sunset. Rather it is a consultation process aimed at removing some of the costs of Part P compliance.
I remember the confusion when Part P was introduced and I fear that the new consultation will resurrect such consternation. As only government can, the guide to the Part P Consultation, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, extends to 40 pages! Trust me, halfway through, one has to go back and start again to make any sense of what is actually a simple question: do we keep Part P; do we scrap it; or do we alter it a bit to reduce the burden of certificating compliance?
Simple though the question is, the answer may be trickier to derive. Anyone with any concern at all about Part P, by the very nature of the standard, is likely to have a vested interest. They are likely to be electricians/electrical engineers, builders that handle electrical installations, heating engineers or building automation engineers. DIY Johnnies may appreciate an easier route to certification, but I doubt many, if any, of that group is even aware of the new consultation process.
One of the fundamental questions one should seek to answer as objectively as possible is whether Part P has worked. Remember its original premise was to make homes, offices and buildings safer. I recall back in 2004 that there were reckoned to be something over 40 deaths a year by electrocution and if memory serves, there were about 3000 serious injuries from electrical installations. I also have a note Part P was meant to reduce deaths by eight (18.6%) and injuries by about 550 (just under 19%). Has it? I don’t know and what’s more, I’m not sure how you reconcile such claims against a rising and falling number of projects and installations.
What I do know is that in an industry that, let’s be fair, at least on a domestic installation level is open to abuse, some form of measurable regulation should be a good thing. According to guide to the new consultation, before the introduction of Part P, some 13,000 electrical firms belonged to trade schemes that assessed and monitored their competence. Soon after it, about 39,000 installers were registered with Part P Competent Person Schemes who have their competences assessed and samples of their work checked regularly.
The guide also claims many DIYers, builders and contractors (such as heating and plumbing firms) that used to do some electrical work themselves now employ more competent, registered electricians instead, with the result that in total around 1.25 million jobs are now self-certified by registered installers annually. I don’t know where these figures come from and the Communities and Local Government chaps don’t tell us.
I mentioned in passing that this consultation if it goes the way it appears to be leading – towards a simplification of the certification process – then confusion must surely ensue. For example, one of the slackening moves suggested lies in the definition of what constitutes notifiable work. Will a garden lamp fitted onto a separate spur be notifiable in the future? If I have returned from B&Q and fixed up my bright new light outside, do I call Building Control? One can imagine the scope for error.
I am a stickler for doing things correctly and by the book. I abhor rogue and incompetent tradesmen. Anything that ensures the first and alleviates the second gets my vote. I remain to be convinced however, about this new consultation – which started on 31 January and closes on 27 April – but would welcome readers’ views in the meantime.
