Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by NAPIT Registration Ltd

Summary

NAPIT considers that the provisions of the Building Regulations are technically adequate for safeguarding health and safety in domestic dwellings because they require compliance with a robust technical standard (BS7671).

However, NAPIT feel that the approach to registration, enforcement and a lack of publicity for the use of registered companies all undermine the application of the Regulations.

This paper makes suggestions for improving each of these aspects and notes that in the electrical sector 85% of registered companies want to keep and improve the current regulations.

NAPIT notes that the DCLG impact analysis for the imminent consultation on Part P of the Building Regulations will identify a net cost associated with revoking the regulations and will suggest revising measures to reduce the cost burden to the industry.

NAPIT believe that there is a case for a license to practice in the electrical industry which would improve electrical safety and go beyond the limitations of Building Regulations.

NAPIT consider that the monopoly operation of Gas Safe Register should be replaced by a single register delivered by a number of scheme operators in a model not dissimilar to that intended for Green Deal.

Background to NAPIT

NAPIT Registration is one of the organisations authorised by DCLG to operate a Competent Person Scheme allowing self-certification under the Building Regulations. NAPIT’s scope covers electrical installation and heating (relevant to the inquiry) as well as plumbing, ventilation and renewable energy. Gas safety is excluded from our scope of activities as it is mandated via the Gas Safe Register. NAPIT is the second largest registration body for electrical contractors (with over 20% of full-scope electrical contractors and over 30% of defined scope organisations).1 NAPIT’s UKAS accredited certification scheme covers competencies outside the confines of the Building Regulations and includes the activity of inspecting and testing existing electrical installations which is central to ongoing maintenance. This submission will focus primarily on electrical work, with a short comment on the situation for gas.

Current Registration Issues

The Committee will be aware that a consultation is imminent on the future of Part P (electrical installation) of the Building Regulations, preparing for changes in 2013. At the time of this submission the consultation has not yet been published. In preparing for this NAPIT ran a survey of its members to which 1,037 companies responded (14% of members at that time). This was combined with parallel surveys carried out by NICEIC and Elecsa to bring the total to 3763 contractors (10% of all approved installers) and the results supplied to the BRAC Working Party.2

The views of NAPIT approved companies were published3 in 2011 and without repeating this in detail, the main weaknesses from their perspective can be summarised as:

the semi-voluntary nature of registration;

the lack of publicity and promotion of competent installers; and

the weakness of the enforcement regime.

Taken together, these are the issues that may result in property owners choosing unregistered, often incompetent companies in order to save money and often breaking regulatory requirements but without any real risk of being penalised for it.

The survey highlighted many benefits of the self-certification approach and members of all the schemes felt that if these issues were addressed they would wish to see such registration continue.

Is there a case for mandatory registration? NAPIT members would say yes. In the survey, 85% of members asked for changes, not revocation (a figure also consistent with the view from Elecsa and NICEIC members). DCLG’s impact analysis for this year’s review will indicate that electrical safety did improve following the introduction of Part P in 2005.4 It is also the case that as a result of the increase in the number of registered companies from 15,000 prior to Part P to a current level of 40,000,5 the number of people undergoing training and holding qualifications has increased significantly which can only benefit the knowledge-base and professionalism within the industry.

The Part P consultation impact analysis also assesses quite carefully the costs of complying with the regulations and NAPIT provided information and evidence for its preparation, as such no further evidence is submitted with this paper.

Qualifications and Competence

It is NAPIT’s view that the single most important element of electrical safety is the competence of the individual who inspects, tests and certifies all new work, or who inspects, tests and reports on an existing installation in order to confirm its ongoing safety (this second activity is not regulated via the Building Regulations). It was this critical “work quality” role that inspired the formation of the National Association of Professional Inspectors and Testers in 1992 and the importance of this role has not diminished since that time. NAPIT have stated many times that the industry model of focussing on a Qualified Supervisor runs too great a risk of work being completed by installers who are neither properly trained nor genuinely monitored, while busy and pressured Qualified Supervisors perform a role that at its worst is merely the rubber stamping of work that may be inadequate and even dangerous. A recent Coroners Report6 highlighted this issue referring to the “highly unsatisfactory and indeed dangerous practice”, and asking that industry ensure that “the testing inspector is personally liable for the authenticity of the entries he makes on the certificate in question and that the practice of relaying on another is to be deplored”.

NAPIT have never subscribed to this model and we require the person who takes genuine responsibility for the inspection, testing and certification to be qualified and to be the competent person. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every individual within a company must be assessed every year, but that the same amount of inspection effort can be refocused to look beyond this single QS individual and see how competent work is delivered by other individuals.

This approach of considering the competence of individuals is closer to that used by the Gas Safe Register under the responsibility of BIS/HSE, but is also used in some Competent Person Schemes such as those for oil and solid fuel heating.

Electrical registration is based on an assessment carried out against a specification published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET).7 Since the introduction of Part P self-certification in 2005 the level of qualifications required have been reduced, removing the requirements covering testing and inspection and allowing knowledge of the Wiring Regulations8 and a short site assessment to be sufficient for registration. NAPIT have set requirements that exceed this minimum specification and the revisions to the specification due in 2013 address the competence requirements by matching some of NAPIT’s entry criteria for the first time. However, the specification is still based on the competence of a supervisor rather than the individual actually carrying out the inspection, testing and certification.

Enforcement

The most commonly expressed frustration with the current Regulations is the fact that NAPIT approved companies are aware of many unregistered competitors who are carrying out work that is in breach of the Building Regulations, but who are not taken to task for such breaches. Typical breaches would include failure to notify, as well as work not conforming to BS7671.

Part of the problem lies in the limited resources and technical capability of Building Control officials. Another part of the problem is that when using an unregistered company, a householder will often not be aware that this is the case and will not be aware that they are responsible for notifying Building Control before the work takes place. They will almost certainly presume that the installer is responsible for complying with the Regulations. This results in a situation where it is a householder rather than an unregistered company that could be penalised for a breach of the Building Regulations. As this is often perceived as unfair local authorities prefer to take action to correct the breach, and are unable to take direct action against the installer.

The introduction of The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010 was a first step in helping this situation as it allowed local authorities to bring in external expertise and capability, as well as being able to vary building control fees based on whether or not the installer was registered. The NAPIT Approved Inspector scheme was introduced to provide this expertise to local authorities and a lack of willingness to enforce the regulations is now the only barrier to all work being properly inspected either by a competent installer or by an Approved Inspector.

The Competent Persons Forum Enforcement Committee reported the willingness of LABC to support increased flexibility and all parties felt that one more tool was essential to push forward the enforcement agenda. This is the introduction of fixed penalty enforcement notices, or an “Administrative Offence” as it is officially known.

We understand that these can be imposed in situations where the evidence is clear, such as a failure to notify the local authority, or a failure to issue a building regulations compliance certificate within 30 days. The ease of applying such penalties and the fact that the income can be retained by the local authority would therefore encourage enforcement. The first step to achieving this was achieved in 2010 when primary legislation allowed the approach in principle. The 2012 consultations on Building Control provide an opportunity to take this a step further and apply it specifically to notification and self-certification under the Building Regulations.

Publicity

A scheme with solid, appropriate competence requirements and robust enforcement would be a superb way for the competent electrical firm to differentiate themselves against their competitors.

But even this will not work effectively unless customers know what the requirements are, and how to find an approved company.

So far publicity has been very limited and disjointed. Members of the public understand planning but not Building Control and while approved companies will and do provide help and advice, their unregistered competitors have an incentive not to. Schemes and the government have a part to play, both alone and together.

The DCLG have produced guidance9 which NAPIT has sent out to both members of the public and our members and most of the schemes have worked together to take forward the Competent Persons Forum website10 so that it lists the members of all schemes and starts to provide impartial information about Building Regulations to consumers.

Many local authorities are starting to promote the use of competent persons because the charging flexibility allows them to encourage their use in order to save the local authority cost and effort. NAPIT have been focussed on local authority recognition and collaborative promotion of scheme members, but have recognised the growing need for direct promotion to consumers and will be increasing these activities in 2012.

A Case for Licensing

In 2006 the Leitch Report11 on UK skills concluded that systems such as a license to practise were a valuable tool which should not be imposed by government but could be introduced “where a clear majority in that sector support it”.

While the industry-wide consultation showed that industry wanted registration (85% in favour), NAPIT’s members went further and 78% supported a suggestion for individual licensing.

While this would require new legislation and could not be introduced by just amending Part P, even a government highly focussed on deregulation should not ignore the potential for such an approach to deliver better, safer work. If it further removed the need for local authority inspection of electrical work it could in fact been seen as a deregulatory step.

There are several models for licensing and further work would be needed, but the most effective models seem to combine qualifications (or certificates of competence) for individuals with a risk based approach to company inspections. This model is used for example in Australia.12 In the UK, the closest example would be the Gas Safe Register, which seems to demand more of individuals but ultimately delivers this at a cost and time commitment no greater than that imposed by Competent Person Schemes and could be expanded to cover the non-domestic electrical sector as well.

A licensing scheme would remove confusion from consumers as it would cover all work. If it was decoupled from Building Regulations it would be concerned with all elements of electrical safety including maintenance and hence registration would align with the Wiring Regulations.

NAPIT do not consider that this should introduce another monopoly scheme such as Gas Safe Register and its predecessor CORGI. NAPIT suggest that it should lead to a single register and 91% of Competent Person Scheme members felt that registration should be covered by a single, government owned brand or mark, as first called for by NAPIT in 2010.13

But the route to that register is compliance and to minimise the financial and regulatory burden on electrical installers, the market should support demonstration of compliance through several bodies so that the energy and innovation of a competitive market can thrive.

This approach would also link with improving publicity since a single brand, promoted jointly by industry, would be the strongest promotion of all.

A single brand and a comprehensive register of individuals would also allow a more effective use of individual identity cards which in itself would be a strong enforcement tool. NAPIT members already carry ID cards while other schemes have a voluntary card for some individuals, but 93% of NAPIT members felt that a universal card (89% when including Elecsa and NICEIC) should be supported.

This general approach of a consumer facing brand underpinned by flexible routes to compliance and competition between scheme operators is effectively the model chosen by Green Deal (and by the Microgeneration Certification Scheme).

Conclusion

There is a strong case not only for registration of companies, but for licensing of individuals within the electrical sector. This is not only driven by the need for electrical safety but by the potential to drive forward the professionalism of competent electricians. Too often we hear of a damaged profession, sometimes viewed as cowboys by the public and often undervalued by consumers, building contractors and large employers alike.

Some of this damage is directly down to the weaknesses in the current system, making it too easy for the incompetent competitor to trade. This situation can lead companies that would otherwise be willing to comply, to lower their standards in order to compete. This in turn fails to provide the degree of protection to consumers that we would wish.

The provisions of the Building Regulations are technically adequate for safeguarding health and safety in domestic dwellings insofar as they require compliance with a robust technical standard for installation work. They do not provide a specific safeguard for repairs unless they constitute installation work. The problem is the implementation of the Regulations rather than their content, and addressing these issues as discussed in this paper would remove the weaknesses that currently exist.

Removal of these provisions from the Building Regulations would be a retrograde step unless they were replaced with something else such as a license to practice. Installers have responded overwhelmingly to say they should be retained and improved. We are aware that DCLG’s own impact analysis has identified a strong preference for changes rather than revocation, and has identified a net cost associated with revoking Part P, not a saving.

Gas Issues

The safety of gas installation is primarily delivered by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations rather than Building Regulations. NAPIT’s involvement with gas safety is concerned with registered installers who work in fields other than gas (such as plumbing or wider building works).

When HSE carried out the review that replaced CORGI with Gas Safe Register, NAPIT were one of the organisations that tendered for operating the register. NAPIT’s proposal was to allow multiple scheme operators to carry out assessments that would lead to this single government owned/endorsed register, thus operating in a similar manner to that described earlier in this paper and adopted for Green Deal and the Microgeneration Certification Scheme.

NAPIT withdrew from the process when HSE decided that a single scheme operator would be appointed. However, it was noted at the time that the concept of multiple routes to the register would not be ruled out permanently and would be revisited when the contract was next tendered.

The use of alternative routes to the register would allow companies who are registered with other scheme operators for other activities to undergo a single assessment and registration process for all their work. The Association of Heating and Plumbing Contractors have produced a model14 that would address this issue which NAPIT would largely endorse with the additional view that linking the model to Regulations would be more likely to safeguard health and safety than reliance on a voluntary industry scheme.

January 2012