3 Electricity
The Introduction of Part P of
the Building Regulations
29. There seems to be a widespread belief that
electricity is generally less dangerous than gas, in terms of
the risks arising from faulty installations. However, as the Electrical
Safety Council explained, "sub-standard electrical installation
work and incompetence can and do result in death, injury and loss
of property through electric shock and fire".[42]
Phil Buckle, from the Electrical Safety Council, told us that
when something goes wrong with electricity, "it is the silent
killer that causes fires and takes life".[43]
Part P was introduced into the Building Regulations in 2005, with
the aim of redefining "Building Work"—operations
controlled by Building Regulations—to include installation
work on certain types of fixed electrical installations in both
new and existing dwellings, and to ensure that more fixed electrical
installations in more dwellings comply more thoroughly with accepted
safety standards during their service lives.[44]
30. The aim of Part P was to reduce the risk
of death and injury caused by electricity, or fires started by
electrical faults. It also aimed to improve the level of competence
and responsibility of those undertaking electrical work—DIY
workers as well as professional electricians—and raising
the awareness of builders and householders of the need for appropriate
levels of care and safety. The Residential Landlords Association
explained how the changes brought about as a result of the introduction
of Part P in 2005 were intended to operate:
Riskier electrical work in the home must be inspected,
tested and approved by a building control body or more usually
be self-certified by a registered competent person. These jobs
include new circuits and new/replacement consumer units and extensions
to circuits in kitchens, bathrooms and outdoors. This is to protect
both current residents, and also those who may live there in the
future.[45]
31. Those who were critical of Part P focussed
on the adequacy of enforcement.[46]
The majority of written and oral evidence not only supported the
aims of Part P, but also attested to its effects.[47]
We were told by the electrical organisations that standards had
improved since the introduction of Part P. Steve Bratt, from the
Electrical Contractors Association, said that:
We monitor contractors and have an inspection every
year, and we keep statistics on that work. The number of contractors
has been increasing and the number of faults identified has been
decreasing, and the same principle applies to complaints. That
would suggest that standards are significantly increasing.[48]
Phil Buckle, from the Electrical Safety Council,
agreed, and he cited the recent statistics: "Fires […]
attributed to mains wiring—that is, after the distribution
system—have declined by 17.5% from 1,057 in 2004 to 872
in 2008. It has had a significant impact on safety".[49]
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART P
32. The DCLG consultation document issued in
January 2012 outlined possible changes to the Building Regulations
regime, and set out the options for amending Part P in 2013, to:
(a) leave Part P unchanged;
(b) revoke Part P; and
(c) amend Part P, to reduce the costs and burdens
it imposes on installers, building control bodies and consumers.[50]
The third option of amending Part P is the Government's
preferred option because, in the Government's view, "it would
significantly reduce the cost to business of Part P in a way that
continues to deliver the health and safety benefits sought".[51]
The proposed reduction in costs would be achieved by:
(a) making a greater proportion of electrical
installation jobs non-notifiable […]; and
(b) allowing DIYers and other unregistered installers
(firms not registered with a Part P Competent Person Self-Certification
Scheme) to employ a third party qualified electrician to inspect
and test their work as an alternative to using a building control
body.
The consultation document explained that:
We would implement option C [amend Part P] by publishing
a new edition of Approved Document P containing revised guidance,
and amending the Building Regulations 2010 as appropriate.
We could also amend the Building (Local Authority
Charges) Regulations 2010 to ensure that building control charges
would be lower where qualified third party electricians took over
responsibility for inspection and testing from the building control
body and were able to issue a BS 7671 inspection and testing form.
The lower charges would recognise the savings in building control
time, and reflect the fact that the amendments to the Charges
Regulations would require local authorities to take into account
third party certification in setting their charges.
These lower building control charges would apply
equally to qualified electricians capable of inspecting and testing
their own notifiable installation work (and of issuing a BS 7671
Electrical Installation Certificate) and who under the existing
arrangements choose, for whatever reason, not to join a registration
scheme.[52]
33. From the evidence we received,
we are satisfied that Part P has been successful in driving up
standards and in reducing the number of electrical faults. We
would therefore be reluctant to endorse any diminution of the
scope or operation of Part P, which might reverse that trend.
We require the Government to seek research and evidence to show
that safety would not be reduced.
34. In its consultation exercise,
the Government is suggesting that certain installation work currently
classified as 'notifiable'—because the work is carried out
in parts of dwellings considered in 2005 to be of higher risk
(in kitchens, bathrooms and gardens)—could be reclassified
as non-notifiable, which would remove some of the associated regulatory
burden. Again we do not endorse any diminution of Part P, taking
minor works in areas of higher risk such as kitchens, bathrooms
and gardens out of its reach. Any proposals to remove work from
notifiable status need to weigh the reduction in the regulatory
burden carefully evaluated against the impact on safety, to show
clearly that such a change would not result in more death and
injury.
Competent Person Schemes
35. For an organisation to run a Competent Person
Scheme (CPS), it has to meet stringent criteria. It must demonstrate
that it:
- has the administrative and
managerial capacity to run a scheme;
- sets a competence standard
for members that would achieve compliance with BS 7671 and other
relevant Parts of the Building Regulations;
- is capable of testing potential
members to that standard;
- has in place appropriate measures
to guard against non-compliance and mechanisms to have instances
of non-compliance put right; and
- is able to issue certificates
of compliance to customers and relay information on installations
to local authorities.[53]
COSTS OF BECOMING A COMPETENT PERSON
SCHEME
36. There are costs associated with self-certification.
It is necessary for potential scheme members to pay to join a
scheme (covering initial vetting of competence and administration
costs) and an annual fee (to cover ongoing vetting of competence
and administrative costs). There are also costs involved in the
certification process, both in giving householders a certificate
and in passing the information on a certificate to a local authority.
In the case of Part P all these costs and benefits were included,
as far as it was possible to identify them, in the costs and benefits
set out in the associated Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).[54]
As it turned out, the costs of maintaining registration appears
to have been a burden on small contractors carrying out relatively
low-cost jobs. Steve Lomax, a proprietor of a small electrical
business, wrote that the largest cost of complying with the Building
Regulations is maintaining approval with a Competent Person Scheme:
Maintaining approval with an authorised body […]
along with admin costs would come to typically £800-1,000
per annum, with the cost of around £4 per job in certification.
This is a flat rate and would represent around 10% of a small
job or 0.2% of a medium rewire. These would include some re-training
and re-qualification for the "Qualified supervisor"
each time the regulations are upgrades, typically once or twice
every 10 years.[55]
37. The DCLG memorandum described the process
of registering with a Competent Person Self-Certification Scheme,
such as NICEIC, NAPIT or ELECSA:
Some installers must first attend training courses
to gain extra qualifications in order to reach the required level
of competence and purchase electrical test equipment. There are
now around 39,000 installers registered with Part P Competent
Person Schemes who have had their competence assessed; samples
of their work checked regularly for compliance. At the time Part
P was introduced there were 13,000 registered installers.[56]
This process of registering, while ensuring that
installers are suitably qualified, also adds to the burden place
on installers.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
38. Some written evidence claimed that the three
approval authorities for Competent Person Schemes—NICEIC,
NAPIT and ELECSA—monopolise the Scheme. Steve Lomax was
concerned that:
The approval authorities are commercial companies
that derive income by a number of contractors they 'sign up' and
then sell certificate forms, tools and other merchandise to. They
stand to lose income by rejecting applications or revoking the
approval of unsafe installers. This is a conflict of interest.[57]
Richard Hall, from Red Kite Electrical, made the
point that the approved authorities stand to lose income by rejecting
unsuitable applications:
[An] inherent weakness of the inspection regime is
that those being inspected are those paying the bills. For the
several organisations (unlike the single one for gas) this creates
an invidious position. They inevitably compete with one another
for paying members. If these competing inspection organisations
set their standards too high trades people will simply switch
organisation.[58]
The trade union, Unite, had concerns about the effects
on standards across the sector:
The Schemes are commercially motivated, which [...]
sadly detracts from raising the bar to the best standards in the
field, instead the set up encourages the pursuit of more companies
to sign up to the schemes, to the detriment of bona fide highly
skilled contractors and operatives, who find the 'level playing
field' based on the highest standards in the domestic market eroded
by those who are less scrupulous and less committed to the very
best in quality, competence, customer services and workmanship
within the trade.[59]
39. Emma Clancy, Chief Executive Officer of NICEIC,
sought to allay these concerns. She described the stringent monitoring
of the Competent Persons Scheme:
[T]he scheme operation is monitored by UKAS, who
come and do their own inspections. They will look in detail at
our complaints logs and how we are operating our procedures and
practices to make sure we adhere to that. DCLG operates the scheme
rules and gives us criteria against which we operate. We as a
competent persons scheme go out on an annual basis and check two
jobs of a domestic installer. Those jobs are picked anonymously
from a list. Trained engineers employed by us look at that work
and say that it meets the standard and so on. They also do the
paperwork audits; they will make sure that the Competent Persons
Scheme member has all the appropriate insurances and so on, so
in that sense it is a thorough check.[60]
The Minister, Mr Stunell, told us that the Government
believes that standards are being met: "The schemes set themselves
standards internally. They do check, they are required to check
and there is an overlapping check carried out by the supervisory
body".[61]
40. We take some comfort from what the Minister
said but we are not reassured that internal checks will uncover
serious conflicts of interests. Concern
has been raised about the potential conflict of interest that
exists in the three approval authorities of the Competent Person
Scheme under Part P. These Scheme operators obtain their finance
from the very same companies whose work they judge and they are
in competition with each other. We consider that the Government
needs to put stronger controls in place over the Competent Person
Scheme, to show that the Scheme is serving the best interests
of the safety of the public. The current arrangements need greater
independent supervision to offset the pressures to compromise
safety standards and actively to seek out conflicts of interest
and distortions of the market.
BENEFITS FOR INSTALLERS TO BE A
MEMBER OF A COMPETENT PERSON SCHEME
41. We recognise that there are benefits from
self-certification. Installers save on the time and effort needed
to submit a building regulation application, and in not paying
building control fees, to a building control body. This also frees
local authority building control resources to concentrate on areas
of greater risk to health and safety and reduce the need for them
to employ staff skilled in electricals. Another expected benefit
is that operation of a competent persons scheme will increase
the quality of workmanship and reduce the number of installations
by unscrupulous traders, because such traders ought not be able
to satisfy scheme operators of their competence. Competent Persons
Schemes also provide mechanisms for redress without the need for
formal legal process, if the electrical work done in their home
does not meet safety standards. The DCLG Document, "Building
work, replacements and repairs to your home" highlights this
benefit:
An installer registered with a Competent Person Scheme
is qualified to carry out specific types of work in accordance
with Building Regulations and will deal with Building Control
issues for you. You will usually have access to insurance backed
warranties and a robust complaints procedure to use in the unlikely
event work is found to be non compliant.[62]
Mandatory electrical competence
scheme?
42. We asked ourselves whether we should go further,
in introducing a mandatory scheme; indeed, some of our evidence
called for a mandatory registration requirement to be imposed
upon electrical installation work as currently exists in the case
of gas installations in the Gas Safety Register. The Electrical
Safety Council (ESC) wrote of the benefits of registration and
the use of registered contractors:
The ESC believes that because Part P of the Building
Regulations is not effectively enforced, electricians who comply
are undercut by 'cowboys' and thus put the safety of householders
at risk. As a consequence, the ESC also believes that the lack
of enforcement means customers have a low awareness of the need
to employ Part P registered contractors and thus allows those
who are not registered [to] continue to abuse the system and homeowners.[63]
43. When we asked the Minister about imposing
a mandatory registration requirement on electrical installation
work, he replied that it was not "justified by the evidence
we have. […] In the climate of the current Government, it
would be a major regulatory step, which we would want to see real
justification for before we considered doing it".[64]
We agree with the Minister that the imposing of a mandatory electrical
competence scheme would be a considerable imposition on the electrical
installation industry. It would only be justified if the current
arrangements were failing.
44. There have been calls for
a mandatory requirement to use qualified electricians to install
any electrical installation—in effect, the Gas Safe model
applied to electrical work—with its mandatory use of registered
installers. On balance, we are not convinced that such a scheme
would be justified for electrical works at the present time. In
our view it is better to improve the current arrangements, as
we have suggested in our Report, and that a strengthened Part
P Building Regulation regime would be better than a fully mandatory
scheme at the present time. However, we recommend that the Government
reports back to us in two years, on the success of the Government's
changes, and in the report review the possibility of a mandatory
use of registered installers.
Building regulation approval
45. One of the options in the current DCLG consultation
paper on Part P is to allow people who wish to carry out DIY electrical
installations or electricians who do not wish to seek Competent
Persons Scheme membership themselves to carry out electrical work
and then employ a suitably qualified electrician to provide a
view (by way of a certificate), which satisfies the requirements
of Building Control, and which the Building Control body can then
rely on. Paul Everall, from the Local Authority Building Control,
thought such a move could be "a satisfactory solution in
those sorts of circumstances".[65]
46. The Minister told us that:
[t]he proposed reductions in the requirements to
get building regulation approval are going to be replaced by the
option of getting competent advisers to do that. We do not believe
that will do anything other than reduce the cost of the inspection;
it will not reduce the level of inspection.[66]
This proposals, however, requires all parties working
together, and we received evidence that showed that CPSs could
work more closely with the Local Authority Building Control, to
assist more closely with adherence to the Building Regulations.
Paul Everall told us that better, and earlier, integration between
the LABC and CPSs generally would help to control those not complying
with Part P:
We have made representations to DCLG over the years
for improvements. One of the biggest problems we have with Competent
Persons Schemes is that we have to be notified only up to 30 days
after the work has been completed. We believe that, from the point
of view of compliance, it would be so much better if we had to
be notified in advanced, as is the case with anybody wanting to
have a house extension or work done on their property. That would
give us a better opportunity to check whether the person is indeed
on the competent persons register, whether they should have submitted
a building notice, or whether they are doing unauthorised work
and therefore we can take appropriate action. In relation to the
current DCLG consultation paper, there will be an opportunity
to put forward to them our thoughts about how Part P could be
improved.[67]
We see scope in allowing a member of a Competent
Person Scheme being able to take over responsibility for inspection
and testing of DIY and non-registered electricians' work from
the Building Control Body, as is recommended by the Government's
consultation document. Competent
Person Schemes should work more closely with the Local Authority
Building Control, to assist more closely with adherence to the
Building Regulations. We see force in a requirement for work to
be notified to the relevant Building Control before that
work is carried out, and we recommend that the Government studies
such representations in the consultation exercise seriously. We
also see scope in allowing a member of a Competent Person Scheme
being able to take over responsibility for inspection and testing
of DIY and non-registered electricians' work from the Building
Control Body.
Liability
47. We raised the responsibility for ensuring
compliance with Building Regulations for electrical works. As
with liability for gas installations and repairs, the Minister,
Mr Stunell, pointed out again that the householder had legal responsibility
when it came to electrical installations and repairs:
It seems right, in the UK context, to have the liability
resting with the building owner, the commissioner of the works,
rather than delegating that to, in effect, a subcontractor to
that person. […T]here is a general duty for the tradesperson
to proceed in a workmanlike way and to comply with the broader
regulations. An installer who failed to do that could be prosecuted
under building regulations for putting in an installation that
does not comply with those regulations. If we take away the general
duty that there is to the person who commissions the work, then
I think the system would be that much weaker.[68]
48. However, it is self-evident to us that the
vast majority of people who have electrical work carried out in
their houses have neither heard of the Competent Persons Scheme
nor have any idea what Part P of the Building Regulations states.
Although the householder is legally responsible for non-compliance
of the regulations, as Steve Lomax, pointed out:
There is no public advertising that the regulations
exist. It is the householder who is ultimately liable for non-conformity
of the regulations, not the installer, yet the majority of householders
are unaware of this liability.[69]
The Electrical Safety Council (ESC) wrote that because
Part P is not effectively enforced, electricians who comply are
undercut by 'cowboys' and effectively put the safety of householders
at risk. Steve Lomax wrote that the conviction rate of unsafe
installers is "grossly disproportionate to the number of
offences committed" and gave the following example:
The conviction rate is certainly disproportionate
to the number of circuit breakers sold by DIY stores, each of
which should carry a warning that it is breaking the law for an
unregistered person to fit this item.[70]
We agree with the thrust of what Mr Lomax says and
consider that sales of certain electrical equipment such as sockets
in DIY stores should carry a health warning that it is illegal
for an unregistered person to carry out most electrical works
in the home without checks being completed by the Building Control
service or, if our previous recommendation is accepted, by a member
of the Competent Person Scheme. This could significantly reduce
the number of unsafe electrical installations, as well as making
the general public aware of the need to use a registered electrician
when fitting such equipment.
49. We recommend that sockets
and other electrical equipment sold by DIY stores should carry
a health warning that it is illegal for an unregistered person
to carry out most electrical works in the home without checks
being completed by the Building Control service or, if our earlier
recommendation is accepted, by a member of a Competent Person
Scheme, acting instead of the Building Control service. This will
encourage the general public to use registered electricians, and
reinforce the general health and safety message that electrical
work can potentially be extremely hazardous.
50. Peter Brown, from the HSE, said that the
Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 635) require anybody
carrying out electrical work to be competent:
In theory, the duty is there on a contractor, and
installer, coming in to do the work safely. They could be open
to prosecution if the work was not done safely.[71]
But this "theoretical" requirement does
not take away the legal responsibility of the homeowner to have
work done that complies with the current law. This applies to
electrical work in the same way as we have previously noted applies
to gas installation. Householders,
not installers, are legally responsible for any electrical work
in their homes, yet—as with gas installation work—the
majority of householders are unaware of the regulations and of
this legal responsibility, and, instead, rely on those carrying
out the work to advise them adequately. Many observed that, in
order to protect them better from those who would mislead them
(and who are also most likely to fail technically), more needs
to be done to raise awareness levels within the public of their
obligations and where independent advice can be gained.
Publicity
51. The lack of public knowledge about the Competent
Person Scheme and householder responsibilities highlighted, as
with gas installation, the need for better public information.
Much of our evidence highlighted the fact that the general public,
and homeowners in particular, were unaware of Part P of the Building
Regulations, even though they have been in existence since 2005.
As we have noted Steve Lomax has pointed out that "there
is no public advertising that the regulations exist".[72]
52. Furthermore, the Residential Landlords Association
made the point that such a low awareness of Part P among homeowners
allowed those that were not registered to abuse the system.[73]
The NICEIC sent out a survey on Part P to its registered contractors,
and 96% said that they wanted DCLG to recognise the need for increased
public awareness.[74]
The NICEIC recommended that a levy should be put onto Part P Competent
Person Scheme operators to publicise the regulations to householders,
which would help to ensure "that small businesses registered
with the Scheme have the right level of marketing support to win
business from homeowners".[75]
53. Supplementary evidence from DCLG described
the Government's efforts in supporting Competent Person Scheme
operators, to promote and publicise the requirements of the Building
Regulations:
We intend for scheme operators to be required under
new conditions of authorisation to invest more in marketing their
Part P schemes to the industry and wider public. We will not be
prescribing the effect such marketing must achieve, but the arrangements
put in place by the scheme operators will be subject to UKAS monitoring
under the new accreditation plans to ensure that marketing has
taken place.[76]
The Electrical Safety Council supported this proposal
by DCLG.[77]
54. As well as the need for publicity directed
as those carrying out works, there is also a need for the public
to be aware of the need for regular checks on electrical circuits
in older housing stock. Phil Buckle, from the Electrical Safety
Council, explained that:
The new housing stock is wired up to the current
standard and you can have some confidence that it complies and
is safe. The older housing stock needs regular checks. Many houses
in England and Wales do not enjoy the benefit of a regular check
because people are not aware that is necessary. The whole debate
is about having Part P to create or maintain a framework of electrical
safety for new and upgraded work, but also to campaign to make
sure people are aware that they need to check regularly the maintenance
of their electrical installation.[78]
He believed that raising public awareness "is
a collective effort. We all have a responsibility, but it is about
making sure the messages are consistent. […] However messages
are developed, they need to be delivered consistently".[79]
55. There is a need for greater
public awareness about the dangers of sub-standard electrical
repairs and installations, in order to increase the public's understanding
both of the dangers of using unqualified electricians and of the
need to have regular maintenance checks on the electrical circuits
in their homes. The Government should join with the other main
players—especially the scheme operators—to ensure
that the public are better informed of their responsibilities.
We support the Government's efforts to support Competent Person
Scheme operators to promote and publicise Building Regulations.
We reiterate our recommendation that in responding to this Report
the Government sets out a programme of measures to raise awareness
and that in two years it provides us with a memorandum estimating
the effectiveness of the measures.
42 Ev 46, para 1 Back
43
Q12 Back
44
See Annex 2 for a flow chart, issued by DCLG, which highlights
the procedure that needs to be followed when starting electrical
work in the home. Back
45
Ev 36, para 8.4 Back
46
We received a few written submissions that were against Part P,
for a variety of reasons. Examples of these submissions include:
Ev w2 [Mark Wilkinson], Ev w2 [Steve Lomax]; Ev w4 [Unite]; Ev
w15 [Fred Williams]; Ev w16 [Philip Jamieson]; Ev w20 [Andy White];
Ev w20 [McCarthy and Stone]; Ev w29[Electrotechnical National
Forum]; Ev w32 [Richard Hall]. Back
47
Examples of these submissions include: Ev 26[NICEIC and ECA];
Ev 34 [Residential Landlords Association]; Ev 53 [DCLG]; Ev 25[GMLABC];
Ev 45 [Electrical Safety Council]; Ev 25 [LABC]. Back
48
Q 3 Back
49
As above Back
50
DCLG, 2012 consultation on changes to the Building Regulations
in England: Section three - Part P (Electrical safety - dwellings),
31 January 2012, para 25 Back
51
DCLG, 2012 consultation on changes to the Building Regulations
in England: Section three - Part P (Electrical safety - dwellings),
31 January 2012, para 27 Back
52
DCLG, 2012 consultation on changes to the Building Regulations
in England: Section three - Part P (Electrical safety - dwellings),
31 January 2012, para 28 Back
53
www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/buildingregulations/competentpersonsschemes/howapply Back
54
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/regulatoryimpactassessment
Back
55
Ev w2 Back
56
Ev 54, para 8 Back
57
Ev w4 Back
58
Ev w33 Back
59
Ev w5, para 8 Back
60
Q 16 Back
61
Q 108 Back
62
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/buildingworkleaflet,
p 2 Back
63
Ev 48, para 25 Back
64
Qq 112-13 Back
65
Q 10 Back
66
Q 82 Back
67
Q 11 Back
68
Qq 95-96 Back
69
Ev w3 Back
70
Ev w3; from this, the assumption is drawn that the number of circuit
breakers sold is an indicator of the number of house rewiring
being carried out. Back
71
Q 101 Back
72
Ev w3 Back
73
Ev 36, para 8.5 Back
74
Ev 29, para 2.14 Back
75
Ev 29, para 2.11 Back
76
Ev 55 Back
77
Ev 48, para 27 Back
78
Q 6 Back
79
Q 45 Back
| 
